Talk:Joe Biden

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 .

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)

Cognitive decline

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lower casing in infobox

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

Is this notable enough to be added to the article?

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

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

References

Racist

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Lawyer" in the lead sentence

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

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

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

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

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

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

Time in office, introduction

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