This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Larry Sanger has recently complained that our article on Joe Biden doesn’t include enough info from the republican POV and doesn’t have enough info on the Ukraine scandal as well as alleging that the info that is there is biased too. Are there any changes that could be made to make the article less biased? X-Editor ( talk) 19:46, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Larry Sanger's opinion is irrelevant. He doesn't understand Wikipedia policies, like NPOV and WEIGHT, in part because he hasn't been involved with Wikipedia in nearly 20 years. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 20:31, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

In that article Larry Sanger says Wikipedia can give a “reliably establishment point of view on pretty much everything.” That sounds like we are on the right track. He wants a paragraph on the Ukraine scandal in this article, which we already have, and more than that even. starship .paint ( exalt) 01:43, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

In September 2019, it was reported that Trump had pressured Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky to investigate alleged wrongdoing by Biden and his son Hunter Biden. ^[1] Despite the allegations, no evidence was produced of any wrongdoing by the Bidens. ^{[2] [3] [4]} [...]

Beginning in 2019, Trump and his allies falsely accused Biden of getting the Ukrainian prosecutor general Viktor Shokin fired because he was supposedly pursuing an investigation into Burisma Holdings, which employed Hunter Biden. Biden was accused of withholding $1 billion in aid from Ukraine in this effort. In 2015, Biden pressured the Ukrainian parliament to remove Shokin because the United States, the European Union and other international organizations considered Shokin corrupt and ineffective, and in particular because Shokin was not assertively investigating Burisma. The withholding of the $1 billion in aid was part of this official policy. ^{[5] [6] [7] [8]}

Until evidence of wrongdoing by Joe Biden in Ukraine emerges in reliable sources, this is sufficient. starship .paint ( exalt) 01:46, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Forgot about the Senate committees investigation. Added below. starship .paint ( exalt) 04:34, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

The Senate Homeland Security Committee and Senate Finance Committee, led by Republicans, investigated allegations of wrongdoing by the Bidens in Ukraine, ultimately releasing a report in September 2020 that detailed no evidence of wrongdoing by Joe Biden, and concluded that it was "not clear" whether Hunter Biden's role in Burisma "affected U.S. policy toward Ukraine". ^{[9] [10]}

If people want to talk about these theories about Ukraine, don’t you have to talk about the whole Impeachment (the first one™) to do that for context? Trillfendi ( talk) 04:41, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

@ Trillfendi: - it's right there in the article - see Joe Biden#Campaign, first paragraph last sentence. I just omitted it from the first green quote (where [...] is), because I thought it wasn't relevant. starship .paint ( exalt) 05:06, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Oops, I guess I didn’t notice. Trillfendi ( talk) 14:42, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

• Ah, Sanger having sour grapes about Wikipedia again and whining about Wikipedia again. Nothing to see here. Acalamari 05:42, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Not one comment about Joe Biden's 50 year legacy of racism? His opposition to school bussing and his vocal opposition to desegregation? Nothing about his active campaigning with Wallace and Stevens the leaders of the Dixiecrat movement? No comments about his numerous on air racist comments? No comments about his 1994 crime bill that is directly responsible for the mass incarceration of two generations of young Black men?

Yah no bias here. You are all white supremacist racist supporting facists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.0.16.125 ( talk • contribs)

Wikipedia follows MSM. Take this issue with them. Wikipedians don't invent information, they collect it—Wikipedia is kind of OSINT. tgeorgescu ( talk) 06:43, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

In Joe_Biden#U.S._Senate_(1973–2009) there is a clear subsection: Opposition to busing. The crime bill should be included, it was probably cut during trimming. As for the others... we need WP:RS. starship .paint ( exalt) 07:42, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Added the 1994 crime bill. I think whoever trimmed the article confused it with the 1984 crime bill, which also existed. starship .paint ( exalt) 08:15, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

"Yah no bias here. You are all [nonsense]."

I don't know what your definition of "biased" is, but I'm assuming it's "facts that are inconvenient to me and the Republican Party". Wikipedia's job is to document everything and make sure all information is verified to be correct so we do not mislead the public. If you don't like how we run things, you don't have to stay. You're the one making these claims so you better find a reliable source that can help your side. Otherwise, you'll be like Trump and Giuliani who thought they can go to court and argue without evidence (thinking they could actually win) and waste taxpayer money and the jury's time. Dinosauce2001 ( talk) 22:04, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

This article probably is biased. It barely mentions his sexual assault allegations. The accusations of racism, like public busing, that even Kamala Harris brought up were not just fictions made up by the Republican Party or Fox News they are well things well documented in reliable sources. If more things like that were added it would help with the neutrality of this article. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ( talk) 23:25, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Iamreallygoodatcheckers, you mean allegation, singular? Only one allegation of sexual assault has been made against Biden, and it isn't particularly credible. And working with segregationists in the Senate is evidence of bipartisanship, not racism. Kamala took a shot at him at a debate, which is WP:NOTNEWS. Allowing the right wing noise machine into this article in the misguided attempt at "neutrality" is WP:FALSEBALANCE. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 23:40, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Have you ever thought that commentary from the right is also considered to be coverage. You may not personally like it and you may feel its a "noise machine", but when something is being covered in reliable and even threatened Biden's campaign in the primary and the general, it's more than just noise from the right and it's more than WP:NOTNEWS. WP:NOTNEWS is for stuff like Biden breaking his ankle not for one of the main flaws that threatened his campaign. 1 sexual assault allegation? I guess you must not include the numerous women and coverage from reliable sources talking about his inappropriate touching, I was just referring to Tara Reade. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ( talk) 23:47, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

@ Iamreallygoodatcheckers: The reason the article doesn't mention too much about the busing and sexual assault allegations is because we have to summarize on figures as big as Biden or else there is too much content to navigate comfortably and you have to split the more detailed content out into sub-articles linked to from the main one. There is also still an entire sub-section dedicated to the busing and two paragraphs dedicated to both the inappropriate touching and sexual assault allegations. One of the paragraphs even links to a much longer article detailing the sexual assault allegations in full. X-Editor ( talk) 03:47, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

The Biden administration is in the thoughtful position of watching 10s of millions of people lose their housing. The end of legal processes that were otherwise delayed by the moratorium now allow a removal by law enforcement.

The original design of the moratorium failed to consider whether the people given an extension will in fact be able to have funds to catch up on missed payments, penalties and other amounts that were previously due or obtain funds from other programs.

Might belong in Biden administration once it's resolved, but not here and now. soibangla ( talk) 21:33, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Should we add "...since 2021" to the line "46th and current president of the United States". Same thing with Kamala Harris's intro & other current gov't official intros. GoodDay ( talk) 17:52, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

"Since 2021" sounds rather silly considering that we are still in 2021. No need to add another level redundancy. -- Khajidha ( talk) 21:15, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes - I believe we should include the since 2021 in all government official intros. JLo-Watson ( talk) 23:01, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

This edit request to Joe Biden has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

In the introduction, please capitalize "distinction" at the end of the third paragraph. It's capitalized near the bottom of the article (photo caption President Obama presents Biden with the Presidential Medal of Freedom with Distinction, January 12, 2017) and also in the "National honors" section of the List of honors and awards received by Joe Biden article. 64.203.186.80 ( talk) 17:02, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

 Done ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 17:14, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

This edit request to Joe Biden has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

K Aniruddh (
talk) 10:07, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Dear Sir/Madam \

Please give me permission to edit this source and i wan to improve it

Regards K Aniruddh Indiahdh all

You need to tell us what edit you want to make. Slatersteven ( talk) 10:10, 7 August 2021 (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. – Jonesey95 ( talk) 19:58, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

This edit request to Joe Biden has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Part want to change: His early presidential activity centered around proposing, lobbying for, and signing into law the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 to speed up the United States' recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic and the ongoing recession, as well as a

Changes I want:

His early presidential activity centered around proposing the Build Back Better Plan which aims to rebuild and renew the American economy. He was able to sign into law the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 to speed up the United States' recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic and the ongoing recession which forms part of his Build Back Better Agenda as well as proposing renewed infrastructure, manufacturing and climate change mitigation investments and expansion of the social safety net for childcare, healthcare and education that have yet to be signed into law. JoeMamaSul ( talk) 07:00, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{ edit extended-protected}} template. –– 𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 07:08, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

This edit request to Joe Biden has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please 97.126.35.18 ( talk) 00:56, 14 August 2021 (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) 01:00, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

This edit request to Joe Biden has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Add a comma to the last sentence of the lede after the words "during this withdrawal", i.e. replace the current sentence with "Biden ordered the withdrawal of all U.S. troops from Afghanistan to be completed by September 2021, delaying the May 2021 deadline ordered by Trump; during this withdrawal, the Afghan government fell and the Taliban seized control." — Kilopylae ( talk) 19:35, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

 Done — Sirdog9002 ( talk) 19:48, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Should the part about how some of the government are wanting to invoke the 25th amendment on Joe Biden or impeached for the Fall of Kabul (2021). Cwater1 ( talk) 23:56, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

This is news to me. What kinda rock have I been living under? GoodDay ( talk) 23:57, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

https://news.yahoo.com/marjorie-taylor-greene-introduces-three-222000013.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAGGWPrHhjG2N5lrKsRccoOQEtidULVEo9IjdQYm_vOkfuSfwpGTLvVIRxG27jSJfV_At96umDyodwk_zLHF9We-yrZ_NWv8lZ5QXL-FXW4hqINaTuOH4MLjp3Oxwm0Y92CKVY3YnpXj5_nCd8SfFhzFxx6XwgPpPku71xsWe_TX7

Marjorie Taylor Greene? If anything this is becoming run of the mill at this point - every time she introduces articles is hardly worthy of note. Obviously a political ploy going nowhere. Elli ( talk | contribs) 00:57, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Virtually nothing she says or does has any relevance beyond her own and related articles. TFD ( talk) 01:13, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

HAHAHA! soibangla ( talk) 01:28, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

This edit request to Joe Biden has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Biden was a member of the Newcastle County Council before he was elected to the Senate. It should indicate that under his name in the section of offices that he has held. 68.53.219.198 ( talk) 19:33, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Jack Frost ( talk) 00:12, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

It's mentioned in the text. WP:Consensus is to not include it in the infobox because it is an insufficiently significant position. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 00:18, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Currently, the article´s lead contains the following sentence:

Biden ordered the withdrawal of all U.S. troops from Afghanistan to be completed by September 2021, delaying the May 2021 deadline ordered by Trump; during this withdrawal, the Afghan government fell and the Taliban seized control.

I would like to request that the "delaying the May 2021 deadline ordered by Trump"-part, be removed. Partly because, as I understand it, the Trump May 2021 deadline was conditional rather than fixed (supposedly depending on the requirements of the Doha Agreement being met as a prerequisite, with the stated intent to use the remaining US troops as leverage to ensure the Taliban compliance) but also because the use of the word "delayed" might imply undue continuity were it might not exist. The use of the term "delaying" could be read as implying that Biden delayed Trumps plans or was in some way bound to Trumps supposed plans, which isn't the case. Kind regards, Vlaemink ( talk) 17:53, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Done agree with that Trump withdrawal was conditional rather than fixed. It is improbable or tough to say what Trump would have done in these circumstances with the Taliban on the rise may not have done a withdrawal . Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 18:42, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your quick responds! Vlaemink ( talk) 06:37, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

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)

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. ^[1] — 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)

@ 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)

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)

You mean, add "since 2021"? GoodDay ( talk) 17:03, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

That could work, or "he took office on January 20, 2021," or anything else that expresses the same fact. 64.203.186.80 ( talk) 17:09, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

We use the inaugural year, in nearly all the incumbent world leaders intro. So don't see why we shouldn't here & at Kamala Harris' intro. GoodDay ( talk) 17:21, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

I completely agree, most political leader articles feature the year in which they assumed office. Perhaps the introductory sentence should read something like “…serving as the 46th President of the United States since 2021”. Iluien theIlluminator ( talk) 19:45, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Adding "..since 2021." Would suffice. GoodDay ( talk) 20:07, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

This edit request to Joe Biden has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Input imformation regarding the subjects spread and support of misinformation over Voter ID laws. Provide context by referencing the sunbjects false claims of Voter ID laws in Georgia and fact-checkers responses to those claims. Input information regarding the subjects spread of misinformation regarding ethnic minorities and their ability to aqcuire valid forms of identification in the United States and the impact those claims have on minorities including the spread of derogatory stereotyping and the negative viewpoints the subjects opinions originated from. Provide context by referencing quotes from the subject including "Not everybody in the Hispanic and the African-American community, particularly in rural areas that are distant and/or inner-city districts knows how to get online to determine how to get in line for that COVID vaccination." Kings of Olde ( talk) 19:30, 3 September 2021 (UTC) ^{[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]}

 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. – Jonesey95 ( talk) 19:43, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Do you have any WP:RS? The MSN and WaPo are reliable, but the others are not. Also, why is this one instance of a false statement about Georgia important enough to include in his biography? EvergreenFir (talk) 19:48, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

This edit request to Joe Biden has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

<! -- Add the following content in the "Reputation" section after the sentence "Some of his gaffes have been characterized as racially insensitive." -->

On August 19, 2021 the British Parliament held Joe Biden in contempt. ^{[1] [2]} James Henderson ( talk) 22:19, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: Seems like unhelpful juxtaposition (MPs held him in contempt over Afghanistan, not racially insensitive gaffes); also the reason should probably be given in text. RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 21:20, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

This edit request to Joe Biden has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change "May through July 2021" to May-July 2021 for formality. 2A02:C7F:567C:C200:C0FE:AA4C:143C:1819 ( talk) 12:05, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

 Done Tol ( talk | contribs) @ 20:04, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Was just wondering why there's no controversy section. A lot of other presidents have them and Biden has done some controversial stuff that I think would be enough to make a new section. Pyromilke ( talk) 17:06, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Pyromilke, see WP:CONTROVERSYSECTION. If other POTUS articles have one, go to those talk pages to discuss how to integrate that material into the appropriate sections on those pages. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 17:09, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

I just looked at every POTUS bio from FDR to the present, and a couple of random 19th century POTUS articles too. I did not see a single controversy section on any of them. As should be the case. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 17:42, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Per the above they are frowned upon, do you have any specific controversies in mind we do not cover already? Slatersteven ( talk) 17:12, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

By "controversial," might you mean "stuff some people don't like?" soibangla ( talk) 17:16, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

AFAIK, we don't use such sections in the bios of US presidents. GoodDay ( talk) 18:36, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

This edit request to Joe Biden has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

On September 17th, Pentagon officials admitted that the drone strike did not kill ISIS-K members but instead killed 10 innocent civilians. 65.183.155.90 ( talk) 23:39, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 23:56, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

There were two drone strikes. The one currently mentioned in this article, which happened on August 27, is not the one currently being referred to as having killed civilians, which is the August 29 strike. starship .paint ( exalt) 10:47, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Added starship .paint ( exalt) 14:08, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

This edit request to Joe Biden has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The air strike that supposedly killed isis-k planners was revealed to have actually killed 10 innocent civlians. 64.135.201.49 ( talk) 16:59, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. —  LauritzT ( talk) 17:36, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

There were two drone strikes. The one currently mentioned in this article, which happened on August 27, is not the one currently being referred to as having killed civilians, which is the August 29 strike. starship .paint ( exalt) 10:47, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Added starship .paint ( exalt) 14:08, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

This edit request to Joe Biden has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Add information surrounding his nomination to the Democratic ticket in 2020, mentioning the primaries in which he ran against Bernie Sanders, in the introduction. Obama, Trump, and Bush all have references to their primary seasons in their introductions. Deathbydeathstroke ( talk) 14:02, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 14:05, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

This edit request to Joe Biden has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

A new section is needed about Biden's behaviour with girls' hair and the like. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_H5NJZMDumY . 2A00:23C4:4E9F:D101:4453:1CF8:C8A5:1D74 ( talk) 13:30, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Yuotube is not an RS, care to show that RS care? Slatersteven ( talk) 13:37, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

I think that "Youtube" is spelled "Youtube". If videos are not reliable, I don't know what are. No one is denying that the incidents took place.

The read wp:rs and wp:rsp and that might give you an idea of what are and are not RS. Slatersteven ( talk) 13:50, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

See https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/meet-creepy-joe-who-sniffs-hair-rubs-noses-and-fondles-your-face-5d3gg3k56 . The Times is said by

wp:rsp to be reliable.

So now you need to suggest a text. Slatersteven ( talk) 14:11, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 14:14, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

We already have In March 2019 and April 2019, Biden was accused by eight women of previous instances of inappropriate physical contact, such as embracing, touching or kissing.[325] Biden had previously described himself as a "tactile politician" and admitted this behavior has caused trouble for him.[326] In April 2019, Biden pledged to be more "respectful of people's personal space".[327] starship .paint ( exalt) 09:02, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

This edit request to Joe Biden has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Speedycobra69241 (
talk) 12:30, 5 October 2021 (UTC) Id like joe biden's article to say bad things about him about how he is sleepy

 Not done Please propose a specific change you want to see implemented, in the form of "change X to Y". There might also be other articles which discuss criticism of him. 331dot ( talk) 12:34, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

This edit request to Joe Biden has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Themarine1 (
talk) 23:30, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

I noticed that you forgot to mention the AUKUS alliance. If I am able to edit, I will change this.

AUKUS is designed to defend against China. Themarine1 ( talk) 23:31, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 23:56, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

• Added AUKUS starship .paint ( exalt) 06:50, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Why should that be included in the article when it's common knowledge that any "planning" or lackthereof, is the responsibility of the previous administration that made this deal in the first place and DIDN'T plan for contingencies for american troops or afghan refugees. -- 50.69.20.91 ( talk) 16:48, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

The Biden administration had over half a year to plan. Let's not pretend that the withdrawal was on January 22, 2021. RS noted the criticism of poor planning. starship .paint ( exalt) 06:43, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Over a year to plan when they haven't even been in Office for a year? Really? -- 50.69.20.91 ( talk) 02:24, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

He's saying it was over half a year, not over a year. Larry Hockett ( Talk) 02:43, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Both Obama and Trump have sections discussing their approval ratings; I did a CTRL+F search for approval, and Biden's ratings are nowhere to be seen. Also, on the Trump page, there is a section designated to post-inauguration protests. We've seen anti-Biden protests all over. It seems like we're trying to put Biden in a good spotlight and Trump in a bad one. I vote we immediately add these sections as to comply with WP:Neutrality and our anti-Bias policies. Dswitz10734 ( talk) 13:52, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

care to provide some RS indicating these are noteworthy? Slatersteven ( talk) 13:57, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Dswitz10734 (ec) Discussion of Biden's approval ratings is in the article about his presidency itself and its own article, because he is currently president. See Presidency of Joe Biden#Approval ratings and image as well as 2021 opinion polling on the Joe Biden administration. 331dot ( talk) 13:57, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

As for anti-Biden protests, you are free to write and propose an addition to this article or other relevant article about that. There is an article about 2021 United States inauguration week protests; an article about Public image of Joe Biden where discussion of other protests might be appropriate. 331dot ( talk) 14:00, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

https://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/video/supply-chain-disruptions-labor-unrest-take-a-toll-on-biden-approval-numbers-123778629812

Also add inflation, unemployment etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8805:C980:9400:1C2E:831F:CAEE:8765 ( talk) 03:05, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

It must be in the body first before you even consider the lede. starship .paint ( exalt) 03:25, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

BBC - seems that shortages are hitting several countries, not just U.S. BBC says port-related issues (but affected ports have moved to 24/7) and shortages have also been caused by ongoing Covid-related problems in other countries. So why blame Biden? starship .paint ( exalt) 07:31, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Because the OP is probably a partisan. The poll numbers of presidents are often affected by things outside of their direct control, both for good and bad. There might be ways to discuss slipping poll numbers in this article or other Biden related articles, such as Presidency of Joe Biden#Approval ratings and image. 331dot ( talk) 08:37, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Nope I am not not a partisan but let me guess if this was happening under Trump you would be typing it's his fault. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-10-21/biden-tackles-supply-chain-crisis-with-few-tools-clock-ticking https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/10/14/joe-biden-supply-chain/

Please read wp:lede, it is a summary of OUR article, it is not a leader. Slatersteven ( talk) 17:29, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Opinion articles Left or right should be RS — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.49.109.224 ( talk) 17:42, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes and I have posted numerous reliable sources proving my points. Please think rationally. 137.49.109.224 ( talk) 17:30, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

A read wp:npa B Your response does not answer or address my (or indeed anyone elses point). You have been told why this can't be added to the lede. Slatersteven ( talk) 17:33, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

If you want to talk about the Trump article or articles, please do so there. Here, we are talking about the Biden article. 331dot ( talk) 17:37, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

I changed the body, numerous reliable sources, Washington Post, Bloomberg etc have placed the blame on biden and content needs to be added to article, Unless you are a partisan 137.49.109.224 ( talk) 17:36, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Why does it need to be added to the lede, this is about him, not his presidency. Slatersteven ( talk) 17:37, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

And open of your own sources says "global supply chain problems", your own sources do not say its bidens fault. Slatersteven ( talk) 17:38, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

All this might change in 6 weeks, this is why we should not add it to the lede. Slatersteven ( talk) 17:39, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Hold on now, I thought you said Washington Post is not a reliable source. clpo13_{( talk)} 17:40, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

The Bloomberg article cited above says President Joe Biden and his administration have been working for months to smooth out bottlenecks, but his power to influence what is almost entirely a private-sector problem is limited. Pundits may blame Biden for this problem, and we don't have to further their aims. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 18:05, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect 乔·拜登. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 October 30#乔·拜登 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. -- Tavix ^{( talk)} 18:36, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Steven Cook which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 11:23, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Ignore that message. The so-called RM was deleted & the RM creator blocked for basically WP:NOTHERE reasons. GoodDay ( talk) 01:43, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

@ GoodDay: "RM creator", which is likely to be this account operator, have been trolling at random articles and talk pages including Talk:Harry Wilson (footballer, born 1953) and Talk:Ben Mee for ages. These RMs are just nonsense which RMCDbot tags like valid RMs and whatever you find on the destination talk pages are to change names of random articles to random nonsense. This revision and that were the latest disruption done by "this account operator" and you will find, by looking at the links provided, these are just random articles which probably no-one has great knowledge in all of them including me. Thanks, Iggy ( Swan) ( Contribs) 11:23, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, the lad is bored for sure. GoodDay ( talk) 13:51, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

In response to https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Joe_Biden&diff=1053383874&oldid=1053352798&diffmode=source, I think otherwise. It is indeed noteworthy that his common name changed from Joseph to Joe. Old news articles refer to him as Joseph, so mentioning it would help novices to understand that then Joseph and now Joe are the same person. And this is not an article strictly about Biden's presidentship but about him overall. Appu ( talk) 03:01, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

@ Appu: Unless you just assume the average 24,000 who read this article are truly that mind-bogglingly stupid to not know Senator Joseph Biden who was in Congress for almost 40 years is in fact the Joe Biden who became vice president and president (mind you, there have been no other Biden politicians in the world), MOS:NAME still overrules you. Trillfendi ( talk) 15:48, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Nitpicking - He was a member of the US Senate for 36 years, but never a member of the US House. GoodDay ( talk) 15:51, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

The news media may have referred to him as "Joseph" in the 1970s and 1980s, but do we have anything to suggest that it was his preference? Otherwise, it's just the media using his full name instead of his hypocorism. The better known he became, we all started calling him "Joe", which is a hypocorism and we don't spell out per MOS:HYPOCORISM. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 17:33, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Does anyone know what this sentence is trying to say? "During COP 26 the bipartisan infrastructure bill was adopted by the congress what increased the chances for success in the conference." It seems to be grammatically incorrect, but I don't know how to fix it. RedBlue1993 ( talk) 15:08, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

A bit of a reminder: The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, after months of stalemates, passed in the House yesterday and will eventually be signed to law by the POTUS. As for the conference sentence, remember to be bold... - 47.196.35.44 ( talk) 19:40, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

I've removed the sentence. Added: In late March 2021, Biden proposed the American Jobs Plan, a $2 trillion package addressing issues including transport infrastructure, utilities infrastructure, broadband infrastructure, housing, schools, manufacturing, research and workforce development.[420] After months of negotiations among Biden and lawmakers, the Senate in August 2021 passed a $1 trillion bipartisan infrastructure bill called the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act,[421][422] while the House, also in a bipartisan manner, approved the infrastructure bill later in November 2021, covering infrastructure related to transport, utilities, and broadband.[423] starship .paint ( exalt) 06:38, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

False 173.89.30.204 ( talk) 06:03, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

It was in 2009. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 06:04, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Why is this even relevant? Slatersteven ( talk) 11:38, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether or not it is relevant, but whether reliable sources consider it to be. However, politicians' net worth has long been a focus of media attention and politicians are even required to report their net worth. TFD ( talk) 12:30, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Pelosi' net worth would be more interesting. Though she doesn't wanna talk about, when mentioning how some people are poor. GoodDay ( talk) 14:33, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

I seem to recall the net worth and tax returns of a certain former president being an ongoing newsworthy subject. It is for all POTUS. [7] And it is especially noteworthy for the guy who was known as "Middle Class Joe" before he cashed in after his vice presidency. [8] –  Muboshgu ( talk) 16:31, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Guys, I think it's time we address the elephant in the room. Just say something about mental health or dementia. There are memes showing people come to this page, ctrl+F those terms with zero results and it's just kind of embarrassing for Wikipedia. Nate Hooper ( talk) 14:54, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Memes are not RS. Slatersteven ( talk) 14:56, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

• There was a July 2021 consensus on a similar issue - Donald Trump’s mental health - Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive329#Donald Trump's mental health. It was found that WP:BLP and WP:MEDRS trump WP:PUBLICFIGURE and WP:NFRINGE. What we need are announced formal diagnosis or MEDRS-level sources, preferably retrospective scholarship, of which none have been provided here, Nate Hooper. starship .paint ( exalt) 15:43, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

• The information in any article is determined by the extent of coverage in reliable sources, per balancing aspects. When it hits the 24 hour cable news feed, we can consider it. If you want to blame anyone, blame them. Incidentally, the issue with Trump was the same. While it received some mainstream media attention, it was largely ignored. TFD ( talk) 16:21, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Until a professional diagnosis is made & section 3 or (more likely) section 4 of the 25th amendment, is invoked? We add nothing. GoodDay ( talk) 16:28, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Not actually true. We follow policy, not decisions of the U.S. cabinet. TFD ( talk) 17:00, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Well partly true, we would still need a professional diagnosis and not an amateur one. Slatersteven ( talk) 17:02, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Im all for fair criticism, but it needs to be properly cited and justifiable. The Biden mental health story hasn't been substantiated by any 'reliable' sources. If you want to propose something for addition then please provide the citations necessary. Bgrus22 ( talk) 01:24, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

This edit request to Joe Biden has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I think that signing the COVID-19 Hate Crimes act should be included in his Presidency section. NarutoElectoralCount ( talk) 19:08, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{ edit extended-protected}} template. – Jonesey95 ( talk) 20:21, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

I propose the following addition to the page:

In October 2021, a video went viral following numerous reports of people chanting "fuck Joe Biden" at sports events began surfacing around September in protest of President Joe Biden and often to show support for former President Donald Trump. In early October people started using the phrase "Let's Go Brandon" in place of "fuck Joe Biden" to criticize and joke about the President. On October 3rd, Donald Trump Jr. posted, "Great to see real America representing loud and proud. 'Let’s go, Brandon!'" along with photos of people holding a "fuck Joe Biden" flag, gaining over 51,000 likes and 8,400 retweets (shown below). On October 4th, Brown tweeted, "Let’s go Brandon," adding in a comment, "not political… just feelin myself," gaining over 15,300 likes and 2,000 retweets in two days. ^[1] The "Let's Go Brandon" phrase have been used by The Daily Wire founded by conservative pundit Ben Shapiro, Ted Cruz and Turning Point USA. ^[2] Jd1schroeder ( talk) 18:59, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Well, that content is completely unacceptable because you copy/pasted it from Know Your Meme and we can't plagiarize. As to the "let's go Brandon" chant in general, why should this be added to this page when it isn't even on Public image of Joe Biden? –  Muboshgu ( talk) 19:10, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Don't add to the article. GoodDay ( talk) 19:13, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Yeah this is at the most, suitable for public image or presidency, that's it. A small issue. starship .paint ( exalt) 01:32, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree that this issue speaks to the suitability or public image of the President, but I disagree on your quote that this being a small issue. Literally every major news agency in the world has published an article regarding the use of the chant, a song was made and became the #1 trending song on iTunes in the United States, and the mind-numbing speed at which this chant has gone viral on every social media platform speaks volumes. 74.219.135.195 ( talk) 15:36, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Viral media is not uncommon and needs to demonstrate WP:LASTING. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 16:08, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

There's now a standalone article - Let's go, Brandon. Mr Ernie ( talk) 20:13, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

The case for LASTING gets stronger every day. That said, I noticed that Obama's article does not mention Thanks, Obama, and Trump's article doesn't mention FDT (song). I think that's correct, and still oppose adding the chant to this article. The chant isn't about Joe Biden. It's about part of the public's reception to Joe Biden. It belongs on Public image of Joe Biden, sure, but I don't think it's important enough about the man himself to include on this page. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 03:23, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

So? I do not see what this adds. Slatersteven ( talk) 15:39, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

It hasn't received sufficient attention in major reliable sources. Suggest you stop reading the Daily Wire because it provides a non-mainstream emphasis on fringe views and stories that have little or no coverage in reliable sources. TFD ( talk) 15:50, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

This tiresome right-wing slogan, along with their tedious "attack helicopter" joke, has been boring to see on social media and isn't worthy of inclusion here. We don't need to add every piece of right-wing silliness to this article. Acalamari 23:50, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

The slogan is frequently used in current news items about the subject, and therefore an objective and brief explanation of its background and use is appropriate here, using RS. Hoppyh ( talk) 01:31, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

It’ll fall out of use within a few weeks. Not worth memorializing it on the page. A. Rosenberg ( talk) 17:55, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

As a non-American, it's mind-boggling how openly partisan people can be editing Wikipedia, deciding themselves what's worth being included in the article and what not. There isn't even an attempt at hiding it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.169.232.193 ( talk) 13:46, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

As another non-American, people deciding what's worth being included in Wikipedia or not is exactly how Wikipedia works for every Wikipedia article. starship .paint ( exalt) 03:03, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

The opposition is usually loud, no matter who's president. That's been the case for many decades. GoodDay ( talk) 03:36, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Just an idea, but maybe just include a 1-2 sentence description with a link to the main page about it. It is pretty big, but not big enough to have its own section in this page. 1base1 ( talk) 01:31, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

EXCLUDE unless/until it's still here in six months. Delete the article about it, too. WP:DUMB soibangla ( talk) 02:14, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Be advised. We've an editor going around forcefully adding presidential/prime ministerial seals & flags, below current world leaders' infoboxes, without prior consensus. GoodDay ( talk) 16:21, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Not sure if this is the right place for this, kinda new as a Wikipedia contributor. I was thinking it would be a good idea to get some consistency in the descriptions/intros for politicians and how their offices are described

For example here is how Biden and Obama's tenure in the Senate are described.

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, he served as the 47th vice president from 2009 to 2017 under Barack Obama and represented Delaware in the United States Senate from 1973 to 2009.

Barack Hussein Obama II (born August 4, 1961) is an American politician, author, and retired attorney who served as the 44th president of the United States from 2009 to 2017. A member of the Democratic Party, Obama was the first African-American president of the United States. He previously served as a U.S. senator from Illinois from 2005 to 2008 and as an Illinois state senator from 1997 to 2004.

And here is how Kennedy's is described

John Fitzgerald Kennedy (May 29, 1917 – November 22, 1963), often referred to by his initials JFK, was an American politician who served as the 35th president of the United States from 1961 until his assassination near the end of his third year in office. Kennedy served at the height of the Cold War, and the majority of his work as president concerned relations with the Soviet Union and Cuba. A Democrat, Kennedy represented Massachusetts in both houses of the U.S. Congress prior to his presidency.

Anyone else agree there should be some consistency? Please feel free to move this to the appropriate discussion area as well CoryJosh ( talk) 23:52, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't see why. Anyway, one was a U.S. senator, one was a U.S. and state senator, one was a U.S. senator and congressman,. JFK and obama were both serving senators when they became president, while biden was a former VP which is a higher position. There have not been many senators or former senators who became president anyway. TFD ( talk) 02:49, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

4th lead paragraph (which covers Biden's presidency) should mention passage of the BIF, his second major legislative achievement (after the American Rescue Plan). 142.126.87.150 ( talk) 19:46, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree, it is one of the major legislative acts of his presidency thus far. I think a good way to integrate this with the paragraph may be to mention the ARP and BIF together as part of Biden's Build Back Better Plan (link to article). This way when/if the Build Back Better Act passes it can be included as well. Basil the Bat Lord ( talk) 00:33, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

It’s fine for now. When/if the BBB passes, we can rephrase the opening to how his first presidential year centered around passing his build back better agenda/domestic agenda, which included the ARP, BIF and BBB acts. Then segway into how he also issued a series of EOs and keep the rest as is. Davefelmer ( talk) 23:01, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Not sure why we can't just update it now to mention BIF, and again if/when BBB is signed into law? It may well be weeks or months before BBB clears the Senate, and there's no reason not to mentioned BIF until then... 142.126.87.150 ( talk) 08:08, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Sorry IP, but the current version has a strong consensus. Chopping and changing it to include everything he does in the lead does not. Davefelmer ( talk) 17:42, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Has it passed the US Senate? GoodDay ( talk) 09:00, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Biden proposed the Build Back Better Plan, from which Congress passed the $1 trillion Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, which Biden signed into law in November 2021. - added. starship .paint ( exalt) 02:23, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

This edit request to Joe Biden has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The full stops of U.S. should be removed as per as MOS:US. Richard Michael William ( talk) 08:20, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: this page uses U.S., either is fine according to MOS:US as long as consistency is kept.  melecie  t - 08:23, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

What is an RFC, and how is it opened? BarbecuePorkRinds ( talk) 22:01, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

RFC is jargon for Request for Comment; click that link for more information, especially if you don't intend to offer sources as requested. 331dot ( talk) 22:03, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

It's worth it to mention Biden's response to the current Omicron surge. He argued that the federal government cannot intervene in Omicron. Instead, he argued intervention happens at a state level. This is despite cases rising in all states, causing outrage. 2600:1700:FC10:48C0:4858:9F69:7869:1B3 ( talk) 18:36, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

"In response to the surge of the COVID-19 Omicron variant in December, Biden advocated a state-level response over a federal response. ^[1] Soon after, the CDC revised their guidelines recommending quarantine for five days rather than ten. ^[2] By the end of December, the United States reported an all-time high of new COVID cases. ^[3]"

His comment was misconstrued as federal abandonment of states. soibangla ( talk) 19:26, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

There's a bit of WP:SYNTHESIS going on here by ordering these statements in a way that one seems to lead to the other, implying one is the result of the other. The updated CDC guideline, for example, didn't start the Omicron surge being experienced at the end of December as the CDC guidance shortening the quarantine period was itself also done at the end of December, after we were already well into the Omicron surge. Additionally, that surge is being seen all over the world, and not just in countries where the US CDC has authority (i.e. the US). This isn't to say that reliably sourced criticism of Biden's response cannot be included, but it must be done in such a way as to not imply the type of cause/effect relationship that the proposed text suggests. -- OuroborosCobra ( talk) 20:11, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree the description is misleading. But the CNBC article said Biden "campaigned on the federal government’s ability to curb the pandemic." He is now backtracking. TFD ( talk) 20:49, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Biden is not backtracking. That CNBC article then says Those comments represent one of the most explicit acknowledgements to date from the Biden administration that it will need help from state and local governments in its efforts to curb the spread of Covid-19. as well as The president on Monday reiterated some of the promises he made last week, including the federal government’s purchase of 500 million rapid coronavirus tests. It's not "backtracking", it's acknowledging that states have a role to play too. After all, he's just announced a new $137 million contract from the DoD. ^[4] I agree with OuroborosCobra that the proposed addition is too much SYNTH. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 20:57, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

How about: "The Biden administration responded to the global spread of the COVID-19 Omicron variant in December 2021 by advocating for a state-level response over a federal level response. ^[5] Throughout the surge, the Biden administration has been criticized for a lack of COVID tests, exacerbating the spread of the Omicron variant. When questioned about the apparent shortage of tests, Jen Psaki replied, “Should we just send one to every American? Then what happens if every American has one test? How much does that cost and what happens after that?” ^[6], causing backlash. ^[7] The Biden administration responded by promising an increased supply of at-home tests later in 2022. ^[8]

In the midst of an all-time high of new COVID cases, ^[9] the CDC revised their guidelines, recommending five days of quarantine rather than ten without requiring a negative COVID test. ^[10] This move was criticized by health experts who worry that without rapid testing, COVID-positive people may unknowingly spread COVID in workplaces under the recommended CDC guidelines. Others criticize the CDC for implementing this change following lobbying by the airline industry, leading to social media backlash against the federal government. ^[11]" – 2600:1700:FC10:48C0:4858:9F69:7869:1B3 ( talk) 21:47, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Since you refer to "The Biden administration," consider taking this to the Presidency article. soibangla ( talk) 23:08, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

I hope after Biden's voting rights speech in Atlanta. we will be mentioning (with sources) that Republican senators aren't the only ones blocking voting rights & over-turning the filibuster. There's at least 'two' Democratic senators, who are also blocking the progress. GoodDay ( talk) 21:38, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

It sounds like you're suggesting that this article suggests that it's only Republicans, but I see nothing about voting rights in this article. So is this a WP:NOTAFORUM post? His voting rights speech, and the roles of Sinema and Manchin, belong in the presidency article, not the bio. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 22:14, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

The Biden administration article, would be a better fit. GoodDay ( talk) 22:18, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

I've noticed quite a few of these Response to the State of the Union Addresses being added to the succession boxes of this & other American politicians bios, under the "Office and distinction" banner. IMHO, this is a tad too much & should be deleted. GoodDay ( talk) 04:34, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Note: They begin in 1966, with Gerald Ford & Everett Dirksen bios & appear to be in every bios of anyone who's responded to the State of the Union Address. GoodDay ( talk) 04:44, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

I would support deleting all of those succession boxes for SOTU. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 22:15, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

@ AmYisroelChai: had removed some or all of them earlier, but @ Therequiembellishere: reverted those deletions. GoodDay ( talk) 22:20, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

"Biden was consistently ranked one of the least wealthy members of the Senate,[478][479][480] which he attributed to his having been elected young.[481] Feeling that less-wealthy public officials may be tempted to accept contributions in exchange for political favors, he proposed campaign finance reform measures during his first term.[93] As of November 2009, Biden's net worth was $27,012.[482] By November 2020, the Bidens were worth $9 million, largely due to sales of Biden's books and speaking fees after his vice presidency.[483][484][485][486]"

This has nothing to do with reputation; it's entirely biographical information. Saying he was poor is a fact and has nothing to do with public opinion. What if everyone actually hates him for being less wealthy? It's ambiguous and unencyclopedic and should be moved. 174.193.194.146 ( talk) 18:12, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Being one of the least wealthy members of Congress was part of his reputation, but you are right that it is also biographical content beyond "reputation". Is there a section you suggest we move this to? –  Muboshgu ( talk) 19:15, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

I would suggest moving this sentence "Feeling that less-wealthy public officials may be tempted to accept contributions in exchange for political favors, he proposed campaign finance reform measures during his first term" or an elaboration of that to the section above "Political Positions" and keeping the rest in the reputation section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aleena98 ( talk • contribs) 12:15, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

I think it would be great to improve the article to GA, or preferably even FA. Could somebody do a peer review to suggest changes? Lallint⟫⟫⟫ Talk 21:46, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

This article is highly unlikely to become an GA or an FA while Biden is President, because it would be extremely difficult for it to remain stable. Stability is one of the GA criteria, and an important one. Ganesha811 ( talk) 01:58, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

It might be possible though, as this bio doesn't get anywhere's near the attention that the Donald Trump article does. So at the very least, an GA or FA attempt might be less of a struggle. GoodDay ( talk) 02:32, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't think this should be a GA or FA, considering the stability issue. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ( talk) 05:20, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

My edit altering the lead sentence regarding the Afghanistan withdrawal to conform with what RS says was reverted. The sentence reads now as:

Biden completed the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan by September 2021; following the withdrawal, the Afghan government collapsed and the Taliban seized control.

and it should read

Biden completed the withdrawal of all U.S. troops from Afghanistan by September 2021; during this, the Afghan government fell and the Taliban seized control, causing Biden to face bipartisan criticism over the manner of withdrawal, with it being described as chaotic and poorly planned.

Firstly, not mentioning that he faced criticism is a massive WP:NPOV issue as RS has widely described the criticism. Many RS have mentioned the criticism as being bipartisan. Now before Neutrality reversed my edit the sentence read: Biden completed the withdrawal of all U.S. troops from Afghanistan by September 2021; during this, the Afghan government fell and the Taliban seized control, causing Biden to face criticism over the manner of withdrawal, with allegations of poor planning. The revision I'm proposing makes 2 needed changes: (1) it mentions the criticism as being bipartisan, a fact that is widely mentioned in RS and (2) explained in a non-whitewashed way that the withdrawel has been described as poorly planned and chaotic, and that these descriptions have not been presented an "allegation" in RS.

Here are some references supporting my changes, they are all green check marked at WP:RSP and are mix of national, international, old, and new:

• NYT: Law Makers Unite in in Bipartisan Fury Over Afghanistan Withdrawal, this is the title of that article and explains the Bipartisan criticism. I don't have NYT membership so I can't explore the contents of this article. ^[1]
• CNN: The debacle of the US defeat and chaotic retreat in Afghanistan is a political disaster for Joe Biden, whose failure to orchestrate an urgent and orderly exit will..., this displays the withdrawal being described as poorly planned and chaotic. ^[2]
• NPR: Criticism of the administration was bipartisan...Democrats...criticized the haphazard manner of the U.S. withdrawal. Again mentioning bipartisan criticism and states the withdrawal as being "haphazard". ^[3]
• Politico: Biden administration continues to face tough questions about what critics are calling a botched withdrawal. The withdrawal being described as botched (aka poorly planned) ^[4]
• CNN: America's chaotic, humiliating final retreat from its defeat in Afghanistan will... Described as chaotic. ^[5]
• CNN: The US departure marks the end of a fraught, chaotic and bloody exit from the United States' longest war. ^[6]
• The New Yorker: Bidens Chaotic Withdrawal from Afghanistan... (the title) ^[7]
• WaPo:Will the chaotic and deadly withdrawal from Afghanistan... (this is the title) ^[8]
• NPR:6 Political Takeaways For President Biden From The Chaotic Afghanistan Withdrawal (this is the title), ...the disorganization and confusion of President Biden's full U.S. military withdrawal of Afghanistan., Biden is facing a bipartisan backlash, The chaotic withdrawal cuts against Biden's competence narrative ^[9]
• Time: 'A Decision Was Made.' Biden Faces the Fallout for His Chaotic Retreat in Afghanistan (title) ^[10]
• Politico: The White House is moving quickly to contain the fallout from the botched Afghanistan withdrawal... ^[11]
• CNN: Biden promised allies 'America is back.' Chaotic Afghanistan withdrawal is making them fear it's still 'America First.' (title)
• Daily Telegraph (UK): Joe Biden's botched Afghan withdrawal... ^[12]
• Guardian: ...even in the face of rebukes from Democrats and Republicans over how the troop withdrawal has been executed. ^[13]
• Guardian: With recriminations flying in Washington over the chaotic retreat... ^[14]
• Vanity Fair: CONGRESS AND DIPLOMATS WANT ANSWERS TO BIDEN’S CHAOTIC AFGHAN WITHDRAWAL (title) ^[15]
• CNN: Amid scenes of a chaotic and rushed evacuation from Afghanistan, multiple House Republicans are vowing to launch congressional investigations into the Biden administration's botched withdrawal if they win back the chambe... ^[16]
• Politico: ...with the botched military withdrawal from Afghanistan last summer... ^[17]

Iamreallygoodatcheckers ( talk) 00:11, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Your edits are dubious -- please stop adding more of them prior to resolution in a deliberate talk page consideration of your view. SPECIFICO talk 23:53, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

This discussion addresses the lead only. My edits to the body were WP:BOLD. I have restored to longstanding text for this discussion to pan out. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ( talk) 00:01, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

A tad confused here. Who made the aforementioned edits? GoodDay ( talk) 00:10, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

I started this discussion if thats what your asking. I had forgotten my signature. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ( talk) 00:12, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

• Comment: I've restored Neutrality's removal of the text in question until the issues they mentioned in their edit summary are addressed. –– FormalDude talk 05:04, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

The infobox on Orrin Hatch page says that on Jan 3, 1995, Hatch took the reins of the judiciary committee from Joe Biden. But Biden's infobox doesn't say anything about this. I haven't track down all the dates, but it should be included. — MiguelMunoz ( talk) 00:34, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

There was a prior RFC that was closed with a consensus to remove these from the infobox ( RFC is here, closing statement is here). The dates of his Senate-specific positions can be found in the infobox at US Senate career of Joe Biden. Aoi (青い) ( talk) 00:46, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

It would be good to update that to say president. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meznaric ( talk • contribs) 17:00, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing it out Meznaric, error corrected. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 17:03, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Check the date of that image though, it's 2012. Xi Jinping didn't become Chinese President until 2013. GoodDay ( talk) 17:09, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Yeah I noticed that after I replied here and put in a file move request on Commons. Then I caught it and revised it to just fix the MOS:CURLY issue. I need moar coffee. It's a no bones day. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 17:11, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

What is the "±%" column supposed to indicate? The value for the popular vote in the 2020 presidential race is +3.13%. Since Trump received 46.9% of the vote to Biden's 51.3%, shouldn't that be 4.45%? Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 21:41, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Same question for the value of the electoral college vote. "+14.69%" compared to what? 306:232 electoral college votes works out to 13.75% more in favor of Biden. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 14:30, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

it says it if you click on the symbol. change since last election Anon0098 ( talk) 07:41, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Anon0098, the symbol I see isn't clickable. Change since last election—comparing Biden's popular vote margin of victory to Clinton's, who won the popular vote in 2016, and his margin of victory in electoral college votes also to Clinton's who lost the electoral college votes in 2016? Odd juxtaposition, seems more than a tad illogical. Logical would be a comparison to the winner of the 2016 election or to the loser in the 2020 election, not a comparison to the previous candidate of the same party. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 11:51, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm on mobile rn maybe that's why. Exact texts says "Change in percentage value since previous election". I agree though, definitely a weird statistic. I'd support a change, either removing it or changing it to comparison to opponent Anon0098 ( talk) 23:37, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

With all of the infrastructure/budget debates, I have lost my feel for the likelihood of DC Statehood and PR statehood. Is Biden expected to make either of these happen during his presidency now?- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:06, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

This isn't a forum, but for what it's worth. The Senate Democrats won't unify to overturn the filibuster (which means bills can't be passed unless 60 votes are obtained, rather then just 51 votes). Also, VP Harris refuses to over-rule the Senate parliamentarian on the filibuster matter. In other words, DC & PR aren't going to become states for a long time, if ever. GoodDay ( talk) 00:12, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Thx.-- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:05, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello!

I noticed there were a few things about Joe Biden's current presidency that could be added. Some things that he has done that have not yet been mentioned are the official recognition of the Armenian genocide ^[1], the diplomatic boycott of the 2022 Olympics ^[2], and the airstrike that killed ten citizens in Kabul ^[3]. I also thought it may be good to include a table of campaign promises versus what he has done to achieve those so far because there is currently a lot of uproar about his promise to forgive student loans which he has not met yet. Many people harp on the promises he has broken, but it would be interesting to see which he has upheld next to those for an unbiased comparison. Thanks!

Clash2022 ( talk) 14:55, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

THis page is about JOe Biden, not his presidency. Slatersteven ( talk) 14:59, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Clash2022 See Presidency of Joe Biden. 331dot ( talk) 15:19, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a voter guide; we aren't interested in comparing promises made with promises kept. We are interested in summarizing independent reliable sources. 331dot ( talk) 15:20, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

I understand why you do not want to include campaign promises then, but I still find the diplomatic boycott and Kabul relevant considering you included that Afghanistan withdrawal. Please let me know your thoughts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clash2022 ( talk • contribs) 15:32, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Please describe how the Olympic boycott is related to Joe Biden personally and not just his presidency. In the case of Afghanistan he personally made decisions related to it. 331dot ( talk) 15:35, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestions, Clash2022. As suggested above, some of these things, such as the diplomatic boycott and the Kabul raid, might better belong in Presidency of Joe Biden. This is a biography, and while his presidency is part of it, we try to include only the highlights or the things most closely associated with him personally. As for the "table of promises made vs. promises kept," that would be WP:Original research which we don't allow. We only include things that have been specifically covered by multiple reliable sources. -- MelanieN ( talk) 11:38, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

This edit request to Joe Biden has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Goldbrg (
talk) 17:31, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

I found about two spelling errors in the entire thing.

Goldbrg Please specify the errors. 331dot ( talk) 17:33, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 17:33, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

This edit request to Joe Biden has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

He is the second non-incumbent vice president (after Richard Nixon in 1968) to be elected president and the first person to serve as vice president and president since George H. W. Bush. Anonymous 13893 ( talk) 03:53, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

No one is disputing that. GoodDay ( talk) 04:04, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

This edit request to Joe Biden has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I suggest removing the following lines from Joe Biden#Presidential transition:

In December 2020, Biden received his first dose of the Pfizer–BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine at the Christiana Hospital in Delaware, publicly taking the vaccine on live television to build trust in the vaccine and to encourage Americans to get inoculated.[360][361] He returned for his second dose in January 2021.

These sentences are very out-of-place and have nothing to do with the section they are in. This event is not even mentioned in the full article Presidential transition of Joe Biden. Harpo 53 ( talk) 19:42, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Done Iamreallygoodatcheckers ( talk) 06:20, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Biden's response to the Russian invasion of Ukraine is undoubtedly going to be a major part of his presidency. To this end I propose something like the following be added to the lead:

"He enacted sanctions on Russia in response to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine." Basil the Bat Lord ( talk) 05:20, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

No. That's not really about him. It might fit better in the article about his Presidency. HiLo48 ( talk) 05:47, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Firstly, this isn't even in the body, so it would certainly be inappropriate in the lead at this time. I'm not necessarily opposed to this statement in the lead, we might want to wait and to make sure it's not WP:RECENTISM. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ( talk) 06:17, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Ok i will add Lolliepop1234 ( talk) 01:04, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

What? That was NOT the conclusion of the discussion above. HiLo48 ( talk) 02:23, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

It's WP:RECENTISM. Putin invaded, what, 48 hours ago? Let's let the dust settle first, literally. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 02:48, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

The line about him being a professor at the University of Pennsylvania is misleading, it was an honorary position and he never taught any classes. ^[1] Should be an easy fix, just need to add the word "honorary". DrRamses99 ( talk) 16:52, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

I fleshed this out further than just adding "honorary". –  Muboshgu ( talk) 17:36, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

@ HiLo48 - I'm confused by your reversion of my edit adding a sentence about Ukraine to the body and to the lead. I would understand if you felt it didn't yet belong in the lead, but not even a single sentence about Ukraine in the body of the article? You say "isn't that simply the President's job?" - to which I say yes, but isn't almost everything in the 'Presidency' section? A single sentence is hardly undue weight, and this is a major event of Biden's presidency that he has devoted a considerable amount of time to over the last few months. Let me know what you think. @ Iamreallygoodatcheckers pinging you as well as you have shown an interest. Ganesha811 ( talk) 18:41, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

There is a separate Presidency of Joe Biden article which has more detailed coverage about events during his presidency. It will likely take time to judge how and to what extent Ukraine should be mentioned in this article about Biden personally. (I realize you are addressing HiLo48, but you posted to the article talk page). 331dot ( talk) 18:45, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

I think it's a big enough deal to add at least a sentence now in Joe Biden#2022, something to the effect of Biden's role in getting NATO/EU nations to issue those sanctions. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 18:56, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

I certainly agree that there should be more in-depth coverage at Presidency of Joe Biden, but would a single sentence really be undue coverage on this page? Ganesha811 ( talk) 19:09, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't think one sentence is undue, but I do think that your sentence didn't really convey anything. He "led the U.S. response" doesn't say anything about the response. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 19:16, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Sure, that's a good point. The three important things are his warnings of invasion, imposing sanctions, and authorizing weapons shipments to Ukraine. I think all three could be mentioned (briefly) in a single sentence. Ganesha811 ( talk) 19:19, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps propose a sentence that covers those three things here and see if anyone objects. I doubt anyone will. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 19:49, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

How do folks feel about this sentence (in the body, not the lead): "After warning for several weeks that an attack was imminent, Biden led the US response to the Russian invasion of Ukraine, imposing severe sanctions on Russia and authorizing over $1 billion in weapons shipments to Ukraine." This could use the citations I used before, plus this additional one. Ganesha811 ( talk) 20:00, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm concerned that we are obviously facing a recentism situation. And notability. Ukraine is top of everyone's mind right now. It wasn't, and won't always be. Biden is President, so of course he led the US response. Yes, there should be significant mention is his Presidency article, but this is the article about the person. This stuff doesn't change who and what Biden is. HiLo48 ( talk) 23:00, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

What a president does as president is part of their biography, no? Even if it doesn't reflect a change of who he is, it could be that it changes how we view him. Only the most significant things should be in this article, yes, but a full-on invasion of Ukraine is likely to pass the WP:10YT. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 23:14, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Your logic suggests that we should remove essentially all of the content in the 'Presidency' section. Almost none of it "changes who and what Biden is." Every article on US presidents mentions their actions during their presidency, even if those actions have nothing to do with their character or personality. I'm sympathetic to concerns about recentism, but this war is widely being described as a massively significant geopolitical event, Biden's response has been significant (i.e. he has done more than issue a statement), and we're talking about one sentence, not a huge change. If at the end of Biden's presidency it's clear the Ukraine war was not important, the information can always be removed. Ganesha811 ( talk) 23:43, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

This is the furthest from WP:Recentism we could possibly get. Recentism certainly is a big issue on Wikipedia but the first major war in Europe since WW2 is not that, and describing Biden's influence on it in his personal page is standard Anon0098 ( talk) 17:29, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Currently Boris Johnson has a quite detailed paragraph on his page about the Ukraine crisis and his response. I can see the argument its too much but the Invasion is probably the most significant thing to happen in 2022 so far and it seems pretty wild to barely mention it on Biden's page. Are Jay Morrison ( talk) 02:47, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Coverage of the Ukraine conflict in this article is certainly WP:DUE and passes the WP:10YEARTEST. The sentence proposed by Ganesha811 seems ok, but I'm having trouble verifying everything in the sentence because I lack a WaPo and NYT membership. It would be helpful if there were some excerpts from these RS provided that supported the claims. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ( talk) 01:30, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

What sources do you access for contemporaneous news?

There are other RS that are free (Guardian, NPR, etc.), and sometimes I get lucky and read a NYT and WaPo article for free. I also have an Apple News membership. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ( talk) 01:35, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

What bothers me is that the USA is not actually involved in the war. Yes, what Biden has done is important, but predictions of it passing the the WP:10YEARTEST are not convincing. HiLo48 ( talk) 02:49, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

The US is involved in the war, just not with military force. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ( talk) 02:55, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

That's pure pedantry, and unhelpful. HiLo48 ( talk) 06:30, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

I disagree. Iamreallygoodatcheckers is completely correct. We are involved in the war in every way except with our own troops. The US is the leading power of NATO and this war is widely being discussed in reliable sources as a conflict, at its core, about NATO and Russia. We are actively supporting one side with weapons, intelligence, and our economic power. Ganesha811 ( talk) 10:46, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

??? that's not pedantic at all, the US has a huge influence here even though there aren't troops on the ground. You're the only one who is being unhelpful by immediately hurling insults. Please try to have productive discussions here Anon0098 ( talk) 17:26, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

If I'm reading this correctly, we have one user opposed to this addition and everyone else supports it. That's a consensus. I say go ahead and add the sentence Ganesha811. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 17:36, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

• Added the sentence above, with sources, to the body. I think we should also add a version of the sentence to the lead, but I'm happy to have another discussion on that as I think concerns about recentism are stronger in that case. Ganesha811 ( talk) 18:05, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

  Given 24 hours without further discussion, I'm going to add a shortened sentence to the lead as well. Happy to talk if reverted. Ganesha811 ( talk) 19:54, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello Why do you have the domain name impeachbiden.com and not doing anything with it? 2607:FEA8:620:35A3:B171:3907:558A:5F48 ( talk) 17:02, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

We don't, its not mentioned anywhere in the article. Slatersteven ( talk) 17:04, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

It is weird that that link takes you to this wiki page though. Petty politics. TDKR Chicago 101 ( talk) 17:13, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Is it some off wiki redirect? Slatersteven ( talk) 17:14, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Maybe, it just redirects you to his wiki page. TDKR Chicago 101 ( talk) 17:27, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Well its not ours https://en.wikipedia.org/?search=Impeachbiden.com&title=Special:Search&profile=advanced&fulltext=1&ns0=1 so we can do sod all about it. Slatersteven ( talk) 17:29, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Some people buy domain names preemptively and re-direct them to other sites which they may not own. So instead of seeing a Biden attack page, viewers are directed to what the owner thinks is a favorable article about him. TFD ( talk) 19:25, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

People also sometimes use the names of redirects as attacks themselves. For instance liar.com redirects to Justin Trudeau, and loser.com redirects to Vladimir Putin. As Slatersteven said though, that's got sod all to do with us. Endwise ( talk) 10:21, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

This edit request to Joe Biden has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

In this section: Joe_Biden#Rest_of_2021, wouldn't it be better to replace the image of Draghi with this one: File:Joe Biden and Vladimir Putin at 2021 Geneva Summit.jpg? The text specifically references that meeting and it's a very consequential photo given what is happening with the war in Europe now. Gman83 ( talk) 11:40, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

 Partly done: I removed the Draghi image but we can't replace it with anything in that section per MOS:SANDWICH. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 16:21, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

The whole section on the economy seems very watered down, and makes excuses for the high inflation without mentioning high gasoline prices and food prices and the administration's policies that have led to the inflation. Bluecharmquark ( talk) 13:54, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

We need RS saying it. Slatersteven ( talk) 14:32, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Shouldn't there be a mention of the out-of-control situation at the Mexican border, with records numbers of illegal immigrants crossing into the U.S., as well as shipping illegal immigrants to various parts of the U.S.? Bluecharmquark ( talk) 13:54, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

it is "out of control", and besides, we need RS saying this is all his fault. Slatersteven ( talk) 14:34, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Add a discussion of Biden's 1962 conflict with Corn Pop, including a link to the otherwise orphaned page Corn pop, to the early life section. 151.177.158.77 ( talk) 10:18, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Corn Pop article closed as "delete" at AfD. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Corn pop. Debatable whether or not it should be mentioned at Early life and career of Joe Biden, but it definitely does not belong here. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 15:43, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Can somebody please explain why my edit stating that Biden's mask mandate was overturned and deemed unlawful was deleted? This is a completely relevant piece of information as it relates to a major policy decision of the president that affects the entire population and has garnered widespread media attention.

The edit was originally deleted due to a lack of citation, however I was simply following the existing page format where sources are not cited in the opening paragraphs. Unless someone has any factual objections to this, it will be reinstated shortly Domiy ( talk) 00:47, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Because it's not directly relevant to Biden. Info like that might belong on Presidency of Joe Biden. Definitely would belong on a page about COVID-19 mandates. Not this article. Also, per MOS:LEADCITE, the lead doesn't have to be cited because all of those things are cited in the article body. COVID mandates would have to be in the article body as a prerequisite to being in the lead, and I'd be against adding it. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 00:56, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Strongly disagree This seems like a wildly inconsistent and subjective rule given that the opening section already contains countless praises about his policies or achievements. It's a blatant breach of neutrality to only include positive information about his presidency but then insist than any critical elements be moved away.

By your own rule, we should delete most of the opening section that discusses his presidency? Domiy ( talk) 02:28, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Put it in the Biden administration article. GoodDay ( talk) 01:05, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Agree with Muboshgu. It's not directly relevant to his biography and, even if it were, it isn't enough of a major event to be lead-worthy. I would suggest adding this to Presidency of Joe Biden or U.S. federal government response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Aoi (青い) ( talk) 02:40, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

A president enacting a policy unlawfully that was later deemed to be a breach of the constitution is not noteworthy in his bio? Sorry, please explain that one to me further. Domiy ( talk) 02:53, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

For one thing, the judge did not rule that the mask mandate was a breach of the constitution, so the underlying premise of your question is erroneous. Aoi (青い) ( talk) 03:06, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

The judge ruled on statutory grounds, not constitutional ones. And presidents having their policies blocked by courts is common. The implication you seem to be making, that this was an abuse of power he should've been aware of, would need to be present in reliable sources for us to characterize it that way. ―  Tartan357  ^Talk 03:39, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Countless reliable sources cite the Court's decision as an admission that the mandate was "unlawful". Happy to use that word over "unconstitutional".

Such as here and here. Domiy ( talk) 05:26, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

You haven't addressed my point. ―  Tartan357  ^Talk 06:48, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

RS did not cite the Court's decision as an admission that the mandate was "unlawful", they wrote that the court called the mandate unlawful. Yesterday, the CDC "concluded that the mandate was 'necessary' to protect the public from the spread of the coronavirus", and the Biden administration appealed the ruling. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 18:01, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Belongs in Presidency of Joe Biden. It's WP:UNDUE here. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ( talk) 03:32, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Domiy, your repeated insistence that the policy was found "unconstitutional" and "violating the constitution" is incorrect. The judge said no such thing. She asserted that the law establishing the CDC allowed such actions for "sanitation" purposes, but that masks are not for "sanitation" purposes and therefore do not fall within the definition. This was her sole opinion/interpretation. It should be noted that the mask mandates had previously been upheld several times by the Supreme Court. -- MelanieN ( talk) 04:33, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

I feel it's appropriate to point out here that, in addition to this page, this user has been berating me on my Talk Page ( User talk:HiLo48#Please do not delete factual information) because I was the one who reverted the original addition for being unsourced. Their most recent post declares they intend to reinstate the edit. HiLo48 ( talk) 05:43, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Of no relevance to Biden's biography. ValarianB ( talk) 11:41, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

This edit request to Joe Biden has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

In the Early Life section ending:

while Joseph Sr. had English, French, and Irish ancestry.

please add

while Joseph Sr. had English, French, and Irish ancestry. Joe Biden's paternal line has been traced to stonemason William Biden who was born in 1789 in 
Westbourne, England, and had emigrated to 
Maryland in the United States by 1820.
[1]

Thank you. 86.153.41.99 ( talk) 10:50, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: Seems WP:UNDUE for this article to me. Very appropriate for a page like Family of Joe Biden, where it is already covered in greater detail at Family of Joe Biden#Paternal Cannolis ( talk) 11:10, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

There are many Biden fans over here who would enjoy this nugget. Could I have a second opinion?

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{ edit semi-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 11:47, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Already covered at Family of Joe Biden#Paternal. ValarianB ( talk) 11:59, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Had no idea there was even a talk on this before i added my edit.. I definitely vote for its inclusion with his christening- its just one sentence that gives a great background on his ancestry. Foorgood ( talk) 19:39, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. 2A00:23C6:549D:C301:4CC4:3527:3FAD:56AF ( talk) 10:29, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

 Done. I also think this is fine to add, and I've gone ahead and done so. If people really don't like it then we can discuss further, but it seems harmless and useful as a one-line addition...  —  Amakuru ( talk) 10:36, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

I'll get no response. Just shows how correct Trump was with the media. Liberals! 2603:6081:3006:9700:48EF:5364:9B22:5BAD ( talk) 13:01, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

The sources I have seen say that the deficit consistently fell under Biden's first two budgets. TFD ( talk) 14:00, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

If you have reliable sources stating that Biden has caused a large deficit, please offer them. If you are here to just drive by and tell us how much you hate Biden, congratulations, you have done so. If you want to collaborate with us and work towards a consensus, we want to hear you. 331dot ( talk) 14:52, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Furthermore, such content may be better suited for Presidency of Joe Biden. 331dot ( talk) 14:54, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

This edit request to Joe Biden has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change Biden being the 47th Vice President under Obama. He was the 44th Vice President under Obama. Biden is the 46th President now; how is that even possible?. 2603:6080:2F00:9D36:15B2:EDED:8862:1123 ( talk) 15:19, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

No he was not, are we going to have to list them all? Slatersteven ( talk) 15:25, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

•  Not done The counts for Vice President are different than for President due to the VP needing to vacate the position to take over for a president. Some presidents did not have a VP, and some had different ones. 331dot ( talk) 15:25, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: It's possible because some presidents had two vice presidents. FDR had three. See List of vice presidents of the United States. Smh. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 15:27, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

...and that's how the blooper occurred in the 1947 movie "Miracle on 34th street", where Kringle said Tompkins was JQ Adams' veep. GoodDay ( talk) 20:17, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Somewhat new to Wikipedia, so bear with me.

In this article, there is a section titled "Political positions" that just goes over Biden's broad views in a couple of paragraphs, not split into subheadings by issue or anything. The rest of his positions are then given in a linked companion article, Political positions of Joe Biden.

However, in many other articles, such as President Trump and President Obama, political positions are told when needed under the presidency or "career" section of the article, and there is no unique section for political positions. These people, despite having no distinct "Political positions" section in their articles, also have pages titled Political positions of Donald Trump and Political positions of Barack Obama dedicated to them.

Furthermore, other figures, such as Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer, do not have separate "Political positions" articles nor are their political positions simply listed throughout the "career" section of the article. Instead, a unique "Political positions" section is made that is very extensive and has multiple subheadings depending on the issue.

The question I ask here is about Biden's article, but I suppose it applies to articles for all politicians. Which of these methods of listing positions is preferred? Obviously, only very high-profile figures are going to get a separate article made for their positions. But, when listed in the article, is it preferred that a subsection be made uniquely for political positions, or would it be better if positions were simply listed as needed in relation to policy in the "career" section?

In my opinion, I would support removing the "Political positions" section for figures that already have separate "Political positions" articles. In contrast, I would say to leave it for those who do not. Lastly, I would like to say that, considering neither Trump nor Obama had a "Political positions" section on their article, we should remove Biden's as well and simply integrate the facts when needed throughout his career section. There can be a link to the greater article specifically for "Political positions" as the start of the career section as well. I think that it is redundant to have a whole "Political positions" section within this article when there is already a whole different "Political positions" article that we could just link.

Thank you for helping me.

Justtrujames ( talk) 06:53, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

I agree. TFD ( talk) 15:18, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

I think the current wording is too vague, could mean a lot of things. I'd rather say he lost money in furniture and cropdusting ventures. The exact wording doesn't matter as much as the actual nature of the issues/problems/woes. The facts are already sourced inline and the article is more informative with them than without.

Less importantly, I also still believe "suffering" (in any form) is needlessly loaded language. Sometimes it makes a subject seem pathetic, sometimes resilient, but always something. Plainer English often works best, but again, that's small potatoes.

SPECIFICO and others, maybe mull it over. InedibleHulk ( talk) 01:57, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

I agree with InedibleHulk. Explaining what set them back financially is more precise and doesn't take up a lot of space in comparison to the current wording. Suffering comes across as loaded and seems to be problematic with WP:NEWSSTYLE and WP:EMPHATIC Iamreallygoodatcheckers ( talk) 03:30, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

This isn't a biography of Biden's father, going into minutiae of exactly what endeavours brought about the family hardship is not important. As for "suffering", the usage here is the 2nd entry in the dictionary, "to sustain injury, disadvantage, or loss". So, not an uncommon or obscure usage. It does not make the subject pathetic, you're reading things into the word that just aren't there. ValarianB ( talk) 05:46, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

I would agree, this is not about Biden. Slatersteven ( talk) 10:42, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

It's far from minute or exact. Doesn't even relay how he lost the money or to whom, just in what. Whether it's vague and emotive or plain and descriptive, it's of course going to be more about his dad. The whole paragraph already exists only to discuss his parents and upbringing. Would lost money in two failed startups be imprecise enough for you? It would still better explain the verifiable situation than "suffered financial setbacks", which could suggest stock market troubles, overspending or an unexpected medical expense instead of the general truth. InedibleHulk ( talk) 22:57, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Papa Biden's "financial setbacks" are clearly relevant considering Joe's modest means, which of course is a big part of his biography. Joe didn't inherit tons of money from his rich father. (Take your pick of which politician I was thinking of when I typed that last sentence.) "Financial setbacks" is vague and so using a few more words to convey that there were two failed startups is beneficial. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 23:00, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Before I was edit conflicted, I wanted to add that I never said "suffered" was uncommon or obscure. I've removed more than a hundred from Wikipedia over the years. It just has connotations and length that "lost" or "had" doesn't. And I'm going to imagine that "rich father" remark's a veiled jab against my queen, but it's cool, she deserved it. InedibleHulk ( talk) 23:14, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Are they? Lost of people are not born rich, but make their own way in life. All we need to say is that he was not born into money. Slatersteven ( talk) 12:02, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

If that's all we need, do we (or you) still want to continue describing Big Joe's unemployment in Scranton, rental in Claymont, mortgage in Mayfield and ultimate triumphant metamorphosis into "a successful used-car salesman, maintaining the family in a middle-class lifestyle"? InedibleHulk ( talk) 02:17, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

I do not think it is important why Biden Sr. had financial losses and the term suffer does not say anything about his feelings. I do not think that for most people parents with four children who send them to private schools (the tuition at Joe Biden's school today $30,900 per year) would be considered "of modest means." It' just spin. American politicians like to pretend that they came from poverty and worked their way up against adversity. TFD ( talk) 03:09, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Again, I'm not aiming to delve into the Whys and Hows. Way too complex. But even the What (losses) isn't clear by "setbacks". A rising cost of living can be a financial setback without loss, as can a drop in income or pretty much any large-but-fair purchase. As two smart folks who know a shiny political spinjob when we see it, I think we could settle on keeping his "suffering" but trading his "setbacks" for "losses". InedibleHulk ( talk) 04:01, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

I think it should be "suffered business setbacks" not suffered financial setbacks. "Ventures" sounds like harebrained schemes. SPECIFICO talk 16:22, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

How about "experienced financial setbacks", to avoid the doubly negative tone? HiLo48 ( talk) 03:27, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Too vague. The original text was lost money in furniture and cropdusting ventures. What's wrong with that? Seven words that make it clear exactly what happened. If you want, lost money in two business ventures is enough. (Assuming it was two, I don't have an account with them.) "Venture" is a business term, like venture capital. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 03:34, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

I'd based two on "Biden Sr tried to set up a furniture store with a friend, only for the friend to apparently run off with their start-up money. Next, he attempted a crop-dusting enterprise – and again lost his cash." To me, "business setbacks" makes it sound like he actually got these projects off the ground, then ran them both poorly. Any venture, scheme, plan, plot, enterprise, setup or idea can range from absolute foolishness to sheer genius, but without an adjective, I don't think whichever noun suggests anything cognitive. InedibleHulk ( talk) 04:45, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Please provide the language from the best sources on this. It's pointless to discuss language in a vacuum, unless of course the furniture store sold vacuums. SPECIFICO talk 15:01, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Which sources do you think are the best? Of the three already inline, The Daily Telegraph is the only readily readable piece and the only one from a notable outlet. Katie Russell used the words "lost", "money", "furniture" and "crop-dusting". She didn't write "suffered", "financial" or "setbacks". The only businesses she mentioned were "corrupt business", "oil business" and "wartime family business", all of which made money.

I don't think this is about sources, though, I think you've grown personally accustomed to reverting anything I try to fix in an article you oversee. I think you'll take that last line as an opportunity to accuse me of casting aspersions and not assuming good faith, and so avoid answering the question. I think this will be archived, I'll try to implement the consensus by removing Joe the Elder's financial information entirely or closely paraphrasing the source, and you'll revert either with (something like) "No consensus for this; please respect BRD instead of disrupting Wikipedia".

I hope I've misread this situation, though, and look forward to seeing RS which support your preference. InedibleHulk ( talk) 10:15, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't see any reason for mentioning Joe Biden, Sr's financial status in this bio, anymore then I see reason to mention Fred Trump's financial status in Donald Trump's bio. GoodDay ( talk) 17:00, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

It would be nice if someone would add this information into the article, it turns out Biden carries a rosary and attends Mass every Sunday, and that the catholic church changed some rules just because of him:

https://www.bbc.com/news/live/world-us-canada-61709865?ns_mchannel=social&ns_source=twitter&ns_campaign=bbc_live&ns_linkname=62b71a03c5f5c122c9fc07d3%26Catholics%20divided%20on%20Supreme%20Court%20decision%262022-06-25T16%3A01%3A35.190Z&ns_fee=0&pinned_post_locator=urn:asset:90b2f91c-3b9c-41c6-9545-0c0ce5944b69&pinned_post_asset_id=62b71a03c5f5c122c9fc07d3&pinned_post_type=share

"The Catholic Church as an institution has long held that abortion is a sin.

Pope Francis has said aborting an unwanted pregnancy is like “hiring a hit man”.

So it should come as no surprise that, officially at least, the Vatican praised the Supreme Court's decision.

On Friday, the Vatican's Academy for Life said the ruling "challenges the whole world" at a time Western society "is losing passion for life".

"By choosing life, our responsibility for the future of humanity is at stake," said Archbishop Vincenzo Paglia, the head of the academy.

Yet many Catholics support the right for people to end their pregnancies. According to Pew Research Center, more than half (58%) of Catholics in the US think abortion should be legal in most or all cases.

US President Joe Biden is perhaps America's highest-profile Catholic - he is known to attend church regularly and carry a rosary. But he has also been a vocal advocate for women's right to choose.

The issue has run him afoul of some of the church's top clergy. Last year, the US Conference of Catholic Bishops voted to amend the guidance on the eucharist to say that Catholics who oppose the church's teachings on abortion should not receive holy communion.

The guidance would be non-binding, and Biden says he's "not worried". He has continued to attend Mass every Sunday." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8080:A702:EA85:E80D:B4AF:B88F:3D81 ( talk) 16:41, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

The article already says Biden is a Catholic who attends mass. I don't see that much more is required since it's not something that draws a lot of attention. Unless the Vatican is planning to excommunicate him for his political decisions, it's not important that he doesn't agree with them 100%. Most U.S. Supreme Court justices for example are Roman Catholics who oppose the Vatican's stance on capital punishment. So what. TFD ( talk) 19:26, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

As you suggest, the US Conference of Catholic Bishops is made of low-profile and powerless executives, relative to the (current or former) president of one whole nation under God. As TFD notes, most Catholic laypeople disagree with the inner Roman circle on some longstanding deviant stance or another, including sexual ones. And I'll add, from my understanding, Stephen Colbert is the most public and beloved face of American Democratic Catholicism. So, yeah. What's already in the article seems to be enough...for now. InedibleHulk ( talk) 10:39, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Am concerned about the pronunciation of the President's name Biden /b(ai)di*n/ it sounds better as /bidi*n/. Is anything wrong with my own pronunciation? Christmas videos ( talk) 16:45, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

It's pronounces "Buy-Din" or "Bye-Din". GoodDay ( talk) 16:46, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

The second vowel is silent. It's "Buy-dn". HiLo48 ( talk) 00:07, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

That's how he pronounces it, though I would posit that most people pronounce the E. Trillfendi ( talk) 00:56, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

It's not an "e", it's a schwa - the "vowel" used by Americans in unstressed syllables. A kind of "uh" sound like the vowel in the word "the". Most people including Biden himself say "Buy-dn", not "Buy-den" or "Buy-din". -- MelanieN ( talk) 03:11, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

The OP also thought the capital of the United States was New York, and wondered why there isn't a statue of Liberty in Washington. I've warned them for forum chat. Acroterion (talk) 03:17, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

I did a quick check over of CV's contribs to talkpages. This definitely is a case of either WP:CIR or WP:NOTHERE. In any case, I wouldn't object to this entire discussion (which he began) being deleted. GoodDay ( talk) 03:41, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

'He ran unsuccessfully for the Democratic presidential nomination in 1988 and 2008. All totoaled, Biden was a seven-term senator' has typo totoaled. seems like a quick/easy fix. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:245:CE02:5370:BD6F:643E:2C01:4943 ( talk • contribs)

 Done - Very easy. - Aoidh ( talk) 23:10, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

don't you think that the introductory paragraphs should be far more critical of Biden? he's the most unpopular president (this early into his term) in decades and comparatively bad presidents like Trump, Bush, Carter etc. all have much more critical outlooks StarkGaryen ( talk) 09:42, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

StarkGaryen We aren't here to promote or criticize, we are here to summarize independent reliable sources. Most content about his presidency is at Presidency of Joe Biden. If you have changes to propose for the lead that better summarize the content of this article, please offer them. 331dot ( talk) 09:49, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

so if I make a preliminary edit which better summarises the presidency so far and gives more in depth, but concise information about the 46th admin, you would be open to accepting it? StarkGaryen ( talk) 12:50, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Best to wait until he leaves office in 2025 or 2029, before we start including job performance ratings. GoodDay ( talk) 22:33, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

fair enough, but there's already been a lot of edits which portray his presidency as having accomplished a lot (laymen look at the beginning of such articles and seeing this article are likely to get the impression that it's been a very active, energetic and appreciated presidency, which lies in stark contrast to the nationwide, global, and economic sentiment), when in fact there's been a lot of talk among democrats themself of kicking him out, a symptom of how unpopular the presidency is.

in conclusion, I offered nothing opinion-changing in this reply except some feedback over what the tone of the article sounds like StarkGaryen ( talk) 12:49, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Biden was recently rated as the 19th best president out of 45, by the SCRI Survey of U.S. Presidents, ranking 12th for integrity. [14] Alright, that's not how I would necessarily rate him, but content is based on reliable sources, not what we think. TFD ( talk) 00:24, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

while I do agree that we should use reliable sources; the SCRI survey is nothing other than the opinion of a band of a small closed group of people, who have highly partisan views, so in no way should we be using their opinions as an arbiter of his presidency. The script survey continually re-evaluates its ratings so it can't really be used as empirical data on how popular or objectively good or bad a president is. The popular opinion (basically approval rating) is a much better way of judgement as the biases are weighed down by the nation. StarkGaryen ( talk) 12:45, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

I am unsure that we can make such a change to the lede based upon one opinion poll. Slatersteven ( talk) 12:49, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

are you replying to me or the comment above mine? well if it was a reply to me, then I've gotta vigorously disagree with 'one opinion poll'. every single opinion poll taken since around September/august, polls looking at the direction of the nation, as well as polls regarding the effectiveness of the government and congress all offer a uniquely unflattering image of Joe Biden. the economy is suffering, people are resentful, and all the initial optimism on July 4 2021 has evaporated completely StarkGaryen ( talk) 12:54, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

But that is not the same as " most unpopular president (this early into his term) in decades and comparatively bad presidents like Trump", you need pools saying he is more unpopular than Trump (by the way the siena polls lists 5 presidents as the worst in US history (Trump is one, 2 polls running), Biden is not on that list. So that source disproves your claim. Slatersteven ( talk) 13:03, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't think you understand how this works buddy. The Siena Institute rankings are polls buddy. They're evaluations highly dependent on the biases of the small sample of professors etc. whose opinions are taken into consideration. An approval rating is based on several hundreds of different pollsters independently polling the AMERICAN ELECTORATE for their opinion. And literally all polls show that he's more unpopular than Trump. he's empirically the most disapproved of president this early into his term since like Carter lmao. At this stage (18 months into presidency), no other president has had a worse approval since Truman. No source disproved my claim lol, all you did is misunderstand and misrepresent my point of contention. I recommend you Brush up your contemporary political knowledge before you make weird, incorrect statements. StarkGaryen ( talk) 14:18, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

That poll listed Trump as worse than Biden, so your claim that there are polls that rank Biden as worse than Trump is not supported by that source. You did actually look at the table of the bottom 5? So where does it say (not your wp:or, the source saying it, that Biden is more unpopular than Trump?

Here are some quotes about Trump "Worst Five Again – Andrew Johnson, Buchanan, Trump, Harding & Pierce" "For the second time, scholars include Donald Trump along with Andrew Johnson, James Buchanan, Warren Harding and Franklin Pierce in the bottom five.", How can Biden be rated as worse in that poll, if he is not even in the bottom 5? Slatersteven ( talk) 14:27, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes, Biden is more unpopular at this point of his term, then Trump was at his. But again, let's wait until Biden leaves office. For all we know, he might be overwhelmingly popular by Nov 2024 & easily win (400+ electoral votes) re-election. GoodDay ( talk) 14:29, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

2 years into Trump's presidency was 2018, his popularity was at 35% https://news.gallup.com/poll/203198/presidential-approval-ratings-donald-trump.aspx, Bidens is at 39% https://graphics.reuters.com/USA-BIDEN/POLL/nmopagnqapa/ (in fact it has never dropped as low as 35%). This is why we wait, these things fluctuate way too much (as can be seen by both those graphics). Slatersteven ( talk) 14:53, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

It gets even more confusing when we look at similar polls, Gallop puts Biden at his lowest on 41% (which differs from the poll from Siena), and his average at 46. They put trump at (lowest) 34% and average at only 41% (equal to Bidens lowest). Slatersteven ( talk) 15:25, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

I didn't mean to start the 'this president was more unpopular then this president' trend. Again, let's wait until Biden leaves office. GoodDay ( talk) 15:28, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

cool StarkGaryen ( talk) 05:16, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

all over the news services ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.60.40 ( talk) 19:38, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Already mentioned in the BLP. GoodDay ( talk) 19:40, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

• I've removed it as WP:NOTNEWS. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ( talk) 19:44, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
• It remains to be seen if his having covid will be a serious or even notable problem. Suggest we wait. 331dot ( talk) 19:45, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
• Indeed let's wait. Yes he's in his 80th year, but unless/until Harris has to assume his powers & duties (under sections 3 or 4, of the 25th amendment)? then it's not overly noteworthy. Maybe, put it in the Biden administration page. GoodDay ( talk) 19:49, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
• I disagree with removing it and I think it should be restored. A single sentence in the "2022" section is certainly justified, and I mean now. After all we have a whole section in the Trump article about Trump getting Covid. [15] Even though Pence never "assumed Trump's powers" - that's irrelevant. -- MelanieN ( talk) 19:52, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

  Yes, but Trump was hospitalized and he missed a debate because of it. This is not gonna be significant unless it makes an impact. It's probably gonna be like that incident where he broke his foot playing with is dog; it ended up being nothing and is not in this article. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ( talk) 19:57, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

  "Impact" isn't relevant, the fact that the US President has Covid at all is biographically important. ValarianB ( talk) 20:00, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

• Also think it should be included, NOTNEWS is about routine events. This is not routine. nableezy - 20:12, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

  BTW note that WP:NOTNEWS starts out by saying "Editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information within its coverage." -- MelanieN ( talk) 20:24, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

• I think it belongs because it received extensive coverage. I imagine the reason for the coverage is that covid remains a key issue in the U.S. Otherwise I don't imagine they would have given as much coverage had he come down with another illness. But we cannot second guess the weight that rs give to different aspects of his presidency. TFD ( talk) 21:23, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

  I second TFD. And look, if it turns out to be nothing significant, we take it out of the article. But his age and the ongoing uncertainty about the disease and the newest variant have led to lots of coverage, with Monkeypox waiting in the on deck circle. SPECIFICO talk 21:30, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

• I suppose, given the history of the White House's usually down-playing or outright hiding presidential ailments. Its inclusion isn't too premature. GoodDay ( talk) 02:27, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

• I think the current brief, two-sentence mention is just right. -- MelanieN ( talk) 15:41, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Copied from User talk:Iamreallygoodatcheckers

You added a statement to Biden's article about "natural gas" prices. I think you mean oil or petroleum prices. Natural gas is different. Andrevan @ 18:29, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

@ Andrevan: thank you for pointing that out. I meant to put gasoline prices, but I think the POLITICO article that said natural gas tripped me up. If you added back the statement with gasoline than it would be accurate; I would do it myself, but I don't want to be accused of edit warring. The POLITICO article says gasoline prices were elevating and the Bloomberg one said they were at a 7 year high. That is my bad. Thank you, Iamreallygoodatcheckers ( talk) 18:56, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

This content is UNDUE for Biden's biography. You could just as well tell how many dogs and cats were adopted last year or how the price of chicken is doing. The president doesn't set commodity prices. And its not as if the prices of petroleum products are particuarly high. In fact, the inflation adjusted price is around where it was decades ago, I believe. SPECIFICO talk 19:08, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

I think the placement of it is off, and it's out of context, but Biden has specifically spoken about gas prices and his actions on energy are relevant to his presidency, though maybe not in a general section about the economy. His energy policy has involved cancelling the Keystone XL pipeline, creating more oil leases despite a campaign promise not to, releasing more oil from the strategic reserve, and going to Saudi Arabia. I don't have the sources handy but that is all recent stuff from Biden's energy policy that I remember reading about. Andrevan @ 19:17, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, no one is arguing the president sets the prices of anything, but that doesn't make it not significant. RS has covered the gas prices under the Biden Administration and it is relevant for inclusion in this article. As pointed out in the Bloomberg article, it was a 7 year high in 2021. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ( talk) 19:21, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Please take the few seconds time to read what I wrote before responding. This is his biography not his policy article. This is not the Biden Administration article. You can say it's relevant over and over, but that's a song, not an argument for it. I told you to look at inflation adjusted petroleum prices. Please don't post unresponsive replies. Other editors need to take the time to read them before seeing they do not advance the discussion. You should also recall this same distinction -- bio vs. presidential administration -- coming up over and over at the Trump page. This should not be a difficult discussion. SPECIFICO talk 19:30, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, I think I agree with you more ideologically but I find this response bludgeony. Iamreallygoodatcheckers, consider that gas prices being at a 7 year high isn't really about the economy. Let's think instead about how it relates to Biden's energy policy and his statements about gas prices versus what critics have done. For example, those weird stickers that people stick on the gas pumps. I bet someone has written about the cultural impact of those stickers. See the forest for the trees. "Gas prices are high" is not a fact for Biden's article, but there might be something else you're trying to say that would be relevant to his life and work. Andrevan @ 19:38, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Gas prices have nothing to do with Biden, except in tGOP talking points, he confident proclamations of Fox News personalities, and their followers. It is indeed too bad having to repeat this when an editor ignores simple explanations as to the revert. I wish it were not so, but that's how it is. I don't know who copied this from user talk, but maybe the IDHT issue could have been resolved there first and then we would not have to repeat it on article talk. SPECIFICO talk 19:47, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

It was me who copied it and I'm just trying to offer a little constructive feedback. I agree that it's kind of a GOP talking point that Biden is bad on gas prices. I also think that we owe some discussion of the "gas price" "issue" in the Biden presidency article since Biden has specifically commented on gas prices and broadcasted his actions to try to lower gas prices. He has tweeted repeatedly that they've gone down for 35 days in a row and stuff like that I believe (not proposing to add this). I think it's more constructive to talk about how we should cover the Biden administration energy policy than fight between editors on behavioral stuff. Andrevan @ 19:51, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

You're the one with the gratuitous behavior remark. But sealioning and wasting other editors time is very destructive and should not be encouraged or enabled in any way. The whole sequence of events could have been avoided with a bit more thoughtful consideration and a bit less kneejerk addition of off-topic trivia. SPECIFICO talk 20:20, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Accusing an editor of sealioning is probably a good faith violation unless you can substantiate your arguments, and at that point, you should probably take it to ArbCom. It's better not to accuse people of bad faith, but engage on the substance of arguments. I'm not trying to pick a fight or be patronizing, I'm pointing out that we do owe some discussion to the topic of whether "gas prices" is valid. You've made a legitimate argument that I'm not trying to negate at all, but it's not helpful to make statements that attack Iamreallygoodatcheckers for bad faith, because you won't get anywhere with it. On the gas prices question I agree that it wasn't proper, that is why I reverted the addition but I am instead trying to engage Iamreallygoodatcheckers' enthusiasm and energy on a productive pursuit to improve the article. I should be your ally here, but I think implying that editors are responding before reading, isn't productive. Andrevan @ 20:30, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Take it to my talk page if you care. Not here. SPECIFICO talk 21:33, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Andrevan, I open to seeing gas prices from the perspective of energy rather than economy, and I would encourage you to propose ideas. I just don't know if I'm comfortable continuing this discussion for obvious reasons. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ( talk) 21:19, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Let's give everyone a chance to cool down and resume discussing in a little while. Andrevan @ 21:21, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Content needs the WEIGHT of RS narratives connecting the oil price to Joe personally or whatnot. I see nobody offering anything of the sort. If this is to be considered for the article, there needs to be sourcing and a mainstream narrative that Joe personally did this or that significant thing or is responsible for whatever. SPECIFICO talk 21:35, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Andrevan @ 21:42, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Why don't we wait till his presidency is over, they could go up further or down? Slatersteven ( talk) 10:19, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

You're proposing to add something 'negative' to this BLP? Anyways, I've no objections to your proposal. GoodDay ( talk) 13:40, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

So, with clarification from White House officials, it appears Biden was diagnosed and treated for "non-melanoma skin cancers" which were removed before his presidency. Should this be mention? Given his skin cancer diagnosis and his two brain aneurysms from the 1980s, maybe a health section should be created? Here's some sources about his non-melanoma skin cancers: AA, Yahoo, AP TDKR Chicago 101 ( talk) 14:58, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Why is the fact he had skin cancer relevant? Slatersteven ( talk) 15:13, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure on this one. I base including/excluding health issues concerning US presidents, on whether or not it seriously effects their ability to do the job. AFAIK, Biden hasn't been in a situation of this nature, which requires Harris to step in, as acting president. What happened in November 2021, was a routine procedure. GoodDay ( talk) 15:17, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

If I'm reading this right, and I'm still drinking my morning coffee so I am open to being corrected, what happened in November 2021 was the release of a memo from his doctor saying that non-melanoma skin cancers were removed before his presidency started. So, this has been known to us for at least eight months. But, now some are jumping on the inartful way he talked about it yesterday? If it wasn't important enough to add in November, why is it suddenly important enough to add now? –  Muboshgu ( talk) 15:28, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

He had a colonoscopy in November 2021. A routine check up, which he passed easily. GoodDay ( talk) 20:07, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

"Non-melanoma skin cancers" are not a serious health issue. The term refers to Squamous cell skin cancer and Basal cell carcinoma. Both are very common in older people, usually in sun-exposed areas, and both are usually treated by simple local excision. They almost never lead to serious consequences. He may have other health conditions important enough to mention, but "non-melamona skin cancer" is not one of them. -- MelanieN ( talk) 15:37, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Not important for this article. I pretty much follow MelanieN's logic here. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ( talk) 16:27, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

According to APNews, the President had cancer, which was removed prior to taking the presidency. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 22:54, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

There should be a health section since it is normally an issue when a president is either old or has health problems. While skin cancer, polyps and strokes are common among elderly people, they are not common among the age groups most presidents belonged to. TFD ( talk) 05:53, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

I do not think talk of his heath on this level is worth mentioning whatsoever, and smacks of unreliability at best, and POV pushing if we are not careful here. The Presidency is a demanding job, Biden is in his 70s, and he's healthy enough according to his doctors. It's worth mentioning that both of the last 2 presidents have had COVID, though, once his present case of COVID is in the rear-view mirror a little bit, since it's basically a breaking news story in the present news cycle. Andrevan @ 00:32, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. Pretty much any time I've seen Biden's health mentioned in the media and social media in the last two years, it's been done in bad faith, usually in the form of mocking. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 00:48, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Sean Hannity's article has a health discussion. Except it's about Hillary Clinton. SPECIFICO talk 01:04, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Since I don't consider CNN, MSNBC news or FOX news to be reliable sources? I'll leave it up to the rest of you, to decide on whether or not to add any 'health' info. GoodDay ( talk) 01:07, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Really, it's OK,, We don't need a formal valedictory every time you sign off a page. SPECIFICO talk 01:11, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Consensus is that the news section of CNN and MSNBC is reliable, but Fox there is no consensus, I would consider Fox unreliable as it has often published misinformation. CNN and MSNBC also have opinion talk shows and opinion columns, as do WSJ and NYT. Andrevan @ 01:39, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

This discussion seems to me to require consideration of WP:10YEARTEST - "In ten years will this addition still appear relevant?" I humbly and simply submit that the answer is No. HiLo48 ( talk) 02:59, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Well, now we've got Biden's & Harris' intros messed up. Biden's got "...46th and current president..." in his intro, while Harris just has "...49th vice president... in her intro. Wish I had known how to combine the two RFCs into one. Oh well, too late now. GoodDay ( talk) 03:30, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

This edit request to Joe Biden has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

There is a total of 15 typos false information and to top it all off it doesn’t focus on the good 2604:76C0:DEED:5EB0:5199:3554:B42:8B92 ( talk) 18:44, 1 August 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. MadGuy7023 ( talk) 18:50, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

The authority control at the bottom does not appear to work for me. It simply says "Template:Authority control" with a link to the template's explanation page. Leontrooper ( talk) 16:35, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

This page is part of a series for Liberalism in the United States and could include the {{Liberalism US}} sidebar seeing as it isn't placed already. GuardianH ( talk) 02:45, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Since every president of the United States as well as over 99% of politicians, has been a liberal, its questionable how useful it is. There was a discussion on whether the category of monarchist for Canadians made sense and it was agreed it did not, because that was the default position for Canadians. It only became significant if they were republicans who by definition challenged the status quo. TFD ( talk) 03:49, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

To add to this, Biden does not seem very important within the context of liberalism; the articles for Liberalism in the United States and Modern liberalism in the United States for example do not mention him at all. - Aoidh ( talk) 03:57, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

I disagree on your contention that every very president of the United States is considered liberal, but I think that Aoidh makes a good point regarding the fact that Biden is not of relative important within liberalism. GuardianH ( talk) 05:53, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

GuardianH, Liberalism in the United States is about the ideology as defined in most of the world: the belief in individual rights including property ownership, due process and constitutional government, IOW the type of society protected by the U.S. constitution. The article about liberals as usually meant in the U.S. today is Modern liberalism in the United States. TFD ( talk) 17:57, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

TFD I think you are defining basic popular American and Western-centric beliefs rather than uniquely liberal ones. If, as you say, those who believe in individual rights including property ownership, due process and constitutional government are liberals, then that would make every conservative a liberal aswell, because it would be difficult to find a conservative who does not believe in those values. There is no doubt that individual rights are an important part of liberalism, but they are not a defining characteristic of it — at least not in the United States. GuardianH ( talk) 07:36, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Ian Adams explains it in Political Ideology Today, pp. 32: "Ideologically, all US parties are liberal and always have been. Essentially they espouse classical liberalism, that is a form of democratised Whig constitutionalism plus the free market. The point of difference comes with the influence of social liberalism. How far should the free market be left alone....In American political parlance, right-wingers are 'conservatives', while left-wingers are rather confusingly called 'liberals'." [16] He points out at the beginning of the chapter on liberalism (p.10): "Liberalism has been the most successful ideology of the modern world. The ideals of the Western world are largely liberal ideals."

So there are two articles about liberalism in the U.S.: one uses Adams' definition, while the other uses "American political parlance," One describes all U.S. presidents, while the other only describes modern Democrats.

TFD ( talk) 13:36, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

yes there are liberals and conservatives (such as Trump, Reagan and both Bushes)--and yes in my opinions Biden scores very high on liberalism (higher than Obama, Clinton, Carter or JFK and about the same as LBJ. The new climate bill is the most liberal legislation in over 50 years. Rjensen ( talk) 08:11, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

What does “liberal” even mean in this context? Besides liberal small-d democratic, which is what the US is. Dronebogus ( talk) 08:48, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Is he a liberal? Slatersteven ( talk) 10:26, 11 August 2022 (UTC)