Misplaced Pages

Talk:Joe Biden: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 02:53, 5 December 2024 view sourceDeathTrain (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users2,531 edits "Announced military support for Israel" in the lede: ReplyTag: Reply← Previous edit Latest revision as of 03:36, 14 January 2025 view source Monk of Monk Hall (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users2,163 edits RfC on ways to include Gaza war in the lede: ReplyTags: Mobile edit Mobile app edit iOS app edit App talk reply 
(33 intermediate revisions by 16 users not shown)
Line 27: 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
Line 33: Line 35:
{{WikiProject Biography |politician-work-group=yes|politician-priority=top}} {{WikiProject Biography |politician-work-group=yes|politician-priority=top}}
{{WikiProject U.S. Congress|importance=High|subject=Person}} {{WikiProject U.S. Congress|importance=High|subject=Person}}
{{WikiProject United States|importance=High|DE=yes|DE-importance=Mid|USPE=yes|USPE-importance=Mid|USGov=yes|USGov-importance=top}} {{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 United States Presidents |importance=top |trump=yes |trump-importance=high}}
{{WikiProject Pennsylvania|importance=mid}} {{WikiProject Pennsylvania|importance=mid}}
Line 48: Line 50:
{{Banner holder|text='''Top 50 Report''' and '''Top 25 Report''' annual lists|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|], ], and ]}} {{Annual report|], ], ], and ]}}
{{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}} {{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}}
}} }}
Line 117: Line 119:
{{/Current consensus}} {{/Current consensus}}


== Biden believes he could have won re-election ==
== "Announced military support for Israel" in the lede ==


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


This information is confirmed by multiple ] and is obviously relevant to his notability as a politician. ] (]) 15:36, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
{{green|During the Israel–Hamas war, Biden condemned the actions of Hamas as terrorism and sent extensive military aid to Israel, as well as limited humanitarian aid to the Gaza Strip.}}
:But is it actually relevant, (assuming its true). ] (]) 15:47, 29 December 2024 (UTC)


While we're at it, I think it's also worth using a couple of words to add that the aid was sent despite allegations of war crimes, if anyone would like to discuss that. ] (]) 14:43, 8 November 2024 (UTC) :"Anonymous Sources Said" is a red flag for ] articles. We're not a tabloid. ] (]) 22:34, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
{{ref-talk}}
:It can be argued that as the US has supported Israel since the 1960's its undue to single out Biden. ] (]) 14:45, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
::I don't think that it's "singling out" Biden because A) , and B) that same year ] (]) 15:01, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
:{{done}}, with the swap of "extensive" (from my original proposal) to "an unprecedented amount of", more factual. ] (]) 19:14, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
::I don't thing "unprecedented" is the correct terminology to use in the lead. While Biden has been a strong supporter for high levels of military aid, there have been similar meausres of support by prior administrations such as that of ] in the ]. ] (]) 22:08, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
:::Never this much in a single year, though, which I think is quite notable. And IMO a factual stat is more descriptive + neutral than just something like "large", "extensive" ] (]) 13:24, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
:Disagree with this. The United States has been strongly supporting Israel for many decades. To imply that this is a Biden creation is not neutral. ] (]) 22:35, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
::@] Please explain how the sentence implies that this is a "Biden creation"? It states that the amount of military aid sent by the Biden administration since the war started is a record, which is true, as you can read for yourself. ] (]) 15:21, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
:::"Unprecedented" is hyperbolic language that suggests there is something out-of-the-ordinary about the Biden administration's support of Israel. ] (]) 22:37, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
::::I'm entirely fine with "record amount" if that makes it clearer, but this ''is'' the largest amount of military aid ever sent to Israel by the US in a year. Clearly Biden isn't the first president to support Israel; my proposed sentence isn't saying that either. But the aid he's sent during this war is notable – not only statistically but because of human rights concerns – which is why it's been a front-page news subject for more than a year. ] (]) 09:35, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
:Update: I changed the "announced" part since no one objected to that part. Would anyone like to add something about "record amount"? I'd be interested in an RfC to see where people stand on this ] (]) 14:48, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
::I would like to ask why do you believe that it is necessary to indicate that he sent '''limited''' humanitarian aid to Gaza. Is there consensus of sources that agree that the amount of humanitarian aid is limited? I agree that it probably is not enough, but it seems to me that calling it limited, especially without sources is ]. ] (]) 02:53, 5 December 2024 (UTC)


== Response to the State of the Union Address == == Oldest living President of the United States box??? ==


I was looking at the "Response to the State of the Union Address" among the succession boxes. My goodness, it's overwhelming. I'd recommend it be removed from this bio & other bios. ] (]) 02:57, 10 November 2024 (UTC) 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)


:Agreed, I didn't know that was there. I removed it. Responding to the 1983 and 1984 SOTU is so far down on the list of significant things done by Biden. &ndash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;(]) 17:45, 16 November 2024 (UTC) No objections? I've deleted it. ] (]) 20:30, 31 December 2024 (UTC)


== RfC on ways to include Gaza war in the lede ==
== Category:Transgender rights activists ==


<!-- ] 14:01, 15 February 2025 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1739628070}}
This article is on the page. The page features transit, transport, transcripts and the Trans-Pacific, but no mention of transgender. Am I right that categories, especially on BLPs, have to be about things cited in the article, else it's not a defining characteristic worth having a category? ] (]) 17:22, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
{{rfc|bio|pol|hist|rfcid=8E993C6}}
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. &mdash; <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 removed it. Saying some positive things about trans people does not make one a "trans rights activist". People and their overcategorization.... &ndash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;(]) 17:44, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

== NGO funding revert ==

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

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

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

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

:The full content of the edit was {{tq|In November 2024, the Biden administration withheld federal funding from ], a move which CJA and others connected to its support for a ceasefire in Gaza.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Lacy |first=Akela |date=2024-11-29 |title=Biden Makes His Own Attack on Nonprofit Over Palestine |url=https://theintercept.com/2024/11/29/biden-climate-funding-palestine/ |access-date=2024-11-30 |website=The Intercept |language=en-US}}</ref>}} It was only sourced with The Intercept, not Politico. The Intercept is reliable, but biased to the point that we shouldn't base an edit like this on them. That it was sourced only to The Intercept, that the group "and others" (that seems like ]) "connected" the withholding of funding to Gaza, and your edit did not include anything from the Biden administration is why I said this is POV. Since this was also the "Biden administration" doing it and not Biden himself is why I think it's UNDUE. This is a biography of the man's entire life. The article on his presidency, ], will get more granular on these four years.
:{{reflist-talk}} &ndash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;(]) 00:29, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Latest revision as of 03:36, 14 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.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 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.
Former good articleJoe 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.
In the news Article milestones
DateProcessResult
September 18, 2008Good article nomineeNot listed
September 19, 2008Good article nomineeListed
April 22, 2020Good article reassessmentDelisted
June 28, 2020Good article reassessmentDelisted
October 4, 2020Good article nomineeNot listed
In the news A news item involving this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the "In the news" column on August 23, 2008.
Current status: Delisted good article
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.This page is about a politician who is running for office or has recently run for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some current political conflict or controversy. For that reason, this article is at increased risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This  level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.
WikiProject iconBiography: Politics and Government
WikiProject iconThis 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
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Top-importance).
WikiProject iconU.S. Congress High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
This article is about one (or many) Person(s).
WikiProject iconUnited States: Delaware / Presidential elections / Government Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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. United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Delaware (assessed as High-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. presidential elections (assessed as Mid-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as Top-importance).
WikiProject iconUnited States Presidents: Donald Trump Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject United States Presidents, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of United States Presidents 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.United States PresidentsWikipedia:WikiProject United States PresidentsTemplate:WikiProject United States PresidentsUnited States Presidents
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Donald Trump task force.
WikiProject iconPennsylvania Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconPolitics: American High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as Top-importance).
WikiProject iconCollege football Bottom‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
BottomThis article has been rated as Bottom-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconScience Policy High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconBarack Obama (inactive)
WikiProject iconThis 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!
              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, 2023, and 2024.
    This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report 24 times. The weeks in which this happened:
    Media mentionThis article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:
    Section sizes
    Section size for Joe Biden (64 sections)
    Section name Byte
    count
    Section
    total
    (Top) 9,680 9,680
    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) 133 197,938
    Inauguration 6,205 6,205
    First 100 days 13,050 13,050
    Domestic policy 9,091 75,432
    Economy 19,261 19,261
    Judiciary 5,670 5,670
    Infrastructure and climate 14,608 14,608
    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 59,788
    Withdrawal from Afghanistan 11,473 11,473
    Russian invasion of Ukraine 12,113 12,113
    China affairs 10,227 10,227
    Israel–Hamas war 14,154 14,154
    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 20,341 20,341
    Political positions 30,857 30,857
    Public image 10,788 19,376
    Job approval 7,113 7,113
    Media depictions 1,475 1,475
    Legacy 2,805 2,805
    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 10,928
    Official 440 440
    Other 10,369 10,369
    Total 471,877 471,877

    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

    1. 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.
    2. Pager, Tyler (December 28, 2024). "Joe Biden's lonely battle to sell his vision of American democracy". The Washington Post. Retrieved December 29, 2024.
    3. 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.
    4. Calder, Rich (December 28, 2024). "Biden regrets leaving presidential race, thinks he could've beaten Trump: report". New York Post. Retrieved December 29, 2024.
    5. 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

    Please consider joining the feedback request service.
    An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists: When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

    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)
    Categories: