Talk:Joe Biden

NOTE: It is recommended to link to this list in your edit summary when reverting, as:
[[Talk:Joe Biden#Current consensus|current consensus]] item [n]
To ensure you are viewing the current list, you may wish to .

01. In the lead section, mention that Biden is the oldest president. (RfC February 2021)

02. There is no consensus on including a subsection about gaffes. (RfC March 2021)

03. The infobox is shortened. (RfC February 2021)

04. The lead image is the official 2021 White House portrait. (January 2021, April 2021)

05. The lead image's caption is Official portrait, 2021. (April 2021)

06. In the lead sentence, use who is as opposed to serving as when referring to Biden as the president. (RfC July 2021)

07. In the lead sentence, use 46th and current as opposed to just 46th when referring to Biden as the president. (RfC July 2021)

08. In the lead section, do not mention Biden's building of a port to facilitate American aid to Palestinians. (RfC June 2024)

Approval ratings and unpopularity

A recent edit of mine on his approval ratings and overall dismay for him in the public eye was reverted. The explanation I got was "Maintain WP:NPOV" (keep away from bias). I do not think I was being biased; the edit had a source with the information that I wrote down; I thought it was a necessary edit because that article is trending right now (the article is also from a non-biased news agency); and that article came out today, like a few hours ago. Can I get an explanation? Rexxx7777 (talk) 20:36, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

I can't see that basing content on what "is trending right now" is a great way to build a quality encyclopaedia. HiLo48 (talk) 02:33, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

It's not. The accompanying text With his immensely low approval ratings, Biden is unpopular in the public eye. isn't a neutral way to describe his current polling numbers either. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:39, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

I guess all I'm saying is news sources are starting to report on Biden's very low polling numbers and overall unpopularity. Don't believe me? look;

https://www.cnn.com/2022/10/07/politics/biden-unpopular-cnn-poll/index.html

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/voters-care-about-joe-biden-s-unpopularity-not-donald-trump/ar-AAQhEWa

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/white-house/just-how-unpopular-is-joe-biden

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/nov/18/why-are-americans-so-unhappy-with-joe-biden

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2022/10/19/politics/biden-nyt-siena-poll-midterms/index.html

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/biden-mentally-sharp-state-union-b2025207.html

https://www.usnews.com/news/the-report/articles/2022-01-21/why-is-joe-biden-so-unpopular

https://www.foxnews.com/media/focus-group-rejects-biden-running-2024-stuns-msnbc-analyst-quick-wow

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/biden-approval-stuck-40-dark-sign-democrats-midterms-reutersipsos-2022-10-18/

https://www.foxnews.com/media/joe-biden-worst-president-will-cain

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2022-election/bidens-approval-rating-still-key-issues-new-poll-shows-rcna48973

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/biden-drops-to-38-approval-in-new-national-poll

https://www.usnews.com/news/top-news/articles/2022-09-27/biden-approval-edges-up-to-41-reuters-ipsos-finds

Perhaps is "With his immensely low approval ratings, Biden is considered unpopular by the general public" a better sentence? If not I will be happy to just not press forward with this. Rexxx7777 (talk) 23:53, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Sources like Fox News, Washington Examiner, and opinion pieces in general wouldn't be usable for this. Wikipedia will most likely want to wait until more authoritative reviews of sources talk about Biden's popularity or unpopularity. It's true that Biden's approval has been slightly net negative for most of his time in office, and it's entirely possible that this will be a defining characterization of his presidency, but you definitely aren't going about it in the right way. Check out WP:10YEARSTEST, WP:RECENTISM, WP:NPOV, WP:RSOPINION, WP:RSP Andre🚐 04:02, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Rexxx7777, Trump's approval ratings in 2018 were quite similar to Biden's approval ratings in to 2022. Do you support adding language like immensely low approval ratings to Trump’s article as well? Read this. Cullen328 (talk) 04:13, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm guessing that the "immensely" part is a bad addition. So, no, I will accept that since language like that is not appropriate in Biden's article then it should not be used in Trump's. If it was then yes. Is re-writing it as "With his low approval ratings, Biden is considered unpopular by the general public" better? Rexxx7777 (talk) 01:03, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Honestly fair enough. Rexxx7777 (talk) 01:05, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Rexxx7777, plenty of reliable sources describe the varying approval ratings of all presidents going back to when presidential approval ratings were first developed. But which specific reliable sources state something that can be reliably paraphrased, Biden is considered unpopular by the general public. Or, is that synthesis based on your individual reading of the polls? Cullen328 (talk) 05:17, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

And as you can see from some of those, he is still not the most unpopular president ever, and these are all just snapshots. So lets wait till his presidency is over, and we can see what his lasting image is. Slatersteven (talk) 09:54, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Something about his approval ratings could go in Joe Biden#Reputation. It should also note his approval ratings as a senator and vice president to be complete and not merely recentism bias. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:44, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

We would also need a range, showing how it has risen and fallen. Slatersteven (talk) 17:02, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Right. As a comparison, I see that Hillary Clinton makes mentions of her approval ratings at a few points in the narrative, noting it as first lady, its peaks during the Lewinsky scandal and as secretary of state, and the "Cultural and political image" section notes her as a "polarizing figure". – Muboshgu (talk) 17:26, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Actually, there isn’t any bias - you can go to [1]https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/biden-approval-rating/?ex_cid=rrpromo and compare Biden’s numbers against those of his predecessors going back to Truman, you can track it to an identical point in the Presidency of each of his predecessors even and Biden’s numbers are in fact worse than Trump’s. You can also go to the RCP site to see Biden’s numbers and again these are from a variety of pollsters [2]https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president-biden-job-approval-7320.html71.190.233.44 (talk) 17:16, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

RCP isn't reliable, and the 538 link shows the opposite. Andre🚐 18:07, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

As far as I could see in regard to RCP from WP:RSP is ‘There is no consensus as to RealClearPolitics's reliability.’ and that is only insofar as it concerns news. Polling data is accurate and an aggregate of polling being done by reputable pollsters. Five Thirty Eight checked as I am writing this 642 days into the Biden presidency shows Biden’s net approval to be at -11.8 and Trump’s at -9.2 at the same point in his Presidency. So I’m not clear on what you mean by the opposite. 71.190.233.44 (talk) 01:37, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

RCP is not usable - they have a problematic methodology and cherry-pick. The 538 numbers show that Trump and Biden were roughly at the same point at the same time. I can't exactly tell where the margin of error bars lie (the shaded area in 538' chart) but probably about +-5. Andre🚐 01:44, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

On 538, if you go down below you can change the parameters for the charts, days in office / 4 years / 8 years and then the slider on each chart displays a comparison with the currnet President. As for RCP, the most current polls displayed are Rasmussen Reports / Reuters / Ipsos / Economist / YouGov / NBC News / Monmouth / Politico / Morning Consult / CNBC / CBS News / Harvard-Harris / Trafalgar Group(R) / NY Times / Siena / FOX News and RCP themselves are not altering data in anyway as you can click through and see the methodology to each poll. They are an aggregator not a pollster themselves and only averaging the information of all the polls listed. I can understand challenging the as a source in regard to material that originates on the site - articles written by them but in the case of polling data there is no such bias. 71.190.233.44 (talk) 01:56, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

There is, actually. [3] Andre🚐 02:19, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

When you start pulling out articles from substack to validate your point, I have to question the reliability of your sources. It may make for interesting reading but quick research shows even Nate Silver had a problem with the author of the article and I’m not seeing substack on the list of WP:RSP so as far as rebuttals go, it’s a bit lacking. 71.190.233.44 (talk) 14:07, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Nope. The article was written by expert G. Elliott Morris who runs The Economist's polling model and it is an acceptable WP:SELFPUBLISHED article. The NY Mag article serves to further reinforce the point. Substack isn't a media outlet, it's a blog/newsletter platform and this would be an expert self-published article. Andre🚐 15:23, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

I understand who the author is and again, I also saw where Nate Silver had problems with his methodology and self published doesn’t meet the WP:RSP requirements - substack is not on that list. 71.190.233.44 (talk) 13:42, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

You are incorrect. As I linked to, Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. Nate Silver's view does not invalidate the fact that Morris has been published as an expert in the Economist, which is a reliable source, and has his own books on the subject, so this would fall under the self-published exception. As mentioned, substack is not an outlet, it's a blog platform. So again, your understanding of the policy at play here is not accurate. Andre🚐 14:04, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

OP, I'm not one who favours putting popularity numbers in the bios of incumbent office holders. Such polling is only relevant on the day the individual is either re-elected or defeated. For all we know, Biden might have an 80% approval rating by November 2024. GoodDay (talk) 02:45, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Agreed; no reason whatsoever to put the popularity in lead. We should avoid coloring readers' opinion of the subject; and let the subject's actions and words do the talking. DFlhb (talk) 06:17, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

I added approval ratings at the bottom of the "Reputation" subsection, sourced to Gallup. I thought the absence of ratings was strange; other presidents' approval ratings and/or popularity are right in the lead and quite deeply developed in the body. See Donald Trump, Barack Obama, George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George H. W. Bush, etc. YoPienso (talk) 04:57, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

It's not strictly true that 9/11 was a military action, so that's a weakness of my addition. Still, the military response was swift--just under a month later. Anyway, that may need to be changed. YoPienso (talk) 05:02, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

You might get agreement to add approval ratings if they were higher. TFD (talk) 16:04, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Or they might get the same response let's wait till his terms are over (like all hose other examples), so we can see his overall rating. Rather than taking snap shots that will change. Slatersteven (talk) 16:12, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

And this shows [[4]] it is higher than it was in October, that does not seem to me to show it is still falling. So why not use these figures? Slatersteven (talk) 16:19, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

I can't tell if TFD's comment is an attempt at humor or what.

Slatersteven, I request that you restore my edit. Mid-term is a good time to include a brief summary of how it's going. It's written from an entirely NPOV.

My reply to objections by fellow editors:

• Rexxx7777's entire list of sources is dismissed because a few are on the yellow list, while most are green. Many other RSs about Biden's (un)popularity exist; here are a few:

• The WaPo, Aug. 18, 2021, Oct. 18, 2021, Feb. 22, 2022 The fact that two of these are opinion and one is analysis in no way means they aren't reliable sources since they're based on solid polls referenced in the pieces. We can ignore the columnists' poll-based conclusions and use the facts they reference. It's significant that the WaPo--the newspaper of record in the US capital city--gives considerable space to Olsen's and Bump's views.
• Pew, Oct. 20, 2022
• Reuters, Nov. 16, 2022
• CNBC, Nov. 22, 2022

• Cullen238 asked if sources say "Biden is considered unpopular by the general public" or if that's Rexxx7777's synthesis. Clearly the sources say that.
• You said, "We would also need a range, showing how it has risen and fallen." My edit included a range, and was sourced to graphs that show the general decline on a timeline. You suggest including the bump Biden got from the mid-terms: "And this shows 4 it is higher than it was in October, that does not seem to me to show it is still falling. So why not use these figures?" I think it's better to show a general plotline rather than record every up and down, but if you want to add that, it's fine with me.

Here's my own question/request: Were Trump's popularity ratings included in his BLP before he left office? I'm almost sure they were, but I don't know how to navigate the history of the article except by laboriously clicking through the edits 500 at a time. If anyone can find the Trump BLP from Nov. 25, 2018, please share the link so we can compare. Ditto for any other recent presidential bios. Thanks. YoPienso (talk) 17:24, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Don't care about another article. WP:OTHERCONTENT I don’t think popularity numbers should be provided for elected officials until end of a term. For example, three months before the end of Giuliani’s eight years as mayor, his approval was around 28%. That was just before 9/11. Three months later it was 79%. In 2018, back down to 32%. I think that would be of value in his article as well as his final approval, now – but not at that time. Besides, polls disagree. Also, these numbers change constantly and we shouldn’t be updating a number constantly. That’s what 538 is for, not an encyclopedia. WP:10YT. WP:RECENTISM O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:10, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Yopienso, see the "Approval ratings" section in Donald Trump's article for November 25, 2018.[5] TFD (talk) 21:57, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! PrimeHunter at the help desk just told me how to find it. YoPienso (talk) 22:07, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

O3000, Ret., if that's how the Obama and Trump BLPs were handled, I agree. However, I doubt that's the case. Can you find the Nov. 15, 2018 version of the Trump article? YoPienso (talk) 20:44, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

WP:OTHERCONTENT O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:11, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Yep, here we go: Mid-term approval ratings for Trump and Obama.

WP:OTHERCONTENT is just an essay, not a policy or even a guideline. We typically include approval ratings during a POTUS's administration. There's no precedent for waiting until the end of his term. YoPienso (talk) 22:08, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

WP:MEANING Essays are highly useful. This essay (Arguments to avoid on discussion pages) has been around for eleven years and is often used in such discussions -- particularly in edits about politics and BLPs. As for typical inclusion of approval ratings during a POTUS's administration, where do you see this typicality? O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:35, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm quite familiar with the other-stuff-exists essays. I don't understand how WP:MEANING fits into this discussion, though.

Typicality? I posted links to the two most recent presidents' bios that show by mid-term (and I have little doubt sooner) we had included their approval ratings. Right now I'm too busy to check out the bios of POTUSes of the last 50 yrs., but at some point I can do that. The most telling ones will be the bios of POTUSes elected after the advent of Wikipedia. YoPienso (talk) 23:19, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

The bottom line is that it doesn't matter whether there is a precedent. It matters whether there is a consensus of editors that Biden's approval ratings should be given much discussion. Consistency is not a requirement. I don't have any significant objection to the meaning of the text that I read in the article. However, I do think that it doesn't add much. The most significant thing about Biden's approval rating is how insignificant it is, at this point in his presidency. Urges to draw comparison to other presidents within the modern era is still short-termism and original. What we need to do is wait until reliable sources write about it and write what they write. Andre🚐 23:24, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, there is nothing unusual about Bden's current rating. The linked, old Trump article page stated it was a record low. I still wouldn't have included it, personally. O3000, Ret. (talk) 23:43, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Nor would I if I had picked up on it. But in order to be fair I would support "Presidential approval polls taken during the first ten months of Bidens's term have shown him to be the least popular U.S. president in the history of modern opinion polls. Biden is the only elected president who did not place first on Gallup's poll of men Americans most admired in his first year in office, coming in second behind Barack Obama", as long as it is sourced. Slatersteven (talk) 12:34, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

And by that measure, early on Hitler had extremely high popularity, even outside of Germany. (No, this is not Godwin.) I'd rather see ratings at the end. O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:03, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Slatersteven, I appreciate and share your desire to be fair, which, as one of the five pillars, is foundational policy.

George W. Bush was inaugurated on January 20, 2001, just five days after Wikipedia's public debut. By the end of 2002, approval polls were mentioned. We had a popularity section by 2003. (I didn't take the time to find the earliest appearances of these issues.) This is comparable to how public opinion was included in the Obama and Trump bios during their first terms in office.
In my view, failing to include polls on Biden at this point in his presidency is out of whack with what we do at Wikipedia. It opens us up to criticism about a perceived protectionist bias.
Once again, @Slatersteven:, I request that you restore my edit that you reverted. Thanks for engaging here. YoPienso (talk) 17:52, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

I note that the George Bush article talks about historical significance, it is not just about poll ratings. As I said as long as it can be shown these numbers for Biden are " the highest approval ratings in history." or "the lowest" no problem. Slatersteven (talk) 18:01, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

I wouldn't go back to the birth of WP to look for examples of how to write an article. An enormous amount of wisdom has accumulated in the last two decades. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:07, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:When to use or avoid "other stuff exists" arguments: "When used correctly, these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes....This essay is not a standard reply that can be hurled against anyone you disagree with who has made a reference to how something is done somewhere else....Non-fiction literature, such as an encyclopedia, is expected to be internally consistent. As such, arguing in favor of consistency among Wikipedia articles is not inherently wrong–it is to be preferred. Only when the precedent is itself in conflict with policy, guidelines or common sense is it wrong to argue that the precedent should be followed elsewhere."

So OTHERSTUFF says the exact opposite of what some editors claim and they also ignore the advice not use it as a standard reply.

TFD (talk) 18:20, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Well, no it is not the exact opposite -- unless you just use the text about overuse out of context and ignore the purpose of OTHERSTUFF. And, this is NOT "a standard reply hurled against anyone you disagree with". WP:AGF It is on point. Look, the effect of a president can take decades for historians to sort out. Nixon was highly popular. Then he resigned after the incredibly embarrassing tapes came out and he was destined for impeachment. After some time, it turns out he was a very effective president in many ways. If we were writing an article in his last days in office, the main source would be WaPo. And, it would be correct at that point. But, it would have no historical view. A seriously flawed human who did some good stuff. That's what WP:10YT is about. Biden is only in his first two years. Frankly, including polls in the first half of a first term makes no sense for any president, unless, perhaps, it is a record breaking incident. I don't even think that makes sense. An encyclopedia must exhibit patience. Better correct than quick. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:38, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Articles for presidents have always had information about their polling while they were president. Your argument that opinions of Biden will change over time is not persuasive, because they will continue to change as society and its values evolve. Nixon actually was never highly popular except when he (falsely) said he was ending the war quickly. He was very unpopular by the time he resigned, by which time he had a 24% approval rating.

Bill Clinton OTOH increased in popularity as he faced impeachment. In both cases, their relative popularity was important information. It showed how the public viewed the accusations against them, and the chances they would be removed from office. Even years later, it is useful to know how popular they were when in office, even if history later reassesses them. TFD (talk) 20:01, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it absolutely is important to document if there have been large changes in popularity over time. Once a term has ended, and updated later if there are large changes or summaries by historians. Not during the term where there is less of an understanding of the term. Giuliani's popularity in NYC skyrocketed from 28% shortly after 9/11. Then slowly dropped as it came out he was in such a hurry to clean up he was telling workers to stop using masks against CDC recommendations. Decades later people are still dying. This is an encyclopedia, not a polling site. Add to that, polling seems to be dropping in accuracy. I don't think we will change our minds on this. O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:27, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

This kind of poll is more or less complete nonsense and of no consequence. They get disseminated because they can be reported as "news", particularly by content-hungry broadcast media, after they have told stories about airport delays, hurricanes, and lines at the mall. They should be included when there is substantial encyclopedic content in the report, not when it's play-by-play or empty trendline comparisons. Can we find some analysis by political scientists or polling experts who discuss and characterize import of the numbers? SPECIFICO talk 20:39, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

What kind of poll? The Gallup Poll? YoPienso (talk) 20:45, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Please see the ones referenced in the discussion above. SPECIFICO talk 20:51, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

My edit that Slatersteven reverted, and that I'm requesting he restore, was sourced only to Gallup. YoPienso (talk) 21:00, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Why have an article at all? Cabinet documents are closed to the public and many of the effects of his policies won't be known for decades. How the economy will perform or when covid will end are affected by his policies but the outcome is unknown. It seems we can always find a reason to exclude negative information from this article, which is the exact opposite of our approach in the article about the last (and possibly next) president from the other party. TFD (talk) 23:47, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

It's not negative, it's vacuous. That's why we need expert sources, not pollsters, pundits, and prognosticators. Please find some substantial discussion of his polling and its significance. It would certainly appear remarkable that his numbers briefly rivalled Trumps. There needs to be expert contextualization of this if it's the case that experts find it significant or explanaory of something significant. SPECIFICO talk 00:14, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, one could get the impression that putting something 'negative' in this BLP, faces the same difficultly of putting something 'positive' in Trump's BLP. GoodDay (talk) 00:29, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

I thought this was settled. We wait until Biden leaves office. GoodDay (talk) 23:44, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Why not delete the article and re-write it once he leaves office? TFD (talk) 00:09, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, I was opposed to adding the polling numbers to Trump's page, when Trump was in office. GoodDay (talk) 00:25, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Well, fortunately, you didn't gain consensus there, and I hope you don't here. This is clear bias and cherry-picking--strictly prohibited by both the spirit and the letter of Wikipedia--as pointed out in TFD's last 3 comments. YoPienso (talk) 00:53, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

I suppose, if it was (I can't remember) added to Trump's page while he was in office. Then precedent would recommend it be added to Biden's page while he's in office. GoodDay (talk) 00:59, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Nov. 25, 2018

I imagine it was there earlier, but yesterday I searched the archives and posted on this page what Trump's article had about approval ratings at the same point in his presidency that Biden was at yesterday. YoPienso (talk) 01:29, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

• Well , isn't this discussion deteriorating. Keep in mind that this is an encyclopedia. We should not be including polling data without explanation. WP:NOTNEWS WP:NOTSTATS And, in no way do I think we should add the obvious explanations: The unprecedented two year behavior of an ex-president claiming the current was not validly elected supported by Fox, right-wing sources, and 299 election deniers that just ran for office, believed by two-thirds of Republicans. When has an ex-president ever acted like this in American history? Covid disinformation (including deadly hate messaging against Asians resulting in many deaths). Claims that Democrats sacrifice children and drink their blood believed by an amazing number of Republicans. An insurrection that some members of Congress said didn’t occur, and others claim was antifa, and others claim was a patriotic movement and want the FBI defunded or investigated for its “treatment of political prisoners”. Belief that Biden policies increased inflation pushed by Fox and other right-wing sources despite the fact that inflation is worldwide and companies with higher prices are making record profits and US energy companies are refusing to pump more oil. A destabilizing invasion of Ukraine, supported by the most viewed Fox personality. Keep in mind that we are an encyclopedia. Let us not publish any of what I just stated or the resulting day-to-day polls until the dust has settled. Unlike a newspaper, there is WP:NODEADLINE We do not need to "scoop" any competition. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:54, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

  Well now that you've gone to babbling about Hitler and Trump, I've decided to reinsert my little bit about Biden's approval rating.

  On the one hand, TFD and I think it's a no-brainer to include approval ratings while a POTUS is still in office.

  Slatersteven (who reverted it) seems to be on the fence.

  Specifico is off-topic and hasn't followed the discussion.

  You (O3000, Ret.) are opposed, apparently because you don't like it. (WP:IDL)

  I've followed the precedents set in the only other BLPs of POTUSes (Bush, Obama, and Trump) who were in office after Wikipedia was launched. I've worded it neutrally and sourced it reliably.

  Do I see a consensus? No--neither for deleting nor for restoring. Let's hope one emerges. YoPienso (talk) 05:48, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

  I removed it because we appear to be still discussing it and I find Objective3000's argument quite persuasive as well as those from Slatersteven and SPECIFICO. Andre🚐 06:02, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

  How about an RfC? YoPienso (talk) 07:32, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

• Biden's approval ratings are mentioned in Joe_Biden#2021 and Joe_Biden#2022. The question is whether to keep mentions of his approval rating as-is, or group them together in their own section.

I'd support the latter. Mention major inflection points in his popularity, and what the most credible sources attribute the inflections to. We should ideally solely rely on Gallup and the 538 weighted average, both of which are highly reputable and have long been cited in peer-reviewed papers.

None of this belongs in Joe Biden#Reputation; that's for long-term stuff. Nor should we try to assess his "lasting image". We can't do that until he leaves office. We should obviously also stay away from WP:SYNTH like Biden is considered unpopular by the general public; please mention specific numbers, avoid paraphrase and WP:OR.

A head of state's approval rating is a crucial piece of information for foreigners like me. It might be obvious to you that Biden is leading a highly polarized country; it's not obvious to anyone unfamiliar with American politics. And arguments based on WP:10YT, which I usually side with, miss the mark here: even if Biden becomes extremely popular in the future, his low early approval will still be relevant.

Objective3000's arguments above are unconvincing. The idea that his low approval is caused by misinformation is an oft-repeated Democratic Party (i.e., partisan) talking point; that simply isn't a valid argument for or against inclusion. If credible sources make that case, then it deserves mention, as I wrote above ([mention] what the most credible sources attribute the inflections to).

Given that Biden's popularity was discussed by scholars and other highly-credible sources, there's no case against inclusion:

• Whiteley, Paul; Clarke, Harold. "Persistent inflation seriously threatens the Democrats' chances of controlling Congress in the 2022 midterm elections". London School of Economics. Retrieved 2022-11-27. (Whiteley is a scholar)
• Jacobs, Nicholas F. and Milkis, Sidney M. "Get Out of the Way: Joe Biden, the U.S. Congress, and Executive-Centered Partisanship During the President’s First Year in Office" The Forum, vol. 19, no. 4, 2021, pp. 709-744. https://doi.org/10.1515/for-2022-2041
• Allsop, Jon. "The siloed media narratives around Biden and Trump". Columbia Journalism Review. Retrieved 2022-11-27.
• Lindsay, James M. "A Midterm Election Update". Council on Foreign Relations. Retrieved 2022-11-27.. Lindsay is a credible expert who's published in peer-reviewed journals.
• Norpoth, Helmut; Pechenkina, Yulia. "Biden is struggling to please both the progressive voters and the Trump haters who helped elect him". London School of Economics. Retrieved 2022-11-27. — Norpoth is a political scientist
• Owens, John E. (September 2022). "Waiting for the Fall? Joe Biden and the 2022 US Midterm Elections". Political Insight. 13 (3): 26–29. doi:10.1177/20419058221127469. ISSN 2041-9058. — a published scholar
• Norman, Julie. "One year into his presidency, Biden is down but not out". London School of Economics. Retrieved 2022-11-27. — another political scientist

I'll note that Biden's middling popularity directly influences his ability to pass significant reforms, and to make good on his promises; that seems very relevant to his bio. DFlhb (talk) 11:05, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

I disagree that those are sources reflect expert mainstream thinking. And the polls are certainly not constraining his actions. SPECIFICO talk 11:18, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Whatever you think, those sources do reflect expert mainstream thinking.

But you're right that the polls aren't constraining his actions, which is weird. The NYT YoPienso (talk) 16:39, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: You have a pattern here of dismissing solid information. At 00:14, 27 November 2022, dismissing the Gallup Poll, you wrote, ". . . we need expert sources, not pollsters, pundits, and prognosticators. Please find some substantial discussion of his polling and its significance." So when DFlhb does exactly that, you reject them out of hand and claim they're not experts. WP:IDL much? YoPienso (talk) 17:54, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

I've left you a note on your talk page, Yopienso. SPECIFICO talk 21:02, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Then show us sources that do reflect expert mainstream thinking.

I didn't propose adding to our article that approval ratings constrain his actions. In my last sentence, the word "that" refers to "popularity". That's also a single sentence of my comment; my proposal is in my first and second paragraph, which sadly both you and O3000 seem to be ignoring. I didn't think adding a single throaway sentence would completely derail the conversation. I literally only added it so my signature would be unindented from my bullet points. DFlhb (talk) 19:13, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Peer reviewed publications by notable political scientists would be one example of such sources. The WP:BURDEN is on you to find such references, and the WP:ONUS is on you to advocate for the inclusion of any content you believe is verified by such sources. SPECIFICO talk 21:02, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

On the contrary, with narrow majorities in Congress and opposition to nearly every action, infrastructure and Medicare drug negotiation were passed, both of which multiple past presidents promised and failed to pass. Also, significant climate change legislation. Claiming his poll ratings have hampered his ability to pass major legislation or make good on his promises is not only WP:OR, but demonstrably incorrect. Look, I'm not trying to gloss over anything or make him look good. I just think we should strive for accuracy. Your statement that I am arguing against inclusion because I believe misinformation is the cause of his poll numbers is missing my point. My point was that poll numbers should not be included without an explanation. I gave examples of explanations (which I'm sure could be backed by another list of political scientists if inclusion was my goal). But, said that they should NOT be included at this time. That we must wait for the dust to settle and an agreed upon background to the poll numbers can be found looking back on his presidency. Kierkegaard said: "Life can only be understood backwards, but it must be lived forwards." In creating an encyclopedia, we must have the patience to see the entire iceberg, not just the bit above the surface. (Of course, YoPienso will say I'm "babbling".) WP:CIV O3000, Ret. (talk) 13:06, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Kierkegaard, paraphrasing Lessing, also said that man can only seek truth, but only God can know it. According to legend, when Henry Kissinger asked the Chinese premier Chou En Lai in the early 1970s about the influence of the French Revolution of 1789, he was reported to have said, "It's too early to say." We will never have perfect information and the best we can provide is what has been reported in reliable sources and is available today. Weight requires that articles "represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources." It doesn't say that we have to first examine those opinions to determine if they are correct. TFD (talk) 14:03, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Actually, Zhou Enlai was referring to the more recent French students' revolts in 1968. And a poll really isn’t all reliable viewpoints as I listed a bunch that are not included and I’m against including as I don’t think any of this belongs at this moment in time. I said nothing about perfection. I said nothing about us examining opinions to see if they are correct. It is another editor above who drew a conclusion about popularity hampering reforms. A poor inference that can be made through incomplete data demonstrating the danger of including data without context. And I am not talking about waiting a century. Just end of the first term to see what an ever-changing number means after further study reported by reliable sources given better available context. This isn’t a newspaper that publishes daily info. O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:01, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes am aware that Chou's comments were merely legendary, which is what I prefaced my words, "According to legend."

Suppose we take your advice and leave out his popularity until it improves, which you expect will happen after his term ends. But the article would then say something like, "although Biden's popularity declined and remained low for the remainder of his term, it improved once he was gone." We will not be able to say it had improved unless we admit it once was low. But why not put in what we know and what is acknowledged in reliable sources as significant and add the bit about his improving numbers once they occur? TFD (talk) 20:56, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Do not tell me what I expect. I have no idea what will happen over the next two years. And the recent election belies the poll numbers. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:25, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

You wrote, "these numbers change constantly." [20:10, 25 November 2022] Now you are saying you have no idea what will happen. This discussion would move faster if you remained consistent in your claims. TFD (talk) 02:46, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

What? The numbers do change constantly. Look at 538. I have no idea how they will change. I certainly know they will change. How on Earth do you think I am being inconsistent? O3000, Ret. (talk) 02:59, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Claiming his poll ratings have hampered his ability to pass major legislation or make good on his promises is not only WP:OR, but demonstrably incorrect

Come on. It's not WP:OR because I don't support adding that to the article. I said the polling was relevant to his bio. And why focus on a single sentence of my comment? It's utterly besides the point.

My point was that poll numbers should not be included without an explanation: I hope you didn't miss when I said: "[mention] what the most credible sources attribute the inflections to". I said it twice! DFlhb (talk) 18:52, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

I mentioned it because it is an excellent example of how data without context can lead to invalid conclusions. Your conclusion was quite off the mark. We just witnessed an election where a huge red wave was predicted based on polls. Those predictions were also way off the mark. The reasons for this could be many -- but the puzzle has yet to be unraveled. Why add a data item (changing daily) that leads to incorrect conclusions before proper post analysis by reliable sources? O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:43, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

IOW if we tell readers that Biden is unpopular, they may form incorrect conclusions. But that's just a risk of providing information to people. There is no policy that says the public should be protected against coming to incorrect conclusions. TFD (talk) 20:59, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

That is a strawperson argument. An encyclopedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, statistics, or current events. We need informed, expert analysis reviewed by credible peers. Then we'll know how to frame any such information when it is included in the article text. We certainly do not and must not add information framed in such a way that a large proportion of our readers are likely to misconstrue it or use it to arrive a dubious conclusions contrary to informed thinking. The possibility that several of our relatively well-informed editors appear to have done so is all the more reason to proceed with caution. SPECIFICO talk 21:12, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

DFlhb, thanks to a comment by Slatersteven, I concluded the approval ratings while still in office are better included in Presidency of Joe Biden than in this full bio. Could you agree with that? YoPienso (talk) 19:57, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry I worded my comment wrong, which I clearly did because nobody 'got' it; that's on me. My main point was that we already mention his approval rating here, which doesn't seem contentious; the additions are (I still dedicated half my comment to arguing the current mentions are due). It's a question of whether it belongs in its own section or should stay where it is. It just makes more sense to me that it be in its own section. It can still be just a few sentences; but it makes for a more coherent structure to have its own subsection. DFlhb (talk) 21:05, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

DFlhb, If I were writing this bio alone, I would likely have a subsection about Biden's approval ratings, following the line of thinking you and I share with TFD. However, since others oppose the idea, it's fine with me, as I've mentioned here now more than once, to leave that information in the separate Presidency of Joe Biden article. While I agree that the objections give the appearance of biased attempts to protect Biden's reputation, that will eventually sort out. Meanwhile, the other article publishes the information that's rejected here.

But think about it: This article is supposed to be a biography of Biden's entire life. He's been POTUS for only 2/80s of his life. The other article, in contrast, is designed to cover exclusively these past two years. (So far, that is; of course it will extend to four or possibly eight years.) It does make sense--and follows policy--to keep this article focused as a summary of the man's life as a whole. I've worked on other presidential articles where people wanted to cram everything into the main bio, but a lot of that stuff really belonged in the spin-offs. YoPienso (talk) 21:27, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Since 'approval ratings' were added to Trump BLP during his term? Then I've no objection to adding the 'approval ratings' to Biden's BLP. GoodDay (talk) 22:44, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

@DFlhb are you from the US? we just had the election, so all of these articles, peer-reviewed, reputable academics or no, are very out of date if you look at what actually happened versus these articles from July. These are seriously out of date now. Andre🚐 03:22, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

They are out of date for today's approval rating. Not for previous inflection points which they comment on, which is what we would be using them for. And I'm foreign but obviously know about the midterms (and about Manchin, and Sinema, whose decision to torpedo parts of Biden's agenda was most certainly impacted by his poll numbers in their states, despite what some here think). DFlhb (talk) 05:15, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Nope, they're out of date period. They make claims and predictions that turned out not to be accurate. Your claim that Manchin and Sinema in any way considered poll numbers is original research. And in fact it's the opposite. Manchin and Sinema are the reason why Biden's poll numbers go down. Andre🚐 05:26, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Predictions and analyses are different. We're not dummies, we can do the same thing as for every other Wikipedia article; we mention what the sources say that's relevant, and ignore what's not. And obviously Manchin's position was influenced by polling in his deeply red state; though you're right that this likely also lowered Biden's approvals (that's WP:OR too! I might bring out the champagne when people stop bringing up OR for things I never proposed adding to articles. Mind re-reading the last paragraph of the lead of WP:OR? Cheers) DFlhb (talk) 06:40, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

These sources are all hopelessly out of date. The entire political world has shifted due to the midterm elections. Did you even read the sources? "Waiting for the Fall? Joe Biden and the 2022 US Midterm Elections"? Persistent inflation seriously threatens the Democrats’ chances of controlling Congress in the 2022 midterm elections "The 2022 midterms are important because they will determine if ‘gridlock politics’ returns with the Republicans regaining control of the House of Representatives and possibly the Senate as well. In turn, Republican majorities in one or both Houses of Congress would put paid hopes Democrats entertain of passing President Biden’s continuing ‘Build Back Better’ legislative agenda." ... these takes are already flawed. It does appear the Republicans will take by the house: by a number of Republicans smaller than voted for the infrastructure bill.[6] (13) Dems will add a Senate seat, which means one less of Manchin or Sinema to worry about. The entire calculus has changed. Despite low approvals, Biden outperformed in the midterms and he still has a path to pass an agenda. We'll have to wait for the articles to catch up to the reality because the pundit narrative was off on this one. Andre🚐 06:57, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

As you'll see in my original comment, I only brought those sources up to prove that Biden's approval rating is treated as a valuable metric by scholars (not pundits), in order to dispute your earlier point that it's insignificant. I did not propose we include anything from them in this article. DFlhb (talk) 07:05, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Thus far, it's insignificant, but I expect that to change in the future as time goes on. My point is that the sources and the narrative and the relative significance are likely to change. Andre🚐 07:25, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

@Yopienso: if you want to begin an RFC? then so be it. GoodDay (talk) 21:15, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. I'm now content to leave this info to the Presidency of Joe Biden article. YoPienso (talk) 21:18, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Oh, you are? OK, then, so why the sections below? Andre🚐 03:27, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

I was laboring under the naive delusion that we were all working together to improve the article and that by collegially discussing our views we could reach an agreement.

I was imagining fellow editors would thoughfully read my comments, even though I've been around long enough to know most Wikipedeans skim through other people's words.

Realizing the views of some of us had shifted, I thought it would be good to see where we stood at the moment.

Instead, I found resistance, complaining, and criticism. I should have expected that, but I'm always surprised when Lucy snatches away the football. YoPienso (talk) 05:36, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

You repeatedly tried to add a new section about approval ratings to the article. It was reverted. You literally made a section called "complaints." That is not how "Wikipedeans" do it here. You can propose a change or discuss a change and then if you fail to obtain consensus for your idea, you should drop it. Instead you're creating new sections with a pseudo-RFC and trying to have your way. There's no consensus to add more about Biden's approval ratings. WP:DROPTHESTICK Andre🚐 05:45, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Consensus on approval ratings

Several of us are willing to see things differently than we did initially. Without making a formal RfC, can the involved editors come to a consensus here? Choices and reasons:

1. Add an approval rating subsection to this article.

Yes

• Consistency: all the BLPs of POTUSes (Bush, Obama, and Trump) who were in office after Wikipedia was launched had approval ratings by mid-term or earlier. Diff with links
• General readers coming to WP to read about Biden expect an up-to-date article. "Editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information within its coverage, and to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events." Policy: WP:NOTNEWS

No

• It's misleading to report current approval ratings since they're subject to change and may not pass the 10-year test. Essay: WP:10YT
• Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Policy: WP:NOTNEWS   Essay: WP:NOTNP

2. A separate subsection on approval ratings should appear only on the Presidency of Joe Biden page.

Yes, to avoid too much detail here: this article covers Biden's entire life; the other is specific to his presidency.

No It hides negative information from the reading public who, despite hatnotes, won't quickly realize there's a dedicated article on Biden's presidency.

3. The middle way: a small subsection here on Biden's approval ratings and more in-depth coverage at the presidency article

What can we agree on? YoPienso (talk) 23:40, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Responses

[I failed to open a place for responses, so am taking the liberty of moving GoodDay's here. They were responding to Yes under the first choice. YoPienso (talk) 00:00, 28 November 2022 (UTC)]

I've no objections, as the approval ratings were added to Donald Trump's BLP, during the Trump administration. GoodDay (talk) 23:54, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Quoting myself from a discussion above, DFlhb, thanks to a comment by Slatersteven, I concluded the approval ratings while still in office are better included in Presidency of Joe Biden than in this full bio. Could you agree with that? YoPienso (talk) 19:57, 27 November 2022 (UTC) YoPienso (talk) 03:48, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

• We've spread out mentions of his approval rating throughout this article, and it makes less sense than putting it in its own section, therefore I support 1.

We should make sure the subsection here is well-sourced, avoid covering partisan commentary/op-eds, and also avoid nonsensical sweeping statements like With his immensely low approval ratings, Biden is unpopular in the public eye which would obliterate WP:NPOV. I also see zero policy basis for why only peer-reviewed scholarship would be appropriate; op-eds wouldn't be, but most coverage of his approval rating is from WP:RS in news articles/analyses.

I do think consistency with previous presidents is good; and I'll reiterate my point that approval ratings are useful for foreigners who may have no clue about American politics; case in point, the French and German translations of this article both include an Approval ratings subsection. Doesn't dictate what we do, but it IMO shows that foreigners find it to be important context to understand Biden and his role in American politics.

Finally, approval polling very clearly passes the WP:10YT, since it still has dedicated subsections in Obama, Trump, GWB, and Bill Clinton's articles. I'll note that the latter two, the only WP:Good articles of the bunch, both have very extensive Approvals subsections. No, approval ratings are not just relevant during elections; and no, they have nothing whatsoever to do with election forecasting, since "lesser evil" voting tactics are prevalent; they have to do with how a President's actions are perceived by his constituents. Polling happens to be a scientific discipline, and scholars treat it as perfectly credible. I'll note that, just like with the previous President, dismissiveness of approval polling's relevance or accuracy is a frequent Biden admin talking point, which lowers that argument's credibility. DFlhb (talk) 06:25, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose 1, see discussion below. Andre🚐 06:31, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Complaints

[I'm opening this to make a place for complaints lodged under "Responses" by Specifico and O3000, Ret. I'll respond to them below their posts. All editors are welcome to complain here, but let's reserve "Responses" for good-faith attempts to form a consensus. Thanks. YoPienso (talk) 02:27, 28 November 2022 (UTC)]]

There is no consensus to include it, let alone what text and sourcing would be included, so it's premature to raise a poll. I think your best path would be to leave the thread open and see whether any new editors join the discussion and bring more convincing arguments for inclusion. Also, when posing a poll question, it's generally not a good idea for one of the involved editors to provide a summary of the various views of other editors. SPECIFICO talk 01:12, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Poorly formed ignoring points made by those disagreeing with the involved (and at times abrasive) editor creating this poll, as if WP was poll driven anyhow. Should be withdrawn. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:34, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: @Objective3000:

1. This is not a poll. This is not an RfC.
2. My idea was to help form a consensus, being fully aware one doesn't exist at this moment. The discussion has been so lengthy I think it would help to regroup and have each editor voice their opinion clearly and briefly in one spot. At least 3 of us--Slatersteven, GoodDay, and myself--now have somewhat different views than we started out with. My idea was to have one compact summary of our present views and from there to see how we can agree on what to include/exclude in this article.
3. If I can't state an argument, I don't understand it. Where I've misunderstood arguments for or against including an approval rating subsection in the article or inadvertently left out important points, please correct me. One way you could do that is in your own comments by writing, for example, "We shouldn't have a separate subsection for approval ratings because ___________________."
4. If you're interested in forming a consensus, please comment in the "Response" subsection.
5. If you're not interested in forming a consensus, well . . . WP:CONS. But I assume you do want to not only form a consensus on this minor issue, but work collegially with me.
6. O3000, Ret., I'm sorry I said you were babbling. I was referring to what still seem to me like off-topic and unhelpful comments about Hitler and Trump. YoPienso (talk) 02:56, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

I broadly agree with Objective3000 and SPECIFICO. Editor trying to force through a change that isn't supported by a consensus. I don't see why we should try to summarize the polling numbers of Biden's 1st term yet, since they are unremarkable so far. The biggest story right now as of November 2022 and likely into the future in polling, sources such as RealClearPolitics, Trafalgar Group, et al. missed the fact that there wasn't a red wave in the 2022 election despite the historical trends/conventional wisdom - Rs will gain a single-digit number of seats in the house, and lost Senate seat. A nationwide repudation of Trumpism and a strong mandate for Bidenism. Some pollsters had Patty Murray losing or up by low-single digits - she won by a landslide, along with Tina Kotek, and Josh Shapiro, and Gretchen Whitmer. Some pollsters thought that Kathy Hochul was in danger, despite competitive maps in NY being a bright spot for Rs. Many pollsters had all of Fetterman, Kelly, Masto, Hobbs losing. Democrats defended most of their lean-tossups like Spanberger, Sherrill, Mrvan, Peltola, won the majority of tossups, and even picked off a few upset seats including nearly a hairline finish going to recount for Frisch-Boebert.

At this time in Trump's term, his low polling and general unpopularity were a huge story. Trump came out of the gate being uniquely Trumpy and consistency is not, and has never been a requirement. If anything, the Biden story is shaping up to be something more akin to: how his polls belied the fact that he's relatively popular and doing a relatively well-regarded job despite all the hand-wringing, with the best performance in a midterm since the 1930s despite a lagging economy, so his approval polls are probably missing something, or people are reluctant to admit that they will hold their nose and vote Democrat anyway. If you can find a way to write in the article when the history is written about this time, I'll support it. It's a huge and compelling and historically significant and interesting story.Andre🚐 03:00, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Why do you say I'm trying to force through a change? I guess I should go ahead and comment in the "Reponses" to put that false impression to rest. But, I am curious--and concerned--as to how I come across as trying to force a change, and would appreciate an explanation. Thanks, YoPienso (talk) 03:08, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Was this you? This is clear bias and cherry-picking--strictly prohibited by both the spirit and the letter of Wikipedia- Are you playing the ref? You know that doesn't work right? In life or in Wikipedia. Andre🚐 03:24, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes. Is this you? You are incorrect. [...] So again, your understanding of the policy at play here is not accurate. YoPienso (talk) 03:47, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

I guess some people melt if someone tells them they're wrong. YoPienso (talk) 03:50, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Huh? That's from a response to the IP editor in a different part of the conversation. Was that IP editor you as well? Andre🚐 04:01, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

I wasn't the IP editor. I'm just saying it sounds like maybe you were reffing? (By your definition.) What does it matter who it was to? I was responding to GoodDay, not to you. ???? You can tell somebody they're wrong but I can't tell somebody they're biased and cherry-picking? I'm not following what you're trying to tell me. I'm not getting where you see me trying to force anything on this page. YoPienso (talk) 04:06, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

You are alleging bias, i.e. WP:RGW and WP:ICANTHEARYOU, not arguing policy. I was explaining to the uninformed IP editor that my self-published expert source was valid under policy. Do you really think that any kind of policy argument is working the ref? You're alleging that there is some kind of bias at work - which is NOT virtuous logical argument. Andre🚐 04:10, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Unrelated to that, but generalizing from numeous comments on this page about polling, I'm seeing some conflation of two different kinds of political polling--one is the predictive polling that tries to guess who will get elected, and the other is the descriptive polling of what people think of certain people or issues.

Such a description is original research. The appropriate description would be "election forecasting." Andre🚐 04:12, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Moving this to where I intended to put it. But regarding our discussion--OMG--original research?? for a simple statement in a conversation? Yes, I was referring to election forecasting, which I described as trying to guess who will get elected. I'm referring to what you posted at 03:00, 28 November 2022, where you wrote about pollsters being wrong about an anticipated "red wave." Good thing my long weekend is almost over and I won't have time for WP. YoPienso (talk) 04:33, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Pollsters were wrong. Trafalgar and other pollsters like Insider Advantage had wrong, descriptive polls. They were outside the margin of error. RCP actually "unskewed" the polls. See before: [7] after: [8] Andre🚐 04:57, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Did you miss the several more mainstream pollsters, who had gotten things so wrong before, enjoyed a triumphantly accurate cycle part? Trafalgar has a documented pro-Republican bias. DFlhb (talk) 07:29, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Nate Cohn also hilariously dimissed the NYT Siena poll as an outlier (Sharice Davids) and it turned out to be spot-on.[9] Nate Silver still includes those polls in his average. Yes, several mainstream pollsters did a good job. That wasn't my point. Go to 538 and there's a Rasmussen poll right in the average. Andre🚐 07:32, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Your point that pollsters were wrong was incorrect, as the WP:RS you linked to says. Simple.

You are arguing against polling on the basis of your own arguments, when WP:RS disagree with you. DFlhb (talk) 07:46, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Pollsters got this one wrong. [10] Two years ago, the New York Times warned that “Trafalgar does not disclose its methods, and is considered far too shadowy by other pollsters to be taken seriously.” Undeterred, however, polling aggregator Nate Silver’s site rated them an A-. The average poll in the week before election day had Mehmet Oz beating John Fetterman by nearly 1% in Pennsylvania when in reality Fetterman beat Oz by nearly 5% The average poll had Adam Laxalt beating Catherine Cortez Masto in Nevada by 1.5% when in reality Cortez Masto is projected to win. In fact, not a single poll in the week before election day projected a Cortez Masto victory. The average poll had Herschel Walker beating Raphael Warnock in Georgia by 1% when in reality Warnock outperformed Walker by 1%; and not a single poll in the week before election day projected a Warnock victory The average poll had Maggie Hassan beating Don Bolduc in New Hampshire by only 2% when in reality Hassan soundly routed Bolduc by 15%. Two mainstream polls in the week before election day, including the seminal, admired Saint Anselm poll, even predicted Bolduc victories An updated prediction, published right before election day by the University of Virginia’s Department of Politics, noted that the Senate races in Georgia, Arizona, Nevada, and Pennsylvania remain “jump balls”. However, the nonpartisan election handicapper shifted its rating in Pennsylvania and Georgia to “leans Republican.” And it shifted its rating for four of the six state gubernatorial elections from a “toss-up” to “lean Republican.” Gallup confidently declared “The political environment for the 2022 midterm elections should work to the benefit of the Republican Party, with all national mood indicators similar to, if not worse than, what they have been in other years when the incumbent party fared poorly in midterms.” The Cook Political Report with Amy Walter, a nonpartisan handicapping service, moved 10 of its House race ratings in favor of Republicans and adjusted its predictions of GOP gains in the fall upward to between 20 and 35 seats and a sizable Republican majority in the Senate. The Siena poll found that “independents, especially women, are swinging to the G.O.P. despite Democrats’ focus on abortion rights. …The biggest shift came from women who identified as independent voters. In September, they favored Democrats by 14 points. Now, independent women backed Republicans by 18 points–a striking swing given the polarization of the American electorate and how intensely Democrats have focused on that group and on the threat Republicans pose to abortion rights.” CNN/Marist shifted to strongly favor a red wave: “The survey shifted seven percentage points toward the Republicans in a month.” Andre🚐 07:48, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

So why are you guys even talking about this kind of polling? What does it have to do with presidential approval ratings or any titled topic on this talk page? YoPienso (talk) 07:59, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Because as I said, if you want to add a sentence to the article to the effect of, "despite low approval ratings, Biden's party outperformed in the midterm elections" I could get behind that. But again, 538's Biden poll average has those same pollsters including Marist, Echelon, Harris, Rasmussen, etc that said there should have been a red wave. So I'd rather wait and see how the polling story develops before we add what was proposed about Biden's approval ratings. It's too recent. Andre🚐 08:07, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Like I said earlier, you're conflating the predictive polling on election forecasting and the descriptive polling of approval ratings. They're not the same. "Despite predictions of a 'red wave,' Democrats outperformed" isn't the same as "Despite Biden's low approval ratings, Democrats outperformed." What I added had nothing whatsoever to do with the midterm elections. By the way, I edited your most recent additions and removed the last sentence because it wasn't supported by the source. YoPienso (talk) 09:55, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Just for the record, though you weren't replying to me: I didn't see much an issue with that last sentence you removed (though it needed copyediting), just with the first one ("Biden's beat-the-odds results..."). DFlhb (talk) 10:11, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

It said, "Biden took the opportunity of Democrats' closer than expected election to renew his call for an assault weapons ban." The AP News source, "Emboldened Biden, Dems push ban on so-called assault weapons," didn't say the close election was what emboldened him. It never directly said just what emboldened him--either the new spate of mass shootings or the legislation that was passed in June and July. The only mention of the midterm elections was to point out that despite Biden's campaigning for gun control, the Democrats did well in the elections. YoPienso (talk) 12:47, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Oh, yes, you're right about the first sentence. I've fixed that now, too. YoPienso (talk) 13:09, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

I never said I wanted to leave polling out of the article. I'm saying it has to be properly described and contextualized which I attempted to do. Andre🚐 00:40, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

I'd appreciate if you could clarify: what addition do you think is being proposed, and what specifically do you oppose? It echoes your point about "ridiculously outdated" below, which I also didn't understand. Past approval ratings are set in stone; only future ratings can change. I think it's reasonable to hold off on any detailed commentary of the midterms for a bit; but surely the pre-midterm stuff is good-to-go? (as long as it's well-sourced) DFlhb (talk) 08:17, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

I opposed the addition that I reverted from Yopienso to create an "approval ratings" section. No, I do not think it is good-to-go yet. I'd like to wait and see how the polling story develops. Some preliminary discussion of the midterms would be OK. Andre🚐 08:19, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

We're talking about this diff, right? That addition is well-sourced, relies on the most-respected poll (Gallup), and is not out-of-date since it covers Biden's seventh quarter, which just ended. What's wrong with it?

Your recent addition to the article attributes the midterm results to "Biden" rather than "Democrats" (the source doesn't quite say that), and references Biden outperforming polls ("beat-the-odds"); you can't mention polls when it's positive to Biden, and ignore them when it's not. DFlhb (talk) 08:56, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Andrevan, what I added had nothing to do with the midterms. And everybody knows Biden has a low approval rating. The whole reason I added the subsection was because it seemed to me to be a glaring omission. Your NYT ref on your recent addition refers to "a not-popular Mr. Biden" and "Mr. Biden’s weak approval ratings." Whatever Wikipedia does or doesn't do with that fact, historians will be sure to develop it. YoPienso (talk) 10:08, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

As I said, if and when we add this material or this section, it will need proper context. It will need to address that Biden did well in the midterms despite his on-paper approval ratings. Andre🚐 00:42, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

An opinion article? By a management professor and a management "research director"? Really?

I can find physicists who published pieces about economics and climate change being pseudoscience. But they're not experts in those fields, so who cares? DFlhb (talk) 08:08, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

It happens to have a good list. I'm not proposing to include this in the article. All the statements I quoted above are true and can be easily independently verified. Andre🚐 08:11, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

I recommend you read this open-access peer-reviewed article by Gelman, a proper statistician, especially section 5: [11]. He distinguishes between opinion polls, which do not require forecasting voter turnout, versus election polls, which do. He says that the former has impressive accuracy, and that opinion polling, despite its limitations (low response rate, etc) is just fine for its purposes. The error rate is accurate.

Gelman cites Robert Shapiro, who explains the same point in a WaPo analysis [12]. Using midterm punditry to contest opinion polling is just confusing two separate (and very different) issues. DFlhb (talk) 08:37, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

BTW, the reason why there aren't a lot of good sources written about this yet... it's barely been more than 2 weeks! It's the middle of Thanksgiving weekend right now! Andre🚐 08:18, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

• Your comment addresses whether polls can accurate predict election results. That's iffy, due to voter suppression, disenfranchisement, and, on the other hand, methods like vote-by-mail and ballot collection that incentivize people to vote who normally don't.

Point is, polls are perfectly scientific (and overwhelmingly treated as such by scholars) when it comes to people's opinions; but when it comes to what people say they'll do, we know from Revealed preference theory that people are sometimes inaccurate at predicting their own behavior.

None of those problems apply to approval ratings at all; it's a completely separate question, which doesn't concern itself with what people will do, or how they'll vote. Just with whether they approve or disapprove, for which revealed preference theory doesn't apply. Polling is scientific, and is overwhelmingly accurate, as has been consistently pointed out by scholars during this administration and the previous one.

You bring up the midterms to explain that Biden's polls are missing something. But Biden wasn't on the ballot. Election deniers were, and Biden successfully made the election about that, rather than a referendum on him. It didn't rebuke his approval rating in any way. Expert commenters actually noted that he mostly avoided tying himself to specific candidates, except those in deeper-blue states.

Regarding the midterms, even though again Biden wasn't on the ballot: the polls were accurate (within the margin of error). As they always are. The punditry wasn't (as they... often are). See: [13] [14], and especially [15]. See also this analysis.

You're also discussing what Biden's approval ratings mean; that has no bearing on whether to include an approval rating section. That is WP:OR. We'll cover what it means based on what reliable sources say it means. If something is from a WP:RS, but is obviously inaccurate, we'll exclude it, as we always do in those cases. Approval ratings are WP:DUE, as they are for every president, since they've received significant and durable coverage. There remains zero policy-based grounding to exclude it. DFlhb (talk) 07:24, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

This is all your own editorializing. The fact remains that so-called scientific pollsters were outside the margin of error. The science of polling says that shouldn't happen. There is no policy that supports approval ratings being automatically due weight. The consensus of editors can determine whether the approval ratings are premature. Andre🚐 07:27, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

No. Scholars overwhelmingly treat approval polling as accurate, relevant, and scientific, and it is your editorializing to claim that it's not. It is also a fact that pollsters were accurate for the midterms, as my references show. You clearly didn't read them, seeing how quickly you replied. Dueness comes from significant sustained coverage over time, among both news and scholarly sources. Sure, consensus can overcome that, but you need proper arguments that aren't based in incorrect assumptions. DFlhb (talk) 07:36, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Nope. You're wrong, sir. I looked at your references. They don't say or prove what you think they do. As I have already explained, these references are already ridiculously out-of-date and should in no way be taken seriously for anything. We'll have to wait until references are updated. While many of the mainstream polls were accurate and had a good night, many were not. For example, [16] [17] 538 had Kent beating Perez 98% of the time. A pollster with an A rating from 538 had Kent by 4. Some polls were accurate. Some were very wrong. Beyond the margin of error. Andre🚐 07:46, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

YoPienso, given the current status of the discussion, repetition of the discussion is not a good use of editors time and attention. It's pointless to instruct ediors to continue that without some new sources, underlying developments, or some previously unknown new rationale for your position. SPECIFICO talk 03:05, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

This new discussion would be useless if it was purely rehashing the same points, but I don't think that's quite the case. The above discussion has been all over the place, shifting from whether approval ratings belong in the lead (I weighed in early, opposing that), to whether we should add more extensive coverage, to whether we should keep approval ratings spread out throughout the article, as they currently are, or put them in their own subsection. The problem is that the above discussion's consensus is illegible. DFlhb (talk) 05:29, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

There is clearly no consensus for the proposed change to add more material about Biden's approval ratings or create a new section for said material. The article already as you say, discussed his approval ratings in context briefly. That is sufficient. Andre🚐 05:46, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Long and winding road

May I assume this entire thread has expired. TBH, it was becoming increasingly confusing. GoodDay (talk) 06:11, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 November 2022

2603:9000:AD03:2CE5:BC5C:F6EC:C07D:2E99 (talk) 20:31, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Must add the railroad strike situation which Biden clearly claimed false Victory over.

•  Not done Please propose a specific, sourced, neutrally written text to place in the article. 331dot (talk) 20:35, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Two proposals

The first one has recent developments, so I don't believe archived discussions cover it; and I don't believe the second has been discussed before, after a cursory search of the archives. DFlhb (talk) 12:38, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

I do not think we need to have so much about his presidency, this is about him. Slatersteven (talk) 12:50, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes! Agree! I was off-track on this. The bit I wanted to insert here about approval ratings belongs in Presidency of Joe Biden, which in fact has a whole section on approval ratings and image, with an over-large graph. YoPienso (talk) 17:45, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Student loans

I think this deserves mention; seems like a significant policy. Biden promised to forgive significant amounts of student loan debt. 43% of borrowers would have their entire debt cancelled, according to the CBO. I also think we should mention that Biden's decision to do this through executive order, rather than legislation, has drawn criticism from his own party, and that experts believe this increases the risk of his plan failing.

References

Surely some of this is noteworthy? DFlhb (talk) 12:38, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Inflation

We already mention inflation in the last paragraph of Joe_Biden#2021. I think we should mention Biden's (and his Press Secretaries') frequently repeated claims that inflation is primarily caused by excess corporate greed, as well as the fact that this claim is overwhelmingly disputed by economists. Obama's top economic advisers have very strong words against this theory, with one calling it "dangerous nonsense" and another calling it "political ranting". Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen disputed it too. Many voters believe this unsupported narrative, which even Vox criticized. We should also mention that economists believe that Biden had a minor role in causing this inflation, and that the Fed played a larger role.

References

Given that inflation dominates WP:RS coverage, and is often seen as the main cause of Biden's unpopularity, it certainly seems relevant here. DFlhb (talk) 12:38, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Student loans: Maybe. Biden has personally discussed it and it's been an ongoing action of his.

Inflation: No. Certainly not a cause of putative whatever.

SPECIFICO talk 17:06, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

For inflation: exact same as above, I never proposed we speculate on his unpopularity. The only role for that throwaway sentence was to have the reflist come before my signature, not after, so it wouldn't get pushed down by replies. His comments on inflation have certainly received significant coverage, haven't they? DFlhb (talk) 20:54, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Twitter Collusion

When will the Biden campaign collusion with Twitter surrounding the Hunter Biden laptop controversy be written? Nkienzle (talk) 07:43, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done Please propose a specific, sourced, neutrally written text to place in the article. gobonobo ^{+ c} 08:01, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 December 2022

Joe Biden is a widespread loved but also hated president. He has been given nicknames such as sleepy joe and dumba**. Bigdadygrimm (talk) 16:19, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. EvergreenFir (talk) 16:22, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Prisoner exchange

The prison exchange between an WNBA player and the merchant of death should be included in the 2022 section of his presidency. Plenty of sources to site. Not sure why it’s hasn’t come up before Tentemp (talk) 20:41, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

It's definitely relevant for Presidency of Joe Biden. Why do you think that it's significant enough to include here? Given WP:RECENTISM, I think we should wait and see. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:47, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

I think it’s extremely notable and a major event in his presidency. He exchanged prisoners with Russia. There’s a war between Russia and Ukraine and the US is involved indirectly. It’s a pretty one sided trade and the Biden Administration left behind a military veteran. I think that pretty significant. But then again it does make the Biden Administration look really bad. So I know that a lot of editors are biased to the left so let’s wait and make sure it’s not too embarrassing. Tentemp (talk) 20:57, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Good grief. Tucker Carlson already claimed it was she traded instead of Whelan because she's a Black lesbian and we'll see plenty of other idiocy. Your line about a military veteran "left behind" is without evidence and your line about biased editors concerned over administration "embarrassment", as if there is any reason for this, is out of line. I agree with Muboshgu that it belongs in the presidency article. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:18, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

No plenty of reports stated he was left behind, and not from Fox News. And this is kind of what I’m talking about. If it was already stated and important why isn’t in the article. You sound very biased and not neutral. Tentemp (talk) 21:23, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/09/us/politics/brittney-griner-prisoner-swap.html Tentemp (talk) 21:24, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2022/12/08/politics/russian-prisoner-swap-brittney-griner-explainer/index.html Tentemp (talk) 21:26, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2022/12/08/joe-biden-brittney-griner-prisoner-swap-criticism-paul-whelan/10858405002/ Tentemp (talk) 21:27, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

I think we should add that a WNBA player was exchanged for the merchant of death. Tentemp (talk) 21:28, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

I suggest you not use the term "biased" against an editor again without damn good evidence. This constant refrain on related articles does not aide collaboration. As for the term "left behind", it should not be used without context. Also, although I understand the comparison of WNBA player with a weapons merchant, I'm a bit disturbed by it. She is a human (although some people have said she is disloyal as if that makes her less human). I don't care if she was a tourist, her life matters. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:55, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

I don’t care if you think she was a tourist. We should include this prison exchange. It should be noted that she is in fact a WNBA player and he was an arms deal known as the merchant of death. I also don’t care if you think I’m name calling. I think it’s perplexing that the exchange isn’t already part of Biden’s article. Tentemp (talk) 22:03, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

The fact that it isn’t looks biased. Tentemp (talk) 22:04, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

I didn't say she was a tourist. The prisoner exchange will likely end up in Presidency of Joe Biden. It may get a brief mention here when the dust settles and we have a better idea of the impact it might have on the lengthy career of Joe Biden. Please read WP:NOTNEWS WP:RECENTISM WP:NODEADLINE. It's unfortunate that you don't care about name calling. Please read WP:AGF WP:CIV. Also read WP:INDENT O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:13, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Russia considers Paul Whelan to be a spy, rightly or wrongly, and so won't give him up in a prisoner trade so easily. I'm sure you're quick to note that Trump failed to get Whelan free on his page? – Muboshgu (talk) 22:21, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it was reported that Russia insisted on release of a former colonel from Russia’s domestic spy organization currently in German custody. O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:23, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Of course, I see no reason to include the previous administration's failure to gain the release of Paul Whelan in the Donald Trump article. O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:48, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Okay so why it’s the prisoner exchange in the article Tentemp (talk) 22:44, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

O3000 please rea https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:NPOV&redirect=no Tentemp (talk) 22:53, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Tit-for-tat does not work here. I have been here 15 years and have read that article numerous times. Please read it yourself as this article is in line with NPOV. And please read the articles I suggested. For one thing, it will make this thread easier to read and will answer most of your questions. As an exercise, do you think Trump's inability to negotiate a release of Whelan important enough for his article? If so, why aren't you suggesting it on his article. That would have no problems with WP:RECENTISM. Although, I would !vote against it. Do you think this should be mentioned here? O3000, Ret. (talk) 23:03, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

If you think it should be included in trumps page go for it! It’s just perplexing that it’s not on Biden’s page. Tentemp (talk) 23:56, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

I just stated that it shouldn't. Do you even read posts before responding? O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:24, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Something like this: “On December 8th, 2022, the Biden Administration negotiated the release of WNBA start Brittney Griner, in exchange for international arms dealer known as the Merchant of death Viktor Bout. Although the Biden Administration succeeded to get Griner, they failed to exchange Paul Whelan.“

https://apnews.com/article/brittney-griner-freed-viktor-bout-swap-us-russia-ee51f5c14f35dc4d4cf21224a8e44eaa Tentemp (talk) 00:03, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

It definitely belongs in Presidency of Joe Biden. That article so far covers a period of less than two years. This article is about someone who has been around for eighty years. I'm not convinced this event fits here. HiLo48 (talk) 01:04, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

So, given your suggested text, you don't think it should be mentioned that the previous administration did not secure the release of Paul Whelan. And, you don't think any context should be a part of the addition. I don't think anyone here understands your concept of WP:NPOV. You are welcome to explain. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:24, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Lol. Wow. Proves my point. It’s part of his presidency. A major exchange surging a war. And you don’t think it belongs. Wow. Tentemp (talk) 01:10, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Of course it's part of his presidency, but why THIS article? HiLo48 (talk) 01:25, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

It’s a reputable source that is neutral. Tentemp (talk) 01:34, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

But your text is not neutral. We don't write about what does not occur. SPECIFICO talk 01:36, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

It’s a direct quote from the article Tentemp (talk) 01:50, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

What would you suggest we write? Tentemp (talk) 01:50, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Nothing, because the prisoner exchange does not belong in the biography of Joe Biden. Why? Because it is not a defining or particularly notable moment in his life, as has already been explained. If, however, his re-election somehow hinges on and is determined by this one issue that the right deems problematic right now, then it would be relevant to include here as a defining moment. It does, however, have more belonging in the article about his presidency because that article covers his presidential role, not his life. We don't need to have this same discussion here every time President Biden does something that Republicans don't like; the article would be millions of bytes in size if we did include that all. Acalamari 01:52, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Okay I’ll put this under his presidential page Tentemp (talk) 01:59, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

This does not belong in this biography of a man who was a US Senator for 36 years, vice president for eight years and has been president for a little less that two years. This is WP:RECENTISM. This content, neutrally written, belongs in Presidency of Joe Biden, which should provide detailed coverage of the events since January 20, 2021.

The "left behind" language is shockingly non-neutral and completely unacceptable. It overtly implies that Biden had an opportunity to bring Whelan home and did not take it. That is false. Putin was demanding the release of a convicted assassin in German custody. Biden does not hold the key to German prison cells. As for Griner being a "tourist", that is also ludicrous. She is a professional basketball player and was in Russia to play basketball professionally. I am frequently surprised at the silly things that people type out here on Wikipedia. Cullen328 (talk)

Umm, I didn't say she was a tourist. I said even a tourist's life matters. O3000, Ret. (talk) 03:11, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

This page or his administration's page, will do. GoodDay (talk) 02:02, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

I’ll put the prison exchange on his presidency page. Also I’m quoting the article provided. The AP article I sited. It uses the term left behind. And the fact of the matter is a WNBA player was exchanged for an international arms deal, AKA the merchant of death. The Biden Administration even acknowledged that it wasn’t the best exchange. Again the biased here is surprising. Tentemp (talk) 04:07, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

From the AP article “The deal, the second in eight months amid tensions over Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, secured the release of the most prominent American detained abroad and achieved a top goal for President Joe Biden. Yet it carried what U.S. officials conceded was a heavy price.“ Tentemp (talk) 04:09, 11 December 2022 (UTC)