Talk:Joe Biden

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Joe Biden article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18: 30 days

Warning: active arbitration remedies

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:

You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on this article (except in limited circumstances)
You must follow the bold-revert-discuss cycle if your change is reverted. You may not reinstate your edit until you post a talk page message discussing your edit and have waited 24 hours from the time of this talk page message

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Further information

Enforcement procedures:

Violations of any of these restrictions should be reported immediately to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard.
Editors who are aware of this topic being designated a contentious topic and who violate these restrictions may be sanctioned by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense.

With respect to the WP:1RR restriction:

Edits made solely to enforce any clearly established consensus are exempt from all edit-warring restrictions.
Edits made which remove or otherwise change any material placed by clearly established consensus, without first obtaining consensus to do so, may be treated in the same manner as obvious vandalism.
In order to be considered "clearly established" the consensus must be proven by prior talk-page discussion.
Reverts of edits made by anonymous (IP) editors are exempt from the 1RR but are subject to the usual rules on edit warring. If you are in doubt, contact an administrator for assistance.
Whenever you are relying on one of these exemptions, you should refer to it in your edit summary and, if applicable, link to the discussion where consensus was clearly established.

The contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topics sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions.

If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. Remember: When in doubt, don't revert!

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

This page is about an active politician who is running for office or has recently run for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some current political conflict or controversy. Because of this, this article is at increased risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism.

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

This page is about an active politician who is running for office or has recently run for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some current political conflict or controversy. Because of this, this article is at increased risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism.

Biography: Politics and Government GA‑class

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
GA	This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
	This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as High-importance).

U.S. Congress GA‑class High‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject U.S. Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States Congress on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.U.S. CongressWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. CongressTemplate:WikiProject U.S. CongressU.S. Congress articles
GA	This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is about one (or many) Person(s).

Barack Obama GA‑class (inactive)

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Barack Obama, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Barack ObamaWikipedia:WikiProject Barack ObamaTemplate:WikiProject Barack ObamaBarack Obama articles
GA	This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

United States: Delaware / Cape Cod and the Islands / Presidential elections GA‑class Mid‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
GA	This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Delaware portal This article is supported by WikiProject Delaware (assessed as Mid-importance).
	Massachusetts portal This article is supported by WikiProject Massachusetts - Cape Cod and the Islands (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. presidential elections (assessed as Mid-importance).

Pennsylvania GA‑class Mid‑importance

	Pennsylvania portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pennsylvania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pennsylvania on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PennsylvaniaWikipedia:WikiProject PennsylvaniaTemplate:WikiProject PennsylvaniaPennsylvania articles
GA	This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics GA‑class Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
GA	This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

College football GA‑class Bottom‑importance

	College football portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject College football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of college football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.College footballWikipedia:WikiProject College footballTemplate:WikiProject College footballcollege football articles
GA	This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Bottom	This article has been rated as Bottom-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Template:Vital article

Daily pageviews of this article

A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

Joe Biden has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
September 18, 2008	Good article nominee	Not listed
September 19, 2008	Good article nominee	Listed

Current status: Good article

This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:

Brian Krebs (2008-08-29). "Wikipedia Edits Forecast Vice Presidential Picks". The Washington Post.
(none) (August 17, 2009). "The 50 most-viewed Wikipedia articles in 2009 and 2008". The Daily Telegraph.
Maxwell Tani (2015-05-15). "Meet the guy who has protected Hillary Clinton's Wikipedia page for almost a decade". Business Insider.

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jacobmolga (article contribs).

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Joe Biden article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18: 30 days

Infobox picture

Considering a noticeable age difference between the current infobox picture and now, I think it might be time for an image change. I have a few proposals below. Thoughts?

--Cliffmore (talk) 01:02, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would support changing it to the second image. Nixinova T C 07:37, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. However, over at Hillary Clinton, editors opposed updating her 2009 picture until long after the 2016 election was over on the grounds that Secretary of State was the position for which she was most notable. It reminds me of official pictures of Kim Il Sung, which continued to show him as a young revolutionary until he finally died of old age. TFD (talk) 23:11, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hard to say, I don't know what's more significant, his current run or his Vice Presidency. At some point his Vice Presidency may become less important than his current run but I don't know when that would switch over or if it already has. Geographyinitiative (talk) 05:36, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that if he wins a few primaries, then a change is definitely needed. There may be a need to change before that, but I'm not familiar with picture-switching policies.Geographyinitiative (talk) 06:04, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

our current pic ~is~ five or six years old. surely someone has something more up-to-date from so famous a person. Cramyourspam (talk) 23:43, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose any change. The official picture is the proper one to use for a former vice-president of the United States.--Rusf10 (talk) 00:09, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose He is the former VP and his official portrait is the proper one to use. What's next? Are we gonna replace Bush or Clinton's official presidential picture as they age? Plot twist, we all age but that doesn't mean we have to change a distinguished politicians official portrait to a more recent pic. By that logic should we change Jimmy Carter infobox image? --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 05:45, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support 2nd one we have changed Bernie Sanders' "official" image. This is not a state department website, we don't need to use so-called "official images". We should use the more accurate (recent) one.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 06:22, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support I would support changing it to the second image. Telluride (talk) 21:26, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support second photograph as best depicting the subject. While VP is the highest office that he's held, I would argue that he is roughly equally notable for his senatorial career, his vice presidency, and his candidacy for president. - Mr X 🖋 16:21, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose #2, Support #3 His face now takes up way too much space in the infobox, it's kind of terrifying. — Goszei (talk) 00:40, 10 February 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Support any of them, He is relevant now in the political realm and to oppose the change gives anybody ignorant of his current age a wrongful impression. There should be a picture of him when he served as Vice President somewhere in the article to associate with that time period. But arguing that it shouldn't be changed. because he was Vice President makes it sound like his relevancy now is moot. -- EliteArcher88 (talk) 22:52, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support The third image. Also, he is at a healthier distance. This is a really trivial issue. The other two too obviously reveal his beautiful veneers. No sense in provoking an ageist debate on here. -Random person at the City of Camarillo Public Library

Is he still the frontrunner after losing in Iowa?

Betting markets, which do embody public sentiment to a certain extent, are showing him below Sanders. I don't think Sanders has a convincing enough lead to be considered the frontrunner, but it seems to me like there's no overall frontrunner at this stage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.125.229.118 (talk) 22:48, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've edited that sentence in the lead. SPECIFICO talk 23:26, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We report respected polls and commentary, not betting markets. As of February 7 he was still the frontrunner in national polls.[1] -- MelanieN (talk) 19:34, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Frontrunner" in the lead

Should this be removed from the lead? Bernie Sanders is now the frontrunner not Joe Biden. It has always been Bernie Sanders the frontrunner but the DNC and the media bias against Sanders didn't like this fact. Their so-called frontrunner got destroyed in Iowa. SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 03:48, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking the same thing. With Biden's 4th-place finish in Iowa it's certainly an open question, too open and complex for the lede. I am going to remove that sentence. p b p 16:06, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you'll please look at the section immediately above this, you'll see that I addressed this concern with my edit of the lead content. The text you've now deleted was entirely appropriate, accurate, and informative and reflects the text of the article. Please undo your removal and explain why you think the mention of his initially being considered the "frontrunner" should not be mentioned. SPECIFICO talk 17:13, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I also disagree with removing this sentence from the lead. Biden still leads in the national polls.[2] Even if he now falls out of first place, we can't just erase the fact that he has been considered the front runner for all of 2019 - basically from even before he declared his candidacy. And if he now falls out of first place, that can be reflected in the sentence - something like "He was considered the front runner until..." -- MelanieN (talk) 19:24, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored it, pending further discussion. And SPECIFICO, I changed your "upon entering the race" to "throughout 2019." I'm open to other ways of portraying the fact that he has been considered the front runner up to now. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:31, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@MelanieN:, I think yours is an improvement - there was much speculation before he announced that he was/would be the frontrunner. SPECIFICO talk 20:44, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, re-pinging SPECIFICO. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:39, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@MelanieN: @SPECIFICO: I continue to believe that having a frontrunner sentence right now is a bad idea. We may have to re-write the sentence in 2-3 days if he loses New Hampshire. As for calling it "sourced content" to restore it, the sources may very well be out of date, and therefore I'm not comfortable with the claim above that the sentence I deleted was "entirely appropriate [and] accurate". Who's the frontrunner before the election isn't particularly lead-worthy unless they continue to be frontrunner during and after the election. There's even an argument to be made that declaring pre-election frontrunners runs afoul of WP:CRYSTAL. p b p 20:10, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

THere's nothing "crystal" about it. There is no prediction involved. It is simply reporting the results of polls at the time. I grant you that early polling is notoriously inaccurate in predicting the actual outcome (remember President Giuliani? How about President Jeb?), but it is a widely reported part of the story. And yes, the information may/will have to be modified (not removed) if/when the situation changes. But the fact that the person was considered the frontrunner for a full year is an important part of the historical record. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:46, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Biden Is Not The Front-Runner Compared to Clinton's lead over Sanders in 2016, that merits a front-runner status on the lead, now that Biden is slipping in the national polls -> Sanders 25% to Biden's 17% and Sanders leads Biden in delegates and popular vote I think having the "Throughout 2019 he was the front-runner" is good, but reword it to like "Throughout 2019, Biden was seen as the front-runner, in the aftermath of the primaries however, he faced challenges from Senator Bernie Sanders" or something along those lines. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 09:39, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If Biden doesn't win in New Hampshire, we should move the frontrunner sentence from the lead to the body of the article. Poll performance in 2019 is not significant when early primaries/caucuses tell a different story. - Mr X 🖋 12:38, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Biden was FIFTH, and sorry @MelanieN: @SPECIFICO:, but I'm seeing an emerging consensus against currently classifying him as the frontrunner. Also note that a recent NPR article is now calling Bernie the frontrunner p b p 04:54, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, he no longer appears to be the front runner. The fact that he has been considered the front runner for the past year is a historical fact. So I would like a sentence along the lines of "he was considered the front-runner until disappointing performances in Iowa and New Hampshire." However, maybe that is too much detail for the lead. -- MelanieN (talk) 05:13, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's a tricky situation. The current phrasing rather makes you wonder whether he's still considered the frontrunner in 2020, and if not, why not? On the other hand, explicit references to primaries necessitate updating the sentence every week or so! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.125.229.118 (talk) 07:38, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See, that's why you might as just leave it out. p b p 15:01, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well it seems that he has regained that frontrunner status. After Super Tuesday, he leads Bernie Sanders in the popular vote and in the delegate race. Thenextprez (User talk:Thenextprez|talk]]) 22:59, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal

@SharabSalam, Purplebackpack89, SPECIFICO, TDKR Chicago 101, and MrX: We have been discussing the "front runner" sentence in the lead. I only just now noticed that there is nothing about "front runner" in the text; that should not have been the case but oh well. Based on this discussion and on recent developments, I propose removing that sentence from the lead and adding something like this to the "2020 campaign" section. What do the rest of you think?

Throughout 2019 Biden led in the national polls and was widely considered to be the frontrunner in the primary race.^[1]^[2] However, after disappointing showings in the Iowa and New Hampshire primary contests, he fell out of first place.^[3]

Sources

^ "NBC/WSJ poll: Former Vice President Joe Biden frontrunner in race for Democratic nomination". NBC News. December 19, 2019. Retrieved 10 February 2020.

^ Silver, Nate (January 10, 2020). "Biden Is The Front-Runner, But There's No Clear Favorite". FiveThirtyEight. Retrieved 10 February 2020.

^ Oprysko, Caitlin (February 10, 2020). "Biden plummets in new national poll, ceding top spot to Bernie". Politico. Retrieved 12 February 2020.

I also think we need to trim the "2020 presidential campaign" section by at least half - it has way too much coverage of trivia and day-to-day developments for a biography - but that's another issue.-- MelanieN (talk) 17:38, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds good to me. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 17:40, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can support this right now, though I suspect we will have to revisit this topic after Super Tuesday p b p 17:41, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK with me. Only thing is, he was perceived to be faltering before the primaries began. I think there's extensive press coverage of that starting around the time the Ukraine scandal became front page news. Not that WP would make the connection, but I think that, by the time of the Iowa primary, the media was not uniformly considering him the frontrunner. SPECIFICO talk 17:44, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this looks good. Of course it could change if he bounces back in South Carolina and beyond. - Mr X 🖋 17:48, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I added it. This will certainly need to be modified by future events, although I don't think we need to add any more polls or primary results, per NOTNEWS. If there are important developments - say he regains frontrunner status, or on the other hand drops out of the race - that's the kind of thing we should add. Meanwhile I am going to see if I can give that section a haircut. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:48, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Comment invitation

Please participate in the Request for Comment about a change proposal for the infobox for caucus results. Xenagoras (talk) 21:46, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"CornPop" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect CornPop. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. feminist (talk) 18:39, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 22 February 2020

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

‹ The template Edit semi-protected is being considered for merging. ›

Joe Biden's name description includes a disruptive and negative connotative nickname used by his opponents to insult Joe Biden.

E.G. Joseph Robinette "Sleepy Joe" Biden Jr. Edd0001 (talk) 22:08, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's been fixed and the user was given a warning. Danski14^(talk) 22:11, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 1 March 2020

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

‹ The template Edit semi-protected is being considered for merging. ›

BEFORE: Biden spent 28 years as a junior senator due to the two-year seniority of his Republican colleague William Roth After Roth was defeated for re-election by Tom Carper in 2000,

AFTER: Biden spent 28 years as a junior senator due to the two-year seniority of his Republican colleague William Roth. After Roth was defeated for re-election by Tom Carper in 2000,

NOTE: If you can't tell, there's a missing period after "William Roth" Koiyoto (talk) 20:45, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thank you for finding that error. Aoi (青い) (talk) 21:00, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 2 March 2020

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

‹ The template Edit semi-protected is being considered for merging. ›

The word "primaries" is misspelled in the sub-section heading "clout in the primaries". It currently reads, "clout in the primraies". Taguchit (talk) 19:54, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Taguchit, fixed by J. M. Thanks for pointing it out! – Muboshgu (talk) 21:48, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Campaign

Under the section about the current campaign, it says Trump falsely accused Biden of having the prosecutor fired in Ukraine... How can it be false when Biden is on video bragging about it? I realize a lot of folks on here suffer from TDS, but this is just a lie.2605:A000:CB03:8D00:996B:2879:2F15:79AC (talk) 07:15, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If we have "Trump Derangement Syndrome", what do you call your condition, where you believe fake news? Biden bragged about getting a corrupt prosecutor fired because he wasn't investigating Burisma. Getting the prosecutor fired put Hunter Biden at a greater risk, not less. Also, Biden delivered that threat to the Ukrainian government on behalf of the entire Western world. It wasn't him acting on his own. You are misinterpreting what Biden is bragging about having done. The sentence "President Donald Trump and his allies falsely accused Biden of getting the Ukrainian prosecutor general Viktor Shokin fired because he was ostensibly pursuing an investigation into Burisma Holdings, which employed Biden's son, Hunter." is factually correct, though it could be written in a clearer fashion. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:49, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You left out the rest of the sentence. Trump did not falsely accuse Biden of asking for the prosecutor to be fired, he falsely presented the reason. TFD (talk) 07:03, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 5 March 2020

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

‹ The template Edit semi-protected is being considered for merging. ›

There is a missing letter "n" in the word "seen" in the quote in the last paragraph of section 3.2 Brain surgeries. 91.139.85.179 (talk) 20:30, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done Thanks for pointing out this typo. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:50, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[1] "NBC/WSJ poll: Former Vice President Joe Biden frontrunner in race for Democratic nomination". NBC News. December 19, 2019. Retrieved 10 February 2020.

[2] Silver, Nate (January 10, 2020). "Biden Is The Front-Runner, But There's No Clear Favorite". FiveThirtyEight. Retrieved 10 February 2020.

[3] Oprysko, Caitlin (February 10, 2020). "Biden plummets in new national poll, ceding top spot to Bernie". Politico. Retrieved 12 February 2020.

[1]

[2]

[3]