Talk:Joe Biden

Temporary suspension of WP:1RR rule

In order to give regular editors the leeway they need to deal with an increase in unhelpful "drive-by" edits, I am temporarily suspending the one-revert rule that has been on this article. The "24-hour BRD" rule still applies. Here's what this means:

• Every editor may now make up to 3 reverts per day per WP:3RR. BUT...
• You may not make the same edit or revert more than once per day per the BRD rule, and after your first time making that edit or revert, you must discuss it on the talk page and wait 24 hours before attempting that edit again.

Put another way, reverts are linked to content. You can revert up to 3 different edits per day, but you can't add or remove the same content more than once per day.

Again, the purpose of this is to allow regular/experienced/content editors to deal with legitimately unhelpful or POV edits. It's not to give people more leeway in edit warring over content disputes that are under discussion or to engage in "tag-team edit warring" where editors take turns reverting the same content over and over. If I see that going on I will start blocking people's accounts, starting with the editors who are reverting against the status quo ante, those reverting against emerging consensus on the talk page, and those who are not using helpful WP:Edit summaries that clearly describe what they're doing and why they're doing it. ~Awilley (talk) 02:09, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Discussion of the above

Point of Order: BRD is not a rule. "The BOLD, revert, discuss cycle (BRD) is an optional method of reaching consensus. This process is not mandated by Wikipedia policy..." (my emphasis) 86.140.67.152 (talk) 08:48, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

It is not mandated by policy, but it is mandated by the discretionary sanctions on this page. To prevent disruption on pages relating to contemporary American politics, any administrator may place any reasonable restriction on pages to ensure compliance with our policies and guidelines. One common restriction is to enforce BRD. Editors who are aware of the sanction and do not comply may be banned or blocked at administrator discretion. For more information see Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Page restrictions. — Wug·a·po·des​ 09:33, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

When something like this is done (a) it really needs to be stated in the post the source of the authority to do it (i.e. DS) -- I for one don't edit much in DS areas so I was completely puzzled; and (b) it's not clear to me that you don't need to issue new DS alerts to editors individually -- how is someone supposed to know the rules have suddenly changed, unless they happen on this thread? EEng 11:31, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

@EEng Worth noting that the DS alerts do not specify any page-specific sanctions, or mention any pages the editor has been editing. So, if I give you a DS alert right now, it won't mention the BRD (nor the 1RR), nor that I'm alerting you due to Joe Biden. So even a new alert doesn't help. It's a crappy system of alerting. FWIW the BRD has been in place (along with 1RR) since November 2019; Awilley just relaxed the 1RR requirement, which maybe makes it a little better. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:42, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Sorry about that, the Discretionary Sanctions bit and link to the relevant Arbcom page are in the template I modified at the top of the talk page. On notifications, I wish there were a better way to do it. There's the template at the top of the talk page and the edit notice whenever you edit the article itself. Since this was a relaxing of restrictions I figured a post on the talkpage would be sufficient to get the attention of the regular editors I was targeting. For the other restriction, typically how things works is that people will "welcome" newcomers to the article with the standard notification template, which I hate. Then if someone runs afoul of the sanctions they usually get a couple of people on their talk page explaining the sanction and asking them to self-revert. It's when they refuse to self-revert that things typically escalate to administrators. ~Awilley (talk) 16:31, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

• Comment On the contrary of the loosening of restrictions, I think this article needs to be subject to WP:0RR, until next January. Given the contested nature of the election and ongoing lawsuits, short-term, continuous vandalism is almost guaranteed and should be adjusted for accordingly. -- Sleyece (talk) 03:44, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

RfC: Section on gaffes

Under Biden's 2020 campaign, should there be a subsection regarding his gaffes and media speculation regarding mental fitness. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 06:43, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

This is the current proposal, that has undergone some previous discussion:

Throughout Biden's political career, he has been prone to speech mistakes, commonly known as gaffes. In 2018, Biden described himself as a "gaffe machine". He has also stated that his speech mistakes should not be taken seriously and haven't been about a "substantive issue". Since his childhood, Biden has suffered from a speech impediment and stutter, which has been credit by some as the cause of his frequent speech mistakes.

Some of Bidens speech mistakes have been characterized as racially charged. Biden's speech mistakes have included inaccurate or fabricated historical events, including personal stories.

During his 2020 campaign, Biden's speech mistakes along with his advancing age led to unsubstantiated, politically motivated speculation of Biden's mental wellness.Biden has stated that he has not taken a cognitive test; however, a recent medical report stated that he is a "healthy, vigorous, 77-year-old male, who is fit to successfully execute the duties of the Presidency". (due to discussion and clear opposition, this is being removed from the proposal. It's only serving as a distraction from the heart of this discussion)

Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 06:43, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Survey

• Support: it’s gotten so much media attention that it seems important enough SRD625 (talk) 18:17, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support, Biden's gaffes have been present throughout his career. They have been heavily covered in credible sources, more so than your average politician. Throughout his 2020 campaign (including the Democratic primaries and the general election), they were discussed. Additionally, this paragraph allows a natural place to mention his speech impediment, which I would say is notable since Biden has worked with speech impediment organizations. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 23:59, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
• Gaffes definitely. Mental health not based on the sources presented. The sourcing in the discussion is sufficient to support a section on gaffes. Furthermore, additional sourcing on the gaffes, particularly his claim that people who do not support him are not black, is easy to find. The dementia part, as presented below, is not sufficiently well supported. Adoring nanny (talk) 00:35, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support: His gaffes were so numerous, and they are so extensively covered in (both pro-Democrat and pro-Republican) media, that it would be strange (and probably biased) if we ignore all that in this article. I think the proposed subsection is very well written. Felix558 (talk) 01:15, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose This effort to include dubious material about supposed gaffes and alleged mental decline is the definition of WP:TENDENTIOUS. KidAd talk 01:22, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

"Supposed gaffes", I don't think his gaffes are speculation. I understand where you're coming from with the mental decline speculation, Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 02:47, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose - As per the previous, nearly exact same section above. Do sources exist that cover this "gaffes"? Sure. But it's not "extensively covered" by reliable sources, nor do they make the kinds of connections that are being hammered into the talk page. Unless a medical source gives a cause for a medical condition as explanation for something, or a reliable source makes it clear that something medical is happening, it is inappropriate per WP:BLP to make speculations in the article. There are more sources about Obama using the wrong kind of mustard or Trump's "man woman camera tv" nonsense, but there's no mention of those on those articles. - Aoidh (talk) 01:35, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose as has been mentioned time and time again on this talk page, "media speculation regarding mental fitness" is a massive honking WP:BLP violation. If you want to talk about a section on gaffes, I would be open to consideration, but the RfC question says "gaffes and a huge BLP violation" so that's a no from me. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:46, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
• Comment. There does appear to be clear opposition to speculation of mental health. Should this proposal be modified by removing the paragraph regarding mental decline speculation, and focus exclusively on gaffes and speech impediment? Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 02:47, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

@Iamreallygoodatcheckers: Yeah, I would support a section about his gaffes, but speculation about "mental decline" is entirely unencyclopedic. -- Politicsfan4 (talk) 15:16, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

• Comment. I think the last paragraph is where you get into problematic territory. SecretName101 (talk) 08:37, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support - He's commonly known for his gaffes and it's intertwined with his character, odd it isn't here but the sexual assault allegations are since that's more controversial in many ways. No comment on the mental acuity stuff, but it's been hinted at by Julian Castro during the Democratic debates so I think it at least warrants a mention. CaliIndie (talk) 15:46, 3 February 2021 (UTC) — CaliIndie (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Oppose Politicians have vocal blunders all the time, the coverage of Biden's slipups is not nearly at the level of, say, a Bushism yet. Including this now would be an undue focus on a triviality. ValarianB (talk) 18:05, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Considering the fact that this has been going on for his whole life (he has acknowledged publicly) and was definitely a talking point during the election cycle, it's definitely more notable than other politicians. Remember that Bushism has it's own article, we are just proposing a subsection. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 03:34, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support- Biden has decades of gaffes that are well-documented and received plenty of coverage. We have an entire article about stupid things George Bush said so there is a precedent for this.--Rusf10 (talk) 19:18, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn't characterize Bushism as just covering "stupid" things he said. Objectively, it's about, "unconventional statements, phrases, pronunciations, malapropisms, and semantic or linguistic errors in the public speaking" of Bush. SecretName101 (talk) 19:29, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

• Comment. I'd include that David Axelrod, a former Obama administration advisor, called Biden a "gaffe and embellishment machine"
• Support inclusion of gaffes but not mental health The latter seems like a possible BLP violation imo. ~ HAL333 21:30, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
• Yes to gaffes but absolutely not mental health — that's speculation, and Trump's page doesn't include the "person, woman, man, camera... TV!" episode. Thanoscar21^talk_{contributions} 22:09, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per several cogent statements above. The RfC question is very broadly framed and only a narrow slice of what's being proposed is even remotely appropriate. Some sort of section on gaffes may be WP:DUE given enough press coverage, but armchair speculation about Biden's mental health is never going to be unencyclopedic. Generalrelative (talk) 05:38, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Inappropriate. Every politicians (and most humans) makes gaffes, should every politician have a section. I see no indication Biden makes more than the average president. The relevant gaffes, if they meet a notability criteria, can be inserted in the text there they belong. I agree it sounds like WP:TENDENTIOUS. It's this editor's second attempt at including material about Biden's gaffes and mental health, and they were shut down at the first attempt and now trying again.Eccekevin (talk) 08:22, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
• This is confused (Here because invited by the bot to a different RFC here). The question is creation of a separate section. The discussion is mostly about a different question (inclusion/exclusion) which is not in the RFC and thus can't be considered a valid RFC exploration of the second topic. It's a slam dunk that the material should be included, and I'm neutral on whether or not it has a separate section. My argument for a separate section is that there is a substantial amount of wp:due material on it. My argument against a separate section is that I'm generally against separate sections defined by a negative aspect because they become invitations to overly expand on the negative aspect. North8000 (talk) 14:29, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. (1) "Mental wellness" stuff is bullshit innuendo, and doesn't belong anywhere. (2) the stutter/speech impediment stuff is not a "gaffe" and is already appropriately covered in the early life section. (3) As to actual gaffes/campaign statements, they might merit a sentence or two in various campaign-related articles (e.g. Joe Biden 2008 presidential campaign), or even possibly in a short mention in a comprehensive article on Public image of Joe Biden (if we had one, which we do not), but they don't rise to the level of meriting inclusion in this top-line bio. Neutrality^talk 20:01, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per Neutrality, really really isn't Wikipedia's business to make half assertions on peoples mental states, unless by a trained psychiatrist and diagnosis. Support "Some of Bidens speech mistakes have been characterized as racially charged.[3][4] Biden's speech mistakes have included inaccurate or fabricated historical events, including personal stories.[5][6]", excellent worded, sourced and should be included, mental condition I don't think so. Des Vallee (talk) 05:12, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support per Iamreallygoodatcheckers, provided that the paragraph about his mental health is excised. 207.161.86.162 (talk) 07:08, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support the first two paragraphs only, of course. These gaffes have gotten a significant amount of attention, and should be mentioned in some way. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 18:55, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. I think it's perfectly reasonable to include them in the context of other sections, where they're notable (i.e. widely covered) and neutrally sourced. But I don't see how a compendium of alleged gaffes doesn't devolve into a POV nightmare from Day 1. It also literally invites someone to run to the Trump page and start listing the times he walked up the Air Force One stairs with TP trailing on his shoe, or left his umbrella stranded; or when Obama wore "mom jeans"; or when Bush 2 tried to walk through a locked door, then awkwardly stood there for photos, etc. You're opening up a Pandora's box of petty partisanship that I don't see serves the project in any way. On the other hand, if someone started an article of Presidential Gaffes, then listed them by administration, that might be an excellent article. But to single out one president and not expect the same treatment of others? Not to mention the constant vandalism and edit-warring this section would have. It's just a POV rabbit hole that I don't think it serves us to go down. X4n6 (talk) 02:17, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

There is already an entire article on stuff like Bush failing to open a door, see Bushism. I don't think vandalism will be a problem with the protection this article has. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 03:17, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

My point exactly. So let there be one on Bushism and Trumpism, Obamaism, Clintonism, Carterism, Reganism, Bidenism et al. Or even all combined into one article, since some folks don't have one (yet.) So let them all go there. They don't need to be here. Unless you're prepared to have this dedicated section in every POTUS article? Is that what you're advocating? X4n6 (talk) 04:01, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

The reason Obama, Trump, and Clinton don't have articles of that nature is because they didn't receive substantial coverage over their gaffes. Bush and Biden, for the whatever reason it may be, have received substantial coverage for their gaffes. Our place is simply to report what reliable sources say and cover. Biden's gaffes as many arguments above have been widely covered for many years and were one of the main talking points of the 2020 election. The same can't be said for other presidents. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 06:38, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Trump's gaffes have been just as widely reported throughout his public life and during his campaign and tenure. But Trumpism is about a political ideology. No article exists about his gaffes. Although there is an article, Veracity of statements by Donald Trump about his lies. But I also note that Donald Trump does not include a section about his gaffes. I have not tracked his page, but I'm guessing if someone tried to include a section like that, they were checked on either POV or UNDUE grounds. So, for consistency, I think we should follow that lead. X4n6 (talk) 08:20, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

You're right that there is an article on Trump's lies. Why is there one on Trump's lies, but not Bush or Obama, all presidents lie, right? The reason is for the same reason that this section should be included, Trump's lies garnered more weight by RS than other presidents. We don't have an article on every presidents lies, not because other presidents don't lie, but because Trump lied on an unprecedented level that was substantially covered by the media. Same logic applies to Biden and his gaffes. Also, we are not are not asking for an article here, we are asking for a subsection under the 2020 campaign. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 18:37, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your continued response(s). I agree about Trump's lies and why they merit not just inclusion in his article, but their own. Sure there's tons of RS. But those lies aren't just a personal quirk. As you said, they "garnered more weight." That's because they affected policy; and as we've sadly just seen - they continue to affect lives. They are consequential, so impossible to ignore. But you didn't acknowledge that Trump is also a gaffe machine. But you wouldn't know that by any section in his article. Gerald Ford was also a gaffe machine, famously prone to trips and falls. They made Chevy Chase a star on SNL. They're in Ford's article, but don't merit a separate section. George H. W. Bush committed arguably the most famous gaffe of all time, when he vomited into Japanese prime minister, Kiichi Miyazawa's lap at a banquet held in Bush's honor in Japan. But there's no section about it in his article. You won't even find a word about it there. But George H. W. Bush vomiting incident exists. Bush 1's quirky aversion to broccoli isn't mentioned in his article, but George H. W. Bush broccoli comments exists. Despite Reagan's affinity for jellybeans, the word "jellybean" doesn't appear in his article. Obama's thing is basketball. He announced his March Madness brackets every year as president; and even adapted the WH tennis court for tennis and basketball. But "basketball" doesn't appear in his article. So there's evidence of an established pattern that personal quirks, which is all a gaffe is, don't merit sections in presidential articles. They may or may not be their own articles. But sections in president's articles seem to focus on areas of policy and consequence, and personal quirks are inconsequential. I think that precedent is well established and persuasive. We need to aim for consistency. So I'm sorry, because I appreciate your advocacy: but the more I looked the more it became very clear, at least to me, that there's no place for this section in this article. Cheers. X4n6 (talk) 23:31, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Biden's gaffes aren't a personal quirk/hobby or one-time incident, though, they're routine and have occurred numerous times throughout his political career. I don't think they're comparable to Bush's views on broccoli or Obama liking basketball. CaliIndie (talk) 23:36, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Gaffes are indeed nothing more than personal quirks. Can you give examples of where they've been elevated to the level of having policy consequences? And can you show any similarly dedicated sections in any other articles about presidents? X4n6 (talk) 23:44, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

They may be nothing more than personal quirks in your eyes, but to others it's a defining characteristic and that seems to be the case with the number of RS having detailed it over the many years. I don't see how they need to hold policy leverage to see inclusion, that seems like an arbitrary barrier and articles on presidents aren't explicitly about their presidency, which is why they have separate articles for that, like this one for Biden. CaliIndie (talk) 23:51, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

First, it's not just in my eyes: as noted by how interchangeably they're used here; as noted in this 2013 article from Australia; and even this one explaining Trump's unwavering support among some, despite his own history of gaffes and quirks. Your link to the Biden Administration misses the point. You still have not offered any examples of similar sections in other president's biographical articles, which are what I referenced in every example I provided. If/when you can provide any, we can discuss them. But until then, I have confidence in my rationale and am very comfortable with my vote. X4n6 (talk) 00:19, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Ok, so you believe that Biden's gaffes shouldn't be included because they don't affect policy or are just simply not significant. His gaffes have had major effects for his career, Julian Castro targeted him because of it during the primary, of course Trump brought it up, and many RS have stated they hurt his chance with voters. One reference above stated he could lose support from the black community because of his comments that have been characterized as gaffes. They may not necessarily effect policy, but they effect Biden and his career. I don't think the same can be said about Obama being a basketball fan. Also, your belief that it has to effect policy really isn't a policy or guideline on Wikipedia. We are supposed to give due weight to a subject and right now, not mentioning arguably one of the biggest talking points of the election is not giving proper weight. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 05:34, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

While I enjoy a vigorous debate, I've already explained my reasoning, more thoroughly than anyone else. I oppose the section on multiple grounds. Notwithstanding Julian Castro and whatever effect some writers thought there may have been on African American voters, those concerns did not materialize. And in Biden's near half century public career, if the gaffes had significantly affected him performance, surely we'd have known it before his presidency. In the last election they provided some campaign election fodder: but so did Trump's small hands; Rubio questioning the size of Trump's other anatomy; Cruz's supposedly ugly wife, claims of his father's alleged link to the JFK assassination, and his disqualifying Canadian birth; Jeb's "please clap"; et al. Should there also be a section on "Trump's Campaign Taunts:" about "Sleepy Joe;" hiding in the basement; his huge mask; and Trump possibly having to leave the country if he lost to "this guy?" I still maintain his gaffes are quirks and even gave links that agreed. And I've pointed out we don't have similar sections in similar articles. That's a good safeguard against POV creep. You haven't addressed that concern, while arguing that mine don't comport with WP policy or guidelines, which WP:NPOV is. You also noted we're supposed to give due weight, but didn't mention WP:UNDUE - and perhaps more importantly, WP:PROPORTION. I've also said I was fine with a separate article. Maybe channel your energy there. But as I've explained, now ad nauseum, I oppose a separate section here. So I don't see a point to more debate. Since I haven't persuaded you to change your mind either. X4n6 (talk) 14:41, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. (Summoned by bot) I endorse X4n6's logic that I think it's perfectly reasonable to include them in the context of other sections, where they're notable (i.e. widely covered) and neutrally sourced. It isn't clear that this Biden trait has acquired anything like the general coverage of Bush's verbal irregularities yet, nor what would be gained here by extrapolating a general principle from specific occurences. I also agree with North8000's comments about the general undesirability of a separate section on a perceived negative trait unless the trait acquires a much more substantive coverage than seems to be the case here. The (fairly tenuous IMO) justification for the Bushism article is that someone other than WP coined the term after noting the tendency and disecting it. Pincrete (talk) 08:18, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support Very clearly WP:DUE weight given the number of RSs that have covered his plethora gaffes, lies, etc.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 13:54, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose This appears to be an excuse to insinuate Trump's campaign narratives about mental decline. Citing Julian Castro is preposterous. His attempt to push the senility button marked the end of his candidacy, possibly his political career. SPECIFICO talk 15:02, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support Biden's bizarre statements are frequently reported. It's part of his political style which allows him to be excused for offensive statements and endears people to him. There's extensive coverage of Trump's misstatements which are similar although Trump is from the opposing political party. It's useful for readers who hear Biden say something stupid or offensive so they don't get alarmed. TFD (talk) 05:57, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. First, every politician makes gaffes, and Biden's during the 2020 campaign weren't more frequent or more significant. Second, his (perceived) tendency to put his foot in it is a major part of his public persona (he's even made fun of himself for it) and not a particular trait of the 2020 campaign. This is already mentioned throughout the article and also addressed directly in the article under "Reputation," which I think is sufficient. --Tserton (talk) 09:57, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support If this was Donald Trump, it would have been there, no questions asked. 12:00, 18 February 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:642:4100:820:2439:F1E3:CF8C:963A (talk)
• Support Joe Biden's gaffes have been covered a numerous amount of times and he has been mocked for it as well on television and by the press. Excluding its inclusion would not be fair and unbiased reporting for this article.2600:1700:BF40:A1E0:D932:3B0E:8590:DE08 (talk) 23:23, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

Has there been any mention of possible invocation of Section 4 of the 25th amendment? GoodDay (talk) 03:05, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Not that I've heard of. There may be some speculation, but those are unsubstantiated and isn't of any notability. If you have a reliable source for it, then go ahead. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 03:08, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

References

We have an article on Trump, do we have a section on Gaffs?Slatersteven (talk) 12:02, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Infobox proposal

Although there is a consensus for shortening the infobox, there doesn't seem to be consensus on how some particular offices should be handled. For example, there seem to be some editors in favor of keeping the New Castle County Council position in the infobox, but its repeated removal shows how contested this is as well. There is also this revision proposed in the earlier section about the rfc recommendation, but seeing how that is no longer seen in the current version of the article as of this writing, it doesn't seem to be satisfactory for many other editors either. I personally find it problematic, as the phrase "Committees chaired" implies a past position held, which wouldn't be an issue for Biden, who will probably never be a senator again, but if applied to the infoboxes of other senators who are incumbent committee chairs, the past tense would be an issue. I assume the logical outcome of this edit being accepted for Biden is to change the infoboxes of other senators to conform with this new format, so I'm just pointing out this issue now.

Anyways, my proposal is to list the unimportant offices as a bullet point at the footnote section of the infobox, which shortens the length for mobile users as well. I will put an example. This is a format used for many other politicians' articles as well, so it's not a totally unseen format.

Joe Biden
Personal details
Born	Joseph Robinette Biden Jr. (1942-11-20) November 20, 1942 Scranton, Pennsylvania, U.S.
Political party	Democratic
Spouses	Neilia Hunter ​ ​ (m. 1966; died 1972)​ Jill Jacobs ​ (m. 1977)​
Children	Beau Hunter Naomi Ashley
Parents	Joseph Robinette Biden Sr. Catherine Eugenia Finnegan
Relatives	Family of Joe Biden
Residence	White House
Education	University of Delaware (BA) Syracuse University (JD)
Occupation	Politician lawyer author
Awards	List of honors and awards
Signature
Website	joebiden.com White House website
Other offices 2001-2003, 2007-2009: Chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee 2007-2009: Chair of the International Narcotics Control Caucus 1987–1995: Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee 1971-1973: Member of the New Castle County Council from the 4th district

- Bokmanrocks01 (talk) 20:09, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

The fact that the current President of the United States served on a non-notable (see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Castle County Council) city council during his early career years does not deserve a lengthy mention in the infobox and fails MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE. I think the RfC was quite clear on this, and that was consensus if not unanimity (WP:NOTUNANIMITY). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:52, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

My new format is anything but lengthy though. It's literally one bullet point on the the footnotes section. The New Castle County position is mentioned in the article itself as well, so it would not be inappropriate to summarize this somewhere in the infobox - Bokmanrocks01 (talk) 21:03, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

A lot of things are mentioned in the article and don't need to be in the infobox. Please thoroughly read MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE. Key: The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance.

I'm not opposed to different ways of presenting the senate chairmanships, and have no strong opinion on any of the proposed presentations (as long as it's not reverted to the pre-RfC state of being separate titles each). Both your and GoodDay's proposed presentations are all fine with me. I'm strongly opposed to including a non-notable city council position, though. Nobody is going to remember Biden for serving on the New Castle County Council in the early 1970s. It's not key information. If someone wants a full biography on him, they can read the lead or the article. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:05, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

The fact that this is Biden's first elected office and the formal beginning of his political career seems to be a key fact to me. It's also mentioned in Biden's White House page in the second opening paragraph:

"Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr. was born in Scranton, Pennsylvania, the first of four children of Catherine Eugenia Finnegan Biden and Joseph Robinette Biden, Sr. In 1953, the Biden family moved to Claymont, Delaware. President Biden graduated from the University of Delaware and Syracuse Law School and served on the New Castle County Council. "

Notice how nearly all other facts in this paragraph are also key facts included in the infobox as well. - Bokmanrocks01 (talk) 21:16, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Infoboxes are commonly abused and filled with bloat. Some believe that because a field exists in an infobox template that it should be filled. I disagree, and this is why I'm a fan of tailored infoboxes which prevent misuse by limiting options. If one adds every piece of lead content into the infobox, what's the point of having an infobox? People can just read the lead. An infobox needs to be trimmed down to key facts to actually be useful. Otherwise it isn't useful. I'm not proposing removing the city council position from the lead, I'm saying it doesn't really belong in the IB. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:50, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Notes

Infobox again

Why is the entry on Biden's US Senate tenure, being crowded with his Senate chairmanships? Those are suppose to have their own separate sections in the infobox. Biden did not chair those committees during the entirety of his Senate tenure. GoodDay (talk) 20:25, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

You could always add the years he held the chairmanships in parenthesis next to them - Bokmanrocks01 (talk) 20:38, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

I've made some repairs. Put them in their own section & yes, added the service years. GoodDay (talk) 20:45, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Is there consensus for your new format though? I see more edit warring unless we figure out a definitive format here. I think my proposal is pretty good. - Bokmanrocks01 (talk) 20:57, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

You wouldn't be hiding or deleting though, the United States Senator section & January 3, 1973 to January 15, 2009 entry. GoodDay (talk) 21:09, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Well I think there's no disagreement that his tenure as US Senator should be listed prominently in the infobox alongside the offices of VP and POTUS. My format would remove the chairmanships and the New Castle County position as recommended in the rfc from the main infobox body to a smaller bullet-point list in the footnotes section. Thus this would shorten the infobox length for both web browser users and mobile users that seemed to be a key issue for editors. My format is also used for other politicians as well, such as the one for Xi Jinping. Frankly, I haven't seen your format anywhere else though. - Bokmanrocks01 (talk) 21:26, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

No objections, if your proposal is adopted for all the current/former US Senators & US Representatives infoboxes. GoodDay (talk) 21:29, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

@ProcrastinatingReader and GoodDay: I STRONGLY oppose this. Just leave the infobox be, and keep it like every single other officeholder on the face of the earth has it. — Politicsfan4 (talk) 16:19, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Some examples of this format include Patrick Leahy, Dianne Feinstein, and Joe Manchin, with many others. Keep it consistent with other pages. —Politicsfan4 (talk) 16:21, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

RfC consensus is at Talk:Joe_Biden/Archive_14#RfC_on_the_infobox_length. Just because other pages are also problematic doesn't mean we do it to this page as well. See WP:OTHERCONTENT. Discussions on how to best shorten can continue, but to shorten is already agreed to by WP:RFC, which is binding on content. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:32, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

@ProcrastinatingReader: Well, I would favor removing the chairmanships entirely from the infobox over keeping this current format. IMO, it looks terrible, and is inconsistent with other pages. -- Politicsfan4 (talk) 23:53, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

No objection from me, for complete removal. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:17, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Would you consider my format though? At least for the time being. Personally, I think the previous format that matches the infoboxes of other US senators is best, though we would need another rfc to reconsider the decision by the most recent one. - Bokmanrocks01 (talk) 04:12, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm just not interested in any 'edit wars'. GoodDay (talk) 21:51, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

I've deleted the entry. Either we display it like the other current/former US Senators, or not at all. GoodDay (talk) 00:30, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

I personally think the article is perfectly fine as it was before and I can think of plenty of infoboxes that were much much larger than that but were never changed; I’ve also never had any technical issues and I’m on mobile SRD625 (talk) 01:54, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

• Comment On the contrary, we should make Biden's Infobox Wikipedia standard. Literally no one cares about Senate Chairs of House Rankings in Committees. Every U.S. Senator should just be labeled as such unless they have a real office like President Pro Tem or Majority Leader. -- Sleyece (talk) 03:59, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Final decision on my format

So I just want a clear answer from editors on whether they would be fine with my proposed format, since I want to add it to the actual article infobox soon. So far, users who have directly addressed me about my proposed format don't oppose it, but I just want to have your final thoughts here so I could feel we have some sort of agreement when I add my format to the infobox. By the way, my format is the bullet list of the chairmanships in the footnotes, which you can find in the example infobox above. I plan to leave out New Castle County seat for now, as that is still contentious, though it would be helpful if you could clearly state whether you support or oppose the county seat in the infobox as part of your answer as well. Personally, I support keeping the county seat in the infobox. - Bokmanrocks01 (talk) 01:19, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

I like it, and I'd like to thank you for proposing it. It's a sleak and easy to access variant of the current one which is interfering with the body of the article at the moment. I highly doubt many who access this article care to know the specifics of Biden serving on the New Castle County Council or whatever miscellaneous Senate committe chairmanships he held years ago, but if they do wish to know, it's there for them to see in a nice dropbox. CaliIndie (talk) 11:33, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

It looks good to me - it reduces clutter without omitting information. --Woko Sapien (talk) 22:18, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Silent Generation

Biden is the first President from the Silent Generation. Should it be added in the heading along with him being the oldest president, first from Delaware, and second Catholic? 3Kingdoms (talk) 16:26, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

I think this is not notable enough to be included in the lead, but other editors may think differently. I never came upon the term "Silent Generation" until now (I just googled it to see what it means), so I have impression this term is not mentioned often in the media outlets and it's not often used by the public. If that is true, then it's probably not notable enough for the lead. Felix558 (talk) 18:04, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

I actually didn't know that. I'd support adding it. A note, though, in Bill Clinton's article, it's in the public image section. Thanoscar21^talk_{contributions} 20:21, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

I have no objection to adding it somewhere in the article, but I'm really not sure it is notable enough to be placed in the lead. Felix558 (talk) 21:24, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

• I would like to see evidence of coverage to prove notability. I haven't heard of this personally. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 04:01, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't think it's notable enough, but would like to see RS. Eccekevin (talk) 04:37, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Not notable enough for the lead; it does not seem to come up frequently in RS. RedHotPear (talk) 04:43, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Here are a few sources that mention it. [1], [2], [3]. 3Kingdoms (talk) 15:03, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, but those sources are about him being the oldest which is already mentioned and notable. The Silent Generation is mentioned in passing. Also, generation boundaries are somewhat arbitrary. Silent Generation is somehwta 1928-1945, but Trump was born in 1946. He's arguably the same generation as Biden, so I'd be opposed to including this generational statement because, again, it is somewhat arbitrary (unlike age, state of origin, and religion which are more clear cut). Eccekevin (talk) 21:00, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Clinton and W. Bush were also born in 1946. They along with Trump are all considered Baby boomers, as mentioned above that is mention on Clinton's page, but not the heading. I understand your issue, but I think it is a nice piece of info to put in. 3Kingdoms (talk) 00:30, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Exactly, they were born little time apart from Biden, making this distinction arbitrary and useless. Why is the Silent Generation 1928-1945 and not 1930-1947? Arbitrariness, so it is a useless distinction. What does it convey to the reader of importance that the birth date does not on its own? Nothing, hence my opposition. Eccekevin (talk) 01:27, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

I think it might impress upon reader that the man we elected in 2020 is older than the man we elected in 1992. Thanoscar21^talk_{contributions} 02:34, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm not saying it doesn't matter, just not in the lede. That impression is already given to the reader by the fact that it specifies he is the oldest president in history. Eccekevin (talk) 03:21, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm thinking in the Early Life section. Thanoscar21^talk_{contributions} 22:55, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Its end in 1945 cause the Second World War ended. Baby boomers were children of people who came back from the war, generally, hence 1946 is the start. 3Kingdoms (talk) 18:20, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

This is surely trivia. We tell people his DOB. They can make a fuss about his membership of some artificially defined generation elsewhere if they like. HiLo48 (talk) 05:06, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

You can just copy-paste HiLo's comment for me. --Khajidha (talk) 18:16, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

No, generational differences are occassionally more notable in their differences amongst each other, but the Silent generation and the Baby Boomers, especially those born in the late 1940s such as Clinton, Bush 43 or Trump are barely differential from those born in the early 1940s like Biden. Had they grew up in differing circumstances I'd be more open to it, but there's nothing that really separates the two beyond labels. CaliIndie (talk) 20:58, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

The Silent Generation were too young to fight in WW2 and born before the soldiers returned from war causing the Baby Boom. So the dates aren't arbitrary. But most readers would not understand the concept and it would have to be explained. So it is best mentioned in the body of the article rather than the lead. TFD (talk) 06:20, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

...or not mentioned at all. I still don't see the point. HiLo48 (talk) 09:17, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

I know that they call all that were born up through midnight Dec 31 1945 the 'Silent Generation', but I don't really think it is a notable label for folks born during the war. The Silent Generation itself, as a concept, was something of an afterthought. The Boomers were notable because there was a BOOM, literally, and that boom started in '46. Thus, the boomer generation was said to begin in '46, and they were the children of the war generation. The generation in between was later labeled the silent generation, and like others have noted, they were the people that were kids & younger teenagers during the war. Technicalities aside, though, is it REALLY fitting to call babies born DURING the war part of the Silent Generation? they aren't technically boomers, but they're in actuality far closer and more akin to boomers than the people that were older kids/teens during the war, who remembered the Great Depression; which is whom the 'Silent Generation' were dubbed with in mind. Firejuggler86 (talk) 10:12, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

You're right. Reading the article on the Silent generation, it says "The Silent Generation were children of the Great Depression". No qualification. No wording that says "...or soon after", or anything like that. Biden was NOT one of children of the Great Depression. This is one of the least accurately defined "generations", all arbitrary constructs anyway. Putting him in the same category as children born during the depression is very misleading. HiLo48 (talk) 21:38, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, if anything Biden's as much a boomer as the other three. It's also odd enough this boom stretches as far as Obama. I hate these generational labels, rather we'd avoid them altogether. CaliIndie (talk) 07:23, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Exactly. If you look at the actual birthrates, the only "boom" is the 1946-1948 era when the lonely GIs were just getting home. Then it declined. Then another (smaller bump) circa 1953-1954 (when the Korean war vets were coming home), with a fairly steady rate for the rest of the 1950s and a decrease over the 1960s.--Khajidha (talk) 12:36, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

New Castle County Council

Is there a reason why Biden's membership in the New Castle county council, keeps being re-added to the infobox? GoodDay (talk) 19:18, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

#RFC on infobox length - closing statement and followup recommendations says in part also keeping New Castle County Council would probably satisfy most or all participants. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:33, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Of course, WP:NOTUNANIMITY, and that appeared to be the closer's suggestions (which are not part of the consensus). Only one supporter expressed their desire in keeping it. It is not key information for the infobox to list a non-notable (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Castle County Council) office the POTUS held back in the 1970s. The entire council, never mind the position itself, isn't even notable enough for an article. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:02, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Not only has the editor who keeps adding it, breached 1RR. But, he also appears to be avoiding the discussion here. Kinda frustrating. GoodDay (talk) 07:07, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Not remotely notable - the editor concerned is a newbe however -----Snowded ^TALK 07:18, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Not notable enough for the Infobox, you were right to remove it. Felix558 (talk) 12:15, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

@GoodDay and Snowded: I was going by what the RFC said: Doing that but also keeping New Castle County Council would probably satisfy most or all participants. I'm not trying to "avoid" anything. -- Politicsfan4 (talk) 14:04, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Apologies if there was miscommunication, I should have included that in my edit summaries. Not trying to be frustrating on purpose. Didn't notice the discussion here. -- Politicsfan4 (talk) 14:08, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

You can't use a suggestion from one party in an RfC as authority for changes -----Snowded ^TALK 05:21, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

@Snowded: well what was the authority for removing it? Is there a consensus that I am unaware of stating that it should not be included in the infobox? — Politicsfan4 (talk) 13:34, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

You need to familiarise yourself with editing here. You were bold, you were reversed, you discuss and new material requires consensus to insert -----Snowded ^TALK 17:48, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

@Politicsfan4: if you're so determined that Biden's tenure on the council-in-question, must be added to the infobox? Then perhaps you should seek support 'here' for its inclusion. Again, as I mentioned before, IMHO it didn't belong, due to its being a 'minor' position. Now, if he'd been a member of either chamber of the Delaware legislature? that would be different. GoodDay (talk) 18:07, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

@GoodDay: I'm just saying, that a casual reader of the article might not see that Biden was a member of the County Council if it's not included in the infobox, and might be under the false impression that he had no political experience before his election to the Senate. There is a very real possibility that they would just head straight for the infobox and miss this relatively important detail. -- Politicsfan4 (talk) 03:46, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

The purpose of an infobox is not to replace the entire article or even the lead. It is not a substitute for prose. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 03:56, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

@ProcrastinatingReader: I never said that the infobox replaces the prose - what I am saying is that casual readers might completely ignore the prose and only read the infobox, and they might think of it as a 'replacement', just as a general note. I'm not trying to advocate for the its inclusion in the infobox by saying this. -- Politicsfan4 (talk) 04:10, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

I mean, there's no evidence for that, and we shouldn't add bloat on the basis of assumptions of how most readers behave. In fact, our PAGs advise doing the opposite all across the board (all the way from WP:SPOILER). Content decisions are not based on assumptions but on PAGs and consensus. MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE is relevant here. There are real downsides to inclusion and no proven upside in favour. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 05:03, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Proposal

Perhaps if would be acceptable for the New Castle County seat to be included in the infobox under my format? My proposed format is the bullet list in footnotes that I started a discussion section on up above this one. Maybe if it were just a single bullet list item at the footnotes section, along with the chairmanships, it would be more acceptable than being in the main infobox body alongside his offices of POTUS, VPOTUS, and US senator? - Bokmanrocks01 (talk) 18:50, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Having the Senate chairmanships in said footnote, is acceptable. As for the county council seat? IMHO no, as again, it's a 'minor' position. GoodDay (talk) 19:02, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Agree with GoodDay. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 05:03, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

New picture?

I'm thinking there should be a more up-to-date picture of Biden on his infobox, not only is the portait currently displayed from 2013, it's his VP portait.

Maybe at least a placeholder can be added until Biden gets an official presidential portrait? SpicyCheese (talk) 19:57, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

I think it should stay as is for now since it:: is the most recent official portraits. 3Kingdoms (talk) 21:04, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

IMO it should be replaced. His VP picture is from 2013, and the Biden White House has already released an official professional picture of him on the White House website. Since it's a US federal government sanctioned picture it should update the 2013 one. If it matters, the Kamala Harris page has already updated her official picture for 2021, and if her posture is an issue, her posture is the same as Biden's. At least the new pic should be a placeholder until there is one facing straight. Phillip Samuel (talk) 21:10, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

I get the feeling this might be the official presidential portrait - or at least what the White House intends to go with for the foreseeable future. Looking at Kamala Harris's most recent portrait, they seem to be taking a less traditional route with their portraits. --Woko Sapien (talk) 21:57, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

I disagree. The Kamala one is an actual portrait picture from after the inauguration. The 2020 Biden pic is taken from a rally, is not a portrait and is before he was inagurated. They're clearly still working on an official one.Eccekevin (talk) 00:02, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

I personally prefer the look of the old portrait - his expression in this one looks kinda uncomfortable, to me - but since the white house has published this as somewhat-official, I think we should go with it. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 21:59, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

References

I did not know about this picture, while not the usual posture, if the US government is using it then so be it. 3Kingdoms (talk) 22:20, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

• Comment - This was already discussed here. Thanoscar21^talk_{contributions} 22:26, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Keep current and wait Until an official one is released. This was taken before his presidency, so it makes sense to wait fot he official presdientail portrait picture.Eccekevin (talk) 23:57, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

• The current photo is way better than File:Portrait_of_United_States_President_Joe_Biden.jpg. It still looks the way he looks now. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:01, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. The 2020 photo is awkward pose, lower quality, not official, and not a portrait. Eccekevin (talk) 05:50, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose — We can wait a couple more months to get the official portrait. Per Eccekevin, it's an awkward pose, low quality, and not an official portrait. Thanoscar21^talk_contribs 16:18, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per Eccekevin. As Thanoscar21 says, we can wait. --Khajidha (talk) 19:18, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support - there was a time I would've opposed, but it's getting too much now and we really, really need to update this portrait with at least an interim one if this isn't the "official" portrait. Looking through the logs we had updated Trump's with one which wasn't his official portrait but an interim one so-to-speak so he had a somewhat updated variant. At this point it's been 8 years between Biden in the photo and Biden now and I don't care if to some people he looks the same, we need to make the president look like he does now otherwise we're being deceptive to a certain extent. CaliIndie (talk) 07:30, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

  Is it really deceptive, though? For citizenship photos in the US, you go ten years without updating your passport picture. What's here on Wikipedia is less than that; by the end of this year, there will certainly be an official picture. Additionally, take a look at Jimmy Carter. His portrait was taken in 1977, and he's still alive. If we change this, then why not change that? The point is that official portraits are official, higher quality, and a pose for the camera. This proposed picture is grainy, his face isn't pointed at the camera, and he looks strained. Thanoscar21^talk_contribs 15:45, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

  Carter is a false equivalency since most people going to his Wikipedia page will majorly be for there for Carter the president and not Carter the governor of Georiga or Carter the Habitats for Humanity worker, so to have his portrait be when he was the president makes perfect sense. Same as with Biden, most people are here for Biden the president, not Biden the vice president. In that way it's deceptive, even with the caption. CaliIndie (talk) 16:27, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

  Okay, maybe the Carter thing was a bad analogy, but what I'm trying to say is that we can wait a few more months. This isn't urgent. And plus, by those same standards, this picture was taken in August, before he was president. This picture is lower quality as well. Thanoscar21^talk_contribs 16:50, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

There's really no urgency, and I don't see how this is at all deceptive. The goal of a Wikipedia picture is to identify a person, not to give the most recent possible picture.Eccekevin (talk) 17:37, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Moving the second marriage section

I've moved the second marriage subsection to the Marriages, law school, and early career (1966–1972). I've renamed that section from First marriage law school, and early career (1966–1972) to Marriages, law school, and early career (1966–1972). Thoughts? Thanoscar21^talk_contribs 23:50, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Looks good to me.Eccekevin (talk) 23:42, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

RfC: How about we add this political timeline template?

Template:Timeline of Joe Biden's Political career I have made a timeline highlighting the entire political career of Joe Biden. I think we can add this template in this Article as users will find this template easier to read and interpret, rather than going through a number of paragraphs. See Template:Timeline of Joe Biden's Political career. Thank you. CX Zoom (talk) 16:10, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support — I think it's pretty nice. I don't really know where it could go; perhaps the President (2021 – present) section? Thanoscar21^talk_contribs 16:16, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
• Comment - Could it be made collapsible as well? That way it could possibly fit in more places without taking up too much space. Connormah (talk) 18:07, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose it looks as confusing as hell, too many things in one table. This is not the kind of time line you can build down to X followed Y.Slatersteven (talk) 18:10, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose I agree with Slatersteven's sentiment. The text is also all messed up when I view it on a tablet. ~ HAL333 18:13, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

It seems a bit off on my desktop PC, its like the font is too big for the rows or something. Too much in too little.Slatersteven (talk) 18:26, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

I had set the font size to be lesser wherever appropriate but User:Jonesey95 changed them all to the regular font size (see [4]). CX Zoom (talk) 18:41, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Which then might make it unreadable as the font will be too small, as I said "Too much in too little".Slatersteven (talk) 18:45, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Actually I had no idea of how this would look like in mobile view. I had a view of this in mobile view and its kinda very surprising to me because there are plenty of Scientific (geological, astronomical, biological) and historical timelines on Wikipedia, which all suffer from the same issues (see Timeline of the early universe and Timeline of human evolution among many others) CX Zoom (talk) 18:56, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Alright, so I've fixed the issue in mobile view as noted by HAL333 by using em units instead of default px units. CX Zoom (talk) 20:46, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Maybe this would be more suitable on one of his subarticles? ~ HAL333 20:49, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose No, adds nothing of value to the reader. Biden's electoral history is displayed succinctly in Joe_Biden#Electoral_history, with more detail at Electoral history of Joe Biden. ValarianB (talk) 19:04, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Biden makes false claims

Mention that Biden falsely claimed the USA had no vaccines when he took office. Prins van Oranje 18:50, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Not really notable. We don't have to include every single falsehood a politician makes. Thanoscar21^talk_contribs 22:45, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

References