Talk:Joe Biden/Archive 16

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Alleged bias

Larry Sanger has recently complained that our article on Joe Biden doesn’t include enough info from the republican POV and doesn’t have enough info on the Ukraine scandal as well as alleging that the info that is there is biased too. Are there any changes that could be made to make the article less biased? X-Editor (talk) 19:46, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Larry Sanger's opinion is irrelevant. He doesn't understand Wikipedia policies, like NPOV and WEIGHT, in part because he hasn't been involved with Wikipedia in nearly 20 years. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:31, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Went off into a tangent. starship.paint (exalt)

If your main sources are CNN & MSNBC news...? GoodDay (talk) 01:02, 18 July 2021 (UTC) You mean sources that comply with Wikipedia's list of permissible sources? What's wrong with these sources? Dinosauce2001 (talk) 22:09, 20 July 2021 (UTC) Those news networks are pro-Democrat, particularly MSNBC. GoodDay (talk) 15:14, 21 July 2021 (UTC) They still pass RS, due to not making up lies. If you want to challenge their status as RS take it to wp:rsn. We seem to use CNN for less than 10% of cites, I am not sure we even cite MSNBC. MSN we use once.Slatersteven (talk) 15:21, 21 July 2021 (UTC) Merely pointing out a fact. MSNBC is the opposite end of the spectrum to Fox news (for example). It's up to the community, which stories get treated as accurate & which don't. Not a messy dispute, I'm going to get into. GoodDay (talk) 15:24, 21 July 2021 (UTC) So...you are pointing out a source we do not use... should not be used? Anything else is an irrelevance. We are here to improve THIS article, not to alter RSP. Slatersteven (talk) 15:31, 21 July 2021 (UTC) Pointing out that Wikipedia (a year or so, ago) chose to decide that pro-Democrat news sources were reliable & pro-Republican news sources were un-reliable. GoodDay (talk) 15:37, 21 July 2021 (UTC) Off topic and this should be hatted. Slatersteven (talk) 15:43, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

In that article Larry Sanger says Wikipedia can give a “reliably establishment point of view on pretty much everything.” That sounds like we are on the right track. He wants a paragraph on the Ukraine scandal in this article, which we already have, and more than that even. starship.paint (exalt) 01:43, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

In September 2019, it was reported that Trump had pressured Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky to investigate alleged wrongdoing by Biden and his son Hunter Biden. Despite the allegations, no evidence was produced of any wrongdoing by the Bidens. [...]

Beginning in 2019, Trump and his allies falsely accused Biden of getting the Ukrainian prosecutor general Viktor Shokin fired because he was supposedly pursuing an investigation into Burisma Holdings, which employed Hunter Biden. Biden was accused of withholding $1 billion in aid from Ukraine in this effort. In 2015, Biden pressured the Ukrainian parliament to remove Shokin because the United States, the European Union and other international organizations considered Shokin corrupt and ineffective, and in particular because Shokin was not assertively investigating Burisma. The withholding of the $1 billion in aid was part of this official policy.

Until evidence of wrongdoing by Joe Biden in Ukraine emerges in reliable sources, this is sufficient. starship.paint (exalt) 01:46, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Forgot about the Senate committees investigation. Added below. starship.paint (exalt) 04:34, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

The Senate Homeland Security Committee and Senate Finance Committee, led by Republicans, investigated allegations of wrongdoing by the Bidens in Ukraine, ultimately releasing a report in September 2020 that detailed no evidence of wrongdoing by Joe Biden, and concluded that it was "not clear" whether Hunter Biden's role in Burisma "affected U.S. policy toward Ukraine".

If people want to talk about these theories about Ukraine, don’t you have to talk about the whole Impeachment (the first one™) to do that for context? Trillfendi (talk) 04:41, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

@Trillfendi: - it's right there in the article - see Joe Biden#Campaign, first paragraph last sentence. I just omitted it from the first green quote (where [...] is), because I thought it wasn't relevant. starship.paint (exalt) 05:06, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Oops, I guess I didn’t notice. Trillfendi (talk) 14:42, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

• Ah, Sanger having sour grapes about Wikipedia again and whining about Wikipedia again. Nothing to see here. Acalamari 05:42, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Not one comment about Joe Biden's 50 year legacy of racism? His opposition to school bussing and his vocal opposition to desegregation? Nothing about his active campaigning with Wallace and Stevens the leaders of the Dixiecrat movement? No comments about his numerous on air racist comments? No comments about his 1994 crime bill that is directly responsible for the mass incarceration of two generations of young Black men?

Yah no bias here. You are all white supremacist racist supporting facists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.0.16.125 (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia follows MSM. Take this issue with them. Wikipedians don't invent information, they collect it—Wikipedia is kind of OSINT. tgeorgescu (talk) 06:43, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

In Joe_Biden#U.S._Senate_(1973–2009) there is a clear subsection: Opposition to busing. The crime bill should be included, it was probably cut during trimming. As for the others... we need WP:RS. starship.paint (exalt) 07:42, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Added the 1994 crime bill. I think whoever trimmed the article confused it with the 1984 crime bill, which also existed. starship.paint (exalt) 08:15, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

"Yah no bias here. You are all [nonsense]."

I don't know what your definition of "biased" is, but I'm assuming it's "facts that are inconvenient to me and the Republican Party". Wikipedia's job is to document everything and make sure all information is verified to be correct so we do not mislead the public. If you don't like how we run things, you don't have to stay. You're the one making these claims so you better find a reliable source that can help your side. Otherwise, you'll be like Trump and Giuliani who thought they can go to court and argue without evidence (thinking they could actually win) and waste taxpayer money and the jury's time. Dinosauce2001 (talk) 22:04, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

This article probably is biased. It barely mentions his sexual assault allegations. The accusations of racism, like public busing, that even Kamala Harris brought up were not just fictions made up by the Republican Party or Fox News they are well things well documented in reliable sources. If more things like that were added it would help with the neutrality of this article. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 23:25, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Iamreallygoodatcheckers, you mean allegation, singular? Only one allegation of sexual assault has been made against Biden, and it isn't particularly credible. And working with segregationists in the Senate is evidence of bipartisanship, not racism. Kamala took a shot at him at a debate, which is WP:NOTNEWS. Allowing the right wing noise machine into this article in the misguided attempt at "neutrality" is WP:FALSEBALANCE. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:40, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Have you ever thought that commentary from the right is also considered to be coverage. You may not personally like it and you may feel its a "noise machine", but when something is being covered in reliable and even threatened Biden's campaign in the primary and the general, it's more than just noise from the right and it's more than WP:NOTNEWS. WP:NOTNEWS is for stuff like Biden breaking his ankle not for one of the main flaws that threatened his campaign. 1 sexual assault allegation? I guess you must not include the numerous women and coverage from reliable sources talking about his inappropriate touching, I was just referring to Tara Reade. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 23:47, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

@Iamreallygoodatcheckers: The reason the article doesn't mention too much about the busing and sexual assault allegations is because we have to summarize on figures as big as Biden or else there is too much content to navigate comfortably and you have to split the more detailed content out into sub-articles linked to from the main one. There is also still an entire sub-section dedicated to the busing and two paragraphs dedicated to both the inappropriate touching and sexual assault allegations. One of the paragraphs even links to a much longer article detailing the sexual assault allegations in full. X-Editor (talk) 03:47, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

References

Eviction Moratorium 2021

The Biden administration is in the thoughtful position of watching 10s of millions of people lose their housing. The end of legal processes that were otherwise delayed by the moratorium now allow a removal by law enforcement.

The original design of the moratorium failed to consider whether the people given an extension will in fact be able to have funds to catch up on missed payments, penalties and other amounts that were previously due or obtain funds from other programs.

Might belong in Biden administration once it's resolved, but not here and now. soibangla (talk) 21:33, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Since 2021.

Should we add "...since 2021" to the line "46th and current president of the United States". Same thing with Kamala Harris's intro & other current gov't official intros. GoodDay (talk) 17:52, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

"Since 2021" sounds rather silly considering that we are still in 2021. No need to add another level redundancy. --Khajidha (talk) 21:15, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes - I believe we should include the since 2021 in all government official intros.JLo-Watson (talk) 23:01, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 August 2021

In the introduction, please capitalize "distinction" at the end of the third paragraph. It's capitalized near the bottom of the article (photo caption President Obama presents Biden with the Presidential Medal of Freedom with Distinction, January 12, 2017) and also in the "National honors" section of the List of honors and awards received by Joe Biden article. 64.203.186.80 (talk) 17:02, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

 Done ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:14, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 August 2021

K Aniruddh (talk) 10:07, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Dear Sir/Madam \

Please give me permission to edit this source and i wan to improve it

Regards K Aniruddh Indiahdh all

You need to tell us what edit you want to make.Slatersteven (talk) 10:10, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:58, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 August 2021

Part want to change: His early presidential activity centered around proposing, lobbying for, and signing into law the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 to speed up the United States' recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic and the ongoing recession, as well as a

Changes I want:

His early presidential activity centered around proposing the Build Back Better Plan which aims to rebuild and renew the American economy. He was able to sign into law the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 to speed up the United States' recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic and the ongoing recession which forms part of his Build Back Better Agenda as well as proposing renewed infrastructure, manufacturing and climate change mitigation investments and expansion of the social safety net for childcare, healthcare and education that have yet to be signed into law. JoeMamaSul (talk) 07:00, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 07:08, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 August 2021

Please 97.126.35.18 (talk) 00:56, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Aoi (青い) (talk) 01:00, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 August 2021

Add a comma to the last sentence of the lede after the words "during this withdrawal", i.e. replace the current sentence with "Biden ordered the withdrawal of all U.S. troops from Afghanistan to be completed by September 2021, delaying the May 2021 deadline ordered by Trump; during this withdrawal, the Afghan government fell and the Taliban seized control." —Kilopylae (talk) 19:35, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

 Done —Sirdog9002 (talk) 19:48, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Impeachment

Should the part about how some of the government are wanting to invoke the 25th amendment on Joe Biden or impeached for the Fall of Kabul (2021). Cwater1 (talk) 23:56, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

This is news to me. What kinda rock have I been living under? GoodDay (talk) 23:57, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

https://news.yahoo.com/marjorie-taylor-greene-introduces-three-222000013.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAGGWPrHhjG2N5lrKsRccoOQEtidULVEo9IjdQYm_vOkfuSfwpGTLvVIRxG27jSJfV_At96umDyodwk_zLHF9We-yrZ_NWv8lZ5QXL-FXW4hqINaTuOH4MLjp3Oxwm0Y92CKVY3YnpXj5_nCd8SfFhzFxx6XwgPpPku71xsWe_TX7

Marjorie Taylor Greene? If anything this is becoming run of the mill at this point - every time she introduces articles is hardly worthy of note. Obviously a political ploy going nowhere. Elli (talk | contribs) 00:57, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Virtually nothing she says or does has any relevance beyond her own and related articles. TFD (talk) 01:13, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

HAHAHA! soibangla (talk) 01:28, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 August 2021

Biden was a member of the Newcastle County Council before he was elected to the Senate. It should indicate that under his name in the section of offices that he has held. 68.53.219.198 (talk) 19:33, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Jack Frost (talk) 00:12, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

It's mentioned in the text. WP:Consensus is to not include it in the infobox because it is an insufficiently significant position. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:18, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Requested removal of part of a sentence in the lead

Currently, the article´s lead contains the following sentence:

Biden ordered the withdrawal of all U.S. troops from Afghanistan to be completed by September 2021, delaying the May 2021 deadline ordered by Trump; during this withdrawal, the Afghan government fell and the Taliban seized control.

I would like to request that the "delaying the May 2021 deadline ordered by Trump"-part, be removed. Partly because, as I understand it, the Trump May 2021 deadline was conditional rather than fixed (supposedly depending on the requirements of the Doha Agreement being met as a prerequisite, with the stated intent to use the remaining US troops as leverage to ensure the Taliban compliance) but also because the use of the word "delayed" might imply undue continuity were it might not exist. The use of the term "delaying" could be read as implying that Biden delayed Trumps plans or was in some way bound to Trumps supposed plans, which isn't the case. Kind regards, Vlaemink (talk) 17:53, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Done agree with that Trump withdrawal was conditional rather than fixed. It is improbable or tough to say what Trump would have done in these circumstances with the Taliban on the rise may not have done a withdrawal . Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:42, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your quick responds! Vlaemink (talk) 06:37, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Lower casing in infobox

A discussion at WP:AN is taking place, which may affect this article's subject & its predecessors. Input would be appreciated. GoodDay (talk) 22:50, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Cognitive decline

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The credibility of this article is risked if there is no mention of the ongoing debate about whether Joe Biden is showing the effects of cognitive decline or dementia. Was there a section on this, or is it being reverted if someone tries to create it? 107.184.68.240 (talk) 22:47, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Please see this recent BLPN discussion that will very likely apply here. We will need an announced formal diagnosis or MEDRS-level sources. This is to conform to WP:BLP and WP:MEDRS. starship.paint (exalt) 08:05, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

MEDRS doesn't apply, since it is intended to ensure accuracy of articles that people may rely on for making personal medical decisions. It would be strange if Biden were to take a leave of absence due to health and we couldn't report it because it wasn't a subject of a peer-reviewed article in The Lancet. But as I pointed out in the Trump discussion, you would need sources that said his mental state is a subject of discussion, not just isolated stories. TFD (talk) 08:32, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Also it would need to more than just media speculation.Slatersteven (talk) 09:27, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: - I was referring to the ongoing debate about whether Joe Biden is showing the effects of cognitive decline or dementia, which was proposed above, and nothing to do with him potentially taking a leave of absence due to health. starship.paint (exalt) 12:27, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

I would think that MEDRS is at least a factor to consider here. If we start making armchair diagnoses of Biden based on particular "evidence", that might lead people to attribute that evidence to their own situation too. Best to leave medical issues entirely to the medics. Obviously if he goes on leave of absence, that's a different matter entirely and of course to be included, with appropriate citations. (But again, avoiding any medical diagnoses unless officially confirmed).  — Amakuru (talk) 13:14, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

starship.paint, I know. My point was that if we used MEDRS as a guide, we wouldn't be able to mention his cognitive decline even if he had to take a leave of absence due to cognitive decline. That would be strange because we would have headlines saying that Biden was taking a leave of absense due to cognitive decline, but this article could not mention that unless the story was peer-reviewed and appeared in a medical journal (which might never happen.) TFD (talk) 13:22, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Firstly, I believe medical practitioners cannot diagnose someone who isn't their patient and who they haven't examined. So anybody occupationally qualified to make the assertion, who makes it, is doing so in violation of practicing guidelines and that fact alone should make them not reliable. And obviously a political pundit isn't reliable at assessing the mental fitness of anyone. So, really, it should not be included at all. I'd also suggest that, in general, political gossip with BLP implications needn't be added.

The Donald Trump case was different, since the whole issue was actually analysed in medical journals and received substantially more attention, and even there we found a consensus to exclude, so this should be a non-starter. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:19, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

I would say it is the same criteria that was arrived on at the Trump article. Basically the Goldwater rule, that unless a doctor has examined him in person we do not speculate on a physical or mental illness. PackMecEng (talk) 13:22, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

I believe the reason the accusations that Trump suffered from NPD were excluded was that they had not received sufficient coverage in reliable sources, which is the circumstance in the case of accusations of Biden's cognitive decline. There's actually a loophole in the Goldwater rule, which some medical health practitioners invoked to diagnose Trump. It's not up to editors to determine whether it applies. IIRC, experts rejected the diagnosis because while Trump has narcissistic qualities, as do many if not most politicians, NPD would be so debilitating that he would not be able to function even to the level that he did. Instead we should leave that to experts and report "all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources," per Due and undue weight. TFD (talk) 13:34, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Well no, that is not why it is not in the Trump article. See current consensus item 39, which states Do not bring up for discussion again until an announced formal diagnosis or WP:MEDRS-level sources are provided. The formal diagnosis is essentially what I was referring to and backs up the notion above about MEDRS level sourcing. PackMecEng (talk) 14:11, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Really? I seem to recall it got a lot of coverage [[1]].Slatersteven (talk) 14:50, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

The most likely indicator of cognitive decline would be if he appears confused or incoherent when he's under pressure to respond spontaneously to reporters during pressers, but he doesn't. The ongoing debate is an ongoing smear. soibangla (talk) 14:28, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

To IP: Has Biden been given an cognitive examination, that we're not aware of? GoodDay (talk) 14:14, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

The same way it was inappropriate to speculate Trump’s mental health or health despite the countless articles about why he slurs his speech, repeats everything he says, and can’t formulate complete coherent sentences, is the same way it’s inappropriate to speculate “cognitive decline” on a BLP. Trillfendi (talk) 14:43, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

I agree 100% with Trillfendi. For the past five or more years we have fought, successfully, to keep speculation about Donald Trump's mental health out of his biographical article. This is the exact same situation, except for a reversal of which side of the political spectrum wants to include it. We do not include speculation about a living person's mental - or for that matter, physical - health. Our WP:BLP policy is clear. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:04, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Unless Harris & the rest of the cabinet have invoked Section 4 of the 25th amendment? The proposal should be rejected. GoodDay (talk) 15:47, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Is this notable enough to be added to the article?

On August 29th, in response to the ongoing Hurricane Ida (2021), President Joe Biden made moves to prepare for the storm. He also made a statement that he was going to give "full might" behind rescue and recovery. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiJoeBee (talk • contribs)

No, maybe (a very maybe) in any article about his presidency, but not here.Slatersteven (talk) 09:12, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

References

Racist

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

When is Joe Biden's comment only called racially insensitive. I think many people have pointed out that Biden's comments are racist, even one of your sources says that. You fairly pointed out that many have pointed up that Trump's comments are racists and not as many have said that about Biden. But saying only racially insensitive seems to be whitewashing trying to portray him in a more positive way. 2607:FEA8:2BA0:1F6:14DC:4E29:766A:18BA (talk) 15:29, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Which ones, and who?Slatersteven (talk) 15:35, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm guessing you meant to ask "Why", rather then "When". Also "out", rather then "up". GoodDay (talk) 15:39, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

"Racially insensitive" seems to conform more with the cited sources than "racist": Biden has a long record of uttering racially insensitive thoughts,[2] and The former vice president has already come under fire for [...] insensitive remarks. [...] Trump's own history of racist comments makes it unlikely the president fully comprehended the insensitivity of Biden's remark.[3] ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 15:46, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

@Slatersteven: regarding this revert, you seem to be mistaken. The third reference is referring to different comments than the first two references, the sentence is fine to stay and so are the first two references. There's nothing to clarify in the prose, the third reference is just not a source for the statement in the article. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 15:59, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Its still the case that say that some of his alleged racism is due to being mistranscribed. that needs to be made clear.Slatersteven (talk) 16:03, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps, but the more detail we go into here means the more weight we afford to what doesn't appear to be a particularly significant aspect of Biden's coverage in reliable sources. I still do think it's better to leave it as it was just with 2 references instead of 3, extra minutiae and clarifying details on specific remarks he made are probably placed in public image of Joe Biden instead. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 16:13, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Its a blp so serious allegations that have been partly challenged by RS must be put in context.Slatersteven (talk) 16:15, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

But, it's not the context, again they're talking about different statements. It's context for something the previous sentence isn't talking about. I don't think that a 2007 gaffe-that-wasn't needs to be discussed in this article at all, it's not a significant aspect of Biden's coverage in reliable sources, just a brief news fumble from many years ago that no one ever talked about again. Either we can leave out discussion of the comments The Economist was referencing entirely, or at the very least it could be explained at public image of Joe Biden instead. I don't think what you added makes much sense. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 16:43, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Then his racism is only in two sources. So then it may be undue. So either we have a full discussion of what many RS have said, or we remove it altogether.Slatersteven (talk) 16:45, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Those are just the ones in the article.[4][5][6] I don't see a problem with one short sentence summarising this stuff. The sentence at the end you added doesn't make sense as, again, it's talking about a gaffe-that-wasn't from 2007 that no one ever talked about again (presumably because they realised he was misquoted). I think I'd technically be rubbing up against the editing restrictions applied to this page if I removed that myself though. Edit: wait, no it wouldn't. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 17:16, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Time in office, introduction

The introduction doesn't mention 2021 at all, except in a link to the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021. Shouldn't it mention that he took office in 2021? 64.203.186.80 (talk) 14:42, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

You mean, add "since 2021"? GoodDay (talk) 17:03, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

That could work, or "he took office on January 20, 2021," or anything else that expresses the same fact. 64.203.186.80 (talk) 17:09, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

We use the inaugural year, in nearly all the incumbent world leaders intro. So don't see why we shouldn't here & at Kamala Harris' intro. GoodDay (talk) 17:21, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

I completely agree, most political leader articles feature the year in which they assumed office. Perhaps the introductory sentence should read something like “…serving as the 46th President of the United States since 2021”. Iluien theIlluminator (talk) 19:45, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Adding "..since 2021." Would suffice. GoodDay (talk) 20:07, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 September 2021

Input imformation regarding the subjects spread and support of misinformation over Voter ID laws. Provide context by referencing the sunbjects false claims of Voter ID laws in Georgia and fact-checkers responses to those claims. Input information regarding the subjects spread of misinformation regarding ethnic minorities and their ability to aqcuire valid forms of identification in the United States and the impact those claims have on minorities including the spread of derogatory stereotyping and the negative viewpoints the subjects opinions originated from. Provide context by referencing quotes from the subject including "Not everybody in the Hispanic and the African-American community, particularly in rural areas that are distant and/or inner-city districts knows how to get online to determine how to get in line for that COVID vaccination." Kings of Olde (talk) 19:30, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

References

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:43, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Do you have any WP:RS? The MSN and WaPo are reliable, but the others are not. Also, why is this one instance of a false statement about Georgia important enough to include in his biography? EvergreenFir (talk) 19:48, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 September 2021 (2)

<! -- Add the following content in the "Reputation" section after the sentence "Some of his gaffes have been characterized as racially insensitive." -->

On August 19, 2021 the British Parliament held Joe Biden in contempt. James Henderson (talk) 22:19, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: Seems like unhelpful juxtaposition (MPs held him in contempt over Afghanistan, not racially insensitive gaffes); also the reason should probably be given in text. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:20, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 September 2021

Change "May through July 2021" to May-July 2021 for formality. 2A02:C7F:567C:C200:C0FE:AA4C:143C:1819 (talk) 12:05, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

 Done Tol (talk | contribs) @ 20:04, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

"Lawyer" in the lead sentence

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User:Thomascampbell123 added "lawyer" to the first sentence, making it "lawyer and politician". I have removed it pending discussion. I feel it doesn't belong there because, although he has a law degree, he only worked as a lawyer for a year or two before entering politics. He got his law degree in 1968, was admitted to the bar in 1969, was elected to local office in 1970, was elected U.S. senator in 1972 when he was 29, and has held elected office virtually continuously since that time. A politician, he definitely is. Even a politician trained in the law. But a lawyer? That doesn't really describe who he is. Open for discussion, of course. -- MelanieN (talk) 03:51, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section#Biographies states that the first sentence of a BLP should "neutrally describe the person, provide context, establish notability and explain why the person is notable, and reflect the balance of reliable sources." It also says, "...try not to overload the first sentence by describing everything notable about the subject; instead, spread relevant information over the lead section." The fact that he earned a law degree is mentioned in the third sentence of the article, so I don't think it's worth mentioning it in the first sentence since, as MelanieN noted, it's not what he's notable for. Aoi (青い) (talk) 03:56, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

I was able to find a reliable source to show that he was an attorney. Thomascampbell123 (talk) 04:03, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Biden is not described enough as a lawyer in credible sources and he is not notable for his law career. It would be WP:UNDUE to put that he is a lawyer in the lead sentence. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 04:56, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't think this belongs in the first sentence. He is notable as a politician and elected official, not for his legal career. As noted above, the lead section already mentions, further down (third sentence), that he has a law degree, and that should be sufficient for the lead. Neutrality^talk 15:09, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

If he needs to be described as something legal, I'd go with "legislator". That's what he used to do between campaigns, draft, pass and block the law, not dodge, fight, apply or enforce it. Now he's an "executive", which is probably the least likely candidate of the bunch, albeit true enough. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:45, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

No controversy section?

Was just wondering why there's no controversy section. A lot of other presidents have them and Biden has done some controversial stuff that I think would be enough to make a new section. Pyromilke (talk) 17:06, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Pyromilke, see WP:CONTROVERSYSECTION. If other POTUS articles have one, go to those talk pages to discuss how to integrate that material into the appropriate sections on those pages. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:09, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

I just looked at every POTUS bio from FDR to the present, and a couple of random 19th century POTUS articles too. I did not see a single controversy section on any of them. As should be the case. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:42, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Per the above they are frowned upon, do you have any specific controversies in mind we do not cover already?Slatersteven (talk) 17:12, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

By "controversial," might you mean "stuff some people don't like?" soibangla (talk) 17:16, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

AFAIK, we don't use such sections in the bios of US presidents. GoodDay (talk) 18:36, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 September 2021

On September 17th, Pentagon officials admitted that the drone strike did not kill ISIS-K members but instead killed 10 innocent civilians. 65.183.155.90 (talk) 23:39, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:56, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

There were two drone strikes. The one currently mentioned in this article, which happened on August 27, is not the one currently being referred to as having killed civilians, which is the August 29 strike. starship.paint (exalt) 10:47, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Added starship.paint (exalt) 14:08, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 September 2021

The air strike that supposedly killed isis-k planners was revealed to have actually killed 10 innocent civlians. 64.135.201.49 (talk) 16:59, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — LauritzT (talk) 17:36, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

There were two drone strikes. The one currently mentioned in this article, which happened on August 27, is not the one currently being referred to as having killed civilians, which is the August 29 strike. starship.paint (exalt) 10:47, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Added starship.paint (exalt) 14:08, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 September 2021

Add information surrounding his nomination to the Democratic ticket in 2020, mentioning the primaries in which he ran against Bernie Sanders, in the introduction. Obama, Trump, and Bush all have references to their primary seasons in their introductions. Deathbydeathstroke (talk) 14:02, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:05, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 September 2021

A new section is needed about Biden's behaviour with girls' hair and the like. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_H5NJZMDumY . 2A00:23C4:4E9F:D101:4453:1CF8:C8A5:1D74 (talk) 13:30, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Yuotube is not an RS, care to show that RS care?Slatersteven (talk) 13:37, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

I think that "Youtube" is spelled "Youtube". If videos are not reliable, I don't know what are. No one is denying that the incidents took place.

The read wp:rs and wp:rsp and that might give you an idea of what are and are not RS.Slatersteven (talk) 13:50, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

See https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/meet-creepy-joe-who-sniffs-hair-rubs-noses-and-fondles-your-face-5d3gg3k56 . The Times is said by

wp:rsp to be reliable.

So now you need to suggest a text.Slatersteven (talk) 14:11, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:14, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

We already have In March 2019 and April 2019, Biden was accused by eight women of previous instances of inappropriate physical contact, such as embracing, touching or kissing.[325] Biden had previously described himself as a "tactile politician" and admitted this behavior has caused trouble for him.[326] In April 2019, Biden pledged to be more "respectful of people's personal space".[327] starship.paint (exalt) 09:02, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 October 2021

Speedycobra69241 (talk) 12:30, 5 October 2021 (UTC) Id like joe biden's article to say bad things about him about how he is sleepy

 Not done Please propose a specific change you want to see implemented, in the form of "change X to Y". There might also be other articles which discuss criticism of him. 331dot (talk) 12:34, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 October 2021

Themarine1 (talk) 23:30, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

I noticed that you forgot to mention the AUKUS alliance. If I am able to edit, I will change this.

AUKUS is designed to defend against China. Themarine1 (talk) 23:31, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:56, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

• Added AUKUS starship.paint (exalt) 06:50, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Allegations of poor planning?

Why should that be included in the article when it's common knowledge that any "planning" or lackthereof, is the responsibility of the previous administration that made this deal in the first place and DIDN'T plan for contingencies for american troops or afghan refugees. --50.69.20.91 (talk) 16:48, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

The Biden administration had over half a year to plan. Let's not pretend that the withdrawal was on January 22, 2021. RS noted the criticism of poor planning. starship.paint (exalt) 06:43, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Over a year to plan when they haven't even been in Office for a year? Really? --50.69.20.91 (talk) 02:24, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

He's saying it was over half a year, not over a year. Larry Hockett (Talk) 02:43, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Approval Ratings

Both Obama and Trump have sections discussing their approval ratings; I did a CTRL+F search for approval, and Biden's ratings are nowhere to be seen. Also, on the Trump page, there is a section designated to post-inauguration protests. We've seen anti-Biden protests all over. It seems like we're trying to put Biden in a good spotlight and Trump in a bad one. I vote we immediately add these sections as to comply with WP:Neutrality and our anti-Bias policies. Dswitz10734 (talk) 13:52, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

care to provide some RS indicating these are noteworthy?Slatersteven (talk) 13:57, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Dswitz10734 (ec) Discussion of Biden's approval ratings is in the article about his presidency itself and its own article, because he is currently president. See Presidency of Joe Biden#Approval ratings and image as well as 2021 opinion polling on the Joe Biden administration. 331dot (talk) 13:57, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

As for anti-Biden protests, you are free to write and propose an addition to this article or other relevant article about that. There is an article about 2021 United States inauguration week protests; an article about Public image of Joe Biden where discussion of other protests might be appropriate. 331dot (talk) 14:00, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Mention Economic supply chain delays etc

https://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/video/supply-chain-disruptions-labor-unrest-take-a-toll-on-biden-approval-numbers-123778629812

Also add inflation, unemployment etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8805:C980:9400:1C2E:831F:CAEE:8765 (talk) 03:05, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

It must be in the body first before you even consider the lede. starship.paint (exalt) 03:25, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

BBC - seems that shortages are hitting several countries, not just U.S. BBC says port-related issues (but affected ports have moved to 24/7) and shortages have also been caused by ongoing Covid-related problems in other countries. So why blame Biden? starship.paint (exalt) 07:31, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Because the OP is probably a partisan. The poll numbers of presidents are often affected by things outside of their direct control, both for good and bad. There might be ways to discuss slipping poll numbers in this article or other Biden related articles, such as Presidency of Joe Biden#Approval ratings and image. 331dot (talk) 08:37, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Nope I am not not a partisan but let me guess if this was happening under Trump you would be typing it's his fault. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-10-21/biden-tackles-supply-chain-crisis-with-few-tools-clock-ticking https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/10/14/joe-biden-supply-chain/

Please read wp:lede, it is a summary of OUR article, it is not a leader.Slatersteven (talk) 17:29, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Opinion articles Left or right should be RS — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.49.109.224 (talk) 17:42, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes and I have posted numerous reliable sources proving my points. Please think rationally. 137.49.109.224 (talk) 17:30, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

A read wp:npa B Your response does not answer or address my (or indeed anyone elses point). You have been told why this can't be added to the lede.Slatersteven (talk) 17:33, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

If you want to talk about the Trump article or articles, please do so there. Here, we are talking about the Biden article. 331dot (talk) 17:37, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

I changed the body, numerous reliable sources, Washington Post, Bloomberg etc have placed the blame on biden and content needs to be added to article, Unless you are a partisan137.49.109.224 (talk) 17:36, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Why does it need to be added to the lede, this is about him, not his presidency.Slatersteven (talk) 17:37, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

And open of your own sources says "global supply chain problems", your own sources do not say its bidens fault.Slatersteven (talk) 17:38, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

All this might change in 6 weeks, this is why we should not add it to the lede.Slatersteven (talk) 17:39, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Hold on now, I thought you said Washington Post is not a reliable source. clpo13_(talk) 17:40, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

The Bloomberg article cited above says President Joe Biden and his administration have been working for months to smooth out bottlenecks, but his power to influence what is almost entirely a private-sector problem is limited. Pundits may blame Biden for this problem, and we don't have to further their aims. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:05, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

"乔·拜登" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect 乔·拜登. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 October 30#乔·拜登 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:36, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Steven Cook which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 11:23, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Ignore that message. The so-called RM was deleted & the RM creator blocked for basically WP:NOTHERE reasons. GoodDay (talk) 01:43, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

@GoodDay: "RM creator", which is likely to be this account operator, have been trolling at random articles and talk pages including Talk:Harry Wilson (footballer, born 1953) and Talk:Ben Mee for ages. These RMs are just nonsense which RMCDbot tags like valid RMs and whatever you find on the destination talk pages are to change names of random articles to random nonsense. This revision and that were the latest disruption done by "this account operator" and you will find, by looking at the links provided, these are just random articles which probably no-one has great knowledge in all of them including me. Thanks, Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 11:23, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, the lad is bored for sure. GoodDay (talk) 13:51, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Joseph, Joe, Joey

In response to https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joe_Biden&diff=1053383874&oldid=1053352798&diffmode=source, I think otherwise. It is indeed noteworthy that his common name changed from Joseph to Joe. Old news articles refer to him as Joseph, so mentioning it would help novices to understand that then Joseph and now Joe are the same person. And this is not an article strictly about Biden's presidentship but about him overall. Appu (talk) 03:01, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

@Appu: Unless you just assume the average 24,000 who read this article are truly that mind-bogglingly stupid to not know Senator Joseph Biden who was in Congress for almost 40 years is in fact the Joe Biden who became vice president and president (mind you, there have been no other Biden politicians in the world), MOS:NAME still overrules you. Trillfendi (talk) 15:48, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Nitpicking - He was a member of the US Senate for 36 years, but never a member of the US House. GoodDay (talk) 15:51, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

The news media may have referred to him as "Joseph" in the 1970s and 1980s, but do we have anything to suggest that it was his preference? Otherwise, it's just the media using his full name instead of his hypocorism. The better known he became, we all started calling him "Joe", which is a hypocorism and we don't spell out per MOS:HYPOCORISM. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:33, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Sentence at end of section on advancing climate policy

Does anyone know what this sentence is trying to say? "During COP 26 the bipartisan infrastructure bill was adopted by the congress what increased the chances for success in the conference." It seems to be grammatically incorrect, but I don't know how to fix it. RedBlue1993 (talk) 15:08, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

A bit of a reminder: The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, after months of stalemates, passed in the House yesterday and will eventually be signed to law by the POTUS. As for the conference sentence, remember to be bold... -47.196.35.44 (talk) 19:40, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

I've removed the sentence. Added: In late March 2021, Biden proposed the American Jobs Plan, a $2 trillion package addressing issues including transport infrastructure, utilities infrastructure, broadband infrastructure, housing, schools, manufacturing, research and workforce development.[420] After months of negotiations among Biden and lawmakers, the Senate in August 2021 passed a $1 trillion bipartisan infrastructure bill called the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act,[421][422] while the House, also in a bipartisan manner, approved the infrastructure bill later in November 2021, covering infrastructure related to transport, utilities, and broadband.[423] starship.paint (exalt) 06:38, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Biden net worth is $27,000?

False 173.89.30.204 (talk) 06:03, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

It was in 2009. – Muboshgu (talk) 06:04, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Why is this even relevant?Slatersteven (talk) 11:38, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether or not it is relevant, but whether reliable sources consider it to be. However, politicians' net worth has long been a focus of media attention and politicians are even required to report their net worth. TFD (talk) 12:30, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Pelosi' net worth would be more interesting. Though she doesn't wanna talk about, when mentioning how some people are poor. GoodDay (talk) 14:33, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

I seem to recall the net worth and tax returns of a certain former president being an ongoing newsworthy subject. It is for all POTUS.[7] And it is especially noteworthy for the guy who was known as "Middle Class Joe" before he cashed in after his vice presidency.[8] – Muboshgu (talk) 16:31, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Mental Health

Guys, I think it's time we address the elephant in the room. Just say something about mental health or dementia. There are memes showing people come to this page, ctrl+F those terms with zero results and it's just kind of embarrassing for Wikipedia. Nate Hooper (talk) 14:54, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Memes are not RS.Slatersteven (talk) 14:56, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

• There was a July 2021 consensus on a similar issue - Donald Trump’s mental health - Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive329#Donald Trump's mental health. It was found that WP:BLP and WP:MEDRS trump WP:PUBLICFIGURE and WP:NFRINGE. What we need are announced formal diagnosis or MEDRS-level sources, preferably retrospective scholarship, of which none have been provided here, Nate Hooper. starship.paint (exalt) 15:43, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

• The information in any article is determined by the extent of coverage in reliable sources, per balancing aspects. When it hits the 24 hour cable news feed, we can consider it. If you want to blame anyone, blame them. Incidentally, the issue with Trump was the same. While it received some mainstream media attention, it was largely ignored. TFD (talk) 16:21, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Until a professional diagnosis is made & section 3 or (more likely) section 4 of the 25th amendment, is invoked? We add nothing. GoodDay (talk) 16:28, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Not actually true. We follow policy, not decisions of the U.S. cabinet. TFD (talk) 17:00, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Well partly true, we would still need a professional diagnosis and not an amateur one.Slatersteven (talk) 17:02, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Im all for fair criticism, but it needs to be properly cited and justifiable. The Biden mental health story hasn't been substantiated by any 'reliable' sources. If you want to propose something for addition then please provide the citations necessary. Bgrus22 (talk) 01:24, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 November 2021

I think that signing the COVID-19 Hate Crimes act should be included in his Presidency section. NarutoElectoralCount (talk) 19:08, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:21, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Let's go Brandon Chant

I propose the following addition to the page:

In October 2021, a video went viral following numerous reports of people chanting "fuck Joe Biden" at sports events began surfacing around September in protest of President Joe Biden and often to show support for former President Donald Trump. In early October people started using the phrase "Let's Go Brandon" in place of "fuck Joe Biden" to criticize and joke about the President. On October 3rd, Donald Trump Jr. posted, "Great to see real America representing loud and proud. 'Let’s go, Brandon!'" along with photos of people holding a "fuck Joe Biden" flag, gaining over 51,000 likes and 8,400 retweets (shown below). On October 4th, Brown tweeted, "Let’s go Brandon," adding in a comment, "not political… just feelin myself," gaining over 15,300 likes and 2,000 retweets in two days. The "Let's Go Brandon" phrase have been used by The Daily Wire founded by conservative pundit Ben Shapiro, Ted Cruz and Turning Point USA. Jd1schroeder (talk) 18:59, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Well, that content is completely unacceptable because you copy/pasted it from Know Your Meme and we can't plagiarize. As to the "let's go Brandon" chant in general, why should this be added to this page when it isn't even on Public image of Joe Biden? – Muboshgu (talk) 19:10, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Don't add to the article. GoodDay (talk) 19:13, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Yeah this is at the most, suitable for public image or presidency, that's it. A small issue. starship.paint (exalt) 01:32, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree that this issue speaks to the suitability or public image of the President, but I disagree on your quote that this being a small issue. Literally every major news agency in the world has published an article regarding the use of the chant, a song was made and became the #1 trending song on iTunes in the United States, and the mind-numbing speed at which this chant has gone viral on every social media platform speaks volumes.74.219.135.195 (talk) 15:36, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Viral media is not uncommon and needs to demonstrate WP:LASTING. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:08, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

There's now a standalone article - Let's go, Brandon. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:13, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

The case for LASTING gets stronger every day. That said, I noticed that Obama's article does not mention Thanks, Obama, and Trump's article doesn't mention FDT (song). I think that's correct, and still oppose adding the chant to this article. The chant isn't about Joe Biden. It's about part of the public's reception to Joe Biden. It belongs on Public image of Joe Biden, sure, but I don't think it's important enough about the man himself to include on this page. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:23, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

So? I do not see what this adds.Slatersteven (talk) 15:39, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

It hasn't received sufficient attention in major reliable sources. Suggest you stop reading the Daily Wire because it provides a non-mainstream emphasis on fringe views and stories that have little or no coverage in reliable sources. TFD (talk) 15:50, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

This tiresome right-wing slogan, along with their tedious "attack helicopter" joke, has been boring to see on social media and isn't worthy of inclusion here. We don't need to add every piece of right-wing silliness to this article. Acalamari 23:50, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

The slogan is frequently used in current news items about the subject, and therefore an objective and brief explanation of its background and use is appropriate here, using RS. Hoppyh (talk) 01:31, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

It’ll fall out of use within a few weeks. Not worth memorializing it on the page. A. Rosenberg (talk) 17:55, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

As a non-American, it's mind-boggling how openly partisan people can be editing Wikipedia, deciding themselves what's worth being included in the article and what not. There isn't even an attempt at hiding it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.169.232.193 (talk) 13:46, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

As another non-American, people deciding what's worth being included in Wikipedia or not is exactly how Wikipedia works for every Wikipedia article. starship.paint (exalt) 03:03, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

The opposition is usually loud, no matter who's president. That's been the case for many decades. GoodDay (talk) 03:36, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Just an idea, but maybe just include a 1-2 sentence description with a link to the main page about it. It is pretty big, but not big enough to have its own section in this page. 1base1 (talk) 01:31, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

EXCLUDE unless/until it's still here in six months. Delete the article about it, too. WP:DUMB soibangla (talk) 02:14, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

References

Flags & Seals

Be advised. We've an editor going around forcefully adding presidential/prime ministerial seals & flags, below current world leaders' infoboxes, without prior consensus. GoodDay (talk) 16:21, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Consistency in presidential descriptions?

Not sure if this is the right place for this, kinda new as a Wikipedia contributor. I was thinking it would be a good idea to get some consistency in the descriptions/intros for politicians and how their offices are described

For example here is how Biden and Obama's tenure in the Senate are described.

Joseph Robinette Biden Jr. (born November 20, 1942) is an American politician who is the 46th and current president of the United States. A member of the Democratic Party, he served as the 47th vice president from 2009 to 2017 under Barack Obama and represented Delaware in the United States Senate from 1973 to 2009.

Barack Hussein Obama II (born August 4, 1961) is an American politician, author, and retired attorney who served as the 44th president of the United States from 2009 to 2017. A member of the Democratic Party, Obama was the first African-American president of the United States. He previously served as a U.S. senator from Illinois from 2005 to 2008 and as an Illinois state senator from 1997 to 2004.

And here is how Kennedy's is described

John Fitzgerald Kennedy (May 29, 1917 – November 22, 1963), often referred to by his initials JFK, was an American politician who served as the 35th president of the United States from 1961 until his assassination near the end of his third year in office. Kennedy served at the height of the Cold War, and the majority of his work as president concerned relations with the Soviet Union and Cuba. A Democrat, Kennedy represented Massachusetts in both houses of the U.S. Congress prior to his presidency.

Anyone else agree there should be some consistency? Please feel free to move this to the appropriate discussion area as well CoryJosh (talk) 23:52, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't see why. Anyway, one was a U.S. senator, one was a U.S. and state senator, one was a U.S. senator and congressman,. JFK and obama were both serving senators when they became president, while biden was a former VP which is a higher position. There have not been many senators or former senators who became president anyway. TFD (talk) 02:49, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

BIF in 4th lead paragraph

4th lead paragraph (which covers Biden's presidency) should mention passage of the BIF, his second major legislative achievement (after the American Rescue Plan). 142.126.87.150 (talk) 19:46, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree, it is one of the major legislative acts of his presidency thus far. I think a good way to integrate this with the paragraph may be to mention the ARP and BIF together as part of Biden's Build Back Better Plan (link to article). This way when/if the Build Back Better Act passes it can be included as well. Basil the Bat Lord (talk) 00:33, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

It’s fine for now. When/if the BBB passes, we can rephrase the opening to how his first presidential year centered around passing his build back better agenda/domestic agenda, which included the ARP, BIF and BBB acts. Then segway into how he also issued a series of EOs and keep the rest as is. Davefelmer (talk) 23:01, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Not sure why we can't just update it now to mention BIF, and again if/when BBB is signed into law? It may well be weeks or months before BBB clears the Senate, and there's no reason not to mentioned BIF until then... 142.126.87.150 (talk) 08:08, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Sorry IP, but the current version has a strong consensus. Chopping and changing it to include everything he does in the lead does not. Davefelmer (talk) 17:42, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Has it passed the US Senate? GoodDay (talk) 09:00, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Biden proposed the Build Back Better Plan, from which Congress passed the $1 trillion Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, which Biden signed into law in November 2021. - added. starship.paint (exalt) 02:23, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 November 2021

The full stops of U.S. should be removed as per as MOS:US. Richard Michael William (talk) 08:20, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: this page uses U.S., either is fine according to MOS:US as long as consistency is kept.  melecie  t - 08:23, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Controversy

WP:DENY SPECIFICO talk 23:16, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Biden called a woman "damn liar", a "lying dog-faced pony soldier" and "full of s---" back in 2020. [9] [10] --Kotys ek Beos (talk) 18:21, 30 November 2021 (UTC) This article is not for documenting every controversial comment that President Biden makes. 331dot (talk) 18:25, 30 November 2021 (UTC) This isn't the Donald Trump article. GoodDay (talk) 18:27, 30 November 2021 (UTC) Nor would something like this go on Donald Trump's article, unless it resulted in some actual consequences that we need to note. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:30, 30 November 2021 (UTC) You got it on spot, if this was Donald Trump, the rhetoric would be different.--Kotys ek Beos (talk) 18:30, 30 November 2021 (UTC) And?Slatersteven (talk) 18:29, 30 November 2021 (UTC) See WP:CONTROVERSYSECTION. Adding controversy for the sake of adding controversy violates WP:NPOV. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:29, 30 November 2021 (UTC) This is the start only. Of course we are not gonna create a Controversy section and leave it empty. The second thing is: Biden's incoherent and mumbling speeches that have been delivered recently [11] [12]. --Kotys ek Beos (talk) 18:33, 30 November 2021 (UTC) Hunter Biden Ukraine corruption scandal [13]. Joe Biden's career is full of controversy and yet not a controversy section on his Wikipedia article. --Kotys ek Beos (talk) 18:38, 30 November 2021 (UTC) Kotys ek Beos (ec) You are close to being blocked as WP:NOTHERE. Biden is well known to have a speech impediment, which is not controversial except when used as a cudgel by political opponents. This article is not about Hunter Biden, and Hunter Biden is not president. 331dot (talk) 18:39, 30 November 2021 (UTC) If you would have read the source, you would know that Joe Biden had a big role in the Ukraine scandal, allegedly abusing his vice president powers in order to facilitate his son's businesses in Ukraine. But it's useless to insist now after I read this talk page archive and users are bringing the discussion over same problems over and over again and the discussion is quickly archived. If there is a non leftist unbiased administrator here, then let me know. Until then I don't believe the discussions here are honest. Best regards! --Kotys ek Beos (talk) 23:02, 1 December 2021 (UTC) Kotys ek Beos, I've read that source, and I can tell you that it is garbage. For instance, it says that Joe Biden has acknowledged on camera that in spring 2016, when he was vice president and spearheading the Obama administration's Ukraine policy, he successfully pressured Ukraine to fire top prosecutor Viktor Shokin. Yet it completely fails to mention that Viktor Shokin, was ousted for the opposite reason Trump and his allies claim ... It wasn't because Shokin was investigating a natural gas company tied to Biden's son; it was because Shokin wasn't pursuing corruption among the country's politicians, according to a Ukrainian official and four former American officials who specialized in Ukraine and Europe. (source). Then it goes on to include the baseless claims such as Critics alleged Hunter Biden might have been selling access to his father, who had pushed Ukraine to increase its natural gas production. without providing anything resembling evidence of Hunter selling access. It is not worth my time to go through this Fox News piece any further. The bias on Hunter Biden comes from the right, not "leftists". – Muboshgu (talk) 23:09, 1 December 2021 (UTC) See the talk page archive, this has been discussed many times, and the same arguments apply.Slatersteven (talk) 18:41, 30 November 2021 (UTC) There is a whole article about Tara Reade's debunked allegation against him, Joe Biden sexual assault allegation. 331dot (talk) 18:42, 30 November 2021 (UTC) Indeed, it certainly killed the Me Too movement. -- GoodDay (talk) 18:47, 30 November 2021 (UTC) What has this to do with anything?Slatersteven (talk) 18:54, 30 November 2021 (UTC) GoodDay, it's not "believe all women", it's "believe women". See Category:False allegations of sex crimes – Muboshgu (talk) 20:11, 30 November 2021 (UTC) Fox News? Really? Kleinpecan (talk) 18:43, 30 November 2021 (UTC) I'm not sure if it would be appropriate to directly quote these statements, but it might could have a brief mention in the reputation section. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 06:42, 2 December 2021 (UTC) I agree with not quoting the exact words since I don't agree with using curse words on Wikipedia, not even when quoting, but I've seen curses being used in articles here. I don't get why users are against controversy section. I suspect they think that controversy section would stain Joe Biden's image, but that's not how things works. Being a politician means automatically being controversial, since not everybody can agree with you when you say lots of things and opinions. The definition of "controversial" is giving rise or likely to give rise to controversy or public disagreement (Oxford dictionary) and "controversy" means prolonged public disagreement or heated discussion (idem). I know Ukraine scandal has been discussed, I don't intend to go through same discussions. All I want to say is that the discussions were about how true the allegations were, but I ain't claiming they were true. All i wanted to do was to prove the existence of the allegations and the fact that they are controversial (who doesn't know about them?). Here at Wikipedia we don't act as prosecutors or judges, but our mission is to inform correctly and precisely. My proposal was (if I didn't made myself clear) to include in controversy section these allegations and to clearly affirm they are allegations.--Kotys ek Beos (talk) 22:21, 2 December 2021 (UTC) Have you reviewed WP:CONTROVERSYSECTION as suggested? 331dot (talk) 22:39, 2 December 2021 (UTC) You might want to review WP:FALSEBALANCE too. Just because there are criticisms does not mean that we should give them weight. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:57, 2 December 2021 (UTC) Allegations unpublished by RS ought to not be here, no? Also, it does seem like OP wants to push an obvious narrative counterproductive to the idea of Wikipedia. (talk) 03:49, 6 December 2021 (UTC) This whole article reads as if it has been sanitized by President Biden's people to remove any reference to his numerous gaffes, his racist and otherwise controversial statements, and the scandal involving Hunter Biden. All of these things merit inclusion in the article, as they are part of what defines who Biden is. To leave them out means the article does not represent a neutral point of view, but rather a very biased point of view. And if no controversy is to be included, the same standard should be used for the article about former President Trump. BarbecuePorkRinds (talk) 19:34, 7 December 2021 (UTC) Hunter Biden is not Joe Biden (so no it does hot define who HE is). And this article follows the pattern of every other presidential article. By the way, we do include controversies, which would you like to add we do not have already?Slatersteven (talk) 19:41, 7 December 2021 (UTC) BarbecuePorkRinds (ec) This article is not about Hunter Biden, the Hunter Biden article is about Hunter Biden. Hunter Biden is not President of the United States. Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory is its own article. That there is not a "controversy" section (which is according to policy, as described above) does not mean that negative information is prohibited. If you have independent reliable sources with information missing from this article or related articles, please offer it. If you believe some aspect of the article about twice impeached, under investigation for countless crimes, former President Trump violates policy, please bring it up there. Consider that you probably aren't the first to think as you do.. I set aside my personal biases here every day, please do the same. Thank you. 331dot (talk) 19:50, 7 December 2021 (UTC) BarbecuePorkRinds I agree with you 100%, sir. And although they might say "Hunter Biden is not Joe Biden" therefore there would be no connection between the scandal and Joe Biden, let's not forget why Biden is involved in this scandal is because of alleged abuse of power as a vice president at the time. The controversy about Biden should be analyzed from this POV of the allegations that Biden abused his powers as vice president to help his son, Hunter Biden, in what he did in Ukraine. How is it not about Joe Biden when it's about something that is alleged Biden did? --Kotys ek Beos (talk) 17:33, 10 December 2021 (UTC) Hunter Biden is the son of the President, so when he is involved in a scandal with Ukraine and the Russians, that does reflect on Joe Biden. The not withstanding, over the course of his political career Joe Biden has made a number of racist, sexist, insensitive, and just plain foolish statements. These are all a part of who he is, yet none are mentioned here. One famous example was in 2020 during the election when he was being interviewed by an African American radio host, and he stated “You got more questions? Well I’m telling you, if you have a problem figuring out whether you’re for me or Trump, then you ain’t black.” That certainly should merit inclusion in this article. Or his statement that "poor kids are just as bright and talented as white kids". Or when he said that Barack Obama was "the first sort of mainstream African American who is articulate and bright and clean”. Or when he called a woman at the Iowa caucus "a lying dog-faced pony soldier.” Or his statement that “You cannot go to a 7-Eleven or a Dunkin’ Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent." I could go on, but these statements and more, which demonstrate Biden's character, should be included in this article. BarbecuePorkRinds (talk) 15:08, 8 December 2021 (UTC) We do mention he is gaff prone.Slatersteven (talk) 15:12, 8 December 2021 (UTC) True. But these statements go well beyond "gaffes" or slips of the tongue. These are racist and other statements that go to Biden's character. Not only does the article cite no examples of Biden's numerous controversial statements, but goes further by glossing over the statements as mere "gaffes". BarbecuePorkRinds (talk) 16:16, 8 December 2021 (UTC) Do they, according to who?Slatersteven (talk) 16:18, 8 December 2021 (UTC) Biden is well known to have a stutter; he is concentrating on getting his words out, and not necessarily on what the words are. They are indeed slips of the tongue, but it doesn't matter what I think. As I've said, please offer independent reliable sources that discuss controversial statements made(and that do not just document them) and how they impugn Biden's character that is not just your opinion. Hunter Biden is not president and his father is not responsible for his actions. Any suggestions for changes to that article can be discussed there. 331dot (talk) 16:25, 8 December 2021 (UTC) (BPR) Do we anything about Trump's children's scandals in his bio article, or Obama's daughters in his, or Bush's daughters in his, etc etc? GoodDay (talk) 19:07, 8 December 2021 (UTC) I can believe President Biden had a stutter, and he concentrates on getting his words out. That does not make his racist or other controversial statement mere "slips of the tongue". He clearly believes these statements, as he is concentrating and intent on getting them out despite his stutter. And of course statements like this impugn the character of anyone who makes them - that is not an opinion, that is simply a fact. BarbecuePorkRinds (talk) 22:01, 8 December 2021 (UTC) What you personally believe has no real relevance to this conversation. Additionally, there is no such thing as "fact" when coming up with what impinges someone's character as the general opinion on someone's character is just that, an opinion. For some people, something might impinge that character, and that very same thing may hold no import to someone else. The only thing relevant to this conversation and to this article is what is found in reliable sources, which you have been asked to provide. Your personal opinion, or what you personally deem to be "facts," will not result in one letter being changed in this article. Find and present reliable sources, or there really isn't anything to discuss. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 22:07, 8 December 2021 (UTC) I don't think you're going to get a consensus for what you want added to this article. Open up an RFC if you like, but I'm guessing the result will be a big no. GoodDay (talk) 22:14, 8 December 2021 (UTC) What does consensus have do do with it? The majority of editors on Wikipedia are liberal, so there is no way there could be consensus about anything detrimental in an article about a Democrat. But if the suggested edits are documented in a reliable source, and are something important like repeated racist statements, they should be allowed into the article whether the majority of editors are fans of Biden or not. BarbecuePorkRinds (talk) 22:22, 8 December 2021 (UTC) Best to be practical about this. You're not going to get what you want added to this article, without a consensus from the other editors. Your only other avenue (if you don't go the RFC route) would be WP:ANI, where you'd have to claim (and prove it) that your attempts to bring NPoV to this article, is being wrongfully stopped. FWIW - I'm neutral about whether or not your proposed changes should be added to this article. GoodDay (talk) 23:21, 8 December 2021 (UTC) NOw other stuff will get invoked. Many of us have made similar arguments on Trump's page about the same things. It did not matter how many RS said he was mentally unstable, we have policies like wp:blp which means we cannot have tittle-tattle or hearsay in his article. That is without the fact you are still yet to show that any of your requested suggestions represent major controversies.Slatersteven (talk) 10:40, 9 December 2021 (UTC) This has nothing to do with whether I am a fan of Biden or not. There are most likely plenty of websites that exist to document every time Biden litters or jaywalks or says something that is not PC and say it's evidence that he is a terrible person. This isn't one of them. If you just want to tell the world how terrible you think Biden is,(as there is no objective authority to make that determination) you should go to one of those websites or do it from your social media accounts. This website operates by consensus preferably based in Wikipedia guidelines. That means you have to work with people who may have differing views from yourself to reach an agreement as to what the article should say. Several policies have been described to you that purport to support the way the article is currently. If those policies are not being followed, please tell how. If other articles are not following those policies, please bring that up on the talk pages of those articles. 331dot (talk) 11:02, 9 December 2021 (UTC) I have no problem with bad information about Biden being in this article, if it's done according to policy(we don't do controversy sections but that doesn't preclude negative information). 331dot (talk) 11:05, 9 December 2021 (UTC) His statements do not have to be in a special "Controversy" section. They should be included in the "Reputation" section which states that he makes "gaffes" (while I disagree that these statements are mere "gaffes", I can give on that point). All of the statements I mentioned above are well documented on cites considered reliable sources by Wikipedia. BarbecuePorkRinds (talk) 13:11, 9 December 2021 (UTC) We need more than the mere documentation of these statements; we need significant coverage of them that is not just some conservative talking head giving conservative talking points or their personal opinion. Please offer any such sources that you have, and please consider that you probably aren't the first person to attempt such an enterprise. 331dot (talk) 13:18, 9 December 2021 (UTC) I don't have a personal opinion on whether we should cover his offensive or potentially offensive remarks. But BarbecuePorkRinds, if you are going to search for sources, also consult Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. Dimadick (talk) 13:46, 9 December 2021 (UTC) I don't need to search hard for sources - it was widely reported. And Fox News definitely covered the statements extensively. And I can hear the protests and groaning now, but Fox News is a Wikipedia reliable source. But other news sources reported the statements as well. It's not like the statements are secret or anything.BarbecuePorkRinds (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 14:28, 9 December 2021 (UTC) I should also note that the Wikipedia article on Donald Trump has an entire section dedicated to his supposed racist statements, and he didn't say anything as blatant as many of the statements made by President Biden. Wikipedia should not have a double standard with one set of criteria for conservative politicians and another for liberal politicians. BarbecuePorkRinds (talk) 14:35, 9 December 2021 (UTC) The reporting of Trump goes back years, it was not only after he became president, and also it's more than just Fox (for which there is no consensus over its status as an RS for politics). Moreover, we need analysis by experts (as we do with Trump) and not just media reporting that he =used (or is using) racist language to drum up support.Slatersteven (talk) 14:38, 9 December 2021 (UTC) I'm still seeing no consensus here, for what you want to add to the article. This discussion is becoming a time sink. You've two choices, begin an RFC or open up an WP:ANI report. GoodDay (talk) 15:12, 9 December 2021 (UTC) So including all kinds of statements in the Trump article that could be interpreted as racist or sexist is fine, and characterizing Trump as a racist is fine, but no mention of ANY blatantly racist or sexist statement whatsover by Biden can be mentioned in his article. Got it. Several people warned me that if I wanted to edit Wikipedia political articles that I would be beating my head against the wall because Wikipedia editors and administrators are overwhelmingly liberal and refuse to allow even the least bit of criticism of any liberal politician to appear in an article, no matter how well documented. I was also told that if I persisted I would simply be blocked, while blatantly biased liberal editors can operate with complete freedom and impunity. I honestly didn't believe that it could be this bad, but now I know. BarbecuePorkRinds (talk) 16:43, 9 December 2021 (UTC) As you have been told either launch an RFC or take us to ANI. And we do allow criticism here "Some of his gaffes have been characterized as racially insensitive", which is what RS say. Do you have any RS that outright say he is a racist?Slatersteven (talk) 16:47, 9 December 2021 (UTC) BarbecuePorkRinds If you just want to read what you want to hear, you might try Conservapedia. I'm sorry you can't set aside your political biases while you are here, I do my best to. If you have reliable sources that characterize Biden as a racist based on what experts say(again, not just documenting what he says or the opinions of conservative talking heads), please offer them, but you don't seem interested in collaboration. Good day. 331dot (talk) 16:50, 9 December 2021 (UTC) Trump has a long-documented history of racism, starting with his housing projects in the 70s. 331dot (talk) 16:52, 9 December 2021 (UTC) Biden similarly has a long-documented history of racist and sexist statements. I have already pointed out several. This isn't a secret - the statements are well-documented. Are you trying to argue 1) that Biden did not make the statements or 2) that they somehow weren't racist? BarbecuePorkRinds (talk) 22:09, 13 December 2021 (UTC) Or I suppose there is a third possibility - That Biden did make the statements as documented, that they were racist or sexist, but the editors here cannot put aside their biases and agree to allow any examples of Biden's racist statements to be included in the article. Is that the case? BarbecuePorkRinds (talk) 22:19, 13 December 2021 (UTC) BarbecuePorkRinds, where has a single RS referred to the statements as "racist" or "sexist"? He's said what he's said, but it's not up to any of us to interpret it. That's WP:SYNTHESIS. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:21, 13 December 2021 (UTC) Open an RFC or discontinue the discussion, which is bordering on WP:FORUM. -- GoodDay (talk) 22:23, 13 December 2021 (UTC) BarbecuePorkRinds, you aren't listening to us. We've told you what we are looking for and we are still waiting for you to offer it. Pot, meet kettle. 331dot (talk) 22:28, 13 December 2021 (UTC) IMHO, if an RFC isn't opened up on this topic? Then the entire 2-week old discussion should be hatted. GoodDay (talk) 22:42, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

What is an RFC, and how is it opened? BarbecuePorkRinds (talk) 22:01, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

RFC is jargon for Request for Comment; click that link for more information, especially if you don't intend to offer sources as requested. 331dot (talk) 22:03, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Omicron surge

It's worth it to mention Biden's response to the current Omicron surge. He argued that the federal government cannot intervene in Omicron. Instead, he argued intervention happens at a state level. This is despite cases rising in all states, causing outrage. 2600:1700:FC10:48C0:4858:9F69:7869:1B3 (talk) 18:36, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

"In response to the surge of the COVID-19 Omicron variant in December, Biden advocated a state-level response over a federal response. Soon after, the CDC revised their guidelines recommending quarantine for five days rather than ten. By the end of December, the United States reported an all-time high of new COVID cases."

His comment was misconstrued as federal abandonment of states. soibangla (talk) 19:26, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

There's a bit of WP:SYNTHESIS going on here by ordering these statements in a way that one seems to lead to the other, implying one is the result of the other. The updated CDC guideline, for example, didn't start the Omicron surge being experienced at the end of December as the CDC guidance shortening the quarantine period was itself also done at the end of December, after we were already well into the Omicron surge. Additionally, that surge is being seen all over the world, and not just in countries where the US CDC has authority (i.e. the US). This isn't to say that reliably sourced criticism of Biden's response cannot be included, but it must be done in such a way as to not imply the type of cause/effect relationship that the proposed text suggests. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 20:11, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree the description is misleading. But the CNBC article said Biden "campaigned on the federal government’s ability to curb the pandemic." He is now backtracking. TFD (talk) 20:49, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Biden is not backtracking. That CNBC article then says Those comments represent one of the most explicit acknowledgements to date from the Biden administration that it will need help from state and local governments in its efforts to curb the spread of Covid-19. as well as The president on Monday reiterated some of the promises he made last week, including the federal government’s purchase of 500 million rapid coronavirus tests. It's not "backtracking", it's acknowledging that states have a role to play too. After all, he's just announced a new $137 million contract from the DoD. I agree with OuroborosCobra that the proposed addition is too much SYNTH. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:57, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

How about: "The Biden administration responded to the global spread of the COVID-19 Omicron variant in December 2021 by advocating for a state-level response over a federal level response. Throughout the surge, the Biden administration has been criticized for a lack of COVID tests, exacerbating the spread of the Omicron variant. When questioned about the apparent shortage of tests, Jen Psaki replied, “Should we just send one to every American? Then what happens if every American has one test? How much does that cost and what happens after that?”, causing backlash. The Biden administration responded by promising an increased supply of at-home tests later in 2022.

In the midst of an all-time high of new COVID cases, the CDC revised their guidelines, recommending five days of quarantine rather than ten without requiring a negative COVID test. This move was criticized by health experts who worry that without rapid testing, COVID-positive people may unknowingly spread COVID in workplaces under the recommended CDC guidelines. Others criticize the CDC for implementing this change following lobbying by the airline industry, leading to social media backlash against the federal government." –2600:1700:FC10:48C0:4858:9F69:7869:1B3 (talk) 21:47, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Since you refer to "The Biden administration," consider taking this to the Presidency article. soibangla (talk) 23:08, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

References

Biden's Atlanta voting rights speech.

I hope after Biden's voting rights speech in Atlanta. we will be mentioning (with sources) that Republican senators aren't the only ones blocking voting rights & over-turning the filibuster. There's at least 'two' Democratic senators, who are also blocking the progress. GoodDay (talk) 21:38, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

It sounds like you're suggesting that this article suggests that it's only Republicans, but I see nothing about voting rights in this article. So is this a WP:NOTAFORUM post? His voting rights speech, and the roles of Sinema and Manchin, belong in the presidency article, not the bio. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:14, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

The Biden administration article, would be a better fit. GoodDay (talk) 22:18, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Response to the State of the Union Addresses, in the succession boxes

I've noticed quite a few of these Response to the State of the Union Addresses being added to the succession boxes of this & other American politicians bios, under the "Office and distinction" banner. IMHO, this is a tad too much & should be deleted. GoodDay (talk) 04:34, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Note: They begin in 1966, with Gerald Ford & Everett Dirksen bios & appear to be in every bios of anyone who's responded to the State of the Union Address. GoodDay (talk) 04:44, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

I would support deleting all of those succession boxes for SOTU. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:15, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

@AmYisroelChai: had removed some or all of them earlier, but @Therequiembellishere: reverted those deletions. GoodDay (talk) 22:20, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Something is in the wrong section

"Biden was consistently ranked one of the least wealthy members of the Senate,[478][479][480] which he attributed to his having been elected young.[481] Feeling that less-wealthy public officials may be tempted to accept contributions in exchange for political favors, he proposed campaign finance reform measures during his first term.[93] As of November 2009, Biden's net worth was $27,012.[482] By November 2020, the Bidens were worth $9 million, largely due to sales of Biden's books and speaking fees after his vice presidency.[483][484][485][486]"

This has nothing to do with reputation; it's entirely biographical information. Saying he was poor is a fact and has nothing to do with public opinion. What if everyone actually hates him for being less wealthy? It's ambiguous and unencyclopedic and should be moved. 174.193.194.146 (talk) 18:12, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Being one of the least wealthy members of Congress was part of his reputation, but you are right that it is also biographical content beyond "reputation". Is there a section you suggest we move this to? – Muboshgu (talk) 19:15, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

I would suggest moving this sentence "Feeling that less-wealthy public officials may be tempted to accept contributions in exchange for political favors, he proposed campaign finance reform measures during his first term" or an elaboration of that to the section above "Political Positions" and keeping the rest in the reputation section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aleena98 (talk • contribs) 12:15, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Suggestions for improving the article

I think it would be great to improve the article to GA, or preferably even FA. Could somebody do a peer review to suggest changes? Lallint⟫⟫⟫Talk 21:46, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

This article is highly unlikely to become an GA or an FA while Biden is President, because it would be extremely difficult for it to remain stable. Stability is one of the GA criteria, and an important one. Ganesha811 (talk) 01:58, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

It might be possible though, as this bio doesn't get anywhere's near the attention that the Donald Trump article does. So at the very least, an GA or FA attempt might be less of a struggle. GoodDay (talk) 02:32, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't think this should be a GA or FA, considering the stability issue. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 05:20, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Lead sentence about Afghan withdrawal

My edit altering the lead sentence regarding the Afghanistan withdrawal to conform with what RS says was reverted. The sentence reads now as:

Biden completed the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan by September 2021; following the withdrawal, the Afghan government collapsed and the Taliban seized control.

and it should read

Biden completed the withdrawal of all U.S. troops from Afghanistan by September 2021; during this, the Afghan government fell and the Taliban seized control, causing Biden to face bipartisan criticism over the manner of withdrawal, with it being described as chaotic and poorly planned.

Firstly, not mentioning that he faced criticism is a massive WP:NPOV issue as RS has widely described the criticism. Many RS have mentioned the criticism as being bipartisan. Now before Neutrality reversed my edit the sentence read: Biden completed the withdrawal of all U.S. troops from Afghanistan by September 2021; during this, the Afghan government fell and the Taliban seized control, causing Biden to face criticism over the manner of withdrawal, with allegations of poor planning. The revision I'm proposing makes 2 needed changes: (1) it mentions the criticism as being bipartisan, a fact that is widely mentioned in RS and (2) explained in a non-whitewashed way that the withdrawel has been described as poorly planned and chaotic, and that these descriptions have not been presented an "allegation" in RS.

Here are some references supporting my changes, they are all green check marked at WP:RSP and are mix of national, international, old, and new:

• NYT: Law Makers Unite in in Bipartisan Fury Over Afghanistan Withdrawal, this is the title of that article and explains the Bipartisan criticism. I don't have NYT membership so I can't explore the contents of this article.
• CNN: The debacle of the US defeat and chaotic retreat in Afghanistan is a political disaster for Joe Biden, whose failure to orchestrate an urgent and orderly exit will..., this displays the withdrawal being described as poorly planned and chaotic.
• NPR: Criticism of the administration was bipartisan...Democrats...criticized the haphazard manner of the U.S. withdrawal. Again mentioning bipartisan criticism and states the withdrawal as being "haphazard".
• Politico: Biden administration continues to face tough questions about what critics are calling a botched withdrawal. The withdrawal being described as botched (aka poorly planned)
• CNN: America's chaotic, humiliating final retreat from its defeat in Afghanistan will... Described as chaotic.
• CNN: The US departure marks the end of a fraught, chaotic and bloody exit from the United States' longest war.
• The New Yorker: Bidens Chaotic Withdrawal from Afghanistan... (the title)
• WaPo:Will the chaotic and deadly withdrawal from Afghanistan... (this is the title)
• NPR:6 Political Takeaways For President Biden From The Chaotic Afghanistan Withdrawal (this is the title), ...the disorganization and confusion of President Biden's full U.S. military withdrawal of Afghanistan., Biden is facing a bipartisan backlash, The chaotic withdrawal cuts against Biden's competence narrative
• Time: 'A Decision Was Made.' Biden Faces the Fallout for His Chaotic Retreat in Afghanistan (title)
• Politico: The White House is moving quickly to contain the fallout from the botched Afghanistan withdrawal...
• CNN: Biden promised allies 'America is back.' Chaotic Afghanistan withdrawal is making them fear it's still 'America First.' (title)
• Daily Telegraph (UK): Joe Biden's botched Afghan withdrawal...
• Guardian: ...even in the face of rebukes from Democrats and Republicans over how the troop withdrawal has been executed.
• Guardian: With recriminations flying in Washington over the chaotic retreat...
• Vanity Fair: CONGRESS AND DIPLOMATS WANT ANSWERS TO BIDEN’S CHAOTIC AFGHAN WITHDRAWAL (title)
• CNN: Amid scenes of a chaotic and rushed evacuation from Afghanistan, multiple House Republicans are vowing to launch congressional investigations into the Biden administration's botched withdrawal if they win back the chambe...
• Politico: ...with the botched military withdrawal from Afghanistan last summer...

Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 00:11, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Your edits are dubious -- please stop adding more of them prior to resolution in a deliberate talk page consideration of your view. SPECIFICO talk 23:53, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

This discussion addresses the lead only. My edits to the body were WP:BOLD. I have restored to longstanding text for this discussion to pan out. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 00:01, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

A tad confused here. Who made the aforementioned edits? GoodDay (talk) 00:10, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

I started this discussion if thats what your asking. I had forgotten my signature. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 00:12, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

• Comment: I've restored Neutrality's removal of the text in question until the issues they mentioned in their edit summary are addressed. ––FormalDude talk 05:04, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

References

Why is there nothing in the infobox on his chairmanship of the judiciary committee?

The infobox on Orrin Hatch page says that on Jan 3, 1995, Hatch took the reins of the judiciary committee from Joe Biden. But Biden's infobox doesn't say anything about this. I haven't track down all the dates, but it should be included. —MiguelMunoz (talk) 00:34, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

There was a prior RFC that was closed with a consensus to remove these from the infobox (RFC is here, closing statement is here). The dates of his Senate-specific positions can be found in the infobox at US Senate career of Joe Biden. Aoi (青い) (talk) 00:46, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Xi Jinping is listed as Chinese Vice President

It would be good to update that to say president. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meznaric (talk • contribs) 17:00, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing it out Meznaric, error corrected. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:03, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Check the date of that image though, it's 2012. Xi Jinping didn't become Chinese President until 2013. GoodDay (talk) 17:09, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Yeah I noticed that after I replied here and put in a file move request on Commons. Then I caught it and revised it to just fix the MOS:CURLY issue. I need moar coffee. It's a no bones day. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:11, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Electoral history

What is the "±%" column supposed to indicate? The value for the popular vote in the 2020 presidential race is +3.13%. Since Trump received 46.9% of the vote to Biden's 51.3%, shouldn't that be 4.45%? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 21:41, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Same question for the value of the electoral college vote. "+14.69%" compared to what? 306:232 electoral college votes works out to 13.75% more in favor of Biden. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:30, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

it says it if you click on the symbol. change since last election Anon0098 (talk) 07:41, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Anon0098, the symbol I see isn't clickable. Change since last election—comparing Biden's popular vote margin of victory to Clinton's, who won the popular vote in 2016, and his margin of victory in electoral college votes also to Clinton's who lost the electoral college votes in 2016? Odd juxtaposition, seems more than a tad illogical. Logical would be a comparison to the winner of the 2016 election or to the loser in the 2020 election, not a comparison to the previous candidate of the same party. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 11:51, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm on mobile rn maybe that's why. Exact texts says "Change in percentage value since previous election". I agree though, definitely a weird statistic. I'd support a change, either removing it or changing it to comparison to opponent Anon0098 (talk) 23:37, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

New states

With all of the infrastructure/budget debates, I have lost my feel for the likelihood of DC Statehood and PR statehood. Is Biden expected to make either of these happen during his presidency now?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:06, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

This isn't a forum, but for what it's worth. The Senate Democrats won't unify to overturn the filibuster (which means bills can't be passed unless 60 votes are obtained, rather then just 51 votes). Also, VP Harris refuses to over-rule the Senate parliamentarian on the filibuster matter. In other words, DC & PR aren't going to become states for a long time, if ever. GoodDay (talk) 00:12, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Thx.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:05, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

So mention of any of his controversies is off-limits?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

No other President's entry, including Obama, has Bern scrubbed so thoroughly free of mention of controversy. I note this comment on Donald Trump: "Many of his comments and actions have been characterized as racially charged or racist, and many as misogynistic." Yet everyone is aware of some remarks by Biden (saying integrating schools would create a jungle, saying "you ain't black" if you don't vote for him, etc.) that seem racially insensitive. In short, many of the accusations leveled at Trump apply to Biden. But Wikipedia forbids mentioning it on Biden's entry. 73.176.210.9 (talk) 14:39, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Want to suggest any, that are more than just title tattle?Slatersteven (talk) 14:46, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Define "title tattle" and I will. But define it in such a way that the controversies under Trump don't merely constitute "title tattle." So please tell me what title tattle is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richbrowncrs (talk • contribs) 15:51, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Well more than just gossip or rumour, supported by RS saying its what he said or did, and calling it controvershal.Slatersteven (talk) 15:58, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Policy says that weight given to controversies should be based on their coverage in reliable sources. The reason there is little or no coverage of controversies is that mainstream media has chosen to ignore them. TFD (talk) 15:59, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

NEWSWEEK quotes Kampala Harris as saying Biden did some "hurtful" things when he opposed busing and when he's praised some racist politicians in the past. Surely a verifiable documentation of his VP saying he was "hurtful" to persons of color rises to the level of an admission that there has been controversy regarding Biden and race. Richbrowncrs (talk) 16:08, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Please offer sources that describe this as controversial; your opinion that it is controversial is irrelevant. Are you here to collaborate, or here to dish anti-Biden talking points? 331dot (talk) 16:10, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

• Biden is well known to have a stutter, which is often the cause of his impolitic statements. Trump has a well documented history of racism dating to the 1970s. In any event, there is an entire article about Tara Reade and her accusation as well as the Ukraine accusations. So the idea that we don't cover Biden scandals is incorrect. 331dot (talk) 16:10, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Both of which we mention, and link to. So we do in fact include criticism of him.Slatersteven (talk) 16:12, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

So the magic word is "controversial," and it must be from CNN, I presume? So then if CNN uses the word "controversial," anything is game? Just trying to understand the rules. Richbrowncrs (talk) 16:16, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

CNN is not the only source we use or allow, read wp:rs and then wp:rsp.Slatersteven (talk) 16:17, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

So the scandal you're using as an example of equal time is you mention Biden's stutter?.that's the scandal? Richbrowncrs (talk) 16:19, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

I've provided a WaPo article that goes into detail about Biden's "controversial history" with busing. Richbrowncrs (talk) 16:20, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

w.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/06/28/exchange-with-harris-bidens-controversial-history-busing-school-integration-crashes-forefront/ Richbrowncrs (talk) 16:22, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not claim to provide equal time, or to be unbiased for that matter. Coverage depends on what reliable sources say about a topic and in what proportion. See WP:FALSEBALANCE. 331dot (talk) 16:25, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

NO you have not, you have claimed it exists, care to link to it? Here by the way is why we can't include it https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/6/28/18965923/joe-biden-school-desegregation-busing-democratic-primary, in essence, it may not be quite "black and white" as you say. So we would need far too much text to cover one line in a decades-long career. But in fact we do mention it, maybe you should try reading the article?Slatersteven (talk) 16:27, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Go work for the NFL. You're great at moving goal oosts. Richbrowncrs (talk) 16:27, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Look just tell me "we will not post negative things about Joe Biden" and we can avoid this back and forth. Richbrowncrs (talk) 16:29, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

That is not true, as I have said.. If you only want to read what you want to hear, this isn't the place for you. 331dot (talk) 16:30, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

I have provided you an article that fit your original criteria...so then you added to it, and I provided another one...so you moved the goals again. I'm positive that no matter how much research I provifr, you will keep adding new criteria, because as you just admitted, you are biased. Richbrowncrs (talk) 16:33, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

No one has added criteria. Two articles are not enough. Again, are you here to collaborate, or dish anti-Biden talking points? 331dot (talk) 16:36, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

w.heritage.org/progressivism/commentary/bidens-history-getting-away-racist-remarks Richbrowncrs (talk) 16:34, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

That is commentary. 331dot (talk) 16:36, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Is it even an RS?Slatersteven (talk) 16:36, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

The editor has now been indefinitely blocked. TFD (talk) 17:07, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

To the IP. Like the Trump BLP, I wish you luck on getting this BLP to NPoV status. GoodDay (talk) 17:32, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Your continued vague commentary about the Trump and Biden BLPs is unhelpful. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:21, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Suggested Edits to Joe Biden Page

Hello!

I noticed there were a few things about Joe Biden's current presidency that could be added. Some things that he has done that have not yet been mentioned are the official recognition of the Armenian genocide, the diplomatic boycott of the 2022 Olympics, and the airstrike that killed ten citizens in Kabul. I also thought it may be good to include a table of campaign promises versus what he has done to achieve those so far because there is currently a lot of uproar about his promise to forgive student loans which he has not met yet. Many people harp on the promises he has broken, but it would be interesting to see which he has upheld next to those for an unbiased comparison. Thanks!

Clash2022 (talk) 14:55, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Sources

THis page is about JOe Biden, not his presidency.Slatersteven (talk) 14:59, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Clash2022 See Presidency of Joe Biden. 331dot (talk) 15:19, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a voter guide; we aren't interested in comparing promises made with promises kept. We are interested in summarizing independent reliable sources. 331dot (talk) 15:20, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

I understand why you do not want to include campaign promises then, but I still find the diplomatic boycott and Kabul relevant considering you included that Afghanistan withdrawal. Please let me know your thoughts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clash2022 (talk • contribs) 15:32, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Please describe how the Olympic boycott is related to Joe Biden personally and not just his presidency. In the case of Afghanistan he personally made decisions related to it. 331dot (talk) 15:35, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestions, Clash2022. As suggested above, some of these things, such as the diplomatic boycott and the Kabul raid, might better belong in Presidency of Joe Biden. This is a biography, and while his presidency is part of it, we try to include only the highlights or the things most closely associated with him personally. As for the "table of promises made vs. promises kept," that would be WP:Original research which we don't allow. We only include things that have been specifically covered by multiple reliable sources. -- MelanieN (talk) 11:38, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 February 2022

Goldbrg (talk) 17:31, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

I found about two spelling errors in the entire thing.

Goldbrg Please specify the errors. 331dot (talk) 17:33, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:33, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 February 2022

He is the second non-incumbent vice president (after Richard Nixon in 1968) to be elected president and the first person to serve as vice president and president since George H. W. Bush. Anonymous 13893 (talk) 03:53, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

No one is disputing that. GoodDay (talk) 04:04, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 February 2022

I suggest removing the following lines from Joe Biden#Presidential transition:

In December 2020, Biden received his first dose of the Pfizer–BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine at the Christiana Hospital in Delaware, publicly taking the vaccine on live television to build trust in the vaccine and to encourage Americans to get inoculated.[360][361] He returned for his second dose in January 2021.

These sentences are very out-of-place and have nothing to do with the section they are in. This event is not even mentioned in the full article Presidential transition of Joe Biden. Harpo 53 (talk) 19:42, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Done Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 06:20, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Adding response to Russian invasion to lead

Biden's response to the Russian invasion of Ukraine is undoubtedly going to be a major part of his presidency. To this end I propose something like the following be added to the lead:

"He enacted sanctions on Russia in response to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine." Basil the Bat Lord (talk) 05:20, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

No. That's not really about him. It might fit better in the article about his Presidency. HiLo48 (talk) 05:47, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Firstly, this isn't even in the body, so it would certainly be inappropriate in the lead at this time. I'm not necessarily opposed to this statement in the lead, we might want to wait and to make sure it's not WP:RECENTISM. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 06:17, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Ok i will add Lolliepop1234 (talk) 01:04, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

What? That was NOT the conclusion of the discussion above. HiLo48 (talk) 02:23, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

It's WP:RECENTISM. Putin invaded, what, 48 hours ago? Let's let the dust settle first, literally. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:48, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Subsequent activities (2017–2019)

The line about him being a professor at the University of Pennsylvania is misleading, it was an honorary position and he never taught any classes. Should be an easy fix, just need to add the word "honorary". DrRamses99 (talk) 16:52, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

I fleshed this out further than just adding "honorary". – Muboshgu (talk) 17:36, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

References

NPOV dispute Reputation

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This seems to hugely skew towards a liberal view of Joe Biden. The reputation sections makes his reputation seem overwhelmingly positive, while in reality his net approval is currently overwhelmingly negative. There needs to be more on his reputation among conservative and moderate Americans. Thespearthrower (talk) 20:06, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

"Overwhelmingly negative", huh? In reality, it's not great but not awful. What do you mean by his reputation among conservative and moderate Americans? – Muboshgu (talk) 20:24, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Biden a liberal? The progressives will split a gut, over that one. GoodDay (talk) 22:09, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Unless you present specific article content for discussion, addition, or removal, your expression of disappointment is likely to disappoint you. SPECIFICO talk 22:14, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps bring up that his net approval is more than 10% negative? Or that more Americans by far believe he is a sex offender than believe he is innocent? https://today.yougov.com/topics/politics/articles-reports/2020/05/06/how-americans-view-sexual-assault-allegations-poll These are extremely notable, extremely well covered topics. Not having them in the article section pertaining to his reputation is unethical, violates Wikipedia's policy on neutral coverage and frankly is absurd. At the moment he is the president with the second lowest net approval since WW2 at this point in their presidency, yet reading his reputation section you would think people think he is a great man. In reality most Americans disaprove of his actions during presidency and many believe he is a sex offender, with only 19% of Americans thinking the sex offence claims against him are untrue. Thespearthrower (talk) 22:57, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A little confused (Ukraine response)

@HiLo48 - I'm confused by your reversion of my edit adding a sentence about Ukraine to the body and to the lead. I would understand if you felt it didn't yet belong in the lead, but not even a single sentence about Ukraine in the body of the article? You say "isn't that simply the President's job?" - to which I say yes, but isn't almost everything in the 'Presidency' section? A single sentence is hardly undue weight, and this is a major event of Biden's presidency that he has devoted a considerable amount of time to over the last few months. Let me know what you think. @Iamreallygoodatcheckers pinging you as well as you have shown an interest. Ganesha811 (talk) 18:41, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

There is a separate Presidency of Joe Biden article which has more detailed coverage about events during his presidency. It will likely take time to judge how and to what extent Ukraine should be mentioned in this article about Biden personally. (I realize you are addressing HiLo48, but you posted to the article talk page). 331dot (talk) 18:45, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

I think it's a big enough deal to add at least a sentence now in Joe Biden#2022, something to the effect of Biden's role in getting NATO/EU nations to issue those sanctions. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:56, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

I certainly agree that there should be more in-depth coverage at Presidency of Joe Biden, but would a single sentence really be undue coverage on this page? Ganesha811 (talk) 19:09, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't think one sentence is undue, but I do think that your sentence didn't really convey anything. He "led the U.S. response" doesn't say anything about the response. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:16, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Sure, that's a good point. The three important things are his warnings of invasion, imposing sanctions, and authorizing weapons shipments to Ukraine. I think all three could be mentioned (briefly) in a single sentence. Ganesha811 (talk) 19:19, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps propose a sentence that covers those three things here and see if anyone objects. I doubt anyone will. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:49, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

How do folks feel about this sentence (in the body, not the lead): "After warning for several weeks that an attack was imminent, Biden led the US response to the Russian invasion of Ukraine, imposing severe sanctions on Russia and authorizing over $1 billion in weapons shipments to Ukraine." This could use the citations I used before, plus this additional one. Ganesha811 (talk) 20:00, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm concerned that we are obviously facing a recentism situation. And notability. Ukraine is top of everyone's mind right now. It wasn't, and won't always be. Biden is President, so of course he led the US response. Yes, there should be significant mention is his Presidency article, but this is the article about the person. This stuff doesn't change who and what Biden is. HiLo48 (talk) 23:00, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

What a president does as president is part of their biography, no? Even if it doesn't reflect a change of who he is, it could be that it changes how we view him. Only the most significant things should be in this article, yes, but a full-on invasion of Ukraine is likely to pass the WP:10YT. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:14, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Your logic suggests that we should remove essentially all of the content in the 'Presidency' section. Almost none of it "changes who and what Biden is." Every article on US presidents mentions their actions during their presidency, even if those actions have nothing to do with their character or personality. I'm sympathetic to concerns about recentism, but this war is widely being described as a massively significant geopolitical event, Biden's response has been significant (i.e. he has done more than issue a statement), and we're talking about one sentence, not a huge change. If at the end of Biden's presidency it's clear the Ukraine war was not important, the information can always be removed. Ganesha811 (talk) 23:43, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

This is the furthest from WP:Recentism we could possibly get. Recentism certainly is a big issue on Wikipedia but the first major war in Europe since WW2 is not that, and describing Biden's influence on it in his personal page is standard Anon0098 (talk) 17:29, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Currently Boris Johnson has a quite detailed paragraph on his page about the Ukraine crisis and his response. I can see the argument its too much but the Invasion is probably the most significant thing to happen in 2022 so far and it seems pretty wild to barely mention it on Biden's page. Are Jay Morrison (talk) 02:47, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Coverage of the Ukraine conflict in this article is certainly WP:DUE and passes the WP:10YEARTEST. The sentence proposed by Ganesha811 seems ok, but I'm having trouble verifying everything in the sentence because I lack a WaPo and NYT membership. It would be helpful if there were some excerpts from these RS provided that supported the claims. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 01:30, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

What sources do you access for contemporaneous news?

There are other RS that are free (Guardian, NPR, etc.), and sometimes I get lucky and read a NYT and WaPo article for free. I also have an Apple News membership. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 01:35, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

What bothers me is that the USA is not actually involved in the war. Yes, what Biden has done is important, but predictions of it passing the the WP:10YEARTEST are not convincing. HiLo48 (talk) 02:49, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

The US is involved in the war, just not with military force. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 02:55, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

That's pure pedantry, and unhelpful. HiLo48 (talk) 06:30, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

I disagree. Iamreallygoodatcheckers is completely correct. We are involved in the war in every way except with our own troops. The US is the leading power of NATO and this war is widely being discussed in reliable sources as a conflict, at its core, about NATO and Russia. We are actively supporting one side with weapons, intelligence, and our economic power. Ganesha811 (talk) 10:46, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

??? that's not pedantic at all, the US has a huge influence here even though there aren't troops on the ground. You're the only one who is being unhelpful by immediately hurling insults. Please try to have productive discussions here Anon0098 (talk) 17:26, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

If I'm reading this correctly, we have one user opposed to this addition and everyone else supports it. That's a consensus. I say go ahead and add the sentence Ganesha811. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:36, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

• Added the sentence above, with sources, to the body. I think we should also add a version of the sentence to the lead, but I'm happy to have another discussion on that as I think concerns about recentism are stronger in that case. Ganesha811 (talk) 18:05, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

  Given 24 hours without further discussion, I'm going to add a shortened sentence to the lead as well. Happy to talk if reverted. Ganesha811 (talk) 19:54, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Impeachbiden.com

Hello Why do you have the domain name impeachbiden.com and not doing anything with it? 2607:FEA8:620:35A3:B171:3907:558A:5F48 (talk) 17:02, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

We don't, its not mentioned anywhere in the article. Slatersteven (talk) 17:04, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

It is weird that that link takes you to this wiki page though. Petty politics. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 17:13, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Is it some off wiki redirect? Slatersteven (talk) 17:14, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Maybe, it just redirects you to his wiki page. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 17:27, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Well its not ours https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=Impeachbiden.com&title=Special:Search&profile=advanced&fulltext=1&ns0=1 so we can do sod all about it. Slatersteven (talk) 17:29, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Some people buy domain names preemptively and re-direct them to other sites which they may not own. So instead of seeing a Biden attack page, viewers are directed to what the owner thinks is a favorable article about him. TFD (talk) 19:25, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

People also sometimes use the names of redirects as attacks themselves. For instance liar.com redirects to Justin Trudeau, and loser.com redirects to Vladimir Putin. As Slatersteven said though, that's got sod all to do with us. Endwise (talk) 10:21, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 April 2022

In this section: Joe_Biden#Rest_of_2021, wouldn't it be better to replace the image of Draghi with this one: File:Joe Biden and Vladimir Putin at 2021 Geneva Summit.jpg? The text specifically references that meeting and it's a very consequential photo given what is happening with the war in Europe now. Gman83 (talk) 11:40, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

 Partly done: I removed the Draghi image but we can't replace it with anything in that section per MOS:SANDWICH. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:21, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Inflation

The whole section on the economy seems very watered down, and makes excuses for the high inflation without mentioning high gasoline prices and food prices and the administration's policies that have led to the inflation. Bluecharmquark (talk) 13:54, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

We need RS saying it. Slatersteven (talk) 14:32, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Border

Shouldn't there be a mention of the out-of-control situation at the Mexican border, with records numbers of illegal immigrants crossing into the U.S., as well as shipping illegal immigrants to various parts of the U.S.? Bluecharmquark (talk) 13:54, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

it is "out of control", and besides, we need RS saying this is all his fault. Slatersteven (talk) 14:34, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Early life

Add a discussion of Biden's 1962 conflict with Corn Pop, including a link to the otherwise orphaned page Corn pop, to the early life section.151.177.158.77 (talk) 10:18, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Corn Pop article closed as "delete" at AfD. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Corn pop. Debatable whether or not it should be mentioned at Early life and career of Joe Biden, but it definitely does not belong here. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:43, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Mask mandate overturned and deemed unconstitutional

Can somebody please explain why my edit stating that Biden's mask mandate was overturned and deemed unlawful was deleted? This is a completely relevant piece of information as it relates to a major policy decision of the president that affects the entire population and has garnered widespread media attention.

The edit was originally deleted due to a lack of citation, however I was simply following the existing page format where sources are not cited in the opening paragraphs. Unless someone has any factual objections to this, it will be reinstated shortly Domiy (talk) 00:47, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Because it's not directly relevant to Biden. Info like that might belong on Presidency of Joe Biden. Definitely would belong on a page about COVID-19 mandates. Not this article. Also, per MOS:LEADCITE, the lead doesn't have to be cited because all of those things are cited in the article body. COVID mandates would have to be in the article body as a prerequisite to being in the lead, and I'd be against adding it. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:56, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Strongly disagree This seems like a wildly inconsistent and subjective rule given that the opening section already contains countless praises about his policies or achievements. It's a blatant breach of neutrality to only include positive information about his presidency but then insist than any critical elements be moved away.

By your own rule, we should delete most of the opening section that discusses his presidency? Domiy (talk) 02:28, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Put it in the Biden administration article. GoodDay (talk) 01:05, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Agree with Muboshgu. It's not directly relevant to his biography and, even if it were, it isn't enough of a major event to be lead-worthy. I would suggest adding this to Presidency of Joe Biden or U.S. federal government response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Aoi (青い) (talk) 02:40, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

A president enacting a policy unlawfully that was later deemed to be a breach of the constitution is not noteworthy in his bio? Sorry, please explain that one to me further. Domiy (talk) 02:53, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

For one thing, the judge did not rule that the mask mandate was a breach of the constitution, so the underlying premise of your question is erroneous. Aoi (青い) (talk) 03:06, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

The judge ruled on statutory grounds, not constitutional ones. And presidents having their policies blocked by courts is common. The implication you seem to be making, that this was an abuse of power he should've been aware of, would need to be present in reliable sources for us to characterize it that way. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 03:39, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Countless reliable sources cite the Court's decision as an admission that the mandate was "unlawful". Happy to use that word over "unconstitutional".

Such as here and here. Domiy (talk) 05:26, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

You haven't addressed my point. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 06:48, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

RS did not cite the Court's decision as an admission that the mandate was "unlawful", they wrote that the court called the mandate unlawful. Yesterday, the CDC "concluded that the mandate was 'necessary' to protect the public from the spread of the coronavirus", and the Biden administration appealed the ruling. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:01, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Belongs in Presidency of Joe Biden. It's WP:UNDUE here. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 03:32, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Domiy, your repeated insistence that the policy was found "unconstitutional" and "violating the constitution" is incorrect. The judge said no such thing. She asserted that the law establishing the CDC allowed such actions for "sanitation" purposes, but that masks are not for "sanitation" purposes and therefore do not fall within the definition. This was her sole opinion/interpretation. It should be noted that the mask mandates had previously been upheld several times by the Supreme Court. -- MelanieN (talk) 04:33, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

I feel it's appropriate to point out here that, in addition to this page, this user has been berating me on my Talk Page (User talk:HiLo48#Please do not delete factual information) because I was the one who reverted the original addition for being unsourced. Their most recent post declares they intend to reinstate the edit. HiLo48 (talk) 05:43, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Of no relevance to Biden's biography. ValarianB (talk) 11:41, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Hunter biden and CNN

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Wiki is failing to give accurate information 2409:4066:202:EAA7:3983:CC6B:BB86:4F7E (talk) 14:19, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

About what? Slatersteven (talk) 14:19, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

This article is about Joe Biden, not Hunter. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:22, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

The Joe Biden article should add controversies that dog Biden's presidency. The Hunter Biden issues are part of the Biden Presidency. Further, I note the "Muboshgu" frankly seems politically-biased. Above, he made a "post-closing comment" that says mention of Biden's mental acuity is not being mentioned on this page unless a doctor examines Biden and diagnoses him. "Muboshgu" - a lot of media attention has focused on Biden's mental acuity and the evidence (I'm not saying strong or definitive evidence! - I'm just saying common sense evidence suggestive of wrongdoing) of connections between Hunter Biden's business dealings and Joe Biden - that media coverage, in and of itself, is notable and should not be censored off Joe Biden's page. Millions have questions about Hunter and Joe connections - if they come to wikipedia to read about Joe Biden and it is not there then that diminishes the credibility of wikipedia as a neutral source. wikiwiki899 (talk) 6:22, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Both Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton's pages have content and links to the Whitewater controversy. wikiwiki899 (talk) 6:26, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Whitwater was about them, not one of their kids. And read wp:npa Slatersteven (talk) 16:32, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

wikiwiki899 Nowhere does Wikipedia claim to be a neutral source. Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources say; any bias in sources will be reflected here. The sources are presented to readers so they can evaluate and judge them for themselves.

Please see articles like Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory and Presidency of Joe Biden, for information about scandals and such. Many of these are linked to at the bottom of the page, if not this article itself. Information on Hunter Biden is at Hunter Biden. 331dot (talk) 16:35, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Adhering to the Goldwater rule is a bare minimum for maintaining WP:BLP. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:40, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Simply dissatisfying to half of the US population, folks. You can cite all the rules in the world but it comes back to the overrding fact that there are millions and millions of pages of content on wikipedia. Yet, people are zealously protecting against the inclusion of a few lines regarding something that many people might say are top 10 or top 20 issues re the Biden presidency (mental acuity and Hunter Biden-related, possibly corrupt business dealings). Just, respectfully, these are issues swirling around his presidency in the minds of the average American, not some obscure and irrelevant nonsense like "he ate at the Smith Diner in Boston, MA in 1989" by some random person. Wikiwiki899 (talk) 15:55, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

And we are not just writing for the current American population, but for the future and the world. And read wp:soap. Slatersteven (talk) 16:01, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Ok, well then, you are suppressing information "for the future and the world." Wikiwiki899 (talk) 16:06, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

NO, as we link to the actual article about it above, thus the information is here on Wikipedia, it is not being suppressed. Slatersteven (talk) 16:08, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Slateseven . . . I'm not some MAGA all-the-way type. However, the "big guy" line seems pretty bad. We'll see if President Biden was involved or not. But, this is a HUGE news story, so it should not be suppressed on wikipedia. At this point, I'm reluctant to mention examples on other pages, like the Whitewater one, because it seems like it might encourage people on team blue to go over and remove that, too. Wikiwiki899 (talk) 16:04, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

See above. Slatersteven (talk) 16:08, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Just because it has been bouncing around the right wing media bubble (Fox, Breitbart, OAN, Infowars etc.) does not make it a big story in reality. One message referring to a "big guy" doesn't mean anything. Let it go, unless actual evidence that proves anything comes out. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:36, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Mental Issues

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Certainly some mention of President Biden's cognitive functions and seemingly clueless appearance is warranted. Bluecharmquark (talk) 13:51, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

@Bluecharmquark I believe that a page or a section in this page on his health should be created. It is increasingly obvious that this is a legitimate concern Bernat de Sarrià (talk) 14:18, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

We need RS saying this is a major issue. Slatersteven (talk) 14:34, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

​​​NB the health section at the Ronald Reagan article for a coverage of a US president with some of these issues. It may be more difficult in this case because Wikipedia-approved sources are generally supporters of Biden and don't cover the issue much. However, here, here and here are examples of sources that might work. Coverage of the issue outside of the US is far more extensive, which might yield additional possibilities. —  AjaxSmack  02:40, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Just one post-closing comment here, if I may. I'll be as succinct as I can be. We are not adding anything about "Joe Biden's mental acuity" unless we have something well documented with proper medical attribution. I'm not talking about "person woman man camera tv" nonsense, or Bill Frist diagnosing Terri Schiavo with a video clip on the Senate floor. Actual doctors who have examined Biden would have to tell us things. Unsubstantiated guessing around anyone's mental acuity is a BLP violation of the highest order. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:25, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

This may be an unpopular opinion, but I don't believe it is a BLP violation to discuss speculation as presented in WP:RS. As long as it's discussed merely as speculation. This is already being done at Dianne Feinstein#Health, and I think it's done in a neutral way. I just believe it needs to be introduced in a manner that the reader understands that it's not verifiable through medical diagnosis. As long as full context is presented, there's no BLP or NPOV concerns, but then again the precedent of Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 103#RfC: Should the section Donald Trump#Health and lifestyle include a paragraph about his mental health? seems to discourage inclusion of such speculations even if it's covered in RS. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 03:52, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Just because reliable sources cover an issue, doesn't make it relevant to the contents of an individual's article. Joe Biden might have forgotten a person's name or mistaken numbers here or there, but that isn't too strange, noting he's almost 80. Fox News likes spending time discussing Joe Biden's mental acuity, apparently to drive voters away from him, but just because they air his gaffes often, doesn't make them relevant. Nythar (talk) 22:56, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

"Joe Biden might have forgotten a person's name or mistaken numbers here or there, but that isn't too strange, noting he's almost 80." I would not be so certain. I spend a couple of years taking care of a great-uncle who suffered from senility. Over a period of a few months, he went from being able to accurately recount his combat record from the Greek Civil War (1943-1949) to not being able to recognize his own family and asking us about the location of his parents. Dimadick (talk) 04:27, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

While I'm sorry about your great uncle, it's not relevant to Joe Biden. There is no evidence that Biden has any senility and I need someone else to close this BLP violating thread again. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:36, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Biden family roots. Semi-protected edit request on 24 May 2022

In the Early Life section ending:

while Joseph Sr. had English, French, and Irish ancestry.

please add

while Joseph Sr. had English, French, and Irish ancestry. Joe Biden's paternal line has been traced to stonemason William Biden who was born in 1789 in Westbourne, England, and had emigrated to Maryland in the United States by 1820.

Thank you. 86.153.41.99 (talk) 10:50, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: Seems WP:UNDUE for this article to me. Very appropriate for a page like Family of Joe Biden, where it is already covered in greater detail at Family of Joe Biden#Paternal Cannolis (talk) 11:10, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

There are many Biden fans over here who would enjoy this nugget. Could I have a second opinion?

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:47, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Already covered at Family of Joe Biden#Paternal. ValarianB (talk) 11:59, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Had no idea there was even a talk on this before i added my edit.. I definitely vote for its inclusion with his christening- its just one sentence that gives a great background on his ancestry.Foorgood (talk) 19:39, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. 2A00:23C6:549D:C301:4CC4:3527:3FAD:56AF (talk) 10:29, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

 Done. I also think this is fine to add, and I've gone ahead and done so. If people really don't like it then we can discuss further, but it seems harmless and useful as a one-line addition...  — Amakuru (talk) 10:36, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

References

Excuse me admin the creator of pages ?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I'm not put with poiltcs side with side with the America, Do you find any Trump Supporters that have edited the Wikipedia Page say bad about Joe Biden? That you have been denied the editing ? 171.252.226.66 (talk) 15:40, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

@171.252.226.66 Their editing (fixed spelling) You need to read and understand it. 171.252.226.66 (talk) 15:41, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

I am unsure what you are asking, we have not forbidden a side for editing this page. But users are expected to obey policy. Slatersteven (talk) 15:44, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Your post is a tad incoherent. I'm guessing that english, isn't your first language. GoodDay (talk) 16:35, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

@171.252.226.66 Everybody, I know this Wikipedia page is not allowed politics right. but all you need to take a look at that someone who trying to destroying the page and say bad and ineffective about this guy. When you see someone have a vandalism to ruining the page you need to contact the adminstrator to ban IP that guy. if they use a account, you can say to the adminstrator to ban that account forever never perform a edit again. Do all of you understand? 171.252.226.66 (talk) 11:38, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

What are you talking about, really? Slatersteven (talk) 11:45, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

@171.252.226.66 A sorry for a little bit annoying. I was actually worried about that the someone that use a account and edit this content screw up of the work on this page. So I must suggested everyone ( all of you ) need to have a strongest measures to stop the account that they have edit the page to some kind of vandalism of it. I just come here to talk out of the steps to improve the secure of the page. It very happy to all the someone that want to read about this page on Wikipedia now become interested Because that the edit icon on this page was locked. This is a steps to improve the secure of the page. So thanks everybody that have read my message. Thanks also and good afternoon. 171.252.226.66 (talk) 16:09, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, but you are making no sense. Slatersteven (talk) 16:13, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

How about his office causing the largest US deficit in history for the USA? Wiki had no problem in mentioning the deficit regarding Trump?

I'll get no response. Just shows how correct Trump was with the media. Liberals! 2603:6081:3006:9700:48EF:5364:9B22:5BAD (talk) 13:01, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

The sources I have seen say that the deficit consistently fell under Biden's first two budgets. TFD (talk) 14:00, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

If you have reliable sources stating that Biden has caused a large deficit, please offer them. If you are here to just drive by and tell us how much you hate Biden, congratulations, you have done so. If you want to collaborate with us and work towards a consensus, we want to hear you. 331dot (talk) 14:52, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Furthermore, such content may be better suited for Presidency of Joe Biden. 331dot (talk) 14:54, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 June 2022

Change Biden being the 47th Vice President under Obama. He was the 44th Vice President under Obama. Biden is the 46th President now; how is that even possible?. 2603:6080:2F00:9D36:15B2:EDED:8862:1123 (talk) 15:19, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

No he was not, are we going to have to list them all? Slatersteven (talk) 15:25, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

•  Not done The counts for Vice President are different than for President due to the VP needing to vacate the position to take over for a president. Some presidents did not have a VP, and some had different ones. 331dot (talk) 15:25, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: It's possible because some presidents had two vice presidents. FDR had three. See List of vice presidents of the United States. Smh. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:27, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

...and that's how the blooper occurred in the 1947 movie "Miracle on 34th street", where Kringle said Tompkins was JQ Adams' veep. GoodDay (talk) 20:17, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

RfC: Should the lede contain information on criticism for Biden's Afghanistan handling?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should the lede contain information on the criticism of Biden's Afghanistan withdrawal (see refs at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Joe_Biden/Archive_16#Lead_sentence_about_Afghan_withdrawal) with the following possible wording (which is similar to the content at Presidency of Joe Biden)? VickKiang (talk) 07:04, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

He completed the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan, during which the Afghan government collapsed and the Taliban seized control, resulting in bipartisan criticism.

Survey

Discussion

There is a similar previous version, but the previous wording is too negative to me, mainly the words "haphazard" and "chaotic", as well as being a bit too long:

He faced bipartisan criticism over the manner of the withdrawal of Americans and Afghan allies, with it being described as haphazard, chaotic, and poorly planned.

VickKiang (talk) 07:05, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

No This topic is already discussed in Withdrawal of United States troops from Afghanistan (2020–2021) and Presidency of Joe Biden. Nythar (talk) 07:16, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

No This is covered elsewhere and doesn't need to be in his personal biography. And as someone who's not even American, so not taking a partisan position here, I cannot help but see this proposal as politically motivated. HiLo48 (talk) 10:15, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

No Not relevant to Biden's biographical article. ValarianB (talk) 11:48, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your replies! Therefore, do you believe that the criticism is too minor to be mentioned in the lede? I could see criticism mentioned in the lead sections of other presidents, such as John Adams and George W Bush, but am perfectly fine should the result be not including. Many thanks! VickKiang (talk)

No. Undue. Neutrality^talk 22:46, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

• Bad RfC There needs to be an informal discussion first on proposal ideas. Otherwise, it will be hard to get a proposal that could meet the community's wishes. @VickKiang: I think you should abord this RfC and turn it to a discussion so some good ideas can be brewed. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 23:25, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

No The lead is already too long, and this is already discussed in the article and Withdrawal of United States troops from Afghanistan (2020–2021) and Presidency of Joe Biden (like Nythar already said). Iraniangal777 (talk) 04:36, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Edit

This should have been deleted outright at the beginning, as it contains a clear threat of violence. ValarianB (talk) 16:08, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Why can't we edit info on the worst president in US history. If you want to tell facts about him then give all the facts not just the ones that suit your perspective. Give the facts about his connection with Russia and his sons connection with Russia and china. Give the facts about how he's running this country into the ground. "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." - Thomas Jefferson And what this means is that he needs to resign or we'll resign him against his will. #FJB #2600:1004:B03E:51C3:5C02:3017:ACB0:5CD2 (talk) 16:03, 30 June 2022 (UTC) We can, so you can ask here for us to do it. Slatersteven (talk) 16:12, 30 June 2022 (UTC) This is not the page to discuss the Trump family. SPECIFICO talk 16:22, 30 June 2022 (UTC) Please note that your suggestions should have reliable refs (see the welcome on your talk page, I made an error in inserting the wrong welcome on Twinkle, so apologies) and follow a neutral point of view for it to be accepted. If you wish a suggestion, you may use this template, but please make sure that it has reliable refs instead of original research (such as your line "Why can't we edit info on the worst president in US history. If you want to tell facts about him then give all the facts not just the ones that suit your perspective."). Many thanks. VickKiang (talk) 00:04, 2 July 2022 (UTC) FWIW IP, I'd rather we keep things like "the most popular" or "the worst" etc etc, out of BLPs of politicians. GoodDay (talk) 00:17, 2 July 2022 (UTC) Perhaps you should try to make that point on Donald Trump's wikipedia page. Half of the lead consists of him being labelled the "worst" in different wordings. Oebelysk (talk) 15:14, 11 July 2022 (UTC) Agree, it’s way too subjective, and there’s no rankings on C-SPAN or Siena Institute evaluating Biden, so it’s definitely original research, if there’s a proposal it would be rejected. VickKiang (talk) 00:45, 2 July 2022 (UTC) Wikipedia is not the place to foment sedition. tgeorgescu (talk) 12:59, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Opinions vs. Facts

Not a forum
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
How are we to know what is a opinion based fact in the article or an actual fact? some info may be biased but seem true. --Cakepops4everr (talk) 23:52, 4 June 2022 (UTC)cakepops4everr The article should state facts, while opinions should be attributed in text. If you have any examples where you think this has not been done, please mention them. Bear in mind that opinions that have consensus support in reliable sources are usually treated as facts. That Biden won the election for example is treated as a fact because that is the consensus in reliable sources. TFD (talk) 00:31, 5 June 2022 (UTC) I think this should be added to the opening part - "some consider Biden one of the worst presidents in American history" Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.90.232 (talk) 05:08, 18 June 2022 (UTC) Some also think he's a lizardperson who harvests the blood of infants. We don't put what "some people" think unless it's reported as important by reliable sources EvergreenFir (talk) 05:12, 18 June 2022 (UTC) So, you are saying some people think Biden is a Sleestak?!?!!? I had not heard that but I imagine anything is possible. (people are way too serious sometimes - please excuse the feeble attempt at humor). 71.190.233.44 (talk) 19:49, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Political Positions

Somewhat new to Wikipedia, so bear with me.

In this article, there is a section titled "Political positions" that just goes over Biden's broad views in a couple of paragraphs, not split into subheadings by issue or anything. The rest of his positions are then given in a linked companion article, Political positions of Joe Biden.

However, in many other articles, such as President Trump and President Obama, political positions are told when needed under the presidency or "career" section of the article, and there is no unique section for political positions. These people, despite having no distinct "Political positions" section in their articles, also have pages titled Political positions of Donald Trump and Political positions of Barack Obama dedicated to them.

Furthermore, other figures, such as Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer, do not have separate "Political positions" articles nor are their political positions simply listed throughout the "career" section of the article. Instead, a unique "Political positions" section is made that is very extensive and has multiple subheadings depending on the issue.

The question I ask here is about Biden's article, but I suppose it applies to articles for all politicians. Which of these methods of listing positions is preferred? Obviously, only very high-profile figures are going to get a separate article made for their positions. But, when listed in the article, is it preferred that a subsection be made uniquely for political positions, or would it be better if positions were simply listed as needed in relation to policy in the "career" section?

In my opinion, I would support removing the "Political positions" section for figures that already have separate "Political positions" articles. In contrast, I would say to leave it for those who do not. Lastly, I would like to say that, considering neither Trump nor Obama had a "Political positions" section on their article, we should remove Biden's as well and simply integrate the facts when needed throughout his career section. There can be a link to the greater article specifically for "Political positions" as the start of the career section as well. I think that it is redundant to have a whole "Political positions" section within this article when there is already a whole different "Political positions" article that we could just link.

Thank you for helping me.

Justtrujames (talk) 06:53, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

I agree. TFD (talk) 15:18, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Explain his dad's "financial setbacks"?

I think the current wording is too vague, could mean a lot of things. I'd rather say he lost money in furniture and cropdusting ventures. The exact wording doesn't matter as much as the actual nature of the issues/problems/woes. The facts are already sourced inline and the article is more informative with them than without.

Less importantly, I also still believe "suffering" (in any form) is needlessly loaded language. Sometimes it makes a subject seem pathetic, sometimes resilient, but always something. Plainer English often works best, but again, that's small potatoes.

SPECIFICO and others, maybe mull it over. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:57, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

I agree with InedibleHulk. Explaining what set them back financially is more precise and doesn't take up a lot of space in comparison to the current wording. Suffering comes across as loaded and seems to be problematic with WP:NEWSSTYLE and WP:EMPHATIC Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 03:30, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

This isn't a biography of Biden's father, going into minutiae of exactly what endeavours brought about the family hardship is not important. As for "suffering", the usage here is the 2nd entry in the dictionary, "to sustain injury, disadvantage, or loss". So, not an uncommon or obscure usage. It does not make the subject pathetic, you're reading things into the word that just aren't there. ValarianB (talk) 05:46, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

I would agree, this is not about Biden. Slatersteven (talk) 10:42, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

It's far from minute or exact. Doesn't even relay how he lost the money or to whom, just in what. Whether it's vague and emotive or plain and descriptive, it's of course going to be more about his dad. The whole paragraph already exists only to discuss his parents and upbringing. Would lost money in two failed startups be imprecise enough for you? It would still better explain the verifiable situation than "suffered financial setbacks", which could suggest stock market troubles, overspending or an unexpected medical expense instead of the general truth. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:57, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Papa Biden's "financial setbacks" are clearly relevant considering Joe's modest means, which of course is a big part of his biography. Joe didn't inherit tons of money from his rich father. (Take your pick of which politician I was thinking of when I typed that last sentence.) "Financial setbacks" is vague and so using a few more words to convey that there were two failed startups is beneficial. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:00, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Before I was edit conflicted, I wanted to add that I never said "suffered" was uncommon or obscure. I've removed more than a hundred from Wikipedia over the years. It just has connotations and length that "lost" or "had" doesn't. And I'm going to imagine that "rich father" remark's a veiled jab against my queen, but it's cool, she deserved it. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:14, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Are they? Lost of people are not born rich, but make their own way in life. All we need to say is that he was not born into money. Slatersteven (talk) 12:02, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

If that's all we need, do we (or you) still want to continue describing Big Joe's unemployment in Scranton, rental in Claymont, mortgage in Mayfield and ultimate triumphant metamorphosis into "a successful used-car salesman, maintaining the family in a middle-class lifestyle"? InedibleHulk (talk) 02:17, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

I do not think it is important why Biden Sr. had financial losses and the term suffer does not say anything about his feelings. I do not think that for most people parents with four children who send them to private schools (the tuition at Joe Biden's school today $30,900 per year) would be considered "of modest means." It' just spin. American politicians like to pretend that they came from poverty and worked their way up against adversity. TFD (talk) 03:09, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Again, I'm not aiming to delve into the Whys and Hows. Way too complex. But even the What (losses) isn't clear by "setbacks". A rising cost of living can be a financial setback without loss, as can a drop in income or pretty much any large-but-fair purchase. As two smart folks who know a shiny political spinjob when we see it, I think we could settle on keeping his "suffering" but trading his "setbacks" for "losses". InedibleHulk (talk) 04:01, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

I think it should be "suffered business setbacks" not suffered financial setbacks. "Ventures" sounds like harebrained schemes. SPECIFICO talk 16:22, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

How about "experienced financial setbacks", to avoid the doubly negative tone? HiLo48 (talk) 03:27, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Too vague. The original text was lost money in furniture and cropdusting ventures. What's wrong with that? Seven words that make it clear exactly what happened. If you want, lost money in two business ventures is enough. (Assuming it was two, I don't have an account with them.) "Venture" is a business term, like venture capital. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:34, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

I'd based two on "Biden Sr tried to set up a furniture store with a friend, only for the friend to apparently run off with their start-up money. Next, he attempted a crop-dusting enterprise – and again lost his cash." To me, "business setbacks" makes it sound like he actually got these projects off the ground, then ran them both poorly. Any venture, scheme, plan, plot, enterprise, setup or idea can range from absolute foolishness to sheer genius, but without an adjective, I don't think whichever noun suggests anything cognitive. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:45, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Please provide the language from the best sources on this. It's pointless to discuss language in a vacuum, unless of course the furniture store sold vacuums. SPECIFICO talk 15:01, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Which sources do you think are the best? Of the three already inline, The Daily Telegraph is the only readily readable piece and the only one from a notable outlet. Katie Russell used the words "lost", "money", "furniture" and "crop-dusting". She didn't write "suffered", "financial" or "setbacks". The only businesses she mentioned were "corrupt business", "oil business" and "wartime family business", all of which made money.

I don't think this is about sources, though, I think you've grown personally accustomed to reverting anything I try to fix in an article you oversee. I think you'll take that last line as an opportunity to accuse me of casting aspersions and not assuming good faith, and so avoid answering the question. I think this will be archived, I'll try to implement the consensus by removing Joe the Elder's financial information entirely or closely paraphrasing the source, and you'll revert either with (something like) "No consensus for this; please respect BRD instead of disrupting Wikipedia".

I hope I've misread this situation, though, and look forward to seeing RS which support your preference. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:15, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't see any reason for mentioning Joe Biden, Sr's financial status in this bio, anymore then I see reason to mention Fred Trump's financial status in Donald Trump's bio. GoodDay (talk) 17:00, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

About his christianity

It would be nice if someone would add this information into the article, it turns out Biden carries a rosary and attends Mass every Sunday, and that the catholic church changed some rules just because of him:

https://www.bbc.com/news/live/world-us-canada-61709865?ns_mchannel=social&ns_source=twitter&ns_campaign=bbc_live&ns_linkname=62b71a03c5f5c122c9fc07d3%26Catholics%20divided%20on%20Supreme%20Court%20decision%262022-06-25T16%3A01%3A35.190Z&ns_fee=0&pinned_post_locator=urn:asset:90b2f91c-3b9c-41c6-9545-0c0ce5944b69&pinned_post_asset_id=62b71a03c5f5c122c9fc07d3&pinned_post_type=share

"The Catholic Church as an institution has long held that abortion is a sin.

Pope Francis has said aborting an unwanted pregnancy is like “hiring a hit man”.

So it should come as no surprise that, officially at least, the Vatican praised the Supreme Court's decision.

On Friday, the Vatican's Academy for Life said the ruling "challenges the whole world" at a time Western society "is losing passion for life".

"By choosing life, our responsibility for the future of humanity is at stake," said Archbishop Vincenzo Paglia, the head of the academy.

Yet many Catholics support the right for people to end their pregnancies. According to Pew Research Center, more than half (58%) of Catholics in the US think abortion should be legal in most or all cases.

US President Joe Biden is perhaps America's highest-profile Catholic - he is known to attend church regularly and carry a rosary. But he has also been a vocal advocate for women's right to choose.

The issue has run him afoul of some of the church's top clergy. Last year, the US Conference of Catholic Bishops voted to amend the guidance on the eucharist to say that Catholics who oppose the church's teachings on abortion should not receive holy communion.

The guidance would be non-binding, and Biden says he's "not worried". He has continued to attend Mass every Sunday." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8080:A702:EA85:E80D:B4AF:B88F:3D81 (talk) 16:41, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

The article already says Biden is a Catholic who attends mass. I don't see that much more is required since it's not something that draws a lot of attention. Unless the Vatican is planning to excommunicate him for his political decisions, it's not important that he doesn't agree with them 100%. Most U.S. Supreme Court justices for example are Roman Catholics who oppose the Vatican's stance on capital punishment. So what. TFD (talk) 19:26, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

As you suggest, the US Conference of Catholic Bishops is made of low-profile and powerless executives, relative to the (current or former) president of one whole nation under God. As TFD notes, most Catholic laypeople disagree with the inner Roman circle on some longstanding deviant stance or another, including sexual ones. And I'll add, from my understanding, Stephen Colbert is the most public and beloved face of American Democratic Catholicism. So, yeah. What's already in the article seems to be enough...for now. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:39, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Pronunciation of the President's name 'Biden '

Am concerned about the pronunciation of the President's name Biden /b(ai)di*n/ it sounds better as /bidi*n/. Is anything wrong with my own pronunciation? Christmas videos (talk) 16:45, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

It's pronounces "Buy-Din" or "Bye-Din". GoodDay (talk) 16:46, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

The second vowel is silent. It's "Buy-dn". HiLo48 (talk) 00:07, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

That's how he pronounces it, though I would posit that most people pronounce the E. Trillfendi (talk) 00:56, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

It's not an "e", it's a schwa - the "vowel" used by Americans in unstressed syllables. A kind of "uh" sound like the vowel in the word "the". Most people including Biden himself say "Buy-dn", not "Buy-den" or "Buy-din". -- MelanieN (talk) 03:11, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

The OP also thought the capital of the United States was New York, and wondered why there isn't a statue of Liberty in Washington. I've warned them for forum chat. Acroterion (talk) 03:17, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

I did a quick check over of CV's contribs to talkpages. This definitely is a case of either WP:CIR or WP:NOTHERE. In any case, I wouldn't object to this entire discussion (which he began) being deleted. GoodDay (talk) 03:41, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Typo(s?)

'He ran unsuccessfully for the Democratic presidential nomination in 1988 and 2008. All totoaled, Biden was a seven-term senator' has typo totoaled. seems like a quick/easy fix. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:245:CE02:5370:BD6F:643E:2C01:4943 (talk • contribs)

 Done - Very easy. - Aoidh (talk) 23:10, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

introduction page

don't you think that the introductory paragraphs should be far more critical of Biden? he's the most unpopular president (this early into his term) in decades and comparatively bad presidents like Trump, Bush, Carter etc. all have much more critical outlooks StarkGaryen (talk) 09:42, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

StarkGaryen We aren't here to promote or criticize, we are here to summarize independent reliable sources. Most content about his presidency is at Presidency of Joe Biden. If you have changes to propose for the lead that better summarize the content of this article, please offer them. 331dot (talk) 09:49, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

so if I make a preliminary edit which better summarises the presidency so far and gives more in depth, but concise information about the 46th admin, you would be open to accepting it? StarkGaryen (talk) 12:50, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Best to wait until he leaves office in 2025 or 2029, before we start including job performance ratings. GoodDay (talk) 22:33, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

fair enough, but there's already been a lot of edits which portray his presidency as having accomplished a lot (laymen look at the beginning of such articles and seeing this article are likely to get the impression that it's been a very active, energetic and appreciated presidency, which lies in stark contrast to the nationwide, global, and economic sentiment), when in fact there's been a lot of talk among democrats themself of kicking him out, a symptom of how unpopular the presidency is.

in conclusion, I offered nothing opinion-changing in this reply except some feedback over what the tone of the article sounds like StarkGaryen (talk) 12:49, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Biden was recently rated as the 19th best president out of 45, by the SCRI Survey of U.S. Presidents, ranking 12th for integrity.[14] Alright, that's not how I would necessarily rate him, but content is based on reliable sources, not what we think. TFD (talk) 00:24, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

while I do agree that we should use reliable sources; the SCRI survey is nothing other than the opinion of a band of a small closed group of people, who have highly partisan views, so in no way should we be using their opinions as an arbiter of his presidency. The script survey continually re-evaluates its ratings so it can't really be used as empirical data on how popular or objectively good or bad a president is. The popular opinion (basically approval rating) is a much better way of judgement as the biases are weighed down by the nation. StarkGaryen (talk) 12:45, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

I am unsure that we can make such a change to the lede based upon one opinion poll. Slatersteven (talk) 12:49, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

are you replying to me or the comment above mine? well if it was a reply to me, then I've gotta vigorously disagree with 'one opinion poll'. every single opinion poll taken since around September/august, polls looking at the direction of the nation, as well as polls regarding the effectiveness of the government and congress all offer a uniquely unflattering image of Joe Biden. the economy is suffering, people are resentful, and all the initial optimism on July 4 2021 has evaporated completely StarkGaryen (talk) 12:54, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

But that is not the same as " most unpopular president (this early into his term) in decades and comparatively bad presidents like Trump", you need pools saying he is more unpopular than Trump (by the way the siena polls lists 5 presidents as the worst in US history (Trump is one, 2 polls running), Biden is not on that list. So that source disproves your claim. Slatersteven (talk) 13:03, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't think you understand how this works buddy. The Siena Institute rankings are polls buddy. They're evaluations highly dependent on the biases of the small sample of professors etc. whose opinions are taken into consideration. An approval rating is based on several hundreds of different pollsters independently polling the AMERICAN ELECTORATE for their opinion. And literally all polls show that he's more unpopular than Trump. he's empirically the most disapproved of president this early into his term since like Carter lmao. At this stage (18 months into presidency), no other president has had a worse approval since Truman. No source disproved my claim lol, all you did is misunderstand and misrepresent my point of contention. I recommend you Brush up your contemporary political knowledge before you make weird, incorrect statements. StarkGaryen (talk) 14:18, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

That poll listed Trump as worse than Biden, so your claim that there are polls that rank Biden as worse than Trump is not supported by that source. You did actually look at the table of the bottom 5? So where does it say (not your wp:or, the source saying it, that Biden is more unpopular than Trump?

Here are some quotes about Trump "Worst Five Again – Andrew Johnson, Buchanan, Trump, Harding & Pierce" "For the second time, scholars include Donald Trump along with Andrew Johnson, James Buchanan, Warren Harding and Franklin Pierce in the bottom five.", How can Biden be rated as worse in that poll, if he is not even in the bottom 5? Slatersteven (talk) 14:27, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes, Biden is more unpopular at this point of his term, then Trump was at his. But again, let's wait until Biden leaves office. For all we know, he might be overwhelmingly popular by Nov 2024 & easily win (400+ electoral votes) re-election. GoodDay (talk) 14:29, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

2 years into Trump's presidency was 2018, his popularity was at 35% https://news.gallup.com/poll/203198/presidential-approval-ratings-donald-trump.aspx, Bidens is at 39% https://graphics.reuters.com/USA-BIDEN/POLL/nmopagnqapa/ (in fact it has never dropped as low as 35%). This is why we wait, these things fluctuate way too much (as can be seen by both those graphics). Slatersteven (talk) 14:53, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

It gets even more confusing when we look at similar polls, Gallop puts Biden at his lowest on 41% (which differs from the poll from Siena), and his average at 46. They put trump at (lowest) 34% and average at only 41% (equal to Bidens lowest). Slatersteven (talk) 15:25, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

I didn't mean to start the 'this president was more unpopular then this president' trend. Again, let's wait until Biden leaves office. GoodDay (talk) 15:28, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

cool StarkGaryen (talk) 05:16, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Covid positive

all over the news services ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.60.40 (talk) 19:38, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Already mentioned in the BLP. GoodDay (talk) 19:40, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

• I've removed it as WP:NOTNEWS. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 19:44, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
• It remains to be seen if his having covid will be a serious or even notable problem. Suggest we wait. 331dot (talk) 19:45, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
• Indeed let's wait. Yes he's in his 80th year, but unless/until Harris has to assume his powers & duties (under sections 3 or 4, of the 25th amendment)? then it's not overly noteworthy. Maybe, put it in the Biden administration page. GoodDay (talk) 19:49, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
• I disagree with removing it and I think it should be restored. A single sentence in the "2022" section is certainly justified, and I mean now. After all we have a whole section in the Trump article about Trump getting Covid.[15] Even though Pence never "assumed Trump's powers" - that's irrelevant. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:52, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

  Yes, but Trump was hospitalized and he missed a debate because of it. This is not gonna be significant unless it makes an impact. It's probably gonna be like that incident where he broke his foot playing with is dog; it ended up being nothing and is not in this article. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 19:57, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

  "Impact" isn't relevant, the fact that the US President has Covid at all is biographically important. ValarianB (talk) 20:00, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

• Also think it should be included, NOTNEWS is about routine events. This is not routine. nableezy - 20:12, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

  BTW note that WP:NOTNEWS starts out by saying "Editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information within its coverage." -- MelanieN (talk) 20:24, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

• I think it belongs because it received extensive coverage. I imagine the reason for the coverage is that covid remains a key issue in the U.S. Otherwise I don't imagine they would have given as much coverage had he come down with another illness. But we cannot second guess the weight that rs give to different aspects of his presidency. TFD (talk) 21:23, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

  I second TFD. And look, if it turns out to be nothing significant, we take it out of the article. But his age and the ongoing uncertainty about the disease and the newest variant have led to lots of coverage, with Monkeypox waiting in the on deck circle. SPECIFICO talk 21:30, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

• I suppose, given the history of the White House's usually down-playing or outright hiding presidential ailments. Its inclusion isn't too premature. GoodDay (talk) 02:27, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

• I think the current brief, two-sentence mention is just right. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:41, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Gas prices (copied from user talk)

Copied from User talk:Iamreallygoodatcheckers

You added a statement to Biden's article about "natural gas" prices. I think you mean oil or petroleum prices. Natural gas is different. Andrevan@ 18:29, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

@Andrevan: thank you for pointing that out. I meant to put gasoline prices, but I think the POLITICO article that said natural gas tripped me up. If you added back the statement with gasoline than it would be accurate; I would do it myself, but I don't want to be accused of edit warring. The POLITICO article says gasoline prices were elevating and the Bloomberg one said they were at a 7 year high. That is my bad. Thank you, Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 18:56, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

This content is UNDUE for Biden's biography. You could just as well tell how many dogs and cats were adopted last year or how the price of chicken is doing. The president doesn't set commodity prices. And its not as if the prices of petroleum products are particuarly high. In fact, the inflation adjusted price is around where it was decades ago, I believe. SPECIFICO talk 19:08, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

I think the placement of it is off, and it's out of context, but Biden has specifically spoken about gas prices and his actions on energy are relevant to his presidency, though maybe not in a general section about the economy. His energy policy has involved cancelling the Keystone XL pipeline, creating more oil leases despite a campaign promise not to, releasing more oil from the strategic reserve, and going to Saudi Arabia. I don't have the sources handy but that is all recent stuff from Biden's energy policy that I remember reading about. Andrevan@ 19:17, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, no one is arguing the president sets the prices of anything, but that doesn't make it not significant. RS has covered the gas prices under the Biden Administration and it is relevant for inclusion in this article. As pointed out in the Bloomberg article, it was a 7 year high in 2021. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 19:21, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Please take the few seconds time to read what I wrote before responding. This is his biography not his policy article. This is not the Biden Administration article. You can say it's relevant over and over, but that's a song, not an argument for it. I told you to look at inflation adjusted petroleum prices. Please don't post unresponsive replies. Other editors need to take the time to read them before seeing they do not advance the discussion. You should also recall this same distinction -- bio vs. presidential administration -- coming up over and over at the Trump page. This should not be a difficult discussion. SPECIFICO talk 19:30, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, I think I agree with you more ideologically but I find this response bludgeony. Iamreallygoodatcheckers, consider that gas prices being at a 7 year high isn't really about the economy. Let's think instead about how it relates to Biden's energy policy and his statements about gas prices versus what critics have done. For example, those weird stickers that people stick on the gas pumps. I bet someone has written about the cultural impact of those stickers. See the forest for the trees. "Gas prices are high" is not a fact for Biden's article, but there might be something else you're trying to say that would be relevant to his life and work.Andrevan@ 19:38, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Gas prices have nothing to do with Biden, except in tGOP talking points, he confident proclamations of Fox News personalities, and their followers. It is indeed too bad having to repeat this when an editor ignores simple explanations as to the revert. I wish it were not so, but that's how it is. I don't know who copied this from user talk, but maybe the IDHT issue could have been resolved there first and then we would not have to repeat it on article talk. SPECIFICO talk 19:47, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

It was me who copied it and I'm just trying to offer a little constructive feedback. I agree that it's kind of a GOP talking point that Biden is bad on gas prices. I also think that we owe some discussion of the "gas price" "issue" in the Biden presidency article since Biden has specifically commented on gas prices and broadcasted his actions to try to lower gas prices. He has tweeted repeatedly that they've gone down for 35 days in a row and stuff like that I believe (not proposing to add this). I think it's more constructive to talk about how we should cover the Biden administration energy policy than fight between editors on behavioral stuff. Andrevan@ 19:51, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

You're the one with the gratuitous behavior remark. But sealioning and wasting other editors time is very destructive and should not be encouraged or enabled in any way. The whole sequence of events could have been avoided with a bit more thoughtful consideration and a bit less kneejerk addition of off-topic trivia. SPECIFICO talk 20:20, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Accusing an editor of sealioning is probably a good faith violation unless you can substantiate your arguments, and at that point, you should probably take it to ArbCom. It's better not to accuse people of bad faith, but engage on the substance of arguments. I'm not trying to pick a fight or be patronizing, I'm pointing out that we do owe some discussion to the topic of whether "gas prices" is valid. You've made a legitimate argument that I'm not trying to negate at all, but it's not helpful to make statements that attack Iamreallygoodatcheckers for bad faith, because you won't get anywhere with it. On the gas prices question I agree that it wasn't proper, that is why I reverted the addition but I am instead trying to engage Iamreallygoodatcheckers' enthusiasm and energy on a productive pursuit to improve the article. I should be your ally here, but I think implying that editors are responding before reading, isn't productive. Andrevan@ 20:30, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Take it to my talk page if you care. Not here. SPECIFICO talk 21:33, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Andrevan, I open to seeing gas prices from the perspective of energy rather than economy, and I would encourage you to propose ideas. I just don't know if I'm comfortable continuing this discussion for obvious reasons. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 21:19, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Let's give everyone a chance to cool down and resume discussing in a little while. Andrevan@ 21:21, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Content needs the WEIGHT of RS narratives connecting the oil price to Joe personally or whatnot. I see nobody offering anything of the sort. If this is to be considered for the article, there needs to be sourcing and a mainstream narrative that Joe personally did this or that significant thing or is responsible for whatever. SPECIFICO talk 21:35, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Andrevan@ 21:42, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Why don't we wait till his presidency is over, they could go up further or down? Slatersteven (talk) 10:19, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

You're proposing to add something 'negative' to this BLP? Anyways, I've no objections to your proposal. GoodDay (talk) 13:40, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Health section or mention of his non-melanoma skin cancers

So, with clarification from White House officials, it appears Biden was diagnosed and treated for "non-melanoma skin cancers" which were removed before his presidency. Should this be mention? Given his skin cancer diagnosis and his two brain aneurysms from the 1980s, maybe a health section should be created? Here's some sources about his non-melanoma skin cancers: AA, Yahoo, AP TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 14:58, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Why is the fact he had skin cancer relevant? Slatersteven (talk) 15:13, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure on this one. I base including/excluding health issues concerning US presidents, on whether or not it seriously effects their ability to do the job. AFAIK, Biden hasn't been in a situation of this nature, which requires Harris to step in, as acting president. What happened in November 2021, was a routine procedure. GoodDay (talk) 15:17, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

If I'm reading this right, and I'm still drinking my morning coffee so I am open to being corrected, what happened in November 2021 was the release of a memo from his doctor saying that non-melanoma skin cancers were removed before his presidency started. So, this has been known to us for at least eight months. But, now some are jumping on the inartful way he talked about it yesterday? If it wasn't important enough to add in November, why is it suddenly important enough to add now? – Muboshgu (talk) 15:28, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

He had a colonoscopy in November 2021. A routine check up, which he passed easily. GoodDay (talk) 20:07, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

"Non-melanoma skin cancers" are not a serious health issue. The term refers to Squamous cell skin cancer and Basal cell carcinoma. Both are very common in older people, usually in sun-exposed areas, and both are usually treated by simple local excision. They almost never lead to serious consequences. He may have other health conditions important enough to mention, but "non-melamona skin cancer" is not one of them. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:37, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Not important for this article. I pretty much follow MelanieN's logic here. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 16:27, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Nonconstructive – Muboshgu (talk) 22:54, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
"resident" is either a two-time-typo or a weird BLP violation, unsourced claim. SPECIFICO talk 19:36, 25 July 2022 (UTC) The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. But didn't the Resident say, on film, that he currently has cancer? Innican Soufou (talk) 04:51, 25 July 2022 (UTC) No, they said it was removed prior to his presidency. See AP Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 04:55, 25 July 2022 (UTC) The clip in question specifically shows the Resident saying he has cancer. Why would you say he did not say that when he said that? Innican Soufou (talk) 18:29, 25 July 2022 (UTC) Is there a reason you've referred to President Biden as "the Resident" twice? Anyway, he clearly misspoke in saying "have" instead of "had". The White House cleared it up. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:10, 25 July 2022 (UTC) Who's the "Resident"? GoodDay (talk) 19:18, 25 July 2022 (UTC) The Resident clearly stated, on camera, that he currently has cancer. That's should be included in the article. Innican Soufou (talk) 22:37, 25 July 2022 (UTC) Three times you've said "Resident" instead of "President". Now, I don't mind an editor trying to be funny. But, if you're wasting our time & humouring yourself? Better you move on. GoodDay (talk) 22:39, 25 July 2022 (UTC) Before you implode, I'm stating that the former vice president has openly stated he currently has cancer and that it should be included in the article. Kindly relax. Innican Soufou (talk) 22:48, 25 July 2022 (UTC) Why can't you use "the president"? GoodDay (talk) 22:50, 25 July 2022 (UTC) I think you and I both know. And since this has been asked and answered, I think there's no benefit to further engaging with this user. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:54, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

According to APNews, the President had cancer, which was removed prior to taking the presidency. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:54, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

There should be a health section since it is normally an issue when a president is either old or has health problems. While skin cancer, polyps and strokes are common among elderly people, they are not common among the age groups most presidents belonged to. TFD (talk) 05:53, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

I do not think talk of his heath on this level is worth mentioning whatsoever, and smacks of unreliability at best, and POV pushing if we are not careful here. The Presidency is a demanding job, Biden is in his 70s, and he's healthy enough according to his doctors. It's worth mentioning that both of the last 2 presidents have had COVID, though, once his present case of COVID is in the rear-view mirror a little bit, since it's basically a breaking news story in the present news cycle. Andrevan@ 00:32, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. Pretty much any time I've seen Biden's health mentioned in the media and social media in the last two years, it's been done in bad faith, usually in the form of mocking. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:48, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Sean Hannity's article has a health discussion. Except it's about Hillary Clinton. SPECIFICO talk 01:04, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Since I don't consider CNN, MSNBC news or FOX news to be reliable sources? I'll leave it up to the rest of you, to decide on whether or not to add any 'health' info. GoodDay (talk) 01:07, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Really, it's OK,, We don't need a formal valedictory every time you sign off a page. SPECIFICO talk 01:11, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Consensus is that the news section of CNN and MSNBC is reliable, but Fox there is no consensus, I would consider Fox unreliable as it has often published misinformation. CNN and MSNBC also have opinion talk shows and opinion columns, as do WSJ and NYT. Andrevan@ 01:39, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

This discussion seems to me to require consideration of WP:10YEARTEST - "In ten years will this addition still appear relevant?" I humbly and simply submit that the answer is No. HiLo48 (talk) 02:59, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

'46th and current president...' or just '46th president...'

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should we have the phrase "...and current", removed from the intro? GoodDay (talk) 21:53, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

'Note': Same RFC being held at the Kamala Harris bio. GoodDay (talk) 09:12, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

I think it should be kept. Pauloroboto (talk) 09:24, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Survey 2

• Neutral - Doesn't matter to me, as long we keep Biden's & Harris' intros in sync, on this matter. GoodDay (talk) 21:53, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
• Remove "And current" is redundant with the present tense and adds nothing. It is also against MOS. MOS:REALTIME gives the example: The information that "The current president, Cristina Fernández, took office in 2007", or "Cristina Fernández has been president since 2007", is better rendered "Cristina Fernández became president in 2007". – Muboshgu (talk) 22:21, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
• Keep because just saying he's the "46th president of the United States" is still ambiguous as to whether he is still serving, and that fact that he's still serving is critical biographical information. It would be an accurate statement to say "Donald Trump is the 45th president of the United States" even though he's no longer serving in office because the statement is ambiguous. I've seen some concerns with MOS:REALTIME brought up, and I believe it should be ignored in this situation because the purpose of it is almost certainly not an issue in this high profile article. REALTIME discourages words like currently because they may go out of date. However, it's extremely unlikely for this article to not be updated the second Joe Biden's successor says "So help me God;" therefore, this issue the guideline is trying to address is practically irrelevant in the context of this article. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 23:38, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

  No. Trump WAS the 46th president. He no longer is such. He is only the person who WAS such. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 15:42, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

  I also support some alternative proposals. For example, Joseph Robinette Biden Jr. is an American politician who has been the 46th president of the United States since January 1, 2021. would be good. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 01:36, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm guessing you meant "January 20, 2021". GoodDay (talk) 21:14, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes that is what I meant. lol sorry. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 01:06, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

• Remove; temporal language should be avoided. Even though this article is likely to be updated the moment that it changes, there still could exist permalinks to specific versions, offline and printed copies, etc., and all of those will become inaccurate over time. Language which will not become outdated and inaccurate should always be preferred over language that will, so we should always avoid "now", "currently", "today", and so on. If it is crucial to emphasize that Biden is serving now, it can easily be stated that his term began on 20 January 2021—the lack of an end date makes very clear that he's still the president. Alternatively, language such as "As of June 2022, Biden is the president of the United States" could also be used; that too would never become inaccurate. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:43, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
• Remove. It's redundant and unnecessary. Its removal causes no ambiguity. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 00:23, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
• Remove per MOS:CURRENT and because this is already conveyed in the infobox. We don't need to reference the timeframe at all except in positions that are not numbered by order of servitude, such as the Senate position held by Chris Coons since 2010. If we were to use a timeframe, like we do at Jair Bolsonaro, we would write: [Joe Biden] is an American politician who has served as the 46th president of the United States since 2021. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:47, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

  MOS:CURRENT says Except on pages updated regularly. I think the point of it is so that information doesn't go out of date. This page will presumably have dozens of active editors on it the second Biden leaves office, so I don't think there is anything to worry about regarding MOS:CURRENT/things going out of date. I do like your suggested wording though. Endwise (talk) 09:33, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

• Keep (or rephrase) - In my opinion, the best policy to cite in this particular case is actually WP:IAR. I will fully acknowledge the manual of style guidelines to avoid the word "current" and other temporal language... the trouble is that with regards to Presidents of the United States, the past tense is NEVER used. Once you are the 6th, 26th, or 46th President of the United States, you are ALWAYS, in the present tense, the nth President of the United States. As such, the current one needs some other language to distinguish it from past ones. Again, I think WP:IAR is an acceptable approach here, as the argument in the MOS is that the text should stand no matter when it is read, as who knows the next time an article will be updated... but we all know that there is a 0% chance of THIS text not being updated the INSTANT the next president is sworn in (if not sooner-- people jump the gun sometimes). Like Iamreallygoodatcheckers above, I would accept an alternate rephrasing that distinguishes the current president from past presidents, but I oppose having the current president having the exact same descriptive text as all previous presidents... even if relevant distinguishing information is in the infobox. The lead itself needs to be clear. Fieari (talk) 07:38, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
• Rephrase/keep. The question "is he currently the president of the US?" is a valid question that many readers will have, and the fact that Biden is currently the president is the largest reason he is notable and why most of the readers of this article will be here, so I think it should be mentioned in the first sentence. Relegation to an infobox isn't great, as most people don't read them, particularly people looking for basic info like who the president of the US is. The wording now is fine, but I think the suggestion given by LaundryPizza03 is worded slightly better: Joe Biden is an American politician who has served as the 46th president of the United States since 2021. As I said above, I don't think there are MOS:CURRENT concerns with this, as the guideline states "Except on pages updated regularly", which this is. Regarding redundancy, it won't be obvious to every reader at least that "is an American politician who is the Nth president of the United states" means that he's currently the president (particularly to those who don't know who the president of the US is). Endwise (talk) 09:45, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
• Remove Superfluous, serves no purpose. ValarianB (talk) 13:47, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
• Keep removing seems biased towards educated people in developed western countries who would “obviously” know he’s the current president. Dronebogus (talk) 14:14, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose-ish The text should clearly state that he is the president of the United States. I'd be ok with dropping the 46th and replacing the text with "is the president of the United States". The fact of someone being the president is the main point, not whether they are/were the i-th or j-th president. --RegentsPark (comment) 21:06, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
• Keep. Many people may not know how many prior presidents there has been or that 46 is the current one. 331dot (talk) 21:19, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
• Keep Agree with 331dot's reasoning above. Some1 (talk) 12:25, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
• Remove - redundant. It is blindingly obvious that the person who "is the ___th President" is currently serving. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 15:42, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
• Keep, obviously. Him being the current president is a separate and distinct attribute compared with him being the 46th. It may seem obvious to some that "is" implies still serving, but logically it doesn't convey absolute certainty on the matter. "Obama is the 44th president" and "Trump is the 45th president" could still be held to be true, given that nobody else will ever hold the title of "44th president". It is also fairly common to continue using President as a title even after they leave office - President Clinton, President Obama etc. We're literally talking about two words here, and they are relevant and useful, so no reason at all to chop them.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:08, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
• Keep - Per, ironically, MOS:CURRENT, the same style guideline being used to suggest removal. Those would actually read what MOS:CURRENT says would note that the very first words say that it does not apply to "pages updated regularly." I don't think anyone can seriously argue that this page is not kept updated regularly, therefore MOS:CURRENT's wording does not apply here. I couldn't find any similar discussion on Donald Trump's article but I do note that when he was president it said the 45th and current president of the United States, seemingly without issue if the talk page archive titles and what I could find on the talk page are anything to go by. The wording is not redundant here because while he is the 46th president, that does not automatically make him the current president, because once his term is up he will still be the 46th president but will no longer be the current one, therefore it's neither redundant nor superfluous to make this clear in the lede, and conflating the word current with the use of present tense does not make the article clear; its removal will make the article more vague and the lede less concise and factual, a clear step back for the article and those wishing to understand what it is saying. - Aoidh (talk) 12:33, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
• Keep - Just saying he's the 46th president doesn't tell you if that is the one who is in office now or not. Someone might say it's too obvious, but an encyclopedia is supposed to be matter of fact, even for "obvious" stuff. Useitorloseit (talk) 21:39, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
• Remove as per VP question. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:19, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
• Remove As I feel "is" is explanatory enough MraClean (talk) 16:28, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

  It has been explained several times above why "is" is not explanatory enough. Biden will always be the 46th president, even way after his terms expire. Nobody advocating removal seems to be addressing this point...  — Amakuru (talk) 19:22, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

  No, Biden will always be the man who was the 46th president. The phrasing "is" becomes inaccurate as soon as his term ends. Trump is not the 45th president. He was the 45th president. Washington is not the 1st president, he was such.--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 11:25, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

  In concrete linear reality, you're absolutely right, Washington was, has been and always will still have been the first US president. In abstract historical chronology, Amakuru's absolutely right, Biden is the 46th there is, the 46th there was and the 46th there ever will be. You two should join forces, in my opinion. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:42, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

  "In concrete linear reality, you're absolutely right" Which is where this issue should end. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 14:57, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

  Whether a person "is" or "was" the Nth president has to do with whether the person is alive or not. User:Amakuru is correct, "is" vs "was" does not explain whether the person is currently or was formerly President or not, it explains whether the person is alive or not. -- Charlesreid1 (talk) 04:09, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

• Remove Per MOS:CURRENT. Also just awkward and not concise. ~ HAL333 03:29, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

• User:HAL333 Can you please elaborate on why MOS:CURRENT would apply, since it specifically says it doesn't apply to pages updated regularly, as this one very clearly is? - Aoidh (talk) 03:35, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

• Keep. Barack Obama is still the 44th president despite not being the current president. (An alternative would be to just write "Biden is the president..." and leave it at that, but I'm not sure how much support that would have.) -- Vaulter 02:37, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Based on my comments below (see other countries subsection), I would suggest using the form "Biden is an American politician who has served as the 46th president of the United States since [January 20], 2021." -- Vaulter 15:58, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Discussion 2

On June 12, 2022. An editor 'here' & at the Kamala Harris page, removed the phrase "...and current", without seeking a consensus to do so. As I understand it, such changes to both these bios' leads isn't welcomed without a consensus. Therefore, I've restored the status quo in the lead of both bios-in-question. GoodDay (talk) 22:14, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Current is obviously better. Dronebogus (talk) 22:24, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

No, it is not. I will still bang the drum that "and currently" adds nothing besides two unnecessary words. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:25, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

It has been explained severally why the words are needed. Your drum banging is in error I'm afraid!  — Amakuru (talk) 19:20, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't care which is used, but I think making such a change (that was unilaterally made) on June 12, isn't the way to go. Anyways, now we're in the 'D' phase of WP:BRD. FWIW, nearly all (if not all) current leaders are using the "...and current". GoodDay (talk) 22:43, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

And I think that nearly all (if not all) current leader pages are wrong in doing so, though I recognize that I am on the short end of that consensus as of now. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:12, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

I think its fine with "current" in the lead. Eruditess (talk) 15:04, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

FWIW, two attempts have been made to remove "...and current" over at Kamala Harris' bio intro. For those who favour removing the phrase, please open up an RFC on this matter. Attempts to edit-war in such changes will only lead to eventual blocks, follow the WP:BRD method. GoodDay (talk) 21:47, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

The sequential number is trivia. "Current" is a critical piece of information. HiLo48 (talk) 23:03, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

... which is conveyed by saying that he is the president. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:09, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

True. So they're BOTH trivia. HiLo48 (talk) 23:16, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Some of you have mentioned "46th president of the United States, since 2021". That was proposed many months ago & didn't get passed. GoodDay (talk) 21:16, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Has rephrasing as "is currently the 46th" been considered? Senorangel (talk) 00:36, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

He'll always be the 46th president of the United States. GoodDay (talk) 00:40, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, but he can be currently the 46th only now. This way, both the sequential numbering and the ongoing nature of the term are covered. Senorangel (talk) 01:52, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Then change the "46th and current president of the United States" to "46th president of the United States, since 2021". GoodDay (talk) 01:59, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

No, he always will be the person who was the 46th president. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 15:42, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces:, @MraClean:, @Writethisway: & @SergeWoodzing:, @Binksternet:, @Scope creep:. Would you 'please' give your position at this RFC's survey. Seeing as you've already done so, over at the Harris RFC survey. GoodDay (talk) 16:14, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

I will , no problem MraClean (talk) 16:16, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Basic question

It is inconceivable to me that we are discussing this at all as long as the verb is is used in the sentence along with the adjective current, making the exact same point twice. Can anyone explain why we are doing this here and also at the VP talk? The more this nonsense expands and grows, the more flabbergasted I get. Some of us fight to get consensus to keep an obvious, grammatical redundancy which makes the articles's opening sentence look childish and ridiculous? Why? Wikipedia when it's the worst kind of kindergarten. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:52, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

As I mentioned at the beginning. My only concern is that we have the Biden & Harris bios in sync, on this matter :) GoodDay (talk) 14:56, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Would be nice though, wouldn't it, if both articles didn't begin with a grammatical redundancy that makes them both (and the subjects) look silly? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:12, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

+INFINITY to this. I can't believe that anyone is seriously suggesting that, for example, "Barack Obama is the 44th president of the United States" is in any way a valid sentence that requires us to use this redundancy. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 14:11, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Welcome to official American government history world. It's not like other valid but fleeting mindsets. It's "frozen in time". InedibleHulk (talk) 15:00, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

This type of thinking is no less absolutely right in the Dot Com domain, either, even in articles explicitly updated this March. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:10, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

So, people write blatantly counterfactual statements and we are supposed to follow that? Sorry, we can be better than the sources. We don't have to follow their obvious errors.--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 15:33, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Again, it's not an error if you see it the way many historians do. It just seems weird till it's tolerable. Check out the tense for events in articles like June 27, May 19 and January 4. Clearly marked with years that no longer exist and filled with continuously present verbs. It's paradoxical, sure. But both views hold true. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:46, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Still wrong. Those events are over and done with. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 13:47, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

That's exactly why they are currently historical events. Indefinitely. And yes, sad. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:25, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

The so called "...and current" phrase, is used by many incumbent heads of state and or government bios. GoodDay (talk) 19:52, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Do you actually mean "... is ... and current"?! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:34, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Yup. GoodDay (talk) 19:59, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Sad. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:17, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Other countries

For what it's worth, I decided to lookup how we write about other countries' leaders in their articles. Justin Trudeau is described as the 23rd and current PM of Canada. Andrés Manuel López Obrador has been the 65th president of Mexico since 2018. Jacinda Ardern has been serving as the 40th PM of New Zealand since 2017. Anthony Albanese has been serving as the 31st PM of Australia since 2022. Yoon Suk-yeol has been the 13th president of South Korea since 2022. Emmanuel Macron, Boris Johnson, Fumio Kishida, Micheál Martin and Olaf Scholz all omit the numbers.

Based on this, and some of the comments above, I would suggest rewording this article to say "Biden is an American politician who has served as the 46th president of the United States since [January 20], 2021." -- Vaulter 15:55, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Don't forget, to drop in at the RFC at Kamala Harris concerning the same topic. GoodDay (talk) 16:02, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Well, now we've got Biden's & Harris' intros messed up. Biden's got "...46th and current president..." in his intro, while Harris just has "...49th vice president... in her intro. Wish I had known how to combine the two RFCs into one. Oh well, too late now. GoodDay (talk) 03:30, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 August 2022

There is a total of 15 typos false information and to top it all off it doesn’t focus on the good 2604:76C0:DEED:5EB0:5199:3554:B42:8B92 (talk) 18:44, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. MadGuy7023 (talk) 18:50, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Authority control seemingly broken

The authority control at the bottom does not appear to work for me. It simply says "Template:Authority control" with a link to the template's explanation page. Leontrooper (talk) 16:35, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

The inclusion of the liberalism sidebar

This page is part of a series for Liberalism in the United States and could include the {{Liberalism US}} sidebar seeing as it isn't placed already. GuardianH (talk) 02:45, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Since every president of the United States as well as over 99% of politicians, has been a liberal, its questionable how useful it is. There was a discussion on whether the category of monarchist for Canadians made sense and it was agreed it did not, because that was the default position for Canadians. It only became significant if they were republicans who by definition challenged the status quo. TFD (talk) 03:49, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

To add to this, Biden does not seem very important within the context of liberalism; the articles for Liberalism in the United States and Modern liberalism in the United States for example do not mention him at all. - Aoidh (talk) 03:57, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

I disagree on your contention that every very president of the United States is considered liberal, but I think that Aoidh makes a good point regarding the fact that Biden is not of relative important within liberalism. GuardianH (talk) 05:53, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

GuardianH, Liberalism in the United States is about the ideology as defined in most of the world: the belief in individual rights including property ownership, due process and constitutional government, IOW the type of society protected by the U.S. constitution. The article about liberals as usually meant in the U.S. today is Modern liberalism in the United States. TFD (talk) 17:57, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

TFD I think you are defining basic popular American and Western-centric beliefs rather than uniquely liberal ones. If, as you say, those who believe in individual rights including property ownership, due process and constitutional government are liberals, then that would make every conservative a liberal aswell, because it would be difficult to find a conservative who does not believe in those values. There is no doubt that individual rights are an important part of liberalism, but they are not a defining characteristic of it — at least not in the United States. GuardianH (talk) 07:36, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Ian Adams explains it in Political Ideology Today, pp. 32: "Ideologically, all US parties are liberal and always have been. Essentially they espouse classical liberalism, that is a form of democratised Whig constitutionalism plus the free market. The point of difference comes with the influence of social liberalism. How far should the free market be left alone....In American political parlance, right-wingers are 'conservatives', while left-wingers are rather confusingly called 'liberals'."[16] He points out at the beginning of the chapter on liberalism (p.10): "Liberalism has been the most successful ideology of the modern world. The ideals of the Western world are largely liberal ideals."

So there are two articles about liberalism in the U.S.: one uses Adams' definition, while the other uses "American political parlance," One describes all U.S. presidents, while the other only describes modern Democrats.

TFD (talk) 13:36, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

yes there are liberals and conservatives (such as Trump, Reagan and both Bushes)--and yes in my opinions Biden scores very high on liberalism (higher than Obama, Clinton, Carter or JFK and about the same as LBJ. The new climate bill is the most liberal legislation in over 50 years. Rjensen (talk) 08:11, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

What does “liberal” even mean in this context? Besides liberal small-d democratic, which is what the US is. Dronebogus (talk) 08:48, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Is he a liberal? Slatersteven (talk) 10:26, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Merely exhorting policies generally described as "Liberal" should not merit inclusion of a sidebar in a biography. The person should have some historical significance in the history or or contributions to liberalism. Note that the user added this template to a slew of articles, from Ruth Bader Ginsburg to Rachel Maddow. ValarianB (talk) 11:51, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

I support inclusion of the sidebar. I think all liberal presidents are included, and if not, they should be. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:07, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

By all means, please define a "liberal president" for us. ValarianB (talk) 17:05, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

I am the very model of a modern Wikipedian, so I'm going to go with: "a president who is commonly described as liberal by reliable sources". Definitions of ideologies in American politics are poor, always contradicted by others' definitions, and frequent self-contradictory. We can't wait for the perfect definition to summarize, as neutrally as possible, what the reliable sources are saying. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:33, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Do do any RS call him liberal? Slatersteven (talk) 17:36, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Slatersteven Here are some sources I found that describe Biden's connection with liberalism: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]

Notable points:

• An ABC News/Washington Post poll found that 48 percent of Americans said Biden's views are "just right", while 40 percent said they are "too liberal"
• Biden himself claims that "I was always labeled as one of the most liberal members of the United States Congress"
• Biden also claims that he has "the most progressive record of anyone running" and has defended these comments in an interview. Notable mentions:- Politifact contests Biden's claim of being labeled as one of the most liberal members of Congress. These are just some examples, I believe there are some more if one does more digging. GuardianH (talk) 07:50, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Do any source SAY "He is Liberal"? Slatersteven (talk) 11:49, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Biden a liberal? I think quite a few progressive Democrats might argue that. Now, Bernie Sanders & Elizabeth Warren, would be considered liberals. GoodDay (talk) 03:53, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

The term "liberalism" has many different meanings (as can be seen in this very discussion) so, without context, I don't think including this template in the article is really all that helpful to readers. I did a spot check of some of the biographies included in the template and many of those articles also don't include the template (including Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, and Earl Warren). Aoi (青い) (talk) 04:14, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Indeed it has different meanings, which is why there are two articles about U.S. liberalism: Liberalism in the United States is about the ideology that includes all U.S. presidents, while the other, Modern liberalism in the United States, is about the ideology that includes modern Democrats and formerly "liberal Republicans," such as Earl Warren. AOC incidentally may be an exception because she belongs to the Democratic Socialists of America. TFD (talk) 13:41, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

I disagree that AOC is an exception - there are several Democrats other than her who are part of the extreme leftist faction of the Democratic Party, such as Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib, Ayanna Pressley, Jamaal Bowman, and Cori Bush. Not Illogical (talk) 17:55, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

The Squad (United States Congress) has nothing to do with Joe Biden, though. Biden is more of a northeast working-class centrist. He's been mostly pro-union but also relatively corporate-friendly, at least during his time in the Congress. It wouldn't be completely wrong to call him a modern liberal or a neoliberal, but I agree that he doesn't have a strong association with the topic. Andre🚐 18:26, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

He's not actually working class. He lived as a child in the state of Pennsylvania, which is a "working class state" and his family lived with grandparents when his father's business failed. But he went to a private Catholic academy that today charges over $30,000 tuition. Bear in mind that all four brothers and sisters received the same education. Normally people who can afford $120,000 per year to send their children to private schools are not considered to be working class. TFD (talk) 04:59, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

I meant more of his appeal and his base's class than his actual net worth. Andre🚐 05:08, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

The major ideological families today are from left to right communist, left parties, socialist/democratic socialist/social democratic, green, liberal, Christian democratic, conservative and extreme right, and there are also agrarian, nationalist and non-classified parties that can occupy different positions in the left-right spectrum. All American presidents have fallen within the liberal category, while AOC probably falls within the socialist/democratic socialist/social democratic one. She herself said that in any other country, she and Joe Biden would not belong to the same party. TFD (talk) 04:47, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

The Democratic Party is a big tent. I'd say that in another country, Joe Biden and Joe Manchin might not be in the same party, let alone Manchin and AOC. Not really relevant though. Andre🚐 05:01, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

In the UK, Biden and Manchin might be yellow book and orange book Liberal Democrats, while AOC would be in the Labour Party. The relevance is whether Democrats and Republicans share the same liberal ideology. The article you link to says they do. In that case, Reagan, Trump and Biden should all be linked. TFD (talk) 05:12, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, which article are you talking about in this instance? I don't agree that Reagan should be linked to liberalism whatsoever, since in the US, he is known as a conservative Republican. So it'd be confusing and an uncommon usage to call him liberal, and relatively inaccurate to the weight in sources. That being said, on a technical basis, if you're talking about the Washington Consensus, I agree that pretty much everyone has a broadly similar view there in terms of the neoliberals from Reagan through Biden, on a lot of economic issues. However, the terminology is overloaded and confusing, and it's important to be clear and not obfuscate things for our readers. Andre🚐 05:17, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Oh yeah, and I think Manchin is totally a Tory in England, and Biden would be a Blairite in Labour. AOC would be a Corbynite. Andre🚐 05:28, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

The article is Liberalism in the United States, as opposed to Modern liberalism in the United States. And yes the term liberalism is used to describe Reagan in expert writing. In the UK, Reagan's views would have been considered "old liberalism," viz. the liberalism of Adam Smith and Hayek, Biden's politics would be Liberal Democrat and AOC would be Labour. However, the relative demise of the Liberal Party forced many of their supporters into the remaining two major parties for example Margaret Thatcher. TFD (talk) 17:50, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

add more detail

This article has too much focus on recent narratives. It's been an eventful couple of months for the Biden admin, and I think the following points need more sourcing and detail as they start to get more coverage in sources, will have a long-term impact, and are already becoming part of the way Biden is being judged as a president by more neutral scholarly and historical sources. There is still a place for criticism of course but the idea of the do-nothing Biden admin stuck in gridlock is obviously outdated now.

• CHIPS and Science Act
• Honoring our PACT Act of 2022
• Killing of Ayman al-Zawahiri
• confirmation of record numbers of judges
• most significant US gun control bill in nearly 30 years[17]

The current article gives a lot of weight to the "botched" Afghanistan withdrawal. Which makes sense given the WP:RECENTISM and coverage in reliable sources. But from a WP:10YEARS perspective, the points I just shared are going to have very significant impact, and the Afghanistan withdrawal will likely be viewed in a more nuanced way given the larger context. Same with the BBB negotiations. The current article also strongly covers the idea of Manchinema preventing the passing of BBB. But BBB will probably be less relevant into the future since history will likely remember more about the Inflation Reduction Act versus the horse-trading and negotiation that our recent coverage will have. Andre🚐 18:35, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

"Failed in Congress"

I noticed that @Davefelmer restored the "failed in Congress" stuff. This is clearly WP:RECENTISM and not WP:10YEARS. Most presidential pages do not talk about the bills that failed before the bill passed. Trump never passed infrastructure or any healthcare reform bill. I just added that to his page[18], how long until someone comes along and reverts it with similar arguments that it's undue for the lede? Andre🚐 04:23, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

What on Earth are you talking about? By that definition everything in the section is RECENTISM. The American Rescue Plan is recent, the Infrastructure bill is recent, and the Inflation Reduction Act came AFTER the Voting Rights bills you're dismissing as too close to the present.

And "most presidential pages do not talk about the bills that failed before the bill passed"? First of all, the voting rights bills never passed, so that point is moot. And second of all, Presidential pages DO talk about notable bills that failed. See George W. Bush, where language on his social security and immigration changes is almost identical to the Biden article's. See Bill Clinton, where it notes that he failed to pass his plan for national health care reform. So you're wrong there too.

Furthermore, (Personal attack removed). Davefelmer (talk) 13:54, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

I dont think you should make an edit to Donald Trump that you seemingly disagree with to prove a point about an edit here. But I also agree "failed in Congress" is a silly way of referring to a bill that did not pass. Id ask you to self-revert at Trump. nableezy - 14:04, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

'Failed in Congress' is the exact terminology used on the George W. Bush article in reference to his social security and immigration proposals, so there's precedent. We could say 'blocked in Congress' or 'failed to pass voting rights protections/voting reforms' though, to be more consistent with Clinton's. Davefelmer (talk) 15:32, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

That seems to be referring not to specific laws or votes, but to a failure to achieve something during his whole presidency. So using that as a model, when Binde is no longer president we can look back at what he failed to achieve. Slatersteven (talk) 15:41, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Agreed with Slatersteven that while failed legislative efforts can be appropriate for the lead retrospectively, after a president has left office, it makes less sense to include this sort of content while a presidential term is still ongoing. --Jpcase (talk) 16:44, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Agree with Slater and Jpcase. And I still think that the Trump edit was not disruptive but valid on that basis, but I'll save that for his page. But I do not think the failure to pass voting rights as of 2 years into his first term needs to be in the lede. Nor should the Build Back Better act be called a failure since part of it just passed as the Inflation Reduction Act. So I would ask that given there are several editors here opining as such, we consider making this change to Biden's lede. It seems like a NPOV issue as well. [17:50, 25 August 2022 (UTC)] P.S. it was reverted in about 5 hours[19] and I've started a discussion on the talk page with the example provided of W.Andre🚐 23:48, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

See alsos and other edits by Kyleung05

@Kyleung05: has made a large number of edits to this article adding see alsos and main article links. These don't appear constructive to me. Having reverted one of their edits yesterday, I am starting a conversation here before rolling back the changes they made. Kyleung05, the WP:ONUS is on you to justify these changes. Thanks, Wallnot (talk) 13:55, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

@Kyleung05: please do not continue to edit without discussing on this talk page. Per WP:BRD, once your edits have been challenged, you must discuss to try to reach a consensus for the changes you are seeking. Wallnot (talk) 14:42, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

You've got enough evidence, for an ANI report. I think he's making too many changes across too many bios, without consensus for it. Also, he's refusing to communicate with (i.e. acknowledge) editors. GoodDay (talk) 15:10, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Speeches

Maybe make an article for his recent Philadelphia speech? 2406:5A00:DC73:3D00:75D2:AF11:868C:1245 (talk) 05:09, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

I came to say the same thing, it is getting a lot of coverage and reactions. It is a pivotal moment in his presidency. --Pokelova (talk) 06:55, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

yes -- i put it back in. The Republicans are repeatedly denouncing his use of the term, "semi fascists" which was an off-camera ad-lib that was not in the speech. Rjensen (talk) 08:09, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

It should be in the this article. We will probably have to wait and see if it receives sufficient attention to meet notability requirements for its own article. In addition to the term "semi-fascist," I found the use of the term "clear and present danger" unusual, as well as the staging of the event. TFD (talk) 12:18, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

FYI: an article has been created at Battle for the Soul of the Nation speech. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:28, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Whether or not his use of the term "semi-fascist" was off-camera/ad-libbed is irrelevant. He said it on stage. If Trump had said that, it would be plastered all over Wikipedia Croazz (talk) 18:24, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Removal of approval numbers from "2022" section

My addition of recent approval polling was reverted. The reverting editor did not follow WP:REV guidance in the slightest, nor did they, as I specifically requested, discuss any reversion on the Talk page or follow the WP:REVONLY guidance. And the sole reason they offered for removing Biden's record-low approval numbers was: "and might rise again."

At the time I made my edit, Biden's earlier approval numbers were already detailed in the "2021" section of the instant article—"In the first eight months of his presidency, Biden's approval rating, according to Morning Consult polling, remained above 50%. In August, it began to decline and lowered into the low forties by December. The decline in his approval is attributed to the Afghanistan withdrawal, increasing hospitalizations from the Delta variant, high inflation and gas prices, disarray within the Democratic Party, and a general decline in popularity customary in politics."—and in the "2022" section—"In early 2022, Biden made efforts to change his public image after entering the year with low approval ratings, which continued to fall to approximately 40% in aggregated polls by February."

It was against that background that I added updated numbers, which, given their historic nature, have been reported upon widely in all manner of RS. There was no reason at all to revert my edit—and especially not because Biden's approval numbers "might rise again". Indeed, it's hard to think of a more laughable justification for a totally unjustifiable reversion. Virtually every article in Wikipedia contains data that will eventually be updated—which obviously doesn't mean we don't include it in our encyclopedia. Every record ever set "might" be broken—indeed, most likely will—does this mean we don't include the best running time for the Boston Marathon? Obviously not—and it's telling that the reverting editor failed to remove Biden's earlier approval numbers, which have already changed. Further, there is zero chance that Biden's "sixth-quarter average approval" (which I included in my edit) "might rise again"—for the obvious reason that no presidency has a second sixth-quarter.

I am undoing the reversion, for all the above reasons. And I sincerely request that all editors stop reverting WP:DUE information cited to WP:RS for idiotic and incoherent "reasons"—as doing so serves only to frustrate the process of building our encyclopedia and wastes time and resources better devoted elsewhere. Thanks! ElleTheBelle 19:02, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

I support ValarianB's recent reversion of this content as undue for this article. Please ping me if consensus develops to include these polling results here, so I can work to address the misleading nature of the way they were summarized. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:49, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

If the edit summarizes polling results in a misleading way, then certainly that information would help inform the discussion of whether to include it, no? Saying, in effect, "if it makes the cut, let me know and then I'll tell you how it's wrong" seems not just bizarre but, frankly, irresponsible. And as the contributing editor, I'm obviously eager to get it right—and would very much appreciate your input and any needed corrections. Thanks! ElleTheBelle 22:16, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

2022 is not over yet, so until it is there may not be his final figures. Even if they are his term of president is not over, so we do not know if these are a historic low for him. Slatersteven (talk) 12:53, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

In response:

• Biden's low of 37.5% on July 21st was not just his personal low, but was and is the lowest among all modern US Presidents at that point in their first terms. I concede that this could have been better phrased in my edit, and, while I can easily rephrase it, I welcome any suggestions as to how to best do so.
• Similarly, Biden's 6th-quarter average was the lowest ever for a US President.
• In the most recent reversion, ValerianB is incorrect in stating "There is no context for 'historically low' polling for a CURRENT president, this is not something one evaluates contemporaneously." On the contrary, RS frequently report on Presidential approval numbers being the lowest of any President at that point in their presidency—and, what's more, the instant example has been "evaluated contemporaneously" in numerous RS:

US News: "Biden Approval Hits Historic Low, Poll Says"

Newsweek: "Joe Biden's Latest Approval Rating Lowest for Any President"

Washington Post: "Biden’s Approval Slump Hits a Dreary New Milestone"

Al.com: "Joe Biden’s approval rating lowest for any modern president, Gallup poll finds… of the 13 presidents during the polling era, none has been in worse shape at this point in his first term."

FiveThirtyEight: "What's Behind Biden's Record-Low Approval Rating… the worst of any elected president at this point in his presidency since the end of World War II"

• I had already pointed out how nonsensical Slatersteven's reason for the first reversion was—that record-low numbers oughtn't be included because they "might rise again"—and I cannot fathom why he's still going on about it. Was my example not clear enough? I'll try again: the first paragraph of our LaBron James article states that he "has scored the most points in the playoffs, the second most career points, and has the seventh most career assists." Those numbers are highly likely to change before he retires from basketball—yet it's painfully obvious that no one is removing them for "WP:RECENTISM", let alone because they "might" change. Is it not obvious that Biden's approval numbers for his sixth quarter are not going to change—either later in 2022 or during the "rest of his term of president [sic]"? And that because history doesn't end, the term "historical" applies only up to the point at which it is used?
• It frustrates the editing process to be reverted by editors who aren't willing to engage in discussion on the Talk page, per WP:REV—even after having been specifically asked to. In the most recent reversion, ValerianB completely fails to address the points I'd already made, and blithely repeats essentially the same rationale as Slatersteven which I've refute above (now for the second time). Is it too much to ask that editors engage in the proscribed process, and actually respond to good-faith arguments in kind? And that if an editor is going to wholesale revert my editing in obvious violation of WP:REV guidance, they at least find the time to discuss the content in question on the article Talk page?
• I still fail to comprehend why—if the article includes the vague facts that Biden's approval "remained above 50%" in the "first eight months of his presidency" and that it "continued to fall to approximately 40%... by February"—it can't also include the far more widely covered fact, specifically noted by numerous RS, that his approval ratings hit historic, all-time, record lows in 2022. Would any of the editors determined to continue reverting my edit care to explain me why the former is acceptable, but the latter not?

Thanks kindly! ElleTheBelle 22:10, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

And other polls give different figures. Slatersteven (talk) 10:26, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

I sincerely appreciate that you finally appear to have dropped your initial reason for reverting my edit ("we can't include poll numbers from the past because there will be additional polls in the future"), but am dismayed to find your new, post-hoc argument even less compelling, given that you haven't even bothered to cite these "different figures" from "other polls", let alone explain why they require reversion of my edit. That being said, I remain eternally optimistic—and hopeful that your contributions will be able to help improve our article.

1. I don't know what "different figures" from "other polls" you're referring to—but please cite your RS and explain why their existence necessitates removing (or barring) the information in my edit.
2. I cited Gallup in my edit for what I assumed would be obvious reasons: they remain the undisputed authority when it comes to the United States presidential approval rating they pioneered—and it's their poll which Wikipedia itself cites for comparisons of approval between presidents.
3. The additional articles I've cited above also reference and rely upon the highly respected polling averages from FiveThirtyEight and RealClearPolitics, the only two such aggregations which Wikipedia itself cites when it comes to approval polling for recent presidents, including both Biden and Trump.
4. Without knowing the specifics of these "other polls" to which you're referring, it strikes me that the most elegant solution to your good-faith objection to my edit would be to simply modify it to specify any poll(s) being cited—in the instant version, Gallup. Would that satisfy your concern?

Thanks kindly in advance for sharing your resources, and very much look forward to your reply! ElleTheBelle 20:01, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

From one of your sources "Just 41% of Americans say they approve of the job Biden is doing as president, according to a NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist poll released Monday – the lowest the pollsters have recorded during his presidency.", so it is a snap shot poll, that is lower than any other.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/biden-approval-rating/ give an overall view that says that in his first year Trump was lower than Biden, so hardly "Joe Biden's Latest Approval Rating Lowest for Any President". So its far more complex than one line can show. Slatersteven (talk) 09:04, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

But it is time for the others who reverted you as well to have their say, I have had mine. Slatersteven (talk) 10:33, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm patient, but I've repeatedly made clear that I'm soliciting and would very much appreciate some constructive suggestions as to how to improve my edit—and I'm still waiting. In response:

1. The poll noting Biden's 41% approval rating is from December 2021—a full 7 months before the time period covered by my contribution. As I wrote before, I cited those articles in part to show that ValerianB's claim in support of reversion—"There is no context for 'historically low' polling for a CURRENT president, this is not something one evaluates contemporaneously"—was demonstrably false.
2. In the same vein, the fact that Trump was less popular than Biden during their respective first year in office is completely irrelevant to my edit—which, if you hadn't noticed, was in § 2022 and concerned Biden's sixth quarter in office. That said, if it's information you'd think will improve our article—have at it, preferably in § 2021.
3. Your claim that "it's far more complex than one line can show" makes no sense in context. What does "it" refer to? Apparently not Biden's record-low sixth-quarter approval average, which was the subject of my edit, which was widely reported upon in RS, and which is simple to summarize in a single sentence. Again, if you believe summarizing Biden's first-year approval ratings and comparing them specifically to Trump's—or explicating whatever else it is you're referring to by "it"—would make a positive addition to our article, feel free to add "it" to the appropriate section.
4. Your main point—to the degree I'm able to divine it—seems to be that Biden has had different poll numbers at different times in his term thus far, and will have different ones in the future. Yet you don't appear to take issue with any of the other poll numbers cited. Can you please explain why is it WP:DUE to include vague approval numbers from apparently random points in Biden's term thus far—but not kosher to add Biden's widely reported record low approval during a specific, discrete period?
5. I'm still not sure you're comprehending the issue here. There already exists substantial information in our article about Biden's poll numbers—indeed, the very first sentence of § 2022 is: "In early 2022, Biden made efforts to change his public image after entering the year with low approval ratings, which continued to fall to approximately 40% in aggregated polls by February." If that's WP:DUE, then why stubbornly insist that the fact he then proceeded to rack up the lowest average approval numbers of any US president during their sixth quarter isn't noteworthy, despite it being widely covered by RS? Why would we inform readers that Biden's numbers "continued to fall" at the beginning of 2022—then deliberately omit that they bottomed out at a record low just months later?

In summary: you have not cited anything in support of your claim that "other polls" have "different figures" for the period in question, but rather regurgitated information that shows Biden's poll numbers were significantly different in 2021 than in 2022—which, ironically enough, was both the reason for my addition and why it was in § 2022. ElleTheBelle 15:40, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Nothing more needs to be said other than what was in my edit summary. We can wait a few years to start looking back at poll numbers. right now, it is just routine news. Also, just like I do for social media, I have pings for most things disabled. So, even if you had spelled my name right, I would not have seen any of your attempts. ValarianB (talk) 18:27, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

delusional 108.51.103.205 (talk) 19:55, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree that the poll numbers should be included, having very low polling numbers counts as notable and trumps low polling numbers were defiantly included at the time Always beleive in hope (talk) 18:33, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Disciplinary sanctions on here

There’s a disciplinary sanction on here: namely, the one which requires you to wait 24 hours before reinstating your edit. How do I remove this? LeetToTheBeatMakeItRoar (talk) 13:28, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Make a case here or at the DS talk page WP:DS, and get a consensus. Slatersteven (talk) 13:39, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 September 2022

joe biden was inaugurated on january 21, 2021 Withabb (talk) 12:58, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: Sources clearly state it was the 20th. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:12, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

It was the 20th, as was the case for just about every US President. --88.108.44.8 (talk) 20:11, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Entering that Inflation Reduction Act can help the USA to achieve its target in the Paris Agreement

I have posted a sentence "With the bill and additional federal and state measures, the USA can fulfill its pledge in the Paris agreement: 50% greenhouse gas emissions reduction by the year 2030."

It was deleted with this explanation: "Then lets wait and see if they do." But several sentences before there are suggestions about how much the bill wil reduce the GHG emissions. These are also suggestions based on calculations, so why not delete them?

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joe_Biden&oldid=prev&diff=1114029121

Myy edit is not based on my own proposition: the same sources who are cited when talking about suggested GHG reduction several sentences above, says it explicitly (page 1):

" If the IRA passes, additional executive and state actions can realistically achieve the U.S. nationallydetermined commitments(NDCs) under the Paris Agreement. "

https://energyinnovation.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/Modeling-the-Inflation-Reduction-Act-with-the-US-Energy-Policy-Simulator_August.pdf

The second source (below the second graph):

"This is a huge step forward towards the US climate target of 50-52% below 2005 levels in 2030, though clearly more action is needed. No single action on its own will be enough to meet the target. Still the IRA changes the game, not just with the deep emissions reductions it generates but also by cutting the cost of additional action by the executive branch and states, which could put the 2030 target within reach."

https://rhg.com/research/climate-clean-energy-inflation-reduction-act/

I think this is enough important for being mentioned on the page of Joe Byden.

Can the edit be reinstalled? Alexander Sauda/אלכסנדר סעודה (talk) 15:23, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Can does not mean will, so it may well be that he can't meet these commitments. In addition, this is about Biden, not his presidency. So even if he did meet them what does this tell USA bout him? Slatersteven (talk) 15:26, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

To Edit Joe Biden's Infobox To This

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hello.

I see that the infobox only has 3 offices in it due to a consensus. And while I agree that we should cut down Biden's infobox size, I do not think that it should be solved by getting rid of offices in the infobox. Sure, right now they are at the bottom of the infobox, but IMHO most readers will easily miss that. His senatorial committee chairmanships are stretches to remove, but I am heavily confused as to why we ever removed his County Council seat.

I think that the infobox I have in this section is way better than the one we have now. We can have all of Biden's offices in his infobox while keeping it to a size. For those who are interested in his senatorial committee chairmanships, they can click a button to view them.

Again, I think this one is way better than the one we have now. Thank you for considering.

Extended content

Joe Biden/Archive 16 Official portrait, 2021 46th President of the United States Incumbent Assumed office January 20, 2021 Vice President Kamala Harris Preceded by Donald Trump 47th Vice President of the United States In office January 20, 2009 – January 20, 2017 President Barack Obama Preceded by Dick Cheney Succeeded by Mike Pence United States Senator from Delaware In office January 3, 1973 – January 15, 2009 Preceded by J. Caleb Boggs Succeeded by Ted Kaufman Senatorial committee chairmanships (1987–⁠2009) Chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee In office January 3, 2007 – January 3, 2009 Preceded by Richard Lugar Succeeded by John Kerry In office June 6, 2001 – January 3, 2003 Preceded by Jesse Helms Succeeded by Richard Lugar In office January 3, 2001 – January 20, 2001 Preceded by Jesse Helms Succeeded by Jesse Helms Chair of the International Narcotics Control Caucus In office January 3, 2007 – January 3, 2009 Preceded by Chuck Grassley Succeeded by Dianne Feinstein Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee In office January 3, 1987 – January 3, 1995 Preceded by Strom Thurmond Succeeded by Orrin Hatch Member of the New Castle County Council from the 4th district In office January 5, 1971 – January 1, 1973 Preceded by Henry R. Folsom Succeeded by Francis R. Swift Personal details Born Joseph Robinette Biden Jr. (1942-11-20) November 20, 1942 Scranton, Pennsylvania, U.S. Political party Democratic (1969–present) Other political affiliations Independent (before 1969) Spouses Neilia Hunter ​ ​ (m. 1966; died 1972)​ Jill Jacobs ​ (m. 1977)​ Children Beau Hunter Naomi Ashley Relatives Biden family Education Archmere Academy Alma mater University of Delaware (BA) Syracuse University (JD) Occupation Politician lawyer author Awards List of honors and awards Signature Website Campaign website White House website

Bbraxtonlee (talk) 03:11, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree this is a reasonable change. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 03:17, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Him being chair of Senate Judiciary and Senate Foreign Relations alone are so much more notable than New Castle County Council. I don't personally find these particularly useful. Therequiembellishere (talk) 05:37, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

@Therequiembellishere: Yeah that’s arguable. But the point is is that the offices belong in the infobox regardless…Bbraxtonlee (talk) 07:42, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Slightly elevated inflation?

Seriously? Inflation has increased almost every month that Biden has been in office and has gone from 1.4% the month he took office to it’s current rate of 8.2% going as high as 9.1 in June of 2022. You cannot softpedal those numbers or ignore them and the idea that there has been wage growth is a lie as real wages have reduced because of inflation. This is fluffery of the highest degree after adjusting for inflation, “real” weekly earnings went down 4.4%. I’m not inclined to mess around with the page but this should be corrected, it’s incredibly biased. 71.190.233.44 (talk) 02:35, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Inflation is higher than average everywhere in the world. The over 95% of the world's population who live outside the USA don't blame Joe Biden for it. Keep your parochial politics out of this article. HiLo48 (talk) 03:01, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

You post the five pillars of Wikipedia on your talk page, please reread them - specifically Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view and Wikipedia's editors should treat each other with respect and civility I’ve cited sources that clearly contradict the fluffery in the article which needs to be updated to reflect the correct information. 71.190.233.44 (talk) 12:10, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

When you talk about "fluffery" and are clearly here to push right wing talking points, it's harder to treat you with respect and civility. If you want to be treated with civility and respect, you need to first give it. Instead of talking about "fluffery" and bias(everything is biased), say something like "I read this article and I am concerned it does not have a neutral point of view because.....". It's a fact that inflation is a global problem not unique to the US, and is actually worse in places like the UK. 331dot (talk) 12:16, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure why the US vs. world distinction matters here, as it's not related to what the IP posted. I think they just misread the text of the article. Endwise (talk) 12:34, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

The common refrain on the US political right at this moment is "inflation is terrible and it's all Joe Biden's/the Democrats' fault"- when it's a global issue not unique to the US and actually worse outside the US- which is an argument that Biden/Democratic policies have blunted inflation, not made it worse. 331dot (talk) 12:38, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

I don't think the IP was saying it was Biden's fault? Maybe I'm just naive, and that was actually the subtext. Either way, not too important as it seems pretty clear that that bit of the article is fine. Endwise (talk) 12:53, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

The text in the article reads significantly elevated inflation (not "slightly"), which is accurate. Did you misread it? The point about wage growth is that people are less hard hit by inflation if their earnings are also increasing. But real earnings are still down, so that's why it said it was partially offset by an increase in wage/salary. So that appears to be accurate as well. Perhaps we could write partially offset by the highest nominal wage and salary growth in at least 20 years to make it clearer? Endwise (talk) 12:28, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree that inflation has increased significantly. Whether or not that is Biden's, or Putin's or no one's fault is another issue. TFD (talk) 14:42, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

And that was the core point of my initial response. The OP clearly wants the article to say it is. It would be wrong to do so, and to even ask is pushing ill-informed, standard, right-wing, insular, American, political dogma. HiLo48 (talk) 21:07, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Your comments are insulting, do everyone a favor and reread WP:PA or read it if you haven’t already,as far as nominal wage growth goes I’m not pulling from right wing sources to make a point here Biden's boast about rising wages ignores effect of inflation and the inflation rate has gotten even higher than what is listed in the article. I don’t ‘want’ anything... the article should reflect a WP:NPOV and in that case it means that the numbers on the economy should be presented in a clear light. In an article at the beginning of the year CNBC posted this Despite higher wages, inflation gave the average worker a 2.4% pay cut last year and the inflation numbers have only gotten worse since. I don’t take it upon myself to change the language on the page but I do bring concerns to the talk page and not to be insulted by some editors.71.190.233.44 (talk) 01:48, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

IP, I wouldn't even try to argue with editors who have a clear bias. Unfortunately, it is why this project is so looked down upon. --Malerooster (talk) 01:59, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

My bias is to look at global economic matters from a global perspective, not from that of those wanting to score political points inside a country with less than 5% of the world's population. HiLo48 (talk) 05:30, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

HiLo48, the initial message was misleading, but there is no point in just insulting the editors. The 2021–2022 inflation surge has its own article. Dimadick (talk) 19:30, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

An editor who blames Joe Biden for global inflation is not here to build a great encyclopaedia. HiLo48 (talk) 22:00, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

The idea you want to treat the inflation data specific to this country, excusing it away by calling it a global problem, independent of the specific economic policies implemented by each country’s leadership shows you are not embracing the idea of Wikipedia:NPOV. Covid 19 was a global problem as well but we did not excuse any leader’s actions in dealing with the pandemic by saying it was a global problem so your argument is specious to say the least. 71.190.233.44 (talk) 17:19, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

"THIS country"? This is a global encyclopaedia. Which country? It's OK. I can guess. It's only American editors that think and write that way. Can you can identify specific actions of Biden's that good sources tell us made things worse in the USA than elsewhere in the world? HiLo48 (talk) 21:48, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Well, considering that Biden is the President of the United States and I am a citizen of such I wouldn’t really be as concerned about the Biden Administration’s actions as they pertained to say Brazil or Indonesia. I also wouldn’t think someone would believe Biden’s actions would affect the economies of Japan or other countries since that isn’t the subject of the article here. However, apparently you need that to be spelled out for you since you chose to be so snide in your response. You keep changing your tact, first you said, ‘My bias is to look at global economic matters from a global perspective but this isn’t a page about the global economy,’ this is a page about the current President of the United States and his actions and policies. I can point to a Forbes article, considered a WP:RSP [20]https://www.forbes.com/sites/adammillsap/2022/08/10/inflation-still-high-and-bidens-policies-are-not-helping/ as a starting point. Foreign Policy magazine also has an article on it although I’m not seeing that on WP:RSP for some reason [21]https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/11/15/fuel-inflation-oil-gas-energy-transition-climate-change-biden/ so, I didn’t feel the need to come here to engage in some detailed debate over it as much as call out that the article was not written with N:POV and got some insults from you for my observation. 71.190.233.44 (talk) 01:47, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

I believe you missed my point completely. And I am as tactful as ever. HiLo48 (talk) 20:34, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Biden is not making inflation better or worse per se, but there are plenty of reliable sources that talk about his mixed messaging on inflation and the effectiveness of his countermeasures.

https://www.forbes.com/advisor/personal-finance/inflation-reduction-act/

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2022/08/15/by-the-numbers-the-inflation-reduction-act/

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/06/14/biden-economy-afl-cio-00039580

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/13/us/politics/biden-inflation-report-economy.html

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2022-election/democrats-struggle-message-inflation-final-midterm-push-rcna52676

The article doesn't do a bad job as is, but I see the concerns of my IP friend. Y'all need to take a deep breath. Cessaune (talk) 21:33, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

PP

Time for page protection? Slatersteven (talk) 15:33, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

I did it already. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:50, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, it got lost on the wave of reversions. Slatersteven (talk) 15:57, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Joe Biden

Joe Biden is a president, and friends with good ‘ol Jimmy. 142.0.104.66 (talk) 15:59, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes we say he is president, but you need an RS saying if someone is even known to him. Slatersteven (talk) 16:02, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Yup, he's the prez. As for the latter? I don't know. GoodDay (talk) 22:14, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Well, he seems to be on fair terms with both Jimmy Carter and Jimmy Buffett. Don't know about any other Jimmys he may have encountered. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 18:38, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Grandfather John Finnegan was an All-American football player at Santa Clara University

Joe Biden’s grandfather, John Finnegan, was an All-American football player at Santa Clara University. https://twitter.com/RNCResearch/status/1583159131179225088 "My grandfather Finnegan from Scranton would really be proud of me right now. No, I'm not joking, he would. By the way, he was an All-American football player, John, in Santa Clara." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Clara_Broncos_football 96.250.75.178 (talk) 23:36, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Too trivial to mention (his grandfather isn't even mentioned in the article, only that his mother's maiden name was Finnegan) and unconfirmed. -- MelanieN (talk) 02:40, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Seems legit though. [22] But it's more of a Family of Joe Biden entry. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:26, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Except that there's no mention at that article of a grandfather named John Finnegan. It lists his maternal grandfather as Ambrose Joseph Finnegan. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:51, 24 October 2022 (UTC) P.S. Ambrose Joseph had a son named John, who would have been Joe Biden's uncle; maybe he got confused on the names. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:54, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

MelanieN, when Biden said "John", he was not saying that his grandfather's name was John. He was speaking in a conversational way to John Fetterman at a campaign rally in Pennsylvania. Cullen328 (talk) 18:24, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, Cullen, that makes sense. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:09, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

I have expanded the section about Ambrose Joseph Finnegan in Family of Joe Biden. Cullen328 (talk) 19:06, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

It cannot be verified,[23] and based on Biden's memory is probably a false claim. TFD (talk) 18:41, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Your fact check does cast doubt on "All American". However, there is evidence, including in the grandfather's 1957 obituary (when Biden was only 15, long before he became presidential or even senatorial material), that he was a star athlete and obtained national recognition. "All American" looks to me like an innocent overstatement of a basically true fact. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:20, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

The fact of the matter is that membership in the College Football All-America Team has never been determined by a single entity, and many sports organizations and publications have put out All-American lists going back over 130 years. See All-America for additional information. In recent decades, the National Collegiate Athletic Association has taken the rankings by 13 other groups and publications, and comes up with their widely recognized "consensus" All America Team. But the NCAA was not even established until 1905, after Biden's grandfather played college football. Another factor is that it took several days to travel from the east coast to the west coast at the turn of the 20th century, and west coast college teams like the University of Santa Clara rarely if ever played east coast teams. The best known All-America teams of that era consisted only of players from the northeast, mostly Ivy League teams. So, west coast college football groups and publications created their own All-America teams. It was only in the 1930s that so-called "All Coast" teams were created to honor players from a wider part of the country. The bottom line is that it is impossible to determine who was an indisputably genuine All-America college football player 120 years ago. This is my assessment, MelanieN. Sorry it took me sooner to comment. Cullen328 (talk) 03:30, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Playboy Magazine was a major force in All-America lists for half a century, long after Biden's grandfather played, and Collier's was a major force before that, during the time Biden's grandfather was playing. But that is just evidence of how subjective and unofficial the process has been from the very beginning. Cullen328 (talk) 04:31, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

RfC on Joe Biden's Infobox Contents

Should we modify Joe Biden's infobox to include all of his offices in a modified way that still shortens the length of his infobox. I have listed an example below. Example

Joe Biden/Archive 16
Official portrait, 2021
46th President of the United States
Incumbent
Assumed office January 20, 2021
Vice President	Kamala Harris
Preceded by	Donald Trump
47th Vice President of the United States
In office January 20, 2009 – January 20, 2017
President	Barack Obama
Preceded by	Dick Cheney
Succeeded by	Mike Pence
United States Senator from Delaware
In office January 3, 1973 – January 15, 2009
Preceded by	J. Caleb Boggs
Succeeded by	Ted Kaufman
Senatorial committee chairmanships (1987–⁠2009) Chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee In office January 3, 2007 – January 3, 2009 Preceded by Richard Lugar Succeeded by John Kerry In office June 6, 2001 – January 3, 2003 Preceded by Jesse Helms Succeeded by Richard Lugar In office January 3, 2001 – January 20, 2001 Preceded by Jesse Helms Succeeded by Jesse Helms Chair of the International Narcotics Control Caucus In office January 3, 2007 – January 3, 2009 Preceded by Chuck Grassley Succeeded by Dianne Feinstein Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee In office January 3, 1987 – January 3, 1995 Preceded by Strom Thurmond Succeeded by Orrin Hatch
Member of the New Castle County Council from the 4th district
In office January 5, 1971 – January 1, 1973
Preceded by	Henry R. Folsom
Succeeded by	Francis R. Swift
Personal details
Born	Joseph Robinette Biden Jr. (1942-11-20) November 20, 1942 Scranton, Pennsylvania, U.S.
Political party	Democratic (1969–present)
Other political affiliations	Independent (before 1969)
Spouses	Neilia Hunter ​ ​ (m. 1966; died 1972)​ Jill Jacobs ​ (m. 1977)​
Children	Beau Hunter Naomi Ashley
Relatives	Biden family
Education	Archmere Academy
Alma mater	University of Delaware (BA) Syracuse University (JD)
Occupation	Politician lawyer author
Awards	List of honors and awards
Signature
Website	Campaign website White House website

Bbraxtonlee (talk) 02:36, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

@Iamreallygoodatcheckers and Therequiembellishere: Courtesy pings to the users who participated in the infobox discussion above. Aoi (青い) (talk) 03:01, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

• Yes/Support Bbraxtonlee (talk) 03:38, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. The infobox is slightly shorter on desktop. However, the Senate leadership fields are not collapsible on the mobile version of Wikipedia, resulting in the infobox being significantly longer for mobile users compared to the version currently in the article. Aoi (青い) (talk) 04:03, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
• Support inclusion of New Castle County Council; oppose inclusion of Senate leadership fields. The Senate leadership positions weren't really offices in the same sense as the others here, and are reasonable to keep out for brevity. We shouldn't leave out a directly-elected office he held, though. Elli (talk | contribs) 04:22, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose The infobox is supposed to summarize the key points. It doesn't have to summarize every point. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:23, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
• (Summoned by bot) Oppose. Infobox does not exist to provide an all-encompassing, exhaustive, and concise introduction about the subject to the reader. As an element of the lead, its purpose is to recapitulate the prominent nuggets that figure in the article's body. To then treat it as a repository of infructuous trivia and facts in existence is to detract from that very purpose. MBlaze Lightning (talk) 07:53, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
• Well, I was going to support, but after reading Aoi’s comment that this is not collapsible on mobile, I don’t think this is a good idea. I oppose Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 14:59, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose, if what it had done to this talk page is anything to go by, too long with pointless trivia that really tells us nothing. Slatersteven (talk) 15:03, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose – doesn't collapse on mobile and provides an excess of information. As MBlaze Lightening has noted, it goes against the guideline MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE which emphasizes brevity for clarity:

"keep in mind the purpose of an infobox: to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article ... The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance"

--Guest2625 (talk) 11:11, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

• Support but oppose Senate leadership per User:Elli. Cessaune (talk) 02:39, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
• Comment - The RFC tag has expired & someone should make a formal request for closure at WP:Closure requests. I thought about participating in this RFC, but was too tired. Honestly, do we really need to have his county council seat mentioned? GoodDay (talk) 01:59, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Age

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
At nearly 80 years old, Biden is the oldest person to ever be the President of the United States. That should be mentioned prominently in this article, and merits inclusion in the lede. Not Illogical (talk) 20:21, 15 November 2022 (UTC) It is in the article and lead. O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:26, 15 November 2022 (UTC) Agreed. This is not made clear enough. His age has caused significant issues, according to WaPo. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/biden-turning-80-faces-renewed-age-questions-as-he-weighs-reelection/ar-AA13ZGhE https://nypost.com/2022/10/23/biden-says-concerns-about-his-age-are-legitimate/ Pbs123456789 (talk) 03:02, 16 November 2022 (UTC) This aging non-American isn't comfortable with Biden's opponents trying to make an issue of his age. Age discrimination is illegal where I live. I would prefer to see his opponents discuss his performance, honestly, without mentioning his age. His age should be irrelevant. HiLo48 (talk) 03:12, 16 November 2022 (UTC) You dont think "Upon inauguration, he became the oldest president in U.S. history" is clear? nableezy - 04:16, 16 November 2022 (UTC) If it was done in an innocent, purely information presenting way, perhaps, but unfortunately too many comments even like that have become attempted point scoring comments from his opponents. HiLo48 (talk) 05:53, 16 November 2022 (UTC) AFAIK, he's had no age-related health issues since taking office. So, mentioning he's being the oldest president, is enough. GoodDay (talk) 22:33, 16 November 2022 (UTC) No age-related issues? Seriously??? President Biden has tried to shake hands more than once with a non-existent person, tried to find in the crowd a person who died a month earlier, asked a person in a wheelchair to stand up, speaks nonsense routinely, and generally looks and acts like he has no clue what is going on around him. He even reportedly had a "bathroom incident" when meeting with the Pope, and has reportedly has a number of similar pooping issues at other times. Not Illogical (talk) 21:05, 17 November 2022 (UTC) – Muboshgu (talk) 21:14, 17 November 2022 (UTC) Whatever anti-Biden conspiracy website or television network doesn't count. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:14, 17 November 2022 (UTC) Not Illogical has perfectly demonstrated my concerns about political point scoring over Biden' age. I was going to agree with GoodDay about mentioning nothing more than that he's the oldest president, but now even that now seems problematic. HiLo48 (talk) 21:21, 17 November 2022 (UTC) Beyond that, trying to suggest that, for instance, he called out for Jackie Walorski because of his age and not because he just plum forgot that she died is a WP:BLP violation. All of "Not Illogical"'s post is borderline. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:33, 17 November 2022 (UTC) Yes, it’s happened (the hand shaking thing, falling asleep, falling down). Yes, it’s funny. Yes, it hasn’t been covered in great detail or expansively but until it becomes a bigger issue and a bigger part of the national dialog or is repeatedly bought up by RS regularly the other editors are indeed correct it should not be a part of the article with the caveat being it is something that could change. No harm, no foul in bringing it up though, talk pages are supposed to be about a dialog and the ‘point scoring’ claims should be a bit more subdued, it’s not a crime to broach the question. 71.190.233.44 (talk) 23:02, 17 November 2022 (UTC) I didn't say it was a crime!!!! I did say it was political point scoring. I will add to that that it's completely unhelpful, non-encyclopaedic, party political, non-neutral POV nonsense. Sorry, but there will be no subduing from me while I see that kind of contribution here. HiLo48 (talk) 23:34, 17 November 2022 (UTC) Not a crime, just a potential WP:BLP violation. (BLP also applies on talk pages.) – Muboshgu (talk) 23:45, 17 November 2022 (UTC) As I said right off, it is in the lead and body already. That's the answer. How long should we put up with this obvious ageism? Next, we'll hear that Biden means, among other things, "shadow valley" and therefore he is part of the Deep State. Remember this is an encyclopedia, not a Don Rickles routine. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:50, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 November 2022

2603:9000:AD03:2CE5:BC5C:F6EC:C07D:2E99 (talk) 20:31, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Must add the railroad strike situation which Biden clearly claimed false Victory over.

•  Not done Please propose a specific, sourced, neutrally written text to place in the article. 331dot (talk) 20:35, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Two proposals

The first one has recent developments, so I don't believe archived discussions cover it; and I don't believe the second has been discussed before, after a cursory search of the archives. DFlhb (talk) 12:38, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

I do not think we need to have so much about his presidency, this is about him. Slatersteven (talk) 12:50, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes! Agree! I was off-track on this. The bit I wanted to insert here about approval ratings belongs in Presidency of Joe Biden, which in fact has a whole section on approval ratings and image, with an over-large graph. YoPienso (talk) 17:45, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Student loans

I think this deserves mention; seems like a significant policy. Biden promised to forgive significant amounts of student loan debt. 43% of borrowers would have their entire debt cancelled, according to the CBO. I also think we should mention that Biden's decision to do this through executive order, rather than legislation, has drawn criticism from his own party, and that experts believe this increases the risk of his plan failing.

References

Surely some of this is noteworthy? DFlhb (talk) 12:38, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Inflation

We already mention inflation in the last paragraph of Joe_Biden#2021. I think we should mention Biden's (and his Press Secretaries') frequently repeated claims that inflation is primarily caused by excess corporate greed, as well as the fact that this claim is overwhelmingly disputed by economists. Obama's top economic advisers have very strong words against this theory, with one calling it "dangerous nonsense" and another calling it "political ranting". Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen disputed it too. Many voters believe this unsupported narrative, which even Vox criticized. We should also mention that economists believe that Biden had a minor role in causing this inflation, and that the Fed played a larger role.

References

Given that inflation dominates WP:RS coverage, and is often seen as the main cause of Biden's unpopularity, it certainly seems relevant here. DFlhb (talk) 12:38, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Student loans: Maybe. Biden has personally discussed it and it's been an ongoing action of his.

Inflation: No. Certainly not a cause of putative whatever.

SPECIFICO talk 17:06, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

For inflation: exact same as above, I never proposed we speculate on his unpopularity. The only role for that throwaway sentence was to have the reflist come before my signature, not after, so it wouldn't get pushed down by replies. His comments on inflation have certainly received significant coverage, haven't they? DFlhb (talk) 20:54, 27 November 2022 (UTC)