Talk:Joe Biden/Archive 17

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Approval ratings and unpopularity

A recent edit of mine on his approval ratings and overall dismay for him in the public eye was reverted. The explanation I got was "Maintain WP:NPOV" (keep away from bias). I do not think I was being biased; the edit had a source with the information that I wrote down; I thought it was a necessary edit because that article is trending right now (the article is also from a non-biased news agency); and that article came out today, like a few hours ago. Can I get an explanation? Rexxx7777 (talk) 20:36, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

I can't see that basing content on what "is trending right now" is a great way to build a quality encyclopaedia. HiLo48 (talk) 02:33, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

It's not. The accompanying text With his immensely low approval ratings, Biden is unpopular in the public eye. isn't a neutral way to describe his current polling numbers either. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:39, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

I guess all I'm saying is news sources are starting to report on Biden's very low polling numbers and overall unpopularity. Don't believe me? look;

https://www.cnn.com/2022/10/07/politics/biden-unpopular-cnn-poll/index.html

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/voters-care-about-joe-biden-s-unpopularity-not-donald-trump/ar-AAQhEWa

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/white-house/just-how-unpopular-is-joe-biden

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/nov/18/why-are-americans-so-unhappy-with-joe-biden

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2022/10/19/politics/biden-nyt-siena-poll-midterms/index.html

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/biden-mentally-sharp-state-union-b2025207.html

https://www.usnews.com/news/the-report/articles/2022-01-21/why-is-joe-biden-so-unpopular

https://www.foxnews.com/media/focus-group-rejects-biden-running-2024-stuns-msnbc-analyst-quick-wow

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/biden-approval-stuck-40-dark-sign-democrats-midterms-reutersipsos-2022-10-18/

https://www.foxnews.com/media/joe-biden-worst-president-will-cain

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2022-election/bidens-approval-rating-still-key-issues-new-poll-shows-rcna48973

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/biden-drops-to-38-approval-in-new-national-poll

https://www.usnews.com/news/top-news/articles/2022-09-27/biden-approval-edges-up-to-41-reuters-ipsos-finds

Perhaps is "With his immensely low approval ratings, Biden is considered unpopular by the general public" a better sentence? If not I will be happy to just not press forward with this. Rexxx7777 (talk) 23:53, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Sources like Fox News, Washington Examiner, and opinion pieces in general wouldn't be usable for this. Wikipedia will most likely want to wait until more authoritative reviews of sources talk about Biden's popularity or unpopularity. It's true that Biden's approval has been slightly net negative for most of his time in office, and it's entirely possible that this will be a defining characterization of his presidency, but you definitely aren't going about it in the right way. Check out WP:10YEARSTEST, WP:RECENTISM, WP:NPOV, WP:RSOPINION, WP:RSP Andre🚐 04:02, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Rexxx7777, Trump's approval ratings in 2018 were quite similar to Biden's approval ratings in to 2022. Do you support adding language like immensely low approval ratings to Trump’s article as well? Read this. Cullen328 (talk) 04:13, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm guessing that the "immensely" part is a bad addition. So, no, I will accept that since language like that is not appropriate in Biden's article then it should not be used in Trump's. If it was then yes. Is re-writing it as "With his low approval ratings, Biden is considered unpopular by the general public" better? Rexxx7777 (talk) 01:03, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Honestly fair enough. Rexxx7777 (talk) 01:05, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Rexxx7777, plenty of reliable sources describe the varying approval ratings of all presidents going back to when presidential approval ratings were first developed. But which specific reliable sources state something that can be reliably paraphrased, Biden is considered unpopular by the general public. Or, is that synthesis based on your individual reading of the polls? Cullen328 (talk) 05:17, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

And as you can see from some of those, he is still not the most unpopular president ever, and these are all just snapshots. So lets wait till his presidency is over, and we can see what his lasting image is. Slatersteven (talk) 09:54, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Something about his approval ratings could go in Joe Biden#Reputation. It should also note his approval ratings as a senator and vice president to be complete and not merely recentism bias. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:44, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

We would also need a range, showing how it has risen and fallen. Slatersteven (talk) 17:02, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Right. As a comparison, I see that Hillary Clinton makes mentions of her approval ratings at a few points in the narrative, noting it as first lady, its peaks during the Lewinsky scandal and as secretary of state, and the "Cultural and political image" section notes her as a "polarizing figure". – Muboshgu (talk) 17:26, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Actually, there isn’t any bias - you can go to [2]https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/biden-approval-rating/?ex_cid=rrpromo and compare Biden’s numbers against those of his predecessors going back to Truman, you can track it to an identical point in the Presidency of each of his predecessors even and Biden’s numbers are in fact worse than Trump’s. You can also go to the RCP site to see Biden’s numbers and again these are from a variety of pollsters [3]https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president-biden-job-approval-7320.html71.190.233.44 (talk) 17:16, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

RCP isn't reliable, and the 538 link shows the opposite. Andre🚐 18:07, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

As far as I could see in regard to RCP from WP:RSP is ‘There is no consensus as to RealClearPolitics's reliability.’ and that is only insofar as it concerns news. Polling data is accurate and an aggregate of polling being done by reputable pollsters. Five Thirty Eight checked as I am writing this 642 days into the Biden presidency shows Biden’s net approval to be at -11.8 and Trump’s at -9.2 at the same point in his Presidency. So I’m not clear on what you mean by the opposite. 71.190.233.44 (talk) 01:37, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

RCP is not usable - they have a problematic methodology and cherry-pick. The 538 numbers show that Trump and Biden were roughly at the same point at the same time. I can't exactly tell where the margin of error bars lie (the shaded area in 538' chart) but probably about +-5. Andre🚐 01:44, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

On 538, if you go down below you can change the parameters for the charts, days in office / 4 years / 8 years and then the slider on each chart displays a comparison with the currnet President. As for RCP, the most current polls displayed are Rasmussen Reports / Reuters / Ipsos / Economist / YouGov / NBC News / Monmouth / Politico / Morning Consult / CNBC / CBS News / Harvard-Harris / Trafalgar Group(R) / NY Times / Siena / FOX News and RCP themselves are not altering data in anyway as you can click through and see the methodology to each poll. They are an aggregator not a pollster themselves and only averaging the information of all the polls listed. I can understand challenging the as a source in regard to material that originates on the site - articles written by them but in the case of polling data there is no such bias. 71.190.233.44 (talk) 01:56, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

There is, actually. [4] Andre🚐 02:19, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

When you start pulling out articles from substack to validate your point, I have to question the reliability of your sources. It may make for interesting reading but quick research shows even Nate Silver had a problem with the author of the article and I’m not seeing substack on the list of WP:RSP so as far as rebuttals go, it’s a bit lacking. 71.190.233.44 (talk) 14:07, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Nope. The article was written by expert G. Elliott Morris who runs The Economist's polling model and it is an acceptable WP:SELFPUBLISHED article. The NY Mag article serves to further reinforce the point. Substack isn't a media outlet, it's a blog/newsletter platform and this would be an expert self-published article. Andre🚐 15:23, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

I understand who the author is and again, I also saw where Nate Silver had problems with his methodology and self published doesn’t meet the WP:RSP requirements - substack is not on that list. 71.190.233.44 (talk) 13:42, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

You are incorrect. As I linked to, Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. Nate Silver's view does not invalidate the fact that Morris has been published as an expert in the Economist, which is a reliable source, and has his own books on the subject, so this would fall under the self-published exception. As mentioned, substack is not an outlet, it's a blog platform. So again, your understanding of the policy at play here is not accurate. Andre🚐 14:04, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

OP, I'm not one who favours putting popularity numbers in the bios of incumbent office holders. Such polling is only relevant on the day the individual is either re-elected or defeated. For all we know, Biden might have an 80% approval rating by November 2024. GoodDay (talk) 02:45, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Agreed; no reason whatsoever to put the popularity in lead. We should avoid coloring readers' opinion of the subject; and let the subject's actions and words do the talking. DFlhb (talk) 06:17, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

I added approval ratings at the bottom of the "Reputation" subsection, sourced to Gallup. I thought the absence of ratings was strange; other presidents' approval ratings and/or popularity are right in the lead and quite deeply developed in the body. See Donald Trump, Barack Obama, George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George H. W. Bush, etc. YoPienso (talk) 04:57, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

It's not strictly true that 9/11 was a military action, so that's a weakness of my addition. Still, the military response was swift--just under a month later. Anyway, that may need to be changed. YoPienso (talk) 05:02, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

You might get agreement to add approval ratings if they were higher. TFD (talk) 16:04, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Or they might get the same response let's wait till his terms are over (like all hose other examples), so we can see his overall rating. Rather than taking snap shots that will change. Slatersteven (talk) 16:12, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

And this shows [[5]] it is higher than it was in October, that does not seem to me to show it is still falling. So why not use these figures? Slatersteven (talk) 16:19, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

I can't tell if TFD's comment is an attempt at humor or what.

Slatersteven, I request that you restore my edit. Mid-term is a good time to include a brief summary of how it's going. It's written from an entirely NPOV.

My reply to objections by fellow editors:

• Rexxx7777's entire list of sources is dismissed because a few are on the yellow list, while most are green. Many other RSs about Biden's (un)popularity exist; here are a few:

• The WaPo, Aug. 18, 2021, Oct. 18, 2021, Feb. 22, 2022 The fact that two of these are opinion and one is analysis in no way means they aren't reliable sources since they're based on solid polls referenced in the pieces. We can ignore the columnists' poll-based conclusions and use the facts they reference. It's significant that the WaPo--the newspaper of record in the US capital city--gives considerable space to Olsen's and Bump's views.
• Pew, Oct. 20, 2022
• Reuters, Nov. 16, 2022
• CNBC, Nov. 22, 2022

• Cullen238 asked if sources say "Biden is considered unpopular by the general public" or if that's Rexxx7777's synthesis. Clearly the sources say that.
• You said, "We would also need a range, showing how it has risen and fallen." My edit included a range, and was sourced to graphs that show the general decline on a timeline. You suggest including the bump Biden got from the mid-terms: "And this shows 4 it is higher than it was in October, that does not seem to me to show it is still falling. So why not use these figures?" I think it's better to show a general plotline rather than record every up and down, but if you want to add that, it's fine with me.

Here's my own question/request: Were Trump's popularity ratings included in his BLP before he left office? I'm almost sure they were, but I don't know how to navigate the history of the article except by laboriously clicking through the edits 500 at a time. If anyone can find the Trump BLP from Nov. 25, 2018, please share the link so we can compare. Ditto for any other recent presidential bios. Thanks. YoPienso (talk) 17:24, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Don't care about another article. WP:OTHERCONTENT I don’t think popularity numbers should be provided for elected officials until end of a term. For example, three months before the end of Giuliani’s eight years as mayor, his approval was around 28%. That was just before 9/11. Three months later it was 79%. In 2018, back down to 32%. I think that would be of value in his article as well as his final approval, now – but not at that time. Besides, polls disagree. Also, these numbers change constantly and we shouldn’t be updating a number constantly. That’s what 538 is for, not an encyclopedia. WP:10YT. WP:RECENTISM O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:10, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Yopienso, see the "Approval ratings" section in Donald Trump's article for November 25, 2018.[6] TFD (talk) 21:57, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! PrimeHunter at the help desk just told me how to find it. YoPienso (talk) 22:07, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

O3000, Ret., if that's how the Obama and Trump BLPs were handled, I agree. However, I doubt that's the case. Can you find the Nov. 15, 2018 version of the Trump article? YoPienso (talk) 20:44, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

WP:OTHERCONTENT O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:11, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Yep, here we go: Mid-term approval ratings for Trump and Obama.

WP:OTHERCONTENT is just an essay, not a policy or even a guideline. We typically include approval ratings during a POTUS's administration. There's no precedent for waiting until the end of his term. YoPienso (talk) 22:08, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

WP:MEANING Essays are highly useful. This essay (Arguments to avoid on discussion pages) has been around for eleven years and is often used in such discussions -- particularly in edits about politics and BLPs. As for typical inclusion of approval ratings during a POTUS's administration, where do you see this typicality? O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:35, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm quite familiar with the other-stuff-exists essays. I don't understand how WP:MEANING fits into this discussion, though.

Typicality? I posted links to the two most recent presidents' bios that show by mid-term (and I have little doubt sooner) we had included their approval ratings. Right now I'm too busy to check out the bios of POTUSes of the last 50 yrs., but at some point I can do that. The most telling ones will be the bios of POTUSes elected after the advent of Wikipedia. YoPienso (talk) 23:19, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

The bottom line is that it doesn't matter whether there is a precedent. It matters whether there is a consensus of editors that Biden's approval ratings should be given much discussion. Consistency is not a requirement. I don't have any significant objection to the meaning of the text that I read in the article. However, I do think that it doesn't add much. The most significant thing about Biden's approval rating is how insignificant it is, at this point in his presidency. Urges to draw comparison to other presidents within the modern era is still short-termism and original. What we need to do is wait until reliable sources write about it and write what they write. Andre🚐 23:24, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, there is nothing unusual about Bden's current rating. The linked, old Trump article page stated it was a record low. I still wouldn't have included it, personally. O3000, Ret. (talk) 23:43, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Nor would I if I had picked up on it. But in order to be fair I would support "Presidential approval polls taken during the first ten months of Bidens's term have shown him to be the least popular U.S. president in the history of modern opinion polls. Biden is the only elected president who did not place first on Gallup's poll of men Americans most admired in his first year in office, coming in second behind Barack Obama", as long as it is sourced. Slatersteven (talk) 12:34, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

And by that measure, early on Hitler had extremely high popularity, even outside of Germany. (No, this is not Godwin.) I'd rather see ratings at the end. O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:03, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Slatersteven, I appreciate and share your desire to be fair, which, as one of the five pillars, is foundational policy.

George W. Bush was inaugurated on January 20, 2001, just five days after Wikipedia's public debut. By the end of 2002, approval polls were mentioned. We had a popularity section by 2003. (I didn't take the time to find the earliest appearances of these issues.) This is comparable to how public opinion was included in the Obama and Trump bios during their first terms in office.
In my view, failing to include polls on Biden at this point in his presidency is out of whack with what we do at Wikipedia. It opens us up to criticism about a perceived protectionist bias.
Once again, @Slatersteven:, I request that you restore my edit that you reverted. Thanks for engaging here. YoPienso (talk) 17:52, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

I note that the George Bush article talks about historical significance, it is not just about poll ratings. As I said as long as it can be shown these numbers for Biden are " the highest approval ratings in history." or "the lowest" no problem. Slatersteven (talk) 18:01, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

I wouldn't go back to the birth of WP to look for examples of how to write an article. An enormous amount of wisdom has accumulated in the last two decades. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:07, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:When to use or avoid "other stuff exists" arguments: "When used correctly, these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes....This essay is not a standard reply that can be hurled against anyone you disagree with who has made a reference to how something is done somewhere else....Non-fiction literature, such as an encyclopedia, is expected to be internally consistent. As such, arguing in favor of consistency among Wikipedia articles is not inherently wrong–it is to be preferred. Only when the precedent is itself in conflict with policy, guidelines or common sense is it wrong to argue that the precedent should be followed elsewhere."

So OTHERSTUFF says the exact opposite of what some editors claim and they also ignore the advice not use it as a standard reply.

TFD (talk) 18:20, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Well, no it is not the exact opposite -- unless you just use the text about overuse out of context and ignore the purpose of OTHERSTUFF. And, this is NOT "a standard reply hurled against anyone you disagree with". WP:AGF It is on point. Look, the effect of a president can take decades for historians to sort out. Nixon was highly popular. Then he resigned after the incredibly embarrassing tapes came out and he was destined for impeachment. After some time, it turns out he was a very effective president in many ways. If we were writing an article in his last days in office, the main source would be WaPo. And, it would be correct at that point. But, it would have no historical view. A seriously flawed human who did some good stuff. That's what WP:10YT is about. Biden is only in his first two years. Frankly, including polls in the first half of a first term makes no sense for any president, unless, perhaps, it is a record breaking incident. I don't even think that makes sense. An encyclopedia must exhibit patience. Better correct than quick. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:38, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Articles for presidents have always had information about their polling while they were president. Your argument that opinions of Biden will change over time is not persuasive, because they will continue to change as society and its values evolve. Nixon actually was never highly popular except when he (falsely) said he was ending the war quickly. He was very unpopular by the time he resigned, by which time he had a 24% approval rating.

Bill Clinton OTOH increased in popularity as he faced impeachment. In both cases, their relative popularity was important information. It showed how the public viewed the accusations against them, and the chances they would be removed from office. Even years later, it is useful to know how popular they were when in office, even if history later reassesses them. TFD (talk) 20:01, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it absolutely is important to document if there have been large changes in popularity over time. Once a term has ended, and updated later if there are large changes or summaries by historians. Not during the term where there is less of an understanding of the term. Giuliani's popularity in NYC skyrocketed from 28% shortly after 9/11. Then slowly dropped as it came out he was in such a hurry to clean up he was telling workers to stop using masks against CDC recommendations. Decades later people are still dying. This is an encyclopedia, not a polling site. Add to that, polling seems to be dropping in accuracy. I don't think we will change our minds on this. O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:27, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

This kind of poll is more or less complete nonsense and of no consequence. They get disseminated because they can be reported as "news", particularly by content-hungry broadcast media, after they have told stories about airport delays, hurricanes, and lines at the mall. They should be included when there is substantial encyclopedic content in the report, not when it's play-by-play or empty trendline comparisons. Can we find some analysis by political scientists or polling experts who discuss and characterize import of the numbers? SPECIFICO talk 20:39, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

What kind of poll? The Gallup Poll? YoPienso (talk) 20:45, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Please see the ones referenced in the discussion above. SPECIFICO talk 20:51, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

My edit that Slatersteven reverted, and that I'm requesting he restore, was sourced only to Gallup. YoPienso (talk) 21:00, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Why have an article at all? Cabinet documents are closed to the public and many of the effects of his policies won't be known for decades. How the economy will perform or when covid will end are affected by his policies but the outcome is unknown. It seems we can always find a reason to exclude negative information from this article, which is the exact opposite of our approach in the article about the last (and possibly next) president from the other party. TFD (talk) 23:47, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

It's not negative, it's vacuous. That's why we need expert sources, not pollsters, pundits, and prognosticators. Please find some substantial discussion of his polling and its significance. It would certainly appear remarkable that his numbers briefly rivalled Trumps. There needs to be expert contextualization of this if it's the case that experts find it significant or explanaory of something significant. SPECIFICO talk 00:14, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, one could get the impression that putting something 'negative' in this BLP, faces the same difficultly of putting something 'positive' in Trump's BLP. GoodDay (talk) 00:29, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

I thought this was settled. We wait until Biden leaves office. GoodDay (talk) 23:44, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Why not delete the article and re-write it once he leaves office? TFD (talk) 00:09, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, I was opposed to adding the polling numbers to Trump's page, when Trump was in office. GoodDay (talk) 00:25, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Well, fortunately, you didn't gain consensus there, and I hope you don't here. This is clear bias and cherry-picking--strictly prohibited by both the spirit and the letter of Wikipedia--as pointed out in TFD's last 3 comments. YoPienso (talk) 00:53, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

I suppose, if it was (I can't remember) added to Trump's page while he was in office. Then precedent would recommend it be added to Biden's page while he's in office. GoodDay (talk) 00:59, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Nov. 25, 2018

I imagine it was there earlier, but yesterday I searched the archives and posted on this page what Trump's article had about approval ratings at the same point in his presidency that Biden was at yesterday. YoPienso (talk) 01:29, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

• Well , isn't this discussion deteriorating. Keep in mind that this is an encyclopedia. We should not be including polling data without explanation. WP:NOTNEWS WP:NOTSTATS And, in no way do I think we should add the obvious explanations: The unprecedented two year behavior of an ex-president claiming the current was not validly elected supported by Fox, right-wing sources, and 299 election deniers that just ran for office, believed by two-thirds of Republicans. When has an ex-president ever acted like this in American history? Covid disinformation (including deadly hate messaging against Asians resulting in many deaths). Claims that Democrats sacrifice children and drink their blood believed by an amazing number of Republicans. An insurrection that some members of Congress said didn’t occur, and others claim was antifa, and others claim was a patriotic movement and want the FBI defunded or investigated for its “treatment of political prisoners”. Belief that Biden policies increased inflation pushed by Fox and other right-wing sources despite the fact that inflation is worldwide and companies with higher prices are making record profits and US energy companies are refusing to pump more oil. A destabilizing invasion of Ukraine, supported by the most viewed Fox personality. Keep in mind that we are an encyclopedia. Let us not publish any of what I just stated or the resulting day-to-day polls until the dust has settled. Unlike a newspaper, there is WP:NODEADLINE We do not need to "scoop" any competition. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:54, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

  Well now that you've gone to babbling about Hitler and Trump, I've decided to reinsert my little bit about Biden's approval rating.

  On the one hand, TFD and I think it's a no-brainer to include approval ratings while a POTUS is still in office.

  Slatersteven (who reverted it) seems to be on the fence.

  Specifico is off-topic and hasn't followed the discussion.

  You (O3000, Ret.) are opposed, apparently because you don't like it. (WP:IDL)

  I've followed the precedents set in the only other BLPs of POTUSes (Bush, Obama, and Trump) who were in office after Wikipedia was launched. I've worded it neutrally and sourced it reliably.

  Do I see a consensus? No--neither for deleting nor for restoring. Let's hope one emerges. YoPienso (talk) 05:48, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

  I removed it because we appear to be still discussing it and I find Objective3000's argument quite persuasive as well as those from Slatersteven and SPECIFICO. Andre🚐 06:02, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

  How about an RfC? YoPienso (talk) 07:32, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

• Biden's approval ratings are mentioned in Joe_Biden#2021 and Joe_Biden#2022. The question is whether to keep mentions of his approval rating as-is, or group them together in their own section.

I'd support the latter. Mention major inflection points in his popularity, and what the most credible sources attribute the inflections to. We should ideally solely rely on Gallup and the 538 weighted average, both of which are highly reputable and have long been cited in peer-reviewed papers.

None of this belongs in Joe Biden#Reputation; that's for long-term stuff. Nor should we try to assess his "lasting image". We can't do that until he leaves office. We should obviously also stay away from WP:SYNTH like Biden is considered unpopular by the general public; please mention specific numbers, avoid paraphrase and WP:OR.

A head of state's approval rating is a crucial piece of information for foreigners like me. It might be obvious to you that Biden is leading a highly polarized country; it's not obvious to anyone unfamiliar with American politics. And arguments based on WP:10YT, which I usually side with, miss the mark here: even if Biden becomes extremely popular in the future, his low early approval will still be relevant.

Objective3000's arguments above are unconvincing. The idea that his low approval is caused by misinformation is an oft-repeated Democratic Party (i.e., partisan) talking point; that simply isn't a valid argument for or against inclusion. If credible sources make that case, then it deserves mention, as I wrote above ([mention] what the most credible sources attribute the inflections to).

Given that Biden's popularity was discussed by scholars and other highly-credible sources, there's no case against inclusion:

• Whiteley, Paul; Clarke, Harold. "Persistent inflation seriously threatens the Democrats' chances of controlling Congress in the 2022 midterm elections". London School of Economics. Retrieved 2022-11-27. (Whiteley is a scholar)
• Jacobs, Nicholas F. and Milkis, Sidney M. "Get Out of the Way: Joe Biden, the U.S. Congress, and Executive-Centered Partisanship During the President’s First Year in Office" The Forum, vol. 19, no. 4, 2021, pp. 709-744. https://doi.org/10.1515/for-2022-2041
• Allsop, Jon. "The siloed media narratives around Biden and Trump". Columbia Journalism Review. Retrieved 2022-11-27.
• Lindsay, James M. "A Midterm Election Update". Council on Foreign Relations. Retrieved 2022-11-27.. Lindsay is a credible expert who's published in peer-reviewed journals.
• Norpoth, Helmut; Pechenkina, Yulia. "Biden is struggling to please both the progressive voters and the Trump haters who helped elect him". London School of Economics. Retrieved 2022-11-27. — Norpoth is a political scientist
• Owens, John E. (September 2022). "Waiting for the Fall? Joe Biden and the 2022 US Midterm Elections". Political Insight. 13 (3): 26–29. doi:10.1177/20419058221127469. ISSN 2041-9058. — a published scholar
• Norman, Julie. "One year into his presidency, Biden is down but not out". London School of Economics. Retrieved 2022-11-27. — another political scientist

I'll note that Biden's middling popularity directly influences his ability to pass significant reforms, and to make good on his promises; that seems very relevant to his bio. DFlhb (talk) 11:05, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

I disagree that those are sources reflect expert mainstream thinking. And the polls are certainly not constraining his actions. SPECIFICO talk 11:18, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Whatever you think, those sources do reflect expert mainstream thinking.

But you're right that the polls aren't constraining his actions, which is weird. The NYT YoPienso (talk) 16:39, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: You have a pattern here of dismissing solid information. At 00:14, 27 November 2022, dismissing the Gallup Poll, you wrote, ". . . we need expert sources, not pollsters, pundits, and prognosticators. Please find some substantial discussion of his polling and its significance." So when DFlhb does exactly that, you reject them out of hand and claim they're not experts. WP:IDL much? YoPienso (talk) 17:54, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

I've left you a note on your talk page, Yopienso. SPECIFICO talk 21:02, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Then show us sources that do reflect expert mainstream thinking.

I didn't propose adding to our article that approval ratings constrain his actions. In my last sentence, the word "that" refers to "popularity". That's also a single sentence of my comment; my proposal is in my first and second paragraph, which sadly both you and O3000 seem to be ignoring. I didn't think adding a single throaway sentence would completely derail the conversation. I literally only added it so my signature would be unindented from my bullet points. DFlhb (talk) 19:13, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Peer reviewed publications by notable political scientists would be one example of such sources. The WP:BURDEN is on you to find such references, and the WP:ONUS is on you to advocate for the inclusion of any content you believe is verified by such sources. SPECIFICO talk 21:02, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

On the contrary, with narrow majorities in Congress and opposition to nearly every action, infrastructure and Medicare drug negotiation were passed, both of which multiple past presidents promised and failed to pass. Also, significant climate change legislation. Claiming his poll ratings have hampered his ability to pass major legislation or make good on his promises is not only WP:OR, but demonstrably incorrect. Look, I'm not trying to gloss over anything or make him look good. I just think we should strive for accuracy. Your statement that I am arguing against inclusion because I believe misinformation is the cause of his poll numbers is missing my point. My point was that poll numbers should not be included without an explanation. I gave examples of explanations (which I'm sure could be backed by another list of political scientists if inclusion was my goal). But, said that they should NOT be included at this time. That we must wait for the dust to settle and an agreed upon background to the poll numbers can be found looking back on his presidency. Kierkegaard said: "Life can only be understood backwards, but it must be lived forwards." In creating an encyclopedia, we must have the patience to see the entire iceberg, not just the bit above the surface. (Of course, YoPienso will say I'm "babbling".) WP:CIV O3000, Ret. (talk) 13:06, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Kierkegaard, paraphrasing Lessing, also said that man can only seek truth, but only God can know it. According to legend, when Henry Kissinger asked the Chinese premier Chou En Lai in the early 1970s about the influence of the French Revolution of 1789, he was reported to have said, "It's too early to say." We will never have perfect information and the best we can provide is what has been reported in reliable sources and is available today. Weight requires that articles "represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources." It doesn't say that we have to first examine those opinions to determine if they are correct. TFD (talk) 14:03, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Actually, Zhou Enlai was referring to the more recent French students' revolts in 1968. And a poll really isn’t all reliable viewpoints as I listed a bunch that are not included and I’m against including as I don’t think any of this belongs at this moment in time. I said nothing about perfection. I said nothing about us examining opinions to see if they are correct. It is another editor above who drew a conclusion about popularity hampering reforms. A poor inference that can be made through incomplete data demonstrating the danger of including data without context. And I am not talking about waiting a century. Just end of the first term to see what an ever-changing number means after further study reported by reliable sources given better available context. This isn’t a newspaper that publishes daily info. O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:01, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes am aware that Chou's comments were merely legendary, which is what I prefaced my words, "According to legend."

Suppose we take your advice and leave out his popularity until it improves, which you expect will happen after his term ends. But the article would then say something like, "although Biden's popularity declined and remained low for the remainder of his term, it improved once he was gone." We will not be able to say it had improved unless we admit it once was low. But why not put in what we know and what is acknowledged in reliable sources as significant and add the bit about his improving numbers once they occur? TFD (talk) 20:56, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Do not tell me what I expect. I have no idea what will happen over the next two years. And the recent election belies the poll numbers. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:25, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

You wrote, "these numbers change constantly." [20:10, 25 November 2022] Now you are saying you have no idea what will happen. This discussion would move faster if you remained consistent in your claims. TFD (talk) 02:46, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

What? The numbers do change constantly. Look at 538. I have no idea how they will change. I certainly know they will change. How on Earth do you think I am being inconsistent? O3000, Ret. (talk) 02:59, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Claiming his poll ratings have hampered his ability to pass major legislation or make good on his promises is not only WP:OR, but demonstrably incorrect

Come on. It's not WP:OR because I don't support adding that to the article. I said the polling was relevant to his bio. And why focus on a single sentence of my comment? It's utterly besides the point.

My point was that poll numbers should not be included without an explanation: I hope you didn't miss when I said: "[mention] what the most credible sources attribute the inflections to". I said it twice! DFlhb (talk) 18:52, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

I mentioned it because it is an excellent example of how data without context can lead to invalid conclusions. Your conclusion was quite off the mark. We just witnessed an election where a huge red wave was predicted based on polls. Those predictions were also way off the mark. The reasons for this could be many -- but the puzzle has yet to be unraveled. Why add a data item (changing daily) that leads to incorrect conclusions before proper post analysis by reliable sources? O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:43, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

IOW if we tell readers that Biden is unpopular, they may form incorrect conclusions. But that's just a risk of providing information to people. There is no policy that says the public should be protected against coming to incorrect conclusions. TFD (talk) 20:59, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

That is a strawperson argument. An encyclopedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, statistics, or current events. We need informed, expert analysis reviewed by credible peers. Then we'll know how to frame any such information when it is included in the article text. We certainly do not and must not add information framed in such a way that a large proportion of our readers are likely to misconstrue it or use it to arrive a dubious conclusions contrary to informed thinking. The possibility that several of our relatively well-informed editors appear to have done so is all the more reason to proceed with caution. SPECIFICO talk 21:12, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

DFlhb, thanks to a comment by Slatersteven, I concluded the approval ratings while still in office are better included in Presidency of Joe Biden than in this full bio. Could you agree with that? YoPienso (talk) 19:57, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry I worded my comment wrong, which I clearly did because nobody 'got' it; that's on me. My main point was that we already mention his approval rating here, which doesn't seem contentious; the additions are (I still dedicated half my comment to arguing the current mentions are due). It's a question of whether it belongs in its own section or should stay where it is. It just makes more sense to me that it be in its own section. It can still be just a few sentences; but it makes for a more coherent structure to have its own subsection. DFlhb (talk) 21:05, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

DFlhb, If I were writing this bio alone, I would likely have a subsection about Biden's approval ratings, following the line of thinking you and I share with TFD. However, since others oppose the idea, it's fine with me, as I've mentioned here now more than once, to leave that information in the separate Presidency of Joe Biden article. While I agree that the objections give the appearance of biased attempts to protect Biden's reputation, that will eventually sort out. Meanwhile, the other article publishes the information that's rejected here.

But think about it: This article is supposed to be a biography of Biden's entire life. He's been POTUS for only 2/80s of his life. The other article, in contrast, is designed to cover exclusively these past two years. (So far, that is; of course it will extend to four or possibly eight years.) It does make sense--and follows policy--to keep this article focused as a summary of the man's life as a whole. I've worked on other presidential articles where people wanted to cram everything into the main bio, but a lot of that stuff really belonged in the spin-offs. YoPienso (talk) 21:27, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Since 'approval ratings' were added to Trump BLP during his term? Then I've no objection to adding the 'approval ratings' to Biden's BLP. GoodDay (talk) 22:44, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

@DFlhb are you from the US? we just had the election, so all of these articles, peer-reviewed, reputable academics or no, are very out of date if you look at what actually happened versus these articles from July. These are seriously out of date now. Andre🚐 03:22, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

They are out of date for today's approval rating. Not for previous inflection points which they comment on, which is what we would be using them for. And I'm foreign but obviously know about the midterms (and about Manchin, and Sinema, whose decision to torpedo parts of Biden's agenda was most certainly impacted by his poll numbers in their states, despite what some here think). DFlhb (talk) 05:15, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Nope, they're out of date period. They make claims and predictions that turned out not to be accurate. Your claim that Manchin and Sinema in any way considered poll numbers is original research. And in fact it's the opposite. Manchin and Sinema are the reason why Biden's poll numbers go down. Andre🚐 05:26, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Predictions and analyses are different. We're not dummies, we can do the same thing as for every other Wikipedia article; we mention what the sources say that's relevant, and ignore what's not. And obviously Manchin's position was influenced by polling in his deeply red state; though you're right that this likely also lowered Biden's approvals (that's WP:OR too! I might bring out the champagne when people stop bringing up OR for things I never proposed adding to articles. Mind re-reading the last paragraph of the lead of WP:OR? Cheers) DFlhb (talk) 06:40, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

These sources are all hopelessly out of date. The entire political world has shifted due to the midterm elections. Did you even read the sources? "Waiting for the Fall? Joe Biden and the 2022 US Midterm Elections"? Persistent inflation seriously threatens the Democrats’ chances of controlling Congress in the 2022 midterm elections "The 2022 midterms are important because they will determine if ‘gridlock politics’ returns with the Republicans regaining control of the House of Representatives and possibly the Senate as well. In turn, Republican majorities in one or both Houses of Congress would put paid hopes Democrats entertain of passing President Biden’s continuing ‘Build Back Better’ legislative agenda." ... these takes are already flawed. It does appear the Republicans will take by the house: by a number of Republicans smaller than voted for the infrastructure bill.[7] (13) Dems will add a Senate seat, which means one less of Manchin or Sinema to worry about. The entire calculus has changed. Despite low approvals, Biden outperformed in the midterms and he still has a path to pass an agenda. We'll have to wait for the articles to catch up to the reality because the pundit narrative was off on this one. Andre🚐 06:57, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

As you'll see in my original comment, I only brought those sources up to prove that Biden's approval rating is treated as a valuable metric by scholars (not pundits), in order to dispute your earlier point that it's insignificant. I did not propose we include anything from them in this article. DFlhb (talk) 07:05, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Thus far, it's insignificant, but I expect that to change in the future as time goes on. My point is that the sources and the narrative and the relative significance are likely to change. Andre🚐 07:25, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

@Yopienso: if you want to begin an RFC? then so be it. GoodDay (talk) 21:15, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. I'm now content to leave this info to the Presidency of Joe Biden article. YoPienso (talk) 21:18, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Oh, you are? OK, then, so why the sections below? Andre🚐 03:27, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

I was laboring under the naive delusion that we were all working together to improve the article and that by collegially discussing our views we could reach an agreement.

I was imagining fellow editors would thoughfully read my comments, even though I've been around long enough to know most Wikipedeans skim through other people's words.

Realizing the views of some of us had shifted, I thought it would be good to see where we stood at the moment.

Instead, I found resistance, complaining, and criticism. I should have expected that, but I'm always surprised when Lucy snatches away the football. YoPienso (talk) 05:36, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

You repeatedly tried to add a new section about approval ratings to the article. It was reverted. You literally made a section called "complaints." That is not how "Wikipedeans" do it here. You can propose a change or discuss a change and then if you fail to obtain consensus for your idea, you should drop it. Instead you're creating new sections with a pseudo-RFC and trying to have your way. There's no consensus to add more about Biden's approval ratings. WP:DROPTHESTICK Andre🚐 05:45, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Consensus on approval ratings

Several of us are willing to see things differently than we did initially. Without making a formal RfC, can the involved editors come to a consensus here? Choices and reasons:

1. Add an approval rating subsection to this article.

Yes

• Consistency: all the BLPs of POTUSes (Bush, Obama, and Trump) who were in office after Wikipedia was launched had approval ratings by mid-term or earlier. Diff with links
• General readers coming to WP to read about Biden expect an up-to-date article. "Editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information within its coverage, and to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events." Policy: WP:NOTNEWS

No

• It's misleading to report current approval ratings since they're subject to change and may not pass the 10-year test. Essay: WP:10YT
• Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Policy: WP:NOTNEWS   Essay: WP:NOTNP

2. A separate subsection on approval ratings should appear only on the Presidency of Joe Biden page.

Yes, to avoid too much detail here: this article covers Biden's entire life; the other is specific to his presidency.

No It hides negative information from the reading public who, despite hatnotes, won't quickly realize there's a dedicated article on Biden's presidency.

3. The middle way: a small subsection here on Biden's approval ratings and more in-depth coverage at the presidency article

What can we agree on? YoPienso (talk) 23:40, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Responses

[I failed to open a place for responses, so am taking the liberty of moving GoodDay's here. They were responding to Yes under the first choice. YoPienso (talk) 00:00, 28 November 2022 (UTC)]

I've no objections, as the approval ratings were added to Donald Trump's BLP, during the Trump administration. GoodDay (talk) 23:54, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Quoting myself from a discussion above, DFlhb, thanks to a comment by Slatersteven, I concluded the approval ratings while still in office are better included in Presidency of Joe Biden than in this full bio. Could you agree with that? YoPienso (talk) 19:57, 27 November 2022 (UTC) YoPienso (talk) 03:48, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

• We've spread out mentions of his approval rating throughout this article, and it makes less sense than putting it in its own section, therefore I support 1.

We should make sure the subsection here is well-sourced, avoid covering partisan commentary/op-eds, and also avoid nonsensical sweeping statements like With his immensely low approval ratings, Biden is unpopular in the public eye which would obliterate WP:NPOV. I also see zero policy basis for why only peer-reviewed scholarship would be appropriate; op-eds wouldn't be, but most coverage of his approval rating is from WP:RS in news articles/analyses.

I do think consistency with previous presidents is good; and I'll reiterate my point that approval ratings are useful for foreigners who may have no clue about American politics; case in point, the French and German translations of this article both include an Approval ratings subsection. Doesn't dictate what we do, but it IMO shows that foreigners find it to be important context to understand Biden and his role in American politics.

Finally, approval polling very clearly passes the WP:10YT, since it still has dedicated subsections in Obama, Trump, GWB, and Bill Clinton's articles. I'll note that the latter two, the only WP:Good articles of the bunch, both have very extensive Approvals subsections. No, approval ratings are not just relevant during elections; and no, they have nothing whatsoever to do with election forecasting, since "lesser evil" voting tactics are prevalent; they have to do with how a President's actions are perceived by his constituents. Polling happens to be a scientific discipline, and scholars treat it as perfectly credible. I'll note that, just like with the previous President, dismissiveness of approval polling's relevance or accuracy is a frequent Biden admin talking point, which lowers that argument's credibility. DFlhb (talk) 06:25, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose 1, see discussion below. Andre🚐 06:31, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Complaints

[I'm opening this to make a place for complaints lodged under "Responses" by Specifico and O3000, Ret. I'll respond to them below their posts. All editors are welcome to complain here, but let's reserve "Responses" for good-faith attempts to form a consensus. Thanks. YoPienso (talk) 02:27, 28 November 2022 (UTC)]]

There is no consensus to include it, let alone what text and sourcing would be included, so it's premature to raise a poll. I think your best path would be to leave the thread open and see whether any new editors join the discussion and bring more convincing arguments for inclusion. Also, when posing a poll question, it's generally not a good idea for one of the involved editors to provide a summary of the various views of other editors. SPECIFICO talk 01:12, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Poorly formed ignoring points made by those disagreeing with the involved (and at times abrasive) editor creating this poll, as if WP was poll driven anyhow. Should be withdrawn. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:34, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: @Objective3000:

1. This is not a poll. This is not an RfC.
2. My idea was to help form a consensus, being fully aware one doesn't exist at this moment. The discussion has been so lengthy I think it would help to regroup and have each editor voice their opinion clearly and briefly in one spot. At least 3 of us--Slatersteven, GoodDay, and myself--now have somewhat different views than we started out with. My idea was to have one compact summary of our present views and from there to see how we can agree on what to include/exclude in this article.
3. If I can't state an argument, I don't understand it. Where I've misunderstood arguments for or against including an approval rating subsection in the article or inadvertently left out important points, please correct me. One way you could do that is in your own comments by writing, for example, "We shouldn't have a separate subsection for approval ratings because ___________________."
4. If you're interested in forming a consensus, please comment in the "Response" subsection.
5. If you're not interested in forming a consensus, well . . . WP:CONS. But I assume you do want to not only form a consensus on this minor issue, but work collegially with me.
6. O3000, Ret., I'm sorry I said you were babbling. I was referring to what still seem to me like off-topic and unhelpful comments about Hitler and Trump. YoPienso (talk) 02:56, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

I broadly agree with Objective3000 and SPECIFICO. Editor trying to force through a change that isn't supported by a consensus. I don't see why we should try to summarize the polling numbers of Biden's 1st term yet, since they are unremarkable so far. The biggest story right now as of November 2022 and likely into the future in polling, sources such as RealClearPolitics, Trafalgar Group, et al. missed the fact that there wasn't a red wave in the 2022 election despite the historical trends/conventional wisdom - Rs will gain a single-digit number of seats in the house, and lost Senate seat. A nationwide repudation of Trumpism and a strong mandate for Bidenism. Some pollsters had Patty Murray losing or up by low-single digits - she won by a landslide, along with Tina Kotek, and Josh Shapiro, and Gretchen Whitmer. Some pollsters thought that Kathy Hochul was in danger, despite competitive maps in NY being a bright spot for Rs. Many pollsters had all of Fetterman, Kelly, Masto, Hobbs losing. Democrats defended most of their lean-tossups like Spanberger, Sherrill, Mrvan, Peltola, won the majority of tossups, and even picked off a few upset seats including nearly a hairline finish going to recount for Frisch-Boebert.

At this time in Trump's term, his low polling and general unpopularity were a huge story. Trump came out of the gate being uniquely Trumpy and consistency is not, and has never been a requirement. If anything, the Biden story is shaping up to be something more akin to: how his polls belied the fact that he's relatively popular and doing a relatively well-regarded job despite all the hand-wringing, with the best performance in a midterm since the 1930s despite a lagging economy, so his approval polls are probably missing something, or people are reluctant to admit that they will hold their nose and vote Democrat anyway. If you can find a way to write in the article when the history is written about this time, I'll support it. It's a huge and compelling and historically significant and interesting story.Andre🚐 03:00, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Why do you say I'm trying to force through a change? I guess I should go ahead and comment in the "Reponses" to put that false impression to rest. But, I am curious--and concerned--as to how I come across as trying to force a change, and would appreciate an explanation. Thanks, YoPienso (talk) 03:08, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Was this you? This is clear bias and cherry-picking--strictly prohibited by both the spirit and the letter of Wikipedia- Are you playing the ref? You know that doesn't work right? In life or in Wikipedia. Andre🚐 03:24, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes. Is this you? You are incorrect. [...] So again, your understanding of the policy at play here is not accurate. YoPienso (talk) 03:47, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

I guess some people melt if someone tells them they're wrong. YoPienso (talk) 03:50, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Huh? That's from a response to the IP editor in a different part of the conversation. Was that IP editor you as well? Andre🚐 04:01, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

I wasn't the IP editor. I'm just saying it sounds like maybe you were reffing? (By your definition.) What does it matter who it was to? I was responding to GoodDay, not to you. ???? You can tell somebody they're wrong but I can't tell somebody they're biased and cherry-picking? I'm not following what you're trying to tell me. I'm not getting where you see me trying to force anything on this page. YoPienso (talk) 04:06, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

You are alleging bias, i.e. WP:RGW and WP:ICANTHEARYOU, not arguing policy. I was explaining to the uninformed IP editor that my self-published expert source was valid under policy. Do you really think that any kind of policy argument is working the ref? You're alleging that there is some kind of bias at work - which is NOT virtuous logical argument. Andre🚐 04:10, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Unrelated to that, but generalizing from numeous comments on this page about polling, I'm seeing some conflation of two different kinds of political polling--one is the predictive polling that tries to guess who will get elected, and the other is the descriptive polling of what people think of certain people or issues.

Such a description is original research. The appropriate description would be "election forecasting." Andre🚐 04:12, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Moving this to where I intended to put it. But regarding our discussion--OMG--original research?? for a simple statement in a conversation? Yes, I was referring to election forecasting, which I described as trying to guess who will get elected. I'm referring to what you posted at 03:00, 28 November 2022, where you wrote about pollsters being wrong about an anticipated "red wave." Good thing my long weekend is almost over and I won't have time for WP. YoPienso (talk) 04:33, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Pollsters were wrong. Trafalgar and other pollsters like Insider Advantage had wrong, descriptive polls. They were outside the margin of error. RCP actually "unskewed" the polls. See before: [8] after: [9] Andre🚐 04:57, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Did you miss the several more mainstream pollsters, who had gotten things so wrong before, enjoyed a triumphantly accurate cycle part? Trafalgar has a documented pro-Republican bias. DFlhb (talk) 07:29, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Nate Cohn also hilariously dimissed the NYT Siena poll as an outlier (Sharice Davids) and it turned out to be spot-on.[10] Nate Silver still includes those polls in his average. Yes, several mainstream pollsters did a good job. That wasn't my point. Go to 538 and there's a Rasmussen poll right in the average. Andre🚐 07:32, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Your point that pollsters were wrong was incorrect, as the WP:RS you linked to says. Simple.

You are arguing against polling on the basis of your own arguments, when WP:RS disagree with you. DFlhb (talk) 07:46, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Pollsters got this one wrong. [11] Two years ago, the New York Times warned that “Trafalgar does not disclose its methods, and is considered far too shadowy by other pollsters to be taken seriously.” Undeterred, however, polling aggregator Nate Silver’s site rated them an A-. The average poll in the week before election day had Mehmet Oz beating John Fetterman by nearly 1% in Pennsylvania when in reality Fetterman beat Oz by nearly 5% The average poll had Adam Laxalt beating Catherine Cortez Masto in Nevada by 1.5% when in reality Cortez Masto is projected to win. In fact, not a single poll in the week before election day projected a Cortez Masto victory. The average poll had Herschel Walker beating Raphael Warnock in Georgia by 1% when in reality Warnock outperformed Walker by 1%; and not a single poll in the week before election day projected a Warnock victory The average poll had Maggie Hassan beating Don Bolduc in New Hampshire by only 2% when in reality Hassan soundly routed Bolduc by 15%. Two mainstream polls in the week before election day, including the seminal, admired Saint Anselm poll, even predicted Bolduc victories An updated prediction, published right before election day by the University of Virginia’s Department of Politics, noted that the Senate races in Georgia, Arizona, Nevada, and Pennsylvania remain “jump balls”. However, the nonpartisan election handicapper shifted its rating in Pennsylvania and Georgia to “leans Republican.” And it shifted its rating for four of the six state gubernatorial elections from a “toss-up” to “lean Republican.” Gallup confidently declared “The political environment for the 2022 midterm elections should work to the benefit of the Republican Party, with all national mood indicators similar to, if not worse than, what they have been in other years when the incumbent party fared poorly in midterms.” The Cook Political Report with Amy Walter, a nonpartisan handicapping service, moved 10 of its House race ratings in favor of Republicans and adjusted its predictions of GOP gains in the fall upward to between 20 and 35 seats and a sizable Republican majority in the Senate. The Siena poll found that “independents, especially women, are swinging to the G.O.P. despite Democrats’ focus on abortion rights. …The biggest shift came from women who identified as independent voters. In September, they favored Democrats by 14 points. Now, independent women backed Republicans by 18 points–a striking swing given the polarization of the American electorate and how intensely Democrats have focused on that group and on the threat Republicans pose to abortion rights.” CNN/Marist shifted to strongly favor a red wave: “The survey shifted seven percentage points toward the Republicans in a month.” Andre🚐 07:48, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

So why are you guys even talking about this kind of polling? What does it have to do with presidential approval ratings or any titled topic on this talk page? YoPienso (talk) 07:59, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Because as I said, if you want to add a sentence to the article to the effect of, "despite low approval ratings, Biden's party outperformed in the midterm elections" I could get behind that. But again, 538's Biden poll average has those same pollsters including Marist, Echelon, Harris, Rasmussen, etc that said there should have been a red wave. So I'd rather wait and see how the polling story develops before we add what was proposed about Biden's approval ratings. It's too recent. Andre🚐 08:07, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Like I said earlier, you're conflating the predictive polling on election forecasting and the descriptive polling of approval ratings. They're not the same. "Despite predictions of a 'red wave,' Democrats outperformed" isn't the same as "Despite Biden's low approval ratings, Democrats outperformed." What I added had nothing whatsoever to do with the midterm elections. By the way, I edited your most recent additions and removed the last sentence because it wasn't supported by the source. YoPienso (talk) 09:55, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Just for the record, though you weren't replying to me: I didn't see much an issue with that last sentence you removed (though it needed copyediting), just with the first one ("Biden's beat-the-odds results..."). DFlhb (talk) 10:11, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

It said, "Biden took the opportunity of Democrats' closer than expected election to renew his call for an assault weapons ban." The AP News source, "Emboldened Biden, Dems push ban on so-called assault weapons," didn't say the close election was what emboldened him. It never directly said just what emboldened him--either the new spate of mass shootings or the legislation that was passed in June and July. The only mention of the midterm elections was to point out that despite Biden's campaigning for gun control, the Democrats did well in the elections. YoPienso (talk) 12:47, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Oh, yes, you're right about the first sentence. I've fixed that now, too. YoPienso (talk) 13:09, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

I never said I wanted to leave polling out of the article. I'm saying it has to be properly described and contextualized which I attempted to do. Andre🚐 00:40, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

I'd appreciate if you could clarify: what addition do you think is being proposed, and what specifically do you oppose? It echoes your point about "ridiculously outdated" below, which I also didn't understand. Past approval ratings are set in stone; only future ratings can change. I think it's reasonable to hold off on any detailed commentary of the midterms for a bit; but surely the pre-midterm stuff is good-to-go? (as long as it's well-sourced) DFlhb (talk) 08:17, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

I opposed the addition that I reverted from Yopienso to create an "approval ratings" section. No, I do not think it is good-to-go yet. I'd like to wait and see how the polling story develops. Some preliminary discussion of the midterms would be OK. Andre🚐 08:19, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

We're talking about this diff, right? That addition is well-sourced, relies on the most-respected poll (Gallup), and is not out-of-date since it covers Biden's seventh quarter, which just ended. What's wrong with it?

Your recent addition to the article attributes the midterm results to "Biden" rather than "Democrats" (the source doesn't quite say that), and references Biden outperforming polls ("beat-the-odds"); you can't mention polls when it's positive to Biden, and ignore them when it's not. DFlhb (talk) 08:56, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Andrevan, what I added had nothing to do with the midterms. And everybody knows Biden has a low approval rating. The whole reason I added the subsection was because it seemed to me to be a glaring omission. Your NYT ref on your recent addition refers to "a not-popular Mr. Biden" and "Mr. Biden’s weak approval ratings." Whatever Wikipedia does or doesn't do with that fact, historians will be sure to develop it. YoPienso (talk) 10:08, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

As I said, if and when we add this material or this section, it will need proper context. It will need to address that Biden did well in the midterms despite his on-paper approval ratings. Andre🚐 00:42, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

An opinion article? By a management professor and a management "research director"? Really?

I can find physicists who published pieces about economics and climate change being pseudoscience. But they're not experts in those fields, so who cares? DFlhb (talk) 08:08, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

It happens to have a good list. I'm not proposing to include this in the article. All the statements I quoted above are true and can be easily independently verified. Andre🚐 08:11, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

I recommend you read this open-access peer-reviewed article by Gelman, a proper statistician, especially section 5: [12]. He distinguishes between opinion polls, which do not require forecasting voter turnout, versus election polls, which do. He says that the former has impressive accuracy, and that opinion polling, despite its limitations (low response rate, etc) is just fine for its purposes. The error rate is accurate.

Gelman cites Robert Shapiro, who explains the same point in a WaPo analysis [13]. Using midterm punditry to contest opinion polling is just confusing two separate (and very different) issues. DFlhb (talk) 08:37, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

BTW, the reason why there aren't a lot of good sources written about this yet... it's barely been more than 2 weeks! It's the middle of Thanksgiving weekend right now! Andre🚐 08:18, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

• Your comment addresses whether polls can accurate predict election results. That's iffy, due to voter suppression, disenfranchisement, and, on the other hand, methods like vote-by-mail and ballot collection that incentivize people to vote who normally don't.

Point is, polls are perfectly scientific (and overwhelmingly treated as such by scholars) when it comes to people's opinions; but when it comes to what people say they'll do, we know from Revealed preference theory that people are sometimes inaccurate at predicting their own behavior.

None of those problems apply to approval ratings at all; it's a completely separate question, which doesn't concern itself with what people will do, or how they'll vote. Just with whether they approve or disapprove, for which revealed preference theory doesn't apply. Polling is scientific, and is overwhelmingly accurate, as has been consistently pointed out by scholars during this administration and the previous one.

You bring up the midterms to explain that Biden's polls are missing something. But Biden wasn't on the ballot. Election deniers were, and Biden successfully made the election about that, rather than a referendum on him. It didn't rebuke his approval rating in any way. Expert commenters actually noted that he mostly avoided tying himself to specific candidates, except those in deeper-blue states.

Regarding the midterms, even though again Biden wasn't on the ballot: the polls were accurate (within the margin of error). As they always are. The punditry wasn't (as they... often are). See: [14] [15], and especially [16]. See also this analysis.

You're also discussing what Biden's approval ratings mean; that has no bearing on whether to include an approval rating section. That is WP:OR. We'll cover what it means based on what reliable sources say it means. If something is from a WP:RS, but is obviously inaccurate, we'll exclude it, as we always do in those cases. Approval ratings are WP:DUE, as they are for every president, since they've received significant and durable coverage. There remains zero policy-based grounding to exclude it. DFlhb (talk) 07:24, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

This is all your own editorializing. The fact remains that so-called scientific pollsters were outside the margin of error. The science of polling says that shouldn't happen. There is no policy that supports approval ratings being automatically due weight. The consensus of editors can determine whether the approval ratings are premature. Andre🚐 07:27, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

No. Scholars overwhelmingly treat approval polling as accurate, relevant, and scientific, and it is your editorializing to claim that it's not. It is also a fact that pollsters were accurate for the midterms, as my references show. You clearly didn't read them, seeing how quickly you replied. Dueness comes from significant sustained coverage over time, among both news and scholarly sources. Sure, consensus can overcome that, but you need proper arguments that aren't based in incorrect assumptions. DFlhb (talk) 07:36, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Nope. You're wrong, sir. I looked at your references. They don't say or prove what you think they do. As I have already explained, these references are already ridiculously out-of-date and should in no way be taken seriously for anything. We'll have to wait until references are updated. While many of the mainstream polls were accurate and had a good night, many were not. For example, [17] [18] 538 had Kent beating Perez 98% of the time. A pollster with an A rating from 538 had Kent by 4. Some polls were accurate. Some were very wrong. Beyond the margin of error. Andre🚐 07:46, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

YoPienso, given the current status of the discussion, repetition of the discussion is not a good use of editors time and attention. It's pointless to instruct ediors to continue that without some new sources, underlying developments, or some previously unknown new rationale for your position. SPECIFICO talk 03:05, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

This new discussion would be useless if it was purely rehashing the same points, but I don't think that's quite the case. The above discussion has been all over the place, shifting from whether approval ratings belong in the lead (I weighed in early, opposing that), to whether we should add more extensive coverage, to whether we should keep approval ratings spread out throughout the article, as they currently are, or put them in their own subsection. The problem is that the above discussion's consensus is illegible. DFlhb (talk) 05:29, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

There is clearly no consensus for the proposed change to add more material about Biden's approval ratings or create a new section for said material. The article already as you say, discussed his approval ratings in context briefly. That is sufficient. Andre🚐 05:46, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Long and winding road

May I assume this entire thread has expired. TBH, it was becoming increasingly confusing. GoodDay (talk) 06:11, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

References

Twitter Collusion

When will the Biden campaign collusion with Twitter surrounding the Hunter Biden laptop controversy be written? Nkienzle (talk) 07:43, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done Please propose a specific, sourced, neutrally written text to place in the article. gobonobo ^{+ c} 08:01, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 December 2022

Joe Biden is a widespread loved but also hated president. He has been given nicknames such as sleepy joe and dumba**. Bigdadygrimm (talk) 16:19, 7 December 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. EvergreenFir (talk) 16:22, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Prisoner exchange

The prison exchange between an WNBA player and the merchant of death should be included in the 2022 section of his presidency. Plenty of sources to site. Not sure why it’s hasn’t come up before Tentemp (talk) 20:41, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

It's definitely relevant for Presidency of Joe Biden. Why do you think that it's significant enough to include here? Given WP:RECENTISM, I think we should wait and see. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:47, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

I think it’s extremely notable and a major event in his presidency. He exchanged prisoners with Russia. There’s a war between Russia and Ukraine and the US is involved indirectly. It’s a pretty one sided trade and the Biden Administration left behind a military veteran. I think that pretty significant. But then again it does make the Biden Administration look really bad. So I know that a lot of editors are biased to the left so let’s wait and make sure it’s not too embarrassing. Tentemp (talk) 20:57, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Good grief. Tucker Carlson already claimed it was she traded instead of Whelan because she's a Black lesbian and we'll see plenty of other idiocy. Your line about a military veteran "left behind" is without evidence and your line about biased editors concerned over administration "embarrassment", as if there is any reason for this, is out of line. I agree with Muboshgu that it belongs in the presidency article. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:18, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

No plenty of reports stated he was left behind, and not from Fox News. And this is kind of what I’m talking about. If it was already stated and important why isn’t in the article. You sound very biased and not neutral. Tentemp (talk) 21:23, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/09/us/politics/brittney-griner-prisoner-swap.html Tentemp (talk) 21:24, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2022/12/08/politics/russian-prisoner-swap-brittney-griner-explainer/index.html Tentemp (talk) 21:26, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2022/12/08/joe-biden-brittney-griner-prisoner-swap-criticism-paul-whelan/10858405002/ Tentemp (talk) 21:27, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

I think we should add that a WNBA player was exchanged for the merchant of death. Tentemp (talk) 21:28, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

I suggest you not use the term "biased" against an editor again without damn good evidence. This constant refrain on related articles does not aide collaboration. As for the term "left behind", it should not be used without context. Also, although I understand the comparison of WNBA player with a weapons merchant, I'm a bit disturbed by it. She is a human (although some people have said she is disloyal as if that makes her less human). I don't care if she was a tourist, her life matters. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:55, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

I don’t care if you think she was a tourist. We should include this prison exchange. It should be noted that she is in fact a WNBA player and he was an arms deal known as the merchant of death. I also don’t care if you think I’m name calling. I think it’s perplexing that the exchange isn’t already part of Biden’s article. Tentemp (talk) 22:03, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

The fact that it isn’t looks biased. Tentemp (talk) 22:04, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

I didn't say she was a tourist. The prisoner exchange will likely end up in Presidency of Joe Biden. It may get a brief mention here when the dust settles and we have a better idea of the impact it might have on the lengthy career of Joe Biden. Please read WP:NOTNEWS WP:RECENTISM WP:NODEADLINE. It's unfortunate that you don't care about name calling. Please read WP:AGF WP:CIV. Also read WP:INDENT O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:13, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Russia considers Paul Whelan to be a spy, rightly or wrongly, and so won't give him up in a prisoner trade so easily. I'm sure you're quick to note that Trump failed to get Whelan free on his page? – Muboshgu (talk) 22:21, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it was reported that Russia insisted on release of a former colonel from Russia’s domestic spy organization currently in German custody. O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:23, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Of course, I see no reason to include the previous administration's failure to gain the release of Paul Whelan in the Donald Trump article. O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:48, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Okay so why it’s the prisoner exchange in the article Tentemp (talk) 22:44, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

O3000 please rea https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:NPOV&redirect=no Tentemp (talk) 22:53, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Tit-for-tat does not work here. I have been here 15 years and have read that article numerous times. Please read it yourself as this article is in line with NPOV. And please read the articles I suggested. For one thing, it will make this thread easier to read and will answer most of your questions. As an exercise, do you think Trump's inability to negotiate a release of Whelan important enough for his article? If so, why aren't you suggesting it on his article. That would have no problems with WP:RECENTISM. Although, I would !vote against it. Do you think this should be mentioned here? O3000, Ret. (talk) 23:03, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

If you think it should be included in trumps page go for it! It’s just perplexing that it’s not on Biden’s page. Tentemp (talk) 23:56, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

I just stated that it shouldn't. Do you even read posts before responding? O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:24, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Something like this: “On December 8th, 2022, the Biden Administration negotiated the release of WNBA start Brittney Griner, in exchange for international arms dealer known as the Merchant of death Viktor Bout. Although the Biden Administration succeeded to get Griner, they failed to exchange Paul Whelan.“

https://apnews.com/article/brittney-griner-freed-viktor-bout-swap-us-russia-ee51f5c14f35dc4d4cf21224a8e44eaa Tentemp (talk) 00:03, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

It definitely belongs in Presidency of Joe Biden. That article so far covers a period of less than two years. This article is about someone who has been around for eighty years. I'm not convinced this event fits here. HiLo48 (talk) 01:04, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

So, given your suggested text, you don't think it should be mentioned that the previous administration did not secure the release of Paul Whelan. And, you don't think any context should be a part of the addition. I don't think anyone here understands your concept of WP:NPOV. You are welcome to explain. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:24, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Lol. Wow. Proves my point. It’s part of his presidency. A major exchange surging a war. And you don’t think it belongs. Wow. Tentemp (talk) 01:10, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Of course it's part of his presidency, but why THIS article? HiLo48 (talk) 01:25, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

It’s a reputable source that is neutral. Tentemp (talk) 01:34, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

But your text is not neutral. We don't write about what does not occur. SPECIFICO talk 01:36, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

It’s a direct quote from the article Tentemp (talk) 01:50, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

What would you suggest we write? Tentemp (talk) 01:50, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Nothing, because the prisoner exchange does not belong in the biography of Joe Biden. Why? Because it is not a defining or particularly notable moment in his life, as has already been explained. If, however, his re-election somehow hinges on and is determined by this one issue that the right deems problematic right now, then it would be relevant to include here as a defining moment. It does, however, have more belonging in the article about his presidency because that article covers his presidential role, not his life. We don't need to have this same discussion here every time President Biden does something that Republicans don't like; the article would be millions of bytes in size if we did include that all. Acalamari 01:52, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Okay I’ll put this under his presidential page Tentemp (talk) 01:59, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

This does not belong in this biography of a man who was a US Senator for 36 years, vice president for eight years and has been president for a little less that two years. This is WP:RECENTISM. This content, neutrally written, belongs in Presidency of Joe Biden, which should provide detailed coverage of the events since January 20, 2021.

The "left behind" language is shockingly non-neutral and completely unacceptable. It overtly implies that Biden had an opportunity to bring Whelan home and did not take it. That is false. Putin was demanding the release of a convicted assassin in German custody. Biden does not hold the key to German prison cells. As for Griner being a "tourist", that is also ludicrous. She is a professional basketball player and was in Russia to play basketball professionally. I am frequently surprised at the silly things that people type out here on Wikipedia. Cullen328 (talk)

Umm, I didn't say she was a tourist. I said even a tourist's life matters. O3000, Ret. (talk) 03:11, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

This page or his administration's page, will do. GoodDay (talk) 02:02, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

I’ll put the prison exchange on his presidency page. Also I’m quoting the article provided. The AP article I sited. It uses the term left behind. And the fact of the matter is a WNBA player was exchanged for an international arms deal, AKA the merchant of death. The Biden Administration even acknowledged that it wasn’t the best exchange. Again the biased here is surprising. Tentemp (talk) 04:07, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

From the AP article “The deal, the second in eight months amid tensions over Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, secured the release of the most prominent American detained abroad and achieved a top goal for President Joe Biden. Yet it carried what U.S. officials conceded was a heavy price.“ Tentemp (talk) 04:09, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

The terminology "merchant of death" stated in Wikipedia's voice is a grotesque violation of the Neutral point of view. Do we describe pro-western arms dealers in such pejorative terms, in bold print? Of course not, because that would be a clear-cut violation of neutrality. I am in no way trying to defend Bout, who I personally consider reprehensible. Instead, I am trying to defend Wikipedia's core content policies. Cullen328 (talk) 04:37, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

It should be attributed. Reliable sources overwhelmingly use this moniker when writing about Bout. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:06, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

I doubt this really should be here. Slatersteven (talk) 09:15, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

The Gary Powers prisoner exchange was the best known U.S. prisoner exchange, yet isn't even mentioned in JFK's article. Many things a U.S. president does attracts attention and has consequences, but so far this is fairly minor and should not be included. TFD (talk) 12:20, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

There is consensus to put this under his presidency. I’ll be edited that today. As for the merchant of death title. Please edit bout’s wiki page because it’s there. Also multiple news outlets refer him as the merchant of death. Tentemp (talk) 12:32, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

It will be included in some manner. Still, you should ask for consensus there as there may still be a WP:RECENTISM issue and the phrasing should be hammered out. On “merchant of death”, there are two books and two TV episodes so titled about Bout. It is phrased in his article as a nickname attached to him. This is quite different from using it in WP:WikiVoice to identify a person, and even compare their “worth” on some human scale. No matter how disgusting the individual, we must abide by WP:BLP and use nonjudgmental language. (As an aside, the largest arms dealer in the World is probably the US Government.) O3000, Ret. (talk) 13:01, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

You would need consensus at the Biden Presidency page. It's likely to be considered UNDUE for that article as well. A better location would be the pages of the two prisoners, for whom it was clearly significant. Bear in mind that most exchanges "exact a heavy price", except when they are exchcanges of little significance. SPECIFICO talk 13:54, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, the famous Gary Powers exchange was pretty bad. I believe the US gave back a Lt. Col. of the KGB who had defected from Russia and provided info for the arrest of an important Russian asset. Why would anyone else defect after that? (I went over that spy bridge just after the wall fell.) O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:42, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Don't worry Tentemp. I can't see there being any opposition to adding it into the Biden administration page. If it were about Trump & had happened during Trump's term in office? I'm sure there would've been no opposition to add it to his administration page. GoodDay (talk) 20:27, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Wording of Respect for Marriage Act in lead

Hey, @Starship.paint:. Is there a particular reason you changed:

He signed the Respect for Marriage Act, which expanded protections for same-sex marriages and repealed DOMA.

to:

He signed the Respect for Marriage Act recognizing interracial and same-sex marriages

The:

• Repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act
• Requirement that — in the event that Obergefell v. Hodges is overturned — states must mutually recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states.

Were both the real "meat" of the bill. There's almost zero chance that Loving v. Virginia is overturned and reliable sources have overwhelmingly focused on the bill's repeal of DOMA + requirement that states mutually recognize same-sex marriages if Obergefell is overturned. It seems WP: Undue to strike out DOMA while including a reference to interracial marriage in the lead.

I think its' fine to briefly mention it in the body. Thanks! KlayCax (talk) 05:22, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

• @KlayCax: - I find it funny that you took it to talk but reverted me immediately anyway. Here’s my rationale - DOMA is on same-sex marriages, and of course “expanded protections” on same-sex marriages is also on that. We don’t need two points for the same topic area. Interracial marriages are definitely also a key part of the bill, more worth mentioning than same-sex marriage essentially twice. Just because the Supreme Court won’t overturn Loving doesn’t mean interracial marriages are insignificant legislation. starship.paint (exalt) 06:31, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
• 1 CBS, 2 CNN, 3 CNBC, 4 ABC, 5 USA Today, 6 Politico, 7 NPR, 8 BBC, 9 VOA, 10 Axios, 11 Al Jazeera, 12 NBC, 13 Law360, 14 WaPo, 15 Bloomberg, 16 Fox News all mention interracial and same-sex in the first two paragraphs without mentioning DOMA in those paragraphs. starship.paint (exalt) 06:38, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

...and of course “expanded protections” on same-sex marriages is also on that. We don’t need two points for the same topic area DOMA being repealed protects it on a federal level. Requiring that other states recognize ones performed in the other 49 states de facto protects it (mostly) at a state level. That's why both are mentioned. (Although I'm fine with tweaking the wording.)

Interracial marriages are definitely also a key part of the bill It's a key part of the bill. But is it a key part of his time in office? It's obvious that the lasting impact and overwhelming majority of the disagreement over the bill focused on its impact on same-sex marriages. (Interracial marriage was only included at the last second.) WP:COMMONSENSE also applies here. Interracial marriage certainly isn't a key point of the legislation. As a political issue: it's been non-existent for decades. The overwhelming majority of Americans support it — regardless of sex/gender, race, income, et al. No one in fifty years is going to remember how he signed protections for interracial marriage. What will be notable in the long-term is how he signed a repeal of DOMA and established partial protections for same-sex marriage through the process of legislation. It strains credibility to think that the legislation's protection of interracial marriage is a notable aspect of the bill while its repeal of DOMA isn't.

Obergefell is manifestly under threat. Loving isn't. The "interracial" aspect of the bill is the equivalent of a bill surrounding abortion access (either for or against) also having "expand puppy shelters" in it. It's manifestly a political tactic. (e.g. "The other guy voted against a bill to fund puppy shelters!") Heck, I'm a advocate of social democracy (Democrats are too right-wing to me) and I understand it.

I'm not against something being in the body, @Starship.paint:. But it's WP: Undue - at least in my opinion - to include it in the lead. KlayCax (talk) 08:25, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

@KlayCax: - WP:UNDUE is based on prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. You're making crystal ball predictions, while I have actually provided 15 reliable sources, plus Fox News, who have prominently featured interracial marriages in the first two paragraphs, while not prominently doing the same for DOMA. If interracial marriages were truly WP:UNDUE, I would not be able to find so many reliable sources mentioning it so early in the article. starship.paint (exalt) 08:32, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

For reference, wording I recently included is: He signed the Respect for Marriage Act, which expanded protections for interracial and same-sex marriages. starship.paint (exalt) 09:54, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Good wording DFlhb (talk) 20:38, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

I STILL run into many people ranting and raving against interracial marriage. My own step-child has been threatened to be disowned by their birth parent if they ever date someone of another race. I know interracial couples who still deal with hateful stares, comments, and actions. They have a VERY real fear that their marriages could be endangered. Maybe it's better where you are, but it is definitely not a post-racial utopia where I live.--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 20:29, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

"I STILL run into many people ranting and raving against interracial marriage." I have been using the Internet since the late 1990s. I have often come across both written texts and online videos against interracial marriage, which were written by Americans. And I am not even living in America or searching for these specific terms. I even came across anti-miscegenation rants for fictional relationships, such as the ones depicted in the Asian Saga. America's obsession with racial hygiene has never ceased to amaze me. Dimadick (talk) 12:19, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

The new wording implies that inter-racial marriage is still an issue on a par with same sex marriage and is therefore misleading. I think also that we should mention that Biden voted in favor of DOMA, although it's mentioned later in the article. Dimadick, there are lots of extremists who post on the internet, don't consider it to be representative of mainstream political dialogue. While I am sure that many Americans oppose inter-racial marriage, few are prepared to argue for legislation to stop it. TFD (talk) 13:57, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

I changed it to "codified" because that's all it did, it didn't "expand" any protections because that implies it changed them. Bill Williams 18:30, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

None of the articles linked above by Starship use the word "expand" at the beginning while five of those links say "codifying" or "codified" and plenty more use descriptions of that, e.g. "cementing into law." Bill Williams 18:34, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Good changes. DFlhb (talk) 20:40, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Children

The page lists Naomi Biden as Joe Biden's child. She's his grandchild. Please correct. 209.150.255.193 (talk) 03:03, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

The living Naomi Biden is named for Biden's deceased daughter, Naomi. Did you read the article? Acroterion (talk) 03:06, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

I linked the Naomi in the infobox to Family of Joe Biden#Naomi "Amy" Biden to prevent confusion like this. Galagora (talk) 15:30, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Year division in Presidency

Now that we are entering the 3rd year of his presidency, should we continue to subdivide this section into 2021, 2022, and 2023 or is it time to group together policies and actions like domestic, foreign, early actions, etc like all other articles covering recent presidents? I think it is an easier way for viewers to read during his time as president and will group together similar content. Yeoutie (talk) 05:52, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Where is the information on what he has said

Where is the information on when he called African Americans super predators? Or the crime bill 86.190.190.158 (talk) 00:23, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

You gotta give sources. If there are already sources, though, they might be on a different article, such as a controversies article (is there even one?). LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 00:25, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Fact check: Hillary Clinton, not Joe Biden, used the term super predator in 1990s Facepalm – Muboshgu (talk) 00:29, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

As for the crime bill, it's literally in the second paragraph of the article opening, as well as in the body of the article. Just word search for "crime." --OuroborosCobra (talk) 00:32, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Beau under "Second Marriage"

"Beau Biden became an Army Judge Advocate in Iraq and later Delaware Attorney General"

He didn't become a military lawyer in Iraq. He became a lawyer in the Delaware Army National Guard and was later elected AG in Delaware. While AG, he deployed to Iraq as a military lawyer. OK so what's important to say? He was elected the Delaware Attorney General. Do we need to note his time in the Delaware NG, or his Iraq deployment?

I don't know, but the sentence as is doesn't make sense. I think we should say "Beau Biden was elected Delaware Attorney General, and also served in the Delaware Army National Guard as a lawyer." I'm not sure his deployment to Iraq is notable. SegmentedBookWorm (talk) 15:30, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Joe Biden's record of dishonesty

Politely cease bludgeoning and sealioning your baseless WP:SYNTH/WP:OTHERSTUFF/WP:FALSEBALANCE argument or you’re getting reported. Everyone here has been extremely patient but you are Wikipedia:REFUSINGTOGETIT Dronebogus (talk) 07:06, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

In 1987, Biden's presidential campaign collapsed after it was revealed that his entire account of his academic record was either embellished or completely made up. Around the same time, it came to light that Biden had faced credible accusations of plagiarism at university, and was caught repeatedly plagiarizing speeches from Hubert Humphrey, Robert F. Kenney, and Neil Kinnock. RS for these claims is [19]https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1987/09/22/biden-academic-claims-inaccurate/932eaeed-9071-47a1-aeac-c94a51b668e1/ In 2012, Biden participated in the vice-presidential debates. I remember watching these and being amazed at the ease with which falsehoods flowed from his lips with the utmost confidence. Here's an article from UC Santa Barbara's website that samples just 5 of them. [20]https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/press-release-bidens-top-five-lies-and-exaggerations-debate-night-edition During his tenure as vice-president, he claimed to have traveled over 17,000 miles by plane with Chinese leader Xi Jinping. This is false. [21]https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/02/19/bidens-repeated-claim-hes-traveled-17000-miles-with-xi-jinping/ In 2021, Biden claimed to have visited the Tree of Life synagogue, the site of a 2018 mass shooting. He was never there. https://www.cnn.com/2021/09/03/politics/fact-check-biden-tree-of-life-synagogue-visit/index.html In 2022, and possibly earlier, Biden lied multiple times and said that his son died in Iraq. This particular lie follows almost identically some of Santos' lies, like his lie that his mother died in the 9/11 attacks. [22]https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/president-joe-biden-falsely-claims-once-again-that-his-late-son-beau-passed-away-in-iraq/ar-AA13Eoxd In 2022, on multiple occasions, Biden claimed to have been arrested in South Africa while attempting to visit Nelson Mandela. There's no evidence for this "embellishment". RS: [23]https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/01/13/biden-claims-yet-another-arrest-which-theres-little-evidence/ These are just a few of the dishonest statements Biden has made that I can remember off the top of my head. There are many, many, others. Some are sneaky linguistic tricks and subtle manipulation of language, such that even though nothing he said *technically* met the definition of a lie, the listener comes away, by design, with a factually inaccurate understanding of the topic. If any of you out there are unfortunate enough to have had close dealings with a narcissist, you're familiar with manipulation that, while dishonest, doesn't *technically* meet the definition of a black-and-white lie. Biden's statements of this type are so numerous that I cannot possibly take the time to list them all. There are also clear-cut lies that he has told that have only been reported by outlets like the New York Post. Conveniently for pro-Democratic-party POV pushers, the NYP is listed as so unreliable that it cannot even be cited for factual information. Even when outlets like Bellingcat (a U.S. intelligence front) and outlets run by the CCP are listed as "reliable". Yikes. The articles are out there, the videos of Joe Biden uttering these lies are out there, along with fact-checks by relevant parties, but Wikipedia has created a policy that actually distorts reality and prevents us from including them, so I will not list them here. This is nowhere near an exhaustive list, like the one that has been undertaken at the Santos article. I have never claimed that Joe Biden fabricated his *entire* life story, or that his lies are "better" or "worse" than the lies of other politicians, like Trump or Santos. My claim is that Joe Biden has demonstrated, on many occasions over a period of decades, a willingness to lie when it serves him, and has, to paraphrase the Santos lead, "made numerous dubious and false claims about his biography, work history, and accomplishments in public". My position is that it's a blatant and shameful violation of NPOV to exclude this fact from his article, or to purposely bury it in an obscure corner of the article while presenting it as "embellishment" or "folklore", especially when articles about active American politicians who lie only slightly more than him dedicate massive walls of text to analyzing and dissecting every dubious statement ever made by that politician. The double standard is something I cannot ignore or hand-wave away with references to "due weight". Hopefully this further clarifies my position, which I'll admit, I could've made clearer in previous posts. Please discuss. Philomathes2357 (talk) 05:09, 12 January 2023 (UTC) Well, I'll throw out one thing, the 2012 "article from UC Santa Barbara's website" you cited is actually a press release from Mitt Romney, and none of those fact checks are fair fact checks but talking points, so I'm going to definitely challenge the reliability of that one. The Washington Post and CNN fact checks are totally fine as far as I can tell, but again, this stuff is minor in the scheme of things compared to the weight given to Santos and yes, we have to follow the weight that sources give even if it's unfair. So, I have no particular objection to the Wapo/CNN fact checks if they aren't already included somehow, but frankly, saying you met someone in person that you actually talked to on the phone, or saying he traveled X miles when it was actually much fewer, are nowhere near similar to completely fabricating your whole background and life story, and unless you have a source for "record of dishonesty," "due weight" does indeed apply. Andre🚐 05:30, 12 January 2023 (UTC) Can we shut this down already? By opening this thread Philomathes is trying to game their way around the fact that everyone just said they were done with this whole “Biden and his supposedly uniquely noteworthy record of dishonesty” deal. Dronebogus (talk) 06:08, 12 January 2023 (UTC) I totally agree. These games being played by Philomathes have become tiresome. The goal is clearly NOT improving the article. HiLo48 (talk) 07:00, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

George Santos, Joe Biden, and the words of politicians

Nobody except the opener is taking this seriously Dronebogus (talk) 07:09, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Joe Biden is known to have made numerous dubious or false claims about his biography. This is not in dispute. Some of these, but not all of them, are mentioned in this article, but I notice that they're buried in odd ways and would be easy to miss. In contrast, I've recently been keeping an eye on the George Santos article - George Santos, for those not up to speed, is a recently-inaugurated Republican congressman who stands credibly accused of embellishing or falsifying much of his life story. On his page, there is a section entitled "false biographical statements", which itself contains no less than 8 subsections. This section is placed earlier in the article than Santos' actual biography. The sub-sections details every lie, dubious claim, or inconsistent statement that George Santos has ever made. Many, many paragraphs are dedicated to unpacking Santos' false or dubious statements. I'm not suggesting that there is a direct 1-1 equivalence between Santos and Biden. However, they are both living, active politicians who have made numerous indisputably false statements about their personal history, and I believe BLPs about active American politicians should have some semblance of continuity. As I see it, we should either: 1) create a section on Joe Biden's article entitled "falsehoods", in which every known false or dubious statement he has made should be listed and sourced. I'm not here to pick on Joe Biden - the same should then be done on the page of every other active, living political figure who has lied on the record (and boy, oh boy, that's going to be a long list). That way, Wikipedia will *actually* be holding politicians to account, rather than narrowly focusing on the politicians that editors don't like. Or... 2) we should use Joe Biden's article as a general model on how to handle BLPs of habitually dishonest politicians. Yes, mention the deception and questionable statements, but don't make a big deal about it. Mention it in passing in an obscure paragraph. Don't have sections with names like "scandals" or "falsehoods", and refrain from using phrases like "Biden has made numerous dubious and false claims about his biography, work history, and financial status in public and private." - which is a copy/paste from a line in the Santos article, and could equally be applied to this article. This may be in line with the spirit of Wikipedia:Criticism. I think the Santos article is gaudy, and reads more like a hit job than an encyclopedic article. I think it needs to be cleaned up and written in a more professional and encyclopedic tone. On the other hand, I feel that the Joe Biden article misses the mark, too - if we Wikipedians have a duty to bring our readers the truth about confusing topics, we should be unequivocally clear that Joe Biden has repeatedly shown an ability to be deceptive - so much so that he dropped out of a presidential campaign because of it. My call to action: If you're more in line with option 1, let's get to work here on the talk page assembling such a list for future inclusion in a "falsehoods" or "controversies" subsection. If you're more in line with the idea that there should not be major emphasis placed on politicians' falsehoods in their Wiki articles...come to the George Santos page and help me to suggest ways of improving it, possibly using the Joe Biden article as a model. Thanks for reading and I look forward to the discussion that ensues. Philomathes2357 (talk) 03:14, 11 January 2023 (UTC) One of the major differences is that the Biden stuff is mostly from 30 years ago, and consists of subtle fudgery and standard-issue politician misstate/exaggeration, while the Santos stuff is egregious, to say the least. Furthermore there is absolutely not a requirement to treat these two articles the same. The Biden source record is going to be quite different than the Santos one, because Santos' main claim to fame is honestly, his extremely false background - while Biden is a sitting president. Frankly, it's just a poorly constructed proposal and a bit of a POINTy TEXTWALL. If you have a constructive change to make to the article, you may offer it, but I oppose the changes being proposed here. Andre🚐 03:23, 11 January 2023 (UTC) How many years ago the lies were uttered is immaterial to whether or not they were uttered, so that's irrelevant. As to whether or not Joe Biden's lies have been "subtle" or "standard" and Santos' have been "egregious" - that's your personal opinion, which conveniently illustrates my point. Your opinion, or my opinion, about how "bad" the lies are should not dictate whether or not those lies are noted. Your position, which seems to be "let's take every instance of a lying politician as an isolated case, and analyze it to determine if the lies are 'bad enough'" seems to me like a wide open door to introduce systemic political bias into the editing of political BLPs. The bottom line is this: Joe Biden and George Santos are both active American politicians. They have both, on numerous documented occasions, made statements about their biography that are clearly and wildly false. One article breathlessly documents every single lie, dubious remark or controversial comment ever made, while the other article basically doesn't address the issue at all. I am not proposing that both articles should be "the same". Of course, continuity and internal consistency are a noble aim, but 100% consistency is impossible. I am proposing that we have an open discussion as to why this glaring discrepancy exists, and how it can be constructively addressed. My view is this: either the George Santos article needs to be seriously reworked to be in line with Wikipedia:Criticism and NPOV policies, or this Joe Biden article should, at the absolute bare minimum, contain a "controversies" section that lists the fabrications and dubious statements Joe Biden is known to have made in public. If you think that the Santos article looks great and totally encyclopedic, but also think that a "controversies" or "falsehoods" section on the Biden article is inappropriate, you've got some explaining to do about how that's consistent with NPOV. Looking forward to further discussion. Philomathes2357 (talk) 03:47, 11 January 2023 (UTC) It was one thing that you were working to minimize the lying in Santos' biography, now you're comparing Biden to Santos? Your POV is showing. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:49, 11 January 2023 (UTC) Again, no, you are the one who seems to have a personal view on how bad or not bad the Santos thing is, but it's all that reliable sources are reporting, that it's quite significant, and we go by the weight in reliable sources. Santos has scarcely anything else about him. So, it's a classic false equivalence and when it was is also relevant, as the Santos stuff is happening currently while the Biden stuff is just a blip in a long career. Weight matters, time and recency do matter. Andre🚐 03:50, 11 January 2023 (UTC) Muboshgu, you should really be careful with statements like "your POV" is showing". Assuming bad faith is a violation of Wikipedia policy, and your comment adds nothing other than to attack me personally. Stop it. @Iamreallygoodatcheckers This is actually a really good point. However, I have one concern. You say "if Santos is still relevant in 50 years...you'd probably see that section shrink". That does not make sense to me. Adding more to his biography does not mean that the analysis of his falsehoods should be removed - unless they're later demonstrated to not be false. I would expect to see the article increase in size to include more biographical details, but I'd be confused and concerned if relevant, true content about his falsehoods was removed from the record. That implies that the article's current coverage of Santos' lies isn't about the validity or importance of the content per se, but is more about "padding" the article with fluff until more substantive information is available. That sounds like a bad idea. I still don't see a good argument against relative consistency in the articles of politicians who are known to have lied. It would make sense to me to tone down the Santos article and consolidate the falsehoods coverage into a section called "reputation" (following the lead of the Biden article). That seems to be in-line with the policies about NPOV and criticism on BLPs. It would also make sense to me to add a section to the Biden article entitled "falsehoods", "scandals", or something like this. What doesn't make sense to me is to hand-wave away the glaring inconsistency with subjective, arguable statements like "Santos' lies are worse" or "Biden's lies happened a long time ago". @Iamreallygoodatcheckers, you seem pretty level-headed, and you articulated your position well, so I'd really like to hear more of your thoughts on what I have written in this comment. Thanks. Philomathes2357 (talk) 04:22, 11 January 2023 (UTC) Iamreallygoodatcheckers and I and Muboshgu all told you the same thing: the articles shouldn't have the same weight for the issue based on reliable sources. That is the policy and the guideline. Andre🚐 04:24, 11 January 2023 (UTC) Thanks Andre. Last time you jumped in to a controversial discussion, you also disagreed with me, making similar arguments about weight and reliable sources, and it turned out that I was able to build a consensus around my position once I was able to articulate it clearly enough and address some concerns. So, you'll have to forgive me, but I'm not going to take your opinions about policy *as* policy, and I'm going to keep looking at this and talking about it until I have a much stronger understanding of how editors tackle the issue of dishonest politicians. Philomathes2357 (talk) 04:39, 11 January 2023 (UTC) I've never claimed to be an oracle or an authority and I'm not right all or even an absolutely majority of the time, but saying "I'm going to ignore what you and another user and an admin are all saying because you were wrong last time" is a stunningly bad argument even by these standards. Andre🚐 04:45, 11 January 2023 (UTC) That's obviously a strawman of my argument, so I think it's best that we drop it. Thanks for sharing your opinion with me. Philomathes2357 (talk) 04:48, 11 January 2023 (UTC) We already mention Biden's tendency to exaggerate his accomplishments; it's in the reputation section and covers the main bullshit and falsehood he's espoused to bolster his image. Philomathes2357, the reason that Santos's bio covers it more is a matter of WP:WEIGHT. A good amount, perhaps even a majority, of the RS coverage of Santos has been about his falsehoods uttered and fabricated resume; therefore, a good amount of his bio on Wikipedia should follow suit. This may because Santos is a freshman congressman who has not had 50 years of RS attention like Biden. If Santos is still relevant in 50 years, climbed up as Senator, Chairman of several committees, and president, you'd probably see that section shrink as he was covered for other things. The same principle can explain why Biden's lies are just a small portion of his biographic summary. Iamreallygoodatcheckerst@lk 04:12, 11 January 2023 (UTC) Everyone who has ever lived has lied (present company excluded, of course). Politicians' lies are more conspicuous because they're in the public spotlight. So the question for me is how frequent and material the lies are. Biden has been in the public spotlight for 50 years and he's well known for eye-rolling gaffes but his lies have never been seen as pathological on the scale of Santos or of another guy that springs to mind who justifiably has an entire article dedicated to his mendacity. It's not a defining characteristic. It's not worthy of its own section. soibangla (talk) 04:30, 11 January 2023 (UTC) This section was hatted, and I disagree with that, but we need to make sure that we stay on topic. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 05:09, 11 January 2023 (UTC) I agreed with it, I think Philomathes is WP:SEALIONING and bringing up George Santos from the beginning is off topic. Drop the WP:OTHERSTUFF arguments. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:18, 11 January 2023 (UTC) I support the hatting and the sealioning characterization. I will further note that I was going to go check out the user's talk page and I noticed they are currently defending the presence of an egregious BLP violation there. We should stay on topic indeed but I will submit that there isn't a topic per se worth discussing if the topic is: "Santos v Biden????" Andre🚐 05:26, 11 January 2023 (UTC) It's nice to see that the principle of assuming good faith is alive and well. I was - rightly - chastised for neglecting this principle in the past, but I can't help but notice that assuming good faith doesn't seem to be required of other editors. This isn't a "Santos v Biden????" discussion. You've missed the point. I'm not here to compare the two or philosophize about what makes a lie "bad" or "small potatoes" or what makes a liar "pathological" This is about Joe Biden, and tangentially about George Santos, but at the highest level, it's about neither of them. What this is is an attempt to engage is a larger discussion about how the lies of politicians are covered on Wikipedia. Joe Biden's talk page seemed like a fine place to start that conversation, for at least three reasons: 1) his most publicized lies are similar to those of Santos (embellishment & falsification of biography). I know it is controversial to equate the two, but here is what I mean: when placed in contrast with other political lies - like "we have proof the 2020 election was stolen" or "Saddam Hussein has WMDs", - Santos' and Biden's lies are similar in that they are relatively mild and harmless by comparison, but still clearly and inarguably lies. 2) Both Biden's and Santos' lies have been referenced by RS, 3) The way Santos' lies and Biden's lies are covered in their articles is wildly different, not just in substance, but in tone. The only references to Joe Biden's lies are buried deep in the body of his article, and use euphemistic words like "embellishment" and "folklore", whereas Santos' article bluntly states in the lead "Santos has made numerous dubious and false claims about his biography...". The same statement could justifiably be included in Joe Biden's article, even if you correctly observe that Santos has uttered more documented lies than Biden in the recent past. Clearly, there's a discrepancy here, and none of the appeals to "due weight" and "reliable sources" feel like they address the meat of the point I'm making. I think we're dealing with a NPOV issue here. Hopefully this clarifies my position somewhat. If you still think I'm operating in bad faith, that's fine, but I work and also run a 10 acre homestead, so I don't really have time for "trolling". I'm just an autistic guy with a personal and professional passion for politics. I will return to this tomorrow. Philomathes2357 (talk) 06:02, 11 January 2023 (UTC) Biden's embellishment, as mentioned is already in the article. It's not a prominent section of his biography but it is there. Santos' outright fabrication and utter falsification goes beyond simple embellishment. It's a fact pattern in all reliable sources. What it comes down to is that you have to come to the table with reliable sources. Reliable sources about Biden: Mr. Biden’s instances of exaggeration and falsehood fall far well short of those of his predecessor, who during four years in office delivered what the Washington Post fact checker called a “tsunami of untruths” and CNN described as a “staggering avalanche of daily wrongness.”... Mr. Biden’s fictions are nowhere near that scale.[24] Santos has admitted to lying about his bio and resume and there's a lengthy list of additional lies: that he was Jewish, when he isn't, that his family came from the Ukraine when they did not, they were Brazilian Catholics and from elsewhere in Europe. Among other things like that he had worked at multiple financial institutions where he didn't work. [25] It's no where near comparable so it's just not a good place to start the discussion. A better point would be some concrete improvements to the description of the Biden 1987 campaign based on reliable sources. Andre🚐 06:13, 11 January 2023 (UTC) @Philomathes2357 Rest assured, I don't believe that you are operating in bad faith. But I do disagree with you on this. At least this discussion can be had. There's no harm in a dialogue with different perspectives on how we should handle a notable and polarizing figure's biography. SecretName101 (talk) 20:19, 11 January 2023 (UTC) I appreciate you disagreeing with me in a respectful manner and acknowledging that there's literally no downside to having a dialogue about how to handle controversial and polarizing issues on Wikipedia. Cheers. Philomathes2357 (talk) 21:42, 11 January 2023 (UTC) I motion to speedy close the thread: there is nothing to discuss. Wikipedia is not a free speech platform. Andre🚐 05:41, 11 January 2023 (UTC) Second that. The whole premise is based on “other crap exists” and is totally leading in its comparison of two arbitrarily chosen articles. Dronebogus (talk) 05:42, 11 January 2023 (UTC) Can you expand on your point that the premise is "leading"? Philomathes2357 (talk) 06:04, 11 January 2023 (UTC) It’s inherently non neutral that you made such a random comparison at all. It would make sense for consistency between Biden and Obama or Trump, but Biden and some random congressman or whatever he even is? Pure WP:OTHERSTUFF Dronebogus (talk) 07:54, 11 January 2023 (UTC) Agree. Santos invented a completely different persona. The reason this is prominent in his article is that it’s pretty much all we know about him. Biden has been in the public eye for a half century. This is comparing apples and planets. O3000, Ret. (talk) 13:02, 11 January 2023 (UTC) Santos doesn't really have much other notability other than being the congressman who was elected after a camapign filled with fabrications. Whereas Biden has a long career to discuss. I think this is not a WP:DUE issue at all. SecretName101 (talk) 20:17, 11 January 2023 (UTC) Both Trump and Biden have told lies in their day... but none as monstrous as "my Ukrainian-Jewish ancestors fled the Nazis to Belgium then to Brazil but I'm also half African-American by way of Angola and I was one of the first COVID-19 cases in America". Be serious. Trillfendi (talk) 21:56, 11 January 2023 (UTC) I don't know, I'm pretty sure Trump did lie when he said that he had proof that the 2020 election was stolen, because that proof has yet to be produced. I would argue that lie is more "monstrous" than anything Biden or Santos have lied about. This is what I mean when I say Biden and Santos are similar - Biden's and Santos' lies fall into the category of personal aggrandizement, whereas Trump's "big lie" directly led to serious real-world harm, just like the lies of Colin Powell and others who claimed that Iraq had WMDs. Philomathes2357 (talk) 05:13, 12 January 2023 (UTC) That’s like saying whales and fish are the same because they live in the ocean. Dronebogus (talk) 06:01, 12 January 2023 (UTC) Its been asked, its been answered its clear there is no wp:consensus for this addition. change, motion to close. Slatersteven (talk) 13:09, 11 January 2023 (UTC) I think I've made a mistake here. The discussion seems to have been derailed into a "let's compare Joe Biden and George Santos" thread. That is not the intention. I also made the mistake of assuming that the editors and commenters here have a generally high level of knowledge about Joe Biden, as well as a broad understanding of American political history and discourse. While I don't think anyone here is commenting in bad faith, many of the comments betray the fact that I should not assume such knowledge. If this were a talk page about a high-level question in theoretical astrophysics, I could safely assume that the people chiming in would have a strong understanding of theoretical astrophysics, otherwise they wouldn't have anything worthwhile to say. Unfortunately, in politics and social sciences, I cannot make that assumption, so misinformation, silly takes, and poorly-considered arguments get mixed in with genuine insights in a way that's difficult for most people to parse. The only reason I used George Santos as a point of comparison to Joe Biden is because the substance and pattern of their lies is remarkably similar. Sorry to burst your bubble, folks - they aren't "the same", but they are very, very similar. The comparison is so striking, to me and other political professionals with whom I've discussed this, that I thought it was self-evident and didn't bother to explain it. Clearly, it's not self-evident to people who aren't as "in the thick of things" as I am. I think we should take a step back and discuss Joe Biden's dishonest statements. Later, when I have the time, I will compile a list of known falsehoods, dubious remarks, and questionable statements that Joe Biden has made and that have been documented in RS. I think this would be helpful as it's clear to me that many commenters here are simply ignorant of the facts. Maybe a clear discussion of Joe Biden's record of dishonesty can get us over the hump of this "Biden v Santos" red herring, and we can really get to the meat of what I'm talking about here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Philomathes2357 (talk • contribs) 21:40, 11 January 2023 (UTC) @Philomathes2357 there is not that high a level of similarity. Biden has made up some weird stories, like the whole Mandela fabrication, but he never falsified nearly every last aspect of his personal biography. SecretName101 (talk) 21:46, 11 January 2023 (UTC) I’m failing to see evidence that Biden completely falsified his entire biography as Santos did. You’re simply asserting you’re smarter and know better, and we should believe you. Dronebogus (talk) 21:46, 11 January 2023 (UTC) And the same comparison can be made for Trump, who has said things about his own bio that are nonsensical or gross exaggerations. It’s non-encyclopedic to compile a listicle of claims like that for either him or Biden. SecretName101 (talk) 21:50, 11 January 2023 (UTC) Agree, Wikipedia isn’t the free whataboutism encyclopedia. Dronebogus (talk) 21:51, 11 January 2023 (UTC) I consider myself to have an above-average knowledge of politics and American history, maybe not for Wikipedia but for the world at large. I was aware of Biden's 1987 plagiarism issue. Again, you seem to be ignoring that we need to reflect weight. Yes, there are some parallels between Biden making up some lies in 1987 about his life story that turned out not to be true. But that is a big stretch to get to "very, very similar" to Santos. Again, if you want to make a constructive improvement to the 1987 stuff, it is already covered in the article, but there's no evidence for a falsehood section. It's a small part of his career. Andre🚐 22:14, 11 January 2023 (UTC) This thread has become a long series of multiple back-and-forth conversations between numerous people, such that it's hard to read and follow. So instead of adding another large post to it that will inevitably generate new comments and discussions, I've opened a new section, which reframes the issue at hand to focus squarely on Joe Biden, since we're on his talk page. Philomathes2357 (talk) 05:16, 12 January 2023 (UTC) You are bludgeoning the argument at this point. Opening a new thread about the same exact topic to get the desired result after literally everyone repudiated you is textbook WP:IDHT Dronebogus (talk) 06:04, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Biden documents matter

@Mathglot has removed mention of the recent news related to government documents found in the office used by Biden following his vice4 presidency, citing WP:RECENTISM, WP:DUE, and WP:SUSTAINED. I disagree with this. I believe that it is already apparent that this is not a passing story, and will be well-discussed over the coming months. I feel it is going to add to a perception that there is problematic bias on this project if we simply whitewash the matter off of Biden's bio.

Any other opinions? SecretName101 (talk) 20:15, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

We have to evaluate this story outside of the context of the Trump document story, and not worry about a perception that there is problematic bias. I think the inclusion is appropriate, but would like to hear other opinions. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:19, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

I definitely agree. No whataboutism-style comparison nor any false equivalence to Trump's matter should be made. For context, it might be a notable aspect, ultimately, to note that coverage of the stories by the press and reactions by politicians drew contrasts and comparison between them. However, otherwise, it should be treated as a completely isolated matter and a detailed comparison certainly would not have a place in this article. Maybe briefly if the matter is spun-off at a later date, but not in the main biography. SecretName101 (talk) 20:24, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

It most likely should be added. I'm always in favor of WP:NODEADLINE and would like more info first, but won't argue about it. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:43, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

I edit rarely at this article, and I well realize both the political sensitivities, as well as the DS sanctions on this article, so I wouldn't be surprised if some editors might suspect my motivation with that edit, as this article must be riddled with POV-based edits all the time. If it reassures anyone, I have no ulterior motivations, and would be happy to be the first to put the material back into the article, as soon as it's clear that it passes the WP:NOTNEWS threshold, as well as the others mentioned; or even if it doesn't, but it passes consensus of editors here that it ought to be in the article. Let me know (I'm subscribed; no need to ping). I'll follow this discussion with interest. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 20:45, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Just adding a bit more detail about what my concern wrt WP:DUE is: the removed section was comparable in size (85% as large, by words/bytes of running text on the rendered page, excluding citation words) as the paragraph about Biden's involvement in the 1991 judiciary committee hearings about Clarence Thomas's nomination to the Supreme Court which has its own subarticle, Clarence Thomas Supreme Court nomination, which is of historical importance and was a turning point in how Supreme Court nominee hearings are conducted. Does the removed content about the classified documents have about the same level of importance as this? It's too early to tell, but probably not. We'll know as time goes on, but what may very well happen, is that this will become part of the numerous investigations promised by the new Speaker, and may end up being more appropriate and not UNDUE in a forthcoming article on Investigations by the 117th U.S. Congress or whatever it ends up being called. Mathglot (talk) 21:27, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

I kind of agree with Mathglot on this one. It is premature to assume this will be a significant story. Presidency of Joe Biden might be a better place to start. Andre🚐 22:16, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

This likely needs to be included and passes the WP:10YEARTEST. The president is literally being investigated by the DOJ. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 03:18, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Being investigated for something, even if true, is not evidence of being guilty of anything. HiLo48 (talk) 03:32, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

I have not asserted that an investigation = guilt. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 07:00, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

The fact the documents were there is being investigated. I don't know that this means Biden is being investigated. O3000, Ret. (talk) 13:43, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

A question, do any RS say he removed the documents and stored them at his house? Slatersteven (talk) 11:35, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

They found some documents at his house. So yes. [26] Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 16:08, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

That makes it more significant, I think we can say some documents were found at his home. Slatersteven (talk) 16:10, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's determined at this point. We don't know who put the docs anywhere. He has aides. soibangla (talk) 17:30, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

That does not mean they were not found at his home. Slatersteven (talk) 17:49, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes I am aware of that. soibangla (talk) 17:50, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Since a special counsel has now been appointed to investigate, this is DUE for a mention in the bio. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:54, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Agreed; either here, or as Andrevan mentioned, in the Presidency article. I don't have an opinion on which is better. Mathglot (talk) 20:42, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

If this were about Trump's documents, would it be included on the Donald Trump page? Above all, let's be sure we're treating both US presidents' BLPs, equally. GoodDay (talk) 18:10, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

To be honest I assumed it was, as it is a pretty big issue directly related the Trump. Slatersteven (talk) 18:12, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

precision in discussion

Fellows, this strikes me as an example of discussion that can easily be improved with a little care:

• Question do any RS say he removed the documents and stored them at his house?
• Response They found some documents at his house.

But that was not the question. The question was did Joe Biden remove documents... Discussions can't converge unless we're careful to focus on the specific points of concern. Thanks to all. SPECIFICO talk 18:00, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Still, there appear to be significant differences between the two: Mr. Trump resisted months of efforts by the National Archives to retrieve the documents and then failed to comply with a subpoena for them. By contrast, Mr. Biden’s team have said that since the discovery of the papers, it has been “fully cooperating with the National Archives and the Department of Justice.”[27] Andre🚐 18:23, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Then there are the funny parts: Trump requested the docs be returned to him stating they were his, stated he had declassified them, sued the Justice Department, claimed he's being persecuted for political reasons. Then went on the road decrying the invasion of his home. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:40, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Start Biden docs article now

This Biden documents saga/scandal needs to be covered. They have been discovered, and reported, by his aides in three different places.

Yes, there are huge differences between this case and Trump’s deliberate theft and repeated hiding, moving, and lying about his case, but that just makes it more imperative we need to stop waiting and cover it now, not later. We are well past my 2-day, constant-coverage-in-all-reliable-sources test. Our delay now looks to all the world like left-wing wikilawyering (fuck the 10-year test), partisan protectionism/censorship to protect Biden. We do not do that here. The cases have huge differences that need to be documented.

So, let's get off our asses and start a dedicated article about this. RS are already describing the differences, and when analysis articles are being written, we're far beyond NOTNEWS territory. The notability threshold was reached the first day this started, so we no longer have any excuses. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:39, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

• Garland names special counsel to look into Biden's classified documents -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:49, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

It was included here within hours of being reported, later reverted. Now we need Hur special counsel investigation. soibangla (talk) 18:52, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

I created a two-sentence stub. Have at it. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:07, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:34, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

50 year political career

I'm not seeing the issue about why every time I mention the fact Biden has held political office for 50 years, it gets removed.

It isn't trivial when anybody does anything for half a century, much less hold political office

Outside of 2017-2021, Biden has held some form of office (County Councilman/Senator/VP/POTUS) since 1971.

Not something done every day

So if there's a logical reason why it shouldn't be in the article, I'd like to hear it.

Vjmlhds (talk) 05:02, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

One problem is that it's redundant. The existing lead already describes Biden's political roles, beginning in 1970. It is clear to anyone who reads it that he has been in politics for a long time and was in the Senate for a long time. There's no need to highlight the information again. The lead also describes him as oldest President in US history. It's also just unimportant compared to the rest of the lead. Given that reasonable detail about his specific roles is already in there, why would we use up valuable space in the lead on a fairly bland bit of information? —Ganesha811 (talk) 14:26, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

It's a context thing - wraps everything up into a nice neat package. Now if the first paragraph could be tweaked a bit, that would help, but for some reason that has a "thou shall not touch" warning on it. If it read something like this: "Joseph Robinette Biden Jr. (born November 20, 1942) is an American politician who is the 46th and current president of the United States. A member of the Democratic Party, Biden has held political office for over 50 years, serving as a New Castle County Councilman from 1971 to 1973, seven terms in the United States Senate from 1973 to 2009, two terms as the 47th vice president from 2009 to 2017 under President Barack Obama, and as president since January 20, 2021." , I think that would work Vjmlhds (talk) 14:51, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Taiwan

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

This is my proposal:

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

References

This is the current prose:

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

References

Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 03:08, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

No problems with your proposal & so support the change. GoodDay (talk) 03:17, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Don't put it in the article without consensus here. Please self-revert. What do you think you are accomplishing by needlessly placing it in the article when your talk page thread demonstrates you know it will be disputed and needs discussion? SPECIFICO talk 16:44, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't see any issues. Be BOLD and make the change. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:45, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Looks alright, I would support the change unless no consensus is shown. ☭MasterWolf-Æthelwulf☭ (=^._.^= ∫) 14:23, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Master, you would need to provide an affirmative argument for inclusion, citing Wikipedia policy and the WP:WEIGHT of reliable sources relative to the life and events of Biden. Those are the issues that would qualify any text for inclusion in a biography. "Looks alright" is a casual reaction without providing any rationale. SPECIFICO talk 15:46, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Understandable, go ahead and delete my comment, staying neutral. ☭MasterWolf-Æthelwulf☭ (=^._.^= ∫) 16:36, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Strongly support this change. The previous paraphrase was not competent: Biden never proposed a contrast between his Ukraine and Taiwan policies; the only one in that interview who ever mentioned Ukraine was Pelley, the interviewer, and he did so in passing. It was not the focus of his question.

Further, any description of Biden's statements on Taiwan that doesn't mention the words "strategic ambiguity" is missing the point altogether. The U.S. government's official position is that it will not say whether it would intervene militarily. Biden explicitly said he would support, and his aides repeatedly restated that the U.S. did not take an official position. Biden's statements are noteworthy precisely because they signal a shift in U.S. policy towards Taiwan (a kind of "double ambiguity", I suppose, though I just made that term up). That it has been walked back "repeatedly" (not "repetitively"!) is an accurate paraphrase of practically all sources on this. That assessment is also shared by at least a foreign policy scholars, whose reliability I'm not vouching for, but have no reason to doubt.[28][29]

I have no problem with how boldly this was implemented, due to how poor the previous version was at actually reflecting what most sources said. DFlhb (talk) 18:59, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Gaffe sentence

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

References

Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 01:23, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Does this talk to his lifelong stutter, already mentioned? We must make certain we don't conflate a disability with a word like gaffe. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:30, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

I mean, yeah. I agree with Iamreallygoodatcheckers on this one. Biden is well-known for a gaffe. The idea of a gaffe almost seems quaint nowadays but it used to meant a bit of a mealy-mouthed harmless slip of the tongue, of the type Biden was known for: basically a faux pas but nothing serious. Andre🚐 01:39, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Andre, "gaffe" was already in the paragraph, just not at the beginning. The more general easily understood "loquacious" was at the beginning. SPECIFICO talk 02:09, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Loquacious doesn't really mean gaffe, it just means Biden is talkative and tends to go on a bit. Which he does, he's a long-winded man. That's not a bad thing or a good thing but he does like to talk for a long time, as many Senators do. If you don't like to speak for a long period of time, you shouldn't go into the U.S. Senate. But anyway, I know gaffe has a bit of a negative connotation but to Iamreallygoodatcheckers point, it is really widely used in RS to describe him. Andre🚐 02:55, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Andre, sorry to repeat, but gaffe was already in the lonstanding text. Nobody is suggesting we remove it. But nobody has shown why it should be elevated up top before the general fact that Joe often extemporizes and talks too much.

• Support - the proposed addition to the page. GoodDay (talk) 01:44, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
• Convince me - Non-American here. Can anyone convince me this is anything more than an attempt by his political opponents to paint Biden in a bad light? HiLo48 (talk) 02:10, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

I too am a non-American & I'm not a political opponent of the president. The word "Gaffe"? I'm familiar with. The word "Loquacious"? I've never heard of, until this very day. GoodDay (talk) 02:28, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

"Gaffe" seems to me to be tabloid language or slang. Not encyclopaedic. It's always used to denigrate someone. I have seen "loquacious", but would dream of trying to use it. HiLo48 (talk) 02:37, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

The term gaffe is frequently used to describe his misspeaks in RS. [30][31][32][33][34][35]... I can do this all day. With all due respect, I believe the characterization that it's tabloid language is misguided. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 02:48, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Is it ever NOT intended as a negative? HiLo48 (talk) 03:11, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Well, that's not exactly relevant. WP:NPOV doesn't mean we can't mention things that can be perceived as negative. Actively avoiding content perceived to be "negative" despite being covered in RS would violate NPOV. We wouldn't do that for Biden or anyone else. Biden's gaffes are probably never a good thing, but I'm sure there are many who see it as insignificant or are generally neutral to it. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 03:26, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

NPOV does not mean that any bit of sourced content can be put in article text, particularly -- in this case -- with your edit summary that it summarizes the topic of the entire paragraph. Please see WP:ONUS and WP:WEIGHT and demonstrate that your proposed and now reinserted text better represents the core of mainstream narratives than the longstanding text. Please respond to the issue on the table rather than simply repeating the obvious or declaring that it's sourced. Due weight is accurately reflected by its longstanding placement further into the paragraph. What you called a "topic sentence" -- as if it were the central issue -- only seems to reflect coverage by Fox Media, its cable personalities, and assorted blogsters. Yes it's mentioned in the mainstream media and discource, but not as the overriding characterization of his tendency sometimes to talk too much and ramble. SPECIFICO talk 03:42, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

I haven't mentioned Fox media at all. Also I don't know where you are getting this assertion that Biden talking a lot is more significant than his gaffes. Most politicians talk a lot. As Andre said, he was a senator and that's what senators do. I'm going to provide you with many quotes from RS that support the sentence proposed:

• Guardian Throughout Joe Biden's decades-long career, he has cultivated a reputation of being gaffe-prone, often stumbling on his words...
• WaPo 2019 Joe Biden’s verbal miscues have always been part of his charm, baked into his reputation as a plain-spoken politician...
• AP Biden is tactile, gregarious and gaffe prone
• NYT 2022 For many years, under the definition of “gaffe” in the Washington political dictionary was a picture of Mr. Biden. “Gaffe machine,” in fact, was a common description, sometimes said with affection, sometimes with derision.
• NYT 2019 They plan to implicitly knock down any suggestion that his gaffes reveal a candidate past his prime by suggesting that his cringe-inducing comments are nothing new and that voters are already used to his propensity for misspeaking.
• NYT 2008 A day on the campaign trail without some cringe-inducing gaffe is a rare blessing.
• US News 2022 Biden has never been regarded as a smooth talker, and his gaffes have become a meme-launching part of his political persona
• CBS 2019 The string of summer slip-ups would seem to reinforce Biden's gaffe-prone reputation

This is nothing new with Biden and has been a feature in his long career in politics. His gaffe-prone nature is absolutely the mainstream narrative and has been extensively covered as I've demonstrated to you. It's not just verifiable; it's due weight. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 04:15, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

This is a puzzling argument tbh, since Iamreallygoodatcheckers did not use any links from Fox. I presume you know how I feel about Fox. Andre🚐 04:34, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, only OP is arguing about Fox, as if anyone claimed they'd cited it. That ignores the central point that I have repeatedly stated. Have you read the 2019 Guardian article OP used to source their "topic sentece" in Wikivoice? The source is lame. As to Fox et al -- it is instructive, if you google Biden gaffe, to see how meager are the results and how they confirm the elevation of "gaffe" largely by Joe's partisan detractors. SPECIFICO talk 04:54, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

I think it's possible to mention his reputation without necessarily using the word gaffe. I know including this would likely violates several points of policy, but having known people from DC who know and respect Biden, "He's an incredibly smart, compassionate man who tends to put his foot in his mouth" was a pretty common characterization before his presidency.

There is a tendency for presidential candidates to suddenly be lionized and whitewashed -- remember Trump's ten thousand successful businesses, or Clinton's tireless spotless record of public service? -- and it's important that we be honest with ourselves and not fall victim to that. 129.137.96.12 (talk) 14:08, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

• My edit summary when I restored the longstanding text:

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

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

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

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

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

• Support placement in 3rd sentence. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:41, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
• Proposed compromise is acceptable. GoodDay (talk) 16:45, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

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

Racially insensitive bit

No consensus for proposal. GoodDay (talk) 20:23, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
As I explained above, I removed the weaselly text about "racially insensitive" gaffes from the end of that paragraph. It has now been restored. This is UNDUE and received brief coverage in the news media before dying out. His gaffes are all over the place. One could just as well say he is insensistive to deceased members of congress, various southern hemisphere nations, dozens of US cities and states, etc. etc. That sentence should be removed. SPECIFICO talk 17:52, 26 January 2023 (UTC) I am cool with this Andre🚐 20:17, 26 January 2023 (UTC) It is one appropriate sentence with sourcing from NYT, AP, NBC News, and Variety, all top tier RS. If anything it could be expanded given the sources noting just how long the issue has been going on. Mr Ernie (talk) 21:03, 26 January 2023 (UTC) No objections to expanding the sentence. GoodDay (talk) 02:13, 28 January 2023 (UTC) Oppose expansion. It is not a significant event in his biographical life. A brief mention might be merited but I also think it should not be overstated. Biden has made a lot of gaffes of all kinds and there isn't a specificity or a specialness to the racial aspect. Andre🚐 02:33, 28 January 2023 (UTC) @GoodDay: "no objections" is a null contribution. Advocates for inclusion of any content have the ONUS to provide reasoned arguments in favor, not mere statements of opinion, and not mere citations for the content. SPECIFICO talk 14:23, 28 January 2023 (UTC) Longstanding text has consensus for inclusion. If you try to remove it and it gets reverted you need to gain a new consensus that it should be removed. You have not done that here so your re-insertion is improper. Since it has been challenged, please gain a consensus for the change. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:56, 30 January 2023 (UTC) @FormalDude, your edit summary and reversion rationale are incorrect. Longstanding text has consensus to be included. It was boldly removed, I reverted it, and now we are discussing. Until a new consensus is reached the old / status quo version should stand. Please reinstate the content. WP:ONUS refers to verifiability. The way you are using it would mean that someone could remove any long standing text and then insist a new consensus must be formed to re-insert. That would mean we would have launch an RFC to reaffirm longstanding text which would be a big waste of editor time. The better use of the word onus in this situation is that the onus is on editors who dispute consensus text to form a new consensus. The official policy is "When discussions of proposals to add, modify, or remove material in articles end without consensus, the common result is to retain the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit." Mr Ernie (talk) 15:52, 1 February 2023 (UTC) Mr Ernie is right on this point. Andre🚐 15:56, 1 February 2023 (UTC) Agreed, FormalDude's revert should be undone. GoodDay (talk) 16:04, 1 February 2023 (UTC) @Muboshgu you are using onus incorrectly in your reversion edit summary too. The correct policy is WP:NOCON. Your interpretation would give any editor license to remove long standing, consensus text and then stand on ONUS to block it from being reinserted. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:36, 1 February 2023 (UTC) That would be quite a desirable thing. When there's no consensus on something, why would we want it in a BLP? DFlhb (talk) 19:48, 1 February 2023 (UTC) No, if anything, the correct policy is WP:BLPREMOVE, as editors are challenging the interpretation of sources used, and this is a BLP. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:48, 1 February 2023 (UTC) You do see in WP:NOCON that it says In discussions related to living people, a lack of consensus often results in the removal of the contentious matter, regardless of whether the proposal was to add, modify, or remove it, right? – Muboshgu (talk) 19:50, 1 February 2023 (UTC) Key word there being often. It's not absolute. See my comment below on how "contentious matter" is discussed in WP:BLP. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 20:48, 1 February 2023 (UTC) What is the BLP concern exactly? I'm not understanding why that would be an issue. There are scores of sources devoted to Biden's racial gaffes. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:59, 1 February 2023 (UTC) @Muboshgu: & @FormalDude:, would you please take part in the discussion, if you're going to revert others. GoodDay (talk) 16:45, 1 February 2023 (UTC) "Racially insensitive" would need pretty rock-solid sourcing. I did a source survey. Sides, Tausanovitch, Vavreck (all political scientists), published in Princeton University Press, 2022: Beyond these positions, there were Biden's racially insensitive gaffes, such as his warm reminiscences about working with segregationanist senators. Levingston (WaPo writer), Dyson (academic, minister, all-around cool guy), published by Hachette, 2019: calls Biden a "plainspoken politico" (I like that). About "articulate and bright and clean": quotes Richard Ben Cramer (political writer), and Jesse Jackson (you know him), who defend Biden's remarks as gauche but well-intentioned Mills and Rosefielde (professors), published by World Scientific (academic publisher), 2022. About "you're not black": Says Biden was widely criticized, but that Biden being a racist is almost certainly untrue. And now for the less-reliable ones: Dinesh D'Souza (I'm being cheeky now), 2011. About "articulate and bright and clean": Biden's point wasn't racist Robin DiAngelo ("affiliate associate professor"), published by Penguin, 2021. About Biden criticizing modern Republicans, by saying that even Senate segregationists were more open to dialogue: says Biden did not demonstrate any skill in navigating cross-racial dynamics We really don't meet the bar for inclusion, unless people can present better sources than what's here, or in the article. I oppose reinstatement. DFlhb (talk) 17:04, 1 February 2023 (UTC) I think that this is a solid argument. Andre🚐 17:11, 1 February 2023 (UTC) Note that I looked at books only, nothing else. DFlhb (talk) 17:16, 1 February 2023 (UTC) When a contentious statement in a BLP is challenged, the onus to achieve consensus is on those seeking to include the text. The text should stay out absent a consensus to include it. ––FormalDude (talk) 17:10, 1 February 2023 (UTC) Indeed. We need consensus for inclusion. Status-quo is an essay, which we shouldn't apply to BLPs when there is nothing but implicit consensus for inclusion. Implicit consensus is immediately invalidated when someone deletes it, and that is policy. DFlhb (talk) 17:14, 1 February 2023 (UTC) WP:CRYBLP is a weak claim for sourced content that has been in the article for a year and a half. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:06, 1 February 2023 (UTC) WP:ONUS is rather brief, and is written with the focus on scenarios where disputed contend is being added. I think the more applicable policies here can be found in WP:NOCON and WP:BLPREMOVE, supported by the essay WP:STATUSQUO. NOCON: "When discussions of proposals to... remove material in articles end without consensus, the common result is to retain the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit. However: in discussions related to living people, a lack of consensus often results in the removal of the contentious matter..." BLPREMOVE: "Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that: is unsourced or poorly sourced; is an original interpretation or analysis of a source, or a synthesis of sources (see also Wikipedia:No original research); relies on self-published sources, unless written by the subject of the BLP (see § Using the subject as a self-published source, above); or relies on sources that fail in some other way to meet verifiability standards. Most all mentions of "contentious material" in this policy are followed with the qualification "...that are unsourced or poorly sourced" relevant portion of STATUSQUO: "To eliminate the risk of an edit war, do not revert away from the status quo ante bellum during a dispute discussion. Exceptions to this recommendation include the following: Living persons – Always remove unsourced and poorly sourced contentious material. If you are having a dispute about whether to include it, the material is automatically contentious." If contentious BLP material is well-sourced, a good-faith dispute that ends in no consensus isn't grounds alone for removal. ... that said, I'm not sure the current sourcing is adequate in this case. Of the 4 sources, only NBC refers to the remarks as "racially insensitive"; VF, AP, and NYT articles describe the gaffes with words like "unfortuntate", "controversial", and "raised eyebrows." Don't really feel like getting into another politics content discussion, so I'll leave the question of source quality alone. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 18:12, 1 February 2023 (UTC) It's not like it's a new topic though. It's been a consistent part of nearly all of Biden's runs for office. This CNN piece from 15 years ago notes how Biden filed papers to run in 1988 but reporters kept asking him about these insensitive remarks in the conference call announcing the run. It also reports a joke from 2006 about Indian accents and Dunkin Donuts. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:21, 1 February 2023 (UTC) This discussion seems to head off on tangents very easily. To me there is a core question. Given that Biden makes a lot of gaffes, on all sorts of topics, why would we specifically make a bigger fuss about those that are seen by some as racially insensitive? HiLo48 (talk) 00:23, 2 February 2023 (UTC) I suppose, one might ask why wouldn't there big a bigger fuss about it. Anyways, I don't think an RFC would be required for this content dispute. GoodDay (talk) 17:23, 2 February 2023 (UTC) Because it is known that Joe Biden has huge support in the black community: a major factor credited with his win is the support of Jim Clyburn and the black voters in the S.C. primary. So again, why would we make a fuss about it? – Muboshgu (talk) 18:18, 2 February 2023 (UTC) That he has support from the black community is irrelevant to the topic-in-question. Joe Biden is certainly no George C. Wallace, but Wallace did win the 1982 Alabama gubernatorial election, due to the support of the black community. Anyways, if there's no consensus to add the proposed info to this page? Then it won't be added. GoodDay (talk) 19:48, 5 February 2023 (UTC) That is an entirely unconstructive bit of Original Research nonsense, only a waste of time for anyone who clicks here. SPECIFICO talk 19:59, 5 February 2023 (UTC) Are we in agreement that there's no consensus to add the proposed edit? GoodDay (talk) 20:01, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

"Interracial marriage" as a mainstream political issue in lead

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

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

I agreed, writing at the time:

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

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

I'm not sure it's a good idea to leave out half of what a notable law does. Most reporting on the law emphasizes that it does both(Guardian, CNBC, there are others). The Loving case rests on the same legal theory that other marriage and rights cases rest on even if not specifically mentioned by Clarence Thomas. [36]. 331dot (talk) 11:44, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Clarence Thomas making a lone concurrence in Dobbs that espouses a legal theory yet to be put into place and didn't even mention Loving is not grounds for something to be mentioned in the lead of Joe Biden. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 15:45, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

My main point is that most RS mention interracial in their reporting of the law. It's still a significant protection even if interracial marriage is acceptable by most. 331dot (talk) 16:01, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Biden is not considered to have done anything landmark enough that advanced interracial marriage protection to make it lead worthy. Interracial marriage has been settled for over 50 years, which was before Biden was even a city councilor, much less a senator or president. KlayCax is correct that interracial marriage is no longer a contentious issue in the US. Doesn't need to be mentioned in the lead, it's UNDUE. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 15:42, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

I would tend to agree. DFlhb (talk) 17:30, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Bias in Lead

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

Well the withdrawal coincided with the Afghan government collapsing and the Taliban seizing power and was a big factor in it, so it would make almost no sense removing it; also it was (and sort of has been) a big part of his presidency. Rexxx7777 (talk) 20:33, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Was it a coincidence that the Taliban took over, after the American troops left Afghanistan? I don't know. GoodDay (talk) 20:41, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Agree with Rexxx7777. It is a big part of his presidency.US withdrawal coincided with the Afghan government collapsing and the Taliban seizing power.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:49, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

That's an argument for putting it in Presidency of Joe Biden (as well as Presidency of Donald Trump, seeing as it was his administration that negotiated the withdrawal), not necessarily THIS article. Additionally, I'm not sure we can assert that the withdrawal was a "big factor" in the Taliban seizing power. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 21:47, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

There is barely any argument to begin with. Leave it as it is. Rexxx7777 (talk) 23:46, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Efor real, "we cannot assert that the withrawal was a big factor" (sic), It just started immediatly after the anouncement was made, and culminated as soon as the last soldier left the country, that didn't happen while the american troops were still stationed. Juanriveranava (talk) 00:12, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

I hate to tell you, but cities and provinces had been falling to the Taliban offensive for months (and others by non-military means for over a year before that) before the US pullout occurred. Additionally, it was "announced" under the Trump administration, not the Biden administration, and there had been villages surrendering to the Taliban all over the country basically from the moment the ink hit the page on that agreement. To claim that the Taliban takeover was simply the result of the US troop pullout in August 2021 runs against our reliable sources and against the facts of what occurred. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 00:37, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

The lead should include it either way. By only putting "He completed the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan, ending the war in Afghanistan.", that implies to the reader who might not know about the context of the war to think that the war was successful. Wikipedia tries to be as fact-based as possible, so you would have to mention that the Afghan government collapsed and Taliban seized power to not mislead the reader. Not to mention it is a big part of his presidency, just like how Trump's false statements were a big part in his campaign and are also included in the lead of his biographical article. Simply put, just keep it as it is right now. Rexxx7777 (talk) 01:18, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Saying "the Afghan government collapsed" when the American government left its borrowed capital is already misleading the reader into thinking the normal Afghan government didn't return to carry on as it had before the invasion. I'm not saying anyone should change the text. Just maybe alter perceptions slightly. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:39, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Stating, as you did, that the pullout was a "big factor" in the Taliban takeover does just that, it misleads the reader. It misleads them as to why the pullout occurred, it misleads them as to what led to the Taliban takeover, etc. Come up with better proposed text. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 01:40, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

• Only concerned about context. IIRC, it was Trump who said he would end all our wars and made an agreement with the Taliban to end the war at a certain date -- in Biden's presidency. And, that's the day it ended, according to the agreement. I suppose we could have continued for another ten years. One day, perhaps we will learn it is easier to start than end a war. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:34, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Balloon incident

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

What actions? SPECIFICO talk 15:49, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Actions and statements. He's supported taking the balloons down and ordered it [37] Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 15:52, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes, but nothing significant there. SPECIFICO talk 16:16, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

I am unsure we need this, what does it tell us about Biden? Slatersteven (talk) 15:50, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

We don't know enough about these incidents to know how significant they are. It doesn't belong here at this time. It may not belong at presidency of Joe Biden either. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:31, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Rather difficult to weigh this, concerning inclusion/exclusion. If it were only one balloon that went off course, we'd exclude. But, if it's more then one & there's a pattern established? we'd include. Concerning the latter possibility (a pattern established), then I would think it more appropriate for inclusion in the Biden administration page. GoodDay (talk) 20:01, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

I see no pattern at all. I also see no reason to include anything here in Biden's (long) lifetime biography article at this stage. Yes, something could go in Presidency of Joe Biden. Has it? I haven't looked. HiLo48 (talk) 20:53, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

GoodDay, please explain what it has to do with the number of flying objects? Biden did not launch more and more objects. SPECIFICO talk 22:46, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

I haven't suggested that the president launched any of these objects. Merely recommending (if objects are continuing to appear over the USA) it could be added to the Biden administration page. Biden hasn't done anything wrong. GoodDay (talk) 23:03, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

I dont see that this has anything to do with Biden. If you do, please tell us what? SPECIFICO talk 23:20, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

AFAIK, it's been occurring during the time of his administration. Thus my recommendation that it be excluded from his BLP page, but not necessarily his administration page. GoodDay (talk) 23:31, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

That is not what I asked. SPECIFICO talk 23:47, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

@Iamreallygoodatcheckers: I don't believe anything is mentioned about the balloons over at Biden's administration page. Perhaps, seeking a consensus over at that page for inclusion 'there', would be more appropriate. I just don't think it needs to be included in 'this' page. For the moment, it doesn't seem to be an overall major issue. GoodDay (talk) 00:03, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

What is the significance of a baloon for his presidecy? SPECIFICO talk 00:07, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

It's not about the balloon (meaning it could have been an invasive saucer), it's about China. As this bio already notes, Biden has said the U.S. needs to "get tough" on China, calling China the "most serious competitor" that poses challenges to the United States' "prosperity, security, and democratic values". And no, it's not about prosperity or democratic values here, "just" national security (the provision of which is basically any president's sworn duty). InedibleHulk (talk) 05:35, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

It belongs at Presidency of Joe Biden, not here. ––FormalDude (talk) 06:25, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

What doesn't it have that his lesser official interactions with China here do? Reaching an unspecified agreement on emissions, creating chips to compete economically, merely mentioning the potential defense of Taiwan from "an unprecedented attack" that never happened. None of these tidbits had nearly half the impact or coverage that using airpower defensively for the first time since Pearl Harbor did. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:40, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Comparing these UFO incidents to Pearl Harbor is a bit much. And we only know for sure that the first object came from China, I don't believe we know for sure about the other three. Could be China, could be Vulcans. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:43, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm for sure only talking about the first object, the titular "balloon incident". InedibleHulk (talk) 01:20, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Ships Lost in the Pearl Harbor attack:

Battleships

· Arizona (Rear Admiral Isaac C. Kidd's flagship of Battleship Division One): hit by four armor-piercing bombs, exploded; total loss, not salvaged. 1,177 dead.

· Oklahoma: hit by five torpedoes, capsized; total loss, salvaged and scrapped. 429 dead.

· West Virginia: hit by two bombs, seven torpedoes, sunk; returned to service July 1944. 106 dead.

· California: hit by two bombs, two torpedoes, sunk; returned to service January 1944. 100 dead.

· Nevada: hit by six bombs, one torpedo, beached; returned to service October 1942. 60 dead.

· Pennsylvania (Admiral Husband E. Kimmel's flagship of the United States Pacific Fleet): in dry dock with Cassin and Downes, hit by one bomb and debris from USS Cassin; remained in service. 9 dead.

· Tennessee: hit by two bombs; returned to service February 1942. 5 dead.

· Maryland: hit by two bombs; returned to service February 1942. 4 dead (including floatplane pilot shot down).

Ex-battleship (target/AA training ship)

· Utah: hit by two torpedoes, capsized; total loss, salvage stopped. 64 dead.

Cruisers

· Helena: hit by one torpedo; returned to service January 1942. 20 dead.

· Raleigh: hit by one torpedo; returned to service February 1942.

· Honolulu: near miss, light damage; remained in service.

Destroyers

· Cassin: in drydock with Downes and Pennsylvania, hit by one bomb, burned; reconstructed and returned to service February 1944.

· Downes: in drydock with Cassin and Pennsylvania, caught fire from Cassin, burned; reconstructed and returned to service November 1943.

· Helm: underway to West Loch, damaged by two near-miss bombs; continued patrol; dry-docked January 15, 1942, and sailed January 20, 1942.

· Shaw: hit by three bombs; returned to service June 1942.

Auxiliaries

· Oglala (minelayer): damaged by torpedo hit on Helena, capsized; returned to service (as engine-repair ship) February 1944.

· Vestal (repair ship): hit by two bombs, blast and fire from Arizona, beached; returned to service by August 1942.

· Curtiss (seaplane tender): hit by one bomb, one crashed Japanese aircraft; returned to service January 1942. 19 dead.

· Sotoyomo (harbor tug): damaged by explosion and fires in Shaw; sunk; returned to service August 1942.

· YFD-2 (yard floating dock): damaged by bombs; sunk; returned to service January 25, 1942, servicing Shaw. O3000, Ret. (talk) 23:08, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

For fuck's sake, I wasn't comparing them. It was a purely temporal point of reference, only meant to illustrate how long it's been since America fought back against an air invasion. I should have said 1941 and I'm sorry to have made you type so much. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:15, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

No problem, just copied from our own article. Just seemed Godwinish to me. 01:30, 15 February 2023 (UTC) O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:30, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

That's a relief. Not sorry anymore! I do regret seemingly having to remind you that Hitler didn't attack Hawaii, though. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:42, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, just 17 other countries. Japan only attacked about a dozen. And the "ish" signaled it was a metaphor. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:52, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Japan had to go further to find countries to attack. HiLo48 (talk) 02:04, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Excuses, excuses. O3000, Ret. (talk) 02:11, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

You know who had no good excuse for not killing "us" harder? Those lazy Italians! With that said, can we get back to this month's balloon? InedibleHulk (talk) 02:17, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm just biding (Bidening) time until a final report comes out. We're always in such a rush. WP:Stopthepresses O3000, Ret. (talk) 02:39, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

A bit of patience is cool, but waiting two weeks to relay even the widely reported preliminary information on the first politician in post-War America to destroy a flying enemy invader is (dare I say) closer to Italian than prudent. I'm going to see if Trudeau's article mentions his stand on guard for thee. Not to then return and make a point about it, because OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but in the same vein of classic Canadian curiosity that triumphed over doubt to put a giant arm into space. Just remember, while you wait, there are still reports coming out on UFOs encountered back when that harbour was still part of an independent island kingdom. Finality...bah! InedibleHulk (talk) 03:05, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

It is mentioned in Timeline of the Joe Biden presidency (2023 Q1). Cwater1 (talk) 21:09, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

health

I seem to recall there was some discussion about including Biden's health, so I'll leave it to others to decide what to do with this:

President Biden is a “healthy, vigorous, 80-year-old,” his doctor said Thursday following a physical exam conducted just weeks before the oldest president in American history is expected to say he is running for a second term. Kevin C. O’Connor, the president’s longtime physician, said in a letter released by the White House that Mr. Biden’s health has not changed much since his last physical about 15 months ago. He said Mr. Biden is “fit to successfully execute the duties of the presidency, to include those as chief executive, head of state and commander in chief.”[38]

soibangla (talk) 01:13, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

WP:NOTNEWS. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:23, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

If the one from 15 months ago isn't here, and not much has changed, not much should change. It might be notable that he's expected to run again. I'd rather wait for him to say that, though. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:08, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

I disagree that this would be considered NOTNEWS; the health of someone is certainly relevant to their biography, but I think there a couple problems with it: (1) It lack's weight, and if it is to be mentioned it would need to be condensed considerably; (2) There isn't really a natural place to introduce this. If there was a little subsection about his health then it would be warranted there but that is not the case at this time. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 16:26, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

There is no section about Biden's health explicitly because it's not an issue. Some of his opponents want to make it an issue, even though it's not. They wouldn't be able to do that if he was 35. Being older DOES NOT automatically imply being unhealthy. To even suggest it is ageist. That sentiment must never drive our content. HiLo48 (talk) 23:22, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

It's an issue because opponents wish to make it an issue -- specifically in Nikki Halley's ageist announcement (aimed also at Trump) among others. OTOH, it's not been demonstrated as actual disqualification. So, let us not fall into that trap as an encyclopedia until it might become such. Patience. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:37, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Here. the president's longtime physician is pressing the issue, an unlikely political opponent. I'm sure all would-be presidents also have their takes on what "fitness" or "successful execution" mean to them, but the only question we need to ask ourselves here is whether the doctor has ulterior motives and do they disqualify his expert opinion. Two questions, really, no right answers. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:52, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

It's NOTNEWS because it's a news report without enduring notability. Joe Biden being healthy and fit for office is nothing new. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:50, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't see a reason to add this, if he's healthy & thus there's no need of either sections 3 or 4 of the 25th amendment being invoked. GoodDay (talk) 23:37, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

After his check up, they found that he is still healthy enough to continue carrying out his duties as president. Cwater1 (talk) 21:39, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Unsure what this adds. Slatersteven (talk) 10:36, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Electoral history box

Do we really need to include an 'electoral history box' in this BLP? Indeed, are such boxes needed in any of the US presidents or vice presidents bio pages. GoodDay (talk) 20:24, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Not really, but I'm neutral on whether or not it should be included. Biden is different from Trump's article because we don't have a bloat problem here and Biden has a much more extensive electoral history that Trump; therefore, having a table could be helpful to readers. But, then again, it's not exactly needed. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 15:51, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 February 2023

In the last line of section “Subsequent Activities” there is the sentence “Biden continued to support efforts o find treatments for cancer.” It should be “…efforts to find…” with a t added. 75.168.110.59 (talk) 03:18, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

 Done – Muboshgu (talk) 03:20, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Biden not the first President to acknowledge Armenian Genocide?

Under the political positions section, it's stated that Biden is the first president to recognise the genocide, citing a CNN news article. A WaPo article, on the other hand, seems to suggest that Biden was the second president to do so, after Ronald Reagan. [39] Dawkin Verbier (talk) 05:27, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

I read into this some. The Guardian say's Reagan just acknowledged the genocide in passing and never made a formal declaration. So, Biden is the first that officially recognized it. I'll make the change to clarify that it was the first official one. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 06:09, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

I went ahead and added a note about the Reagan thing in the article. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 06:22, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Dripping with Bias

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

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

he spent lots of time and energy on those issues -- ie he addressed them. And the covid rate is far down and the economy has recovered. "Bias" -- I think not. Rjensen (talk) 20:21, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

You or anyone is free to believe as you wish. Wikipedia does not claim to be the truth, only that the information presented is verifiable, see WP:TRUTH. Wikipedia does not claim to be without bias, as all sources have biases. Sources are presented to readers so they can evaluate and judge them for themselves. Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources say. If those sources are not being accurately summarized in this article, please detail the specific errors. 331dot (talk) 21:22, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia claims to hold stances from a "neutral point of view" (a.k.a. "unbiased"). This article is quite merciful towards Biden, while the Wikipedia page for Donald Trump is rather ruthless. For example, Trump's page says he "told lies unprecedented in American history", while Biden's page says "Mr. Biden's folksiness can veer into folklore, with dates that don't quite add up and details that are exaggerated or wrong, the factual edges shaved off to make them more powerful for audiences."

Seriously? That's a funny way of saying "he lies to make himself look better". In fact, I bet that's what this page would have said about Trump if he said the things Biden has 69.50.224.93 (talk) 01:55, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Trump's lies don't make him look better. HiLo48 (talk) 02:29, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Adding a source: Wikipedia claims to hold stances from "a neutral point of view" in its 5 pillars

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Five_pillars 69.50.224.93 (talk) 01:56, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

The two gentlemen (Biden and Trump) are also different people, who have different actions to their records, and therefore their articles are different. It shouldn't come as a shock that articles about Pol Pot and Nelson Mandela also have different tones to them, and that is entirely neutral. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 19:41, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Then find some RS that says "biden lies to an unprecedented degree". Slatersteven (talk) 19:49, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Biden made the inaccurate categorical promise that “you’re not going to get Covid” if you’re vaccinated. Biden also went too far at the town hall when he categorically pledged that “if you’re vaccinated, you’re not going to be hospitalized, you’re not going to be in the ICU unit and you’re not going to die”. Biden claims he used to drive an 18 wheeler. Biden stated he was at the top of his class in school, he was near the bottom. Biden said he visited Pittsburgh’s Tree of Life synagogue after the 2018 massacre, speaking to the rabbi,when the synagogue says he’s never even been there. He says our borders are secure. Biden claims he used to go to a black church for services. Biden claims he used to "help organize anti-segregation protests at Union Baptist Church in Delaware," when the church was asked, "they didn’t recall Biden attending the church." Biden claims he was arrested during a civil rights movement, he has never been arrested. Biden repeatedly told a story about a supposed conversation during his vice presidency with an old friend, an Amtrak train conductor, that could not possibly have happened because the man was dead at the time. Biden defended the US withdrawal in part by claiming that the concept of nation-building in Afghanistan “never made any sense to me” – though, in fact, he had explicitly advocated nation-building in the early years of the war, both in Afghanistan and more broadly. Biden was under pressure to quickly relocate Afghans who had assisted US troops, he said “the law doesn’t allow” Afghan translators to come to the US to await the processing of their visa applications. But experts in immigration law immediately said this wasn’t true, given the administration’s authority to grant “parole,” and, indeed, the Biden administration ended up using parole later in the summer to do what Biden had claimed wasn’t permitted. Biden claims under his new tax bill, no one making under 400,000 will pay an extra dime. Now, this hasn't happened yet, but you are a fool if you believe that. (87,000 new IRS agents just for people making over 400,000?) This is just a few of his proven lies. 2600:4040:2B84:6500:4DBC:4622:3046:4F02 (talk) 20:28, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

This is your interpretation of Biden's actions- which you are entitled to believe- but Wikipedia articles summarize what independent reliable sources say about a topic. As Slatersteven noted, please find independent reliable sources that say Biden lies to an unprecedented degree. There are sources that say that about Trump, which is why we have Veracity of statements by Donald Trump. It takes a lot of staff to investigate rich people's taxes, who often have batteries of accountants working for them. 331dot (talk) 20:31, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

All politicians lie, but sometimes there is no intention to deceive, but simply misremembering things (see Elizabeth Loftus). The question is if Biden lies to an unprecedented and even ridiculous degree, as it has shown to be the case for Trump. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:36, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Quite a lot of what you wrote is just regurgitated Republican talking points. Many of them are inaccurate, such as the "87,000 IRS agents". – Muboshgu (talk) 22:40, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Why is his terms as U.S. Senator from Delaware not included in the profile?

This is being discussed right above. No need to have two threads going. Iamreallygoodatcheckers talk 21:38, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

There is probably a reason as to why it is not included, but I was wondering why there was no inclusion of Biden's terms in U.S. Senate in his side profile as there is inclusion of senate terms of other presidents (i.e. Obama)? I was just wondering about this, and have a great day. 2603:7081:2C40:A400:EDA0:9056:F436:6FF4 (talk) 18:33, 3 March 2023 (UTC) I don't know why it was taken out, but I'm putting it back in. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:36, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Infobox political office parameters

@Synotia: the inclusion of his senate tenure has always been included in this article. I don't care much about the county council, but it's been there since at least November 14, 2022, and I recall seeing it there in various times before. Furthermore, the closer of the RfC declaring that the infobox needs to be shortened wrote in the close: keeping New Castle County Council would probably satisfy most or all participants. No, there is not a consensus in that RfC to remove either from the infobox, especially the senate one; I skimmed through the RfC and not a single participant proposed removing the senate postion, only certain discrete committeships. Biden served in the senate for over 30 years (the majority of his political career). They both should be re-added to the infobox. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 15:50, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

I think you pinged the wrong editor. It is Surtsicna who has removed the US Senate tenure from the infobox. Looking at Talk:Joe Biden/Archive 14#RfC on the infobox length and Talk:Joe Biden/Archive 15#RFC on infobox length - closing statement and followup recommendations, I see support for excluding the county council and committee chairmanships, but not for removing the senate tenure in full. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:44, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Muboshgu is correct. I erred in removing the general senatorship information. Surtsicna (talk) 18:47, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Muboshgu, thanks for letting me know I pinged the wrong editor. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 21:41, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

All has been repaired. Jolly good :) GoodDay (talk) 23:28, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Skin cancer

Not a regular editor of this article, but should the info about his skin cancer be added into the article? Crusader1096 (message) 02:37, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

What information? HiLo48 (talk) 02:44, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Lesion Removed During Biden's Physical Was Cancerous - NYT

Doctor: Lesion removed from Biden’s chest was cancerous - AP

Joe Biden had cancerous skin lesion removed, White House says - BBC Crusader1096 (message) 03:50, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Eh seems pretty mundane. It was a minor, common, low-risk cancer that was treated without incident. Lean WP:NOTNEWS because it will have no significant effect on his legacy. We don’t have to catalogue every little health issue a head of state has. Dronebogus (talk) 04:18, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

This appears to be WP:NOTNEWS Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 05:09, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Here in Australia it would be rare for someone of Biden's age to have not had skin cancer. It's not major unless the news says so, and it hasn't. HiLo48 (talk) 06:16, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Voice file

I question the judgment call of including a voice file of Biden right after he caught COVID; COVID is well known to cause someone's voice to sound different, and to my ears, that's reflected in the audio file.

There's a second related issue; Biden's speech patterns have changed quite significantly in recent years (due to normal aging; among other things, it's slower than it used to be), and I think a "representative" voice sample should ideally come from earlier years, for example 2012 (is that Biden-Ryan debate freely licensed?). The only point of a voice file is to illustrate a person's normal timbre, pitch, loudness, cadence, phonation, etc, and we must strive to be neutral and representative of the overall person; a voice recording at an advanced age is IMO not the point here, regardless of which period of his life is most notable. DFlhb (talk) 16:00, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

It would be best to include his voice as US president. But, not while he had covid. GoodDay (talk) 16:19, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't understand why we need a voice file for Biden. His voice is not of particular significance to his notability or public image. Not to the extent of Trump or Obama for example. Also, yea, an audio of file of when he had COVID would not be optimal. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 19:58, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't think we should adopt elaborate inclusion criteria for voices (and significance to notability or public image is pretty fuzzy/subjective). It's unnecessary and will just lead to endless talk page arguments. AFAIK, the only criteria we apply for signatures is: if it's freely-licensed, add it. Since I guess we're now adding voices, they should be treated the same. DFlhb (talk) 22:59, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

I just realized the extent in which we include these audio files. It's every president since they started recording stuff pretty much. I suppose there isn't standard for inclusion, just whether it's freely licensed. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 01:46, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

It's obviously subjective, but his voice sounds pretty normal to me in the Covid clip. I agree with GoodDay that if we have a voice clip, it should be from his Presidency. If you want to hear what Biden's voice sounds like when it's abnormal, you can watch this video from a time when he had a cold. —Ganesha811 (talk) 01:36, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

I think it might be better if the voice file present was more representative of his presidency or a notable accomplishment. I have attatched an audio file titled: Joe Biden gives remarks on the Inflation Reduction Act.ogg

Here he gives his prepared remarks in regards to the passing of the Inflation Reduction Act (the date of the video is from July 28th 2022). I think this audio file might be a better fit for his profile as it is representative of one of his most significant policy accomplishments that is of a similar weight to the other U.S. presidents where they're either Announcing military actions (Trump, Obama, Clinton), or announcing policy advancements (Carter and Reagen). I think that this audio file doesn't have any real concerns about audio issues or his voice being abnormal due to sickness. As such, I think it might be a bit more appropriate for his profile. LosPajaros (talk) 01:03, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

We should have an audio clip from the Battle for the Soul of the Nation speech. It's a pretty significant speech. FunnyMath (talk) 18:19, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree, however, that speech is about 20 minutes long so it would likely be better off as a video clip established further down in the actual article itself then as the voice box LosPajaros (talk) 19:28, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

I mean use a small audio excerpt from the speech, not the entire speech FunnyMath (talk) 22:54, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Prose

"Biden signed the Respect for Marriage Act, which codified protections for same-sex marriage and repealed DOMA and the CHIPS and Science Act" it took visiting the CHIPS and Science Act page to realise that it was not among the repealed acts. This could be worded better. 2001:8F8:172B:49C3:24AC:2EBD:229D:F1BE (talk) 18:19, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

That phrase was removed, addressing your issue. But I definitely think the lead should mention the CHIPS Act; it's a pretty huge policy, and one of Biden's signature achievements. DFlhb (talk) 00:43, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

@DFlhb: I went ahead and added CHIPs to the lead. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 01:12, 6 March 2023

I think there should be a separate place for his achievements in the general article. The fist part already reads more like a Biden praise page than a neutral article.Bjoh249 (talk) 18:43, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 April 2023

In the Vice-President section, the article states Biden met with Serbian President Vucinic in 2016. In 2016, Vucinic was Prime Minister, not President. It's even written in the already linked source. 188.155.68.62 (talk) 17:30, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

 Done--RegentsPark (comment) 18:51, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Withdrawal plans

so far he has managed to leave American citizens in 2 war torn countries whilst other countries have evacuated theirs. Highbury North bank (talk) 10:13, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Source? Slatersteven (talk) 10:14, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm guessing one of those is Sudan, and given that global efforts are still ongoing to remove various foreign nationals, it is definitely incorrect to claim that other countries have evacuated theirs. We have been evacuating ours, as other countries have been and continue to do. Perhaps the other is Afghanistan? I'm not sure on that one. Again, though, this would be a very exaggerated claim. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 16:01, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Abortion in the Lead

Considering Biden's abortion executive orders have negligible impact on the availablility of abortion in places impacted by "near-total bans on abortion access passed in a majority of Republican-controlled states," and the fact that this is literally one sentence in the body, I think this is completely UNDUE for the lead. Bill Williams 23:29, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

The sentence doesn't even state what "measures" Biden took because he has nearly zero power to do anything affecting abortion access in Republican controlled states that completely banned it, and most of the sentence is just stating that the Supreme Court made a decision (unrelated to Biden, whom the lead is about) and that Biden criticized it (if you seriously think Biden saying something is DUE for the lead when the lead is entirely about his life and actions, that shows how irrelevant this content is). Bill Williams 23:31, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Agree that mentioning abortion is UNDUE for lead. Andrevan, in response to your edit summary, yes, abortion has been is a salient political issue since Dobbs, but that doesn't mean that Biden has done anything significant to advance abortion access. The issue has been concentrated more so on the Supreme Court, state legislatures, and perhaps Congress, considering the midterms, but not so much on Biden or his presidency. First and foremost, there is very little about Biden's response to Dobbs in this article; in fact, the sentence in the lead is the exact same sentence as the one sentence about abortion during his presidency that can be found at the bottom of the political positions section. There's nothing else. It's pretty standard rule that content not substantial in the body shouldn't be in the lead; that's even more true for someone as significant as the president of the United States. I even went and checked out Presidency of Joe Biden#Abortion and there isn't much of significance about his actions regarding abortion there either. Furthermore, I'm really struggling to see how individual states choosing to prohibit abortion is related enough to Biden for a lead mention.

For this material to be included in the lead it's going to need to be established that it's due and that onus is on those who support including the content. This is new content and it needs to removed till a consensus can be obtained Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 23:54, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

OK, ok, I get it. Consider the new material challenged. I didn't mean to offend anyone. Andre🚐 00:08, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

I think you should self-revert and remove the challenged content from the lead because of the reasons stated above. If anyone thinks it should stay, then I would like to see an argument in favor and the addition of some actual content to the body of the article, rather than having literally one sentence in the body and one in the lead when all other content in the body is 100x as long as the lead. Bill Williams 00:17, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Didn't you revert it already? Andre🚐 00:17, 12 April 2023 (UTC) Nevermind, I see that was a different edit. Andre🚐 00:19, 12 April 2023 (UTC) Because you edited after I did, I cannot easily undo the edit. If you want to revert it you may consider it my acceptance of your challenge and not an out of process revert. Andre🚐 00:26, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Understood, thanks for the discussion. I do think more content could be added about abortion in the article, but sourced content must be added before anything is mentioned in the lead, otherwise there is nothing in the body for the lead to summarize. Bill Williams 02:31, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Re-election plans

Is it too early to announce his running in the 2024 presidential election? Theeditpolice (talk) 03:54, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Likely best to wait until he officially announces. GoodDay (talk) 15:10, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

References

Changing the voice file

Previously discussed here. Beyond the issue of his voice, his COVID diagnosis is just not relevant. Given the files used in other U.S. president BLPs, I think our two best options here are Biden's remarks following the Ukraine invasion, and Biden's remarks calling climate change an emergency.

For Ukraine, the speech is on C-SPAN here. We'd clip the start at 00:52, and cut at 09:41, where he starts to talk about domestic policies.

For climate change, the speech is here. We can trim the end ("I look forward to working alongside you"). DFlhb (talk) 11:46, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Go for it. GoodDay (talk) 01:39, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Add category

Isn’t he Category:Candidates in the 2024 United States presidential election?

 Done - Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:34, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

new article

Amid the "cheat sheet" incident, I created the article, "Controversy over Joe Biden's competence," though I might have created it too soon, or maybe it should not exist as its own article. I think its notable on its own, but what do any of you think? Rexxx7777 (talk) 00:35, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

AfD :Finnegan Biden

Of interest to editors here. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Finnegan Biden. Zaathras (talk) 23:26, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Corruption allegations as a major section?

Should that not be just a subsection under his presidency or public profile? JMwins19 (talk) 05:30, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Allegations of corruption began well before his presidency. It is a brief but important section about him personally, as he has been characterized by many people, some notable, as the boss of the "Biden Crime Family." soibangla (talk) 05:50, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

All of those people, notable or otherwise, are his political opponents. No concrete evidence exists for the claims they are making. The allegations aren't actually part of the Joe Biden story. They belong in the articles of those making them, to show what they will say and do, and how many lies they will tell, to try to defeat Biden. HiLo48 (talk) 06:06, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

I think it's important to briefly note that to date he has been exonerated of these widely covered allegations. Larry Sanger alleges left bias in this BLP because the Ukraine corruption allegations aren't mentioned. Well, now they are. soibangla (talk) 06:28, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

What do Sanger and Ukraine have to do with all the lies Republicans are telling? HiLo48 (talk) 07:04, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Sanger is an embarrassing part of Wikipedia's past, given his vocal opposition to women's studies, academia, and science. All things which he considers as biased and overly liberal. Dimadick (talk) 07:26, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Righto, but still nothing to do with Biden's article. HiLo48 (talk) 07:54, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

I think one line, such as "he has been accused of corruption, with no evidence being produced" would be fine. Slatersteven (talk) 08:28, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

They say in politics that throwing mud is effective if even the tiniest bit sticks. Simply mentioning unsubstantiated allegations will allow some people to think they might be true. The allegations, without evidence, add nothing to Biden's story. We should be adding to the articles of those making the false allegations that that's what they have done. HiLo48 (talk) 09:40, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

"Independent" in infobox

Is the inclusion of his party affiliation being an "independent" before 1969 relevant or helpful? I feel like it's given WP:UNDUE weight, being as visible as his Democratic Party membership even though he didn't hold any political office (not even as a councillor) until 1971. In my opinion, it would be best to remove it and instead simply keep the clarification that he's been a member of the Democratic Party "since 1969". Would anyone object to this? Loytra (talk) 10:09, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Biden was registered as independent for a time, this is covered in the "Marriages, law school, and early career (1966–1973)" section. Zaathras (talk) 12:28, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

I didn't say he wasn't. My proposal was related to whether or not it's relevant enough to include in the infobox. Loytra (talk) 13:16, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

And my reply addressed that. Zaathras (talk) 14:13, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

No, it did not. Lol. Just because something's covered in the article doesn't mean it's significant enough to have a place in the infobox. Loytra (talk) 22:44, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

"Lol", yes, it did. I am the judge of what I address. Not you. If you disagree, that's fine, but refrain from making judgements on my motivations, kindly. Zaathras (talk) 00:26, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Jesus, man. Can you maybe engage in good faith instead of making these weird, snarky replies? We're having a discussion about the Joe Biden infobox, it's not that serious. Loytra (talk) 01:38, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Then learn to deal with a differing opinion. Zaathras (talk) 01:54, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Buddy. I asked whether Biden's affiliation as an independent was significant enough to be placed in the infobox. You replied only by saying that it's explained in the article that he registered as an independent, never actually addressing my point regarding it's significance. Can you please actually engage with me in good faith on the topic I originally came here to discuss instead of whatever it is you're doing here. Loytra (talk) 02:30, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Most Americans register as Dems, Reps or Inds, but we don't put it in their info-boxes. According to Us Weekly, Jessica Simpson is a registered Republican, but it's not in her info-box. Registration as an independent merely means one can vote in either primary. It's not a declaration of loyalty.

I'm an independent and I can't vote in either primary. That's going to be determined by the election rules set by the political parties in your state. 24.51.192.49 (talk) 17:29, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

I think however that there should be a policy for this.

TFD (talk) 02:59, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

I think it should be removed or replaced. I'd rather use a term like "none", "no party preference" (which is used in my state), or "no party affiliation". The term "none" is probably best and most descriptive. Using "independent" may be confused with the American Independent Party, a far-right political party. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:18, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

If we use independent, that makes that confusion go away. But I was astounded to discover that a small number of people still register as American Independent thinking it means "independent voter". --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 18:31, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Reality

What - no observation that he was elected the the largest percentage of the eligible vote in history? He's the most popular presidential candidate ever, in all of US history. No discussion of that? He got 81 million votes, he was also elected defying the "Bellwether counties." This is an exceptionally notable president. Who could have guessed he could be elected? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.31.75.102 (talk) 13:23, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

sources? Slatersteven (talk) 13:26, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Dude, much of this article already reads more like a Biden campaign ad than a neutral encyclopedia article. It’s already mentioned how many votes he got in 2020. That also doesn’t make him the most popular president in history. His approval rating has been stuck in the low 40s since 2021. I’m not saying I support or don’t support Biden, I’m just pointing out this article lacks a lot of neutrality.Bjoh249 (talk) 18:41, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree, and I think that the 40-number has shrunk a bit in recent months. There is no criticism section, and hardly any criticism of him at all. Not a single alarmed remark about his age has even been mentioned, and none of his many misspeakings have been mentioned either. Numerous people, including Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger, have claimed that Wikipedia has a left-wing and liberal ideological bias, and this article certainly doesn't disprove him. Felixsj (talk) 13:34, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

This is not about Wikipedia, and no this article is no more biased than many others about politicians. Slatersteven (talk) 13:42, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

The fact that other articles are biased is a poor reason to not remove bias from this article.

Special consideration ought to be given to this article, since the topic is arguably the most important politician in the entire world.

If the article is lacking in criticism of Biden, then the pro-Biden content is in violation of WP:UNDUE.

Sober Reasoning (talk) 17:42, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Read WP:CONTROVERSYSECTION, no article should have one. Alarmist comments about Biden's age are WP:UNDUE. Larry Sanger is quite a biased right-winger himself and he has had no involvement in the site for decades. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:06, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

I wanted to point out that article should comply with Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. No criticism. The article does seem to persuasive. Cwater1 (talk) 16:57, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

What do you mean "to persuasive"? Slatersteven (talk) 16:59, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

I forgot to add the word, "be" before the word, "persuasive." I didn't catch that. Correction: The article does seem to be persuasive. Cwater1 (talk) 17:09, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Do you mean this article is trying to persuade people of something, if so what? Slatersteven (talk) 17:11, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

In the sections for the presidency. It explains about what he done such as signing bills. Just saying. Cwater1 (talk) 03:19, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

So why would we not have this, as that is what he does, signs bills? Slatersteven (talk) 10:08, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Not sure. Cwater1 (talk) 03:22, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

"Jill Biden's husband" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Jill Biden's husband has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 June 6 § Jill Biden's husband until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 21:32, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Neutrality of this article and the presentation of this subject

Why was the mention of the controversial withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan removed while it has been attested as such in many reliable sources? I find it weird as a casual reader that these inconsistencies are presented in articles related to U.S. presidents. Wikipedia must present views equally and make sure that it isn’t wrong but this is an example I noticed. I hope someone could address my concern as I hope I am not the only one who saw it. Defender1776 (talk) 22:07, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

There is currently an entire section in the article devoted to this topic, including a mention of the criticism that he faced due to the withdrawal. Aoi (青い) (talk) 22:18, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Someone removed it from the introduction paragraph. It should summarize there too. I just hope someone sees this since it was placed right. Defender1776 (talk) 11:54, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Defender1776, the four paragraphs in Joe Biden#Withdrawal from Afghanistan isn't enough for you? – Muboshgu (talk) 00:00, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 June 2023

Joe Biden's maternal great-grandfather worked in the railroad industry as both a locomotive engineer and a railroad inspector. Bgreenland616 (talk) 10:38, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Medium is not considered reliable per WP:RSP — Czello ^(music) 10:55, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 July 2023

Could you please add how Biden will not recognize his granddaughter. And mention about all the corruption. 2601:188:C400:3D00:2916:2ED3:2676:99CF (talk) 03:48, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. 💜  melecie  talk - 03:52, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Please do not cloak unsourced allegations within an edit request. Archiving this now. SPECIFICO talk 19:18, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Hunter Biden and related content

Why isn't there a section under "Presidency" about the corruption scandal and investigation? I wouldn't want to do it, because I don't want to mess up something so important, but a more experienced editor should prepare some information there about the scandal and investigation, which are ongoing and have gotten a lot of attention recently (in June 2023). Especially because of the upcoming election, and just the fact that it is an important thing that is really happening, it should be noted. Also, whoever takes care of it should make sure to be accurate and impartial; it seems that a lot of editors prefer to act more like press secretaries than encyclopedia writers when it comes to certain politicians' scandals...

Overall, just a situation that I thought should be mentioned. SenatorKnowledge (talk) 15:33, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Whatever corruption you are referring to, please provide a reliable source for. The conspiracy theories on Ukraine are in Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory. You are being very vague about what scandal/investigation you are even referring to. WikiVirusC^(talk) 15:54, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Hunter Biden "corruption" details are at Hunter Biden laptop controversy. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:31, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

As others have said, what corruption scandal? Slatersteven (talk) 17:36, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

I was just wondering why the Hunter/Joe Biden laptop scandal and its recent developments haven't been covered on the President's Wikipedia article. I'm trying to operate in good faith here. Here are some articles from what Wikipedia considers to be reliable sources:

https://abcnews.go.com/US/hunter-biden-whatsapp-message-fuels-gop-assertions-corruption/story?id=100338044

https://www.cnn.com/2023/06/28/politics/hunter-biden-joe-biden-2017-text-message/index.html

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/joe-biden/irs-agent-tells-house-committee-was-meddling-hunter-biden-case-rcna90689

Again, I'm not trying to start anything. I'm just pointing out that there isn't a single reference to this scandal's recent developments nor any sort of section about the scandal itself on Joe Biden's article. I know that it's about Biden's son, not him directly, but there have been serious allegations that he was himself involved in some sense, especially in terms of the recent developments re: the WhatsApp messages, the Chuck Grassley whistleblower, the IRS whistleblower, and the alleged mishandling of the IRS investigation due to its target being the President's son. He has recently denied that he was with Hunter when Hunter said that he was over text for allegedly shady overseas business deals, but the subject denying an allegation shouldn't be the basis for not including any information about it on the subject's article. I also encourage people to research this news story if they aren't aware, because I'm not about to explain the entire thing right here when it's already being covered by major news outlets and the federal government (White House, Congress, IRS) itself. I'm also not about to litigate this whole thing or give any opinion on it, I just think that there should be more of a reference to it. SenatorKnowledge (talk) 19:02, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

These issues seem to pertain to Hunter, not Joe. There is no evidence that I am aware of that links anything to Joe Biden, other than that Hunter is his son. We have policies about being very conservative in including allegations like this, such as WP:BLPGOSSIP. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:13, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate the response, it's very fair. I was simply wondering, because of the recent WhatsApp "revelation" in particular, such as based on this CNN article: [40]https://www.cnn.com/2023/06/28/politics/hunter-biden-joe-biden-2017-text-message/index.html.

If I'm incorrect and it's actually not relevant enough to be included based on Wikipedia standards, then I apologize for bringing it up. Thank you again for being fair. SenatorKnowledge (talk) 19:24, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm not certain if such info can be added to this BLP. The laptop story appears to be mainly about the president's son, rather then the president. GoodDay (talk) 19:27, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, if it's not relevant enough then it's not relevant enough, that's fine. I acknowledge that it doesn't involve him specifically enough. If the story develops further, this might change, but that's neither here nor there, nor is it anything for me to decide (I just wanted any coverage or lack thereof to be fair and honest). Thanks for the help, I'm satisfied. SenatorKnowledge (talk) 19:34, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for conversing civilly. It's a lot better here when we aren't being called idiots or "libtards" and whatnot. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:11, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

I know this isn't a forum, but I also want to say thank you for being civil and respectful. The world needs more of that. c: 2600:100F:A100:4D86:6125:972E:293E:A54B (talk) 12:02, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

There is no RS description of a "scandal". Archiving this now. SPECIFICO talk 19:20, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 June 2023

Add first description the accomplishment: He is oldest person elected president at age 77. Biden celebrated a birthday between Election Day and Inauguration Day making him 78 when sworn into office. Ak34567 (talk) 04:35, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

The lede already says On January 20, 2021, at the age of 78, Biden became the oldest president in U.S. history RudolfRed (talk) 00:54, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Questions about neutrality

I think this articles lede could use a lot of work especially this paragraph:

"On January 20, 2021, at the age of 78, Biden became the oldest president in U.S. history, the first to have a female vice president, and the first from Delaware. As president, he has addressed the COVID-19 pandemic and subsequent recession. He signed the American Rescue Plan Act; the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, the Inflation Reduction Act, covering tax reform, deficit reduction, climate change and healthcare; the CHIPS and Science Act; and the Respect for Marriage Act, which codified protections for same-sex marriage and repealed the Defense of Marriage Act. He appointed Ketanji Brown Jackson to the Supreme Court. During the 2023 United States debt-ceiling crisis, Biden negotiated and signed a bipartisan agreement, the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023, to prevent a default. In foreign policy, Biden restored America's membership in the Paris Agreement on climate change. He oversaw the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan that had been negotiated and begun under the previous administration, ending the war in Afghanistan, during which the Afghan government collapsed and the Taliban seized control. He signed AUKUS, a security pact, together with Australia and the United Kingdom. He responded to the Russian invasion of Ukraine by imposing sanctions on Russia and authorizing foreign aid and weapons shipments to Ukraine. On April 25, 2023, Biden announced his intention to run for a second term as president in 2024."

Why does this list him signing laws? That doesn't seem notable, just puff pieces for the president. It also doesn't mention anything controversial. Why not mention his controversial signing of a bill that ended a railroad strike [41], or his approval of the controversial Willow Project? [42] or even just critcism of his Afghanistan withdrawal in the lede. The Donald Trump article, rightfully so, mentions criticism. Why doesn't this one? Esolo5002 (talk) 05:53, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

I think I agree. There needs to be a discussion about how involved Biden was in much these laws or if he just signed them. I think it's fine to mention them in the body, but I'm not sure they are lead worthy. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 06:00, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

I think there should be serious discussion on scrapping the CHIPS and Science Act and the Respect of Marriage Act from the lead. The former is a bipartisan law that gave funding for semi-conductors and tech stuff (is this a huge deal for a lead mention and is this the work of Congress more so than Biden?.. I think it's no to the first question and yes to the second). The Respect for Marriage Act is kind of the same deal: it's not very impactful since gay marriage has been legal for several years now and, again, this is from Congress more so than Biden.

Some things that do need to be mentioned are the Inflation Reduction Act, probably the IIJA (I'm open to discussion..), dealings with Russia-Ukraine war, Afghanistan withdrawal, Ketanji Brown Jackson, and Paris Climate agreement (but, I'm open to broader discussion of his environmental policy as a substitute). And, I really don't know about AUKUS.

Furthermore, I think some chronological reordering would be helpful. The FRA of 2023 may need to mentioned if developed in body. We need to stop including clauses like "...covering tax reform, deficit reduction, climate change and healthcare", "As president, he has addressed the COVID-19 pandemic and subsequent recession", and "...to prevent a default" because these are empty, one-sided proclamations and oversimplifications that fail to adequately consider the breadth of perspectives on the issues and their real-world effects. Such statements make this read as a fluff piece in favor of Biden. Instead, we should be focusing on the significant changes that Biden the man has spear-headed or oversaw and perhaps their significant effects. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 06:36, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Personally I like the inclusion of the CHIPS and Science Act. It's an act of Congress, but one that Biden has campaigned on and promoted extensively. Same with the negotiation to avert default. Andre🚐 07:36, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

To be clear, the default stuff is fine to mention imo, but we can’t because it’s not mentioned at all in the body, as of now. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 07:40, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

I second CHIPS; it was a landmark bill.[43]

Added mention of the debt-ceiling to the body. Would appreciate any copyedits; I'm on holiday and don't have time to edit it as well as I'd have liked. DFlhb (talk) 09:53, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

I've made changes to the proposition below that include CHIPS and default. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 05:39, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

A working proposal

On January 20, 2021, at the age of 78, Biden became the oldest president in U.S. history, the first to have a female vice president, and the first from Delaware. Biden restored America's membership in the Paris Agreement, and he signed a $1.9 trillion economic stimulus package in response to the recession caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as a bill investing in infrastructure and the CHIPS and Science Act. Aspects of Biden's Build Back Better Plan were scaled back and presented in the Inflation Reduction Act that was passed by Congress and signed into law by Biden in 2022. The economy during Biden's presidency has been hallmarked by GDP growth and job creation amid significantly-elevated inflation. He appointed Ketanji Brown Jackson to the Supreme Court. In 2023, Biden and congressional Republicans prevented a default by negotiating a deal to raise the debt ceiling. In foreign policy, Biden oversaw the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan that ended the war in Afghanistan, during which the Afghan government collapsed and the Taliban seized control. He has responded to the Russian invasion of Ukraine by imposing sanctions on Russia and authorizing foreign aid and weapons shipments to Ukraine. On April 25, 2023, Biden announced his intention to run for a second term as president in 2024.

This is a proposal that I've written up that highlights what I'm thinking are the most significant aspects of Biden's presidency and what is emphasized in this article. Now I'm open to your in-put. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 07:14, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Much improved. Esolo5002 (talk) 14:38, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't think some of the verbs here work - "presented" and especially "hallmarked." The second sentence is a run-on - I'd suggest splitting it after Paris Agreement. —Ganesha811 (talk) 13:18, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Student loans

A new Supreme Court controversy and ruling on a student loan action by Biden has drawn significant attention and should be addressed at some point. Just typing “Biden student loans” into Google or DuckDuckGo will provide a vast array of results and viable lede sources. 3vvww661 (talk) 21:29, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Probably not major enough to be included here. It is included at Presidency of Joe Biden (though should be updated to indicate that it has been struck down by the court). Elli (talk | contribs) 21:44, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

What would justify the action of having it included here to make the ruling liable to a lede in this article? 3vvww661 (talk) 23:03, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Not sure what you're asking? Elli (talk | contribs) 02:50, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Well, first of all, Biden's plan to forgive student debt isn't mentioned in this article. If that's not important, neither is its cancellation. TFD (talk) 03:05, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

To echo what TFD said, since the existence of the plan wasn't in this article or in this article lede, it's cancellation probably won't be approved for this article lede. At least, not at this time. Sure, if events make it more notable over time, that could change. It's important to remember that something being all over the news right now, at this specific moment, doesn't mean it has any long term notability (especially for an article lede). News is sensational about whatever is in the news at any given moment, as that gets eyeballs. See WP:NOTTHENEWS and WP:RECENTISM. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 21:38, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Not everything has to go in the main article. There are separate articles. Cwater1 (talk) 19:53, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

The loan forgiveness is in Presidency of Joe Biden. You can add this there. soibangla (talk) 03:07, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Biden Health

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

---

Since becoming president Biden has fallen up the stairs of Air force One, fallen off his bicycle, fallen over on stage at a military induction ceremony and banged his head exiting the presidential helicopter. As President he refuses to take a cognitive test and is considered by many medical experts to be suffering from dementia. Why aren't these facts included in his profile. 78.105.88.141 (talk) 11:11, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

He is NOT considered by many medical experts to be suffering from dementia. That is a stupid, partisan lie. The rest of what you describe is irrelevant to being President. For twelve years the country had a very successful President who couldn't stand up at all. HiLo48 (talk) 11:18, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree with HiLo, I don't think Biden is considered by medical experts to be suffering from dementia. Please give a source, IP. And in the future, it speeds the conversation along if you post sources for your claims (perhaps if they are not widely known to be factual). Now I will have to wait for you to respond. SmileyTrek (talk) 18:20, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

OK, lets see these medical experts. Slatersteven (talk) 18:21, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Who are the med experts on dementia? GoodDay (talk) 20:44, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Please provide documentation for your assertions, including your claim Biden refuses to take any test and the medical assessment of doctors that have examined Biden. 331dot (talk) 12:17, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

🤨Reference? Parham wiki (talk) 16:06, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

An IP presented a reference to WP:FOXNEWS along with a long shpiel, but Acroterion deleted it as WP:NOTAFORUM. IP, WP:FOXNEWS is not a reliable source when it comes to Joe Biden, or any other topic within American politics. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:39, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

IP, please don't repost the same copy/pasted text. It's overkill. If you click the link --> WP:FOXNEWS, it will lead you to the discussion where the community determined that Fox News is unreliable for politics because of their blatant innaccuracies. It is here - [44] – Muboshgu (talk) 00:08, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Fox News seems to be opinion based rather than persuasive for politics. Cwater1 (talk) 15:23, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

In any event, Biden has lately made a huge number of gaffes, or however the editors here choose to characterize them. They may or may not be cognitive function related, but certainly these episodes bear mention. I am referring to his turning to shake hands with non-existent people, saying "God save the Queen, man" to a crowd after a gun control speech, the statement earlier this week that we will have conserved 30% of all U.S. lands and waters by 2020, etc., etc. These need to be mentioned in the article. Greenwashing (talk) 16:59, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

We need MEDERS compliant sources in a BLP about medical matters. Slatersteven (talk) 17:01, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Joe Biden#Reputation covers his "gaffes" and embellishments. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:26, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

The Reputation section does not cover any of the gaffes and lies (characterized in this article as "embellishments". The article just mentions that he has made "gaffes" without citing any of the numerous examples. Of course, many of these "gaffes" go way beyond a simple slip of the tongue. A few recent examples are when he said "God Save the Queen, man" at the end of a speech on gun control. Or turning to try to shake hands with a non-existent person. Or stating a few days a promise to conserve 30% of America’s water and land mass by 2020. Or that he would build a train across the Pacific Ocean. His "gaffes" are certainly something that needs to prominently mentioned in this article, with examples. Just a sentence of two stating that he has made gaffes glosses over this important issue. As for Slatersteven's statement that we need MEDERS compliant sources about medical matters - I am not referring to a medical matter per se. I just believe that concrete examples of his numerous, repeated, alarming gaffes need to be mentioned. It just seems that some of the editors here are doing everything they can to make sure nothing negative is mentioned prominently or with any detail. The result is that this article is anything but neutral, but rather reads like a campaign endorsement. Greenwashing (talk) 13:21, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

We are not listpedia, we mention it, we do not need to give specific examples. As to the accusation of whitewashing, wp:AGF, or give examples of users operating a double standard. Slatersteven (talk) 13:29, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Focus on content, not on contributors. I don't see you presenting any WP:RS to support that they are "alarming" for our consideration. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:42, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

I was focused on content when I mentioned the lack of substance to the article. As for a double standard - that is blatantly obvious. A simple comparison of the Wikipedia articles for the current and previous Presidents shows the high level of bias and lack of a neutral POV. I am told that lists are not appropriate for all of Biden's Gaffes, yet the Donald Trump article includes lists of charges brought against him, lists of countries included in his travel ban, lists of people pardoned, and other lists. Further, the Trump article is nearly all negative, and makes little to no mention of his significant successes economically and in foreign relations. After all, ISIS was destroyed on his watch after running rampant for the previous 8 years, the economy was booming after eight years of stagnation until Covid softened the huge gains somewhat, Korea didn't launch missiles, and Russia didn't invade Ukraine. These are all either not mentioned, seriously downplayed, or even painted as negative. In stark contrast, the Biden article paints his presidency as a success despite his policies causing high inflation and tanking the stock market. His policies have caused other failures, resulting in his very low favorability ratings. I am not asking for anything but to write each of these two articles with a neutral POV, highlighting both successes and failures of each. What we have now is a long article bashing Trump and another long article that looks like it was written by Biden's campaign staff. Greenwashing (talk) 17:16, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

If you want to include lists of charges brought against Biden, lists of countries included in his travel ban, lists of people pardoned go ahead. Slatersteven (talk) 17:21, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Trump's article seeming more negative than Biden's is a result of the WP:RS coverage they've received, which we reflect neutrally. Trying to make this page more negative in a tit-for-tat is WP:FALSEBALANCE. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:31, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Greenwashing - You are using Fox News talking points (never convincing to thinking editors) and making the classic mistake of blaming Biden for global issues. Inflation is global. In the UK they blame their conservative government and recent string of conservative Prime Ministers for inflation. Saying Biden caused it is a purely political statement on your part HiLo48 (talk) 00:00, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

The events are mentioned on the timelines of his presidency. It doesn't always have to be mentioned on the main article. The stumbling on stairs is mentioned here. Timeline_of_the_Joe_Biden_presidency_(2021_Q1)#Week_9 Cwater1 (talk) 21:32, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

HiLo48 -It is not necessary to attempt to denigrate me with statements like "(never convincing to thinking editors)", implying in a not exactly subtle way that you are a thinking editor and I am not, just because I have a more conservative viewpoint than you do. Greenwashing (talk) 00:57, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

We don't accept Fox News as a reliable source. Perhaps as a new editor you were not aware of that. Now you are. HiLo48 (talk) 04:05, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Fox News is slanted, to be sure, but no more than other sources you consider reliable, such as MSNBC, NYT and WaPo. To achieve balance it is important to consider more sources than just those that are left-leaning. Greenwashing (talk) 14:10, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Every media source has its bias. Fox News fails basic journalism norms around accuracy, while the others don't. That's why Fox News isn't reliable and the others are. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:16, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

HiLo48 - You also state that I make a classic mistake blaming Biden for inflation in the U.S., when inflation is a global issue. Again, you communicate to me in a patronizing way, which I do not appreciate. Some aspects of inflation may be global, but Biden's policies directly led to inflation in the U.S. He signed the American Rescue Plan Act, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, and the Inflation Reduction Act, with massive spending on climate change and social programs, and destroying tax relief put into place by the previous President, all of which triggered high prices on food, gasoline, and other items, tanking the effects of the economic boom under the previous President. Biden compounded this with more giveaways like student loan forgiveness. So while inflation may be global in your opinion, the high inflation we are experiencing in the U.S. was caused in large measure by Biden's policies. Greenwashing (talk) 14:37, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Economists disagree. O3000, Ret. (talk) 14:59, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Inflation being global is not an opinion. It's also not an opinion that it isn't as bad in the US as elsewhere. 331dot (talk) 20:19, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

If we had to recount everytime someone tripped this website would be rendered useless. Trillfendi (talk) 20:37, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

This discussion has slid away from its initial topic. GoodDay (talk) 21:13, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

The initial topic was an editor telling negative lies about a President from the side of politics they don't like. I see no change. HiLo48 (talk) 22:54, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

HiLo48 - The edits I suggested are not negative lies, yet you felt it necessary to call me out with an insult, implying I am a non-thinker. You obviously think President Biden is doing a good job, and that is your prerogative, but your opinion is not shared by the majority of Americans as evidenced by his low approval ratings. Your repeated bashing of editors you disagree with is doing nothing to improve this article. Greenwashing (talk) 01:11, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Public opinion NEVER determines truth. The opening post here said Biden "refuses to take a cognitive test and is considered by many medical experts to be suffering from dementia." No evidence was produced to support those claims. They can therefore be considered to be partisan lies. HiLo48 (talk) 04:03, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

HiLo48 - President Biden has repeatedly refused to take a cognitive function test. I believe his exact words when questioned by a reporter about it were "why the hell would I do that?" It is not a lie. There are also medical professionals who have stated that Biden exhibits signs of dementia, but you probably write off every article to that effect as coming from a source not considered reliable. That is a convenient way for you and others to prevent negative information from appearing in an article about a liberal politician while allowing plenty of negative information in an article about a conservative politician. In any event that is not a lie either. And I never stated that public opinion determines facts - those are your words. I simply pointed out that the majority of people in the States do not share your opinion that Biden is doing a good job. Please stop twisting what I write, and please stop attacking me with insults. Greenwashing (talk) 14:19, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Illness during old age is the rule, rather than the exception. So the bar for saying that an old man is ill is not that high. These being said, consult WP:RSP and select therefrom WP:RS which have actually claimed that Biden is ill. Yup, the list does include conservative sources, but not extreme ones. Since one thing is saying that old men are generally speaking ill, and quite another thing to know which illnesses Biden actually suffers from. Several acting US presidents have been severely ill. So that's not something unheard of. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:12, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

"Several acting US president have been severely ill"? Biden isn't & never was, an acting president. He's the president. There's only been three acting presidents in US history - Bush 41, Cheney (twice) & Harris. GoodDay (talk) 09:17, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

So have several presidents (or at least allegations they were ill). We need medical opinoi based on examinations, not here say. Slatersteven (talk) 11:34, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

This is not going anywhere, and is a time sink. It needs closing. Slatersteven (talk) 15:25, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

I feel this topic is getting more opinion based. I was looking at Wikipedia:Closing discussions. Also, I was looking at Wikipedia:RSOPINION. Cwater1 (talk) 19:43, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Indeed. Unless either the third or fourth sections of the 25th amendment are about to be invoked long-term? This discussion ought to be closed. GoodDay (talk) 20:12, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Not sure if a resolution can be reached. My thing is that opinion based statements shouldn't be added. Like I said earlier, Fox News tend to be more opinion based from what I read. We need to aim at persuasive statements. I don't think Wikipedia is intended for opinions. Cwater1 (talk) 22:15, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Shouldn't there be something about the status of Biden's plans for a railroad across the Indian Ocean, as he told the League of Conservation Voters on June 14, 2023? Even Snopes verified that he confirmed that he stated there were plans to do so. Where do those grandiose plans stand? Greenwashing (talk) 19:49, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Try being the leader of the free world for a time without making a mistake. Mistakes happen, that doesn't mean that they warrant inclusion in a Wikipedia article. 331dot (talk) 19:59, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

The Snopes piece you refer to states that Biden was referencing a railroad to the Indian Ocean in Africa, not across the Indian Ocean. "We found he was most likely referring to a proposal to build a rail line in Sub-Saharan Africa with the goal of reaching the Indian Ocean, which was referenced in an official White House transcript from May 2023." 331dot (talk) 20:03, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

331dot- That is NOT what President Biden said - he stated that there were plans to build a railroad across the Indian Ocean. What you have written is parroting what his handlers stated in an attempt to undo the damage caused by Biden's outrageous statement. Greenwashing (talk) 20:31, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

And - Biden's repeated "mistakes" certainly warrant inclusion in this article, but are kept out by editors like yourself and others who want to keep this article as supportive of Biden as possible. I suggest that Wikipedia editors use the same criteria for inclusion and exclusion of information regarding Biden as is used for Trump and other conservative politicians. If they repeatedly say or do something stupid, mention it, regardless of political leanings. Greenwashing (talk) 20:35, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

You are failing to assume good faith. This is a problem. Are all of the stupid things that Trump said in his article? Maybe a few, but not every random comment like this Indian Ocean one, which you haven't provided any WP:RS about. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:39, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Please address problematic passages on articles about conservative politicians on their respective talk pages. I could certainly believe that there may be some that shouldn't be there. 331dot (talk) 20:42, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Do you actually believe he has plans to build a railroad across the Indian Ocean or ever thought of such a task? O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:49, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

O3000 - I have no clue what Biden plans or thinks of. As for WP:RS about his statement - Greenwashing (talk) 21:02, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Did you read the Forbes article you pointed to? It does a good job of explaining why this doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:20, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree that the Forbes article does a nice job of setting out how Forbes believes this latest statement by Biden could be characterized as a mistake or "gaffe" and downplayed by the media. I gave three examples of reliable source reports, from different positions, on this latest statement by Biden in an effort to demonstrate neutrality. Taking together, reports on this latest statement by President Biden show that this was more than a simple "gaffe". Greenwashing (talk) 12:23, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

No, it actually doesn't do that at all. This is a perfect example of confirmation bias. 331dot (talk) 12:28, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Another day, another problematic statement by President Biden. Yesterday, in a press conference, he told the world that the United States is low on ammunition. This, of course, goes well beyond the typical "gaffe", and affects our national security. This should certainly warrant inclusion.Greenwashing (talk) 18:26, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

More WP:RECENTISM. International Business Times is "generally unreliable" -- see WP:IBTIMES. I think it's past time for you to drop the stick and slowly back away from the horse carcass. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:27, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

What about the Wall Street Journal? Are you also suggesting the WSJ source is also "generally unreliable"? More importantly - are you claiming that President Biden didn't make this statement?Greenwashing (talk) 18:35, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

If at all, this would belong on Presidency of Joe Biden, not here. And I have to wonder who gives a shit anyway EvergreenFir (talk) 18:42, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

references for this section

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.

Where is the family section

I’d like to see a section about Joe Biden’s family; including information on his immediate family including his closeness with Beau, recent reporting on Hunter, and information regarding his extended family. Jack4576 (talk) 16:00, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

See Family of Joe Biden. 331dot (talk) 16:02, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Structure of the presidency section

The Presidency section is currently organized chronologically. What are people's thoughts on reorganizing it into a more standard structure: "Domestic policy", then "Foreign policy"? Do people think it's better to keep it chronological while he's in office? DFlhb (talk) 08:38, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

I would be in favor of reorganizing into the standard structure. Chronological structure encourages WP:PROSELINE and makes it harder to write well-summarized prose. I say go for it! —Ganesha811 (talk) 20:46, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Absolutely support reorganizing Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 17:30, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

I have just attempted to implement this, but of course, revisions to my organizational scheme are more than welcome! Almost no content was removed. —Ganesha811 (talk) 00:06, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. A non-chronological structure makes it easier to add analysis that comes out months/years later without breaking the timeline. DFlhb (talk) 07:44, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

@Ganesha811: Excellent work. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 20:06, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

"Presidential transition" section out of place

This section looks like it should be in Donald Trumps wiki, not here.

here is a big on that stands out to me: Trump refused to concede, insisting the election had been "stolen" from him through "voter fraud"...

Considering the primary subject is 1. Biden 2. His transition, I feel like the overly detailed actions of Trump detract from what it its supposed to be, among other things. I legitimately thought I was reading a section from Trumps wiki. Also, "refusing to concede" doesn't make much sense because conceding is not legally required. Trump not playing nice and waiting until the last minute isn't "refusing" anything as he did ultimately engage in transitional duties post official electoral voting process.

This entire section could easily be removed as it adds no real information about "transitioning". The riots etc are notable, but have nothing to do with his transition. As far as the transition is concerned its like "Trump did not concede as has been commonly seen in prior elections and waited until official counting before engaging in transitional duties". done. StayFree76 ^talk 09:42, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

AfD of interest

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2023 Joe Biden speech in Vilnius. Zaathras (talk) 01:22, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Addition

i think it is important we mention joe biden was added into ultrkaill

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rm8ETpH6-fw 2001:8003:1C24:1000:C1EC:5F15:35DB:EF4A (talk) 10:18, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

What's an ultrkaill? And don't force those of us who have no idea to watch a YouTube video. HiLo48 (talk) 10:22, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

It’s a first-person shooter game. So it’s not important, except maybe to the Secret Service. Acroterion (talk) 10:30, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

I Googled, and found it's also a typo. Should say Ultrakill. HiLo48 (talk) 10:46, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

I think you need to read wp:or. Slatersteven (talk) 10:31, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

FBI FD-1023 Released by Sen. Grassley

Prominent mention should be given in this article to the FD-1023 released in its entirety today, which shows how deeply then Vice President Biden was involved in a scheme with his son Hunter to coerce Burisma CEO Mykola Zlochevsky to pay them millions of dollars in exchange for their help in getting the Ukrainian prosecutor investigating Burisma fired. Greenwashing (talk) 18:36, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

This is based solely on claims by oligarch Mykola Zlochevsky, who currently is wanted by Ukrainian authorities for attempting to bribe the prosecutors in order to drop charges of graft and embezzlement against him. I think his current location is unknown. His claims that the Bidens demanded money to get the Ukranian Prosecutor ousted seem odd given that there was widespread criticism of the former Ukrainian prosecutor by several high-profile international leaders and it was official US State Department policy that he was corrupt and should be removed. John Cohen, a former congressional investigator and federal law enforcement official, said it was "highly disconcerting" to see a lawmaker release "uncorroborated, raw intelligence without additional detail on what those who received this reporting found when they investigated it." I don't see how we can include the claims of one corrupt person on the run. Find a reliable secondary source. [45] O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:54, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Greenwashing You don't offer a source for your claims. Looking at your edit history with a grand total of two edits to articles and a few to your talk page, but most of your edits are to this talk page with spurious and dubious partisan claims about President Biden and his son(who is not a public official and not seeking public office). Do you actually intend to offer real contributions and collaborate here or do you just want to post these claims? 331dot (talk) 19:51, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

And you must know that Russia was deeply involved in all of this, to keep first Hillary and then Biden out of office so Putin could conquer a sovereign country without firing a shot? 331dot (talk) 19:58, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Lol, no. There is no substance to Grassley's report, all it contains is an unverified claim by an anonymous source that pretty much echoes an already-known Rudy Giuliani talking point. Zaathras (talk) 22:27, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Joe Biden

Hi, 331dot. I wanted to talk about my disagreement with your edits on the article about Joe Biden because Joe Biden was actually the eighth-youngest senator in the history of the United States at the age of 30 years and 44 days after John Henry Eaton who was 28, Armistead Mason who was also 28, John Jordan Crittenden who was 29, Thomas Worthington who was also 29, Henry Clay who was also 29, Rush Holt Sr. who was 30 years and 2 days old and William Hill Wells who was 30 years and 10 days old and I am correct here and I want to know why you disagree with me on this so let me know, please. Thank you. Mismak Abel (talk) 18:33, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

My main view on this is that 7th or 8th are both low enough in the rankings that being specific is unhelpful for this article. The cited source has him at the 6th youngest, though it's just a news piece. Can we keep the citation and say "At 30, he was among the youngest senators in U.S. history"?

If we do need to get into it, I'm pretty sure the issue is Thomas Worthington (governor) and whether he took office on April 1, 1803, or on October 17, 1803. I surveyed some sources, and my best read is that he was chosen for the Senate in April (soon after Ohio's statehood was established) and seated in October. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:01, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Yo. Thank you, man. Now I understand that I was mistaken. You are quite right. Thomas Worthington was chosen when he was 29 on 1 April 1803 but he took his seat on 17 October 1803 at the age of 30 years. So Joe Biden was actually the seventh-youngest senator in the history of the United States at the age of 30 years and 44 days after John Henry Eaton, Armistead Mason, John Jordan Crittenden, Henry Clay, Rush Holt Sr. and William Hill Wells. Mismak Abel (talk) 12:38, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

I find the entire passage to be absurdly trivial, to be honest. A more pertinent fact to note would be that Biden is the 2nd-youngest elected Senator, if we're going to retain this bit at all. Zaathras (talk) 21:10, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Interesting trivia. The US Constitution says one has to be at least 30-years old, to serve in the US Senate. Yet a few have served, under age 30. GoodDay (talk) 22:02, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

I have to agree, its pointless trivia. Slatersteven (talk) 12:43, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

"Draft:Joseph Biden Jr." listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Draft:Joseph Biden Jr. has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 July 29 § Draft:Joseph Biden Jr. until a consensus is reached. Keivan.f^Talk 03:28, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

AfD of interest (2)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kathleen Buhle, ex-wife of Hunter Biden. Zaathras (talk) 00:59, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Draft:James Biden

I recently started a draft for James Biden. Any help would be appreciated. Thriley (talk) 23:43, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

My advice, self-delete and save someone the trouble of nominating it for deletion, per WP:NOTINHERITED. This person has zero notability independent of his more famous relation. Zaathras (talk) 01:24, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Biden's brother has been controversial. See the refs Zaathras Thriley has in the draft he's building.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 04:58, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Maybe he will become controversial if Comer finds something on him, but this has not happened soibangla (talk) 05:10, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

He's already notable. ^{[46][47][48][49][50][51][52]}

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 05:17, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't dispute he's notable. I dispute he's controversial and it would be unfortunate to create a BLP for him under the supposition he is. soibangla (talk) 13:38, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

He's already controversial according to The Washington Post, The Times, The Daily Telegraph and Politico.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 13:47, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

I'd prefer if you would cite specific instances of that from those sources rather than generic links to their articles. soibangla (talk) 13:53, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Samples from the above links:

• "President Biden’s brother James is known in the family as the one who’s always ready to help. But he also has a history of business dealings that resulted in recriminations and lawsuits."^[53]
• "None of the ventures appear to have been runaway successes, and Biden’s relatives have not been accused of criminal wrongdoing in their dealings. But over the years, several of their partners and associates have ended up indicted or convicted. The dealings have brought Joe unwelcome scrutiny and threaten to distract from his presidential bid."^[54]
• "He has previously been accused by former business contacts of seeking to exploit the former vice president’s clout for financial gain in court proceedings inNew York,Kentucky, andFlorida, though he has denied such claims."^[55]
• Headline: "James Biden’s health care ventures face a growing legal morass: A mysterious FBI raid. New allegations from former executives. Questions are swirling about the business dealings of Joe Biden’s brother."^[56]

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 14:07, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

You can't be serious that you think this is somehow important enough warrant an article. EvergreenFir (talk) 14:22, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

The issues as noted above are

1. Is James Biden notable? The answer is a clear "yes" - the links I provided are just a sample of what's out there.
2. Is James Biden controversial? Again, a clear "yes" per the links from reliable sources above.

James Biden gets an article under our rules as currently written. The idea of sufficient importance is addressed by our notability guidelines which represent broad community consensus. It's not something left to you or me as individual editors.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 14:36, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Feel free to move it to article-space then, so I can nominate it for deletion. Zaathras (talk) 18:53, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Someone else is writing it. I expect knowing our notability, referencing and deletion guidelines, an AfD would fail. But you can give it a try when it hits article space; perhaps WP:IAR might work.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 19:01, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

IAR is unnecessary when a simple fail of WP:N is obvious to even the the most green of editors. Zaathras (talk) 19:05, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

We'll see! --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 19:08, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Thomas Worthington

Why is it that on the article about Thomas Worthington and on the article about the list of United States Senators from Ohio on the part regarding Thomas Worthington 1 April 1803 is written as the date of the start of the senatorial tenure of Thomas Worthington if he was seated or if he took office on 17 October 1803? There was a person who had reversed my two edits in these two articles by which I had implied that 17 October 1803 is the date of the start of the senatorial tenure of Thomas Worthington and who had restored the edits by which the editor implied that 1 April 1803 is the date of the start of the senatorial tenure of Thomas Worthington saying that it is because in Thomas Worthington's biography it was written that he had started his senatorial tenure on 1 April 1803. I need clarification. Mismak Abel (talk) 19:24, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

This isn't really the place to talk about it. If you start a discussion at one of the article talk pages where you were reverted, you could ping the editor who reverted you (and me, if you'd like). Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:33, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 August 2023

Your article makes no mention of the 13 servicemembers that were killed in Afghanistan during the withdrawal.Please give these persons the recognition they deserve. Thank You 2600:4041:67F5:7300:E441:C71:A39:4663 (talk) 02:56, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

This article isn't the place for such recognition. HiLo48 (talk) 03:41, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

"#invoke:cite news" instead of "cite news"

I can't remember ever seeing refs handled this way on any other large article. I would like to replace all of the "#invoke"s with regular cite news templates, but wanted to be sure there wasn't a reason for it before making the change. I did search the talk page archives and couldn't find anything. Is there a reason this page should continue to use "#invoke"? Thanks.-Ich (talk) 10:15, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 August 2023

During his time in the Senate, Biden and Roth generally had a good relationship despite their sometimes sharp philosophical differences. 24.46.59.173 (talk) 10:44, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — Czello ^(music) 10:48, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Biden and Roth did have a good relationship, though. 24.46.59.173 (talk) 00:15, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

It may be true, but you still need to provide a source. Cessaune [talk] 02:23, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

This? The Voter's Self Defense System - Vote Smart Not sure if it counts. Cwater1 (talk) 15:38, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Should the lead contain reference to the Debt Ceiling deal?

Currently the initial couple paragraphs mentions he "worked with congressional Republicans to prevent a first ever national default by negotiating a deal to raise the debt ceiling" but is that really that important of an event for it to be specified within the lead? Barack Obama negotiated a similar deal with Republicans in 2011 and isn't mentioned until further in his own article itself. The Biden-Republican deal seems even less notable in comparison given there were notably less concessions given to Republicans in 2023 than in 2011 also so just comparing the two they seem to be of unequal weight yet it's mentioned as one of the most prominent things on his profile. While it should obviously be mentioned further into his article I'm not sure it should remain in the lead when a similar deal isn't even mentioned in the lead of the previous Democratic president. LosPajaros (talk) 02:01, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

I'd argue not - Trump's government shutdown (which was more severe than the possibility of the debt ceiling deal) isn't mentioned in the lede. seems like classic recentism to be honest. Couruu (talk) Couruu (talk) 14:22, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

No, this is about Jow Biden, not his presidency. Slatersteven (talk) 14:26, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 September 2023

Noms de plumes: Robin Ware. Robert L. Peters, JRB Ware, Celtic and “The Big Guy.

https://thehill.com/opinion/criminal-justice/4182940-bidens-use-of-fake-names-in-email-could-cost-him/amp/ 2600:4040:B4BF:E400:5C02:CB66:B735:5B97 (talk) 03:47, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Aoi (青い) (talk) 04:02, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

| signature = Joe Biden Signature.svg

| signature_alt = Cursive signature in ink

| Noms de plume = Robin Ware, Robert L. Peters, JRB Ware, Celtic and “The Big Guy”

| website =

• Campaign website
• White House website

https://thehill.com/opinion/criminal-justice/4182940-bidens-use-of-fake-names-in-email-could-cost-him/amp/ 173.67.13.65 (talk) 14:51, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Old news. Slatersteven (talk) 14:54, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Presidential rankings

Has there been any discussion on whether we should include presidential rankings, such as those conducted by organizations like Siena College, on this page? I would like to initiate a discussion on whether it would be beneficial to add these rankings while President Biden is still in office or wait until 2025 when his term will conclude, regardless of whether he is reelected or not. In my opinion, I believe it would be valuable to add presidential rankings as soon as reliable sources release them. Notably, institutions like C-SPAN typically wait until the president's term is completed, while Siena College conducts rankings during the second year of a president's term. I propose that when we publish rankings on Wikipedia, we can focus on the first two years of the president's term, aligning with the available data from reliable sources.
There are several compelling reasons to consider this approach:

1. Timeliness: Including rankings during a president's term provides Wikipedia readers with timely and pertinent information regarding the ongoing assessment of President Biden's performance.
2. Historical Context: These rankings offer historical context for understanding contemporary evaluations of the presidency, which is valuable for readers seeking a nuanced perspective.
3. Transparency: Including rankings as they become available ensures transparency and accuracy in presenting the most current assessments of President Biden's performance.
4. Comparative Analysis: Readers can make more meaningful comparisons by seeing how the president's performance evolves over time, providing a comprehensive view of his leadership.
5. Wikipedia's Mission: Wikipedia aims to be a current encyclopedia, and including rankings during a president's term aligns with this goal by keeping content up-to-date.
6. Representing Diverse Perspectives: Different organizations and experts may release rankings at various points during a president's term. By including rankings as they are available, Wikipedia can represent a broader spectrum of opinions and assessments.
7. Maintaining Neutrality: Editors can ensure that rankings are presented objectively and neutrally, avoiding any editorial bias. Inclusion of rankings from various sources can contribute to a balanced representation of public opinion.

I encourage fellow editors to share their thoughts on this proposal, and together, we can decide the best approach for integrating presidential rankings into this page. Interstellarity (talk) 22:12, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

We don't even know if he'll have a second term, in which case this would be vastly too early. O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:18, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Best to wait until he leaves office, be that January 20, 2025 or January 20, 2029. GoodDay (talk) 22:27, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

The only policy-based reason for inclusion is the degree of coverage in reliable sources. It probably gets covered more if a president rates exceptionally high or low, neither of which applies here. So probably best to wait in case it gets more coverage. TFD (talk) 22:55, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

This non-American would love to know more about the Siena College Presidential rankings. Do we have an article on them? I also look at the US and see a population among whom a high proportion openly declare themselves to be Republican or Democrat, seemingly for life. How can such people ever objectively rank presidents? HiLo48 (talk) 00:11, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

"Joe (president)" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Joe (president) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 September 21 § Joe (president) until a consensus is reached. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 04:27, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Hunter Biden

The article currently states "As of 2008, Hunter Biden was a Washington lobbyist and investment adviser" (plus source). I appreciate that the subject of this article is Joe, not Hunter, but is that really the most relevant and up-to-date information we have about Hunter? GrindtXX (talk) 23:53, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

I agree that the sentence could be more current, and have changed it accordingly. —Ganesha811 (talk) 00:14, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

References

Debt Ceiling Deal

LosPajaros Couruu Slatersteven all agreed in a discussion above, with zero opposition from anyone, that one of many budget negotiations over the past decade is NOT notable for the lead. I independently thought the same when I saw it there and removed it, but was reverted by SPECIFICO oddly claiming "RS detail Biden rescuing McCarthy" as if a reliable source saying Biden had some involvement means that it's notable for his lead. The President has some involvement in any budget negotiation but the vast majority of the deal was made between the Senate and House and it wasn't some policy proposal of Biden's that belongs in his lead, any more than it did in Obama or Trump's (neither's lead mentions any budget deals). Bill Williams 00:18, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Biden was personally involved:

Negotiating staff for McCarthy and the White House held back-to-back negotiating sessions, some stretching late into the night before resuming again ... Biden and McCarthy spent an hour and a half on a call Saturday night, a rare one-on-one conversation between the two leaders that followed days of fraught talks over the final sticking points.[57]

soibangla (talk) 00:36, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

• Christ, I wish we had a guideline discouraging adding breaking-news (or even recent-news) stuff. How DUE something is -- how much detail to give about some incident, or indeed whether to include it at all -- is so very much clearer at a distance of six months. Gigantic amounts of editor time are wasted debating how and whether to cover recent stuff which readers can be better informed on elsewhere. EEng 00:42, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

  So, I shouldn't add that my mushroom soup tonight had too much flour in it? O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:48, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

  One word: Barley. SPECIFICO talk 00:55, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

• I agree that it should not be in the lead and possibly not in the article, per recentism. Will people be talking about this in 10 years? Not likely. It's not like Lincoln confronted with the Southern states leaving the Union or FDR facing the boming of Pearl Harbor. TFD (talk) 01:27, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

  Straw man argument is not helpful. SPECIFICO talk 02:39, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

  I'm sorry... In the lead? In the fucking lead???? Are you crazy? EEng 05:25, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

  How is that a straw man argument? Please don't make claims without backing them up. This isn't Congress. TFD (talk) 02:11, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

• Keep it nice people. And OP read wp:lede. Slatersteven (talk) 09:33, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
• Best to keep it out of the lead. I haven't checked further into this, but I'm guessing budgetary situations have been solved before, in earlier administrations. GoodDay (talk) 16:11, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
• The WP:RECENTISM is striking. (Is that what you might have meant, EEng?) This deal is good for 47 days. Let's temper ourselves here. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:20, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

  That's exactly what I mean, Bagumba. EEng 22:02, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

my understanding is this discussion is about the debt default risk in May, not the shutdown risk of this week soibangla (talk) 22:20, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

As much as I believe in the value of the essay, I've stopped linking to WP:recentism as no one pays attention and as a result, it's as useless as a screen door on a submarine. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:00, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Unless Biden's actions were way out of character, this belongs in the Presidency article far more than it belongs here. HiLo48 (talk) 02:59, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

inclined to agree soibangla (talk) 03:25, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Health Concerns

Shouldn't health concerns be mentioned in this article? TiltonHilton (talk) 17:18, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Why? Slatersteven (talk) 17:20, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

You would first need to cite any secondary RS that demonstrates such concerns. SPECIFICO talk 18:08, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

General practice is that we don't include health concerns unless he has been diagnosed. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 18:10, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

But there are no such concerns cited to any RS. Fox and Newsmax are not expressing "concerns" when they feature his "health". SPECIFICO talk 18:30, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

What health concerns? GoodDay (talk) 19:09, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

I see no reason to include health concerns about Biden or McConnell at this time. O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:02, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Also zero need to mention McConnell since he is a different person with different medical diagnoses (or lack thereof). —OuroborosCobra (talk) 22:04, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Obvious to us. My preemptive response was to the OP. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:11, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Who also didn’t mention McConnell, so why bother? —OuroborosCobra (talk) 02:02, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

A section for health is not needed here. If we can be persuasive, maybe, but lets leave it out for now. So far, it is not stopping the president from assuming his duties. Cwater1 (talk) 23:00, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Isn't his health discussed twice in the artice? The article says that he had brain surgery in February 1988 and COVID 19 on July 21, 2022. What other health concerns are reported by reliable sources?JeremiahJohnson (talk) 08:22, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Found these, Joe_Biden#Brain_surgeries and Joe_Biden#COVID-19_diagnosis. Cwater1 (talk) 14:47, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

What about mention of Biden being diagnosed earlier this year with "significant spinal arthritis" by the White House physician? That has led to him using the shorter steps in the belly of Air Force One, and now wearing tennis shoes when using the stairs. TiltonHilton (talk) 20:48, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

I see a great deal of exaggeration about this in non reliable sources. Yes, he has significant spinal arthritis, which is not surprising. The tennis shoes may be because he had a foot fracture. I didn't see them related to his arthritis. Hard to see how this is WP:DUE. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:00, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

A comment from a non-American, based on observations of similar campaigns in other places and at other times. "Health concerns" is a misleading euphemism. Those raising the matter are not concerned about Biden's health, not in a positive way anyway. They are political opponents who are hoping that they can convince possible Biden supporters that he is too old/frail/ill/unsuited to the job. This approach is not unique to Biden in the US right now. It's an old, tried and true, political tactic. We need to be honest about what this is really all about. HiLo48 (talk) 00:53, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

I agree we need to be honest. There are numerous sources repeatedly documenting Biden's mental lapses, "gaffes", shaking hands with a nonexistent person, being ushered away from onlookers by the Easter Bunny, calling on a dead person to stand up and be recognized, etc. etc. etc. At some point these cognitive function issues should merit mention in this article. TiltonHilton (talk) 20:12, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

There are numerous bad sources. You would need to be more specific. O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:25, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Show us some reliable sources. By which I mean not WP:FOXNEWS, WP:BREITBART, WP:NEWSMAX, WP:DAILYMAIL, WP:NYPOST, or whatever other unreliable source. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:33, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification that Wikipedia considers only left-leaning sources such as New York Times, Washington Post, etc. to be reliable. BTW - the last I checked, Fox News was considered a reliable source for Wikipedia. I guess the Wikipedia administrators have eliminated it from the "Reliable Sources" list. TiltonHilton (talk) 21:33, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Do you actually think that was a useful post? O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:49, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Apparently you must not have checked for some time, because Fox is only considered reliable for "news coverage on topics other than politics and science." And no, the Wikipedia administrators do not write the "Reliable sources" list. Also, NYT, WaPo are not left-wing. Last I checked they are pro-capitalist. TFD (talk) 22:07, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

I was trying to keep this conversation serious. Now this. You can't really believe NYT and WaPo are completely unbiased and, if anything, lean right. I suppose you even think MSNBC is middle-of the-road. TiltonHilton (talk) 20:41, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

All sources have bias of one form or another. The right wing sources that I listed above are unreliable not because of their bias but because of constant factual inaccuracies in their reporting. This discussion is now completely off track. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:44, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

If yo wish to argue about reliability of these sources, you are not on the correct page, Go to WP:RSN. O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:45, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Please reinstate information on Biden's ancestral line

Please add the following sentence directly after the existing sentence "They had three children: Joseph R. "Beau" Biden III, Robert Hunter Biden, and Naomi Christina "Amy" Biden.[23]"

Biden's paternal line has been traced to stonemason William Biden, who was born in 1789 in Westbourne, England, and emigrated to Maryland in the United States by 1820.

This addition was agreed and implemented 1-2 years ago but has recently fallen victim to a wide-ranging deletion. 2A00:23C6:54D3:DA01:496E:DC8:471D:9DC4 (talk) 06:34, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: This seems to be excessive detail for this particular article - Family of Joe Biden, which is linked from the section you requested this be added to, already contains this information. Tollens (talk) 06:46, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

The proposed sentence was a consensus previously so this deserves further opinions. 109.155.0.228 (talk) 18:31, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

I looked through the talk page archives and found this thread: Talk:Joe Biden/Archive 16#Biden family roots. Semi-protected edit request on 24 May 2022, which inserted something similar. I don't know how strong of a consensus this was, but I'm noting that talk page thread for reference. I am not necessarily opposed to adding a line about Biden's paternal line to the article, but 1) I don't think the proposed location (in "Marriages, law school, and early career") is the place for it (if it belongs anywhere, it should be in the section above), and 2) being cognizant of the size of this article, I'm not sure whether it's necessarily WP:DUE for inclusion here (the inclusion of this detail at Family of Joe Biden may be sufficient). Aoi (青い) (talk) 19:19, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

References

• No. Textbook example of something belonging only in a satellite article. His great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandfather was born in England 250 years ago -- so what? Is this an aspect of the subject's upbringing? No. Was his character shaped in early childhood by this fact? No. Is there some evidence that the family gestalt is somehow influenced by stories of G-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-grandpa William's exploits? Did young Joe set his mind in early life to making this ancestor of his, up in heaven, proud? No. It's a random fact which belongs somewhere, but not in this article. EEng 04:38, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. StartOkayStop (talk) 05:11, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

• For those who are ashamed of Biden's English ancestry, remember that there are more Catholics in England than in Ireland, in absolute numbers. So relax. 109.145.9.174 (talk) 06:36, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

  Oh, yes, um, well ... thanks! We were, um, definitely ashamed about Biden's English ancestry, but you've set our minds at ease. Whew! EEng 06:44, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

  I'm now relaxing fully. Disaster averted.  — Amakuru (talk) 06:48, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Read wp:agf and I do not see what this really adds to our understanding if him. Slatersteven (talk) 11:15, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

The answer (and relevance to this article) is that (African and European) Americans are occupying land which was originally inhabited by Indians (Native Americans). It feels easier to justify this occupation if one declares oneself a member of an oppressed minority and therefore had no choice but to take the land. Hence North Americans including Biden prefer to declare themselves a member of the oppressed minority (Jewish, Irish, Black Lives matter, Ukrainian [In Canada]) etc, but nobody makes successful politics with declaring themselves German, English, Russian American etc. This is my impression from afar, which is why Biden's attitude to his ancestry is interesting. He is the president, after all. 109.145.9.174 (talk) 14:03, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Errr, Africans had no choice, and so with that I am bowing out, as this seems to be a distinct wp:rightgreatwrongs edit. Slatersteven (talk) 14:11, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Are you saying that paternal lines matter and maternal lines don't? Why does any 200 year old line matter? We're all mutts. Pure breeds are usually evolutionary failures. Not DUE for this article. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:17, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

You are entitled to your view, but the BBC article says that embracing or rejecting ancestral lines is politically significant for Biden and for the American electorate as a whole. Brief extract: "Irish Americans, who represent about 10% of the population in the US, are a large constituency of potential voters. Electorally, emphasising his Irishness may be more of an asset than his Englishness, said Clive Webb, a professor of modern American history at the University of Sussex." Wikipedia should be politically neutral and not follow one particular political narrative. 31.48.198.81 (talk) 05:45, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

"Potentially". When sources give concrete evident -- not speculation -- that voters care about this, or that Biden thinks they do -- then something like this might be worth adding here. EEng 07:01, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

I put it to you that this attitude discourages readers from using Wikipedia as a reliable source. Nowadays many can and do search elsewere to get at facts which are of interest to them. You can easly confirm this by looking at the page visits to Westbourne, West Sussex before and after the deletion. I know it will not change your attitude but perhaps in later years you can reflect and then influence others to do the right thing, even when it does not appeal. Excuse me for being old-fashioned. 2A00:23C6:54D3:DA01:5CB8:627A:742B:6CCB (talk) 08:21, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

If being old-fashioned means investing a trivial fact with cosmic significance, then sure, you're excused.

• As already explained, Wikipedia does include this fact -- just not in the main Biden article, but rather in Family of Joe Biden.
• The pageview data (seen here [58]) is indeed enlightening. Historically, the article Westbourne, West Sussex got about 7 views per day. As soon as the info about Biden's ancestor was added to his article, view counts for the Westbourne article skyrocketed to a stratospheric 40 per day. The ancestor fact was later deleted from Biden's article, at which point views of the Westbourne article plummeted back to earth, crash-landing at an average of 11 per day. So we can reasonably infer that the presence of the Westbourne link in the Biden article engenders about 30 daily visits to the Westbourne article.
  Meanwhile, daily views of the Biden article itself have been steady at about 28,000 per day. Thus, it appears, about 1/10 of 1% of visitors to the Biden article clicked through to learn more about the home town of Biden's distant ancestor, when that data was present in the article -- hardly evidence of intense interest.

EEng 20:02, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

"discourages readers from using Wikipedia as a reliable source" Good. We aren't supposed to be a reliable source. Our articles are based on reliable sources, but are not themselves reliable sources. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 17:43, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

• Can users please read wp:forum wp:soap and wp:rightgreatwrongs. Slatersteven (talk) 12:08, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

References

Post-expand include size is exceeded

The article is in Category:Pages where post-expand include size is exceeded. See Help:Template limits#Post-expand include size. DuncanHill (talk) 00:16, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Bad-faith addition of a verbal gaffes section, labeling it as intentional lies

One, then a tag-team (Two) to restore it. This is taking some verbal missteps, similar to say Obama's "57 states", and painting them as deliberate. This is deceptive synthesis, taking a reliable source that covered the statements and twisting it to mean "Biden lied." Inappropriate for a WP:BLP. Zaathras (talk) 13:31, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Also as much of this was based on "best information at the time" is it misinformation or good faith mistakes? Slatersteven (talk) 13:35, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes. What this also is, unfortunately, is users exporting the Israeli-Hamas topic area fights to Joe Biden's biography. Zaathras (talk) 13:51, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Err, the first part was about the Covid. Regardless, the content is admittedly only a couple of paragraphs and I wasn't entirely sure about the placement of the section (or the subhead) myself, though I think the content is valid. Perhaps under Joe Biden#Public image, where there is more mention of his "gaffes" if that is what we would like to call them. One could argue that screwing up Covid information etc. is a bit worse than a lighthearted old run-of-the-mill Boris Johnson or Trump-esque shooting of the mouth, but maybe that's just me. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:47, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

One could argue is your WP:OR. We don't argue anything. We cover what the reliable sources cover. You'd have to demonstrate his misspeaking or errors or whatever they are are really impactful. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:57, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

I mean, it caused quite a stir when he said the US would be willing to defend Taiwan militarily: [59]. Professor Penguino (talk) 21:02, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Mixing together unrelated content about COVID and Gaza is akin to a WP:CONTROVERSYSECTION, a gathering of "negative" information. COVID information that's DUE should go in a COVID section. Gaza information that's DUE should go in an Israel/Palestine/Gaza section. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:56, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

I was the user who originally added the COVID bit. I guess the section for specifically COVID-19 was removed? Professor Penguino (talk) 20:55, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Alright. I think it’s for the best, probably. I originally added it without any POV/bad faith intent (I actually supported Biden in 2020), and I can see why the community would disapprove. The same info could be put in respective sections, and use more accurate descriptions. Instead of “falsely claimed”, it could be “misspoke” — especially for something like the COVID stuff, where that was definitely the case. The recent Israel-Hamas footage thing… seems like it would be a bit too early to add. Cheers. Professor Penguino (talk) 20:59, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

This has been discussed before and there's no consensus to add a separate section. Unlike Trump, Biden has only the normal amount of false and misleading claims that don't need their own section or article. And a gaffe, is not a false or misleading claim. Andre🚐 21:04, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

I just said that it’s for the best that there shouldn’t be a separate section, and that, looking back on it, “falsely claimed” was definitely too strong a choice of words. Professor Penguino (talk) 21:06, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Both are probably undue and certainly shouldn't be placed together. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 03:32, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Get rid of "moderate" label

He's not a moderate anymore, maybe he was in the 1990's, when the official Democratic platform was for balancing the budget, DADT, and against illegal immigration, but those days are far behind us. Manchin is a moderate; a guy that spends the amount of money Biden did during his first 2 years in office and who promotes stuff like the Ministry of Truth, is certainly not a moderate. Of course, this is related to how both parties have gone mental in their own ways, and how Bernie's 2016 and 2020 campaigns fueled radical left-wing populism for the first time in mainstream American politics, with Biden doing his best to not lose that wing of the party, but that's not moderation at all. 201.207.239.205 (talk) 07:48, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

This non-American can assure you that, by global standards, Joe sits right around the middle politically. There is no left-wing radical politics in the US. HiLo48 (talk) 08:09, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Radical left wing populism? Joe Biden? Those two don't go together. Professor Penguino (talk) 19:02, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

I am not American, either, but the truth is that Biden doesn't represent the former standards of moderates within the Democratic Party. In American politics, moderates usually compromise on substantive issues. The only real substantive compromise of the Biden Administration has been regarding the Fiscal Responsability Act. The other bipartisan bills happened because some in the GOP jumped on board with them. Not because the Democrats compromised with Republicans. I am not referring to him as "left-wing populism", but Bernie. Biden has just been pressured by the left within the party. 200.119.185.136 (talk) 23:02, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Manchin, Sinema, Tester, those are moderates. Biden currently, because this contradicts his former moderate self of them 1970's, 1980's, 1990's, and early 2000's, cannot be considered a moderate in issues like fiscal responsibility, taxation, gun control, crime, immigration, race relations, free speech, etcetera. 200.119.185.136 (talk) 23:07, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

To someone who is far right-wing, a person who is moderate seems left-wing. To someone who is far left-wing (if there are any left), a moderate seems right-wing. In any case, we just use reliable sources. We don't apply such labels ourselves. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:47, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

That's exactly my point. There is much debate about this, including in the media. One can say that most sources refer to him as a moderate, that belongs in the article, but it is not a solid fact. 201.207.239.205 (talk) 01:00, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

So we could add "widely considered a moderate" rather than just "moderate", right? Professor Penguino (talk) 01:05, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree this would be better. Political ideology and orientations are extremely complex and subjective. 201.207.239.205 (talk) 01:07, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

 Done for now. Professor Penguino (talk) 01:09, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

I disagree. Moderate is not a single point. Most presidents lean right or left on different issues, and Biden is no different. That is why he is widely considered a moderate by the preponderance of reliable sources and why this article should say this. I also think it is improper to quickly make this change to consensus text on a CTOP article based on a brief discussion that has come to no conclusion. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:25, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

That's why I said for now. It's not a terribly huge change; feel free to revert it if you want. Professor Penguino (talk) 01:28, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

I support the revert. The request was based on mostly original research and apparent WP:RGW (stuff like "Ministry of Truth" or "radical left-wing populism"); it needs to be more thoroughly examined.

While it's true that he's been New Democrat for most of his career, I think the sourcing supports the idea that By most accounts, Biden has been a more progressive president than anticipated (link, a summary of our WP:BESTSOURCE, Foer's recent book), and we might note that in the last paragraph of the lead. DFlhb (talk) 02:11, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Sounds good. Professor Penguino (talk) 02:49, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

At the very least, it should be mentioned that reliable sources state that he has become more progressive as the years went by, and it can be explained by the growing polarization in America, on both sides. I don't know if I'm explaining myself, but I mean mentioning how he has gone more left in recent years, as the party, generally, has, just as the GOP has generally gone more right. 201.207.239.205 (talk) 07:34, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

If he has gone more left, it was towards the centre. HiLo48 (talk) 09:07, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Biden has left that mantle in the past, due to pressures within his own party. This, in part, helps explain the rise of groups like No Labels, and campaigns like RFK Jr's. Moderate Dems and Republicans who believe their mainstream leaders have gone extreme.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/29/us/politics/biden-democrats.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/09/us/politics/biden-centrist.html 201.207.239.205 (talk) 01:06, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Our opinions on such matters are not relevant here. We do not analyze. WP:OR O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:26, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

What do RS say? Slatersteven (talk) 09:52, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

The evidence of Mr Biden's voting record in the United States Senate ("cite your sources" - look at the Senate voting record) shows he was not a "moderate" - the claim that he was a "moderate" is dishonest propaganda, unworthy of what is supposed to be a reference article.2A02:C7C:E183:AC00:D433:AFCB:7380:51D (talk) 12:31, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Read wp:or and bring forward some sources saying he is not moderate. Slatersteven (talk) 12:32, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Your analysis of his voting record is original research. We go by what sources say, and the preponderance of them use the word "moderate" to describe him. If you have sources that describe him differently, please offer them. 331dot (talk) 12:34, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Sanders & Warren progressives (for two examples)? yes. The president? I don't believe so. GoodDay (talk) 13:49, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

"Joe Biden." listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Joe Biden. has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 November 6 § Joe Biden. until a consensus is reached. Gonnym (talk) 12:16, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 November 2023

i need to correct stuff Bobosourus (talk) 19:13, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Then you need to ask or page protection to be removed, edit requests are for asking for specific edits to be made. Slatersteven (talk) 19:15, 17 November 2023 (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. – dudhhr ^talk_contribs^she_her 19:15, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

you have to offer up a specific correction that you think should be made. If the page is protected, you can't just change it by yourself Monziguazini (talk) 08:18, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

The mobile version of this article has been vandalized. 38.141.37.227 (talk) 20:35, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Evidence of criminality

It is not prominent enough 2600:1006:B184:6FF2:81CF:50B0:844C:3F5A (talk) 19:54, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

That would be because there is none. HiLo48 (talk) 19:58, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

change biden from "first silent generation president" to "first and likely only silent generation president"

My recommendation is that the line "He [Biden] is also the first president from the Silent Generation." be changed to "He [Biden] is also the first (and likely only) president from the Silent Generation", or at least something like that, owing to the fact that there will likely never be another president from the silent generation. According to wikipedia's page on the silent generation, the term describes those born from 1925-1945. Biden was born on the very end of this generation, in 1942, and it is basically guaranteed that no one of his generation will be elected president again besides him. There are only seven silent age senators in america right now (chuck grassley, bernie sanders, mitch mcconnell, jim risch, ben cardin, angus king and dick durbin). It is very unlikely any of those men will run for president, sanders has endorsed biden for 2024 and said that he wouldn't run (https://apnews.com/article/bernie-sanders-biden-endorsement-2024-d8f0772b117e2bf83e1062708ea651c0#:~:text=For%20much%20of%20the%20year,candidates%20from%20doing%20so%20either), and I highly doubt he would run in 2028. Outside of presidential elections, someone could become president through the line of succession in case of death. but in that case, the presidency would fall to the vice president (currently kamala harris, who isn't silent generation), then the speaker of the house (current mike johnson, ditto), then the president pro tempore of the senate (currently patty murray, ditto), then biden's cabinet secretaries (none of which are from the silent generation).

So, I think it's fair and safe to call biden the only silent generation president or at least to say biden is likely to be the only silent generation president; another silent generation president could only arise from extremely bizarre and specific circumstances, like the position of president pro tempore of the senate being stripped from murray and given to a silent-generation senator like sanders or grassley and then for joe biden, kamala harris and mike johnson to all resign or die simultaneously, leaving the silent-generation president pro tempore to inherit the presidency.

I think this correction is important in that it seems to treat biden's status as the "first" silent age president as being analogous to bill clinton's status as the first baby boomer president or barack obama's status as the first black president or trump's status as the first non general/politician president, and I think that's unhelpful. There have been more baby boomer presidents since clinton, there could be more black presidents and there could be more presidents like trump with no political or military experience. but there will almost certainly never be another silent-gen president. according to the nic, there are only 19 million silent-gen americans (https://blog.nic.org/boomer-vs-silent-generation) in a country of 330 million americans.

Thanks, Monziguazini Monziguazini (talk) 09:55, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: See WP:CRYSTALBALL Cannolis (talk) 17:18, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

can you clarify? i've seen wikipedia articles use the "only" in other contexts. in this article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tansu_%C3%87iller), Tansu Çiller is referred to as "Turkey's first and only female prime minister".

again, this isn't a crystal ball, just a basic observation about what is happening. the fact that biden is very old is one of the most notable things about him, it is very hard to see that another silent generation politican would get elected to the presidency Monziguazini (talk) 13:34, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

In that context "only" refers to something in the present: Çiller is, to date, the only female president of Turkey. Saying that Biden is "likely the only" Silent Generation president is WP:CRYSTAL as you're trying to predict the future. Much of what you've written is speculation. — Czello ^(music) 13:41, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

okay, so could we just say "Biden is, to date, the only silent generation president of america". Monziguazini (talk) 08:17, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Sounds like spectulation. Cwater1 (talk) 18:20, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Clearly "first and likely only" won't work. But just changing "first" to "only" I think would be an improvement. Only doesn't preclude another. O3000, Ret. (talk) 13:50, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Honestly, who cares? EEng 08:25, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

The sole reason I joined WP 16 years ago is that I knew this would eventually come up. O3000, Ret. (talk) 14:24, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

I'd say delete it outright. The so-called "silent gen" never had the same cultural impact that the rest have, its primarily characteristic is that the people born therein have accomplished little and stand for nothing. Nothing that separates them from the preceding Greatest or successor boomers, anyways. Zaathras (talk) 13:49, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

I wouldn't be quite so rude abut the achievements of that group of people, but I agree that this content is pretty pointless. It's all about an arbitrary and rather meaningless categorisation of people, and says nothing at all about Biden. HiLo48 (talk) 00:18, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Delete it, as the description (IMHO) adds very little to the president's bio. GoodDay (talk) 15:04, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

'2024 Campaign' section that might possibly be a bit Self-congratulatory?

Currently one of the lines underneath the '2024 Campaign' section is as follows: "During his campaign, Biden has promoted his economic record by touting the creation of over 13 million jobs, faster pandemic recovery in terms of GDP than other G7 countries, and the longest period of low unemployment in over 50 years"

While this very well may be true I think it might also come off a bit like it came straight from the Biden 2024 Campaign itself. Similarly, Trump also campaigned heavily on low black unemployment and the such but such campaign-like wording isn't present within his or any other Presidents 'Re-election Campaign' portion of their presidency section. I think perhaps a more neutral rewrite of it could simply be: "During his campaign, Biden promoted higher economic growth and recovery following the Covid-19 Pandemic" or something along the sort because right now I feel the current text might come across as a bit leading. LosPajaros (talk) 01:54, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Should impeachment inquiry be mentioned?

I'll leave this to others to decide. FWIW, how was this handled at the Donald Trump page in 2019, when an impeachment inquiry was opened up on him? The answer to my question, should be the determining factor, concerning the topic-in-question, here. GoodDay (talk) 16:57, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

It's irrelevant how it was treated in the Trump article. Neutrality means giving the same weight in the article that reliable sources do, not providing equal weight to similar issues in competing politicians.

Perhaps there were legitimate reasons to impeach Trump, while the action against Biden is politically motivated. (Maybe it's vice versa.) That would explain a difference in coverage in rs. The article should just accept the weight in reliable sources. TFD (talk) 17:08, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

This is about mentioning the inquiry. Biden hasn't been impeached. GoodDay (talk) 17:10, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

What difference does that make? You were comparing this article with Trump's when an impeachment enquiry was opened. TFD (talk) 17:18, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

A lot of difference, if we're to avoid the possible appearance of double standard. Anyways, I'll leave it to others to decide. GoodDay (talk) 17:21, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

People will accuse us of a double standard whatever we do. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:09, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

It is mentioned in the impeachment inquiry section. Belongs in the presidency article and the campaign article. Obviously in the article about the impeachment inquiry. I lean against this in his biography article as we don't know if it will have any impact on his life story. O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:55, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Requesting the “moderate” label be removed from lede, but for different reasons

While I agree that Joe Biden is in fact a moderate within the Democratic Party, I haven’t yet found another Wikipedia page for another politician with enough prominence whose ideological position is mentioned in the lede. It’s really odd to me, especially as this is a relatively new addition to the lede. I haven’t found any former President’s to have a label either in the lede. Wikentromere (talk) 20:20, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

For example, most other politicians pages say “A member of the ______ party,” rather than, “An ideologically ______ member of the _____ party.” Ultimately, I feel there is an ulterior motive behind the decision to add this label. I agree with it, but it’s been put in the lede for a reason. Wikentromere (talk) 20:22, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Biden isn't a progressive. GoodDay (talk) 20:49, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Please do not accuse other editors of editing an article with "ulterior motives" unless you have some evidence to support such an accusation. See WP:ASPERSIONS. Aoi (青い) (talk) 00:18, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

I haven’t yet found another Wikipedia page for another politician with enough prominence whose ideological position is mentioned in the lede. Larry Hogan. But this is irrelevant per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Queen of Hearts ❤️ (she/they 🎄 🏳️‍⚧️) 00:18, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

JRB & LBJ

Perhaps @Bill Williams: & @SPECIFICO: you may both want to work things out 'here', about President Biden's negotiation skills with the US Congress, concerning whether they need to be included or excluded, in his BLP. GoodDay (talk) 19:01, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

His negotiating skills are irrelevant, the debt ceiling has been raised under every president for decades, with negotiations occurring every single time. Obama and House Republicans "almost" came to a default twice, yet that has no mention in his lead because it is not notable. My edit also removed any mention of Build Back Better, because you aren't going to find failed ideas that never came to fruition in the lead of any other president's article. It isn't notable for the lead and went absolutely nowhere, with barely anything in the IRA being related. Bill Williams 19:10, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

You're stating an incomplete and misleading personal narrative. That has nothing to do with the content, which is significant and widely noted in RS. Failed ideas in a BLP? Mexico's goning to pay for it, Muslim Ban, Secret Plan to end the Vietnam War, "54°40' or fight!", Secession of the Confederacy, and other great ideas that succeeded? SPECIFICO talk 19:32, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

What would actually be helpful here is to see some text and sources. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:05, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

I thought the text that BW removed was good enough to stay in place. SPECIFICO talk 20:11, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

This is what the disagreement is about? This is so minor that I don't know that I'll form an opinion either way. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:16, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree it's minor, so I have given no thought to whether it can be improved. But I do feel that the version I restored is a better reflection of what RS consider significant. The LBJ thing is not on the table for article text, so I hope it is not raised as a reason to gut the existing brief mention of Biden's collaborations with Congress. SPECIFICO talk 20:29, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

It's just pushing a narrative of how amazing Biden is because he saved the U.S. from a default. Meanwhile, every single President has negotiated raising the debt ceiling when that came up in Congress, so you could claim they stopped numerous defaults except for the fact that it isn't notable because these negotiations happen all of the time. The U.S. was "closer" to a default not once but twice under Obama, yet it doesn't belong in his lead hence it isn't there. Zero reason as to why that belongs in Biden's lead, especially in the POV nonsense way it currently is written. Bill Williams 22:33, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

every single President has negotiated raising the debt ceiling. This is simply false. "Negotiation" is a new thing. Previously, Congress just passed clean debt ceiling increases. One party in Congress now regularly threatens to destroy the world economy in order to get something they want that they otherwise cannot get Congress to pass. O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:58, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Correct. History of the United States debt ceiling shows that this gamesmanship around the debt ceiling began in 1995. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:14, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

I'll go further. Even the Republicans in the current Congress cannot negotiate with each other. The fact that a Democratic president has managed to get major bills passed with this congress is WP:DUE. O3000, Ret. (talk) 23:21, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Which brings me back to the point I made on December 17 about wanting to see sources to that effect to get a sense of the WEIGHT RS give his negotiation abilities. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:37, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

It's a hilarious joke, he negotiated nothing by himself, it was congressional Democrats more than him. Also, O3000 can make some partisan statements against Republicans if he wants (see his irrelevant ranting above), but that doesn't make this DUE for the lead. Obama had two separate "close calls" even worse than what Biden dealt with and Obama negotiated both increases just as much as Biden did. Yet, notice how it isn't in his lead, because a debt ceiling increase is not notable. Bill Williams 02:12, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

In your haste to attack another editor personally, complain about the topic rather than the article, and go on a "but other stuff" tangent, it seems that you forgot to make an actual point. Zaathras (talk) 02:16, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Include or exclude? Seems to me this content dispute has reached a stalemate. No doubt more editors will need to be invited to give their input. GoodDay (talk) 14:30, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Post Economies

Paid positions are self retained and housed by the Federal Government. This particular man comes from background including cooking etectera. Most `presidents` were more interesting because they didn't have internet. I know right. After what came before the great depresssion, it seemed that air conditioning was a problem. Not a problem. I know, right. Well, we've seen them all, from Mary Poppins to Charles Earl. Well, after he gets up, the pastimes of being on tv with his constituents add up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:6011:C8F0:A3C0:8ABB:AD48:1692:5F54 (talk) 14:42, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

What are you suggesting we do to this article? Slatersteven (talk) 14:44, 23 January 2024 (UTC)