Talk:Joe Biden: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 261: Line 261:
::That's an argument for putting it in [[Presidency of Joe Biden]] (as well as [[Presidency of Donald Trump]], seeing as it was his administration that negotiated the withdrawal), not necessarily ''THIS'' article. Additionally, I'm not sure we can assert that the withdrawal was a "big factor" in the Taliban seizing power. --[[User:OuroborosCobra|OuroborosCobra]] ([[User talk:OuroborosCobra|talk]]) 21:47, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
::That's an argument for putting it in [[Presidency of Joe Biden]] (as well as [[Presidency of Donald Trump]], seeing as it was his administration that negotiated the withdrawal), not necessarily ''THIS'' article. Additionally, I'm not sure we can assert that the withdrawal was a "big factor" in the Taliban seizing power. --[[User:OuroborosCobra|OuroborosCobra]] ([[User talk:OuroborosCobra|talk]]) 21:47, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
:::There is barely any argument to begin with. Leave it as it is. [[User:Rexxx7777|Rexxx7777]] ([[User talk:Rexxx7777|talk]]) 23:46, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
:::There is barely any argument to begin with. Leave it as it is. [[User:Rexxx7777|Rexxx7777]] ([[User talk:Rexxx7777|talk]]) 23:46, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
:::Efor real, "we cannot assert that the withrawal was a big factor" (sic), It just started immediatly after the anouncement was made, and culminated as soon as the last soldier left the country, that didn't happen while the american troops were still stationed. [[User:Juanriveranava|Juanriveranava]] ([[User talk:Juanriveranava|talk]]) 00:12, 15 February 2023 (UTC)


== Balloon incident ==
== Balloon incident ==

Revision as of 00:12, 15 February 2023

    Template:Vital article

    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

    Current consensus

    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. Mention that Biden is the oldest president in lead. (Feb 2021)

    02. Deleted non-consensus
    No consensus on section about gaffes. (March 2021 - though closer said that proposer should file a new RfC with a clearer question).

    03. The infobox is shortened. (Feb 2021)

    04. The official 2021 White House portrait should be used as the lead image. (Jan 2021, March 2021)

    05. The infobox 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. (July 2021)

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

    Gaffe sentence

    I added a sentence today to the beginning of the paragraph about Biden's gaffes: Throughout his political career, Biden has garnered a reputation of frequently stumbling over his words and being prone to gaffes.[1] It's reliably sourced and is a good topic sentence for the paragraph. It adequately sums up what is well established in this article, and in RS, about Biden's misspeaks and gaffes. Since I've added it, there's been a bit of conflict over it that you can see in the revision history. I'm opening this up to promote discussion. Courtesy ping: @Mr Ernie:, @SPECIFICO:

    References

    1. ^ "Too gaffe-prone to be president? Biden's blunders prompt fresh scrutiny". the Guardian. 15 August 2019. Retrieved 18 January 2023.

    Iamreallygoodatcheckerst@lk 01:23, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Does this talk to his lifelong stutter, already mentioned? We must make certain we don't conflate a disability with a word like gaffe. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:30, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I mean, yeah. I agree with Iamreallygoodatcheckers on this one. Biden is well-known for a gaffe. The idea of a gaffe almost seems quaint nowadays but it used to meant a bit of a mealy-mouthed harmless slip of the tongue, of the type Biden was known for: basically a faux pas but nothing serious. Andre🚐 01:39, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Andre, "gaffe" was already in the paragraph, just not at the beginning. The more general easily understood "loquacious" was at the beginning. SPECIFICO talk 02:09, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Loquacious doesn't really mean gaffe, it just means Biden is talkative and tends to go on a bit. Which he does, he's a long-winded man. That's not a bad thing or a good thing but he does like to talk for a long time, as many Senators do. If you don't like to speak for a long period of time, you shouldn't go into the U.S. Senate. But anyway, I know gaffe has a bit of a negative connotation but to Iamreallygoodatcheckers point, it is really widely used in RS to describe him. Andre🚐 02:55, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Andre, sorry to repeat, but gaffe was already in the lonstanding text. Nobody is suggesting we remove it. But nobody has shown why it should be elevated up top before the general fact that Joe often extemporizes and talks too much.
    • Support - the proposed addition to the page. GoodDay (talk) 01:44, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Convince me - Non-American here. Can anyone convince me this is anything more than an attempt by his political opponents to paint Biden in a bad light? HiLo48 (talk) 02:10, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I too am a non-American & I'm not a political opponent of the president. The word "Gaffe"? I'm familiar with. The word "Loquacious"? I've never heard of, until this very day. GoodDay (talk) 02:28, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "Gaffe" seems to me to be tabloid language or slang. Not encyclopaedic. It's always used to denigrate someone. I have seen "loquacious", but would dream of trying to use it. HiLo48 (talk) 02:37, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The term gaffe is frequently used to describe his misspeaks in RS. [2][3][4][5][6][7]... I can do this all day. With all due respect, I believe the characterization that it's tabloid language is misguided. Iamreallygoodatcheckerst@lk 02:48, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Is it ever NOT intended as a negative? HiLo48 (talk) 03:11, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, that's not exactly relevant. WP:NPOV doesn't mean we can't mention things that can be perceived as negative. Actively avoiding content perceived to be "negative" despite being covered in RS would violate NPOV. We wouldn't do that for Biden or anyone else. Biden's gaffes are probably never a good thing, but I'm sure there are many who see it as insignificant or are generally neutral to it. Iamreallygoodatcheckerst@lk 03:26, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    NPOV does not mean that any bit of sourced content can be put in article text, particularly -- in this case -- with your edit summary that it summarizes the topic of the entire paragraph. Please see WP:ONUS and WP:WEIGHT and demonstrate that your proposed and now reinserted text better represents the core of mainstream narratives than the longstanding text. Please respond to the issue on the table rather than simply repeating the obvious or declaring that it's sourced. Due weight is accurately reflected by its longstanding placement further into the paragraph. What you called a "topic sentence" -- as if it were the central issue -- only seems to reflect coverage by Fox Media, its cable personalities, and assorted blogsters. Yes it's mentioned in the mainstream media and discource, but not as the overriding characterization of his tendency sometimes to talk too much and ramble. SPECIFICO talk 03:42, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I haven't mentioned Fox media at all. Also I don't know where you are getting this assertion that Biden talking a lot is more significant than his gaffes. Most politicians talk a lot. As Andre said, he was a senator and that's what senators do. I'm going to provide you with many quotes from RS that support the sentence proposed:
    • Guardian Throughout Joe Biden's decades-long career, he has cultivated a reputation of being gaffe-prone, often stumbling on his words...
    • WaPo 2019 Joe Biden’s verbal miscues have always been part of his charm, baked into his reputation as a plain-spoken politician...
    • AP Biden is tactile, gregarious and gaffe prone
    • NYT 2022 For many years, under the definition of “gaffe” in the Washington political dictionary was a picture of Mr. Biden. “Gaffe machine,” in fact, was a common description, sometimes said with affection, sometimes with derision.
    • NYT 2019 They plan to implicitly knock down any suggestion that his gaffes reveal a candidate past his prime by suggesting that his cringe-inducing comments are nothing new and that voters are already used to his propensity for misspeaking.
    • NYT 2008 A day on the campaign trail without some cringe-inducing gaffe is a rare blessing.
    • US News 2022 Biden has never been regarded as a smooth talker, and his gaffes have become a meme-launching part of his political persona
    • CBS 2019 The string of summer slip-ups would seem to reinforce Biden's gaffe-prone reputation
    This is nothing new with Biden and has been a feature in his long career in politics. His gaffe-prone nature is absolutely the mainstream narrative and has been extensively covered as I've demonstrated to you. It's not just verifiable; it's due weight. Iamreallygoodatcheckerst@lk 04:15, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a puzzling argument tbh, since Iamreallygoodatcheckers did not use any links from Fox. I presume you know how I feel about Fox. Andre🚐 04:34, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, only OP is arguing about Fox, as if anyone claimed they'd cited it. That ignores the central point that I have repeatedly stated. Have you read the 2019 Guardian article OP used to source their "topic sentece" in Wikivoice? The source is lame. As to Fox et al -- it is instructive, if you google Biden gaffe, to see how meager are the results and how they confirm the elevation of "gaffe" largely by Joe's partisan detractors. SPECIFICO talk 04:54, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it's possible to mention his reputation without necessarily using the word gaffe. I know including this would likely violates several points of policy, but having known people from DC who know and respect Biden, "He's an incredibly smart, compassionate man who tends to put his foot in his mouth" was a pretty common characterization before his presidency.
    There is a tendency for presidential candidates to suddenly be lionized and whitewashed -- remember Trump's ten thousand successful businesses, or Clinton's tireless spotless record of public service? -- and it's important that we be honest with ourselves and not fall victim to that. 129.137.96.12 (talk) 14:08, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • My edit summary when I restored the longstanding text:

      This is not really an improvement. Ordinary discourse doesn't use "gaffe" much if at all and it can be introduced in its specialized application lower down, per standing text. There's no doubt he is loquacious.

      SPECIFICO talk 02:16, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    @Iamreallygooodatcheckers: There is clearly no consensus for your addition. Please restore the status quo version and, if you feel strongly about this, continue discussion here or at NPOVN or BLPN or whatever. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 20:44, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Recommend giving this discussion a full week, before declaring consensus or no consensus. GoodDay (talk) 20:57, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    @SPECIFICO: Since you are the only objector to the addition of this and I don't want this to have to go on any longer, would you be willing to make a compromise? I understand you are concerned about the placement. How about the sentence, Biden has a reputation for stumbling over his words and being prone to gaffes, be placed as the 3rd sentence of the paragraph rather than the lead of the paragraph. Iamreallygoodatcheckerst@lk 16:37, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Chex, first off there was plenty of concern about your addition so please don't say I was the only editor who did not approve the change. The sentence you propose for the third sentence is OK, but I would remove the "stumbling over his words" bit. That is more complex and is viewed as relating to his stutter. The gaffe part in the second half of the sentence sets up his own "gaffe machine" remark to follow. I would also remove the following "racially insensitive" bit, which was a 2021 NOTNEWS flapdoodle and has not endured such that it belongs in a brief summary. I will make both changes SPECIFICO talk 17:11, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Racially insensitive bit

    No consensus for proposal. GoodDay (talk) 20:23, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

    As I explained above, I removed the weaselly text about "racially insensitive" gaffes from the end of that paragraph. It has now been restored. This is UNDUE and received brief coverage in the news media before dying out. His gaffes are all over the place. One could just as well say he is insensistive to deceased members of congress, various southern hemisphere nations, dozens of US cities and states, etc. etc. That sentence should be removed. SPECIFICO talk 17:52, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I am cool with this Andre🚐 20:17, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It is one appropriate sentence with sourcing from NYT, AP, NBC News, and Variety, all top tier RS. If anything it could be expanded given the sources noting just how long the issue has been going on. Mr Ernie (talk) 21:03, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No objections to expanding the sentence. GoodDay (talk) 02:13, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose expansion. It is not a significant event in his biographical life. A brief mention might be merited but I also think it should not be overstated. Biden has made a lot of gaffes of all kinds and there isn't a specificity or a specialness to the racial aspect. Andre🚐 02:33, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @GoodDay: "no objections" is a null contribution. Advocates for inclusion of any content have the ONUS to provide reasoned arguments in favor, not mere statements of opinion, and not mere citations for the content. SPECIFICO talk 14:23, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Longstanding text has consensus for inclusion. If you try to remove it and it gets reverted you need to gain a new consensus that it should be removed. You have not done that here so your re-insertion is improper. Since it has been challenged, please gain a consensus for the change. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:56, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @FormalDude, your edit summary and reversion rationale are incorrect. Longstanding text has consensus to be included. It was boldly removed, I reverted it, and now we are discussing. Until a new consensus is reached the old / status quo version should stand. Please reinstate the content. WP:ONUS refers to verifiability. The way you are using it would mean that someone could remove any long standing text and then insist a new consensus must be formed to re-insert. That would mean we would have launch an RFC to reaffirm longstanding text which would be a big waste of editor time. The better use of the word onus in this situation is that the onus is on editors who dispute consensus text to form a new consensus. The official policy is "When discussions of proposals to add, modify, or remove material in articles end without consensus, the common result is to retain the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit." Mr Ernie (talk) 15:52, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Mr Ernie is right on this point. Andre🚐 15:56, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed, FormalDude's revert should be undone. GoodDay (talk) 16:04, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Muboshgu you are using onus incorrectly in your reversion edit summary too. The correct policy is WP:NOCON. Your interpretation would give any editor license to remove long standing, consensus text and then stand on ONUS to block it from being reinserted. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:36, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That would be quite a desirable thing. When there's no consensus on something, why would we want it in a BLP? DFlhb (talk) 19:48, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No, if anything, the correct policy is WP:BLPREMOVE, as editors are challenging the interpretation of sources used, and this is a BLP. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:48, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You do see in WP:NOCON that it says In discussions related to living people, a lack of consensus often results in the removal of the contentious matter, regardless of whether the proposal was to add, modify, or remove it, right? – Muboshgu (talk) 19:50, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Key word there being often. It's not absolute. See my comment below on how "contentious matter" is discussed in WP:BLP. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 20:48, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    What is the BLP concern exactly? I'm not understanding why that would be an issue. There are scores of sources devoted to Biden's racial gaffes. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:59, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    @Muboshgu: & @FormalDude:, would you please take part in the discussion, if you're going to revert others. GoodDay (talk) 16:45, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    "Racially insensitive" would need pretty rock-solid sourcing. I did a source survey.
    • Sides, Tausanovitch, Vavreck (all political scientists), published in Princeton University Press, 2022: Beyond these positions, there were Biden's racially insensitive gaffes, such as his warm reminiscences about working with segregationanist senators.
    • Levingston (WaPo writer), Dyson (academic, minister, all-around cool guy), published by Hachette, 2019: calls Biden a "plainspoken politico" (I like that). About "articulate and bright and clean": quotes Richard Ben Cramer (political writer), and Jesse Jackson (you know him), who defend Biden's remarks as gauche but well-intentioned
    • Mills and Rosefielde (professors), published by World Scientific (academic publisher), 2022. About "you're not black": Says Biden was widely criticized, but that Biden being a racist is almost certainly untrue.
    And now for the less-reliable ones:
    • Dinesh D'Souza (I'm being cheeky now), 2011. About "articulate and bright and clean": Biden's point wasn't racist
    • Robin DiAngelo ("affiliate associate professor"), published by Penguin, 2021. About Biden criticizing modern Republicans, by saying that even Senate segregationists were more open to dialogue: says Biden did not demonstrate any skill in navigating cross-racial dynamics
    We really don't meet the bar for inclusion, unless people can present better sources than what's here, or in the article. I oppose reinstatement. DFlhb (talk) 17:04, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that this is a solid argument. Andre🚐 17:11, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that I looked at books only, nothing else. DFlhb (talk) 17:16, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    When a contentious statement in a BLP is challenged, the onus to achieve consensus is on those seeking to include the text. The text should stay out absent a consensus to include it. ––FormalDude (talk) 17:10, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed. We need consensus for inclusion. Status-quo is an essay, which we shouldn't apply to BLPs when there is nothing but implicit consensus for inclusion. Implicit consensus is immediately invalidated when someone deletes it, and that is policy. DFlhb (talk) 17:14, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:CRYBLP is a weak claim for sourced content that has been in the article for a year and a half. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:06, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:ONUS is rather brief, and is written with the focus on scenarios where disputed contend is being added. I think the more applicable policies here can be found in WP:NOCON and WP:BLPREMOVE, supported by the essay WP:STATUSQUO.
    • NOCON: "When discussions of proposals to... remove material in articles end without consensus, the common result is to retain the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit. However: in discussions related to living people, a lack of consensus often results in the removal of the contentious matter..."
    • BLPREMOVE: "Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that: is unsourced or poorly sourced; is an original interpretation or analysis of a source, or a synthesis of sources (see also Wikipedia:No original research); relies on self-published sources, unless written by the subject of the BLP (see § Using the subject as a self-published source, above); or relies on sources that fail in some other way to meet verifiability standards.
      • Most all mentions of "contentious material" in this policy are followed with the qualification "...that are unsourced or poorly sourced"
    • relevant portion of STATUSQUO: "To eliminate the risk of an edit war, do not revert away from the status quo ante bellum during a dispute discussion. Exceptions to this recommendation include the following: Living persons – Always remove unsourced and poorly sourced contentious material. If you are having a dispute about whether to include it, the material is automatically contentious."
    If contentious BLP material is well-sourced, a good-faith dispute that ends in no consensus isn't grounds alone for removal.
    ... that said, I'm not sure the current sourcing is adequate in this case. Of the 4 sources, only NBC refers to the remarks as "racially insensitive"; VF, AP, and NYT articles describe the gaffes with words like "unfortuntate", "controversial", and "raised eyebrows." Don't really feel like getting into another politics content discussion, so I'll leave the question of source quality alone. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 18:12, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not like it's a new topic though. It's been a consistent part of nearly all of Biden's runs for office. This CNN piece from 15 years ago notes how Biden filed papers to run in 1988 but reporters kept asking him about these insensitive remarks in the conference call announcing the run. It also reports a joke from 2006 about Indian accents and Dunkin Donuts. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:21, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This discussion seems to head off on tangents very easily. To me there is a core question. Given that Biden makes a lot of gaffes, on all sorts of topics, why would we specifically make a bigger fuss about those that are seen by some as racially insensitive? HiLo48 (talk) 00:23, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I suppose, one might ask why wouldn't there big a bigger fuss about it. Anyways, I don't think an RFC would be required for this content dispute. GoodDay (talk) 17:23, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Because it is known that Joe Biden has huge support in the black community: a major factor credited with his win is the support of Jim Clyburn and the black voters in the S.C. primary. So again, why would we make a fuss about it? – Muboshgu (talk) 18:18, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That he has support from the black community is irrelevant to the topic-in-question. Joe Biden is certainly no George C. Wallace, but Wallace did win the 1982 Alabama gubernatorial election, due to the support of the black community. Anyways, if there's no consensus to add the proposed info to this page? Then it won't be added. GoodDay (talk) 19:48, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That is an entirely unconstructive bit of Original Research nonsense, only a waste of time for anyone who clicks here. SPECIFICO talk 19:59, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Are we in agreement that there's no consensus to add the proposed edit? GoodDay (talk) 20:01, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Taiwan

    I would like to propose a change to the way we discuss Biden's comments about policy toward Taiwan and China. Earlier today I made a bold edit and it was reverted. The proposal I will be making in this discussion is different from my edit earlier. Theres a few problems with the current prose: (1) It fails to adequately explain what the potential policy changes that Biden has indicated; the current prose says his comments departs from the policy of "no boots on the ground" that Biden has supported in response to Russia-Ukraine war when RS has more focused on a departure from "strategic ambiguity." (2) The current prose appears to give some undue emphasis on his September comments when he has made three others, which the current prose doesn't mention at all, and (3) The current prose fails to mention that his administration consistently walks back his comments. The proposal I'm making addresses all of these issues

    This is my proposal:

    In a September interview with 60 Minutes, Biden stated that U.S. forces would defend Taiwan in the event of an "unprecedented attack" by the Chinese,[1] which is in contrast to the long-standing U.S. policy of "strategic ambiguity" toward China and Taiwan.[2][3][4] The September comments came after three previous comments by Biden that the U.S. would defend Taiwan if a Chinese invasion were to occur.[5] Amid increasing tension with China, Biden's administration has repetitively walked back his statements and asserted that U.S. policy toward Taiwan has not changed.[5][6][7][2]

    References

    1. ^ John, Ruwitch. "Biden, again, says U.S. would help Taiwan if China attacks". NPR. Retrieved 29 January 2023.
    2. ^ a b Kine, Phelim. "Biden leaves no doubt: 'Strategic ambiguity' toward Taiwan is dead". POLITICO. Retrieved 29 January 2023.
    3. ^ "A bristling China says Biden remarks on Taiwan "severely violate" U.S. policy". www.cbsnews.com. Retrieved 29 January 2023.
    4. ^ "Analysis | Biden's most hawkish comments on Taiwan yet". Washington Post. Retrieved 28 January 2023.
    5. ^ a b Taylor, Adam. "Analysis | Three theories on Biden's repeated Taiwan gaffes". Washington Post. Retrieved 29 January 2023.
    6. ^ Nast, Condé (19 September 2022). "Joe Biden Keeps Being More Hawkish on Taiwan Than His Administration Wants to Be". Vanity Fair. Retrieved 29 January 2023.
    7. ^ Collinson, Stephen (21 September 2022). "Why people keep correcting the President | CNN Politics". CNN. Retrieved 29 January 2023.

    This is the current prose:

    On September 18, 2022, Reuters reported that "Joe Biden said U.S. forces would defend Taiwan in the event of a Chinese invasion, his most explicit statement on the issue, drawing an angry response from China that said it sent the wrong signal to those seeking an independent Taiwan." The policy was stated in contrast to Biden's previous exclusion of boots-on-the-ground and planes-in-the-air for U.S. support for Ukraine in its conflict with Russia.[1]

    References

    1. ^ Reuters. September 19, 2022. "Biden says U.S. forces would defend Taiwan in the event of a Chinese invasion". By David Brunnstrom and Trevor Hunnicutt. [1]

    Iamreallygoodatcheckerst@lk 03:08, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    No problems with your proposal & so support the change. GoodDay (talk) 03:17, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't put it in the article without consensus here. Please self-revert. What do you think you are accomplishing by needlessly placing it in the article when your talk page thread demonstrates you know it will be disputed and needs discussion? SPECIFICO talk 16:44, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see any issues. Be BOLD and make the change. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:45, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks alright, I would support the change unless no consensus is shown. ☭MasterWolf-Æthelwulf☭ (=^._.^= ∫) 14:23, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Master, you would need to provide an affirmative argument for inclusion, citing Wikipedia policy and the WP:WEIGHT of reliable sources relative to the life and events of Biden. Those are the issues that would qualify any text for inclusion in a biography. "Looks alright" is a casual reaction without providing any rationale. SPECIFICO talk 15:46, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Understandable, go ahead and delete my comment, staying neutral. ☭MasterWolf-Æthelwulf☭ (=^._.^= ∫) 16:36, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Strongly support this change. The previous paraphrase was not competent: Biden never proposed a contrast between his Ukraine and Taiwan policies; the only one in that interview who ever mentioned Ukraine was Pelley, the interviewer, and he did so in passing. It was not the focus of his question.
    Further, any description of Biden's statements on Taiwan that doesn't mention the words "strategic ambiguity" is missing the point altogether. The U.S. government's official position is that it will not say whether it would intervene militarily. Biden explicitly said he would support, and his aides repeatedly restated that the U.S. did not take an official position. Biden's statements are noteworthy precisely because they signal a shift in U.S. policy towards Taiwan (a kind of "double ambiguity", I suppose, though I just made that term up). That it has been walked back "repeatedly" (not "repetitively"!) is an accurate paraphrase of practically all sources on this. That assessment is also shared by at least a foreign policy scholars, whose reliability I'm not vouching for, but have no reason to doubt.[8][9]
    I have no problem with how boldly this was implemented, due to how poor the previous version was at actually reflecting what most sources said. DFlhb (talk) 18:59, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    "Interracial marriage" as a mainstream political issue in lead

    @AidanH123: recently re-added language that strongly implies that interracial marriage is an ongoing, widely contentious issue in the United States. A discussion surrounding this happened a few months ago and petered out without consensus. Although other editors of the time — including @TFD: — stated had objections to me:

    The new wording implies that inter-racial marriage is still an issue on a par with same sex marriage and is therefore misleading... there are lots of extremists who post on the internet, don't consider it to be representative of mainstream political dialogue...

    I agreed, writing at the time:

    It's obvious that the lasting impact and overwhelming majority of the disagreement over the bill focused on its impact on same-sex marriages... WP:COMMONSENSE also applies here. Interracial marriage certainly isn't a key point [I meant something more like "main point" or "primary focal point" of the legislation. Bad wording on my part.] As a political issue: it's been non-existent for decades. The overwhelming majority of Americans support it — regardless of sex/gender, race, income, et al.... Obergefell v. Hodges is manifestly under threat. Loving v. Virginia isn't. The "interracial" aspect of the bill is the equivalent of a bill surrounding abortion access (either for or against) also having "expand puppy shelters" in it. It's manifestly a political tactic. (e.g. "The other guy voted against a bill to fund puppy shelters!") Heck, I'm a advocate of social democracy (Democrats are too right-wing to me) and I understand it.

    Mentioning interracial marriage as a notable aspect of Biden's legacy comes across as WP: Undue. (Along with incredibly WP: Fringe) KlayCax (talk) 11:38, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not sure it's a good idea to leave out half of what a notable law does. Most reporting on the law emphasizes that it does both(Guardian, CNBC, there are others). The Loving case rests on the same legal theory that other marriage and rights cases rest on even if not specifically mentioned by Clarence Thomas. [10]. 331dot (talk) 11:44, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Clarence Thomas making a lone concurrence in Dobbs that espouses a legal theory yet to be put into place and didn't even mention Loving is not grounds for something to be mentioned in the lead of Joe Biden. Iamreallygoodatcheckerst@lk 15:45, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    My main point is that most RS mention interracial in their reporting of the law. It's still a significant protection even if interracial marriage is acceptable by most. 331dot (talk) 16:01, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Biden is not considered to have done anything landmark enough that advanced interracial marriage protection to make it lead worthy. Interracial marriage has been settled for over 50 years, which was before Biden was even a city councilor, much less a senator or president. KlayCax is correct that interracial marriage is no longer a contentious issue in the US. Doesn't need to be mentioned in the lead, it's UNDUE. Iamreallygoodatcheckerst@lk 15:42, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I would tend to agree. DFlhb (talk) 17:30, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Dripping with Bias

    What is meant by the statement..."Biden has addressed the COVID-19 pandemic and subsequent recession."

    This is so overloaded. Many would say quite the opposite. It may be true to say that he was president during those events occurring - but to make this statement sound so positive and matter of fact while Trump verbs/adjectives are all negative is quite comical. How can anyone take this site seriously when it is so unbalanced? 204.194.77.5 (talk) 20:01, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    he spent lots of time and energy on those issues -- ie he addressed them. And the covid rate is far down and the economy has recovered. "Bias" -- I think not. Rjensen (talk) 20:21, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You or anyone is free to believe as you wish. Wikipedia does not claim to be the truth, only that the information presented is verifiable, see WP:TRUTH. Wikipedia does not claim to be without bias, as all sources have biases. Sources are presented to readers so they can evaluate and judge them for themselves. Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources say. If those sources are not being accurately summarized in this article, please detail the specific errors. 331dot (talk) 21:22, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Bias in Lede

    What does the afghan government collapsing and taliban seizing power have to do with the withdrawal of troops from afghanistan? I would suggest deleting that. 47.146.170.94 (talk) 00:51, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Well the withdrawal coincided with the Afghan government collapsing and the Taliban seizing power and was a big factor in it, so it would make almost no sense removing it; also it was (and sort of has been) a big part of his presidency. Rexxx7777 (talk) 20:33, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Was it a coincidence that the Taliban took over, after the American troops left Afghanistan? I don't know. GoodDay (talk) 20:41, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with Rexxx7777. It is a big part of his presidency.US withdrawal coincided with the Afghan government collapsing and the Taliban seizing power.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:49, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That's an argument for putting it in Presidency of Joe Biden (as well as Presidency of Donald Trump, seeing as it was his administration that negotiated the withdrawal), not necessarily THIS article. Additionally, I'm not sure we can assert that the withdrawal was a "big factor" in the Taliban seizing power. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 21:47, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There is barely any argument to begin with. Leave it as it is. Rexxx7777 (talk) 23:46, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Efor real, "we cannot assert that the withrawal was a big factor" (sic), It just started immediatly after the anouncement was made, and culminated as soon as the last soldier left the country, that didn't happen while the american troops were still stationed. Juanriveranava (talk) 00:12, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Balloon incident

    @Rexxx7777: @FormalDude: @HiLo48: I've noticed a bit of a content dispute regarding whether or not the Chinese balloon incident should be mentioned in this article. IMO, it needs to be mentioned briefly. The coverage should not be as extensive as the subsection and paragraph introduced by Rex. Also, it should be pinpointed to Biden's direct actions regarding the balloons. Thoughts? Iamreallygoodatcheckerst@lk 15:46, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    What actions? SPECIFICO talk 15:49, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Actions and statements. He's supported taking the balloons down and ordered it [11] Iamreallygoodatcheckerst@lk 15:52, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but nothing significant there. SPECIFICO talk 16:16, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I am unsure we need this, what does it tell us about Biden? Slatersteven (talk) 15:50, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    We don't know enough about these incidents to know how significant they are. It doesn't belong here at this time. It may not belong at presidency of Joe Biden either. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:31, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Rather difficult to weigh this, concerning inclusion/exclusion. If it were only one balloon that went off course, we'd exclude. But, if it's more then one & there's a pattern established? we'd include. Concerning the latter possibility (a pattern established), then I would think it more appropriate for inclusion in the Biden administration page. GoodDay (talk) 20:01, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I see no pattern at all. I also see no reason to include anything here in Biden's (long) lifetime biography article at this stage. Yes, something could go in Presidency of Joe Biden. Has it? I haven't looked. HiLo48 (talk) 20:53, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    GoodDay, please explain what it has to do with the number of flying objects? Biden did not launch more and more objects. SPECIFICO talk 22:46, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I haven't suggested that the president launched any of these objects. Merely recommending (if objects are continuing to appear over the USA) it could be added to the Biden administration page. Biden hasn't done anything wrong. GoodDay (talk) 23:03, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I dont see that this has anything to do with Biden. If you do, please tell us what? SPECIFICO talk 23:20, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    AFAIK, it's been occurring during the time of his administration. Thus my recommendation that it be excluded from his BLP page, but not necessarily his administration page. GoodDay (talk) 23:31, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That is not what I asked. SPECIFICO talk 23:47, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Iamreallygoodatcheckers: I don't believe anything is mentioned about the balloons over at Biden's administration page. Perhaps, seeking a consensus over at that page for inclusion 'there', would be more appropriate. I just don't think it needs to be included in 'this' page. For the moment, it doesn't seem to be an overall major issue. GoodDay (talk) 00:03, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    What is the significance of a baloon for his presidecy? SPECIFICO talk 00:07, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not about the balloon (meaning it could have been an invasive saucer), it's about China. As this bio already notes, Biden has said the U.S. needs to "get tough" on China, calling China the "most serious competitor" that poses challenges to the United States' "prosperity, security, and democratic values". And no, it's not about prosperity or democratic values here, "just" national security (the provision of which is basically any president's sworn duty). InedibleHulk (talk) 05:35, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It belongs at Presidency of Joe Biden, not here. ––FormalDude (talk) 06:25, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    What doesn't it have that his lesser official interactions with China here do? Reaching an unspecified agreement on emissions, creating chips to compete economically, merely mentioning the potential defense of Taiwan from "an unprecedented attack" that never happened. None of these tidbits had nearly half the impact or coverage that using airpower defensively for the first time since Pearl Harbor did. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:40, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Comparing these UFO incidents to Pearl Harbor is a bit much. And we only know for sure that the first object came from China, I don't believe we know for sure about the other three. Could be China, could be Vulcans. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:43, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Ships Lost in the Pearl Harbor attack:
    Battleships
    · Arizona (Rear Admiral Isaac C. Kidd's flagship of Battleship Division One): hit by four armor-piercing bombs, exploded; total loss, not salvaged. 1,177 dead.
    · Oklahoma: hit by five torpedoes, capsized; total loss, salvaged and scrapped. 429 dead.
    · West Virginia: hit by two bombs, seven torpedoes, sunk; returned to service July 1944. 106 dead.
    · California: hit by two bombs, two torpedoes, sunk; returned to service January 1944. 100 dead.
    · Nevada: hit by six bombs, one torpedo, beached; returned to service October 1942. 60 dead.
    · Pennsylvania (Admiral Husband E. Kimmel's flagship of the United States Pacific Fleet): in dry dock with Cassin and Downes, hit by one bomb and debris from USS Cassin; remained in service. 9 dead.
    · Tennessee: hit by two bombs; returned to service February 1942. 5 dead.
    · Maryland: hit by two bombs; returned to service February 1942. 4 dead (including floatplane pilot shot down).
    Ex-battleship (target/AA training ship)
    · Utah: hit by two torpedoes, capsized; total loss, salvage stopped. 64 dead.
    Cruisers
    · Helena: hit by one torpedo; returned to service January 1942. 20 dead.
    · Raleigh: hit by one torpedo; returned to service February 1942.
    · Honolulu: near miss, light damage; remained in service.
    Destroyers
    · Cassin: in drydock with Downes and Pennsylvania, hit by one bomb, burned; reconstructed and returned to service February 1944.
    · Downes: in drydock with Cassin and Pennsylvania, caught fire from Cassin, burned; reconstructed and returned to service November 1943.
    · Helm: underway to West Loch, damaged by two near-miss bombs; continued patrol; dry-docked January 15, 1942, and sailed January 20, 1942.
    · Shaw: hit by three bombs; returned to service June 1942.
    Auxiliaries
    · Oglala (minelayer): damaged by torpedo hit on Helena, capsized; returned to service (as engine-repair ship) February 1944.
    · Vestal (repair ship): hit by two bombs, blast and fire from Arizona, beached; returned to service by August 1942.
    · Curtiss (seaplane tender): hit by one bomb, one crashed Japanese aircraft; returned to service January 1942. 19 dead.
    · Sotoyomo (harbor tug): damaged by explosion and fires in Shaw; sunk; returned to service August 1942.
    · YFD-2 (yard floating dock): damaged by bombs; sunk; returned to service January 25, 1942, servicing Shaw. O3000, Ret. (talk) 23:08, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Joe_Biden&oldid=1139406852"