Talk:Public image of Joe Biden

Ageism against Joe Biden was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 21 February 2024 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Public image of Joe Biden. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Brands Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of brands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BrandsWikipedia:WikiProject BrandsTemplate:WikiProject BrandsBrands articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Business Low‑importance

	Business portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Marketing & Advertising Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Marketing & Advertising, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Marketing on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Marketing & AdvertisingWikipedia:WikiProject Marketing & AdvertisingTemplate:WikiProject Marketing & AdvertisingMarketing & Advertising articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Politics: American Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Sociology Low‑importance

	Society portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States: Presidents / History Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject United States Presidents (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. history (assessed as Low-importance).

History Low‑importance

	History portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Biography: Politics and Government

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Low-importance).

What is the scope of this article?

The title is "public image," which to my understanding means something separate from criticism, public opinion polling, who likes/doesn't like him, etc. We have an awful lot of such articles, after all. Public image should, it seems, have to do with his personality, demeanor, attitudes, and otherwise the kind of person the public considers him to be. "[Not a] good president" isn't quite there. I've removed the "Let's Go Brandon" bit from the article because that doesn't seem to say anything about his public image except that some people don't like him (the slogan, shall we say, lacks nuance? to be able to infer specific perceptions that would constitute aspects of his public image). Maybe anything included needs a source which spends nontrivial detail talking about that aspect of Biden in the context of "public image"? Not sure. Maybe Public_image_of_Barack_Obama makes sense as a point of comparison? That one includes a popular culture section, but it's not times people have said "F Barack Obama" -- it's actually how Obama is depicted (the qualities, positive or negative, he's seen as having in popular culture). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:14, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The In popular culture section of the Public image of Barack Obama article is currently tagged with a concern about the content constituting an indiscriminate collection of information, and I think that concern is relevant here as a general matter. I also support your removal of the "Let's Go Brandon" section, including because from my view, the addition reminded me of the WP:COATRACK essay, including Coatrack articles run against the fundamental neutral point of view policy: in particular the requirement that articles be balanced. From my view, a "Popular culture" section with only "Let's Go Brandon"-related content is unbalanced, and particularly due to how recent the viral phenomena is, also seems to be a WP:MINORASPECT. Beccaynr (talk) 00:50, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Some Missing Topics

We should probably make mention of some of his idiosyncrasies. Examples may include his trademark aviator sunglasses, love of ice cream, whisper-to-yell rhetorical style, and the “let’s go Brandon” and dark Brandon memes 128.220.159.220 (talk) 16:39, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Net Worth adjusted for debt?

"As of November 2009, Biden's net worth was only $27,012." For a guy who's been a Senator for decades? Consider this source:

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2019/oct/30/joe-biden/fact-checking-joe-bidens-claim-hes-among-poorest

He's only "worth" 27 grand because he's carrying large amounts of debt. It's like saying Donald Trump was worth nothing during the years he owed money to the IRS. In fact, it's a rich person's way of reducing their tax burden. SegmentedBookWorm (talk) 17:03, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

recent removal

an edit removed a lot of cited material with the edit summary Remove political material not about his personal reputation, re-organize slightly, tweaks to make quotes accurate. this article is about his public image so i restored the material and opened a discussion here. by the way, the quote was accurate, despite the edit summary. :^) 74.44.160.186 (talk) 18:00, 13 July 2023 (UTC) edited 18:06, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

i would note the continued whitewashing of this article while Ganesha811 (talk · contribs) has not participated in the discussion here per WP:BRD. Biden is well known for his crime bills which contributed to mass incarceration and the removal of this material, cited to WaPo and probably others, looks suspiciously like someone is trying to cover up the negative aspects of Biden's public image. i would invite Ganesha811 to explain the removal of 7k of well-cited material. 74.44.160.186 (talk) 02:42, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sure - I didn't realize you had posted on the talk page. Simply put, I think this article should be about largely non-political aspects of Biden's reputation and public image. His political career is well-covered at Joe Biden, Senate career of Joe Biden, Political positions of Joe Biden, and elsewhere. What I have attempted to do here is not whitewashing, but improvement and organization. Of course, since he is a professional politician of long standing, any discussion of his public image will necessarily include references to politics, but material which is solely political belongs elsewhere, such as his work on the the '90s crime bill, or equally his work on the Violence Against Women Act or Balkans intervention. —Ganesha811 (talk) 02:58, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

it seems like an oversight that nothing is said in this article about the nickname "Scranton Joe" nor of the aviator sunglasses. also, it is strange that nothing is said in this article about Biden's tough-on-crime stance while in congress, nor of his involvement in the crime bills of the 80s and 90s. i attempted to add the tough on crime stance but was reverted. perhaps one day someone will review these talkpage messages and add this material while the article owners aren't looking. :^) 74.44.160.186 (talk) 19:35, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

recent revert of addition of material about Biden's senility

it seems that the addition of the new sources that cover Biden's mental acuity are unwelcome to some. i would only point out that this material is not undue, as numerous outlets are now reporting on this. therefore i have restored the material. if anyone wants to remove the material it would be nice to discuss it here. 74.46.252.40 (talk) 19:10, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The issue was the wording. Slatersteven (talk) 19:13, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

why wouldnt you fix the wording instead of simply reverting the entire edit? 74.46.252.40 (talk) 19:27, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was unsure it is due. This is one report, and not one that passes WP:MEDRS yet makes a claim that could be seen as a clinical diagnosis. Frankly I still am, but at least the wording is more neutral. Slatersteven (talk) 19:40, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I made some modifications - I think the special counsel's report should be mentioned, given the furore it caused, but the recent flubs on world leaders strike me as WP:RECENTISM and I removed them. Biden has made many many gaffes in his career - almost all of them are not individually relevant, but are better described in broader terms as part of his (highly gaffe-prone) reputation. —Ganesha811 (talk) 23:44, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced these are secular flubs and gaffes, the errors Biden made are sourced from the same articles--they provide additional insight and context. Our sources suggest that they are related. I won't make an edit right now though. There is further discussion ongoing at the Joe Biden talk page fyi. SmolBrane (talk) 01:38, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Legs Incident

There should be a mention of Joe Biden's infamous speech about his harry legs that turn blonde in the sun and his encounter with Corn Pop. This speech was the subject of ridicule with numerous parodies resulting from it.

Examples: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LVwv8cBhnMY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BS5HCi-zsYE Mike9377 (talk) 03:17, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

YouTube is not a reliable source. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:15, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The YouTube examples demonstrate it is a popular topic as both videos have over a million views. I'm not attempting to cite the contents of the video beyond the fact that they were about Joe Biden's speech about his hairy legs. YouTube absolutely can be a reliable source with the right context or with a credible uploader. Mike9377 (talk) 01:36, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Age and health concerns require a summary in the lead section

In accordance with MOS:LEAD, the lead section needs to include summary of the age and health concerns section. SmolBrane (talk) 03:26, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SmolBrane:

Done QuicoleJR (talk) 19:40, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One sided article

This article is terribly one sided. It describes lies as "gaffes" and "embellishments" and doesn't even address his cognitive decline which has been an important topic of debate during his entire presidential term. There is no mention of his failed 1988 presidential run which he stopped in only 3 months due to scandals regarding his repeated lies and plagiarism. WikiAfterWiki (talk) 00:24, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@WikiAfterWiki: It has an entire section about his age and mental capability. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:35, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind then. That being said, I don't think an Onion skit deserves an entire section. In comparison with the article about Trump - who I don't support either - this one is positive despite the fact that Biden has a lower approval rating than him. Clearly, there's a bias with important bits missing like his 1988 presidential run. I would add them but I'm quite new to Wikipedia and I'm pretty sure my edits will be removed anyway... WikiAfterWiki (talk) 00:14, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@WikiAfterWiki: If you use reliable sources for adding content, it will usually not be reverted. If you want, I can help you with formatting. QuicoleJR (talk) 00:28, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, technically the Onion skit only gets a subsection of the Reputation section. The reason it gets so much coverage here is because it has had a major impact on public perception of Biden. QuicoleJR (talk) 00:33, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly what I noticed. Wiki's article on Trump shows a definite anti right bias. I thought Wiki was neutral and truthful but this soft article on Biden, a known liar and accused criminal, compared to the excoriation of Trump, is bewildering. There is even a small mention in this article of Dem staffers going in and changing wiki language to make Biden more appealing but no disparagement or apology for that action. Very disappointing. Feisty Satin (talk) 01:39, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Recent changes

@LJF2019:, it's incumbent upon us to discuss this on talk to avoid edit warring. Could you describe why you think that sentence should be removed from the lead? —Ganesha811 (talk) 01:02, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Give his age, health concerns, controversy its own article.

Ever since the debate on June 27, his comparing has been completely unraveling and discussions on his age, health and ability to perform the duties have exploded. This has been the biggest story in the world for over a week and he might resign from office or finish out his term but end his campaign. This is history unfolding. Vinnylospo (talk) 18:23, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I second this. His senility is deserving of its own article. GreenLoeb (talk) 19:56, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This section would have to be expanded to be its own article. But I think there is enough material out there now to warrant a separate spinoff article. GnocchiFan (talk) 15:39, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree re age and health, controversy is a bit messier though. Perhaps a sandbox or title would be a good place to start? SmolBrane (talk) 15:49, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Vinnylospo: @GreenLoeb: @SmolBrane: - I have moved Age and health concerns of Joe Biden to its own article now. – GnocchiFan (talk) 13:13, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose This should be merged back, there is no need for a split, the article is by no means too long. Reywas92^Talk 13:42, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support, but that does not mean that this article should not have a mention still of the subject matter. It should not be completely erased from this page, just bolstered and more exhaustively covered on its own page. Iljhgtn (talk) 01:45, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Approval rating

This section contradicts itself, stating in the first paragraph that the apporval rating was consistently below 45% since 2021, then in the next paragraph listing at least two periods when it was higher. Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 23:57, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

replaced image

i replaced File:Biden 11.jpg with File:Biden SOTU 2024 01.jpg because the former was taken in 2012 and portrays his condition as vigorous, which is fine for 2012. the latter image comes closer to portraying him as he is now, with that sorta sour frown he does, and i like the artistic touch of Kamala Harris looming in the background. Daddyelectrolux (talk) 19:47, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]