Jump to content

Talk:Jill Biden/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Organization

I'm also now convinced the organization of the article needs to be changed to be purely chronological. The separation of personal life, education, and career isn't working; the narrative jumps back and forth by decades several times. In reality, all three of these are heavily interwined, and need to be presented as such. I'll give it a go and we'll see how it looks. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:45, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Use of name

I'm trying to figure out the proper way to address Jacobs/Biden in the article narrative. A name change is obviously a common biographical event, but I'm not sure what WP convention is. I think what I've seen is reference to a person consistently as their current or "most common" name (despite the fact they did various biographically important thing under different names); this article mixes calling her "Biden" and "Jacobs", which feels slightly hard to read. I think it might read better if we wrote, e.g.: "Biden received her doctorate (as Jill Jacobs)...". Thoughts? LotLE×talk 18:00, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

There's two separate questions here: what last names did she use and when, and what should we use. On the first, sources conflict: they tend to describe her using her unmarried name while studying and teaching, but she's listed as just Biden in the DTCC directories. The one thing we do know is the name her dissertation was published under, so we give that. The rest will have to wait further clarification (certainly many profession women have used different names in different contexts, and changed their practice back and forth over time; this isn't a big deal, but it would be good to get it right). Wasted Time R (talk) 21:50, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Oh yeah, my concern was only about what we should use. That is, if all the sources agree she used "Jacobs" in a specific year or context, should we follow that or should we refer to her as "Biden" for consistency in the article? I would lean towards consistent use of "Biden" (with clarification of name used as needed), but I could relatively easily be convinced of something different. LotLE×talk 00:10, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm a strong believer in using the name at the time, not one name throughout, if there's a clear delineation. To say "Jill Biden was born in blahtown USA" seems silly to me; she wasn't Biden then. To say that Jill Biden had a short first marriage is even sillier; she surely wasn't Biden before, during, or immediately after that marriage. As another example, try Judith Giuliani; she attracted tons of publicity when she was Judi Nathan, and to call her Giuliani through her childhood and her two earlier marriages would be really offbase and confusing. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:21, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
OK, I'll buy the example of Judith Giuliani here (other than finding the per-clause footnotes in that article jarring :-)). Let's use the last name in effect at the time of each event. I might start sprinkling a few more "Jacobs" in the article; use of the pronoun "she" even at the start of new paragraphs reads a bit wrong. Of course, getting the right sequence of Jacobs vs. Biden is thereby important. LotLE×talk 01:44, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Yeah I was afraid to show that article to you, you don't have to guess who wrote it ;-) Wasted Time R (talk) 01:49, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Reference insanity

I'm guessing these were recent additions because of political events, but some editor(s) had added separate footnotes for basically every clause in the article. This really disrupts reading flow. Moreover, the citations are largely duplicative (i.e. same footnote number to support multiple facts). Much more sensible is to aggregate footnotes at the end of a small section of non-controversial narrative. For example, I've stuck the three footnotes that pertain to basic early biography (parents, birthplace, etc) at the end of that first paragraph. Frankly, I think even using three footnotes to support those rather banal facts is probably two too many, but let's at least try to minimize disruption of prose flow. LotLE×talk 18:41, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid I have to strongly disagree on this. The number one problem of Wikipedia is not readability but believability. With your changes, it's harder to readers to figure out what cites support what text. Moreover, it's harder for future editors to maintain the article. Say you want to move a sentence out of one of these all-cites-at-end-of-paragraph parts. Editors won't know which cite needs to get moved with it, and they probably won't do the work to figure it out. The cites will gradually become completely disassociated from the proper text. (And this is not just a theoretical concern. I think this article is going to need restructuring to be more strictly chronological than it currently is.) And this applies to whether statements are controversial or banal – we still want them to be accurate. With this kind of person, who hasn't been in the public eye a lot, and lot of the innocuous bio material you find early on turns out to be inaccurate later on. But losing the association between material and its source will make repairing those inaccuracies even harder. By any principle of data management, you want to keep the cite close to the text it supports. The eventual solution to your readability problem is to replace superscript footnotes with better technology, such as "tooltip" style notes that appear if you hover the mouse over a sentence, or if you hit a function key over a sentence, or something like that. But with your changes, that technology will never have a chance to work right. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:42, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
In most cases where I've made changes, the very same citation is given for multiple clauses in the same sentence. This is really poor style that makes reading the article almost impossible. I haven't removed any citations, nor have I moved everything to end-of-paragraph, but for a short paragraph of non-controversial facts, there is really no need for a word-by-word or clause-by-clause detailing of which citation applies to which fact... it becomes actively disruptive of the article to include word-by-word footnotes.
I'll go dig around for the relevant guideline on this. I forget what it's called, but I know that the excessive footnotes are contrary to a style guide (since I've encountered it in a few places in the past). LotLE×talk 22:48, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
"Biden started college, then was married for a short time." This is a potentially troublesome sentence, since most people don't know she was previously married. Tell me what cite supports this statement; with your changes, that cite has completely disappeared from the whole paragraph! Wasted Time R (talk) 22:55, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Fixed. LotLE×talk 23:05, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Btw. The issue about discovering more accurate information and the supposed severing of citation connection seems misguided to me. Hypothetically, imagine we discovered her birth place was misreported as Hammonton, when it's really somewhere else. OK, sure possible. But in that case, we'll need a new citation anyway with the right information. Keeping an inaccurate source within two words of the fact it reports doesn't help us whatsoever in this case. LotLE×talk 02:21, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes we would, but we'd also need to remove the Hammonton citation, which again we would need to locate. Anyway, I've let this sit overnight, to make sure I'm not engaging in just a knee-jerk reaction, but I'm still convinced that "collected citations at end of paragraph" just won't work here, both on verifiability and maintainability grounds. But I also recognize that the per-clause citation scheme gives you agita. So I'm going to try to do it on a per-sentence basis, breaking down a few long/convuluted sentences (which I tend to concoct, alas) into simpler ones as necessary. Bear with me and see if the result is okay with you. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:37, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I've done both the structural reorg and the per-sentence citing. The former was definitely made more difficult by the lack of the latter; I kept having to refer to prior versions of the article to figure out what cites went with what statements when I moved them around. I then added a bunch more material, and refined existing material, due to several new newspaper profiles on her that have come out since we began this discussion. That shows how dynamic bio information on Jill Biden is at the moment, and why at the very least we need to keep citations attached to the sentences they document. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:48, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Citations per sentence seem like a very reasonable frequency. The paragraphs in question were quite short though, in any case. I certainly wouldn't want citations deferred until the end of a long paragraph (unless there really is just one cite that adequately covers everything in the paragraph). FWIW, I think your idea for chronological reorganization is a very good one. LotLE×talk 17:52, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

sorry folks. footnote mania remains. article rather unreadable. 68.173.2.68 (talk) 22:33, 29 August 2008 (UTC) comment landed in wrong section earlier.68.173.2.68 (talk) 22:35, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Someday Wikipedia will have better technology, such that you can select whether to have footnotes presented to you or not as a user preference item, or the "tooltip" approach I mentioned above. Until then, the superscripts are small, just ignore them as you read. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:35, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
I have doubts about this. For any important article that I want to read carefully, I print it off (admittedly, this one isn't so heavy as that). It's hard to see how these future tooltips would work on paper (*wink*). What does work is the same academic style that has developed over the last couple hundred years of scholarly texts, with footnotes every sentence or two, at most. Pick up any academic journal in the world, in any field: you'll notice that footnotes don't occur clause-by-clause; the reason isn't a technical limitation, but an evolved standard of usefulness and readability for humans. LotLE×talk 01:47, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
They have 3D paper in the future, of course! Anyway, law review articles that I've seen tend to be very densely footnoted. I'm sampling some in the December 1981 Fordham Law Review that I happen to have here, and there are many, many instances of multiple footnote placements per sentence, usually but not always on comma or semicolon boundaries. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:54, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
And another point. I've written academic journal papers in computer science, and you're right, they aren't footnoted or cited nearly as much as what we do here in WP. But in academia, there's a fundamental assumption that the author is a competent, honest presenter, who can be trusted to advance some basic statements without being doubted. (Of course, there are cases of academic fraud, but these usually get discovered when no one can reproduce the author's results, or when plagiarism is discovered, etc. And there are people who come to foolish conclusions, but that's in their original research.) This is not the case in WP. We don't have any trust mechanism here; when you look at a sentence in an article, you generally don't know if it came from a well-respected editor with 30,000 contributions and a bunch of FAs behind her, or whether it comes from some cheap partisan fool using an IP address, or anything in between. In other words, academic papers are innocent until proven guilty, while WP articles are guilty until proven innocent. And in the latter case, that proof is the citing, and we need as much of it and closely done as possible. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:15, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Law articles probably are the most densely cited of any academic discipline. Still not as much as this article was, but usually quite a few. Physics also sometimes seems pretty densely cited. I've also written academically in a number of disciplines (and read many others), so have some sense of the different conventions. I certainly don't think that there should never be footnotes on successive clauses, but not as a rule... and citing two complex legal concepts/precedents next to each other is rather more technical than pointing out that, e.g. Biden was born in one town and raised in another.
Obviously, it's not like I think articles shouldn't get citations, just a more stylistic one of how they're arranged (i.e. now, before 3D paper is available :-)). I've added plenty of "{fact}" tags on WP in my time here. I think the readability that you perceive differently from me may be in part a browser difference. I turn on the "minimum font size" option in my browswer, which means that superscripts don't look quite as small as they might for you. Print resolutions allow for more legible tiny fonts than do LCD displays.... and I'm also less Utopian about the whole Ted Nelson hypertext vision than you perhaps are. In any case, this is straying a log way away from Jill Biden, so I'll let my philosophical musings end here. LotLE×talk 03:23, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

a political

re:my recent edit.

homeland security has the best personal protection service in the I guess the world. they are protecting her whole family now. the question "political?" is kinda moot I think. St. Puid, Head of Asisi 15:53, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

CNN says mother died

It's on their home page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Obisch (talk • contribs) 02:33, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's now reflected in this article in the years her mother was alive. But we don't need to discuss Joe Biden's going off the campaign trail due to this, since it's already covered in his article. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

First Marriage: to whom, when?

Marriages, brief or otherwise, should have some facts disclosed...like the date and names of the two parties. --TMH (talk) 18:28, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, but haven't seen any further details anywhere. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:12, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
This new WaPo story references it, but again no particulars. Wasted Time R (talk) 16:50, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
This Vogue profile has a number of new details on it (although no name or exact dates), and the article has been updated accordingly. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:37, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

April 2009 pic

Here is an April 2009 picture that I think shows a fun side to Jill Biden (I don't know if others will agree). There's no room for it in the article's present state, but if the section related to her life as Second Lady is expanded, I think it may be a good addition. Cheers. APK straight up now tell me 20:54, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Religion

The article says that Jill Biden was confirmed in the Presbyterian Church, but her religion is Roman Catholic on the infobox (the Biden family is Catholic). The article does not mention her converting when she married Joe Biden or before, do we know if she is actually a practicing Roman Catholic? --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 20:21, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

She attends mass with Joe Biden at their church in Delaware (see footnote 40 in the Joe Biden article) and the Washington Post datasheet labels her a Catholic (footnote 1 in this article). Other than that, I haven't seen much at all about religion in press stories about her, and it doesn't seem to have played much of a role in her life. It's possible that she never converted but simply started attending Catholic services out of convenience once she married Biden. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:54, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Interesting.. because if she never converted than she is not allowed to recieve the sacraments. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 03:51, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Americans are often very flexible about religious identity. Check out this NYT story about Marco Rubio, for example. Christine O'Donnell something of the same situation as well. John McCain is another case, possibly like Biden, of drifting from one denomination to another via marriage. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:14, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Rms125a@hotmail.com added Category:Converts to Roman Catholicism from Protestantism to the article, but per the above lack of evidence supporting any explicit conversion, I don't think the addition is warranted and I have removed it. Wasted Time R (talk) 17:11, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Picture

There has to be a more flattering picture of Jill Biden than that... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.170.82.71 (talk) 23:49, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

At some point we'll get an official picture as wife of the Vice President, I think, similar to this photo File:Mrscheney.jpeg that we use in Lynne Cheney. Until then, we can only use what we have rights to. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:44, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
She looks pretty hot in the one we have now. 72.86.47.226 (talk) 01:07, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

oops, meant to refer to "about"

It said "about five years" regarding the time from accident (killing Joe Biden's 1st wife & daughter) to Jill marrying Joe Biden. When I put it "four and a half" just now, I removed "about" but forgot to note that in the comment about the change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.20 (talk) 16:43, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

No such office

The infobox for this article mentions "assumed office" and "second lady of the United States," but no such office exists, either elected or appointed. Wikipedia is not the place for bogus "offices" invented by the media, especially since it is used as a reference by people around the world. Agateller (talk) 15:30, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

The "Assumed office" text is put out by the infobox template we are using, and that template should really be more flexible to handle cases like this where there is no formal office and no formal title. But wife of the vice president is a real, if informal, position - as the Politico story used as a cite says, "Outside the classroom, Biden occupies a corner suite on the second floor of the Eisenhower Executive Office Building. She has a staff of eight — including a policy director and two employees who manage the vice presidential residence at the Naval Observatory." There's legislation somewhere that must authorize that allocation of resources. The Second Lady of the United States article explains that the position title is informal. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:02, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Jill Biden. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:09, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Second Lady or Wife of the Vice President?

Surely it should be, Second Lady which is the proper name. When it was the Bush admin, Lyne Cheny was Second Lady not Wife of the VP. Has the title been changed or something?

Supercalafragiclisticexpialadotious (that's a mouthfull isn't it!?) 12:10, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

This is subject to ongoing confusion, uncertainty, and dispute. But we cannot have duplicate articles on the subject! I have restored the redirect of Second Lady of the United States to Wife of the Vice President of the United States. If you want the article name changed, go to WP:RM to do it and then we can get a consensus on what the article name should be. As for the Jill Biden article, I'm content to use the two forms synonymously. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:40, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
The Title of First Lady is not official, but merely 'accepted'. Presumably, Second Lady is the same. So there is no 'proper name'. Valetude (talk) 23:50, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Jill Biden. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:28, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Lol.

I've noticed that someone already edited the page to include her mother's ancestry, now that Dr. Biden made an announcement of it in her speech last night.

What is this obsession on this site with ancestries? Can someone explain to me how mentioning that Jill Biden is "Italian-English-Scottish-and who knows what else" in ancestry helps readers understand Jill Biden? Jill Biden is American, and both of her parents were born in America.Jonathan f1 (talk) 23:24, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Got me. I see it in article after article. Some people think where someone's ancestors lived generations ago matters in some way to the person now. It brings to mind my favorite Heinlein quote: "This sad little lizard told me that he was a brontosaurus on his mother's side. I did not laugh; people who boast of ancestry often have little else to sustain them." Schazjmd (talk) 23:40, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

I think it is relevant, since culture changes slower than citizenship. Until only a few generations ago, the different ethnic groups in the US mostly did not mix. Her ancestry is not the most important info on her page, but I think it is worth including. Bio-CLC (talk) 11:39, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

It would be nice to know what her degrees are in

In the text, it is mentioned that she has various college degrees, but it does not always say what they are in. Also, I could not find any info on the Book Buddies organization. Bio-CLC (talk) 04:56, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

I've added that the undergraduate degree was in English. The other three were already stated in the article.
As for the outside links you added, I have moved them down to the External links section, per the guidance at WP:ELPOINTS. The idea is that in article text, there are only internal links to other Wikipedia articles. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:18, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

New Info on how the Jill met Joe.

Jill's former husband, Bill Stevenson, tells a different story about how Jill and Joe first met. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajweberman (talk • contribs) 13:36, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

This was previously thrown out of the article because Stevenson's account appeared in WP:DAILYMAIL. But in the last couple of days Inside Edition has run with it and Jill Biden has issued a formal denial of Stevenson's claims. Based on that, it seems like a reasonable course of action is to add Stevenson's account, together with her denial, to this article in a Note, and I have now done so. But there may be editors who think it better to still keep it out entirely. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:36, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
Seconded. It certainly shoudl be mentioned.--Shakehandsman (talk) 02:25, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Photo with FORMER / THEN Argentinean first lady. Photo caption should be corrected.

Juliana Awada was the first lady at the time of the photo op with Mrs. Biden, but she is not holding this position any longer. Thus, I suggest that the caption be amended to reflect this change of status, by adding «former» or «then». — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bohemia (talk • contribs) 03:12, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

No change is necessary. In historical writing, captions, like other text, are always assumed to refer to positions at the time of the events or images being described. If an article on World War II shows a picture of the Casablanca Conference, there is no need for the caption to refer to former President Roosevelt talking to former Prime Minister Churchill. Wasted Time R (talk) 17:08, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Article should explain how Joe Biden was able to marry the divorced Jill and remain a practicing catholic, even though catholic dogma expressly refutes divorce of a valid christian marriage?

The question of how Joe Biden was able to marry the divorced Jill and remain a practicing catholic, even though catholic dogma expressly refutes divorce of christian marriage and punishes it with lifelong ban from Holy Communion, is currently a source of major confusion among catholics of Europe and nobody seems to have reliable answer. The uncertainity is also exploited for political propaganda (vote recount) purposes in heavily pro-Trump governed european catholic countries, like Hungary and Poland. Thus it would be highly beneficial if the Wikipedia article could shed authentic light on the issue! For example, may the "Pauline / Petrine Privilege" or other Vatican hand-waving have been involved to allow for the divorced re-marriage? But considering Jill's first husband was also a christian and they were validly wed by a non-catholic yet christian denomination pastor, such excuse seems unlikely to be valid per catholic dogma. Thanks for your effort! 92.249.156.162 (talk) 18:49, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

I know nothing about this subject, but according to this 2014 post on Busted Halo, you are correct about the general requirement. However I have not seen any source that speaks to whether such a thing was done in the Bidens' case or not. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:40, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
I don't have an answer either. However, the Catholic Church can grant an annulment while allows someone divorced in the courts to re-marry. Or the Bidens might not have told the Catholic Church. It's academic however because without sources we can't add this to the article. TFD (talk) 19:36, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 November 2020

This horse requests you stop beating it. Gsquaredxc (talk) 01:44, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Joe Biden is not the President-elect. The election is confirmed as undecided. 2601:2C3:857F:8A90:F063:B1D5:5496:5B16 (talk) 15:47, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Read a newspaper. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:26, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
Muboshgu I totally see your point, but the IP might have been referring to the Congressional practice that a candidate is called President-elect only after the election is certified. What we have right now are projections by media companies and I do believe that these will bear out 100%, but we don't actually have "results" of the election. I'm not saying I agree with the IP - RS/IS are using the term president-elect, and I think WP should too. My comment was only brought forth due to the tone of your response, which I felt was unreasonably harsh. — Ad Meliora Talk∕Contribs 17:20, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
Ad Meliora, WP:AGF only goes so far. We have been responding to these comments ever since the race was called. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:32, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
I get it - I guess it's different if you see the first comment of this nature vs the 500th. — Ad Meliora Talk∕Contribs 17:37, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, it definitely is. It's still a good reminder to not bite those who I think are trolling. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:15, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 November 2020

This horse requests you stop beating it. Gsquaredxc (talk) 01:45, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

She is not the first lady YET!!!!!! 2600:1005:B053:C598:E817:D5CD:D028:BA86 (talk) 20:04, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Designate: appointed to an office or position but not yet installed. KidAd talk 20:10, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Requesting protection and to name her as First Lady-designate.

Joe Biden on his page is President-Elect. Kamala Harris on her page is Vice President-Elect. On the election page the race is called. Can we please agree to give Jill Biden the "First Lady-Designate" and lock the page from any non-confirmed edits just so it is uniform across all of wikipedia? We recognized Melania in 2016, did we not? Sneakycrown (talk) 06:59, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Please see the ongoing RfC above. 207.161.86.162 (talk) 07:48, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Instructor or professor?

I previously engaged in an edit summary debate with User:Crunch over whether Jill Biden should be referred to as an instructor or a professor, with me arguing that this NYT secondary source that said 'professor' outweighed this DT&CC primary source that said 'instructor'. However, this new WaPo story makes a point of saying "It takes a certain type of person to teach at a community college. You get the humble title of 'instructor.' ..." That leads me to think that I was wrong, and that we should refer to her here as an instructor. I've changed the article accordingly, but am willing to be convinced back again should some new source say otherwise. Wasted Time R (talk) 16:34, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I actually taught at Delaware Technical Community College, different campus and different time as Dr. Biden. Great place to work, by the way. We were all called instructors. Instructors is the correct term for Dr. Biden when she was faculty at DTCC. Mrinzeo (talk) 01:19, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 December 2020

Dr. Jill Biden 184.101.50.42 (talk) 02:16, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

 Not done I’m pretty sure the Manual of Style is against the Dr. title. Trillfendi (talk) 02:53, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Can you confirm this? Saxones288 (talk) 08:37, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
That is correct, per MOS:CREDENTIAL. However at the beginning of the Second Lady section, the article has always described her preference for that form: In White House announcements and by her preference, she was referred to as "Dr. Jill Biden".[46][57] And now in the presidential transition section, I have added another mention of this, in connection with the widely derided Wall Street Journal op-ed from a few days ago. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:25, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Education listing

Within the quick facts summary, Biden’s Bachelor’s and Masters’ degrees are listed, but not her Ph.D. In the body of the WP article, her Ph.D is discussed. Please add her Ph.D to the summary. <Charlene Jurkoshek> — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjurkoshek (talk • contribs) 17:36, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Cjurkoshek, Jill Biden doesn't have a PhD, she has a Doctor of Education, or EdD. It is included in the infobox and the section on her education, where it says she got her doctorate in 2007. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:48, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Muboshgu, I misunderstood. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjurkoshek (talk • contribs) 22:28, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

This is exactly why it's misleading for her to use the title "Dr." -- it makes people assume she has a more advanced degree than she actually does.2600:1003:B127:55A1:F445:ADF8:785A:9BBF (talk) 05:22, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Notability

Jill Biden deserves an article, as have 95% of other Women married to VPs or Presidents, because of her marital status. If she hadn’t married Joe Biden, no one would ever have heard of her! This is why her career as a PhD teacher should take second place.

If she collected doilies and never graduated from high school, she’d still have an article, see early First Ladies of 19th century. Student7 (talk) 19:04, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

None of that changes how the lead section works.... Trillfendi (talk) 19:26, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
Her job is quite literally being an educator. Michelle Obama is listed as an attorney and author. Melania Trump is listed as a former model and businesswoman. The First Lady isn't a job, it's an honorary position and doesn't describe a person's profession. Especially in Biden's case, given that she kept her job throughout Biden's vice presidency and intends to keep it through this presidency.--Bettydaisies (talk) 20:32, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
Agree with Trillfendi and Bettydaisies, especially given that much of the press about Biden has focused on her role as an educator. Wasted Time R (talk) 20:49, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

"This is why her career as a PhD..." She is not a PhD. 2600:1003:B127:55A1:F445:ADF8:785A:9BBF (talk) 05:24, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Changing Jacobs to Biden

I am having a hard time finding what the usual style on Wikipedia is. Is there a reason the article still refers to her as "Jacobs" instead of "Biden"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Techietommy (talk • contribs) 22:04, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

She's referred to as Jacobs during her childhood and early adulthood, because that's what her name was then. Once she gets married, she adopted Biden as a last name, and the article refers to her as Biden. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:05, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Jill Biden ancestry

If Jill Biden (Jacobs-Giacoppo/Giacoppa-grandfather) listing of ancestry is English & Scottish, wouldn't her grandfather come into play and give her a touch of Italian in there? Wonder why her Italian heritage isn't listed? Is she not recognizing her birth right or is she ashamed of it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.102.69.109 (talk) 19:37, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Not sure what you are asking. The article states that she has Sicilian heritage through her father and places her in the 'American people of Sicilian descent' category. (The English and Scottish heritage is through her mother.) And it says that she will become the first ever Italian American first lady. What more are you looking for? Wasted Time R (talk) 01:58, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
She's of one quarter Italian descent. Her paternal grandmother was Mable (Blazer) Jacobs, the daughter of German immigrants. Jill gave her daughter Ashley the middle name Blazer, presumably after her grandmother. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 19:04, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

RfC: First lady-designate

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
After reading all the collaborative discussions below, the consensus is to not add the title First Lady-designate and Second Gentleman-designate (or the titles without the -designate) to the infoboxes on Jill Biden and Doug Emhoff at this time. The reasoning was that -designate is not an actual title, used either formally or informally, to refer to the spouse of the president-elect and vice president-elect. Editors also said that the use of -designate in past articles (i.e. Michelle Obama & Melania Trump) was not a precedent to use that title (see WP:OTHERSTUFF). The titles can be added (first lady of the United States and second gentleman of the United States) to the infoboxes when their spouses take the oath of office on January 20, 2021 at 17:00 UTC. Some editors suggested that the titles of spouse of the president-elect and spouse of the vice president-elect be used, though some editors suggested this was WP:OR. There was no consensus on these titles. Any attempt to add these titles to the infoboxes before January 20, 2021 at 17:00 UTC±00:00 will be reverted in accordance with the consensus of this discussion. cookie monster (2020) 755 04:20, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Discussion started by Surtsicna, template added by CookieMonster755.
Question: Should the title of "First Lady of the United States – Designate" and "Second Gentleman of the United States – Designate" appear in the infoboxes of Jill Biden and Doug Emhoff, the spouses of the president-elect and vice president-elect, respectively? cookie monster (2020) 755 21:12, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

(Opening discussion by Surtsicna): There is no such thing. The term is virtually unknown to reliable sources. She has not been elected to any role or position and therefore has not been designated as anything. She is not "assuming office". What we can say is that she is expected to become first lady. Surtsicna (talk) 20:30, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree it's a made-up term, but it's reasonable to have some kind of section header that describes that her husband got elected and she is preparing to become First Lady (hiring staff, deciding on priorities, reiterating that she will continue teaching, etc). Calling the section "2020 presidential election" doesn't really cut it since there is already a section about the 2020 campaign. How about "Preparing to become first lady" as a section title? And remember that in two months the standard section titles and infobox entries should come into place, so how it looks until then isn't worth getting into edit wars over. Wasted Time R (talk) 20:54, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
How about 2020 presidential transition? I do strongly believe that Wikipedia should not promote the use of strange terms, even if only for a couple of months. Surtsicna (talk) 21:03, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
If you're going that route, "Role in 2020–21 presidential transition" would be more accurate. Wasted Time R (talk) 21:42, 15 November 2020 (UTC) AgreeTvoz/talk 01:31, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Include titles in infobox – you are correct that these are not elected positions but informal titles for the spouse of the president and vice president, respectively. However, there is common practice on Wikipedia of calling someone designate to a position they will assume in the future (see -designate). We did this when Michelle Obama became the first lady-designate after then-Senator Obama became president-elect in 2008 and when Melania Trump became first lady designate after (incumbent president) Donald J. Trump became president-elect in 2016. We also did it for Karen Pence when her husband was vice president-elect in 2016 as well. I see no subsistence for why these titles can't be added in the infoboxes of incoming first lady Jill Biden and second gentleman Doug Emhoff. cookie monster (2020) 755 21:20, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
  • The subsistence for why these titles should not be added is that they are virtually unknown to reliable sources. What Wikipedia has done before is irrelevant. It was not backed by reputable sources then and it is not backed by reputable sources now. Surtsicna (talk) 21:32, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Those are all high-quality sources but the terms "first lady-designate" and "second gentleman-designate" are not mentioned in any of them. One of them even notes that Emhoff has yet to call himself second gentleman, while another notes that "second lady" and "second gentleman" are informal titles rather than offices. Therefore they have not been "appointed to an office" and "-designate" is inappropriate and misleading. Surtsicna (talk) 22:01, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
  • No one is disputing that these are not offices, but rather informal positions. By custom, the spouse of a president or vice-president is called first lady or second lady, or in this instance, second gentleman. cookie monster (2020) 755 22:08, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
  • And there is no custom dictating that spouses of presidents-elect and vice presidents-elect are known as first or second something-designate. Quite the opposite: this term is being promoted by Wikipedia, which should never happen. Surtsicna (talk) 22:17, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
Yes, if there is consensus to add or not add these roles, it should apply to both spouses. cookie monster (2020) 755 21:29, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
Consistency, is all I ask for :) GoodDay (talk) 21:30, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
  • By your opinion, we should remove the title of President-elect and Vice President-elect from the articles of Joe Biden and Kamala Harris. cookie monster (2020) 755 22:09, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
  • It's not about that. The terms will be no more appropriate after 8 December, unless reliable sources suddenly pick up on the terms "first lady-designate" and "second gentleman-designate" and they catch on. Surtsicna (talk) 23:04, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
That would seem reasonable. Surtsicna (talk) 23:12, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Include Reliable sources indicate Biden and Emhoff will become first and second spouse in January, and waiting until certification is contrary to consistent practice. While second spouse is not a "office" (first lady has a significant White House staff and is), both have historically been included in infoboxes and it is reasonable to note they are expected to take the position soon. Reywas92Talk 22:36, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes, reliable sources do indicate so and Wikipedia should reflect that. Reliable sources, however, make no significant use (if any at all) of the terms "first lady-designate" and "second gentleman-designate". Having been historically included in infoboxes means only that Wikipedia has historically engaged in original research. It does not mean that it should continue to do so. Surtsicna (talk) 23:02, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
  • So say "Incoming First Lady" or something. "First lady designate" has lots of results for Biden, Melania in 2016, and other individuals, so even though the NYT hasn't used it, it's certainly not original research to use an adjective which accurately describes her status. Heck, there's a lot of results for "first lady-elect", but it's not OR that we've decided she hasn't herself been elected so we don't say that. Reywas92Talk 23:25, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
  • It is not just NYT that has not used it. No reputable media outlets in the US have. It is also not accurate because she has not been elected, which is what -designate means according to Wikipedia itself. We can simply say that Jill Biden is expected to become first lady, which is what reliable sources say anyway. Surtsicna (talk) 10:35, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment I dislike these terms which seem awkward and cumbersome. But I believe in precedent more than in elegant language and I think we should handle this however we handled Barack & Michelle Obama and Donald & Melania Trump. I assume we went through these same discussions in 2008 and 2016 and if we didn't wait for elector certification in the last two transitions, we needn't wait now. Liz Read! Talk! 23:08, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
  • We should not handle anything like we handled it before if it contradicts reliable sources. The issue is not the certification. It is the use of terms that hardly exist anywhere outside Wikipedia. Surtsicna (talk) 23:11, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment I could only find term "first lady-designate" to refer to Dr. Biden in merely two locations: On this BBC page, where it links to another BBC article, with the phrase: "Who is first lady-designate Jill Biden?", but the actual article isn't titled that way. The other one is from a letter sent by the National Italian American Foundation to congratulate Dr. Biden, and refers to her as the First Lady-desigate. The only other sources I can find with the phrase are foreign news agencies, which I don't think are the best to refer to in this situation. - Bettydaisies
{re|Surtsicna} Doesn't have to be "first lady-designate," any term that indicate her future role can do, i.e. "incoming FLOTUS".—SquidHomme (talk) 00:31, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
And when have you heard of queen-designate? — Ad Meliora Talk∕Contribs 17:13, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
{re|Ad Meliora} Please, it's not called queen-designate. Have you heard the term "Crown Prince," "Crown Princess" or "Krönprins?" It's pretty much the same.—SquidHomme (talk) 00:31, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
And that would be a good argument to make when someone runs an RfC on whether to call them crown first lady and crown second gentleman :-) — Ad Meliora Talk∕Contribs 14:42, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Unless its citable via reliable sources, which I kinda doubt it is after a casual search. Rklahn (talk) 00:32, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Include — Melania Trump has FLOTUS in her infobox, so I don't see how that shouldn't be the case for Biden and Emhoff.
  • Support inbox as per cookie monster and section titles as amended by my old comrade-in-arms Wasted Time R. Why are we once again trying to reinvent the wheel? We came up with an approach to this short-lived non-issue years ago and it worked just fine for the two months of each transition. Yes these are more or less made-up terms, although "designate" is in use. Yes they speak to real events that we should include in the articles. As long as we have comprehensible, consistent terminology to use, there's not much to talk about, is there? Tvoz/talk 01:31, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose It sounds kinda ridiculous. How about we just leave it as is (copasetic) and worry about titles on actual Inaguration Day when they happen? Trillfendi (talk) 02:40, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes, there is. "More or less made-up terms" should not be used on Wikipedia, least of all in the most prominent of places. There are numerous other ways to present this information without promoting ridiculous neologisms. Surtsicna (talk) 10:35, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

P.S. It looks like Congress may have stepped in with a directive about the "president elect" designation. Pkeets (talk) 04:38, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

@Pkeets:, please clarify. GoodDay (talk) 12:09, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
I've lost the link I was looking at last week. Meanwhile, check here for info on etiquette - President-elect of the United States. It looks like the candidate is only called "president elect" after the electoral votes are cast. Ignore the lede, which has been decorated with Biden's picture and pronouncements about how he's president-elect, and read further down in the article. There's also a brief article on First Lady, that doesn't help with the "elect" issue. I would recommend "wife of the president-elect" or "husband of the vice-president-elect" until the inauguration makes it officially First Lady and Second Gentleman. Pkeets (talk) 04:21, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Joe Biden is President-elect, but I've never heard the term "First Lady-designate" before. It doesn't need to be in the infobox before January 20. Text in the lead saying "will become the First Lady" is sufficient. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:53, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose It's like like calling Mr. Smith's fiancee "Mrs. Smith (designate)." Also, are we sure that Second Gentleman is what he will be called? TFD (talk) 19:41, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
For your second point, during 2016 elections news source discussed the prospect of Bill Clinton being First Gentleman (or informally 'First Lad' as he suggested). And now news sources use the term "Second Gentleman" for Emhoff. 2600:1012:B118:6730:0:44:AE09:3001 (talk) 20:12, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
AP notes that Emhoff has not yet selected his title. Surtsicna (talk) 20:47, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
See article on etiquette here First Lady.Pkeets (talk) 04:27, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
Fingers crossed for "Second Dude". – Muboshgu (talk) 18:37, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
The Lord says it is done! Surtsicna (talk) 18:50, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
I do not believe in Jesus. cookie monster (2020) 755 23:05, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
But... but... the angels have been dispatched from Africa! Surtsicna (talk) 23:49, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
It looks like there is clear consensus not to include these tiles until January 20. cookie monster (2020) 755 00:17, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
Surtsicna. cookie monster (2020) 755 00:18, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Joe Biden is NOT President-elect until votes are certified in each state and he has 270 electoral votes. Neither has occurred, except in the press. The designation for his wife is non-existent and thus irrelevant. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE 18:21, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
Then we should immediately remove the titles of President-elect and Vice President-elect from the page of Joe Biden and Kamala Harris, aye? cookie monster (2020) 755 23:03, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
I agree. See article on President-elect of the United States which states, "It will be noted that the committee uses the term "president-elect" in its generally accepted sense, as meaning the person who has received the majority of electoral votes, or the person who has been chosen by the House of Representatives in the event that the election is thrown into the House." Pkeets (talk) 05:00, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
You repeating this same thing over and over in multiple talk pages doesn't make your argument any better. Wikipedia goes by reliable sources including reputable media, not by "certifications". You do not need to wait until official results are certified to be the effective elect any more than you need to wait until the DNC to be the effective nominee. 2600:1012:B118:6730:0:44:AE09:3001 (talk) 05:33, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
It's a fact versus opinion issue. "Effective" and "informal" are not the same as "official," and so may be interpreted as misinformation. Politifact goes with the electoral college vote making the title official. Until then, terminology should be "projected president-elect." Pkeets (talk) 05:49, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
We are not PolitiFact. We're Wikipedia. And Wikipedia goes by reliable sources. Not just "official sources". 2600:1012:B10C:B98F:0:38:6144:7F01 (talk) 20:16, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose I agree it sounds kinda ridiculous. I am not an American so I am not sure if this is an official or courtesy title, but it still reads just weird.Slatersteven (talk) 12:58, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose It seems some folks are looking at this RfC as a political attack on Dr. Biden and Mr. Emhoff, rather than a narrow, technical issue. Look, these people will be the first lady and second gentleman respectively once their spouses take office. However, "designate" has a specific meaning, and that ain't it. It is unreasonable and PRIMARY to refer to these people as designates, when they are not actually assuming any office. No RS uses the term. cookie monster's suggestion of using Spouse of the President-elect and Spouse of the Vice President-elect is a good one - technically sound and avoids the perceived political slight in waiting for a few weeks before marking them as first lady and second gentleman. — Ad Meliora Talk∕Contribs 17:09, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Ad Meliora. 207.161.86.162 (talk) 07:43, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Ad Meliora. These roles are not "designated" to anyone. We have to stick to what's in the reliable sources; "First Lady-designate" and "Second Gentleman-designate" are terms that don't seem to exist in media coverage. I'm not trying to argue that Joe Biden isn't President-elect, I'm just saying that there's no compelling reason based on coverage in reliable secondary sources to give the spouses these titles. ― Tartan357 Talk 19:42, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose 2nd gentleman on the practical grounds that 1.) "second gentleman" sounds first-rate silly, 2.) such a neologism is inadvisable and we can't call anyone anything-designate is they haven't been designated it yet (how does the Democrat Party/involved official campaign teams etc refer to them, and if we don't know whether that is the designation, and 3.) because the male equivalent of "second lady" should be something like "second lord"! Jill Biden is obviously going to be called "first lady", by fitting into established convention, and so can be called "first lady designate" if really necessary, but no convention exists for the neologism "first gentleman" and we should not seek to invent one. There are a few male spouses of deputy world leaders, and I've never heard of any of them being called anything like as awkward as "first" or "second gentleman". Support the Jill Biden proposal, as wholly uncontroversial. GPinkerton (talk) 21:54, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
GPinkerton, there actually was a lot of talk about Bill Clinton becoming the First Gentleman in 2016. It's a term that's been around. The "designate" labels are the real issue here, I think. ― Tartan357 Talk 23:26, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Support. I feel like now is a good time to reignite this debate considering Joe Biden has been formally elected President by the electoral college. As the spouse of the President-Elect, I think it's undeniable that she is now the First-Lady designate. Cliffmore (talk) 01:22, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Joe Biden will become the next President it’s now official he will take office on Jan. 20th, we should add Jill Biden is assuming role as First Lady on that date into infobox now. Ciaran.london (talk) 17:47, 26 December 2020 (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.

RFC is over

The RFC has expired & most editors have said not to add anything First Lady, until Joe Biden's inauguration. Acknowledging that @Surtsicna: was the first to oppose adding FL-designate here & SG-designate at Doug Emhoff? I'll leave it to him/her to monitor those 'two' articles, until January 20, 2021. To date, already 'one' editor added the designations (since RFC expiration), which I've since undone. GoodDay (talk) 00:25, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Actually, by my scan going back through this article's history since the RfC was argued in mid-November, there have been ten attempts to add back in or fine-tune the FL-designate indication in the infobox, by the editors TuckerTVG, Singing.as.emmanuel123, TheSouthernIrishman, Srodgers1701, Elaney1679, Rushtheeditor, Ciaran.london, Cmm98, Joshua.chap, Saucenoappetizer. I think this is one case where the result most people would expect (yeah, she's going to have this new role come January, put it in the infobox like is done in for other people coming in) ran counter to what the RfC came up with. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:31, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
It's everyone's job to monitor articles, nobody WP:OWNS articles. Remember? And yes, the consensus has been to not add titles until January 20, 2021. cookie monster (2020) 755 02:17, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
Small note regarding the summary of recent edit: let's keep it civil. Also, IMO, ten edits and reversions is significant enough to warrant a possible dispute toward previous consensus.--Bettydaisies (talk) 06:16, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
Consensus is not built by reverting or editing but by discussing. Surtsicna (talk) 11:30, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Looking back at the RfC, I think agreement could actually be reached on calling the upcoming position "Spouse of the President-elect" with below text "Assuming role" and date "January 20, 2021". Then it just becomes a technical issue of getting the {{Infobox Officeholder}} parameters to say that. If necessary, a request could be made to modify the template (the existing "In role" instead of "In office" parameter was added some years ago due to just such a request). Wasted Time R (talk) 12:05, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

I would oppose the "Spouse of the President-elect" solution, as it appears to be original research. Besides, the inauguration is about 3 weeks away & I'm sure we can all wait until then, to 'add in' First Lady of the US. GoodDay (talk) 13:11, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

I support the Spouse of the President-elect" solution. She is what it says. Ciaran.london (talk) 17:21, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Good for you. But, that doesn't mean you get to add them into the articles-in-question. Ya need a consensus for that, which you don't have. GoodDay (talk) 18:20, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
Did you even read my comment GoodDay? Nobody owns articles. So no, Surtsicna will not "monitor" the articles. All of Wikipedia will monitor the articles. It was very offensive. We all collaborate and monitor and watch articles to bring the best out of this site. cookie monster (2020) 755 04:04, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
What was the result of the RFC? Better yet, what are you so grumpy about? GoodDay (talk) 04:06, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
Because GoodDay, you are suggesting that only Surtsicna should monitor these articles. Please read WP:OWN. Nobody owns articles. Everyone is free to monitor these articles in accordance with consensuses on the talk pages. It was insulting to my sensibilities. Everyone, including Surtsicna, you, and any other editor on Wikipedia, can monitor these articles. cookie monster (2020) 755 04:22, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
Consensus has been to leave the titles first lady and second gentleman out of the articles of Jill Biden and Doug Emhoff until January 20, 2021 at 17:00 UTC. cookie monster (2020) 755 04:09, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
In about 3 weeks, this will all be moot. IMHO, you're over-reacting over my suggestion that somebody else monitor this article to make sure the RFC result is carried out. Nobody was accusing you of attempting to defy the RFC result, btw. GoodDay (talk) 04:28, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
We all can monitor the articles as users of this site. Have a nice new year, GoodDay ^_^ cookie monster (2020) 755 04:35, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
I've never denied that. GoodDay (talk) 04:36, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 January 2021

Name: Add "Dr." (in front of the name) "Y" 73.226.53.247 (talk) 00:11, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

While a number of news organizations do this, the Wikipedia manual of style says to not do that for anyone. See MOS:CREDENTIAL. Near the start of the "Second Lady of the United States" section, this article does state that she prefers to be referred to by that form. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:28, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 December 2020

Can Jill Biden's Doctoral advisor, Barbara Curry be added to the doctoral_advisor field in the article's Infobox? 

   | doctoral_advisor   = Barbara Curry

The signature block for her doctoral advisor is listed as "Barbara Curry, Ed.D. (Professor in charge of dissertation (executive position paper))" on page 4 of her dissertation.

Professor Curry should be given credit for supervising Biden's doctoral studies per {{Infobox academic}} and should also be added to the appropriate section in the main article. The suggested addition is as follows:

Change:

In January 2007, at age 55, she received a Doctor of Education (Ed.D.) in educational leadership from the University of Delaware.

to:

In January 2007, at age 55, she received a Doctor of Education (Ed.D.) in educational leadership from the University of Delaware under the direction of professor Barbara Curry.

The suggested addition to the main article should be edited appropriately. Thanks. 108.71.214.235 (talk) 04:51, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure the academic module should have been added to this infobox in the first page. It's really meant for people with careers in full-blown research-focused academia, which Biden is not (nor has ever claimed to be). See for example someone like Bridget Terry Long or Walter LaFeber or Andrea M. Ghez and so on. By comparison, people who have doctorates and worked as professors in universities for a while but became well known in the political worlds usually do not have academic modules in their infoboxes, see for example Woodrow Wilson or George McGovern or various others. Wasted Time R (talk) 20:23, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
It might be possible that the reason why we do not see many academic modules inside political infoboxes is that many editors may not know how to insert submodules inside of the main Infoboxes. See S. I. Hayakawa for an example of a profession academic who later became a senator from California.
As for your examples, Woodrow Wilson probably should deserve an academic submodule since he appeared to have been well published before we was appointed president of Princeton University and would have remained as a tenured faculty member for the rest of his life if he did not get involve with university administration. (I would only recommend adding an academic submodule to Wilson's Infobox after Wilson's university career section gets greatly enlarged.) On the other hand, George McGovern appeared to have used teaching as a stepping stone to getting a better job so I would not recommend adding an academic submodule to his Infobox since he did not appear to have published many academic works while he was actively teaching.
Professor Biden is a college professor. She did not quit her profession when her husband became Vice President. She taught when her husband was in the Senate, when her husband was between political jobs and plans to continue to teach after her husband becomes President. She appears to have written a few minor articles in education journals before her husband became more famous. Yes, she is just an English professor and definitely not a rocket scientist or a COVID-19 researcher, and all the colleges that she had worked for are not in the same league as Princeton, MIT, or Stanford. She does try to get her students into other universities to further their education. -- 108.71.214.235 (talk) 04:13, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Could you point me to the articles in education journals that she wrote? I haven't seen them but I may not have been looking in the right places. Regardless of what happens with the infobox, I would like to include mention of those articles. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:50, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

 Done. But see Wasted Time's request above about her publications. Pelagic ( messages ) – (23:17 Thu 14, AEDT) 12:17, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

New official portrait

The White House released a set of new images for Joe Biden, Jill Biden, Kamala Harris, and Doug Emhoff (which are presumably PD because they are on the White House website). Of the images released, the portrait for Jill Biden seems the most official, so I propose that we change the current image to this, to reflect her current, for lack of a better word, “promotion” to First Lady. Thoughts? The Image Editor (talk) 19:53, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

My proposal

Comment: I would wait until the White House releases the official portraits of Joe Bide, Kamala Harris, and Doug Emhoff as well before changing it. Jgeorge20 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 20:27, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

information Note: I went ahead and made the change before seeing Bettydaisies's !vote. Feel free to revert me if you wish. ― Tartan357 Talk 00:00, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Support for now It may not be a super cool portrait, but it is the official one for now, so for the sake of continuity it's better to have it in the infobox. Also, it is a recent photo. The previous photo was from a decade ago, and she has physically changed just like any other human being. Keivan.fTalk 00:17, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose - This is a casual photo that was taken in the past year (most likely based on the work I do about Jill Biden on Commons - including organizing all her media) that is being used as a placeholder on the White House website. I prefer her prior official portrait as a placeholder for now. The latter is also of better quality than this image downloaded from the White House website. Missvain (talk) 01:13, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
I concur with Bettydaisies. There are also other options here https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Official_portraits_of_Jill_Biden_as_Second_Lady and we are populating this category with her newest photos: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Jill_Biden_in_January_2021 - so monitor that category. Missvain (talk) 01:16, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
@Missvain: Based on what I can remember this was the last official portrait that was released during her term as the second lady. I also remember it being used on the White House website, similar to her husband and the Obamas' portraits. So I guess we can use this one for now until some new portraits are released. Keivan.fTalk 03:00, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
That's what I prefer, frankly. The one you presented is indeed an official portrait. She had three during her SLOTUS tenure. We'll have a new portrait in the next few weeks! Missvain (talk) 03:03, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 January 2021

Change Jill Tracy Biden to Dr. Jill Tracy Biden; She holds a Doctorate of Education. Jpenaa (talk) 00:37, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

 Not done Wikipedia has a policy against putting Dr. in front of people’s names unless it’s a stage name like Dr. Dre or Dr. Seuss. Trillfendi (talk) 00:58, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Inclusion in Category:Biden administration personnel?

Is it appropriate to have the First Lady categorized in Category:Biden administration personnel? I spot-checked Hilary Clinton and Laura Bush and they were not in the parallel categories for their husbands' administrations. Thanks to all, KConWiki (talk) 15:20, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree and I have removed it. First ladies/gentlemen are almost always very influential on the administrations of their spouses, but they are not usually viewed as being part of an administrations personnel. (The strongest case could be made for Hillary, since she was the head of a health care task force.) Wasted Time R (talk) 11:46, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Stepsons

I am a bit perplexed by the insistence on having Jill Biden's stepchildren listed under "Children" rather than immediately below as "Relatives". One's stepchildren are by definition not one's children, so listing them as children only to essentially say "not really" in parentheses is quite puzzling. The article claims that Jill Biden considers Beau and Hunter Biden her children but the cited reference says no such thing. (Curiously, the infoboxes in articles about Beau Biden and Hunter Biden do not mention Jill Biden at all, let alone as a parent.) Surtsicna (talk) 19:54, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

In my opinion, if it isn't included, it should be; Beau and Hunter are listed as her children in her official WH biography and this article mentions her written introduction to her published children's book, in which she refers to Beau as her son. She refers to them collectively as her children here and here. They are differentiated with respect to their biological "stepchild" status but she and her family clearly consider them as her children.--Bettydaisies (talk) 21:04, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Lots of people raise other people and say they are their children, literally or spiritually or otherwise. But if there is no legal or biological relationship, is Wikipedia really supposed to roll with that? I am not convinced. Perhaps most confusingly, the whole idea is defeated when those listed under "Children" are marked as not the subject's children. Surtsicna (talk) 21:35, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
I understand what you're saying in terms of legal designation; the Bidens are public figures, and aside from literal/spiritual connotations, she has always referred to Beau and Hunter as her children, and vice-versa, which is something reiterated to notable sources, published works, and governmental biographies. It's a complicated matter, but in terms of public knowledge, it makes more sense to list them under the "Children" parameter, as they are nearly always referred to as such.--Bettydaisies (talk) 21:51, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
I am yet to see independent reliable sources describing Beau and Hunter as Jill's children, however. Something also needs to be done about the article's claim that Jill considers them her children, as it is currently unsubstantiated. Surtsicna (talk) 22:24, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Regarding the language, I have checked the history and what I originally added based on this source was She raised Beau and Hunter, and they called her Mom, but she did not legally adopt them. which is exactly what the source says. Then someone changed it down the line I think. I have now restored that language and taken off the tag. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:40, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Regarding the infobox, this has been the subject of lots of changes over the years. Some people want it to say 1, some 3, some 3 with a parenthetical, and now using 'relatives'. But there are stepmoms and there are stepmoms, it all depends on the ages of the children, the age of the new mother, whether the biological mother is still around, and whether the children and the stepmom are emotionally close. In this case, the answers point to the boys being listed as her children, so I would go with either 3 or 3 with a parenthetical. If this were a case of teenage children who hated that their father divorced their mother to marry a young trophy wife, you'd have a completely different situation. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:48, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
I am afraid such subjectiveness will lead to more confusion. Should the stepchildren of Kamala Harris be listed as her "Children" too? A cursory search reveals that she has mentioned "our children, Cole and Ella" [1]; that she "embraces her two step children as her own";[2] that some sources refer to her stepchildren as "her children"; [3][4], etc. This sort of portrayal obviously benefits politicians, so indulging it might be as biased as it is factually incorrect. Surtsicna (talk) 22:08, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
I agree that Kamala is a borderline case. One solution for all cases might be to get the {{Infobox officeholder}} template modified to have a "stepchildren = " parameter. Then editors won't have to try and put it into either "children" or "relatives". Wasted Time R (talk) 23:37, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
I won’t bother to read the comments above, all I know is that when the subject claims the child as if their own (e.g. Matt Damon, Steve Harvey), it has no choice but to be included on principle. Trillfendi (talk) 00:45, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Whether legal or not legal, or by de facto use, if reliable sources describe Hunter and Biden as her [step]children, I think it is appropriate for the infobox. I'm not sure how the current setup is confusing. Having them under children with a note of (stepson) works perfectly fine. The same can be said about Vice President-elect Harris. cookie monster (2020) 755 18:37, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

For the aforementioned reasons, I agree with the consensus, it should be under children. ASuperEditor (talk) 05:40, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:56, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Add education firsts

Hey I don’t wanna make an account just for this but since you all wrote about the calling herself Doctor kerfuffle in this article this is probably worth adding to the article:

Jill Biden is the first First Lady to have two master's degrees; one in education from West Chester University, formerly West Chester State College, and the second in English from Villanova University.[1] She is also the first First Lady to have a doctorate.[2]

She is the first First Lady to have a research doctorate. But Clinton and Obama have professional doctorates.04:18, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

So if somebody wants to add that to the article, that would be cool, thanks.2600:1002:B020:3D16:2967:535C:3CC9:2237 (talk) 02:25, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I've added this information in. I've also rearranged the structure of the first paragraphs to place her education and own notable achievements above information regarding her family and relationships. This is in accordance with the guidance provided on the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Writing_about_women#First_woman page. FrankieBruno (talk) 13:12, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
The citations given do not support the statements made – they just say that she has two master's and a doctorate, which the article has already established, not that she's the first First Lady to have them. I agree that both statements are true, but as Wikipedia's most famous rule says, that's not enough. So I have taken the statements out for now. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:52, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi, thank you for pointing this out! I have not been able to find any verifiable sources that support this statement so I agree, it's best to leave them out for now. FrankieBruno (talk) 09:21, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Whistle, Wesley. (August 18, 2020). "Who is Dr. Jill Biden?" Forbes. Retrieved December 28, 2020.
  2. ^ Puente, Maria (November 10, 2020). "Jill Biden will be historic first lady: Just call her 'Professor FLOTUS'". USA Today. Retrieved December 17, 2020.

"Formerly"

Is it necessary to add (formerly Stevenson) to the title? Seems a little trivial. She also wasn't that notable from 1970-1975. [05:02, July 13, 2021‎ 68.189.4.21]

You have a point. In most of the past years since the article became GA it wasn't there. I have removed it, BRD style. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:10, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
Due to the Manual of Style/Biography, it is necessary. It wouldn't matter if she was married to a circus clown for a year, this was her legal name. Trillfendi (talk) 12:53, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
I honestly don't see this done to many of, if not any articles of notable Women. I think it's more fair to put (née Birthname;) than to list every previous marriage (Formerly, Husband 1, Husband 2, Husband 3). I have yet to find an article that states, "Jill Stevenson....". Sure she was called that in the past, but again Biden didn't become a Senator till 1973, and wasn't married to Jill till 1977. Jill Biden wouldn't have been notable even in 1977 to have an article written about her. Again this seems somewhat misogynistic and tedious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.189.4.21 (talk • contribs) 20:39, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
You’re welcome to file your grievances about this for future reference here. Trillfendi (talk) 22:35, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
It is not true that this is necessary per MoS. MoS says that former names may be mentioned in the lead but that "it is not always appropriate to list every previous name of a subject". Surtsicna (talk) 23:01, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
Agree with Surtsicna. Trillfendi, in your article edit summary you quoted this explanation from MOS:NEE: "If a subject changed their surname (last name) for whatever reason (e.g., marriage, adoption, personal preference), then their surname at birth should generally also be given in the lead." But that the lede should have her birth name, "Jill Tracy Jacobs", in it no one disagrees with. The question is whether this intermediate name "Stevenson" should also be included. I'm inclined to say no in this particular case. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:16, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
Since there seems to be more or less a consensus here, I've removed 'formerly Stevenson'. If anyone disagrees, I'd suggest holding a RfC. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:23, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Image without a caption

I was going to add a caption to the image, something like "Barack and Michelle Obama with Joe and Jill Biden in 1988" but saw there was a comment in the image file metadata, "Not all images, caption". I think it would be helpful to at least indicate the year of the photograph, but I don't know whether there were prior discussions about this. Does anyone know if there is a good reason for not captioning the image?--FeralOink (talk) 11:53, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 April 2022

Jill Bidens title is not proper as it's Dr. Jill Biden 173.89.175.7 (talk) 02:47, 4 April 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) 02:53, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 July 2022

Add following to the section of Biden as First Lady --> 0n July 11 2022, Biden compared Latinos to breakfast tacos in a speech in San Antonio delivered to a Latino civil rights group. The White House issued an apology the following day after receiving widespread criticism for her remarks, including from the National Association of Hispanic Journalists who stated "We are not tacos."

Source: https://www.moneycontrol.com/news/trends/current-affairs-trends/jill-biden-says-latinos-are-as-unique-as-the-breakfast-tacos-draws-flak-8824251.html 71.47.166.190 (talk) 15:23, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:20, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

WP:NOTNEWS

Over the past several weeks, @Cherenthania: has added a great deal of content comprising granular details about Jill Biden's domestic and foreign policy activity. Nearly all of it appears to me to violate WP:NOTNEWS.

That policy reads, in relevant part, Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion and Wikipedia is not written in news style. For example, routine news coverage of announcements, events, sports, or celebrities, while sometimes useful, is not by itself a sufficient basis for inclusion of the subject of that coverage (see WP:ROUTINE for more on this with regard to routine events).

I also note that so many details have been added that the domestic activities section is a borderline WP:TRIVIA violation.

I discuss a few examples below:

Details such as which restaurants the first lady ate at cannot seriously be said to have enduring notability.

I deleted the mention of the Child Tax Credit because Biden's role is described as "support[ing]" it, in contrast to her role with respect to the free tuition at community colleges initiative, which she was said to be in charge of. Simply supporting a program does not make one's support notable, and there is no reason to think an individual speech about that support has enduring notability, unless that speech is especially notable (for example, announcing the program's cancellation, as Biden's Feb. 2022 speech about the tuition program did).

Individual stops on a larger tour do not have enduring notability for the same reason. As such, I deleted content describing Biden's visits as part of her COVID-19 vaccination tour. WP:NOTNEWS aside, does anyone really think it is encyclopedic or even important that Biden spoke in Delano, California, on March 31, 2021? The laundry list of examples of states she visited as part of the tour reeks of WP:TRIVIA. I have retained the mention of her advocacy for vaccination, but deleted all references to specific stops.

Similarly, specific appearances in support of her breast cancer advocacy do not have enduring notability. This level of detail makes the page look like a press release from the Office of the First Lady, rather than an encyclopedia article.

Details such as The first lady’s office also give three separate interviews for Associated Press journalists for biography book titled "Jill" are so trivial and unimportant that even without NOTNEWS I don't see how they could possibly be included. If she had said something notable in the interviews, it might be worth mentioning that notable thing, but the fact of the interview itself has no notability (do other news outlets publish articles saying, "First Lady Jill Biden gave an interview to the Associated Press today"?).

The Foreign trips and activities section has many of the same issues. For example, mentioning Jill Biden's attendance at the G20 summit or her meeting with Pope Francis is not appropriate unless there is reason to think that that these events have enduring notability. I have not made cuts here because the section was less sprawling than the domestic activities section, but cuts may nonetheless be appropriate.

I have therefore boldly deleted a great deal of this WP:NOTNEWS material. I welcome any discussion on the changes I made.

I note that, per WP:ONUS, The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content, in this case, Cherenthania.

I also note that this content contains many grammatical errors and raises WP:COMPETENCE concerns.

Thanks, Wallnot (talk) 20:19, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Agree with Wallnot in the main. Cherenthania is well-intentioned, I think, but doesn't realize that there is way too much detail being thrown in. Pretty much every U.S. first lady travels around the country and speaks on behalf of things that few would argue with and makes foreign trips with her husband. The article needs to succinctly focus on those areas where Biden is unique, such as in maintaining her professional career, or has had a particularly influential role or impact. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:55, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
  • I would agree most of this is trivial and not encyclopedic. There is little notable about her parroting her husband's position. Now if she were to offer an opposing or radically different position, that may be notable. I still think that the breakfast taco faux pas should be included. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:20, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Next Surgeon General?

Perhaps some mention could be made of Whoopi Goldberg supporting Jill Biden as the next Surgeon General. 2601:CF:300:4B70:31E8:7B5B:8AAC:2905 (talk) 21:15, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

People who host talk shows are always talking. And people who are always talking sometimes say dumb things. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:32, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Bill Stevenson

Her first husband, Bill, introduced her to Joe Biden. Not on blind date. The blind date story is another one of the Biden lies to cover up her affair with Joe while married to Bill. 96.253.116.225 (talk) 13:57, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

This allegation is already handled in the article via the "Education and career, marriages and family" section and its associated Note (d). The denial from a Biden spokesperson is included there as well. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:24, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Racist "breakfast tacos" comment.

Probably it would be appropriated to include Jill Biden's recent racist comments in this article, as there is no disputing that she said them openly in public when she compared Latios and Hispanics to their various styles of ethnic cuisines, which she later had to apologize for. 2603:8000:5C3E:23A3:581E:FBAF:168B:1FAF (talk) 18:49, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes she said it, no it wasn't racist, maybe it was ill-advised, yes someone expressed annoyance at it, yes she apologized if anyone was offended, no it is not of any lasting importance, no it does not belong in the article. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:20, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
Agreed. It was an inartful comment and is not WP:LASTING. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:04, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
Melania's "I don't really care, do u?" jacket that she wore on a visit to the a Children's Shelter on the southern border (at least she has visited) made it into her Wiki profile? Double standard? 71.47.166.190 (talk) 01:02, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
I concur, her comments should be absolutely be included. They received significant media coverage, commentary, and backlash. The comments have continued to be discussed over a week after they have been made. Similar comments that have received much less attention are included on the pages of other politicians, with no dispute over their inclusion. Ageofultron (talk) 03:12, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
I agree. Just because the tacos comment has no world-historical repercussions does not mean it should not be included. WP:Lasting seems to be an "occasion argument" as we say in Dutch.Leontrooper (talk) 17:24, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
A minor earthquake or storm with little or no impact on human populations is probably not notable. This is a minor storm with little to no impact. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:42, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
According to a foreign (!) newspaper of record: Jill Biden's approval ratings sunk, the comment's timing is 'unfortunate' for electoral reasons, and it drew many reactions ([5]) Leontrooper (talk) 13:33, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
If we're gonna have a paragraph about every time a politician or First Lady says something that recieves bad media coverage, then we're soon gonna end up with some pretty tedious articles. This isn't WP:LASTING.  Ved havet 🌊 (talk)  22:01, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Update: Her press secretary, Michael LaRosa, just resigned. Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/07/26/michael-larosa-white-house-jill-biden/
She found someone to take the blame. If this was Melania Trump, this would be have been promptly posted on Wiki. Thanks Jill. 71.47.166.190 (talk) 00:51, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
Press secretaries are not speech writers, and the WaPo story makes no reference to the tacos remark. Nor does the linked-to CNN story that first reported LaRosa's departure. Indeed, the CNN story says the resignation was filed several weeks ago before three high-profile foreign trips [presumably those to Eastern Europe, Latin America, and the G7 summit in the UK], which would place his decision to leave well before the tacos remark. As for Melania's jacket, that episode has had some lasting impact, such as being discussed in this book about first ladies and mentioned in this book about racial capitalism and discussed in this book about writing on humans in connection to refugee crises. If the tacos remark gets a similar level of attention in the future, then yes it should be included in this article. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:03, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
Glad to know my local Barnes and Noble distinguishes what is Wiki-worthy or not. Search term 'Breakfast-tacos' on Google news reveals this 'episode' has garnered significant coverage and widespread criticism. Short-answer: This is clearly a double standard. 71.47.166.190 (talk) 12:51, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
WP:GHITS is not a good argument. WP:LASTING is the standard. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:55, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
Regardless of Google hits, this matter received wide and long-lasting coverage (WP:DEPTH). Lasting is not the only thing which can make something notable enough. Cf. Melania Trump's jacket.Leontrooper (talk) 17:24, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
No, it hasn't. I see no new coverage of it in the last two weeks. On the other hand, Melania's jacket was an explicit message she was sending that has received much analysis and is not at all the same as the "taco" comment. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:41, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
I never claimed the coverage lasted up to today, nor would that be expected. But it lasted long enough for it to be more than a one-day newsflash. And just as the jacket, the taco comment raised political issues, reactions and debate.Leontrooper (talk) 17:47, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
It would be worth keeping track of her approval ratings, which already aren't that good per this WaPo story, and see if the tacos remark leads to them becoming any worse. It would also, in my view, be worth trimming or removing the material about routine first lady activities that's been added to this article in the last couple of days that doesn't satisfy WP:LASTING either. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:18, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
Her approval ratings have lowered since the controversy: [6]. Leontrooper (talk) 12:07, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Actually, no, The Times got this part wrong. Her approval ratings were sinking during the first half and a half per the CNN/SRSS survey. The survey was conducted June 13–July 13 and the tacos remark occurred on July 12, so it had very little effect if any on the result. A WaPo story that I just added to the article states that "A CNN poll had already finished fielding as Jill Biden’s string of not-so-great news broke." We will have to wait for another poll to see if the tacos remark has caused further slippage. Wasted Time R (talk) 17:19, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
I have previously tried to add controversial comments that attracted significant media coverage to Wikipedia articles for Republican politicians. They were deleted, and the result of those discussions was that it did not belong in a Wikipedia article, because it had little long term affect on public perception of the politician. This is not a double standard, it's the same standard applied to all Wikipedia articles. aaronneallucas (talk) 00:46, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
  • I think it merits inclusion. It was widely covered and lampooned. the relevance was that she was there intentionally courting the Hispanic vote, made that unfortunate comment (and butchered the word bodega). I'm not saying it was inherently racist, but it was noteworthy. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:54, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
    I see a clear parallel between the debate over whether the taco comment should be included and the current debate on Lauren Boebert’s talk page as to whether the recent “Beatlejuice” incident should be included on her page. The exact same arguments used to shut down inclusion of the taco comment here are not finding their way into the consensus on Lauren’s page. This is clearly illogical. The taco comment didn’t make it to Jill’s page because - as per the consensus here - it wasn’t widely reported on. There is no way of knowing whether the Beatlejuice incident will be widely reported on for Lauren, because it just happened.
    I share the concerns of many here that this is a result of conscious or unconscious bias on the part of Wikipedia editors with tenure and consequent sway. I’ve been an avid Wikipedia supporter since 2004, and this disturbs me. I’m putting this out into the ether: if any of the editors in the thread above - who argued so adamantly that Jill’s taco comment does not merit inclusion - would make the same line of reasoning on Lauren’s page vis-a-vie Beatlejuice, it would greatly affirm the lack of bias on which Wikipedia was founded. 2603:7000:3D00:1882:780C:BC70:6667:C24 (talk) 02:32, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
The course of the discussion here may have led you to assume that the tacos remark did not make it into this article, but in fact the tacos remark is in the article – see the third paragraph of the "Approval ratings, popularity and controversy" section. It went in on 1 August 2022 with some back-and-forth among editors over the next few days, and has stayed in the article ever since. As for the Boebert Beetlejuice incident, the parallels are imperfect – this one is about speech that offended some people, while that one is about behavior that offended some people – but yes, some overall consistency in treatment of political figures is a desirable thing for Wikipedia. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:44, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
Boebert's Beetlejuice incident wasn't about behavior that offended some people. She wasn't just disturbing the other patrons in the theater (several of whom complained to management during the performance) with her vaping, singing, dancing, video-taping, and photographing with the flash, she violated the theater's posted rules and continued the behavior after theater personnel, during intermission, had advised her of the rules and the complaints. She was then kicked out of the theater. When news outlets reported the incident, she denied vaping or disturbing the other patrons until surveillance footage was released, and then she — uh — apologized by saying that she "didn't recall" the vaping. There is no comparison to a speech writer's unfortunate phrasing, and Biden isn't an elected official. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 11:08, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Dr. Jill’s Education

In my reading about First Ladies and their college educations, I believe that Dr. Jill is the 4th First Lady to have completed a post graduate degree, and I didn't see this mentioned in the article. If I am correct, I suggest that this achievement be added. It's cool, and I am sure she would appreciate it. Thank you. Dominy7 (talk) 23:47, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Well, this has been true of four of the last five First Ladies – Hillary has a law degree, Laura Bush an MLS, Michelle Obama also a law degree, and now Dr Jill. The only recent one without is Melania, who dropped out of college to pursue modeling. So being fourth at this point isn't that remarkable. She is however the first First Lady to have any kind of doctoral degree, although the press has focused less on that and more on her being the first First Lady to hold down a real job while in the position. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:23, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
You're right that 4 of the last 5 doesn't seem like much; I thought 4 out of 54 was an accomplishment. Dominy7 (talk) 23:09, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Her as nanny for Biden’s

How come nothing is said about this? 2601:580:4501:2910:F846:2537:B0E4:C930 (talk) 15:22, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Because it is untrue: see this Snopes piece on it, for instance. Wasted Time R (talk) 16:44, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
They were at least 50 miles apart when she went to high school right? 100.33.101.100 (talk) 06:27, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Education and career, marriages and family

"They met on a blind date set up by his brother Frank,[20] who had known her in college,[27]" Needs to be amended as in Frank Biden's marriage announcement in 1985, he described himself as coming from San Francisco and as having studied at San Francisco State University. He is also described as having attended Cornell University and Pepperdine Law School in Malibu, California. <ref>https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7961825/Meet-Frank-Biden-Joes-brother-place-inner-circle-resume-raises-questions.html<ref> Ladcor (talk) 10:38, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Hagiography

Parts are written hagiography-like. I haven’t had time to flesh out the entire article, but I found two specific parts in “Education and career, marriages and family” problematic.

”…several of her students there later recalled her as genuinely caring about them.” and “There she taught English composition and remedial writing, with an emphasis on instilling confidence in students.”

First point is supported by cite 43, but not something that belongs in an encyclopedic article, and second point is not justly represented as per its source of 45.

This entire section of the article is hagiography-like, listing virtues. Username3505 (talk) 10:45, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

False claim: "First wife of a vice president or president to hold a salaried position during her husband's tenure"

Hillary Clinton was a senator for the final 17 days of Bill Clinton's term, making this claim not true. Can I delete this? Zsrocks04 (talk) 05:32, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

No, don't delete this. The meaningfulness of the claim is about holding a real job throughout most or all of a first ladyship, not some tiny fraction at the end of a tenure. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:21, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
And yet, it's simply not true. If your claim is about the meaningfulness, I'd argue that being a senator is a hell of a lot more meaningful than community college professor. I understand your point, and I'm going to change it to "during the majority of her husbands tenure". Zsrocks04 (talk) 00:46, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
Sigh. This is why Wikipedia gets its reputation for pedantry. Hillary was First Lady of the United States for 2,922 days, of which she was a U.S. Senator for 17 days. Do you see how minuscule that is? It's about half of a percent. And here's the important part. Hillary maintained her career as a lawyer throughout her time as First Lady of Arkansas, and she could have continued on with that career once she became FLOTUS. But she chose not to. By comparison, Jill Biden did choose to continue her career when she became FLOTUS, and that career has become part of her first ladyship and her public image. That's the important distinction (and despite what you seem to think, community college professors can make a real difference in people's lives). Hillary has many important firsts – first and still only FLOTUS to run for office, to serve in elective office, to serve in a cabinet position, to get a presidential nomination – but first FLOTUS to hold a paying job is not one of them. That distinction belongs solely to Jill Biden. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:58, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
Sigh. This is why Wikipedia gets its reputation for inaccuracy and bias. The goal should be accuracy, not making a point and altering the facts to give someone a "distinction." Zsrocks04's change preserves whatever point there is to be made, while having the distinction of also being accurate. John2510 (talk) 18:22, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jill_Biden/Archive_1&oldid=1241707940"