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 201.207.239.205 (talk) at 01:07, 18 October 2023 (→‎Get rid of "moderate" label: 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)

    Health Concerns

    Shouldn't health concerns be mentioned in this article? TiltonHilton (talk) 17:18, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Why? Slatersteven (talk) 17:20, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You would first need to cite any secondary RS that demonstrates such concerns. SPECIFICO talk 18:08, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    General practice is that we don't include health concerns unless he has been diagnosed. Iamreallygoodatcheckers talk 18:10, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    But there are no such concerns cited to any RS. Fox and Newsmax are not expressing "concerns" when they feature his "health". SPECIFICO talk 18:30, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    What health concerns? GoodDay (talk) 19:09, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I see no reason to include health concerns about Biden or McConnell at this time. O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:02, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Also zero need to mention McConnell since he is a different person with different medical diagnoses (or lack thereof). —OuroborosCobra (talk) 22:04, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Obvious to us. My preemptive response was to the OP. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:11, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Who also didn’t mention McConnell, so why bother? —OuroborosCobra (talk) 02:02, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    A section for health is not needed here. If we can be persuasive, maybe, but lets leave it out for now. So far, it is not stopping the president from assuming his duties. Cwater1 (talk) 23:00, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Isn't his health discussed twice in the artice? The article says that he had brain surgery in February 1988 and COVID 19 on July 21, 2022. What other health concerns are reported by reliable sources?JeremiahJohnson (talk) 08:22, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Found these, Joe_Biden#Brain_surgeries and Joe_Biden#COVID-19_diagnosis. Cwater1 (talk) 14:47, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    What about mention of Biden being diagnosed earlier this year with "significant spinal arthritis" by the White House physician? That has led to him using the shorter steps in the belly of Air Force One, and now wearing tennis shoes when using the stairs. TiltonHilton (talk) 20:48, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I see a great deal of exaggeration about this in non reliable sources. Yes, he has significant spinal arthritis, which is not surprising. The tennis shoes may be because he had a foot fracture. I didn't see them related to his arthritis. Hard to see how this is WP:DUE. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:00, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    A comment from a non-American, based on observations of similar campaigns in other places and at other times. "Health concerns" is a misleading euphemism. Those raising the matter are not concerned about Biden's health, not in a positive way anyway. They are political opponents who are hoping that they can convince possible Biden supporters that he is too old/frail/ill/unsuited to the job. This approach is not unique to Biden in the US right now. It's an old, tried and true, political tactic. We need to be honest about what this is really all about. HiLo48 (talk) 00:53, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree we need to be honest. There are numerous sources repeatedly documenting Biden's mental lapses, "gaffes", shaking hands with a nonexistent person, being ushered away from onlookers by the Easter Bunny, calling on a dead person to stand up and be recognized, etc. etc. etc. At some point these cognitive function issues should merit mention in this article. TiltonHilton (talk) 20:12, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There are numerous bad sources. You would need to be more specific. O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:25, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Show us some reliable sources. By which I mean not WP:FOXNEWS, WP:BREITBART, WP:NEWSMAX, WP:DAILYMAIL, WP:NYPOST, or whatever other unreliable source. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:33, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the clarification that Wikipedia considers only left-leaning sources such as New York Times, Washington Post, etc. to be reliable. BTW - the last I checked, Fox News was considered a reliable source for Wikipedia. I guess the Wikipedia administrators have eliminated it from the "Reliable Sources" list. TiltonHilton (talk) 21:33, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you actually think that was a useful post? O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:49, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Apparently you must not have checked for some time, because Fox is only considered reliable for "news coverage on topics other than politics and science." And no, the Wikipedia administrators do not write the "Reliable sources" list. Also, NYT, WaPo are not left-wing. Last I checked they are pro-capitalist. TFD (talk) 22:07, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I was trying to keep this conversation serious. Now this. You can't really believe NYT and WaPo are completely unbiased and, if anything, lean right. I suppose you even think MSNBC is middle-of the-road. TiltonHilton (talk) 20:41, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    All sources have bias of one form or another. The right wing sources that I listed above are unreliable not because of their bias but because of constant factual inaccuracies in their reporting. This discussion is now completely off track. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:44, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If yo wish to argue about reliability of these sources, you are not on the correct page, Go to WP:RSN. O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:45, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Please reinstate information on Biden's ancestral line

    Please add the following sentence directly after the existing sentence "They had three children: Joseph R. "Beau" Biden III, Robert Hunter Biden, and Naomi Christina "Amy" Biden.[23]" 

    Biden's paternal line has been traced to stonemason William Biden, who was born in 1789 in Westbourne, England, and emigrated to Maryland in the United States by 1820.[1]

    This addition was agreed and implemented 1-2 years ago but has recently fallen victim to a wide-ranging deletion. 2A00:23C6:54D3:DA01:496E:DC8:471D:9DC4 (talk) 06:34, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

     Not done: This seems to be excessive detail for this particular article - Family of Joe Biden, which is linked from the section you requested this be added to, already contains this information. Tollens (talk) 06:46, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The proposed sentence was a consensus previously so this deserves further opinions. 109.155.0.228 (talk) 18:31, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I looked through the talk page archives and found this thread: Talk:Joe Biden/Archive 16#Biden family roots. Semi-protected edit request on 24 May 2022, which inserted something similar. I don't know how strong of a consensus this was, but I'm noting that talk page thread for reference. I am not necessarily opposed to adding a line about Biden's paternal line to the article, but 1) I don't think the proposed location (in "Marriages, law school, and early career") is the place for it (if it belongs anywhere, it should be in the section above), and 2) being cognizant of the size of this article, I'm not sure whether it's necessarily WP:DUE for inclusion here (the inclusion of this detail at Family of Joe Biden may be sufficient). Aoi (青い) (talk) 19:19, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    References

    1. ^ Nevett, Joshua (June 12, 2021). "Joe Biden: Unearthing the president's unsung English roots". BBC News. Retrieved May 24, 2022.
    • No. Textbook example of something belonging only in a satellite article. His great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandfather was born in England 250 years ago -- so what? Is this an aspect of the subject's upbringing? No. Was his character shaped in early childhood by this fact? No. Is there some evidence that the family gestalt is somehow influenced by stories of G-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-grandpa William's exploits? Did young Joe set his mind in early life to making this ancestor of his, up in heaven, proud? No. It's a random fact which belongs somewhere, but not in this article. EEng 04:38, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
     Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. StartOkayStop (talk) 05:11, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Read wp:agf and I do not see what this really adds to our understanding if him. Slatersteven (talk) 11:15, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    The answer (and relevance to this article) is that (African and European) Americans are occupying land which was originally inhabited by Indians (Native Americans). It feels easier to justify this occupation if one declares oneself a member of an oppressed minority and therefore had no choice but to take the land. Hence North Americans including Biden prefer to declare themselves a member of the oppressed minority (Jewish, Irish, Black Lives matter, Ukrainian [In Canada]) etc, but nobody makes successful politics with declaring themselves German, English, Russian American etc. This is my impression from afar, which is why Biden's attitude to his ancestry is interesting. He is the president, after all. 109.145.9.174 (talk) 14:03, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Errr, Africans had no choice, and so with that I am bowing out, as this seems to be a distinct wp:rightgreatwrongs edit. Slatersteven (talk) 14:11, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you saying that paternal lines matter and maternal lines don't? Why does any 200 year old line matter? We're all mutts. Pure breeds are usually evolutionary failures. Not DUE for this article. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:17, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You are entitled to your view, but the BBC article says that embracing or rejecting ancestral lines is politically significant for Biden and for the American electorate as a whole. Brief extract: "Irish Americans, who represent about 10% of the population in the US, are a large constituency of potential voters. Electorally, emphasising his Irishness may be more of an asset than his Englishness, said Clive Webb, a professor of modern American history at the University of Sussex." [1] Wikipedia should be politically neutral and not follow one particular political narrative. 31.48.198.81 (talk) 05:45, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "Potentially". When sources give concrete evident -- not speculation -- that voters care about this, or that Biden thinks they do -- then something like this might be worth adding here. EEng 07:01, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I put it to you that this attitude discourages readers from using Wikipedia as a reliable source. Nowadays many can and do search elsewere to get at facts which are of interest to them. You can easly confirm this by looking at the page visits to Westbourne, West Sussex before and after the deletion. I know it will not change your attitude but perhaps in later years you can reflect and then influence others to do the right thing, even when it does not appeal. Excuse me for being old-fashioned. 2A00:23C6:54D3:DA01:5CB8:627A:742B:6CCB (talk) 08:21, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If being old-fashioned means investing a trivial fact with cosmic significance, then sure, you're excused.
    • As already explained, Wikipedia does include this fact -- just not in the main Biden article, but rather in Family of Joe Biden.
    • The pageview data (seen here [1]) is indeed enlightening. Historically, the article Westbourne, West Sussex got about 7 views per day. As soon as the info about Biden's ancestor was added to his article, view counts for the Westbourne article skyrocketed to a stratospheric 40 per day. The ancestor fact was later deleted from Biden's article, at which point views of the Westbourne article plummeted back to earth, crash-landing at an average of 11 per day. So we can reasonably infer that the presence of the Westbourne link in the Biden article engenders about 30 daily visits to the Westbourne article.
      Meanwhile, daily views of the Biden article itself have been steady at about 28,000 per day. Thus, it appears, about 1/10 of 1% of visitors to the Biden article clicked through to learn more about the home town of Biden's distant ancestor, when that data was present in the article -- hardly evidence of intense interest.
    EEng 20:02, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "discourages readers from using Wikipedia as a reliable source" Good. We aren't supposed to be a reliable source. Our articles are based on reliable sources, but are not themselves reliable sources. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 17:43, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Hunter Biden

    The article currently states "As of 2008, Hunter Biden was a Washington lobbyist and investment adviser" (plus source). I appreciate that the subject of this article is Joe, not Hunter, but is that really the most relevant and up-to-date information we have about Hunter? GrindtXX (talk) 23:53, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree that the sentence could be more current, and have changed it accordingly. —Ganesha811 (talk) 00:14, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    References

    1. ^ Nevett, Joshua (June 12, 2021). "Joe Biden: Unearthing the president's unsung English roots". BBC News. Retrieved May 24, 2022.

    Debt Ceiling Deal

    LosPajaros Couruu Slatersteven all agreed in a discussion above, with zero opposition from anyone, that one of many budget negotiations over the past decade is NOT notable for the lead. I independently thought the same when I saw it there and removed it, but was reverted by SPECIFICO oddly claiming "RS detail Biden rescuing McCarthy" as if a reliable source saying Biden had some involvement means that it's notable for his lead. The President has some involvement in any budget negotiation but the vast majority of the deal was made between the Senate and House and it wasn't some policy proposal of Biden's that belongs in his lead, any more than it did in Obama or Trump's (neither's lead mentions any budget deals). Bill Williams 00:18, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Biden was personally involved:

    Negotiating staff for McCarthy and the White House held back-to-back negotiating sessions, some stretching late into the night before resuming again ... Biden and McCarthy spent an hour and a half on a call Saturday night, a rare one-on-one conversation between the two leaders that followed days of fraught talks over the final sticking points.[2]

    soibangla (talk) 00:36, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    my understanding is this discussion is about the debt default risk in May, not the shutdown risk of this week soibangla (talk) 22:20, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    As much as I believe in the value of the essay, I've stopped linking to WP:recentism as no one pays attention and as a result, it's as useless as a screen door on a submarine. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:00, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Unless Biden's actions were way out of character, this belongs in the Presidency article far more than it belongs here. HiLo48 (talk) 02:59, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    inclined to agree soibangla (talk) 03:25, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Post-expand include size is exceeded

    The article is in Category:Pages where post-expand include size is exceeded. See Help:Template limits#Post-expand include size. DuncanHill (talk) 00:16, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Bad-faith addition of a verbal gaffes section, labeling it as intentional lies

    One, then a tag-team (Two) to restore it. This is taking some verbal missteps, similar to say Obama's "57 states", and painting them as deliberate. This is deceptive synthesis, taking a reliable source that covered the statements and twisting it to mean "Biden lied." Inappropriate for a WP:BLP. Zaathras (talk) 13:31, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Also as much of this was based on "best information at the time" is it misinformation or good faith mistakes? Slatersteven (talk) 13:35, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. What this also is, unfortunately, is users exporting the Israeli-Hamas topic area fights to Joe Biden's biography. Zaathras (talk) 13:51, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Err, the first part was about the Covid. Regardless, the content is admittedly only a couple of paragraphs and I wasn't entirely sure about the placement of the section (or the subhead) myself, though I think the content is valid. Perhaps under Joe Biden#Public image, where there is more mention of his "gaffes" if that is what we would like to call them. One could argue that screwing up Covid information etc. is a bit worse than a lighthearted old run-of-the-mill Boris Johnson or Trump-esque shooting of the mouth, but maybe that's just me. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:47, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    One could argue is your WP:OR. We don't argue anything. We cover what the reliable sources cover. You'd have to demonstrate his misspeaking or errors or whatever they are are really impactful. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:57, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I mean, it caused quite a stir when he said the US would be willing to defend Taiwan militarily: [3]. Professor Penguino (talk) 21:02, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Mixing together unrelated content about COVID and Gaza is akin to a WP:CONTROVERSYSECTION, a gathering of "negative" information. COVID information that's DUE should go in a COVID section. Gaza information that's DUE should go in an Israel/Palestine/Gaza section. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:56, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I was the user who originally added the COVID bit. I guess the section for specifically COVID-19 was removed? Professor Penguino (talk) 20:55, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Alright. I think it’s for the best, probably. I originally added it without any POV/bad faith intent (I actually supported Biden in 2020), and I can see why the community would disapprove. The same info could be put in respective sections, and use more accurate descriptions. Instead of “falsely claimed”, it could be “misspoke” — especially for something like the COVID stuff, where that was definitely the case. The recent Israel-Hamas footage thing… seems like it would be a bit too early to add. Cheers. Professor Penguino (talk) 20:59, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This has been discussed before and there's no consensus to add a separate section. Unlike Trump, Biden has only the normal amount of false and misleading claims that don't need their own section or article. And a gaffe, is not a false or misleading claim. Andre🚐 21:04, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I just said that it’s for the best that there shouldn’t be a separate section, and that, looking back on it, “falsely claimed” was definitely too strong a choice of words. Professor Penguino (talk) 21:06, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Get rid of "moderate" label

    He's not a moderate anymore, maybe he was in the 1990's, when the official Democratic platform was for balancing the budget, DADT, and against illegal immigration, but those days are far behind us. Manchin is a moderate; a guy that spends the amount of money Biden did during his first 2 years in office and who promotes stuff like the Ministry of Truth, is certainly not a moderate. Of course, this is related to how both parties have gone mental in their own ways, and how Bernie's 2016 and 2020 campaigns fueled radical left-wing populism for the first time in mainstream American politics, with Biden doing his best to not lose that wing of the party, but that's not moderation at all. 201.207.239.205 (talk) 07:48, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    This non-American can assure you that, by global standards, Joe sits right around the middle politically. There is no left-wing radical politics in the US. HiLo48 (talk) 08:09, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Radical left wing populism? Joe Biden? Those two don't go together. Professor Penguino (talk) 19:02, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not American, either, but the truth is that Biden doesn't represent the former standards of moderates within the Democratic Party. In American politics, moderates usually compromise on substantive issues. The only real substantive compromise of the Biden Administration has been regarding the Fiscal Responsability Act. The other bipartisan bills happened because some in the GOP jumped on board with them. Not because the Democrats compromised with Republicans. I am not referring to him as "left-wing populism", but Bernie. Biden has just been pressured by the left within the party. 200.119.185.136 (talk) 23:02, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Manchin, Sinema, Tester, those are moderates. Biden currently, because this contradicts his former moderate self of them 1970's, 1980's, 1990's, and early 2000's, cannot be considered a moderate in issues like fiscal responsibility, taxation, gun control, crime, immigration, race relations, free speech, etcetera. 200.119.185.136 (talk) 23:07, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    To someone who is far right-wing, a person who is moderate seems left-wing. To someone who is far left-wing (if there are any left), a moderate seems right-wing. In any case, we just use reliable sources. We don't apply such labels ourselves. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:47, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That's exactly my point. There is much debate about this, including in the media. One can say that most sources refer to him as a moderate, that belongs in the article, but it is not a solid fact. 201.207.239.205 (talk) 01:00, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    So we could add "widely considered a moderate" rather than just "moderate", right? Professor Penguino (talk) 01:05, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree this would be better. Political ideology and orientations are extremely complex and subjective. 201.207.239.205 (talk) 01:07, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Biden has left that mantle in the past, due to pressures within his own party. This, in part, helps explain the rise of groups like No Labels, and campaigns like RFK Jr's. Moderate Dems and Republicans who believe their mainstream leaders have gone extreme.
    https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/29/us/politics/biden-democrats.html
    https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/09/us/politics/biden-centrist.html 201.207.239.205 (talk) 01:06, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Joe_Biden&oldid=1180661775"