Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:36, 5 July 2024

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

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

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

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

This  level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Template:WikiProject Joe Biden Biography: Politics and Government This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Top-importance). U.S. Congress High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject U.S. Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States Congress on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.U.S. CongressWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. CongressTemplate:WikiProject U.S. CongressU.S. Congress High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is about one (or many) Person(s). United States: Delaware / Presidential elections / Presidents / Government Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Delaware (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. presidential elections (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject United States Presidents (assessed as Top-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as Top-importance). Pennsylvania Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pennsylvania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pennsylvania on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PennsylvaniaWikipedia:WikiProject PennsylvaniaTemplate:WikiProject PennsylvaniaPennsylvania Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Politics: American High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as Top-importance). College football Bottom‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject College football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of college football on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.College footballWikipedia:WikiProject College footballTemplate:WikiProject College footballcollege football Bottom This article has been rated as Bottom-importance on the project's importance scale. Science Policy High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Policy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Science policy on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Science PolicyWikipedia:WikiProject Science PolicyTemplate:WikiProject Science PolicyScience Policy High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Barack Obama (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Barack Obama, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Barack ObamaWikipedia:WikiProject Barack ObamaTemplate:WikiProject Barack ObamaBarack Obama

Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article: You must follow the bold-revert-discuss cycle if your change is reverted. You may not reinstate your edit until you post a talk page message discussing your edit and have waited 24 hours from the time of this talk page message Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. Further information Enforcement procedures: Violations of any of these restrictions should be reported immediately to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. Editors who are aware of this topic being designated a contentious topic and who violate these restrictions may be sanctioned by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense. The contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topics sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions. If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. Remember: When in doubt, don't revert!

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

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

	Joe Biden was one of the Social sciences and society good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones Date Process Result September 18, 2008 Good article nominee Not listed September 19, 2008 Good article nominee Listed April 22, 2020 Good article reassessment Delisted June 28, 2020 Good article reassessment Delisted October 4, 2020 Good article nominee Not listed Current status: Delisted good article

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

Top 50 Report and Top 25 Report annual lists This article has been viewed enough times to make it onto the all-time Top 100 list. It has had 82 million views since December 2007. This article has been viewed enough times in a single year to make it into the Top 50 Report annual list. This happened in 2020, 2021, and 2023. This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report 20 times. The weeks in which this happened: May 31 to June 6, 2015 January 8 to 14, 2017 March 1 to 7, 2020 August 9 to 15, 2020 August 16 to 22, 2020 August 30 to September 5, 2020 September 13 to 19, 2020 September 27 to October 3, 2020 October 4 to 10, 2020 October 11 to 17, 2020 October 18 to 24, 2020 October 25 to 31, 2020 November 1 to 7, 2020 November 8 to 14, 2020 November 15 to 21, 2020 January 3 to 9, 2021 January 17 to 23, 2021 January 24 to 30, 2021 April 9 to 15, 2023 June 23 to 29, 2024 This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations: Brian Krebs (August 29, 2008). "Misplaced Pages Edits Forecast Vice Presidential Picks". The Washington Post. (none) (August 17, 2009). "The 50 most-viewed Misplaced Pages articles in 2009 and 2008". The Daily Telegraph. Maxwell Tani (May 15, 2015). "Meet the guy who has protected Hillary Clinton's Misplaced Pages page for almost a decade". Business Insider. Alex Pasternack (March 7, 2020). "How Misplaced Pages's volunteers became the web's best weapon against misinformation". Fast Company. Kalev Leetaru (April 29, 2020). "Biden vs. Kavanaugh: How the #MeToo Numbers Stack Up". Real Clear Politics. Mayank Aggarwal (July 16, 2021). "Nobody should trust Misplaced Pages, says man who invented Misplaced Pages". The Independent. Madeleine Spence (August 1, 2021). "Larry Sanger: 'I wouldn't trust Misplaced Pages — and I helped to invent it'". The Sunday Times. Jack Beresford (September 2, 2021). "Misplaced Pages 'War in Afghanistan' Article Describes It As a 'Taliban Victory'". Newsweek. Section sizes Section size for Joe Biden (63 sections) Section name Byte count Section total (Top) 9,772 9,772 Early life (1942–1965) 9,050 9,050 Marriages, law school, and early career (1966–1973) 10,450 27,033 1972 U.S. Senate campaign in Delaware 1,826 1,826 Death of wife and daughter 3,802 3,802 Second marriage 8,351 8,351 Teaching 2,604 2,604 U.S. Senate (1973–2009) 74 39,472 Senate activities 19,293 19,293 Brain surgeries 2,434 2,434 Senate Judiciary Committee 6,590 6,590 Senate Foreign Relations Committee 5,856 11,081 Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq 5,225 5,225 1988 and 2008 presidential campaigns 44 16,364 1988 campaign 10,829 10,829 2008 campaign 5,491 5,491 2008 and 2012 vice presidential campaigns 49 27,951 2008 campaign 12,032 12,032 2012 campaign 15,870 15,870 Vice presidency (2009–2017) 77 38,362 First term (2009–2013) 23,882 23,882 Second term (2013–2017) 10,003 14,403 Role in the 2016 presidential campaign 4,400 4,400 Post-vice presidency (2017–2021) 6,681 6,681 2020 presidential campaign 78 31,894 Speculation and announcement 3,490 3,490 Campaign 22,406 22,406 Presidential transition 5,920 5,920 Presidency (2021–present) 133 196,703 Inauguration 6,205 6,205 First 100 days 13,050 13,050 Domestic policy 9,091 75,440 Economy 19,261 19,261 Judiciary 5,670 5,670 Infrastructure and climate 14,616 14,616 Immigration 11,541 11,541 Pardons and commutations 3,460 3,460 Pardon of Hunter Biden 5,366 5,366 2022 elections 6,435 6,435 Foreign policy 7,782 59,703 Withdrawal from Afghanistan 11,473 11,473 Russian invasion of Ukraine 12,113 12,113 China affairs 10,192 10,192 Israel–Hamas war 14,104 14,104 NATO enlargement 4,039 4,039 Investigations 23 13,988 Retention of classified documents 5,768 5,768 Business activities 8,197 8,197 Age and health concerns 9,001 9,001 2024 presidential campaign 19,183 19,183 Political positions 30,857 30,857 Public image 10,788 20,396 Job approval 8,134 8,134 Media depictions 1,474 1,474 See also 238 238 Notes 138 138 References 17 1,680 Citations 34 34 Works cited 1,629 1,629 Further reading 1,430 1,430 External links 119 10,878 Official 440 440 Other 10,319 10,319 Total 468,899 468,899

• v
• e

NOTE: It is recommended to link to this list in your edit summary when reverting, as:
] item
To ensure you are viewing the current list, you may wish to purge this page.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RFC: Should Biden's building of a port to facilitate American aid to Palestinians be mentioned in the lead?

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

Should Biden's building of a port to facilitate American aid to Palestinians be mentioned in the lead?

• Option #1: No.
• Option #2: Yes.
• Option #3: Aid in general should be mentioned. Not the port itself.

Does it merit inclusion? KlayCax (talk) 20:24, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Option #1/(Note: RFC submitter): No per WP: CRYSTAL and WP: WEIGHT. It is indeterminate on whether the aid will have a significant impact on reducing the man-made starvation of Palestinians in Gaza. Beyond this, Biden has taken the most pro-Israeli position of any current world leader outside of Israel, opposed a likely upcoming ICC arrest warrant for Benjamin Netanyahu/other Israeli officials, and given billions of dollars towards Israeli military aid, a factor in of itself of the Palestinian famine. Having a majority of the lead talk about Biden's humanitarian aid for Palestinians is therefore WP: UNDUE and goes against normative lead guidelines. It also comes across, in my mind, as a case of blatant whitewashing. KlayCax (talk) 20:53, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Option #2/3: Yes per WP:NPOV. Just as it is mentioned that Biden has sent military aid to Israel, per WP:NPOV it should also be mentioned that Biden has sent humanitarian aid to Palestinian civilians in Gaza. You can't just put what you like or what suits you.

I agree with the lead of the article current description about the port in Gaza, although I would have no problem with it mention in general terms that Biden has sent humanitarian aid to Gaza, as Option #3 propose. Esterau16 (talk) 22:21, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Except there's a consensus among humanitarian aid experts that the port will be ultimately inconsequential in preventing mass starvation. Effectively, it will do little to prevent it. How is this notable? KlayCax (talk) 22:57, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

A large part of your argument is based on WP:CRYSTAL: It is indeterminate on whether the aid will have a significant impact. And yet you are now making an argument based on the fact you have a WP:CRYSTALBALL. Effectively, it will do little to prevent it. You cannot argue both ways within minutes. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:33, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

I was pointing out that most humanitarian aid experts and human rights organizations claim this. Not making a WP: CRYSTAL prediction. (I was typing on my phone. Apologies.)

But is this matter not WP: CRYSTAL? Why should it be included? Especially when there's no good evidence that it'll make a significant impact. KlayCax (talk) 02:41, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

I have no idea what the impact will be. Apparently you think you do know -- but ironically refer to CRYSTAL. O3000, Ret. (talk) 10:39, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Options 3/1 Seems undue to single out a port in the lead, unless that's the only aid Biden has given to Gaza. (Summoned by bot) Some1 (talk) 22:48, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Options 1 This is a complete absurdity, the attempt to jam every Israel/Palestine tidbit into the biography of an 81 yr-old career politician. Place it in the appropriate sub-article. WP:RECENTISM and WP:UNDUE. Zaathras (talk) 02:08, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

• Options 1 No, it's too early to assess its long-term significance. TFD (talk) 02:48, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
• No (option 1) – Per The Four Deuces, it's too early to assess its long-term significance. This seems like a WP:RECENTISM issue. Graham (talk) 06:02, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1/3 Too early to put it in the lead. Humanitarian aid in general is already mentioned, I would support keeping it that way. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:45, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1. Far too soon to know if that specific aid is significant enough to call out in the lead of the article about his entire life- possibly even in the lead of Presidency of Joe Biden. 331dot (talk) 14:45, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1 it's a minor event in his life--it belongs in foreign policy of the Joe Biden administration where it's clear he has the final ok but lots of high officials are involved. Rjensen (talk) 15:20, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
• Option 3 or Option 1, with caveats. (Summoned by bot). The dock is arguably due for a couple of sentences of passing reference in the main body of the article, and some oblique mention of the subject/his administration's relationship to aid to Palestine during the current conflict is probably due for the lead. But I'm joining with the emerging consensus here in judging that the particular detail of the dock is just too discrete and subtle of a detail (relative to the immensity as such a BLP as this), to warrant inclusion in the lead. That said, I want to be careful to separate my support from some of the arguments upon which exclusion is proposed above, because there are elements of the OP's !vote that I feel stray more than a little into WP:OR and WP:RGW territory. It is not appropriate for us to be excluding on the basis that this detail would cast the subject in too positive a light in relation to Palestinian people, where he (according to the idiosyncratic views of one or more of our editors) doesn't deserve such a reputation based on other actions. That is far too direct and high level an analysis for our editors to be making by themselves (again, per the obvious role of OR in such reasoning). Rather, the valid policy reason not to include this detail in the lead is to observe that the amount of coverage the dock receives in over-arching coverage of the article's subject, as both a contemporary political and ultimately historical figure, is relatively insignificant (at least as best the corpus of sources currently indicates) when compared against the overall content of such a large article, and the demanding constraints of its lead. SnowRise 19:01, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
• What SnowRise said O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:18, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
• Option #1: No, not until we have some idea of its impact, and when the conflict is over. Slatersteven (talk) 09:14, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

• Option 1 It is way too early to put something like this in the lead. This could be revisited down the road when there's a clearer picture of history, but for someone with a long biography like Biden this is WP:UNDUE for the lead. I agree with with RJensen this type of thing is better suited at foreign policy of the Joe Biden administration.Nemov (talk) 13:41, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

• Option 1- I, too am of the opinion that it is far too soon to put this in the lede. Let us wait until the long-term impact can be gauged. My 2¢.   Aloha27  talk  11:36, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

WP:Polling is not a substitute for discussion: Is there a reason KlayKlax asked this question in the first place? It seems out of the blue. Kire1975 (talk) 14:34, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

This is a Request for Comment, to settle an editorial dispute. It is not a poll. You should probably take some time to learn these things before quoting guidelines to fellow editors. Zaathras (talk) 00:20, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

• Option 1 Obviously UNDUE as per previous comments. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 10:06, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1 or possibly 3 Obviously UNDUE as per previous comments. and RECENT too. Pincrete (talk) 05:02, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1. The thing has fallen apart for now anyway. It will take at least a week to repair and may fall apart again the first time there are rough seas. Even during the ten days or so that it was operational, it brought in a tiny fraction of the amount of aid that was envisaged. --Andreas JN466 22:49, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

• Option 1 with caveats. Of the three options proposed, not mentioning the floating pier (it is not a port in the strict sense, as per the article about it, and should be called with precision at first mention, especially that there is a Misplaced Pages article dedicated to a floating pier) makes the most sense given that the structure has been short-lived this far and its importance or impact is not clear at all. And especially that the dock is not even mentioned directly in the current version of this article.

Further to this, if Biden's humanitarian aid to Palestine wholly depends on the floating pier, i.e. without the pier there is no aid (it is not clear to me without a further investigation whether that is the case), then I suggest either inverting option 3 and referencing the pier instead of aid to favour concrete information over generalities, or dropping any mention of aid from the lead as well.

I have not gone through the revision history, but I find it strange to discuss the inclusion in the lead of something that is not currently mentioned in the content. I would precede any decision here with adding at least 1-2 sentences about the dock (with a link to its own article) and clarifying its relationship to US humanitarian aid for Palestine. VampaVampa (talk) 19:45, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

• Option 1 without any caveats. Gaza floating pier is already broken and meaningless, just a few trucks have passed. It might be notable only as a ridiculous waste of taxpayer's money, solely for the purpose of PR, or just another example for those commenters who harshly criticize Biden administration for incompetence. My very best wishes (talk) 21:06, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
• No seems WP:UNDUE, especially for a biography. Prcc27 (talk) 03:35, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

No however it can be pagelinked to in 'humanitarian aid' Alexanderkowal (talk) 10:24, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Option 1 per above. LiamKorda 04:01, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

References

1. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2024/04/24/israel-hamas-war-news-gaza-palestine/
2. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2024/04/23/senate-passes-ukraine-israel-taiwan-tiktok-congress/73416799007/
3. https://www.voanews.com/a/us-airdrops-of-humanitarian-aid-into-gaza-explained/7511264.html

• No While it might be significant in the article body it's really just a part of a larger middle east strategy and by itself not due for inclusion in the article lead at all. Springee (talk) 14:03, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1 UNDUE. Cossde (talk) 04:20, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1. Undue and excessive information. Not exactly career-defining. — Czello 17:44, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1 undue.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:41, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1 This is about him, not his presidency. so Unless he personally built it or personally delivered this aid, this was US government action. Slatersteven (talk) 10:48, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Beau's biographical sentence

Under Second Marriage, it says "Beau Biden became an Army judge advocate in Iraq and later Delaware attorney general"

He became a military lawyer in the United States, later serving in Iraq. By then, he was already elected the Delaware attorney general. This should read "Beau Biden was elected the Delaware Attorney General as well as serving as a lawyer in the Delaware Army National Guard."

Does Iraq need to be mentioned? If so, it can be tacked on the sentence I suggest.ItsRainingCatsAndDogsAndMen (talk) 14:10, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

This needs to be done. It's a factually wrong sentence. It gets the timeline wrong (he was Delaware AG before deploying to Iraq) and makes it seem like he became an officer IN Iraq, which also isn't true.ItsRainingCatsAndDogsAndMen (talk) 10:33, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Hunter Biden conviction

@Slatersteven and other interested editors. Hunter Biden has now been convicted of a three felonies. I added a sentence under 'Second marriage' about this, after our existing sentence about Hunter Biden: Hunter Biden worked as a Washington lobbyist and investment adviser; his business dealings and personal life came under significant scrutiny during his father's presidency. While Hunter's conviction is obviously not a central detail about Joe Biden, I think it's still relevant enough to be included here. To put it another way, if we have one sentence on Hunter Biden, we can have two, and a person's son being convicted of a felony is no small matter, particularly when that person is the President and their son's problems have been a political issue during their presidency. Analogously, we mention Billy Carter's issues on Jimmy Carter's page. What are your thoughts on how we handle this? —Ganesha811 (talk) 16:04, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

We already mentioned " business dealings and personal life came under significant scrutiny during his father's presidency" that is all we need to say. Slatersteven (talk) 16:07, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Being the subject of scrutiny (largely from Joe Biden's political opposition) and being convicted of multiple felonies (by a federal jury) are very different things. If there's a way to work everything into one sentence, that would be fine, but I think the conviction is worth mentioning. —Ganesha811 (talk) 16:09, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

We are not jamming an unrelated matter into this article, no. The gun conviction does not have a shred of relevance to Joe Biden. Zaathras (talk) 21:41, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

If that's consensus, I don't mind, but in that case we should remove the prior sentence about Hunter Biden, or at least the part about his work as a lobbyist and investment advisor. That is even less relevant to Joe Biden. Details about Ashley Biden and Beau Biden earlier in the paragraph could also be removed. —Ganesha811 (talk) 21:43, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Going on a snarky "just remove everything, then!" is not exactly a winning argument for you. The existence of notable siblings and children and other family members are what a reader generally would expect to find in a section about, well, family and relationships. What we don't do is dive into minutiae of them, especially salacious minutiae as that runs afoul of WP:COATRACK. Zaathras (talk) 21:50, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to be snarky, I was being serious. I don't mind if our policy for that section is "mention his children only insofar as they exist, and link to their pages", but then we should be consistent. If our policy is "mention his children + any details about them that are relevant to Joe Biden and his presidency", then my opinion is that Hunter's conviction is a relevant detail. Currently, our policy is "mention his children + some basic biographical details about them that are not really relevant to Joe, except in the case of Hunter where we add a phrase about scrutiny during Joe's presidency." That's not very clear. The federal government has convicted the President's son of multiple felonies while that President was running the federal government. This is not minutiae, nor is it particularly salacious. I'm sympathetic to the WP:COATRACK argument, though; in which case the first policy I mentioned might be most appropriate. —Ganesha811 (talk) 22:25, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

... shouldn't that go in his own article? Hunter Biden is not involved in this presidency at all. Trillfendi (talk) 21:45, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

He's not involved in Joe Biden's White House, but he is relevant to Joe Biden's presidency, as a line of controversy and attention which Biden's political opponents have dedicated considerable attention to. Of course, we're not here to reward partisan grandstanding, but given that Hunter has been convicted of 3 federal crimes while Biden heads the federal government. Of course, he's also relevant on Joe Biden's page simply as Joe Biden's son - this article is about the person, not the presidency. —Ganesha811 (talk) 22:27, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

This is Joe Biden's article, not Hunter's. Joe had absolutely nothing to do with Hunter's crimes. What should appear in this article is any specific action from or statement made by Joe about Hunter and his crimes. Nothing more. HiLo48 (talk) 23:39, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Evidently consensus is running the other way here. Ah well, thanks all for the discussion. —Ganesha811 (talk) 23:45, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Saying that Hunter Biden's personal life came under scrutiny without saying what the outcome was is like saying Joe Biden's election was close without saying who won. Put it in but limit it to one sentence.

Note also that the editors who most closely watch this article do not necessarily reflect the broader community in what they consider relevant. TFD (talk) 00:17, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

I think we should include the mention of Hunter's conviction. The WaPo has an article, "Hunter Biden guilty verdict could take personal toll on president."

Excerpts:

• "Hunter Biden’s guilty verdict Tuesday, coupled with a trial that resurfaced dark moments in the Biden family history, could weigh heavily on the president in the final months of a grueling reelection campaign, many of the president’s allies privately worry."
• "The political impact is less clear. . ."
• "But the personal toll on a president who has already suffered the deaths of two children and grappled for years with his son’s addiction could be far more severe." YoPienso (talk) 02:40, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

  That sounds like a minor detail which doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article. TopSecretRavenclaw (talk) 03:54, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

  If your son was convicted of a crime, would that be a minor detail in your life? Maybe if you were also a criminal, but not if you're an upstanding citizen, and specially not if you're the POTUS. YoPienso (talk) 13:40, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

All those WaPO quotes are speculative. Note the use of the word "could". We won't write "could" in our article. HiLo48 (talk) 03:20, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

The point is, a major RS is commenting on the possible impacts of Hunter's conviction on the POTUS. It doesn't matter if it's speculation; it shows Hunter's trial and outcome are relevant to his father. See Ganesha811's comment made at 22:27, 11 June 2024.

Also note how s/he dropped the issue for lack of consensus. I'm saying if more editors commented, there might be a consensus. It may be best to wait a few days to see how this impacts Pres. Biden. After all, WP:NOTNEWS. That doesn't mean we should dismiss out of hand inclusion of the event in the very near future. YoPienso (talk) 04:00, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

No it shows it might, and we do not engage in predictions. If it has an effect we can say it, in the article about the election or his presidency, not in an article about him (the man). Slatersteven (talk) 11:18, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

This is not our prediction, but predictions reported in reliable sources. That there will be a presidential election in 2024 is also a prediction, but is included in this article because of weight. TFD (talk) 11:46, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

No, that is because it will happen bar very very unforeseen circumstances, its not pure speculation, this is. Slatersteven (talk) 11:58, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Well, it's not pure speculation since it's based on conversations he's had with people who chose not to give their names. It's not like a columnist is pondering the situation and imagining how Biden may be feeling. It's fine--probably best--to wait for hard, reliably sourced facts, but let's be clear in our discussion. YoPienso (talk) 18:07, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Don't think an encyclopedia should include anything about how some unnamed people think someone else is feeling. Also don't like anything WP:CRYSTALBALL related. Also think mention in this article should at least wait for sentencing. There is a difference between 20 years in prison vs. community service or probation. Of course the Hunter Biden article can include more detail. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:22, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

WP:CRYSTALBALL says, "Misplaced Pages does not predict the future." Reporting informed sources' predictions of the future, whether there will an election in November or Hunter Biden's conviction will affect that election is not a prediction by Misplaced Pages. Guidelines and policies are not incantations to be chanted when we disagree with an edit. Their relevance should be explained. TFD (talk) 03:26, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

There's a lot of words here now, but nobody has yet convinced me that a story about a person who is not the subject of this article should appear in this article. HiLo48 (talk) 02:30, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

What about just something short like his business dealings, personal life, and subsequent legal issues came under significant scrutiny during his father's presidency? I don't know if we really need to tell the story on this article. Also, the conviction on the firearms charge is not the only legal issue he's facing, he still yet may be convicted on some pretty significant tax charges (including felony charges) as well. Endwise (talk) 04:16, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

But this is Joe's article, and none of that is about Joe. Your final sentence is pure speculation, and again, not about Joe. HiLo48 (talk) 04:27, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

It is not speculation that he is also facing felony tax charges, his trial is in a few months. And this article has multiple paragraphs of material about Joe's family members (which is not unusual for a biography), including already mentioning Hunter's personal life -- I'm suggesting adding two or three words. Endwise (talk) 05:17, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Joe is not facing felony tax charges. HiLo48 (talk) 04:53, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

This thread has morphed from whether or not we should say, "In 2024, Hunter was convicted of three felonies in a federal trial on charges related to his 2018 purchase of a gun purchase while he was addicted to drugs" to whether we should insert "and subsequent legal issues" into the existing sentence, "Hunter Biden worked as a Washington lobbyist and investment adviser; his business dealings and personal life came under significant scrutiny during his father's presidency." I should hope we can all agree to include the latter, since it's factual, well-sourced, and relevant to Joe Biden; it's relevance is also well-documented in the MSM. At this point, I think we should hold off on the felony convictions because, even if later they become highly relevant to this BLP, they are too recent to include in Joe's now. (Clearly, they should be--and are--included in Hunter's BLP.) YoPienso (talk) 22:14, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

I think this seems like a reasonable compromise - it's four words that makes this article more accurate, in an already-existing sentence. —Ganesha811 (talk) 04:15, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Of course. Everything about Hunter should be recorded in Hunter's bio. But Joe had nothing to do with any of the bad things Hunter did. HiLo48 (talk) 05:35, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Whether or not Joe Biden *caused* the bad things Hunter has done, a brief and summarized mention of those travails is still relevant to this page, both because of their impact on Joe Biden's presidency and because Hunter Biden is Joe's son and we have exceedingly brief biographical summaries of all of his children already on the page, by longstanding consensus. I support the compromise discussed by YoPienso and Endwise above. —Ganesha811 (talk) 12:35, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

The problem is in gaining agreement on precisely what the impact of Hunter's actions on Joe's presidency is. Some will say it's close to zero, whereas the Republican Party will tell you it makes Joe completely unsuited to be president. A common cliche today in the campaigning against Joe is the expression "the Biden crime family". Do WE say that? HiLo48 (talk) 00:45, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Until or unless James and/or Joe Biden are convicted of a crime, no, we do not say that. YoPienso (talk) 15:57, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Do we mention presidential children's legal probs in bios of other US presidents? GoodDay (talk) 02:55, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Hunter is the first child of a POTUS to be convicted of a crime, but no, we don't mention the numerous arrests in modern times of presidents' children. We don't mention Alice Roosevelt's shenanigans (more social than legal) in Teddy's bio. There seems to be no precedent or consensus to mention Hunter's conviction in his father's BLP. Later, we may include it in Presidency of Joe Biden, but it's too recent now.

I would support editing "Hunter Biden worked as a Washington lobbyist and investment adviser; his business dealings and personal life came under significant scrutiny during his father's presidency." We could go with either "Hunter Biden worked as a Washington lobbyist and investment adviser; his business dealings, personal life, and subsequent legal issues came under significant scrutiny during his father's presidency" or "Hunter Biden worked as a Washington lobbyist and investment adviser; his business dealings and legal issues came under significant scrutiny during his father's presidency." YoPienso (talk) 15:33, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

I think there's enough support for one of those options that you should add it - wording can be subsequently tweaked. —Ganesha811 (talk) 16:06, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

If we are honest, the issue is not that Hunter's affairs came under significant scrutiny. It is that Joe's political opponents are trying to use Hunter's affairs to cause political damage to Joe. HiLo48 (talk) 05:02, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Classic WP:SYN. YoPienso (talk) 18:32, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

DO you deny my observation? surely it's also WP:SYN to say "Hunter's affairs came under significant scrutiny." HiLo48 (talk) 04:04, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree with your observation, but I don't have an RS for it. On Dec. 10, 2020, PBS asked that question, and sort of answered it. One commentator suggested "the Justice Department would be loathe, especially after 2016 and everything that happened with Hillary Clinton and the investigation into her e-mail server, to take any step that would have spilled out into the open and actually impacted the election." Later, she said, "But in terms of politicization, he's such an easy target for Joe Biden's foes and his political foes because he has had so many problems. He's — it's kind of open season on Hunter Biden." But in the next breath she pointed out that Jeff Sessions, not Bill Barr, started the investigation. If you can find an RS that doesn't try to have it both ways, I would support your adding that point to Presidency of Joe Biden and/or United States House Oversight Committee investigation into the Biden family.

It's not WP:SYN to say "Hunter's affairs came under significant scrutiny." This is what the NYT ref after that sentence says: "The life of President Biden’s son Hunter Biden has come under intense scrutiny amid investigations by House Republicans and gun charges filed by federal prosecutors." ABC News also has an article titled "Timeline: Hunter Biden under legal, political scrutiny." YoPienso (talk) 22:14, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Joe Biden series template

Why is this template not on this page? All other US president articles have respective "series" templates on their articles. ThingsCanOnlyGetWetter (talk) 13:59, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

TBH, such 'series templates' should be deleted from all US office holders' bio pages. GoodDay (talk) 14:29, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

TBH, I agree with this. I'll get round to doing that. --ThingsCanOnlyGetWetter (talk) 15:30, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

!!! Why no series templates?? They're so useful! YoPienso (talk) 15:35, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

On second thoughts, I now think they have use and have added them back. --ThingsCanOnlyGetWetter (talk) 16:08, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Scholastic history

Thread retitled from "Biden did not rank near the bottom of his class just because of his plagiarism". WP:TALKHEADPOV

This line about Biden's law school class ranking

He ranked 76th in a class of 85 students after failing a course because he plagiarized a law review article for a paper he wrote in his first year at law school

strongly implies that he ranked so low because he failed a single course due to plagiarism, but that is a coloring not supported by the source. His grades were otherwise poor, as the cited NYT source notes:

The file also included Mr. Biden's transcript from his days as an undergraduate at the University of Delaware. In his first three semesters, his grades were C's or D's, with three exceptions: two A's in physical education courses, a B in a course on Great English Writers and an F in R.O.T.C. The grades improved somewhat later but were never exceptional. Sysiphis (talk) 15:51, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

His undergraduate years were at the University of Delaware, but he went to law school at Syracuse. His undergrad grades had no bearing on his law school rank, but I think you're conflating the two. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:58, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

I mean to say that it is not supported by the source that this one failed course was the reason for his low rank. It seems to suggest he was simply a poor student in general. It also seems the F he got did not even contribute to his poor rank, as it was stricken:

The faculty ruled that Mr. Biden would get an F in the course but would have the grade stricken when he retook it the next year. Mr. Biden eventually received a grade of 80 in the course, which, he joked today, prevented him from falling even further in his class rank. Mr. Biden, who graduated from the law school in 1968, was 76th in a class of 85.

The two facts should be separated, like so:

"In his first year of law school he failed a course because he plagiarized a law review article for a paper he wrote, but the course was later stricken from his record and took the course again the next year, earning an 80. He graduated ranked 76th in a class of 85 students." Sysiphis (talk) 16:40, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Ah I see. There's a little bit of OR/SYNTH going on there, indicating that the one paper is the reason his rank was that low, when he was probably just a mediocre student in general and that one paper is but one example of it. I imagine the plagiarism issue is played up in that sentence because of the plagiarism issue in his 1988 presidential campaign. I would actually think the one paper in law school is too unimportant to include, and we can simply remove it from the notation of where he ranked in the class. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:10, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

How about let's not remove it, as it was an actually important enough to be an issue in his first presidential campaign, and just fix the SYNTH. My previous example fixes it. Sysiphis (talk) 22:18, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

In a general BLP, I don't see we need that level of detail about his college career. But the plagiarism issue is a thing in itself, and shouldn't be swept under the rug. And there it is, in the 1988 campaign subsection, which has 3 paragraphs about plagiarism, though the word itself it used only once. That subsection needs some work. YoPienso (talk) 22:30, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

The plagiarism of the speech is important enough to keep in the article, in the 1988 campaign section as YoPienso says. The plagiarism in a law school paper is not an issue with any WP:LASTING noteworthiness. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:34, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Here's a whole WaPo article about his plagiarism and falsehoods. The NY Times wrote that his school records "disclosed relatively poor grades in college and law school, mixed evaluations from teachers and details of the plagiarism." YoPienso (talk) 22:37, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

The New York Times wrote an article mentioning it very recently. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/22/us/politics/klain-kaufman-biden-campaign-election.html

It was Mr. Kaufman who was brutally direct with Mr. Biden when a plagiarism scandal threatened his first campaign for president in 1987. “There’s only one way to stop the sharks,” Mr. Kaufman told him at the time, “and that’s pull out.” Mr. Biden did.

It's a very consequential detail in his life. Definitely of lasting noteworthiness.

Based on YoPienso's comments, and that the section title contains "law school" and that someone's grades in law school are one of the very most noteworthy pieces of information concerning their time there, I am changing my suggested edit to:

In his first year of law school he failed a course because he plagiarized a law review article for a paper he wrote, however the course was later stricken. His grades were relatively poor, and he graduated ranked 76th in a class of 85 students. Sysiphis (talk) 00:02, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Note some changes I suggest:

In his first year of law school Biden failed a course because he plagiarized a law review article; however, the F was stricken when he took the course again, earning a B. His college grades were average, and he graduated from law school ranked 76th in a class of 85 students. YoPienso (talk) 01:17, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

It feels redundant to mention the grade he got for a failed course. Also, "relatively poor" grades are not "average". Respectfully, I stand by my suggested edit. Sysiphis (talk) 01:34, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm wrong about the "average" grades. I thought I'd read in one of our sources a list of his grades, which averaged out to about a C. If I saw it, I couldn't find it again.

Please do make the following changes:

• semi-colon after wrote
• comma after however
• replace course with grade, failing grade, or F

YoPienso (talk) 18:35, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Deal.

Could someone with extended edit permission please make the following edit:

Replace the line

He ranked 76th in a class of 85 students after failing a course because he plagiarized a law review article for a paper he wrote in his first year at law school.

with

In his first year of law school he failed a course because he plagiarized a law review article for a paper he wrote; however, the failing grade was later stricken. His grades were relatively poor, and he graduated ranked 76th in a class of 85 students.

It is all from the same NYT article, no need to change or add any sources.

Thank you, it would be much appreciated. Sysiphis (talk) 20:02, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

 Done I took the libery of removing the word "ranked" since it's understood with the ordinal number "76th." YoPienso (talk) 21:43, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! Sysiphis (talk) 20:30, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Ashley Biden’s Diary

-Ashley Biden writes in her diary about taking showers with her dad (Joe Biden) probably not being appropriate.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/ashley-biden-diary-claims/

-Ashley Biden’s diary is confirmed by her as real in a court of law.

https://www.axios.com/2024/06/17/biden-hunter-family-election-2024

-Many of Misplaced Pages’s own “reliable sources” have confirmed this story.

https://www.cnbc.com/2024/04/26/ashley-biden-in-unsealed-letter-to-judge-detailed-pain-from-diary-theft.html

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-68776262

Is there anything else that needs to be proven to add this to his page? WhowinsIwins (talk) 00:00, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Three of your cites do not mention this. One does and quotes her as saying: "I will forever have to deal with the fact that my personal journal can be viewed online." Apparently you would like to add to this against her wishes. Anything else you would like to publish from her stolen, private diary? O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:23, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

"Ashley Biden wrote in her letter to the Court that others had "once-grossly" misinterpreted her "once-private" writings and thrown "false accusations that defame my character and those of the people I love."

Ashley Biden, the author of the diary, says these are false accusations that have been misinterpreted. The accusation of Biden showering with his daughter "probably not being appropriate" should not be included in the article as it is a fringe theory and to include it here would be WP:UNDUE. Marincyclist (talk) 02:37, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

I have to say that to this non-American, this seems as much a display of American prudery and puritanism as anything else. In many countries, there would not be an issue at all. If anything is included, the problem would need to be explained to those not automatically as shocked and horrified as we are apparently meant to be. HiLo48 (talk) 00:21, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Debate subsection in 2024 campaign section

I believe there should be a "2024 debates" subsection in the "2024 presidential campaign" section. The debate yesterday was a watershed moment in the presidential campaign. Many mainstream politicians and institutions are openly calling for him to step down in light of his obvious cognitive issues. It is sufficiently notable to discuss. JDiala (talk) 03:27, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't believe there should be a subsection for debates per WP:WEIGHT, but the consideration among some prominent democrats to try and find a replacement nominee due to his performance in last night's debate is noteworthy. R. G. Checkers 03:35, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Added it in. I agree a subsection isn't needed so I just put in a normal paragraph. JDiala (talk) 04:02, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

@JDiala There is a page on the 2024 U.S. Presidential Debates. Please do a {main page} link to it. Seananony (talk) 15:51, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Linked. JDiala (talk) 16:17, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

See WP:NPOV HiLo48 (talk) 03:41, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Also see WP:RECENTISM. There is zero evidence that that debate was a "watershed moment" of anything. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:53, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Irrespective of whether you agree with my description of it as a "watershed moment", note that many of Biden's prior debates (in previous campaigns) are mentioned in the article. There is evidence indicating that Friday's debate will be regarded as more significant than those prior debates. For instance, Politico described it as the "worst debate performance in American history." Similar strong sentiments have been echoed by numerous reliable sources. This suggests that this more than meets the inclusion threshold. JDiala (talk) 16:17, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Richard Nixon begs to differ with Politico's descriptor. They are a news source, we are an encyclopedia. We don't benefit from their purple prose, just the facts. (I think there's a guideline supplement or essay on that but I'm not finding it right now.) I note that the articles of Trump, Dubya, and Obama don't mention their debates. That includes Obama's first 2012 debate, which was rated similarly to this Biden debate. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:40, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

If it was just a typical Biden didn’t do that good sort of thing, then sure it could be recentism, but when it’s to the point that major people in your party and publications (like the NYT editorial board) are asking you to drop out of the race, then it’s unprecedented and worth note. R. G. Checkers 18:41, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

We are so in the moment that it can be hard to recognize the RECENTISM, but it is here. Hand-wringing on the part of an editorial board does not mean anything in the grand scheme of things.

A reminder: The sheer panic Democrats felt in 2012 after Mitt Romney demolished Barack Obama at their first presidential debate in Denver can’t be overstated. It wasn’t one of those classic debate gaffes: Richard Nixon mopping his sweaty brow; Michael Dukakis’s robotic response to whether he’d favor the death penalty if someone raped and murdered his wife; or George H.W. Bush checking his watch; or even Al Gore’s audible sighs. With Obama, it was more nuanced. The usually witty and at times-electrifying President who could fire up a crowd better than anyone was confined to a stage he did not want to be on – and viewers saw that immediately. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:50, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

A mention that Biden's performance has been widely panned is probably warranted, but I don't think we need to devote a section to that. Zaathras (talk) 17:07, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree, it doesn’t need a section but some reliable sources like the NYT have mentioned it. Logawinner (talk) 23:07, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Unless somebody has knowledge that the delegates pledged to Biden, are going to abandoned him for somebody else at the Democratic National Convention? We shouldn't add a subsection concerning the first debate. GoodDay (talk) 22:23, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

There is no need for a section on the debate. See WP:RECENTISM. Furthermore I don't believe Biden's performance is particularly noteworthy, most people agree he won on the facts and substance. The debate seems noteworthy now because it is new, will it still be important ten-years from now? I doubt it. Marincyclist (talk) 06:54, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

The debate spoke for itself for anyone with their eyes open. It was a catastrophic and landmark turning point for Biden's presidency, so much so that even many democrats want him to step down. All the damage control efforts and subsequent attempts to write it off as mere "RECENTISM" is nonsense. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:08, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

@Gwillhickers There's a whole page for the debates already. Why duplicate it? Seananony (talk) 03:37, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I've added a link to 2024 United States presidential debates in the "See also" section and in the "2024 presidential campaign" section of this BLP. Presently, we seem to be providing adequate coverage.

Please note: This BLP does include the following:

The first presidential debate was held on June 27, 2024, between Biden and presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump. Biden's performance was widely criticized, with commentators saying he frequently lost his train of thought and gave meandering answers. Several newspaper columnists declared Trump the winner, and polling indicated most of the public thought Trump won. After the debate, Biden faced calls to step down, including from fellow Democrats and the editorial boards of several major news outlets. YoPienso (talk) 15:05, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

@Yopienso Misplaced Pages says, "As a general rule, the "See also" section should not repeat links that appear in the article's body. " Misplaced Pages:See_also Seananony (talk) 00:55, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Is a hatnote considered the article's body? The link appears only where I inserted it, twice. What do you suggest I should do? YoPienso (talk) 02:40, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

@Yopienso GDiala added the link on 6/28. See above in this discussion item. I don't think it needs to be in See Also, but it's not a big deal either way. Seananony (talk) 05:26, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

• 6/29, I mean.

Seananony (talk) 05:28, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

OK. JDiala's addition wasn't easy to spot because the blue-link is first presidential debate. I do remember seeing you request that he add it.

A number of the See also links are in the article, too. This is because the article is lacking one of the Misplaced Pages:Series templates which for some reason have fallen out of favor and are being replaced with WP:NAV boxes.

I think I'll just ignore all rules. If somebody removes what I added, that's OK. YoPienso (talk) 13:55, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

"Damage control"? Are you accusing any editor here of editing on behalf of a campaign? The rest of your remark ("debate spoke for itself", "catastrophic and landmark turning point") shows me that you lack an understanding of what WP:RECENTISM is. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:07, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

To clarify why I included the quote from the article, I support it 100%. The facts are verifiable and notable. To exclude them would be a whitewash--a misrepresentation by omission.

Muboshgu, your comment above, There is zero evidence that that debate was a "watershed moment" of anything, could be construed to be damage control; there is considerable evidence in RSs that the debate was a watershed moment. We won't know definitively until Biden drops out of the race or stays in, or if he stays in, whether he wins or loses the election. YoPienso (talk) 15:51, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

No, construing it as "damage control" is a failure to WP:AGF. "Watershed moment" etc. is unsourced hyperbole. Only history, as you suggest, can tell us one way or the other. This is the point of WP:RECENTISM. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:06, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Oh please... We all know what "recentism" is. We really don't need you to recite the 'alphabet' for us, though apparently that idea provides a means for some to write this affair off as just another 'ho-hum' affair that will be forgotten by next week. Only history can tell us? What about those who witnessed the debate, and all the comments, many coming from Democrats, that immediately followed, which are still forth coming? You can wait for 'the book' to tell you what happened, as it seems you still don't, or refuse to, get it. This may be the first time in US history where a presidential candidate completely torpedoed his own chances for reelection. You can write this off as, and give us yet another link to, RECENTISM, but I'm afraid at this point most of us know better. Thanx for your guidance just the same.-- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:32, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

You really do need to read up on NPOV policy, including RECENTISM. You need to remember that we are an encyclopedia and not a newspaper. I think you're the one failing or refusing to get the point. Your WP:CRYSTAL ball is foggy. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:37, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

You really need to read up and RECENTISM yourself. Esp where it says "It is writing without an aim toward a long-term, historical view.". Again, this event will go down in history as Biden's Achilles' heel. Recentism is not some built in excuse used to minimalize significant historical events simply because they just occurred. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:46, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Again, you do not know what will or will not go down in history. I think you and other editors are blowing this out of proportion with your hyperbole. In other words, without an aim toward a long-term, historical view. See Obama's first 2012 debate and all three of Trump's 2016 debates. Election Day is not for four months. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:56, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Muboshgu, I assure you I'm assuming the best of faith with you.

I'm writing a few notes about why I don't think calling the debate a "watershed moment" is hyperbolic.

• NBC called the debate pivotal (synonym of "watershed") and disastrous.
• In another article, NBC wrote:

"Democrats just committed collective suicide," said a party strategist who has worked on presidential campaigns. "Biden sounds hoarse, looks tired and is babbling. He is reaffirming everything voters already perceived. President Biden can’t win. This debate is a nail in the political coffin."

"It’s hard to argue that we shouldn’t nominate someone else," a Democratic consultant who works on down-ballot races said.

Before the debate, voices on the left weren't declaring "Biden can't win," even if they wondered whether or not he could. Here we have a left-leaning RS reporting that, as a direct result of the debate, people are suggesting it's over for Biden. I take the phrase "a nail in the political coffin" as a rough synonym of watershed and a closer one of disastrous. The anonymous "Democratic consultant" isn't alone in suggesting Biden should withdraw; undoubtedly you've read the NYT editorial explaining why Biden must bow out.

• That debate sent political shockwaves around the world. This isn't hyperbole. CNN wrote:

President Joe Biden’s dismal showing at the CNN presidential debate against former President Donald Trump resonated around the world, with foreign diplomats expressing shock and concern

The overwhelming sentiment among more than half a dozen diplomats from Europe, the Middle East and Asia whom CNN spoke to was that it was “a bad night for Biden,” as one European diplomat put it.

• Virtually every news source across the political spectrum is now, as a direct result of the debate, not only asking if Biden should withdraw, but creating rosters of potential replacements for him.

YoPienso (talk) 19:22, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't mean to go on and on, but since many editors don't click on links, I'm pasting in a little more from that CNN article I quoted from above.

"Trump ate him alive," said an Arab diplomat.

"I was shell-shocked. I could not believe my eyes," an Asian diplomat said of Biden’s performance.

Biden’s debate flop was front-page news across Europe, with left- and right-leaning newspapers excoriating the president — even in France, where the country has its own elections coming up this weekend. YoPienso (talk) 19:30, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I know that you are responding in good faith. Don't you think that these comments that you're reposting are a bit hyperbolic? This is why we wait for the dust to settle on current events so that we can assess their true impacts. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:52, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the warm response.

You've referred to "unencyclopedic hyperbole" and "unsourced hyperbole" and ascribed them to your fellow editors. Here I'm showing properly sourced responses of international diplomats. Whether or not their comments are hyperbolic isn't ours to ask. We just say what the RSs say.

Anyway, I'm fine with how we're covering this in the BLP at present--no need to add or subtract until the dust settles. . . or until Biden bombs again or rallies. Cheers, YoPienso (talk) 02:47, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

• Muboshgu — On the contrary, you're obviously trying to downplay what the rest of the world saw. While I agree we can't say absolutely what will happen with Biden and the democrat presidential candidacy at this point, nor has anyone tried to effect that idea in actual terms here in Talk, let alone in the Biden article, but it's rather easy to see this event in terms of its monumental implications. If you really have your doubts about the consequential aspects, still, all you have to do is look at all the news coverage and commentaries. Even the Democrats aren't so naive that they're just blowing this off as meaningless. Again, we can't speculate in the article about what will happen hereafter, but trying to sweep this under the rug with ideas like "RECENTISM" only serves to exemplify the seriousness of the issue.. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:47, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
• It's still early in the game, but any coverage we afford the Trump-Biden debate and its aftermath will of course be outlined in neutral terms. I'm sure all experienced editors will not attempt to employ the use of embellishing adjectives, pro or con, but given all the many and diverse news accounts and commentaries, this affair will warrant its own section, imo -- esp in the likely event that Biden is replaced. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:44, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

  Your lack of good faith is disappointing. I am not downplaying anything, other than the unencyclopedic hyperbole that will fade in the coming weeks. The rest of your screed here isn't worth engaging with. I don't have anything left to add here. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:54, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Actually, your lack of good faith seems to be the only real problem, referring to our reference to the debate and all the national and even world wide attention it has received, outlined above by another editor, as "unencyclopedic hyperbole" and "screed". That is indeed a lack of AGF and an attempt at downplaying, as was your repetitive reference to"recentism". It was clearly mentioned above that the event will be covered in neutral terms without the use of embellishing adjectives and such. That is some of the "screed" you're trying to sweep under the rug and won't acknowledge. Fine. That speaks volumes unto itself and only exemplifies at what lengths the denial camp will go in their wish for this event to disappear. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:47, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Alleged media cover up of Biden's mental state

Thread retitled from "Media cover up of Biden's mental state". WP:TALKHEADPOV O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:51, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Before the recent debate, every mainstream news source had been repeatedly saying for years that Biden's mental health was fine, and that any claims to the contrary were "right wing conspiracy theories," "fake news," of "cheap fakes."

However, after the debate, every one of these mainstream news sources admitted that there was indeed something wrong with Biden's mental condition.

This article needs to address why the media lied and covered up Biden's mental state.

Beaver's Library Book (talk) 21:36, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Do you have something you wish to add to the article? Otherwise, this would be construed as trolling. Zaathras (talk) 21:38, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Unsubtle NPOV trolling HiLo48 (talk) 00:19, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

I just posted a bunch of sources below. Beaver's Library Book (talk) 16:43, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

I just posted a long list of sources. Beaver's Library Book (talk) 16:38, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

We have been very careful to not include the opinions of psychiatrists about Trump's mental health. We haven't even seen anything like that related to Biden. Which is to say we have more protective of Trump than Biden. Your accusation that the media "lied" about this is just silly. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:26, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

I just posted a long list of sources. Beaver's Library Book (talk) 16:38, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

• Biden's mental capacity has been called into attention, once again, throughout the world, after the debate. This doubt, from other world leaders and news sources, and even among Democrats, hovering over a sitting president, a world leader, and a presidential candidate no less, is a serious affair and needs to be covered. Trying to censure this, and the attempt to scare editors away with threats of "trolling", can be considered a form of trolling itself and will very likely bring an NPOV tag to the article, with an RfC to follow.. It would be best to resolve this honestly from the beginning. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:23, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, Gwillhickers Beaver's Library Book (talk) 16:51, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

• Beaver's Library Book. — Actually the media is doing a fair job, at least at this point, in exploring Biden's mental state and his capacity to act as a president, now, and prospectively for another four years. The media shouldn't be the issue, but rather the idea of covering this advent in neutral terms here in the Biden article. At this point, the news and other sources touching on this affair are overwhelming. No one can say what the ultimate outcome will be with any certainty, but the doubt and loss of faith over Biden's abilities is impossible to deny at this point. At least we can cover that. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:30, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Of course they are doing a good job after the debate, because it's now too big to cover up. My criticism is about what they did before the debate. I have posted a bunch of sources below. Beaver's Library Book (talk) 16:43, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

We cannot take video clips and use those as sources for any claims about Biden's mental state per no original research. We can use some other sources to say people are concerned, but honestly would be better suited for the articles about his campaign and presidency. We certainly cannot say there's a "cover up" without multiple strong reliable sources saying that exact phrase. It's hard to see how there could even be a cover up given the extensive coverage of the issue over the past 4 years. EvergreenFir (talk) 16:59, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Beaver's Library Book (BLB) has provided a long list of RSs that do allege a media cover-up of Biden's frailty. YoPienso (talk) 17:07, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

The official line in rs before the debate was to relegate any public criticism of Biden's mental acuity to partisan conspiracism. Based on his performance in the debate, rs raised questions about it and quoted anonymous sources that said it was apparent to insiders before the debate.

Note there is no concession in rs that the earlier speculation in right-wing media had any basis in reality. No reasonable observer could have questioned Biden's acuity until they saw his debate performance.

Therefore, the media did not cover up and has merely been reporting the facts that are available. TFD (talk) 19:32, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

So you're saying it was the White House, not the media, that was hiding Biden's weaknesses? YoPienso (talk) 22:50, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

They certainly did for Reagan EvergreenFir (talk) 23:50, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

RS don't say that the White House hid it, merely that some staffers had concerns based on private observations. I am not saying that is my view, just that is how it has been reported. TFD (talk) 01:29, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Please read Brian Stelter's take on that in the Vox article JDiala shared, especially starting with the section "The White House waged war on age reporting." Yet Stelter also blames the media, not for conspiring, but for failing to probe and for lacking courage.

Also, JDiala's link to a CNN report, "President Joe Biden’s White House repeatedly and aggressively shot down reports on the president’s age and any possible limitations on his ability to perform all the duties of his office." YoPienso (talk) 05:58, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Sources

New York Times, June 24, 2024: "How Misleading Videos Are Trailing Biden as He Battles Age Doubts"

https://web.archive.org/web/20240621184604/https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/21/us/politics/biden-age-videos.html

New York Times, July 2, 2024: "Biden’s Lapses Are Increasingly Common, According to Some of Those in the Room"

https://web.archive.org/web/20240702191943/https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/02/us/politics/biden-lapses.html

CNN, July 2, 2024: "Biden’s mental fitness could have been better covered leading up to the debate, some White House reporters acknowledge"

https://edition.cnn.com/2024/07/02/media/biden-mental-fitness

Vox July 3, 2024: "Did the media botch the Biden age story? Asleep at the wheel? Complicit in a cover-up? The real story is far more complicated — and more interesting."

https://www.vox.com/politics/358877/biden-age-debate-media-coverage

The Hill, July 3, 2024: "On Biden’s debate, Democrats have no one to blame but themselves... They did what they did — they lied, they concealed the truth and they rigged their own party’s electoral process — to protect President Biden."

https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/4751775-biden-mental-decline-democrats-trap/

USA Today, June 30, 2024: "Democrats gaslighted Americans about Biden's cognitive decline. The debate exposed the truth."

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/columnist/2024/06/30/biden-debate-step-aside-mental-fitness-president/74232482007/

Boston Herald, June 29, 2024: "Democrats... have been telling you endlessly, for years, that... Biden was fit as a fiddle, sharp as a tack and absolutely at the top of his game... Of course, if you’ve been reading this newspaper, or listening to my radio show, you’ve known about Biden’s senility for years."

https://www.bostonherald.com/2024/06/29/howie-carr-the-truth-about-biden-comes-out-yet-again/

Magnolia Tribune, July 1, 2024: "They lied: mainstream media covered for Biden until they could cover no more"

https://magnoliatribune.com/2024/07/01/they-lied/

Wall St. Journal, June 28, 2024: "The World Saw Biden Deteriorating. Democrats Ignored the Warnings."

https://www.wsj.com/politics/elections/biden-age-concerns-world-leaders-democrats-6d753921

Wall St. Journal, July 3, 2024: "Biden’s Frailty Isn’t Breaking News. It took Washington’s news hounds 4½ years to discover his obvious deterioration."

https://www.wsj.com/articles/bidens-frailty-isnt-breaking-news-media-journalism-2024-presidential-election-4db38931

MSNBC's Joe Scarborough's said there was nothing wrong with Biden's health, March 2024:

https://x.com/EndWokeness/status/1806652543084220731

On July 1, 2024, Elon Musk retweeted a 6 minute video compilation of many mainstream news sources (from before the debate) claiming there was nothing wrong with Biden's mental health

https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1807757765655625890

Beaver's Library Book (talk) 16:37, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Funny, the very first source is an article about how right-wing media is faking videos to make it look like Biden is losing it. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:28, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

And a lot of the other sources are opinion pieces from right-wingers. Maybe there was a conspiracy to hide Biden's condition, but it does not belong in the article unless rs comment on it and it has substantial coverage. TFD (talk) 01:14, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, specifically, the opinion pieces are from The Hill, USA Today, Boston Herald, and the not-notable Magnolia Tribune. Still, the first three show that RSs are voicing such opinions. Scarborough and Musk were obviously giving their personal opinions, and are widely regarded as off-kilter.

The NYT article O3000, Ret. referred to doesn't belong on the list because it doesn't support BLB's claim, and because it came out before the debate.

I don't have a subscription to WSJ so can't comment on those articles.

Still, that leaves these RSs (and possibly one or more from the WSJ) that show Biden's lack of fitness wasn't accurately reported, due both to White House attempts to hide the facts and the media's reluctance to pursue the facts:

New York Times, July 2, 2024: "Biden’s Lapses Are Increasingly Common, According to Some of Those in the Room"

CNN, July 2, 2024: "Biden’s mental fitness could have been better covered leading up to the debate, some White House reporters acknowledge"

Vox July 3, 2024: "Did the media botch the Biden age story? Asleep at the wheel? Complicit in a cover-up? The real story is far more complicated — and more interesting]"

The Hill, July 3, 2024: "On Biden’s debate, Democrats have no one to blame but themselves... They did what they did — they lied, they concealed the truth and they rigged their own party’s electoral process — to protect President Biden."

Also, the fact that BLB was found to be a sock and subsequently blocked is irrelevant to the usefulness of the sources he provided. YoPienso (talk) 06:36, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

• Checkuser blocked; this is a confirmed Grundle2600 sock. --jpgordon 21:14, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

July 3rd New York Times article is not properly positioned

The storyline if the July 3rd article cited here has been denied by the white house and his campaign. Not sure why it is represented so authoritatively.

"Biden said on July 3 that he was considering whether or not to continue his campaign, dependent on if he could convince the public of his capability to well serve the country if he wins the election."

There are numerous reliable source reporting that the NYT story is not accurate. The above sentenfe should be changed to "An anonymous source to the New York Times suggested Biden was considering..."

https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/biden-trump-election-07-03-24#h_d055ce145a365d3b9625e9a97c495e5c

https://www.axios.com/2024/07/03/biden-trump-nyt-poll-debate-election-2024

Helpingtoclarify (talk) 20:50, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Removed. The user that added it has misrepresented hearsay as fact. Zaathras (talk) 21:02, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, Biden and his spokespeople denied the report, but that doesn't make it "hearsay" or automatically mean it is false. In retrospect I perhaps could have used less authoritative wording but at the time both the NYT and CNN were reporting what this anonymous source was saying as the truth, and both still are to some degree. I'm not suggesting to re-add the content, but just because Biden denied it doesn't mean it's "hearsay" either. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 21:14, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Biden's later affirmation that he's staying in the race demonstrates my point that many are editing these articles without being cautious regarding WP:NOTNEWS / WP:RECENTISM issues. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:28, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Nonsense. Who has made such edits, and what "articles" (more than one) are you referring to? Has anyone made edits to this, or any article, that Biden is stepping down, or has made any other such conclusions?  No. All that was said is that Biden was "considering whether or not to continue his campaign". WP is not a newspaper, but significant events, often cited by news sources, are routinely added to BLP's and other articles. As for clinging to the idea of "recentism", good luck with that. Biden made history, no matter what the ultimate outcome may turn out to be, and many world leaders, as well as US politicians on both sides of the fence, are now questioning Biden's capacity to act, esp at this unstable time in the nation's, not to mention the world's, history.-- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:44, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

The reports of Biden considering dropping out appear to be incorrect and you don't see a problem with editors rushing to include said incorrect story. Gotcha. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:34, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Not exactly. You are correct that we can't rush into an account of the debate and its aftermath, and the NYT news clip must have been released before the Dem's made it official that Biden wasn't dropping out, so it indeed needed to be removed from the article. Having said that, the debate, and all its implications is still a very noteworthy event, with, once again, many of Biden's own party questioning his ability to run the country competently -- for another four years. Again, many world leaders were concerned, and I'm sure Hamas, Iran, China and the Soviet Union are quite amused to have such a floundering president sitting in the White House. These concerns, RS's permitting, need to be covered in an objective manner. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:38, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Actually, most Dems who have commented negatively have said they're worried about Trump winning, not Biden being unable to run the country. And your odd comment: I'm sure Hamas, Iran, China and the Soviet Union are quite amused to have such a floundering president sitting in the White House is not helpful. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:36, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, in light of Biden's performance I'm sure worries about Trump were at a peak. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:26, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't even understand your point. First debates by Raegan, Bush, and Obama were disasters. Look, I think he should drop out. But statements like I'm sure Hamas, Iran, China and the Soviet Union are quite amused to have such a floundering president sitting in the White House are out of line here, besides be quite incorrect. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:34, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

This was not Biden's first debate with Trump, and I've never seen Reagan, Obama, etc do anything that even came close to Biden's performance, and their administrations were not entertaining the idea that they should step down. During the debate Trump emphasized ....but throughout the entire world, we’re no longer respected as a country. They don’t respect our leadership. They don’t respect the United States anymore. It would seem, in light of current and very unstable events, that Hamas and countries like Iran, China and Russia are considerations that can't be swept under the rug. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:46, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

We are supposed to rely on Trump's statements?. Trump is supported by autocrats because he keeps praising autocrats, Kim Jong Un, Putin, Erdoğan, Xi Jinping, Viktor Orban and told Putin he can do what he wants with Ukraine. Indeed, he called Putin's invasion of Ukraine as “genius” and “savvy”. Trump was NOT and is NOT respected by our allies. But my last word -- respond as you like. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:04, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Illegal immigration under Biden's watch

This article only mentions illegal immigration once, and only inasmuch as to say Biden has offered amnesty to unauthorized immigrants married to American citizens. There is no mention of the many millions of illegal immigrants, (estimates vary...up to 10 million) many of them on the terrorist watch list, drug traffickers and involved in human trafficking. When Biden assumed office he closed down some ten check points along the Texas-Mexico border. Biden finally signed an executive order in an attempt to clamp down on illegal immigration, but the order is a day late and a dollar short and appears to be a last ditch effort by the Biden administration to save face before the election, and is full of loopholes and next to impossible to enforce, which is why the Republicans didn't sign it. None of this is even mentioned, or covered in a brief summary fashion.

US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Enforcement Statistics, Key Facts:

• Since President Biden and Secretary Mayorkas took office, there have been more than 9.5 million encounters nationwide and more than 7.8 million encounters at the Southwest border.

• U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) recorded 247,837 encounters nationwide in April, including 179,725 at the Southwest border (SWB). SWB encounters increased 5% compared to April of Fiscal Year (FY) 2021. Additionally, nearly 2 million known gotaways have evaded U.S. Border Patrol under this administration.

• Since January 2023, 591,000 individuals have scheduled appointments with the app.

• Since the program began, 434,800 Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans, and Venezuelans have been mass paroled under the administration’s CHNV parole program.

• Since FY21, 362 aliens on the terrorist watchlist have been caught crossing our Southwest border illegally.
• Encounters at the northern border in April of FY24 increased 1,240% compared to April of FY21.

1. US Customs and Border Protection: Enforcement Statistics
2. US Customs and Border Protection: Southwest Land Border Encounters
3. US Customs and Border Protection: Southwest Land Border Encounters
4. US Customs and Border Protection: CBP Releases April 2024 Monthly Update
5. CBP Releases April 2024 Monthly Update
6. CBP Enforcement Statistics

-- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:14, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

I see the key words there as "estimates vary. HiLo48 (talk) 23:48, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Not sure what your reply is supposed to amount to, but according to the US Customs and Border Protection, the key words are "...more than 9.5 million encounters nationwide and more than 7.8 million encounters at the Southwest border.". -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:19, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

• Biography articles of living people
• B-Class level-5 vital articles
• Misplaced Pages level-5 vital articles in People
• B-Class vital articles in People
• B-Class biography articles
• B-Class biography (politics and government) articles
• Top-importance biography (politics and government) articles
• Politics and government work group articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• B-Class U.S. Congress articles
• High-importance U.S. Congress articles
• WikiProject U.S. Congress persons
• B-Class United States articles
• Top-importance United States articles
• B-Class United States articles of Top-importance
• B-Class Delaware articles
• Mid-importance Delaware articles
• WikiProject Delaware articles
• B-Class United States presidential elections articles
• Mid-importance United States presidential elections articles
• WikiProject United States presidential elections articles
• B-Class United States Presidents articles
• Top-importance United States Presidents articles
• WikiProject United States Presidents articles
• B-Class United States Government articles
• Top-importance United States Government articles
• WikiProject United States Government articles
• WikiProject United States articles
• B-Class Pennsylvania articles
• Mid-importance Pennsylvania articles
• B-Class politics articles
• High-importance politics articles
• B-Class American politics articles
• Top-importance American politics articles
• American politics task force articles
• WikiProject Politics articles
• B-Class college football articles
• Bottom-importance college football articles
• WikiProject College football articles
• B-Class Science Policy articles
• High-importance Science Policy articles
• Misplaced Pages articles that use American English
• Delisted good articles
• Former good article nominees
• Pages in the Misplaced Pages Top 25 Report
• Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press