Talk:Joe Biden: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Latest revision as of 01:48, 19 December 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Joe Biden article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19: 21 days

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Joe Biden. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Joe Biden at the Reference desk.

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Joe Biden was one of the Social sciences and society good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
September 18, 2008	Good article nominee	Not listed
September 19, 2008	Good article nominee	Listed
April 22, 2020	Good article reassessment	Delisted
June 28, 2020	Good article reassessment	Delisted
October 4, 2020	Good article nominee	Not listed
A news item involving this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "In the news" column on August 23, 2008.
Current status: Delisted good article

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.

This page is about a politician who is running for office or has recently run for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some current political conflict or controversy. For that reason, this article is at increased risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism.

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

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
	This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Top-importance).

U.S. Congress High‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject U.S. Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States Congress 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.U.S. CongressWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. CongressTemplate:WikiProject U.S. CongressU.S. Congress
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is about one (or many) Person(s).

United States: Delaware / Presidential elections / Government High‑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
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Delaware portal This article is supported by WikiProject Delaware (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. presidential elections (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as Top-importance).

United States Presidents: Donald Trump Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States Presidents, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of United States Presidents 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.United States PresidentsWikipedia:WikiProject United States PresidentsTemplate:WikiProject United States PresidentsUnited States Presidents
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Donald Trump task force.

Pennsylvania Mid‑importance

	Pennsylvania portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pennsylvania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pennsylvania 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.PennsylvaniaWikipedia:WikiProject PennsylvaniaTemplate:WikiProject PennsylvaniaPennsylvania
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics: American High‑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
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as Top-importance).

College football Bottom‑importance

	College football portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject College football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of college football 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.College footballWikipedia:WikiProject College footballTemplate:WikiProject College footballcollege football
Bottom	This article has been rated as Bottom-importance on the project's importance scale.

Science Policy High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Policy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Science policy 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.Science PolicyWikipedia:WikiProject Science PolicyTemplate:WikiProject Science PolicyScience Policy
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Barack Obama (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Barack Obama, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Barack ObamaWikipedia:WikiProject Barack ObamaTemplate:WikiProject Barack ObamaBarack Obama

Warning: active arbitration remedies

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:

You must follow the bold-revert-discuss cycle if your change is reverted. You may not reinstate your edit until you post a talk page message discussing your edit and have waited 24 hours from the time of this talk page message

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Further information

Enforcement procedures:

Violations of any of these restrictions should be reported immediately to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard.
Editors who are aware of this topic being designated a contentious topic and who violate these restrictions may be sanctioned by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense.

The contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topics sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions.

If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. Remember: When in doubt, don't revert!

Other banners: Top 25 reports; media mentions; pageviews; section size

This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:

Brian Krebs (August 29, 2008). "Wikipedia Edits Forecast Vice Presidential Picks". The Washington Post.
(none) (August 17, 2009). "The 50 most-viewed Wikipedia articles in 2009 and 2008". The Daily Telegraph.
Maxwell Tani (May 15, 2015). "Meet the guy who has protected Hillary Clinton's Wikipedia page for almost a decade". Business Insider.
Alex Pasternack (March 7, 2020). "How Wikipedia's volunteers became the web's best weapon against misinformation". Fast Company.
Kalev Leetaru (April 29, 2020). "Biden vs. Kavanaugh: How the #MeToo Numbers Stack Up". Real Clear Politics.
Mayank Aggarwal (July 16, 2021). "Nobody should trust Wikipedia, says man who invented Wikipedia". The Independent.
Madeleine Spence (August 1, 2021). "Larry Sanger: 'I wouldn't trust Wikipedia — and I helped to invent it'". The Sunday Times.
Jack Beresford (September 2, 2021). "Wikipedia 'War in Afghanistan' Article Describes It As a 'Taliban Victory'". Newsweek.

Section sizes

Section size for Joe Biden (63 sections)
Section name	Byte count	Section total
(Top)	9,552	9,552
Early life (1942–1965)	9,050	9,050
Marriages, law school, and early career (1966–1973)	10,599	27,199
1972 U.S. Senate campaign in Delaware	1,826	1,826
Death of wife and daughter	3,828	3,828
Second marriage	8,342	8,342
Teaching	2,604	2,604
U.S. Senate (1973–2009)	74	39,489
Senate activities	19,310	19,310
Brain surgeries	2,434	2,434
Senate Judiciary Committee	6,590	6,590
Senate Foreign Relations Committee	5,856	11,081
Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq	5,225	5,225
1988 and 2008 presidential campaigns	44	16,364
1988 campaign	10,829	10,829
2008 campaign	5,491	5,491
2008 and 2012 vice presidential campaigns	49	27,980
2008 campaign	12,057	12,057
2012 campaign	15,874	15,874
Vice presidency (2009–2017)	77	38,370
First term (2009–2013)	23,882	23,882
Second term (2013–2017)	10,009	14,411
Role in the 2016 presidential campaign	4,402	4,402
Post-vice presidency (2017–2021)	6,681	6,681
2020 presidential campaign	78	31,911
Speculation and announcement	3,490	3,490
Campaign	22,421	22,421
Presidential transition	5,922	5,922
Presidency (2021–present)	133	191,131
Inauguration	6,205	6,205
First 100 days	13,050	13,050
Domestic policy	9,091	75,090
Economy	19,243	19,243
Judiciary	5,690	5,690
Infrastructure and climate	13,835	13,835
Immigration	11,500	11,500
Pardons and commutations	3,271	3,271
Pardon of Hunter Biden	6,021	6,021
2022 elections	6,439	6,439
Foreign policy	5,772	57,693
Withdrawal from Afghanistan	11,473	11,473
Russian invasion of Ukraine	12,113	12,113
China affairs	10,192	10,192
Israel–Hamas war	14,104	14,104
NATO enlargement	4,039	4,039
Investigations	23	13,988
Retention of classified documents	5,768	5,768
Business activities	8,197	8,197
Age and health concerns	7,291	7,291
2024 presidential campaign	17,681	17,681
Political positions	30,857	30,857
Public image	10,788	19,362
Job approval	7,095	7,095
Media depictions	1,479	1,479
See also	238	238
Notes	138	138
References	17	1,680
Citations	34	34
Works cited	1,629	1,629
Further reading	1,430	1,430
External links	119	11,088
Official	440	440
Other	10,529	10,529
Total	462,520	462,520

Current consensus

NOTE: It is recommended to link to this list in your edit summary when reverting, as:
[[Talk:Joe Biden#Current consensus|current consensus]] item [n]
To ensure you are viewing the current list, you may wish to purge this page.

01. In the lead section, mention that Biden is the oldest president. (RfC February 2021)

02. There is no consensus on including a subsection about gaffes. (RfC March 2021)

03. The infobox is shortened. (RfC February 2021)

04. The lead image is the official 2021 White House portrait. (January 2021, April 2021)

05. The lead image's caption is Official portrait, 2021. (April 2021)

06. In the lead sentence, use who is as opposed to serving as when referring to Biden as the president. (RfC July 2021)

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

08. In the lead section, do not mention Biden's building of a port to facilitate American aid to Palestinians. (RfC June 2024)

"Announced military support for Israel" in the lede

This might have been addressed before, but why does the lede mention only that Biden "announced" military support for Israel? This reads as if it was written prior to his administration actually sending the military aid in unprecedented numbers. If no one objects, I would change it to :

During the Israel–Hamas war, Biden condemned the actions of Hamas as terrorism and sent extensive military aid to Israel, as well as limited humanitarian aid to the Gaza Strip.

While we're at it, I think it's also worth using a couple of words to add that the aid was sent despite allegations of war crimes, if anyone would like to discuss that. WikiFouf (talk) 14:43, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It can be argued that as the US has supported Israel since the 1960's its undue to single out Biden. Slatersteven (talk) 14:45, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that it's "singling out" Biden because A) no administration has ever sent Israel this much aid in a year, and B) that same year was the deadliest of the entire Israeli-Palestinian conflict WikiFouf (talk) 15:01, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done, with the swap of "extensive" (from my original proposal) to "an unprecedented amount of", more factual. WikiFouf (talk) 19:14, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't thing "unprecedented" is the correct terminology to use in the lead. While Biden has been a strong supporter for high levels of military aid, there have been similar meausres of support by prior administrations such as that of Operation Nickel Grass in the Yom Kippur War. LosPajaros (talk) 22:08, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Never this much in a single year, though, which I think is quite notable. And IMO a factual stat is more descriptive + neutral than just something like "large", "extensive" WikiFouf (talk) 13:24, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree with this. The United States has been strongly supporting Israel for many decades. To imply that this is a Biden creation is not neutral. Esterau16 (talk) 22:35, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Esterau16 Please explain how the sentence implies that this is a "Biden creation"? It states that the amount of military aid sent by the Biden administration since the war started is a record, which is true, as you can read for yourself. WikiFouf (talk) 15:21, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Unprecedented" is hyperbolic language that suggests there is something out-of-the-ordinary about the Biden administration's support of Israel. Zaathras (talk) 22:37, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm entirely fine with "record amount" if that makes it clearer, but this is the largest amount of military aid ever sent to Israel by the US in a year. Clearly Biden isn't the first president to support Israel; my proposed sentence isn't saying that either. But the aid he's sent during this war is notable – not only statistically but because of human rights concerns – which is why it's been a front-page news subject for more than a year. WikiFouf (talk) 09:35, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I changed the "announced" part since no one objected to that part. Would anyone like to add something about "record amount"? I'd be interested in an RfC to see where people stand on this WikiFouf (talk) 14:48, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to ask why do you believe that it is necessary to indicate that he sent limited humanitarian aid to Gaza. Is there a consensus of sources that agree that the amount of humanitarian aid is limited? I agree that it probably is not enough, but it seems to me that calling it limited, especially without sources is pushing a POV. DeathTrain (talk) 02:53, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WikiFouf No reply?--DeathTrain (talk) 15:30, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, wasn't very active recently. US failure in getting humanitarian aid into Gaza has been a major news topic for the past year: see floating pier saga, air dropping, 30-day ultimatum, etc. All of these failures are related to Israel limiting aid into Gaza. In any case, the military aid sent to Israel far outweighs the humanitarian aid to Gaza, so putting them side by side in the same sentence without qualifiers creates false balance imo. WikiFouf (talk) 15:54, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree that the humanitarian aid is probably insufficient, I still find it to be a violation of WP:NPOV to call it limited. DeathTrain (talk) 19:56, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's literally limited, as I explained WikiFouf (talk) 08:06, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WikiFouf So once again, do you have any sources?--DeathTrain (talk) 14:31, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Don't have access to my computer at the moment, I can put sources in a couple of days. You can google the examples I've mentioned though, as I said it's been a big news topic WikiFouf (talk) 14:46, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DeathTrain First, for some perspective, the Biden admin has sent $17.9 billion in military aid to Israel in a year, a historical record, and $1.2 billion in humanitarian aid to Palestinians in the same period. Mentioning both forms of aid side by side without qualifiers is dishonest IMHO. Now here's a variety of sources talking how the humanitarian aid has been limited:

11/24 : Why is only limited aid getting to Palestinians inside Gaza? (Associated Press)
11/24 : Israel Misses U.S. Deadline to ‘Surge’ Aid for Gaza, Humanitarian Groups Say (TIME)
10/24 : U.S. warns Israel it may restrict military aid if Gaza humanitarian situation doesn't improve (NBC News)
10/24 : UN says 'trickle' of aid reaches north Gaza, as Israel denies blocking access (BBC)
09/24 : Israel Deliberately Blocked Humanitarian Aid to Gaza, Two Government Bodies Concluded. Antony Blinken Rejected Them. (ProPublica)
07/24 : Why food is piling up on the edge of Gaza (Economist)
07/24 : U.S. military’s Gaza pier, built to carry humanitarian aid, will be dismantled after weather and security problems (PBS)
06/24 : U.S. Pier for Gaza Aid Is Failing, and Could Be Dismantled Early (New York Times)
05/24 : Gaza aid piles up in Egypt, US pier delivery falters (Reuters)
03/24 : Dropping aid from planes is expensive and inefficient. Why do it? (Washington Post)
02/24 : Why Isn't Desperately Needed Aid Reaching Palestinians in Gaza? (VOA)
02/24 : Why only a trickle of aid is getting into Gaza (CNN)
01/24 : US insists it’s trying to get aid into Gaza as UN warns millions ‘at risk of famine’ (Guardian)

WikiFouf (talk) 13:48, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@WikiFouf: Most of these sources do not say that the Biden administration is sending a limited amount of aid to Gaza, but that limited aid is actually getting into Gaza, mainly due to obstruction by the Israeli government, right-wing protestors and weather. DeathTrain (talk) 16:36, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DeathTrain I've been interpreting it in the literal sense, as in the amount of aid is literally (being) limited; not that it's a limited amount as in "a small amount". I do agree with you that the term is not ideal and can lead to confusion, but it's a hard situation to condense properly in just a couple of words. I'm really against putting "military" and "humanitarian aid" side by side just like that, for the reasons I explained. But I'm also not sure that the humanitarian aid saga is something worth dedicating more than a couple of words to. Suggestions? WikiFouf (talk) 20:14, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WikiFouf If you also find the term to be too contentious, we can just remove the entire clause about sending humanitarian aid to Palestine, at least until a consensus can be found. We can also try an RFC. DeathTrain (talk) 15:29, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DeathTrain I'm fine with that, I'll remove it rn. I was already thinking an RFC could be useful to decide how to include the war in the lede in general, so I'm all for it WikiFouf (talk) 21:52, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NGO funding revert

Hi @Muboshgu, I noticed that you reverted my edit about the Biden administration withholding funding from an NGO over its support for a ceasefire in Gaza. I wanted to present my reasoning for including this material on the Joe Biden page and give you a chance to explain your revert, as well as give other editors a chance to weigh in.

I believe the material meets the criteria for notability, having been covered by The Intercept, a WP:GREL source, as well as by Politico subsidiary E&E News. The article by The Intercept which I cited explains the relevance of this decision, connecting it to Republican attacks on the organization and the EPA at large and to H.R. 9495 gaining traction in Congress. For this reason, I felt the material was better suited to this page than a page such as United States support for Israel in the Israel–Hamas war, since the decision intersects with domestic as well as foreign policy and is relevant to Biden's legacy vis-a-vis the proposed policies of the incoming Trump administration. I am open to including more information explaining the relevancy in a future edit, if that would not strengthen your perception that the material is being given undue coverage. That being said, I think the evidence clearly shows that the due weight of this material is not zero.

I don't think the language I used in my edit violates NPOV; it describes a dispute without engaging in it. I am open to modifying the way we describe the dispute, however I would note that there is not another significant perspective to describe as the Biden administration has not denied or responded to the assertion that the funding was revoked for the reason The Intercept and CJA provide.

Let me know what you think, I would like to reach a compromise. Unbandito (talk) 00:03, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The full content of the edit was In November 2024, the Biden administration withheld federal funding from Climate Justice Alliance, a move which CJA and others connected to its support for a ceasefire in Gaza.^[1] It was only sourced with The Intercept, not Politico. The Intercept is reliable, but biased to the point that we shouldn't base an edit like this on them. That it was sourced only to The Intercept, that the group "and others" (that seems like WP:WEASEL) "connected" the withholding of funding to Gaza, and your edit did not include anything from the Biden administration is why I said this is POV. Since this was also the "Biden administration" doing it and not Biden himself is why I think it's UNDUE. This is a biography of the man's entire life. The article on his presidency, Presidency of Joe Biden, will get more granular on these four years.

References

^ Lacy, Akela (2024-11-29). "Biden Makes His Own Attack on Nonprofit Over Palestine". The Intercept. Retrieved 2024-11-30.

– Muboshgu (talk) 00:29, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that makes sense. Presidency of Joe Biden seems like a more appropriate place for it. I will be sure to attribute to The Intercept instead of saying others when adding it there. Intercept credits E&E (Politico) as first reporting the issue in their article, but I can cite that source separately as well. Thanks! Unbandito (talk) 01:48, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Lacy, Akela (2024-11-29). "Biden Makes His Own Attack on Nonprofit Over Palestine". The Intercept. Retrieved 2024-11-30.

[1]