Revision as of 11:40, 4 February 2024 view sourceSlatersteven (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers73,563 edits →why was his position on the New Castle County council removed?!← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 03:09, 15 January 2025 view source AndreJustAndre (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users40,922 edits →RfC on ways to include Gaza war in the ledeTag: 2017 wikitext editor | ||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Talk header|search=yes}} | |||
{{skip to bottom}} | |||
{{Talk header|search=yes|archive_age=3|archive_units=weeks}} | |||
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|blp=yes|activepol=yes|class=B|vital=yes|living=yes|listas=Biden, Joe|1= | |||
{{WikiProject Joe Biden|importance=top}} | |||
{{WikiProject Biography|politician-work-group=yes|politician-priority=top}} | |||
{{WikiProject U.S. Congress|importance=High|subject=Person}} | |||
{{WikiProject United States|importance=Top|DE=yes|DE-importance=Mid|USPE=Yes|USPE-importance=Mid|USPresidents=Yes|USPresidents-importance=Top|USGov=y|USGov-importance=top}} | |||
{{WikiProject Pennsylvania|importance=mid}} | |||
{{WikiProject Politics|importance=High|American=yes|American-importance=Top}} | |||
{{WikiProject College football|importance=bottom}} | |||
{{WikiProject Science Policy|importance=high}} | |||
{{WikiProject Barack Obama }} | |||
}} | |||
{{American politics AE |1RR = no |Consensus required = no |BRD = yes}} | |||
{{Not a forum}} | {{Not a forum}} | ||
{{American English}} | {{American English}} | ||
Line 40: | Line 27: | ||
|action5result=failed | |action5result=failed | ||
|action5oldid=981625415 | |action5oldid=981625415 | ||
|itndate=23 August 2008 | |||
|itnlink=Special:Diff/233681908 | |||
|currentstatus=DGA | |currentstatus=DGA | ||
|topic=Social sciences | |topic=Social sciences | ||
}} | |||
}}{{Banner holder|text=Other banners: Top 25 reports; media mentions; pageviews; section size|collapsed=yes|1= | |||
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|blp=activepol|class=B|vital=yes|listas=Biden, Joe|1= | |||
{{banner holder|text='''Top 50 Report''' and '''Top 25 Report''' annual lists|collapsed=yes|1= | |||
{{WikiProject Biography |politician-work-group=yes|politician-priority=top}} | |||
{{WikiProject U.S. Congress|importance=High|subject=Person}} | |||
{{WikiProject United States|importance=Top|DE=yes|DE-importance=High|USPE=yes|USPE-importance=Mid|USGov=yes|USGov-importance=top}} | |||
{{WikiProject United States Presidents |importance=top |trump=yes |trump-importance=high}} | |||
{{WikiProject Pennsylvania|importance=mid}} | |||
{{WikiProject Politics|importance=High|American=yes|American-importance=Top}} | |||
{{WikiProject College football|importance=bottom}} | |||
{{WikiProject Science Policy|importance=high}} | |||
{{WikiProject Barack Obama|importance=high}} | |||
}} | |||
{{pp-vandalism|small=yes}} | |||
{{Skip to bottom}} | |||
{{American politics AE |1RR = no |Consensus required = no |BRD = yes}} | |||
{{Banner holder|text=Other banners: Top 25 reports; media mentions; pageviews; section size|collapsed=yes|1= | |||
{{Banner holder|text='''Top 50 Report''' and '''Top 25 Report''' annual lists|collapsed=yes|1= | |||
{{All time pageviews|82}} | {{All time pageviews|82}} | ||
{{Annual report|] |
{{Annual report|], ], ], and ]}} | ||
{{Top 25 report|May 31 2015|Jan 8 2017|Mar 1 |
{{Top 25 report|May 31 2015|Jan 8 2017|Mar 1 2020|Aug 9 2020|Aug 16 2020|Aug 30 2020|Sep 13 2020|Sep 27 2020|until|Nov 15 2020|Jan 3 2021|Jan 17 2021|Jan 24 2021|Apr 9 2023|Jun 23 2024|until|Jul 7 2024|Jul 21 2024|Nov 3 2024}} | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{Press | collapsed=yes | {{Press | collapsed=yes | ||
Line 101: | Line 106: | ||
{{User:MiszaBot/config | {{User:MiszaBot/config | ||
|archiveheader = {{Talkarchivenav}} | |archiveheader = {{Talkarchivenav}} | ||
|maxarchivesize = |
|maxarchivesize = 50K | ||
|counter = |
|counter = 19 | ||
|minthreadsleft = |
|minthreadsleft = 3 | ||
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 | |minthreadstoarchive = 1 | ||
|algo = old(21d) | |algo = old(21d) | ||
Line 111: | Line 116: | ||
__TOC__ | __TOC__ | ||
== Current consensus == <!-- Must be on this page, not the subpage, to support mobile users --> | |||
{{/Current consensus}} | {{/Current consensus}} | ||
== Biden believes he could have won re-election == | |||
== Israel section == | |||
I agree the CCR suit is undue here, that doesnt have the coverage to merit inclusion, but the criticism of his policies on Israel do have that coverage. @], would you agree generally that criticism of the support Biden has provided for Israel merits including a sentence on it there? Or, as you reverts indicate, are you simply opposed to any coverage at all? Because you also removed {{tq|Several scholars have accused Biden of being complicit in or permitting ].}} citing {{Cite news |last=Finucane |first=Brian |date=2023-11-17 |title=Is Washington Responsible for What Israel Does With American Weapons? |language=en-US |work=Foreign Affairs |url=https://www.foreignaffairs.com/israel/washington-responsible-what-israel-does-american-weapons |access-date=2023-12-14 |issn=0015-7120}}. A number of other sources can be added if you think there isnt weight in sourcing here. ''']''' - 17:23, 14 December 2023 (UTC) | |||
:My thoughts are, this is about his presidency, we can't clutter up this article with stuff about that. ] (]) 17:27, 14 December 2023 (UTC) | |||
::But why then include any part of it? It isnt NPOV to not include prominent controversies for the subjects we cover. If his position on the war is covered then so to should criticism of that position. If it doesnt belong at all, then neither does most of that section. ''']''' - 17:41, 14 December 2023 (UTC) | |||
:::I agree, so why cover it at all. ] (]) 17:48, 14 December 2023 (UTC) | |||
::::Sure, if it was gotten rid of entirely I wouldnt be here. But covering it and not including criticism is why I am here. But currently we cover it in the lead and in a subsection, with nary a hint of any of the substantial criticism it has generated. ''']''' - 18:02, 14 December 2023 (UTC) | |||
:::::There's criticism of Israel's responses to Oct. 7 but nothing substantial and widespread that's particularly personal to Biden. A few fringey criticisms -- that he's responsible for everything alleged to be done by Netanyahu (whom he views with profound disdain) -- don't make it significant enough for his bio.]] 20:46, 14 December 2023 (UTC) | |||
::::::No, there is criticism of the United States in relation to Israel's actions, that criticism is about the policies of Biden, not Israel. And they certainly are not fringe. ''']''' - 14:35, 15 December 2023 (UTC) | |||
:::::::In addition to being FRINGE, we also cannot unduly associate {{purple|"criticism of the United States in relation to Israel's actions"}} with this biography.]] 17:04, 15 December 2023 (UTC) | |||
::::::::There is criticism of Joe Biden's actions as president, which we cover at great length in his biography. ''']''' - 17:19, 15 December 2023 (UTC) | |||
:I agree that the CCR lawsuit is very much ] here. Regarding criticism of Biden's stances on the war, if additional sources could be provided it ''might'' be worth a sentence or two in the biography and possibly some more space in ]. However, the way that sentence was worded seems ]. I don't have access to the full article to read the entire context, but assuming the sentence {{tq|Several scholars have accused Biden of being complicit in or permitting war crimes}} is based on the lede's statement {{tq|Further, U.S. officials risk complicity if Israel uses U.S. support to commit war crimes}} that seems like a misrepresentation of what the source actually says and how strongly it says it. Regardless, if criticism of Biden's positions on Israel were to be included it would need more sourcing to demonstrate due weight. <span style="font-family:Courier New;font-size:3">]</span><sup>]</sup> 21:55, 14 December 2023 (UTC) | |||
:Yes, it is absolutely bonkers that there isn't even a sentence such as "Biden's staunch support for Israel's military campaign in Gaza has sparked significant domestic pushback and protest. Many scholars warn that the United States risks being complicit in war crimes". This is pretty much just a down-the-line account of the situation. Let's do something here. ] (]) 23:28, 27 January 2024 (UTC) | |||
::It s not "bonkers" when what you claim is patently untrue. All presidents have supported Israel's right to self-defends. Many college-aged students and some liberal members of Congress support Palestine. This is all routine. ] (]) 03:07, 28 January 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::It is not routine. And what part of my claim is "patently untrue"? ] (]) 19:02, 28 January 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::1) It is routine, and 2) pretty much all of it. Your position has gained no consensus, so it is time to move on. ] (]) 19:05, 28 January 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::You aren't actually responding to anything I said, it's just "You're wrong". Give me specifics. The SCALE is so much bigger than what has happened before, which makes it worthy and notable. ] (]) 19:17, 28 January 2024 (UTC) | |||
I was actually going to make a new section on this, but I think it's related to this section so I'll add it here: | |||
The nickname "Genocide Joe" has gotten significant coverage, including a response from the White House. It's mentioned in ]'s article. So the question is, shouldn't it be mentioned here on Joe Biden's article, given that it's directed at him? | |||
Just going off of news reports on Google, we have , , , , , , , , , and others providing coverage of this nickname. I think it makes sense to mention this "Genocide Joe" nickname here on Joe Biden's article, and the "Israel" subsection seems like a good place to put it.--] (]) 22:44, 14 December 2023 (UTC) | |||
:One's angry, frustrated little critics create pejoratives all the time, they are rarely noteworthy in that person's biography. It is certainly not noteworthy to the bio of John Kirby either, and should be removed. It was only added on Nov 27th to a little-trafficked Wiki page. ] (]) 23:42, 14 December 2023 (UTC) | |||
::The sentiment . It has more importance internationally, I'd say, then a mere domestic policy dispute. ] (]) 12:32, 15 December 2023 (UTC) | |||
:::US is despised. Dog bites man.]] 13:46, 15 December 2023 (UTC) | |||
I support greater mention of the backlash to Biden's policies re Israel-Hamas, potentially in the lede, depending on other's thoughts. I think this policy is likely to define his presidency in the foreign policy arena, and has already generated significant domestic discontent as well. "Genocide Joe" seems more approopriate for ]. ] (]) 19:07, 6 January 2024 (UTC) | |||
:To this non-American, non-expert, Biden's position on Israel seems broadly the same as that of every president for the past 70 years. If it was different, it would definitely be worthy of comment, but without further explanation, I see very little of long term significance in it. ] (]) 02:38, 7 January 2024 (UTC) | |||
::It's significant because it is getting significant pushback in the streets, at universities, even among politicians in his own party. ] (]) 17:16, 7 January 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::As opposed to strong support, as it would have in the past. ] (]) 17:18, 7 January 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::That is not even remotely a truthful statement. Support of Israel and opposition to Hamas/Palestinians, and vice versa, does not hew to party lines. At the moment we see the likes of Candace Owens and Ilhan Omar condemning Israel, and the likes of Lindsey Graham and Joe Biden united in their Israel support. Even Donald Trump says he will support Israel by deporting pro-Palestinian student protesters. ] (]) 17:39, 7 January 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::Strongly agree with the above re support/opposition cutting in unexpected ways, which is why the situation is notable and is (very,very probably) historic. ] (]) 18:34, 7 January 2024 (UTC) | |||
:This has become a significant issue for Biden and is the main cause for his decline in support among Muslim voters and possibly also why younger voters now favor Trump. Past presidents did not by the way routinely agree with everything Likud did, as Lawrence J. Korb, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, points out.https://responsiblestatecraft.org/2021/05/24/ronald-reagan-wasnt-afraid-to-use-leverage-to-hold-israel-to-task/] I certainly agree that not everything that comes up belongs in the article, but this has now achieved due weight for inclusion. ] (]) 21:53, 28 January 2024 (UTC): | |||
::Agree - ] (]) 02:39, 29 January 2024 (UTC) | |||
== why was his position on the New Castle County council removed?! == | |||
{{Infobox officeholder | |||
| footnotes = {{Collapsible list | |||
|titlestyle = background:lavender;text-align:center; | |||
|title = Other offices | |||
|bullets = on | |||
| 2007–2009: Chair of the ] | |||
| 2001–2003, 2007–2009: Chair of the ] | |||
| 1987–1995: Chair of the ] | |||
| 1971–1973: Member of the New Castle County Council from the 4th district | |||
}}}} | |||
It seems like it should be worth noting on his bio as a previous office held. lots of other political leaders have a local offices listed before their entry into federal politics. just seems like it's a random thing to remove and I know it was there in the past ] (]) 23:00, 12 January 2024 (UTC) | |||
:It is mentioned in the 2nd paragraph of the opening section, it doesn't need to be in the infobox. ] (]) 00:34, 13 January 2024 (UTC) | |||
:This has been discussed in the past & the consensus was to 'exclude' from the infobox. ] (]) 01:01, 13 January 2024 (UTC) | |||
:Support keeping it at bottom of the page, not in infobox, as it is ''both'' important to the start of his carrer, yet minor when viewing his career as a whole. ] (]) 22:44, 15 January 2024 (UTC) | |||
Any thoughts on adding this position to the footnotes section of the infobox where the Senate chairmanships are? - ] (]) 15:53, 13 January 2024 (UTC) | |||
:Why do we need it, what does it really add? ] (]) 16:02, 13 January 2024 (UTC) | |||
::Helps provide an overall summary of Biden's political career? Keep in mind this is just in the footnotes section at the bottom of the infobox since its a minor point of the overall article. Example provided - ] (]) 16:33, 13 January 2024 (UTC) | |||
:It's fine there. Certainly a good compromise. ]<sup>]</sup> 22:56, 15 January 2024 (UTC) | |||
:No footnote. What's so important about his time on the New Castle Country council, that 'now & then', somebody wants to add it to the infobox? ] (]) 23:21, 15 January 2024 (UTC) | |||
:I say include it on his infobox. It was his first elected office. New Castle County had 385,856 in the 1970 census. If it had 12 district seats then (like it currently does) that means Biden would have been representing a constituency of 32,154. More than almost any state legislature seat. In fact, if he had been in the Delaware State House in the 1970s (which has 41 districts), he'd be representing only 13,368 constituents. I think nobody would oppose including a Delaware State House tenure in the infobox (in fact, it'd probably be listed outright rather than relegated to "other offices"), so why oppose an office where he represented a constituency multitudes larger?? We are talking a sizable county. | |||
:We often include county board tenures and city council tenures for politicians that have gone on to the House and Senate. What makes a VP/president so above us noting where they started? ] (]) 06:26, 4 February 2024 (UTC) | |||
::Do we, examples? ] (]) 11:40, 4 February 2024 (UTC) | |||
== Post Economies == | |||
Paid positions are self retained and housed by the Federal Government. This particular man comes from background including cooking etectera. Most `presidents` were more interesting because they didn't have internet. I know right. After what came before the great depresssion, it seemed that air conditioning was a problem. Not a problem. I know, right. Well, we've seen them all, from Mary Poppins to Charles Earl. Well, after he gets up, the pastimes of being on tv with his constituents add up. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 14:42, 23 January 2024 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
:What are you suggesting we do to this article? ] (]) 14:44, 23 January 2024 (UTC) | |||
== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 January 2024 == | |||
{{Edit extended-protected|Joe Biden|answered=yes}} | |||
Sleepy Joe Biden | |||
Change to "Joe Biden, also known as Sleepy Joe Biden, is an American politcian Blah blah blah." ] (]) 12:56, 29 January 2024 (UTC) | |||
:See ]. ] (]) 12:58, 29 January 2024 (UTC) | |||
:] '''Not done:''' it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a ] and provide a ] if appropriate.<!-- Template:EEp --> ] (]) 15:41, 29 January 2024 (UTC) | |||
::They have been blocked now anyway. ] (]) 15:49, 29 January 2024 (UTC) | |||
== Conservation and old growth forests == | |||
Last time when I added content about the issue to the paragraph "presidency 2021 - present" sub section "infrastructure and climate" it was removed as not enough important. Maybe I really made it too long for a summary page. But I think it worth at least 22 words. There are around 500 in this sub section currently I think. This is what I want to write this time: | |||
"During his presidency Biden promoted ] so much, that several records was broken. He took steps to protect ]." | |||
Those are the sources. They explicitly mention climate. | |||
https://www.americanprogress.org/article/the-biden-administration-has-reached-conservation-records-in-2023/ | |||
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/dec/19/biden-forest-logging-ban-old-trees | |||
Do you agree that it worth to be written? ] (]) 14:32, 29 January 2024 (UTC) | |||
:Not here no. ] (]) 14:33, 29 January 2024 (UTC) | |||
== Qualifying language in lead about withdrawal from Afghanistan == | |||
Currently the lead reads: | |||
In December 2024, as was widely reported, Biden told aides he regretted his decision to withdraw from the race; believing he would have won the election as his party's nominee.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Massie |first=Graeme |date=December 29, 2024 |title=Biden still regrets dropping out of 2024 race and believes he could have beaten Trump, says report |newspaper=] |url=https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/biden-trump-us-elections-2024-merrick-garland-b2671126.html |access-date=December 29, 2024 }}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |last=Pager |first=Tyler |date=December 28, 2024 |title=Joe Biden’s lonely battle to sell his vision of American democracy |newspaper=] |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/12/28/bidens-lonely-battle-to-sell-american-democracy/ |access-date=December 29, 2024 }}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |last=Tait |first=Robert |date=December 28, 2024 |title=Biden reportedly regrets ending re-election campaign and says he’d have defeated Trump |newspaper=] |url=https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/dec/28/joe-biden-regrets-dropping-out-re-election |access-date=December 29, 2024 }}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |last=Calder |first=Rich |date=December 28, 2024 |title=Biden regrets leaving presidential race, thinks he could’ve beaten Trump: report |newspaper=] |url=https://nypost.com/2024/12/28/us-news/biden-regrets-leaving-presidential-race-thinks-he-would-beat-trump/ |access-date=December 29, 2024 }}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |last=Stimson |first=Brie |date=December 28, 2024 |title=Biden still regrets dropping out of 2024 presidential race, believes he could have beaten Trump: report |publisher=] |url=https://www.foxnews.com/politics/biden-still-regrets-dropping-out-2024-presidential-race-believes-he-could-have-beaten-trump-report |access-date=December 29, 2024 }}</ref> | |||
"He oversaw the complete withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan that ended the war in Afghanistan, during which the Afghan government collapsed and the Taliban seized control." | |||
This information is confirmed by multiple ] and is obviously relevant to his notability as a politician. ] (]) 15:36, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
Do we think this language in the lead softballs the perception of the United States' withdrawal from Afghanistan? I would like to discuss whether there is a consensus on adding in qualifying language in the lead that the withdrawal yielded bipartisan criticism and was described as chaotic, botched, and/or controversial. While "complete" withdrawal is objective, I feel that the language in the ] lead reads more critically and maybe we should try to be more balanced. In the Trump lead, for example: | |||
:But is it actually relevant, (assuming its true). ] (]) 15:47, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:"Anonymous Sources Said" is a red flag for ] articles. We're not a tabloid. ] (]) 22:34, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
1) "his political positions were described as populist, protectionist, isolationist, and nationalist;" 2) "His election and policies sparked numerous protests;" 3) "Trump promoted conspiracy theories and made many false and misleading statements;" 4) "Many of his comments and actions have been characterized as racially charged or racist and many as misogynistic" and it goes on. | |||
{{ref-talk}} | |||
== Oldest living President of the United States box??? == | |||
Here are my sources to back up my proposition that the Afghanistan withdrawal be described more critically in the lead: | |||
Aren't we pushing it too much, with trivia? Do we really need an Oldest living President of the United States succession box??? ] (]) 00:24, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
https://www.politico.com/news/2021/09/28/top-generals-afghanistan-withdrawal-congress-hearing-514491 | |||
https://www.politico.com/news/2021/08/18/biden-afghanistan-withdrawal-506065 | |||
https://www.cnn.com/2021/08/20/politics/house-republicans-afghanistan-biden-benghazi/index.html | |||
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-58238497 | |||
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/biden-afghanistan-withdrawal-taliban-decision/ | |||
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/2-years-withdrawal-afghanistan-continues-cast-pall-biden/story?id=102837216 | |||
No objections? I've deleted it. ] (]) 20:30, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
P.S.: This is not supposed to be a "politically charged" comment. I just wish to have a conversation about building a consensus. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 17:51, 3 February 2024 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
:The problem is I am unsure how "the Afghan government collapsed and the Taliban seized control." is not negative. ] (]) 17:58, 3 February 2024 (UTC) | |||
::I think the withdrawal is separate from the collapse of the Afghan government because the casual inference "He oversaw the complete withdrawal" which led to the "Afghan government collapse" is incorrect. The question is more: "should the language already used later in the article be used in the lead considering another presidential lead uses similar language." ] (]) 18:39, 3 February 2024 (UTC) | |||
:The opposition to the Afghanistan withdrawal were just the usual largely partisan screeds, with a dash of hypocrisy, as Biden only followed the plan Trump himself had laid out while in office. No change to the current text is necessary. ] (]) 18:32, 3 February 2024 (UTC) | |||
::The language I proposed is used later in the article... ] (]) 18:40, 3 February 2024 (UTC) | |||
== RfC on ways to include Gaza war in the lede == | |||
== County Board tenure should be added to “other offices” in infobox == | |||
<!-- ] 14:01, 15 February 2025 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1739628070}} | |||
It should ] (]) 02:27, 4 February 2024 (UTC) | |||
{{rfc|bio|pol|hist|rfcid=8E993C6}} | |||
:See farther up the talkpage, concerning this topic. ] (]) 02:35, 4 February 2024 (UTC) | |||
The current single sentence on Gaza in the lede is as follows: {{green|During the Israel–Hamas war, Biden condemned the actions of Hamas as terrorism and sent military aid to Israel, as well as humanitarian aid to the Gaza Strip.}} The sentence is regularly modified, including the word "limited" which keeps being added/removed in front of "humanitarian aid". I started ] on this topic a while ago; it didn't get a lot of input and didn't lead to a consensus. I thought this RfC could generate a larger discussion and settle a few related questions at once: | |||
* Should the "military aid" and "humanitarian aid" be mentioned side by side as is? | |||
* Should we mention that the amount of military aid sent to Israel is ? | |||
* Next to the mention of military aid, should there be a mention of allegations of war crimes against Israel? | |||
Feel free to expand the discussion to other questions. My hope is that we can workshop a sentence that has a consensus behind it. Thanks! ] (]) 13:58, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
*'''Remove sentence outright:''' I'm not entirely convinced that Gaza bears mentioning in the lede at all. The lede should probably only contain a single paragraph on Biden's entire presidency; is a war between two other countries one of the 7 or 8 most important things in Biden's entire presidency? <sub style="border:1px solid #FFCC00;">]</sub> 19:31, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
*{{sbb}} but I'm having a hard time with this RfC. I'm surprised the article doesn't mention Israel at all outside of the events since October 2023. It's written in a poor timeline/recentist style with no historical context. I hope that will change once his departure from office provides some space to clean things up without the pressure to add the headlines of the day. i.e. It's well documented that Biden has for decades viewed the US-Israel relationship as fundamental to US interests in the Middle East, advocating military aid throughout his career. His decisions since 2023 were largely a continuation of that position rather than emerging from a vacuum. What changed most (putting aside arguments about the how the nature of this particular conflict was different from those in the past) was greater international outcry and, most importantly, persistence amid significant domestic opposition/pressure. The current sentence, which includes both military and humanitarian aid is acceptable in terms of summarizing the ''current'' article. No, obviously it shouldn't mention war crimes, which are mentioned nowhere in the article. Yes, of course we should include ''some'' summary of a long, four-paragraph section. If the article were to be improved, I'd think the ranking of relevant bits for the summary would be (1) Long-term commitment to US-Israel relations, (2) military support for Israel as president amid significant domestic opposition and international criticism, (3) humanitarian aid and pressuring Israel to address the humanitarian crisis, (4) being for or against various ceasefires. YMMV. — <samp>] <sup style="font-size:80%;">]</sup></samp> \\ 20:33, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
*'''Comment''' — As with {{U|Rhododendrites}}, this is a tough RfC. I am split between removing this sentence outright and including it. The U.S. is said to have sent Israel in the year since the war began, but the U.S. regularly spends a magnitude greater than that biannually on Ukraine aid. The Israel–Hamas war was not a defining moment of Biden's presidency. However, my conviction for that belief is not as strong as the other editors here, and I see no issue with keeping the sentence. If you were to ask me what defined Biden's foreign policy, I would say the wars in Ukraine and Gaza. | |||
:The question posed here is effectively whether or not this sentence gives undue weight to Hamas or Israel. It would not be reasonable to exclude one form of aid from this sentence. Biden showed embrace towards Israel in the weeks after Hamas led its assault on the country, but that support has since significant waned. When it comes to neutrality, it is not particularly unfair to say that Biden sent military aid to Israel and humanitarian aid to Gaza because that does not presuppose an impression on the reader in the way that going into further detail would. In other words, regardless of your opinion on Israel and/or Gaza, the fact is that the U.S.—this is a distinction that may or may not be important to other editors here—has supported Israel and the Gaza Strip. | |||
:By contrast, the other two bullet points do suggest that Biden is supportive of Israel and that he is supportive of war crimes, respectively. Leaving this sentence as vague as possible is not only a benefit to avoid these kinds of discussions, but also to prevent the lede from expanding into multiple paragraphs. The "historical record" here is not necessarily relevant to the broadest point possible. That relationship between additional details and the plain facts is strained by the third bullet point, which has no relevance to providing aid and highly suggests that Biden is complicit in war crimes. That may be true, but it is not neutral without a widespread understanding that there is an intent to support war crimes with aid. In the simplest possible form, Biden provided military aid to Israel and humanitarian aid to the Gaza Strip. <span style="font-family: monospace;">] (he/him)</span> 05:47, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
*'''Remove from lead''' Joe Biden's political history goes back 50 years and this isn't central enough to his biography to justify mentioning in the lead. This could be revisited later to properly weigh as the Gaza story is still unfolding. As it stands now, this important enough to the story of Joe Biden to justify inclusion in the lead. ] (]) 15:04, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
* Equal mention of the military and humanitarian aid is false balance imo. I disagree with the assertion that the war was not a defining aspect of Biden's presidency and I don't understand what factual basis the comments minimizing its significance are supposed to have; it clearly deserves a mention, despite the bare assertion that it doesn't. Rhododendrites has the right idea. Biden has been a staunch supporter of Israel for decades. The lead should mention his administration's pro-Israel stance in the war in the context of his support for Israel throughout his entire career. ] (]) 03:36, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
* I don't think that the "historical record" is a good idea. I first thought you meant that the US had sent more aid to Israel than to any other conflict, including WWII, which is wrong. It's just ("just"?) the most ever sent from the US to Israel. ] (]) 03:07, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
*'''Remove''' per Nemov. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 03:09, 15 January 2025 (UTC) |
Latest revision as of 03:09, 15 January 2025
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. |
|
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 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. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.This page is about a politician who is running for office or has recently run for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some current political conflict or controversy. For that reason, this article is at increased risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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:
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.
|
Current consensus
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)
Biden believes he could have won re-election
In December 2024, as was widely reported, Biden told aides he regretted his decision to withdraw from the race; believing he would have won the election as his party's nominee.
This information is confirmed by multiple WP:RS and is obviously relevant to his notability as a politician. ZebulonMorn (talk) 15:36, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- But is it actually relevant, (assuming its true). Slatersteven (talk) 15:47, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- "Anonymous Sources Said" is a red flag for WP:BLP articles. We're not a tabloid. Zaathras (talk) 22:34, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
References
- Massie, Graeme (December 29, 2024). "Biden still regrets dropping out of 2024 race and believes he could have beaten Trump, says report". The Independent. Retrieved December 29, 2024.
- Pager, Tyler (December 28, 2024). "Joe Biden's lonely battle to sell his vision of American democracy". The Washington Post. Retrieved December 29, 2024.
- Tait, Robert (December 28, 2024). "Biden reportedly regrets ending re-election campaign and says he'd have defeated Trump". The Guardian. Retrieved December 29, 2024.
- Calder, Rich (December 28, 2024). "Biden regrets leaving presidential race, thinks he could've beaten Trump: report". New York Post. Retrieved December 29, 2024.
- Stimson, Brie (December 28, 2024). "Biden still regrets dropping out of 2024 presidential race, believes he could have beaten Trump: report". Fox News. Retrieved December 29, 2024.
Oldest living President of the United States box???
Aren't we pushing it too much, with trivia? Do we really need an Oldest living President of the United States succession box??? GoodDay (talk) 00:24, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
No objections? I've deleted it. GoodDay (talk) 20:30, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
RfC on ways to include Gaza war in the lede
|
The current single sentence on Gaza in the lede is as follows: During the Israel–Hamas war, Biden condemned the actions of Hamas as terrorism and sent military aid to Israel, as well as humanitarian aid to the Gaza Strip. The sentence is regularly modified, including the word "limited" which keeps being added/removed in front of "humanitarian aid". I started a discussion on this topic a while ago; it didn't get a lot of input and didn't lead to a consensus. I thought this RfC could generate a larger discussion and settle a few related questions at once:
- Should the "military aid" and "humanitarian aid" be mentioned side by side as is?
- Should we mention that the amount of military aid sent to Israel is a historical record?
- Next to the mention of military aid, should there be a mention of allegations of war crimes against Israel?
Feel free to expand the discussion to other questions. My hope is that we can workshop a sentence that has a consensus behind it. Thanks! WikiFouf (talk) 13:58, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Remove sentence outright: I'm not entirely convinced that Gaza bears mentioning in the lede at all. The lede should probably only contain a single paragraph on Biden's entire presidency; is a war between two other countries one of the 7 or 8 most important things in Biden's entire presidency? pbp 19:31, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- (Summoned by bot) but I'm having a hard time with this RfC. I'm surprised the article doesn't mention Israel at all outside of the events since October 2023. It's written in a poor timeline/recentist style with no historical context. I hope that will change once his departure from office provides some space to clean things up without the pressure to add the headlines of the day. i.e. It's well documented that Biden has for decades viewed the US-Israel relationship as fundamental to US interests in the Middle East, advocating military aid throughout his career. His decisions since 2023 were largely a continuation of that position rather than emerging from a vacuum. What changed most (putting aside arguments about the how the nature of this particular conflict was different from those in the past) was greater international outcry and, most importantly, persistence amid significant domestic opposition/pressure. The current sentence, which includes both military and humanitarian aid is acceptable in terms of summarizing the current article. No, obviously it shouldn't mention war crimes, which are mentioned nowhere in the article. Yes, of course we should include some summary of a long, four-paragraph section. If the article were to be improved, I'd think the ranking of relevant bits for the summary would be (1) Long-term commitment to US-Israel relations, (2) military support for Israel as president amid significant domestic opposition and international criticism, (3) humanitarian aid and pressuring Israel to address the humanitarian crisis, (4) being for or against various ceasefires. YMMV. — Rhododendrites \\ 20:33, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- Comment — As with Rhododendrites, this is a tough RfC. I am split between removing this sentence outright and including it. The U.S. is said to have sent Israel $17.9 billion in the year since the war began, but the U.S. regularly spends a magnitude greater than that biannually on Ukraine aid. The Israel–Hamas war was not a defining moment of Biden's presidency. However, my conviction for that belief is not as strong as the other editors here, and I see no issue with keeping the sentence. If you were to ask me what defined Biden's foreign policy, I would say the wars in Ukraine and Gaza.
- The question posed here is effectively whether or not this sentence gives undue weight to Hamas or Israel. It would not be reasonable to exclude one form of aid from this sentence. Biden showed embrace towards Israel in the weeks after Hamas led its assault on the country, but that support has since significant waned. When it comes to neutrality, it is not particularly unfair to say that Biden sent military aid to Israel and humanitarian aid to Gaza because that does not presuppose an impression on the reader in the way that going into further detail would. In other words, regardless of your opinion on Israel and/or Gaza, the fact is that the U.S.—this is a distinction that may or may not be important to other editors here—has supported Israel and the Gaza Strip.
- By contrast, the other two bullet points do suggest that Biden is supportive of Israel and that he is supportive of war crimes, respectively. Leaving this sentence as vague as possible is not only a benefit to avoid these kinds of discussions, but also to prevent the lede from expanding into multiple paragraphs. The "historical record" here is not necessarily relevant to the broadest point possible. That relationship between additional details and the plain facts is strained by the third bullet point, which has no relevance to providing aid and highly suggests that Biden is complicit in war crimes. That may be true, but it is not neutral without a widespread understanding that there is an intent to support war crimes with aid. In the simplest possible form, Biden provided military aid to Israel and humanitarian aid to the Gaza Strip. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 05:47, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Remove from lead Joe Biden's political history goes back 50 years and this isn't central enough to his biography to justify mentioning in the lead. This could be revisited later to properly weigh as the Gaza story is still unfolding. As it stands now, this important enough to the story of Joe Biden to justify inclusion in the lead. Nemov (talk) 15:04, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Equal mention of the military and humanitarian aid is false balance imo. I disagree with the assertion that the war was not a defining aspect of Biden's presidency and I don't understand what factual basis the comments minimizing its significance are supposed to have; it clearly deserves a mention, despite the bare assertion that it doesn't. Rhododendrites has the right idea. Biden has been a staunch supporter of Israel for decades. The lead should mention his administration's pro-Israel stance in the war in the context of his support for Israel throughout his entire career. Monk of Monk Hall (talk) 03:36, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't think that the "historical record" is a good idea. I first thought you meant that the US had sent more aid to Israel than to any other conflict, including WWII, which is wrong. It's just ("just"?) the most ever sent from the US to Israel. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:07, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- Remove per Nemov. Andre🚐 03:09, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages articles that use American English
- Delisted good articles
- Former good article nominees
- Misplaced Pages In the news articles
- Biography articles of living people
- Active politicians
- 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
- High-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 Government articles
- Top-importance United States Government articles
- WikiProject United States Government articles
- WikiProject United States articles
- B-Class United States Presidents articles
- Top-importance United States Presidents articles
- B-Class Donald Trump articles
- High-importance Donald Trump articles
- Donald Trump task force 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
- Pages in the Misplaced Pages Top 25 Report
- Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press
- Misplaced Pages requests for comment