Talk:Joe Biden

Temporary suspension of WP:1RR rule

In order to give regular editors the leeway they need to deal with an increase in unhelpful "drive-by" edits, I am temporarily suspending the one-revert rule that has been on this article. The "24-hour BRD" rule still applies. Here's what this means:

• Every editor may now make up to 3 reverts per day per WP:3RR. BUT...
• You may not make the same edit or revert more than once per day per the BRD rule, and after your first time making that edit or revert, you must discuss it on the talk page and wait 24 hours before attempting that edit again.

Put another way, reverts are linked to content. You can revert up to 3 different edits per day, but you can't add or remove the same content more than once per day.

Again, the purpose of this is to allow regular/experienced/content editors to deal with legitimately unhelpful or POV edits. It's not to give people more leeway in edit warring over content disputes that are under discussion or to engage in "tag-team edit warring" where editors take turns reverting the same content over and over. If I see that going on I will start blocking people's accounts, starting with the editors who are reverting against the status quo ante, those reverting against emerging consensus on the talk page, and those who are not using helpful WP:Edit summaries that clearly describe what they're doing and why they're doing it. ~Awilley (talk) 02:09, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Discussion of the above

Point of Order: BRD is not a rule. "The BOLD, revert, discuss cycle (BRD) is an optional method of reaching consensus. This process is not mandated by Wikipedia policy..." (my emphasis) 86.140.67.152 (talk) 08:48, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

It is not mandated by policy, but it is mandated by the discretionary sanctions on this page. To prevent disruption on pages relating to contemporary American politics, any administrator may place any reasonable restriction on pages to ensure compliance with our policies and guidelines. One common restriction is to enforce BRD. Editors who are aware of the sanction and do not comply may be banned or blocked at administrator discretion. For more information see Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Page restrictions. — Wug·a·po·des​ 09:33, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

When something like this is done (a) it really needs to be stated in the post the source of the authority to do it (i.e. DS) -- I for one don't edit much in DS areas so I was completely puzzled; and (b) it's not clear to me that you don't need to issue new DS alerts to editors individually -- how is someone supposed to know the rules have suddenly changed, unless they happen on this thread? EEng 11:31, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

@EEng Worth noting that the DS alerts do not specify any page-specific sanctions, or mention any pages the editor has been editing. So, if I give you a DS alert right now, it won't mention the BRD (nor the 1RR), nor that I'm alerting you due to Joe Biden. So even a new alert doesn't help. It's a crappy system of alerting. FWIW the BRD has been in place (along with 1RR) since November 2019; Awilley just relaxed the 1RR requirement, which maybe makes it a little better. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:42, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Sorry about that, the Discretionary Sanctions bit and link to the relevant Arbcom page are in the template I modified at the top of the talk page. On notifications, I wish there were a better way to do it. There's the template at the top of the talk page and the edit notice whenever you edit the article itself. Since this was a relaxing of restrictions I figured a post on the talkpage would be sufficient to get the attention of the regular editors I was targeting. For the other restriction, typically how things works is that people will "welcome" newcomers to the article with the standard notification template, which I hate. Then if someone runs afoul of the sanctions they usually get a couple of people on their talk page explaining the sanction and asking them to self-revert. It's when they refuse to self-revert that things typically escalate to administrators. ~Awilley (talk) 16:31, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

• Comment On the contrary of the loosening of restrictions, I think this article needs to be subject to WP:0RR, until next January. Given the contested nature of the election and ongoing lawsuits, short-term, continuous vandalism is almost guaranteed and should be adjusted for accordingly. -- Sleyece (talk) 03:44, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Main picture of Biden in the Infobox should be cropped better

Current image in use

Proposed alternative

The current image being used in the info box is poorly cropped with the subject not covering the majority of the picture and is off-center. The image should be changed to one that is better cropped, preferably with him in the center of the picture and taking up most of it's area. I strongly believe the image "File:Joe_Biden_official_portrait_2013_cropped.jpg" would be a better replacement. The proposed alternative is better lit and Biden's face can be seen clearer compared to the one in use. Anirudhgiri (talk) 18:21, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind a cropped image.★Trekker (talk) 18:31, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Why not use the one that is already in the article? 86.140.67.152 (talk) 18:45, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Oppose - the current photo is better, adhering to the Rule of thirds for photography. IHateAccounts (talk) 18:53, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Oppose Current image looks preety good. Rondolinda (talk) 23:46, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Cropped one follows it well enough for portraits (focal point on eye) EvergreenFir (talk) 06:05, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm seeing generally positive responses to the proposed change and I request someone with the appropriate edit access to execute the change to the photograph as soon as possible. It is known that Wikipedia is used as a source for images and information by everyone from the casual reader to news corporations, and I've already come across the image currently in use where Biden is off center and doesn't cover a majority of the area of the image in various news articles, news telecasts, YouTube videos, memes etc. This is the image of someone who is almost definitely going to be the most powerful man in the world, and the most popular website used to gather information worldwide should at least use an image that is properly cropped to portray him. Anirudhgiri (talk) 20:23, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Frankly, especially given that Biden is now President-elect of the United States, I would say that the current, off-centre image is horrendous, and I cannot understand how anybody would prefer retaining the image as it currently remains. Fully support switching to the proposed alternative where the image is appropriately cropped. Thescrubbythug (talk) 09:53, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

I invite @Nick.mon: to give his two cents here, given that he reverted the image back to the off-centre photo. Thescrubbythug (talk) 03:11, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Well, I think we should use the official portrait, but I can live with the cropped version too. Anyway, we'll soon have a new official photo. -- Nick.mon (talk) 11:07, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 November 2020

Change the main image in the infobox to "File:Joe_Biden_official_portrait_2013_cropped.jpg". The change has been discussed and the overwhelming consensus is to change the image from the current off-center one to "File:Joe_Biden_official_portrait_2013_cropped.jpg", at least until Biden's official presidential portrait is taken. Anirudhgiri (talk) 20:13, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

To editor Anirudhgiri:  done, and thank you very much! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 16:35, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

More discussion

@Paine Ellsworth: Why did you change the picture to the cropped version already? You claimed a consensus for the change in your edit summary, but there is nothing near a consensus in this talk page section. And now that it's a cropped version, EEng has predictably come along to shrink it. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 04:12, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't know about the crop but MOS:IMGSIZE predicts the size change. EEng 05:08, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

EEng, as the person who wrote this guideline and has been advocating mostly unsuccessfully for small bio infobox images, you have got to know that displaying the portrait at upright=0.8 is going to make it stand out from other articles. Changing the size of the photos for a few prominent people (and spending a lot of time fighting to maintain those changes) is not an effective way to bring about the adoption of this reading of MOS:IMAGESIZE. The fact of the matter is that it doesn't in practice apply to bio infobox portraits in the way that you want it to. Maybe an RfC to add more specific wording to the MOS regarding bio infobox image sizes would help you change this, but until then, we need some consistency across articles. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 05:56, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

I really don't need any tips on getting things done, or how to spend my editing time, from someone with 6 months tenure and 7K edits, just as Paine Ellsworth doesn't need your help judging consensus. IMGSIZE makes no special provision for lead images to be unusually large; in fact, it goes out of its way to put a special upper cap on their size. And something you'll learn after you've been around a bit longer is that consistency among articles (cf. within any given article) is just about the weakest argument there is; we don't "need" consistency across articles, and without deviation from the norm progress is impossible. And please stop obsessing about process over substance. EEng 07:10, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

EEng, You are right about consistency among articles being a weak justification for changes. I apologize for my rudeness last night. I was in a bad mood for an off-wiki reason. To argue on substance, I think the reason upright=0.8 looks bad is that the infobox stays the same width even though the photo's width has been reduced, creating excessive blank space. I would appreciate it if you could try again to explain to me how exactly IMGSIZE justifies this. I've read it many times now and am still not seeing any statement that portrait images should be at less than upright=1. It says that they can go up to 1, but doesn't appear to comment on how a particular value between 0 and 1 should be chosen. The thing that confuses me most is that you were okay with the uncropped portrait of Biden at upright=1, but are not okay with the cropped version being at 1. Yet, IMGSIZE does not state that the size of people/subjects in images should be a factor in choosing the upright. I'm happy with how Biden's photo looks now, so I'm asking about this purely out of intellectual curiosity. Thanks. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 22:14, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

The statement at IMGSIZE is deliberately vague because there are many considerations that go into sizing beyond aspect ratio, by no means the least of which is subjective judgment. I didn't intend to apply the size change to one of the versions but not the other -- it was just accident which one might have happened to be displayed at the moment. Very generally, portrait-shaped images look better at upright<1, because at >=1 their heights (and therefore total area) can be overwhelming; the specific size is often determined by the overall needs of all the images in the article, because uniform sizing counts for something too (especially if there are enough images that two or more are visible simultaneously -- a jumble of sizes looks awful). Having said all this, lead images may have special considerations, because they're usually set off alone, and as you point out they're often embedded in an infobox. As I said, it can be quite subjective, and despite the impression you have it's not something I feel particularly strongly about. EEng 11:45, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

EEng, okay, what you're saying now is what I'm reading from IMGSIZE—that up to 1 is okay for portrait-size images, and <1 might be ideal—but that ultimately, choosing an upright between 0 and 1 is subjective and should be done according to the needs of a particular page as established through discussion on a case-by-case basis. Thank you for acknowledging the infobox issue. I think in this case that issue makes upright=1 best, but there are some pages on which I've used an upright <1 (e.g. Alexander Lukashenko) because the lead image is very zoomed-in. So, I'm open to that as an option, but don't see it as the right choice in this case. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 11:54, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

To editor Tartan357: I included the new image suggested in the #Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 November 2020 made by Anirudhgiri below. A closeup of our next president seemed a better fit, so I granted the edit request. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 05:39, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Paine Ellsworth, this comment does not address my concern about consensus. You say that you made the change because it "seemed a better fit", which does not square with your claim to having a clear consensus for the change. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 05:43, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

The participants in this discussion have met WP:CONSENSUS or I wouldn't have made the change. What do you think the outcome should be? P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 05:50, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Paine Ellsworth, I agree with IHateAccounts about the rule of thirds, and I disagree with your assessment that this discussion has reached a consensus. Although it's less of an issue for me as long as the photo isn't at upright=0.8, which wasn't discussed here and EEng changed it to. It looked pretty bad that way, so I reverted them. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 06:01, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

I still prefer the original, uncropped image. And I looked at the upright=0.8 edit and that was awful, please don't repeat that. IHateAccounts (talk) 06:06, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Okay, when I first came to this discussion before I changed the picture, I assessed the !votes and whatever rationales were included. It seemed obvious to me that there was consensus to change the picture. Even when Tartan357's opposition, which came after the change, is figured in, there is still a consensus for the cropped version. The issue of size is a separate issue and can be further discussed between involved editors if necessary. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 06:14, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

RFC regarding picture for infobox

The rule of thirds.

Which should be the community consensus photo for the infobox on this page: the original (zoomed out, american flag on left) or the cropped (zoomed in on Biden's face)? IHateAccounts (talk) 21:47, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

• The two proposed options
• 
  Zoomed out
• 
  Zoomed in

• Filer comments: since things seem to be getting a bit heated and people keep trying to change the photo back and forth, changing its height ratio and so on, let's have this a little more informally (and maybe EEng can calm down a bit about it if there's an RFC consensus). Personally I prefer the original. I think it provides a fuller picture, and adheres better to the Rule of thirds for photography, centering Biden's face about 1/3 from the right edge. I am not a fan of EEng's position that the second photo adheres merely because Biden's left eye is about one-third from the right edge; people don't focus just on one portion of a face when viewing a photo. IHateAccounts (talk) 21:51, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

  Excuse me, but what are you talking about? I have never expressed any preference for one picture or the other, nor do I have a preference. EEng 23:00, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

  Note: I have, in an uninvolved capacity, updated the size of the images above from 200px tall to 280px tall to closer match the size they'd be if used in the infobox. Showing them smaller here than they'd actually be could arguably be influencing people toward choosing the more zoomed in option. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 06:03, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

• This seems silly. Without having read any of the previous discussion on the lead photo, we all know that there will be a presidential portrait of Biden released around January 20, right? That image is going to take the place of whatever image is in there. So, this RfC is to determine which image to use for less than two months? I'll pass on having an opinion. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:05, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Well, it was apparently necessary to change from the long-used version to a cropped version just a couple of days ago. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 02:22, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

• Zoom in - though, it'll only last for two months. PS - Barack Obama's image should be zoomed in as well, at that bio article. GoodDay (talk) 00:33, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
• Zoom in: Reasons for the change in image already given and discussed at length. Sure, it's only going to be for two months, but we might as well have use an image where the subject is actually in the middle of the picture until then. Anirudhgiri (talk) 17:36, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
• Uncropped per IHateAccounts. It looks nicer per the rule of thirds, and is version that his office chose to use for official purposes. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 02:24, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
• Zoom in: zeroeth of all, this is a stupid argument to be having a couple of months before the photo is deprecated and replaced. But first of all, this seems to me like a specious interpretation of the rule of thirds (photos for identification in infoboxes should not include large amounts of aesthetic whitespace), and second of all, the rule of thirds says that the dividing line should go through the center of the object. The second vertical dividing line on this image goes through the side of his head, a couple pixels right of his eye, before going through his lapel pocket and arm. If we were going to follow the rule of thirds (which the original photo doesn't), it ought to be going directly down the middle of his face, which means the right margin of the image would be cropped out. jp×g 17:33, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
• Zoom in It bugs me how the other isn't centered. ~ HAL333 22:51, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
• Zoomed in. I have just added the pictures in a gallery above, to make it easier for people who are new to this discussion to see the options. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:58, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
• Uncropped. It's an official portrait by a professional photographer, and a well framed one at that. Satisfies rule of thirds, as opposed to the arbitrarily-cropped version. I vote for uncropped until we get a new official portrait come 2021 (and we'll probably have an RfC for that one too, if the framing is in any way similar to this). NO MORE HEROES ⚘ TALK 07:03, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
• Uncropped. The uncropped versions how the portrait was originally presented and thus should be the one we use. Arbitrarily cropping portraits that have been used for extremely long periods of time is just a waste of time. Keep the uncrossed version and continue to use uncrossed versions of portraits elsewhere. The portrait is framed the way it is because that is how the photographer intended it to be seen, not cropped by some nobody on Wikipedia. Brboyle (talk) 10:07, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Add biden's inaugural website down at the bottom of external links next to his campaign and transition site

Add Biden's official Inaugural website, "bideninaugural.org", at the bottom under external links. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.238.64.79 (talk) 03:46, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether it's appropriate here (there's not much there, and we really try to keep external links to a minimum), but I added it at Inauguration of Joe Biden. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 09:17, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

@Sdkb: Seems fine enough. I doubt it we will keep it up in a few months, but I mean I guess it's relevant now. WP:ELOFFICIAL and all that. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:33, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

That feels a bit too WP:NOTNEWSy, but I won't revert if you or someone else wants to action the request. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:06, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Probably is, but it keeps getting requested. Figured it was safer to add than not. Maybe we'll keep it; who knows? –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:48, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: The website appears to just be a donation website? Where you can donate and buy shirts... WP:ELNO "Sites that require payment or registration to view the relevant content"... You can only buy inauguration gear or sign up for details.. Terasail^[✉] 17:18, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Nevermind, it has already been added. However I do not think it is particularly helpful to anyone, by linking a donation site. Terasail^[✉] 17:22, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Update 3rd note to reflect formal recognition of Joe Biden as president-elect

As of November 24 2020, the General Services Administration (GSA) has formally recognized Joe Biden and Kamala Harris as president-elect and vice president-elect, respectively. Therefore, the 3rd note of the article should be changed in order to reflect this. Costpap (talk) 08:55, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

• This is a great example of what doesn't belong in the article on Biden the man. Biden won the election, and the article notes that. The soap opera of Trump's desperate flailings to stay out of prison belongs in the articles on the election, the transition, and Trump himself. Got nothing to do with Biden. EEng 22:05, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
  • If it doesn't belong in the article, then why is it being kept there in the first place? In my opinion, it would be better to remove something which doesn't belong there, rather than keep it while being severely outdated. It should either be updated or removed, not kept there to unintentionally misinform people. Costpap (talk) 08:02, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

References

 Done – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:16, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Can we update the FAQ a little?

We've seen a lot of "the Constitution says.." type of argument from editors (many of them one-time complainers) disputing the president-elect status. And arguably, this argument seems to be the most relatively resembling a good faith argument (even if it isn't). Can we perhaps add an entry in the FAQ answering this, stating that Wikipedia is not limited to just the official sources (like the US Constitution) when citing reliable sources?

Also a reminder that Donald Trump was called president-elect at this time 4 years ago may be a good idea as well. 2600:1012:B024:7B87:0:4D:D78A:3801 (talk) 15:08, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Seems a good idea.Slatersteven (talk) 15:17, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Worth also pointing out that the words "president-elect" never show up in the Constitution, and so it isn't a Constitutional issue regarding who gets called that. The Constitution is absolutely silent on the matter. However, if they would like a legal document referring to "president-elect" prior to the seating of the Electoral College, they can look to the Transition Act of 1963, which explicitly uses the term "president-elect," and since the GSA has ascertained Biden as the winner, he is legally the president-elect. That is a legal fact. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 17:25, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

The GSA bit is a bad idea. The GSA makes its own determination at its own leisure (as we have seen) for its own purposes. That doesn't mean sources can't identify the president-elect before the GSA does. To go down that path plays into the hands of those who want to substitute their own shifting criteria (GSA? Electoral college? Congress' formal receipt of the electors' votes?) for those of reliable sources. EEng 08:17, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Personally I'd cite the specific law, as opposed to government agencies. As we've seen, an agency's interpretation of the law can change from administration to administration, but the text of the law doesn't change but by Congressional act. Praefect94 (talk) 07:19, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

I say again that that takes us down the wrong path. EEng 12:51, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Please note that I do not mean to say that the GSA should be the deciding factor on when we or anyone else calls a president-elect the president elect. As I said, we do what the the reliable sources say. I would not suggest even adding this to the article beyond stating when the GSA finally did its job. I do dispute that the GSA makes its own determination at its own leisure. What we have witnessed during this election is highly unusual with regards to the GSA behavior. Since 1963, the only election where GSA had been slow to act was in 2000, when it genuinely was unclear who had won the election as it was down to one state with a gap of only 500 votes. That one, they waited, as literally no one could ascertain quickly who had won, having lived through it. The 2020 election was a very different case, and is very much the outlier when it comes to the GSA. Time may show it to become a norm and new political football, but at the moment, there is no reason to believe this will be anything but an outlier. My point, however, with bringing up the GSA is in response to people saying "Biden legally isn't the president-elect until the Electors meet," and legally speaking, that is not true. Nothing in the Constitution states anything about the title "president-elect," including not around the meeting of the Electors. However, legally the 1963 Presidential Transition Act does use the phrase "president-elect" for whom the GSA has ascertained as the winner of the election. We rely on reliable sources who absolutely can make that determination before the GSA (though, ordinarily, the GSA acts roughly as fast, or at least within 24 hours, of when the states have made clear their projected results, as reported by the media, so basically at the same time as the media). I'm merely saying that, as a response to anyone claiming Biden legally isn't the president-elect, the fact is that legally he is, per the GSA letter and their duties with the Presidential Election Act of 1963. Any other legal argument against calling him "president-elect" became moot once that letter was signed. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 02:07, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

We should simply follow RSs in calling Biden the president-elect, and not get into any explanations. EEng 05:15, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

In the article itself, sure, and that is what I said. This discussion is about the FAQ and the continual "Constitutional argument" people we have had coming on the talk page. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 18:22, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Oops, my misunderstanding. Well, with the electors voting Monday I suggest waiting to see if the problem continues before hammering out another FAQ. EEng 20:55, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Agree with waiting and seeing... but I'll be honest, this will likely continue past Monday. Once the Electors seat, they will have another goal post. They will claim presidents aren't REALLY elected until Congress receives and approves of the Electoral College votes on January 6th. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 01:43, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Oldest president in lede

I added a short sentence that Biden will be the oldest president in US history. Biden's age was consistently brought up throughout the primaries and the general election. Not to WP:FALSEBALANCE, but this was also mentioned in Trump's lede. It was removed, but I think it should be readded. Thoughts? Anon0098 (talk) 05:46, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

The lead is for the most important facts about the man's life, and to keep the lead manageable we have to be ruthless about holding to that. That he'll be president is one such fact; that he'll be the oldest president (or only one from Delaware, or the second Catholic, or ...) is not. It's in the body of the article and that's where it belongs. EEng 06:04, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

We mention in the leads of William Henry Harrison, Ronald Reagan and Donald Trump that they were the oldest presidents in U.S. history. I don't see why Biden, who is older than all of them when they were elected, gets special treatment. Being the 2nd RC or first person from Delaware are trivia, because no one cares. Kennedy being Catholic of course was a big thing 60 years ago when Biden was a young man, but has long ceased to be important. TFD (talk) 07:20, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

WP:OTHERCRAP. It doesn't belong in the leads of those articles either. A measure of the discernment at play in the authorship of those articles may be inferred from the presence of the following in the lead of the Hayes article: Harrison holds the record for having the largest number of grandchildren (25) when he took office. I repeat: that's in the lead! Ridiculous. EEng 21:01, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

I understand the interest in mentioning this. WHH was extremely old and died a month after taking office. Reagan and Trump demonstrated substantial cognitive decline in advanced age (as has Biden), which many credible sources say impacted their actions as president. But unless we are going to talk about age in association with that impact, it seems trivial. 75.188.224.208 (talk) 16:53, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

4th para of lead

I would argue the fourth paragraph of the lead can be deleted entirely. The most significant fact of the paragraph is already mentioned in the first paragraph, and the other details are not particularly significant from a biographical standpoint, so can safely be left to the body of the article to handle. Finally, that paragraph has citations which should probably be left out of the lead per WP:LEADCITE, since we have been following that convention thus far. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:45, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Good catch. EEng 12:50, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Libya: did Joe Biden support or oppose intervention?

This article states in the section on his Vice-Presidency that Biden supported the 2011 intervention in Libya, while simultaneously stating in "Political positions" that he opposed it. Both claims are referenced to reasonable sources. What's going on here? Is it that Biden's position has changed over time, or that two more nuanced statements are being compressed by journalism into "support" or "oppose"? Ganesha811 (talk) 14:56, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Added some wording to clarify. He supported the NATO-led military intervention in Libya in 2011, but not direct intervention by the U.S. alone. IHateAccounts (talk) 15:05, 10 December 2020 (UTC)