Jump to content

Talk:Joe Biden

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Cawseases (talk | contribs) at 01:28, 20 May 2023 (→Corruption allegations as a major section?: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Former good articleJoe Biden was one of the Social sciences and society good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
    Article milestones
    DateProcessResult
    September 18, 2008Good article nomineeNot listed
    September 19, 2008Good article nomineeListed
    April 22, 2020Good article reassessmentDelisted
    June 28, 2020Good article reassessmentDelisted
    October 4, 2020Good article nomineeNot listed
    Current status: Delisted good article

    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 purge this page.

    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)

    Reality

    What - no observation that he was elected the the largest percentage of the eligible vote in history? He's the most popular presidential candidate ever, in all of US history. No discussion of that? He got 81 million votes, he was also elected defying the "Bellwether counties." This is an exceptionally notable president. Who could have guessed he could be elected? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.31.75.102 (talk) 13:23, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    sources? Slatersteven (talk) 13:26, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Dude, much of this article already reads more like a Biden campaign ad than a neutral encyclopedia article. It’s already mentioned how many votes he got in 2020. That also doesn’t make him the most popular president in history. His approval rating has been stuck in the low 40s since 2021. I’m not saying I support or don’t support Biden, I’m just pointing out this article lacks a lot of neutrality.Bjoh249 (talk) 18:41, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree, and I think that the 40-number has shrunk a bit in recent months. There is no criticism section, and hardly any criticism of him at all. Not a single alarmed remark about his age has even been mentioned, and none of his many misspeakings have been mentioned either. Numerous people, including Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger, have claimed that Wikipedia has a left-wing and liberal ideological bias, and this article certainly doesn't disprove him. Felixsj (talk) 13:34, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not about Wikipedia, and no this article is no more biased than many others about politicians. Slatersteven (talk) 13:42, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The fact that other articles are biased is a poor reason to not remove bias from this article.
    Special consideration ought to be given to this article, since the topic is arguably the most important politician in the entire world.
    If the article is lacking in criticism of Biden, then the pro-Biden content is in violation of WP:UNDUE.
    Sober Reasoning (talk) 17:42, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Read WP:CONTROVERSYSECTION, no article should have one. Alarmist comments about Biden's age are WP:UNDUE. Larry Sanger is quite a biased right-winger himself and he has had no involvement in the site for decades. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:06, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I wanted to point out that article should comply with Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. No criticism. The article does seem to persuasive. Cwater1 (talk) 16:57, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    What do you mean "to persuasive"? Slatersteven (talk) 16:59, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I forgot to add the word, "be" before the word, "persuasive." I didn't catch that. Correction: The article does seem to be persuasive. Cwater1 (talk) 17:09, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you mean this article is trying to persuade people of something, if so what? Slatersteven (talk) 17:11, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    In the sections for the presidency. It explains about what he done such as signing bills. Just saying. Cwater1 (talk) 03:19, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    So why would we not have this, as that is what he does, signs bills? Slatersteven (talk) 10:08, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure. Cwater1 (talk) 03:22, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Changing the voice file

    Previously discussed here. Beyond the issue of his voice, his COVID diagnosis is just not relevant. Given the files used in other U.S. president BLPs, I think our two best options here are Biden's remarks following the Ukraine invasion, and Biden's remarks calling climate change an emergency.

    For Ukraine, the speech is on C-SPAN here. We'd clip the start at 00:52, and cut at 09:41, where he starts to talk about domestic policies.

    For climate change, the speech is here. We can trim the end ("I look forward to working alongside you"). DFlhb (talk) 11:46, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Go for it. GoodDay (talk) 01:39, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Add category

    Isn’t he Category:Candidates in the 2024 United States presidential election?

     Done - Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:34, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    new article

    Amid the "cheat sheet" incident, I created the article, "Controversy over Joe Biden's competence," though I might have created it too soon, or maybe it should not exist as its own article. I think its notable on its own, but what do any of you think? Rexxx7777 (talk) 00:35, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    AfD :Finnegan Biden

    Of interest to editors here. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Finnegan Biden. Zaathras (talk) 23:26, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    "Independent" in infobox

    Is the inclusion of his party affiliation being an "independent" before 1969 relevant or helpful? I feel like it's given WP:UNDUE weight, being as visible as his Democratic Party membership even though he didn't hold any political office (not even as a councillor) until 1971. In my opinion, it would be best to remove it and instead simply keep the clarification that he's been a member of the Democratic Party "since 1969". Would anyone object to this? Loytra (talk) 10:09, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Biden was registered as independent for a time, this is covered in the "Marriages, law school, and early career (1966–1973)" section. Zaathras (talk) 12:28, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't say he wasn't. My proposal was related to whether or not it's relevant enough to include in the infobox. Loytra (talk) 13:16, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    And my reply addressed that. Zaathras (talk) 14:13, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it did not. Lol. Just because something's covered in the article doesn't mean it's significant enough to have a place in the infobox. Loytra (talk) 22:44, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "Lol", yes, it did. I am the judge of what I address. Not you. If you disagree, that's fine, but refrain from making judgements on my motivations, kindly. Zaathras (talk) 00:26, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Jesus, man. Can you maybe engage in good faith instead of making these weird, snarky replies? We're having a discussion about the Joe Biden infobox, it's not that serious. Loytra (talk) 01:38, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Then learn to deal with a differing opinion. Zaathras (talk) 01:54, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Buddy. I asked whether Biden's affiliation as an independent was significant enough to be placed in the infobox. You replied only by saying that it's explained in the article that he registered as an independent, never actually addressing my point regarding it's significance. Can you please actually engage with me in good faith on the topic I originally came here to discuss instead of whatever it is you're doing here. Loytra (talk) 02:30, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Most Americans register as Dems, Reps or Inds, but we don't put it in their info-boxes. According to Us Weekly, Jessica Simpson is a registered Republican, but it's not in her info-box. Registration as an independent merely means one can vote in either primary. It's not a declaration of loyalty.
    I'm an independent and I can't vote in either primary. That's going to be determined by the election rules set by the political parties in your state. 24.51.192.49 (talk) 17:29, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think however that there should be a policy for this.
    TFD (talk) 02:59, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it should be removed or replaced. I'd rather use a term like "none", "no party preference" (which is used in my state), or "no party affiliation". The term "none" is probably best and most descriptive. Using "independent" may be confused with the American Independent Party, a far-right political party. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:18, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If we use independent, that makes that confusion go away. But I was astounded to discover that a small number of people still register as American Independent thinking it means "independent voter". --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 18:31, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Corruption allegations as a major section?

    Should that not be just a subsection under his presidency or public profile? JMwins19 (talk) 05:30, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Allegations of corruption began well before his presidency. It is a brief but important section about him personally, as he has been characterized by many people, some notable, as the boss of the "Biden Crime Family." soibangla (talk) 05:50, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    All of those people, notable or otherwise, are his political opponents. No concrete evidence exists for the claims they are making. The allegations aren't actually part of the Joe Biden story. They belong in the articles of those making them, to show what they will say and do, and how many lies they will tell, to try to defeat Biden. HiLo48 (talk) 06:06, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it's important to briefly note that to date he has been exonerated of these widely covered allegations. Larry Sanger alleges left bias in this BLP because the Ukraine corruption allegations aren't mentioned. Well, now they are. soibangla (talk) 06:28, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    What do Sanger and Ukraine have to do with all the lies Republicans are telling? HiLo48 (talk) 07:04, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Sanger is an embarrassing part of Wikipedia's past, given his vocal opposition to women's studies, academia, and science. All things which he considers as biased and overly liberal. Dimadick (talk) 07:26, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Righto, but still nothing to do with Biden's article. HiLo48 (talk) 07:54, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    So this article *is* written by the Democratic party Cawseases (talk) 01:28, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think one line, such as "he has been accused of corruption, with no evidence being produced" would be fine. Slatersteven (talk) 08:28, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    They say in politics that throwing mud is effective if even the tiniest bit sticks. Simply mentioning unsubstantiated allegations will allow some people to think they might be true. The allegations, without evidence, add nothing to Biden's story. We should be adding to the articles of those making the false allegations that that's what they have done. HiLo48 (talk) 09:40, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No evidence? Cawseases (talk) 01:28, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Joe_Biden&oldid=1155852640"