Talk:Jill Biden

Reference insanity

I'm guessing these were recent additions because of political events, but some editor(s) had added separate footnotes for basically every clause in the article. This really disrupts reading flow. Moreover, the citations are largely duplicative (i.e. same footnote number to support multiple facts). Much more sensible is to aggregate footnotes at the end of a small section of non-controversial narrative. For example, I've stuck the three footnotes that pertain to basic early biography (parents, birthplace, etc) at the end of that first paragraph. Frankly, I think even using three footnotes to support those rather banal facts is probably two too many, but let's at least try to minimize disruption of prose flow. LotLE×talk 18:41, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid I have to strongly disagree on this. The number one problem of Wikipedia is not readability but believability. With your changes, it's harder to readers to figure out what cites support what text. Moreover, it's harder for future editors to maintain the article. Say you want to move a sentence out of one of these all-cites-at-end-of-paragraph parts. Editors won't know which cite needs to get moved with it, and they probably won't do the work to figure it out. The cites will gradually become completely disassociated from the proper text. (And this is not just a theoretical concern. I think this article is going to need restructuring to be more strictly chronological than it currently is.) And this applies to whether statements are controversial or banal – we still want them to be accurate. With this kind of person, who hasn't been in the public eye a lot, and lot of the innocuous bio material you find early on turns out to be inaccurate later on. But losing the association between material and its source will make repairing those inaccuracies even harder. By any principle of data management, you want to keep the cite close to the text it supports. The eventual solution to your readability problem is to replace superscript footnotes with better technology, such as "tooltip" style notes that appear if you hover the mouse over a sentence, or if you hit a function key over a sentence, or something like that. But with your changes, that technology will never have a chance to work right. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:42, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

In most cases where I've made changes, the very same citation is given for multiple clauses in the same sentence. This is really poor style that makes reading the article almost impossible. I haven't removed any citations, nor have I moved everything to end-of-paragraph, but for a short paragraph of non-controversial facts, there is really no need for a word-by-word or clause-by-clause detailing of which citation applies to which fact... it becomes actively disruptive of the article to include word-by-word footnotes.

I'll go dig around for the relevant guideline on this. I forget what it's called, but I know that the excessive footnotes are contrary to a style guide (since I've encountered it in a few places in the past). LotLE×talk 22:48, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

"Biden started college, then was married for a short time." This is a potentially troublesome sentence, since most people don't know she was previously married. Tell me what cite supports this statement; with your changes, that cite has completely disappeared from the whole paragraph! Wasted Time R (talk) 22:55, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. LotLE×talk 23:05, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Btw. The issue about discovering more accurate information and the supposed severing of citation connection seems misguided to me. Hypothetically, imagine we discovered her birth place was misreported as Hammonton, when it's really somewhere else. OK, sure possible. But in that case, we'll need a new citation anyway with the right information. Keeping an inaccurate source within two words of the fact it reports doesn't help us whatsoever in this case. LotLE×talk 02:21, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes we would, but we'd also need to remove the Hammonton citation, which again we would need to locate. Anyway, I've let this sit overnight, to make sure I'm not engaging in just a knee-jerk reaction, but I'm still convinced that "collected citations at end of paragraph" just won't work here, both on verifiability and maintainability grounds. But I also recognize that the per-clause citation scheme gives you agita. So I'm going to try to do it on a per-sentence basis, breaking down a few long/convuluted sentences (which I tend to concoct, alas) into simpler ones as necessary. Bear with me and see if the result is okay with you. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:37, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I've done both the structural reorg and the per-sentence citing. The former was definitely made more difficult by the lack of the latter; I kept having to refer to prior versions of the article to figure out what cites went with what statements when I moved them around. I then added a bunch more material, and refined existing material, due to several new newspaper profiles on her that have come out since we began this discussion. That shows how dynamic bio information on Jill Biden is at the moment, and why at the very least we need to keep citations attached to the sentences they document. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:48, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Citations per sentence seem like a very reasonable frequency. The paragraphs in question were quite short though, in any case. I certainly wouldn't want citations deferred until the end of a long paragraph (unless there really is just one cite that adequately covers everything in the paragraph). FWIW, I think your idea for chronological reorganization is a very good one. LotLE×talk 17:52, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

sorry folks. footnote mania remains. article rather unreadable. 68.173.2.68 (talk) 22:33, 29 August 2008 (UTC) comment landed in wrong section earlier.68.173.2.68 (talk) 22:35, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Someday Wikipedia will have better technology, such that you can select whether to have footnotes presented to you or not as a user preference item, or the "tooltip" approach I mentioned above. Until then, the superscripts are small, just ignore them as you read. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:35, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I have doubts about this. For any important article that I want to read carefully, I print it off (admittedly, this one isn't so heavy as that). It's hard to see how these future tooltips would work on paper (*wink*). What does work is the same academic style that has developed over the last couple hundred years of scholarly texts, with footnotes every sentence or two, at most. Pick up any academic journal in the world, in any field: you'll notice that footnotes don't occur clause-by-clause; the reason isn't a technical limitation, but an evolved standard of usefulness and readability for humans. LotLE×talk 01:47, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

They have 3D paper in the future, of course! Anyway, law review articles that I've seen tend to be very densely footnoted. I'm sampling some in the December 1981 Fordham Law Review that I happen to have here, and there are many, many instances of multiple footnote placements per sentence, usually but not always on comma or semicolon boundaries. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:54, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

And another point. I've written academic journal papers in computer science, and you're right, they aren't footnoted or cited nearly as much as what we do here in WP. But in academia, there's a fundamental assumption that the author is a competent, honest presenter, who can be trusted to advance some basic statements without being doubted. (Of course, there are cases of academic fraud, but these usually get discovered when no one can reproduce the author's results, or when plagiarism is discovered, etc. And there are people who come to foolish conclusions, but that's in their original research.) This is not the case in WP. We don't have any trust mechanism here; when you look at a sentence in an article, you generally don't know if it came from a well-respected editor with 30,000 contributions and a bunch of FAs behind her, or whether it comes from some cheap partisan fool using an IP address, or anything in between. In other words, academic papers are innocent until proven guilty, while WP articles are guilty until proven innocent. And in the latter case, that proof is the citing, and we need as much of it and closely done as possible. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:15, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Law articles probably are the most densely cited of any academic discipline. Still not as much as this article was, but usually quite a few. Physics also sometimes seems pretty densely cited. I've also written academically in a number of disciplines (and read many others), so have some sense of the different conventions. I certainly don't think that there should never be footnotes on successive clauses, but not as a rule... and citing two complex legal concepts/precedents next to each other is rather more technical than pointing out that, e.g. Biden was born in one town and raised in another.

Obviously, it's not like I think articles shouldn't get citations, just a more stylistic one of how they're arranged (i.e. now, before 3D paper is available :-)). I've added plenty of "{fact}" tags on WP in my time here. I think the readability that you perceive differently from me may be in part a browser difference. I turn on the "minimum font size" option in my browswer, which means that superscripts don't look quite as small as they might for you. Print resolutions allow for more legible tiny fonts than do LCD displays.... and I'm also less Utopian about the whole Ted Nelson hypertext vision than you perhaps are. In any case, this is straying a log way away from Jill Biden, so I'll let my philosophical musings end here. LotLE×talk 03:23, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Organization

I'm also now convinced the organization of the article needs to be changed to be purely chronological. The separation of personal life, education, and career isn't working; the narrative jumps back and forth by decades several times. In reality, all three of these are heavily interwined, and need to be presented as such. I'll give it a go and we'll see how it looks. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:45, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Use of name

I'm trying to figure out the proper way to address Jacobs/Biden in the article narrative. A name change is obviously a common biographical event, but I'm not sure what WP convention is. I think what I've seen is reference to a person consistently as their current or "most common" name (despite the fact they did various biographically important thing under different names); this article mixes calling her "Biden" and "Jacobs", which feels slightly hard to read. I think it might read better if we wrote, e.g.: "Biden received her doctorate (as Jill Jacobs)...". Thoughts? LotLE×talk 18:00, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

There's two separate questions here: what last names did she use and when, and what should we use. On the first, sources conflict: they tend to describe her using her unmarried name while studying and teaching, but she's listed as just Biden in the DTCC directories. The one thing we do know is the name her dissertation was published under, so we give that. The rest will have to wait further clarification (certainly many profession women have used different names in different contexts, and changed their practice back and forth over time; this isn't a big deal, but it would be good to get it right). Wasted Time R (talk) 21:50, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh yeah, my concern was only about what we should use. That is, if all the sources agree she used "Jacobs" in a specific year or context, should we follow that or should we refer to her as "Biden" for consistency in the article? I would lean towards consistent use of "Biden" (with clarification of name used as needed), but I could relatively easily be convinced of something different. LotLE×talk 00:10, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm a strong believer in using the name at the time, not one name throughout, if there's a clear delineation. To say "Jill Biden was born in blahtown USA" seems silly to me; she wasn't Biden then. To say that Jill Biden had a short first marriage is even sillier; she surely wasn't Biden before, during, or immediately after that marriage. As another example, try Judith Giuliani; she attracted tons of publicity when she was Judi Nathan, and to call her Giuliani through her childhood and her two earlier marriages would be really offbase and confusing. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:21, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'll buy the example of Judith Giuliani here (other than finding the per-clause footnotes in that article jarring :-)). Let's use the last name in effect at the time of each event. I might start sprinkling a few more "Jacobs" in the article; use of the pronoun "she" even at the start of new paragraphs reads a bit wrong. Of course, getting the right sequence of Jacobs vs. Biden is thereby important. LotLE×talk 01:44, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I was afraid to show that article to you, you don't have to guess who wrote it ;-) Wasted Time R (talk) 01:49, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

First Marriage: to whom, when?

Marriages, brief or otherwise, should have some facts disclosed...like the date and names of the two parties. --TMH (talk) 18:28, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, but haven't seen any further details anywhere. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:12, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

This new WaPo story references it, but again no particulars. Wasted Time R (talk) 16:50, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

This Vogue profile has a number of new details on it (although no name or exact dates), and the article has been updated accordingly. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:37, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

a political

re:my recent edit.

homeland security has the best personal protection service in the I guess the world. they are protecting her whole family now. the question "political?" is kinda moot I think. St. Puid, Head of Asisi 15:53, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

CNN says mother died

It's on their home page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Obisch (talk • contribs) 02:33, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's now reflected in this article in the years her mother was alive. But we don't need to discuss Joe Biden's going off the campaign trail due to this, since it's already covered in his article. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Instructor or professor?

I previously engaged in an edit summary debate with User:Crunch over whether Jill Biden should be referred to as an instructor or a professor, with me arguing that this NYT secondary source that said 'professor' outweighed this DT&CC primary source that said 'instructor'. However, this new WaPo story makes a point of saying "It takes a certain type of person to teach at a community college. You get the humble title of 'instructor.' ..." That leads me to think that I was wrong, and that we should refer to her here as an instructor. I've changed the article accordingly, but am willing to be convinced back again should some new source say otherwise. Wasted Time R (talk) 16:34, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Picture

There has to be a more flattering picture of Jill Biden than that... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.170.82.71 (talk) 23:49, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

At some point we'll get an official picture as wife of the Vice President, I think, similar to this photo File:Mrscheney.jpeg that we use in Lynne Cheney. Until then, we can only use what we have rights to. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:44, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

She looks pretty hot in the one we have now. 72.86.47.226 (talk) 01:07, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Second Lady or Wife of the Vice President?

Surely it should be, Second Lady which is the proper name. When it was the Bush admin, Lyne Cheny was Second Lady not Wife of the VP. Has the title been changed or something?

Supercalafragiclisticexpialadotious (that's a mouthfull isn't it!?) 12:10, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

This is subject to ongoing confusion, uncertainty, and dispute. But we cannot have duplicate articles on the subject! I have restored the redirect of Second Lady of the United States to Wife of the Vice President of the United States. If you want the article name changed, go to WP:RM to do it and then we can get a consensus on what the article name should be. As for the Jill Biden article, I'm content to use the two forms synonymously. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:40, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

The Title of First Lady is not official, but merely 'accepted'. Presumably, Second Lady is the same. So there is no 'proper name'. Valetude (talk) 23:50, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

April 2009 pic

Here is an April 2009 picture that I think shows a fun side to Jill Biden (I don't know if others will agree). There's no room for it in the article's present state, but if the section related to her life as Second Lady is expanded, I think it may be a good addition. Cheers. APK straight up now tell me 20:54, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Religion

The article says that Jill Biden was confirmed in the Presbyterian Church, but her religion is Roman Catholic on the infobox (the Biden family is Catholic). The article does not mention her converting when she married Joe Biden or before, do we know if she is actually a practicing Roman Catholic? --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 20:21, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

She attends mass with Joe Biden at their church in Delaware (see footnote 40 in the Joe Biden article) and the Washington Post datasheet labels her a Catholic (footnote 1 in this article). Other than that, I haven't seen much at all about religion in press stories about her, and it doesn't seem to have played much of a role in her life. It's possible that she never converted but simply started attending Catholic services out of convenience once she married Biden. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:54, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Interesting.. because if she never converted than she is not allowed to recieve the sacraments. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 03:51, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Americans are often very flexible about religious identity. Check out this NYT story about Marco Rubio, for example. Christine O'Donnell something of the same situation as well. John McCain is another case, possibly like Biden, of drifting from one denomination to another via marriage. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:14, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Rms125a@hotmail.com added Category:Converts to Roman Catholicism from Protestantism to the article, but per the above lack of evidence supporting any explicit conversion, I don't think the addition is warranted and I have removed it. Wasted Time R (talk) 17:11, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

oops, meant to refer to "about"

It said "about five years" regarding the time from accident (killing Joe Biden's 1st wife & daughter) to Jill marrying Joe Biden. When I put it "four and a half" just now, I removed "about" but forgot to note that in the comment about the change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.20 (talk) 16:43, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

No such office

The infobox for this article mentions "assumed office" and "second lady of the United States," but no such office exists, either elected or appointed. Wikipedia is not the place for bogus "offices" invented by the media, especially since it is used as a reference by people around the world. Agateller (talk) 15:30, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

The "Assumed office" text is put out by the infobox template we are using, and that template should really be more flexible to handle cases like this where there is no formal office and no formal title. But wife of the vice president is a real, if informal, position - as the Politico story used as a cite says, "Outside the classroom, Biden occupies a corner suite on the second floor of the Eisenhower Executive Office Building. She has a staff of eight — including a policy director and two employees who manage the vice presidential residence at the Naval Observatory." There's legislation somewhere that must authorize that allocation of resources. The Second Lady of the United States article explains that the position title is informal. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:02, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Jill Biden. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090120172347/http://www1.phillyburbs.com:80/pb-dyn/news/113-11072008-1617762.html to http://www.phillyburbs.com/pb-dyn/news/113-11072008-1617762.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:09, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Jill Biden. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/69LL0i3rg?url=http://progressohio.pnstate.org/site/PageServer?pagename=404_OH to http://www.progressohio.org/page/community/post/daveharding/CHBm
• Added archive https://archive.is/20140831054148/http://legacy.vogue.com/magazine/article/jill-bidenbrall-the-vice-presidents-women/ to http://legacy.vogue.com/magazine/article/jill-bidenbrall-the-vice-presidents-women/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090121181515/http://media.www.wcuquad.com/media/storage/paper676/news/2008/10/20/News/The-Quad.Talks.With.Jill.Biden-3495422.shtml to http://media.www.wcuquad.com/media/storage/paper676/news/2008/10/20/News/The-Quad.Talks.With.Jill.Biden-3495422.shtml
• Added archive https://archive.is/20120711194506/http://fitnessblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2008/08/expect-more-breast-cancer-awar.html to http://fitnessblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2008/08/expect-more-breast-cancer-awar.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090122062141/http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/jill_biden/ to http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/jill_biden/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090522040604/http://news.prnewswire.com/DisplayReleaseContent.aspx?ACCT=104 to http://news.prnewswire.com/DisplayReleaseContent.aspx?ACCT=104&STORY=%2Fwww%2Fstory%2F06-04-2009%2F0005038635&EDATE=
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160308032743/http://joiningforces.uso.org/ to http://joiningforces.uso.org/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080914020507/http://www.bidenbreasthealthinitiative.org/ to http://www.bidenbreasthealthinitiative.org/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:28, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Lol.

I've noticed that someone already edited the page to include her mother's ancestry, now that Dr. Biden made an announcement of it in her speech last night.

What is this obsession on this site with ancestries? Can someone explain to me how mentioning that Jill Biden is "Italian-English-Scottish-and who knows what else" in ancestry helps readers understand Jill Biden? Jill Biden is American, and both of her parents were born in America.Jonathan f1 (talk) 23:24, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Got me. I see it in article after article. Some people think where someone's ancestors lived generations ago matters in some way to the person now. It brings to mind my favorite Heinlein quote: "This sad little lizard told me that he was a brontosaurus on his mother's side. I did not laugh; people who boast of ancestry often have little else to sustain them." Schazjmd (talk) 23:40, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

I think it is relevant, since culture changes slower than citizenship. Until only a few generations ago, the different ethnic groups in the US mostly did not mix. Her ancestry is not the most important info on her page, but I think it is worth including. Bio-CLC (talk) 11:39, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

New Info on how the Jill met Joe.

Jill's former husband, Bill Stevenson, tells a different story about how Jill and Joe first met. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajweberman (talk • contribs) 13:36, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

This was previously thrown out of the article because Stevenson's account appeared in WP:DAILYMAIL. But in the last couple of days Inside Edition has run with it and Jill Biden has issued a formal denial of Stevenson's claims. Based on that, it seems like a reasonable course of action is to add Stevenson's account, together with her denial, to this article in a Note, and I have now done so. But there may be editors who think it better to still keep it out entirely. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:36, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Seconded. It certainly shoudl be mentioned.--Shakehandsman (talk) 02:25, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

It would be nice to know what her degrees are in

In the text, it is mentioned that she has various college degrees, but it does not always say what they are in. Also, I could not find any info on the Book Buddies organization. Bio-CLC (talk) 04:56, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

I've added that the undergraduate degree was in English. The other three were already stated in the article.

As for the outside links you added, I have moved them down to the External links section, per the guidance at WP:ELPOINTS. The idea is that in article text, there are only internal links to other Wikipedia articles. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:18, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Photo with FORMER / THEN Argentinean first lady. Photo caption should be corrected.

Juliana Awada was the first lady at the time of the photo op with Mrs. Biden, but she is not holding this position any longer. Thus, I suggest that the caption be amended to reflect this change of status, by adding «former» or «then». — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bohemia (talk • contribs) 03:12, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

No change is necessary. In historical writing, captions, like other text, are always assumed to refer to positions at the time of the events or images being described. If an article on World War II shows a picture of the Casablanca Conference, there is no need for the caption to refer to former President Roosevelt talking to former Prime Minister Churchill. Wasted Time R (talk) 17:08, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 November 2020

She is not the first lady YET!!!!!! 2600:1005:B053:C598:E817:D5CD:D028:BA86 (talk) 20:04, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Designate: appointed to an office or position but not yet installed. KidAd talk 20:10, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Article should explain how Joe Biden was able to marry the divorced Jill and remain a practicing catholic, even though catholic dogma expressly refutes divorce of a valid christian marriage?

The question of how Joe Biden was able to marry the divorced Jill and remain a practicing catholic, even though catholic dogma expressly refutes divorce of christian marriage and punishes it with lifelong ban from Holy Communion, is currently a source of major confusion among catholics of Europe and nobody seems to have reliable answer. The uncertainity is also exploited for political propaganda (vote recount) purposes in heavily pro-Trump governed european catholic countries, like Hungary and Poland. Thus it would be highly beneficial if the Wikipedia article could shed authentic light on the issue! For example, may the "Pauline / Petrine Privilege" or other Vatican hand-waving have been involved to allow for the divorced re-marriage? But considering Jill's first husband was also a christian and they were validly wed by a non-catholic yet christian denomination pastor, such excuse seems unlikely to be valid per catholic dogma. Thanks for your effort! 92.249.156.162 (talk) 18:49, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

I know nothing about this subject, but according to this 2014 post on Busted Halo, you are correct about the general requirement. However I have not seen any source that speaks to whether such a thing was done in the Bidens' case or not. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:40, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't have an answer either. However, the Catholic Church can grant an annulment while allows someone divorced in the courts to re-marry. Or the Bidens might not have told the Catholic Church. It's academic however because without sources we can't add this to the article. TFD (talk) 19:36, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

RfC: First lady-designate

Discussion started by Surtsicna, template added by CookieMonster755.
Question: Should the title of "First Lady of the United States – Designate" and "Second Gentleman of the United States – Designate" appear in the infoboxes of Jill Biden and Doug Emhoff, the spouses of the president-elect and vice president-elect, respectively? cookie monster (2020) 755 21:12, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

(Opening discussion by Surtsicna): There is no such thing. The term is virtually unknown to reliable sources. She has not been elected to any role or position and therefore has not been designated as anything. She is not "assuming office". What we can say is that she is expected to become first lady. Surtsicna (talk) 20:30, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree it's a made-up term, but it's reasonable to have some kind of section header that describes that her husband got elected and she is preparing to become First Lady (hiring staff, deciding on priorities, reiterating that she will continue teaching, etc). Calling the section "2020 presidential election" doesn't really cut it since there is already a section about the 2020 campaign. How about "Preparing to become first lady" as a section title? And remember that in two months the standard section titles and infobox entries should come into place, so how it looks until then isn't worth getting into edit wars over. Wasted Time R (talk) 20:54, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

How about 2020 presidential transition? I do strongly believe that Wikipedia should not promote the use of strange terms, even if only for a couple of months. Surtsicna (talk) 21:03, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

If you're going that route, "Role in 2020–21 presidential transition" would be more accurate. Wasted Time R (talk) 21:42, 15 November 2020 (UTC) Agree Tvoz/talk 01:31, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

• Include titles in infobox – you are correct that these are not elected positions but informal titles for the spouse of the president and vice president, respectively. However, there is common practice on Wikipedia of calling someone designate to a position they will assume in the future (see -designate). We did this when Michelle Obama became the first lady-designate after then-Senator Obama became president-elect in 2008 and when Melania Trump became first lady designate after (incumbent president) Donald J. Trump became president-elect in 2016. We also did it for Karen Pence when her husband was vice president-elect in 2016 as well. I see no subsistence for why these titles can't be added in the infoboxes of incoming first lady Jill Biden and second gentleman Doug Emhoff. cookie monster (2020) 755 21:20, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

• The subsistence for why these titles should not be added is that they are virtually unknown to reliable sources. What Wikipedia has done before is irrelevant. It was not backed by reputable sources then and it is not backed by reputable sources now. Surtsicna (talk) 21:32, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

• There are multiple sources talking about how Mr. Emhoff is making history: see Doug Emhoff, as ‘second gentleman,’ can make history — and change — too, Doug Emhoff Makes History as First 'Second Gentleman', Doug Emhoff prepares to break new ground as America's second gentleman, Harris’ husband, Doug Emhoff, poised to break stereotypes, Douglas Emhoff to become America's first second gentleman – -designate is not a fictitious title as you claim. The definition of designate: appointed to an office or position but not yet installed. cookie monster (2020) 755 21:41, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

• Even a news site here is using the term second gentleman-designate. cookie monster (2020) 755 21:44, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

• Those are all high-quality sources but the terms "first lady-designate" and "second gentleman-designate" are not mentioned in any of them. One of them even notes that Emhoff has yet to call himself second gentleman, while another notes that "second lady" and "second gentleman" are informal titles rather than offices. Therefore they have not been "appointed to an office" and "-designate" is inappropriate and misleading. Surtsicna (talk) 22:01, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

• No one is disputing that these are not offices, but rather informal positions. By custom, the spouse of a president or vice-president is called first lady or second lady, or in this instance, second gentleman. cookie monster (2020) 755 22:08, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

• And there is no custom dictating that spouses of presidents-elect and vice presidents-elect are known as first or second something-designate. Quite the opposite: this term is being promoted by Wikipedia, which should never happen. Surtsicna (talk) 22:17, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

• If you are suggesting the title of -designate is WP:OR, then they should be immediately removed cookie monster (2020) 755 22:19, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

• No, I am not. Surtsicna (talk) 22:59, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

• Comment - If we add FL-designate to this article, then we must add SG-designate to the Doug Emhoff article. GoodDay (talk) 21:25, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, if there is consensus to add or not add these roles, it should apply to both spouses. cookie monster (2020) 755 21:29, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Consistency, is all I ask for :) GoodDay (talk) 21:30, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose per Surtsicna's comments. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 21:43, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
• Attention per concerns here about possible canvassing, I notified editors who have been involved in RfCs on 2020 United States presidential election and similar discussions about Presidency of Joe Biden. In no way do I want users to vote in a specific way. This is just about whether these roles should be added in the infobox. Thank you everyone, sincerely, cookie monster (2020) 755 22:03, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose at this time. We need to wait until all states certify which will be December 8. Pkeets (talk) 22:06, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

• By your opinion, we should remove the title of President-elect and Vice President-elect from the articles of Joe Biden and Kamala Harris. cookie monster (2020) 755 22:09, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
• It's not about that. The terms will be no more appropriate after 8 December, unless reliable sources suddenly pick up on the terms "first lady-designate" and "second gentleman-designate" and they catch on. Surtsicna (talk) 23:04, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

• Alternatively, we could list them as Spouse of the President-elect and Spouse of the Vice President-elect if there is consensus to do so. cookie monster (2020) 755 22:12, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

• In the infobox, that would still say "assuming office", which is wrong. As you said, these are not offices but informal positions. Surtsicna (talk) 22:18, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

• Surtsicna There is an option to change it to "assuming role" but I don't know how to enable it :( cookie monster (2020) 755 22:20, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

That would seem reasonable. Surtsicna (talk) 23:12, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

• Include Reliable sources indicate Biden and Emhoff will become first and second spouse in January, and waiting until certification is contrary to consistent practice. While second spouse is not a "office" (first lady has a significant White House staff and is), both have historically been included in infoboxes and it is reasonable to note they are expected to take the position soon. Reywas92^Talk 22:36, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

• Yes, reliable sources do indicate so and Wikipedia should reflect that. Reliable sources, however, make no significant use (if any at all) of the terms "first lady-designate" and "second gentleman-designate". Having been historically included in infoboxes means only that Wikipedia has historically engaged in original research. It does not mean that it should continue to do so. Surtsicna (talk) 23:02, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

• So say "Incoming First Lady" or something. "First lady designate" has lots of results for Biden, Melania in 2016, and other individuals, so even though the NYT hasn't used it, it's certainly not original research to use an adjective which accurately describes her status. Heck, there's a lot of results for "first lady-elect", but it's not OR that we've decided she hasn't herself been elected so we don't say that. Reywas92^Talk 23:25, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

• It is not just NYT that has not used it. No reputable media outlets in the US have. It is also not accurate because she has not been elected, which is what -designate means according to Wikipedia itself. We can simply say that Jill Biden is expected to become first lady, which is what reliable sources say anyway. Surtsicna (talk) 10:35, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

• Comment I dislike these terms which seem awkward and cumbersome. But I believe in precedent more than in elegant language and I think we should handle this however we handled Barack & Michelle Obama and Donald & Melania Trump. I assume we went through these same discussions in 2008 and 2016 and if we didn't wait for elector certification in the last two transitions, we needn't wait now. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:08, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

• We should not handle anything like we handled it before if it contradicts reliable sources. The issue is not the certification. It is the use of terms that hardly exist anywhere outside Wikipedia. Surtsicna (talk) 23:11, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

• Comment I could only find term "first lady-designate" to refer to Dr. Biden in merely two locations: On this BBC page, where it links to another BBC article, with the phrase: "Who is first lady-designate Jill Biden?", but the actual article isn't titled that way. The other one is from a letter sent by the National Italian American Foundation to congratulate Dr. Biden, and refers to her as the First Lady-desigate. The only other sources I can find with the phrase are foreign news agencies, which I don't think are the best to refer to in this situation. - Bettydaisies

• Include It may not be an "elected office," but it's a title, designation as with Queen Elizabeth II. The Queen is not "elected" into the throne.—SquidHomme ^(talk) 23:59, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

• The issue is that "first lady-designate" is a made-up title, not found in reputable sources. Surtsicna (talk) 10:35, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose Unless its citable via reliable sources, which I kinda doubt it is after a casual search. Rklahn (talk) 00:32, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
• Include — Melania Trump has FLOTUS in her infobox, so I don't see how that shouldn't be the case for Biden and Emhoff.
• Support inbox as per cookie monster and section titles as amended by my old comrade-in-arms Wasted Time R. Why are we once again trying to reinvent the wheel? We came up with an approach to this short-lived non-issue years ago and it worked just fine for the two months of each transition. Yes these are more or less made-up terms, although "designate" is in use. Yes they speak to real events that we should include in the articles. As long as we have comprehensible, consistent terminology to use, there's not much to talk about, is there? Tvoz/talk 01:31, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose It sounds kinda ridiculous. How about we just leave it as is (copasetic) and worry about titles on actual Inaguration Day when they happen? Trillfendi (talk) 02:40, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

• Yes, there is. "More or less made-up terms" should not be used on Wikipedia, least of all in the most prominent of places. There are numerous other ways to present this information without promoting ridiculous neologisms. Surtsicna (talk) 10:35, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose It's a madeup term. Wait until it's official. What ever happened to WP:OR?? Anon0098 (talk) 03:40, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

• That is something I asked about. Is this OR? cookie monster (2020) 755 05:08, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

P.S. It looks like Congress may have stepped in with a directive about the "president elect" designation. Pkeets (talk) 04:38, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

@Pkeets:, please clarify. GoodDay (talk) 12:09, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

• Comment Will wait for clarification from @Pkeets: about what congress has said before giving an opinion. Pahunkat (talk) 18:50, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

I've lost the link I was looking at last week. Meanwhile, check here for info on etiquette - President-elect of the United States. It looks like the candidate is only called "president elect" after the electoral votes are cast. Ignore the lede, which has been decorated with Biden's picture and pronouncements about how he's president-elect, and read further down in the article. There's also a brief article on First Lady, that doesn't help with the "elect" issue. I would recommend "wife of the president-elect" or "husband of the vice-president-elect" until the inauguration makes it officially First Lady and Second Gentleman. Pkeets (talk) 04:21, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose Joe Biden is President-elect, but I've never heard the term "First Lady-designate" before. It doesn't need to be in the infobox before January 20. Text in the lead saying "will become the First Lady" is sufficient. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:53, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose It's like like calling Mr. Smith's fiancee "Mrs. Smith (designate)." Also, are we sure that Second Gentleman is what he will be called? TFD (talk) 19:41, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

For your second point, during 2016 elections news source discussed the prospect of Bill Clinton being First Gentleman (or informally 'First Lad' as he suggested). And now news sources use the term "Second Gentleman" for Emhoff. 2600:1012:B118:6730:0:44:AE09:3001 (talk) 20:12, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

AP notes that Emhoff has not yet selected his title. Surtsicna (talk) 20:47, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

See article on etiquette here First Lady.Pkeets (talk) 04:27, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Fingers crossed for "Second Dude". – Muboshgu (talk) 18:37, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

The Lord says it is done! Surtsicna (talk) 18:50, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

I do not believe in Jesus. cookie monster (2020) 755 23:05, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

But... but... the angels have been dispatched from Africa! Surtsicna (talk) 23:49, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

It looks like there is clear consensus not to include these tiles until January 20. cookie monster (2020) 755 00:17, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Surtsicna. cookie monster (2020) 755 00:18, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose - Joe Biden is NOT President-elect until votes are certified in each state and he has 270 electoral votes. Neither has occurred, except in the press. The designation for his wife is non-existent and thus irrelevant. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 18:21, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

• Then we should immediately remove the titles of President-elect and Vice President-elect from the page of Joe Biden and Kamala Harris, aye? cookie monster (2020) 755 23:03, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree. See article on President-elect of the United States which states, "It will be noted that the committee uses the term "president-elect" in its generally accepted sense, as meaning the person who has received the majority of electoral votes, or the person who has been chosen by the House of Representatives in the event that the election is thrown into the House." Pkeets (talk) 05:00, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

You repeating this same thing over and over in multiple talk pages doesn't make your argument any better. Wikipedia goes by reliable sources including reputable media, not by "certifications". You do not need to wait until official results are certified to be the effective elect any more than you need to wait until the DNC to be the effective nominee. 2600:1012:B118:6730:0:44:AE09:3001 (talk) 05:33, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose I agree it sounds kinda ridiculous. I am not an American so I am not sure if this is an official or courtesy title, but it still reads just weird.Slatersteven (talk) 12:58, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose It seems some folks are looking at this RfC as a political attack on Dr. Biden and Mr. Harris, rather than a narrow, technical issue. Look, these people will be the first lady and second gentleman respectively once their spouses take office. However, "designate" has a specific meaning, and that ain't it. It is unreasonable and PRIMARY to refer to these people as designates, when they are not actually assuming any office. No RS uses the term. cookie monster's suggestion of using Spouse of the President-elect and Spouse of the Vice President-elect is a good one - technically sound and avoids the perceived political slight in waiting for a few weeks before marking them as first lady and second gentleman. — Ad Meliora ^Talk∕_Contribs 17:09, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 November 2020

Joe Biden is not the President-elect. The election is confirmed as undecided. 2601:2C3:857F:8A90:F063:B1D5:5496:5B16 (talk) 15:47, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Read a newspaper. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:26, 18 November 2020 (UTC)