Talk:Joe Biden

MOS:CURRENTLY, again

AllegedlyHuman, we've been over the "46th and current" issue before, here, and here. Saying "and current" is redundant, adding two words that add no value. Where is there consensus saying to include it? I don't see any. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:57, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

I wasn't reverting your edit, I was reverting to a clean version following the link a user added before yours, based on the hidden text at the end of that paragraph. I have no opinion on this matter generally. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 20:00, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Understood. I'm hoping that there's consensus here that the "and current" is redundant and unnecessary. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:12, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Well, the last person who added it also cited the same style guideline to support the addition. So, someone is in the wrong here. Zaathras (talk) 20:55, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

I think it's reasonable to include "and current" here - it provides immediate context. And let's be honest - this page will probably be updated within a minute of Joe Biden no longer being the president. Elli (talk | contribs) 04:50, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Requesting new occupation to be added - Academic

Hello guys, could anyone please add the occupation of academic in the biodata too? He was an adjunct professor of law at the Delaware Law School for 17 years. Not to mention his brief stint as the Benjamin Franklin Presidential Practice Professor at UPenn.

https://www.widener.edu/news/news-archive/he-was-mr-president-he-was-professor-biden-his-widener-law-students

Sidebar

The sidebar containing Template:Joe Biden series was removed as a result of this discussion. This discussion had two in favor of removal and two against removal; I would argue that is not a consensus for removal but that is besides the point.

The two main criticisms of the sidebar brought up was that 1) it invades into the early life section and pushes an image found within and 2) has repeated information with the Template:Joe Biden at the bottom.

First, the Wikiproject for US Presidents has a style guide for all presidential sidebars and clearly states that "When placing a series box, ensure that it does not conflict with the article's body, and rearrange any photos necessary to make the box fit cleanly, and effectively." This seems to remedy the first criticism, just move the photo found in the Early Life section so it does not conflict with the sidebar.

But secondly and most importantly, every US President since LBJ have the exact same 'issues' within their own articles. All of their series boxes are somewhat intrusive into their main articles and all repeat the same information at the bottom. The result of this consensus has now impacted all of those articles as well because if we kept consistent ideas it would mean the removal of all of their sidebars on their pages. The sidebar should be reinstated immediately to fall in line with the consistent nature of every other modern US President's page. Yeoutie (talk) 21:30, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

The style guide you mention also clearly states: "Not every president warrants a series box." Images should not be moved to accommodate non-essential templates; images should be placed in paragraphs in which they are relevant, per MOS:IMAGELOCATION. If all these series boxes are "somewhat intrusive" and if "all repeat the same information", as you say, then Wikipedia would be better served by removing sidebars from those other articles than by adding one to this article. Surtsicna (talk) 23:30, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

FWIW, I deleted these 'series boxes/side bars' from the articles of all the US presidents & the few vice presidents that had them. I find these boxes merely crowd up the infobox, as well as article content. GoodDay (talk) 20:12, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Add this

All I see in this Article are positive things about Biden, it's maybe time to make this article seem less biased and add some criticism. I request this to be added. Feel free to shift a few words so it matches with other sentences.

During the press conference at the Geneva Summit, Biden stated that "as usuals," he had been given a list of reporters to call upon to ask questions. Conservative figures such as Rep. Greg Steube reacted on Twitter by asking: "How is this acceptable?" and Steve Guest, a special advisor for communications for Sen. Ted Cruz, called it "embarassing." Reavery (talk) 08:47, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

References

NOt sure this is a major (or even minor) controversy.Slatersteven (talk) 09:48, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. Two WP:FOXNEWS links does not a story make. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 02:33, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Lol, Fox Hysterics. Nope. Zaathras (talk) 02:58, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Why is the issue of Biden's fitness to serve as president not treated at all?

I've of course checked this article occasionally and have been doing so long time before I became a Wikipedia editor myself. One thing has never ceased to astonish me: the biggest issue concering Biden, his campaign and ultimately his time already served in office is not covered at all. I checked this talk page archive and I could find some threads where the question was raised but it never led to any changes.

So I'd ask myself: why does the article not treat this issue? Reliable Sources, that demonstrate media's and public's widespread concerns over Biden's cognitive state can easily be found. Please Google just "Joe+Biden+dementia". Will this topic ever be discussed in the article, and if not, why?

For comparison, take a look here: Donald Trump#Public profile. Not exactly a hagiography.Potugin (talk) 08:18, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

That is a fair question, Potugin. Can you find articles in which reputable media (such as these) discuss this? Surtsicna (talk) 09:37, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

As above, lets see some of these RS.Slatersteven (talk) 10:06, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm in Europe at the moment, so I may not be able to access all the media outlets I'd like to. Sky News has stuff to offer for example: [1]. (I think some of you might discard Boston Herald as it's a tabloid). Also, I'm a relatively new and infrequent user, so I won't be able to edit the article myself, however, anyone can make suggestions I guess, I'll make mine, you make yours.Potugin (talk) 10:59, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

And there is the issue, Alan Jones is not really medically trained, thus it's only an uniformed opinion (in an opp-edd piece), by a highly controversial figure. Now if you are saying you want something about how some in the media have said he is unfit, OK I can agree with that. But then we need to discuss proper wording. That does not violate wp:undue or wp:fringe. It might be best if this was in fact in an article about his presidency.Slatersteven (talk) 11:14, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

However I am not seeing where we have a section on Trump about unfitness for office due to health.Slatersteven (talk) 11:16, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Let us avoid drawing false equivalencies. There is no section on Trump's dementia, because there isn't much talk about such a thing. There is, however, a long section on False statements, for the simple reason that Trump is known for making plenty of statements that numerous sources checked and considered to have been false. So I think this is fine. As for Alan Jones not being medically trained - well, he doesn't have to be in order to qualify here. If you look at Donald Trump#Allegations of inciting violence, then the sources there are not by criminologists or professional lawyers. Potugin (talk) 11:54, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Then why raise it if it's a false equivalency (was that not what your argument was, "why do we not treat him the same as Trump?"?) And read WP:MEDRS, this is about medical diagnoses. Yes to make medical claims, the source must be qualified.Slatersteven (talk) 11:57, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

It isn't an actual issue, it is a piece of troll advocacy by select right-wing media groups, and their fans. Zaathras (talk) 12:08, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

After edit conflict: I will read the policy you linked, viz. WP:MEDRS, because I was quite unaware of it. However, I presume this guideline doesn't tell us that we cannot cite a media figure (or any other relevant person) calling Biden unfit for running the country, or being incoherent, or prone to embarassing gaffes etc. A physician's estimation would be a different matter, and even this isn't difficult to source: [2]. This is quite hotly debated issue, in fact.Potugin (talk) 12:15, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

LOL "Doubts about Mr Biden’s mental health have become a right-wing talking point over the past two years.", that is the point made above, this is a manufactured "controversy" prompted by media pundits making medical judgments. Sorry but this looks more and more innaproprtate.Slatersteven (talk) 12:21, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

You really expect us to include speculation from Google? When the past 5 months in the Oval Office have provided no evidence of so-called ineptitude? And Donald Trump’s article makes no mention of alleged mental health issues or the fact that he slurs his speech. Follow BLP policy and neutrality. Trillfendi (talk) 12:22, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

What kind of straw men are you posting here? I specifically said that Trump article includes lots of unflattering material on controversial aspects of him (like his endless false statements). This is indeed the very essence of "Follow[ing] BLP policy and neutrality". I agree! However, I don't see why it should be any different here. Is there a rule that we are allowed to cite "media pundits" (Slatersteven) when they criticize Trump's false statements, but we aren't allowed to do so when they criticize Biden (like Alan Jones did, and Howie Carr etc. - see above!), say, for constantly mixing things up and revealing other embarassing signs of unfitness? OK, I'll let others speak, too now. BBL.Potugin (talk) 12:30, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

It's not different, this is about specific information, which we do not also have in Trump's article. If you want to add criticisms about his policies OK, fine. If you add to add a section about his social media activity, OK go ahead, Same with approval ratings. IN fact, I will start it off.Slatersteven (talk) 12:35, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

So now you can start to add the SAME kind of information we have on Trump's page.Slatersteven (talk) 12:39, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Why do you need to change your line so often? First it was about RS's. When it proved to be not such an arduous task, you added WP:MEDRS. This, too, isn't a mission impossible really. And now it's about "Same kind of information" once again. Why? These a very different politicans with different upsides and different downsides. And different issues of controversy. Maybe we 2 could now let others opine? Wish you all luck in improving the article with approval ratings struff.Potugin (talk) 12:44, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Medrs is part of RS.Slatersteven (talk) 12:48, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

The section about political views needs an update

It seems rather amateur that the entire section consists of apparently random ratings by politically motivated groups and think tanks. In light of his lifelong tenure in the Senate and, more importantly, his presidency, it is more appropriate to scholarly analyze (or present previous analyses of) his actions and words. The ratings are hollow and meaningless to the non-American reader whose conception of the terms “liberal” and “conservative” might be inconsistent with the American standards. They should occupy minimal space in the already politically charged and difficult to handle section. This improvements would make it suitable for Wikipedia and its high standards. 109.66.6.108 (talk) 13:22, 20 June 2021 (UTC)