Talk:Joe Biden/Archive 15

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Adding sub-section to '2020 Presidential Campaign' covering "Racist Quotes"

The historical recollection of Biden's 2020 presidential campaign as described by his Wikipedia biography page is missing details regarding his widely observed and well covered interviews and commentary containing racist comments. In pursuit of a well-rounded biography, I have prepared the following content and present it for approval:

When announcing his presidential campaign, Biden referenced Barack Obama when he said "I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy. I mean, that's a storybook, man." The original article has become unavailable due to attacks by hackers , however, the quote is available from other reporting agencies. Biden later told television personality Jon Stewart that he meant to say "fresh," not "clean".

During his 2020 presidential campaign, Joe Biden claimed that "If you have a problem figuring out whether you're for me or Trump, then you ain't black,". Biden's campaign later said the remarks were made "in jest". Biden also made a statement to black business leaders that he "shouldn't have been such a wise guy. I shouldn't have been so cavalier."

When addressing the National Association of Black Journalists and National Association of Hispanic Journalists, Biden stated "By the way, what you all know but most people don't know, unlike the African American community with notable exceptions, the Latino community is an incredibly diverse community with incredibly different attitudes about different things." The statement was redacted from the original NPR article. Biden later stated via social media platform twitter "Earlier today, I made some comments about diversity in the African American and Latino communities that I want to clarify. In no way did I mean to suggest the African American community is a monolith—not by identity, not on issues, not at all."

The Trump campaign claimed that Biden stated in a 1977 hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee, "Biden Said Integrating Black Students Would Turn Schools into ‘A Jungle… A Racial Jungle." This claim was determined to be "partly false" as the quoted claim omitted substantial content from the original statement.

While I've tried my best to provide/present this sensitive content, I understand that it may not be well received. Let's talk about it. Ccross715 (talk) 18:35, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

References
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
References

This all certainly happened, but it does not seem WP:DUE for his biography page. Perhaps his campaign page? EvergreenFir (talk) 18:37, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Biased political bombs lobbed by one's opponent during a heated campaign are not a basis for facts. ValarianB (talk) 18:49, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

"The original article has become unavailable due to attacks by hackers". What original article are you talking about? I'm confused by that. SecretName101 (talk) 19:21, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Also, the "clean" comment about Obama was after he announced his 2008 campaign, not his 2020 one. So it would not even make sense to put under the 2020 section. SecretName101 (talk) 19:23, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Biased political campaign chatter doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:DUE. None of this should be incldued here. Maybe try the 2008 Biden campaign page. Eccekevin (talk) 21:37, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

It's not biased, but I don't think it belongs on this page. The "first clean" comment should go to his 2008 campaign page, and I definitely think that the "you ain't black" should be in the 2020 campaign page. Thanoscar21^talk_{contributions} 22:08, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

The only problem with this is we don't really have a place to put it. In Trumps article there is a "Public profile" section that is used for this kind of material. Other presidents having something similar, but on a smaller scale than Trumps. I think it's time for us to start a section similar to Trump's and other presidents. I believe this particular proposal may give some undue weight to some comments, but I think a "racial comments" section should eventually be included in this article, just maybe on smaller scale. A lot of Biden's "racist" comments have received quite a bit of coverage, some to the same scale as Trump. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 03:29, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Maybe not in this page but his subpages. Thanoscar21^talk_{contributions} 02:46, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

RFC on infobox length - closing statement and followup recommendations

(Note: This RFC discussion was archived at Talk:Joe_Biden/Archive_14#RfC_on the infobox length before being closed, so I am putting the closing statement here.)

Editors favor shortening by a roughly 2:1 ratio. Collapsing won't work on mobile devices. There were some objections to removing any offices. It sounds like the least important and least Biden-centric info is the names of successors and predecessors, and dates of service, especially in the minor offices. A shorter version of the infobox that massively condenses but does not remove Congressional committee chairships was prototyped in this revision. Doing that but also keeping New Castle County Council would probably satisfy most or all participants.

Editors noted that while Biden has an unusually long political career and large number of chairperson stints, some other politicians also have long infoboxes which could benefit from shortening. (Presumably the same condensation technique could be applied.)

The question of what to do about the data that's being removed from the infobox is left open. -- Beland (talk) 10:19, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

On the last point, I do not have a firm preference, but I do have some suggestions of my own (not from the RFC) to offer as food for thought:

• It's already been suggested to add this info to the article. It might make sense to mention predecessor or successor if one defeated the other in a hot election, but if someone resigns to become ambassador to New Zealand, it may or may not be worth spending prose in their bio to document who got appointed to replace them, when they had very little connection to that person. Dates seem more relevant to the bio if the office is mentioned.
• For Senate committee chairs we would be citing a web page that lists the history of who chaired that committee in what span of dates. That is obvious from the title of the page in the citation. We could just let readers who actually want or need to know that level of detail to follow the citation to the external page, which is pretty easy for non-print readers.
• The predecessor/successor links can be interesting sometimes to click through and see the various people that held the office, in chronological order. This navigational feature is broken by the condensation technique. However, it is also broken when one of the officeholders is not notable enough to have a Wikipedia biography, or when that specific instance of their name is not linked because it's already linked elsewhere. The technique of linking to an article about the office or the body suggests a third possibility: add a list of all the officeholders and date spans to that target article. That might actually be an easier way to navigate, and many important offices already have this, often with pictures, party affiliation, and other tidbits in a nice table.

-- Beland (talk) 10:19, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

"Joe (president)" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Joe (president). The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 5#Joe (president) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 13:51, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Sexual assault allegation (undue weight)

That this discredited sexual assault allegation takes up basically as much space as the discussion of every other element of his successful presidential campaign put together seems like an extremely clear instance of WP:UNDUE. john k (talk) 20:12, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

The Me Too movement, has run out of steam? GoodDay (talk) 20:15, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, especially considering that most RS (even on the right) have found it to be largely overblown and discredited. It definitely is WP:UNDUE. Eccekevin (talk) 21:08, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Eccekevin, can you provide a source of it being discredited? There's the allegations on Trump's page, why shouldn't it be here? Three sentences isn't undue weight. Thanoscar21^talk_{contributions} 22:00, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

• There's only three sentences about the assault allegation, how is that undue? It received more than enough media coverage to warrant a few sentences. Also, where has the allegation been discredited? Provide a source. I've seen a mixture of reports on the allegations and a number of people have backed it up.--Rusf10 (talk) 21:24, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

@Rusf10: You don't know that Reade was discredited? Well, for news stories, how about this one, this one, this one, this one, this one, this one, this one, this one, this one, this one, and this one.

I believe I can predict how you'll reply. Let's see if I'm right.

Billmckern (talk) 22:47, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Didn't read any of the links. I hope none of them mention anything about Russia. GoodDay (talk) 22:51, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

If you're able to predict how I'll reply, then I'm going to predict that you already know what is wrong with these stories. They do not discredit the allegations! (in fact some of them don't even address the allegations and focus on other details of her personal life) The media produced a bunch of hit pieces on this woman to try to discredit her, but the actual allegations remain neither proven nor disproven. Regardless, even if the allegations were undisputedly discredited, our standard for inclusion of a topic is not whether the allegations are true or not, but whether they received Significant Coverage. You just proved that it did receive significant coverage. If there is enough coverage (which there is) to write an entire article about the topic (and we did), then certainly it receives a few sentences in the main article.--Rusf10 (talk) 00:50, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

@Rusf10: My belief was that you'd go with "fake news" and/or "liberal bias in the media." I also assumed you wouldn't check the evidence, after having claimed you were unaware there was any.

I think I guessed correctly.

PS - You can't prove a negative. If someone says you committed an act, it's incumbent on the accuser to supply the evidence.

Billmckern (talk) 02:22, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Billmckern, none of them say that it's false. They just cast doubt on Reade's truthfulness, as well as inconsistencies. At Trump's page, do we individually fact-check each allegation? We include a link to an RS, but the point is that these are allegations. It doesn't need to be a black and white truth/lie. That's why we say allegation. We're not saying Biden did anything bad. We just have three sentences that clearly say allegations. Thanoscar21^talk_{contributions} 02:46, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

@Thanoscar21:You got my point, Bill completely missed it. Our policy has always been to include allegations that got widespread media coverage, not to take sides on them.--Rusf10 (talk) 03:51, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

@Billmckern:Don't make assumptions. I take the stories for what they are, they are trying to smear her by digging into other details of her personal life that are unrelated to the issue. The only relevant part I read in one of them was her friend walking back some of the allegations that she made about the incident (which still doesn't prove or disprove anything). I also will admit I did not read all 11 articles you posted, that was overkill, my advice for next time is to just pick what you believe are the strongest 3 or 4.--Rusf10 (talk) 03:51, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

I didn't miss anything. The problem with "Our policy has always been to include allegations that got widespread media coverage, not to take sides on them" is that very often certain people will create allegations just so they can say the allegations exist. For example, while in office, the previous president attempted to get Ukraine's government to say it was opening an investigation into his most well known opponent, who is now the president. Note that Ukraine didn't actually have to DO an investigation, just SAY they were. Saying they were would give the now former president the ability to publicize false allegations for political benefit. When someone's obviously lying, you can't just do "both sides" and call it "balance."

Billmckern (talk) 10:33, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

So Bill, who the arbitrator of who is "obviously lying"? You? the media? Democrats? You are taking sides on the allegations, you clearly want to hide them because you support Joe Biden. The unproven allegation was widely reported, so covering it up is wrong. Did Democrats (and especially Adam Schiff who claimed he had evidence) "obviously lie" when for years they pushed a now disproven conspiracy theory about Trump's campaign colluding with Russia? Can we now remove all mentions of the Russia investigation from Trump's article and pretend like it didn't happen? Of course not.--Rusf10 (talk) 16:35, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

• 3 sentences is not undue weight. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 05:47, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 February 2021

Change Biden Signature to this file File:Joe_Biden_Presidential_Signature.png MichaelCCasey (talk) 19:13, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

To editor MichaelCCasey:  Done thanks, DigitalChutney (talk) 19:23, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 February 2021

Joe Biden campaigned in the 2020 election with a diverse platform centered around Climate Change, Global Trade, and reproductive right! This was provided by VotingSmarter Supercool323423dfjlkaskj (talk) 07:23, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

I think you're gonna need a more substantial source and be clearer on how you want this info included. Volunteer Marek 07:39, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:35, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Why was the signature from the Federal Register removed

Hi all, I made an edit recommendation that we add the official signature that is on the Federal Register site. Why was that removed and what is the justification for such action? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MichaelCCasey (talk • contribs) 19:38, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Have you checked the History page? Editors often write messages there which clarify reasons for their edits. Recent edit changed the signature back to the SVG file, with this message "Use svg signature; it’s higher quality and easier to read". Felix558 (talk) 21:48, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 February 2021

he is the president 74.199.97.191 (talk) 14:23, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

We already say that.Slatersteven (talk) 14:27, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 February 2021 (2)

If I could make a suggestion, you should update his picture to his presidential portrait. 2600:1014:B029:9A92:86:114A:8AAC:EDD5 (talk) 16:25, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:16, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Brain surgeries

I've moved this section into the "Early Senate activities" section, since I felt it wrong for it to be on the same level as a presidential campaign. Feel free to revert if you feel that my edit was incorrect/wrong in some way. Thanks, Thanoscar21^talk_{contributions} 23:43, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

• Yea I agree his brain surgeries aren't of the same notability as a presidential campaign. Good move Thanoscar21. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 04:56, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

RFC on infobox caption

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There's a consensus to include a caption for the current 2013 photograph in the infobox. This closure does not apply if the infobox image is changed in the future. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 20:31, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

---

Should Biden's infobox include a caption? KidAd talk 02:58, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes/No

Pinging recent editors and commenters, including: Tartan357, Felix558, GoodDay, Surtsicna, Spy-cicle.

• Neutral - I've no opposition to 'inclusion' or 'exclusion' of a caption, TBH. Best advice I can give? follow the examples of the other US presidents & vice presidents bio articles. GoodDay (talk) 03:02, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
• No Based on my comment in an above section, the caption is distracting and unnecessary clutter. Readers know who Joe Biden is. Readers know what he looks like. Readers don't care what year a picture was taken. KidAd talk 03:25, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Readers don't care what year a picture was taken. Some readers may not, others may. The caption is there for people who do care, and those who don't can simply ignore it. nagualdesign 05:16, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

KidAd, I can understand the distraction/clutter argument, but I find the rest of your statement rather odd for an encyclopedia. If readers already "know who Joe Biden is" and "know what he looks like", then why have a photo of him at all? Why have an encyclopedia entry? We can't write a biography based on the assumption that readers already know the subject's biographical information. Wikipedia articles are read around the world by people with varying levels of existing knowledge. Things that seem obvious to the writer may not be obvious to many readers; see WP:OBVIOUS. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 05:21, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Infoboxes normally display the page name as the title of the infobox. If nothing more than the page name needs to be said about the image, then the caption should be omitted as being redundant with the title of the infobox. As for then why have a photo of him at all? Why have an encyclopedia entry?, this line of WP:WIKILAWYERING appears to be too advanced for me. I'm not seeing a connection. KidAd talk 07:02, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

KidAd, don't accuse me of wikilawyering without evidence. I am responding to your assumptions about what readers already know and care about: Readers know who Joe Biden is. Readers know what he looks like. Readers don't care what year a picture was taken. I pointed out that I think those are improper assumptions to make. Not everyone who disagrees with you is editing in bad faith. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 07:16, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

• Yes it should say "Official portrait, 2013". Biden has visibly aged since then and it's relevant for the reader to know the age of the photo. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 04:10, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
• Yes per above, for multiple reasons. (1.) The photo was taken 8 years ago, (2.) Consistency with many other pages, (3.) It's an official vice presidential portrait and it's helpful to clarify that it's not a portrait of him as president (like it is for every other U.S. president's page). Paintspot Infez (talk) 04:29, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
• Yes It's helpful information and is particularly relevant in this case as the photo is from when he was Vice President, not President. For an article of such principal notability, that's information that readers should be made aware of. Basil the Bat Lord (talk) 04:40, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
• Yes for the current photo, weak yes for the presidential portrait when that becomes available. WP:CAPLENGTH allows us some latitude in deciding whether to use a caption, and it provides for briefly giving the year in infoboxes for things that change over time, for which it gives people as an example. CAPLENGTH doesn't require us to do that in every case, but when a photo is both 8 years old and not from the subject's period of greatest prominence, a caption becomes uniquely useful. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 05:13, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
• Yes per Paintspot. nagualdesign 05:16, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
• I would lean toward just the year, or "as vice president". I don't really see the need to denote a distinction whether a portrait is "official" or not as that is not particularly descriptive. Connormah (talk) 06:35, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

I concur. "Biden in 2013" would suffice if "Official portrait as Vice President, 2013" is deemed too verbose. nagualdesign 07:56, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

"Biden in 2013" would also be fine by me, and is explicitly supported by WP:CAPLENGTH. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 08:11, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

I personally think there should be captions for all images but that’s just because I’m visually impaired SRD625 (talk) 07:02, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

• No. Of course it is Biden, and he has not changed significantly since 2013, so a caption saying that the image is of Biden in 2013 is useless clutter. Surtsicna (talk) 10:00, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
• Comment Out of the 22 images of Biden in this article (excluding the infobox), 19 include the date the photo was taken. Of the 3 that aren't dated, the one that shows Biden with President Jimmy Carter actually left me wondering when that was. On the image file page it says "1970s", which is a little vague. nagualdesign 10:19, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

  The image in the lead is normally a recent image of the subject. That is not necessarily true for images in the body, so captions have a purpose there. Surtsicna (talk) 11:16, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

So in your view, recent images (whatever "recent" means) of a subject don't need to be dated? That seems inconsistent to me when you look at an article as a whole. Images that are recent now won't be at some point, and some readers may not know whether an image is recent or not. throast (talk) 12:11, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Recent, in this case, means not outdated. When an image can reasonably be assumed not to be outdated, as is the case with lead images, dating is superfluous. Surtsicna (talk) 14:20, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

@Surtsicna: If infobox images are normally recent and so a date isn't required, which seems sensible, would you agree that a 7-year-old image is unusual for an infobox and should therefore show the date? Or are you saying that 7 years ago is recent? nagualdesign 12:49, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

In an article about a royal child, I argued that a 4-year-old image was so outdated that it should not be in the infobox at all. That is because children change quickly, and a 7-year-old is more than three times as old as a 2-year-old. 78-year-olds do not look significantly different from 71-year-olds, however. Surtsicna (talk) 14:20, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

• Yes per Tartan357 and yes for including "Official portrait, 2021" once it is added. It is a) just as much in line with WP:CAPLENGTH as "Official portrait, 2013" is now (Joe Biden is a person, which is a thing that can change over time) and b) common practice to add this sort of caption on virtually all officeholders' articles using official portraits. throast (talk) 10:33, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
• Yes This old photo, made 8 years ago while he was vice-president, should have a caption. Biden looks visibly older today than 8 years ago. Readers do not expect to see old photo of the current president in the infobox, so the caption which shows when this picture was made does have a purpose - it informs readers that this photo is not recent. Therefore, I think current caption "Official portrait, 2013" should stay. Felix558 (talk) 16:43, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
• Yes per above. ~ HAL333 16:57, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
• Comment - Request that there be no edit-warring at Kamala Harris, on this topic. We should 'at least' have both these bios in sync - caption or no caption. GoodDay (talk) 21:54, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

  The outcome here was that his reverts were unjust, same goes for Kamala Harris. My attempt to engage with the user on his talk page was deleted by the user. throast (talk) 22:01, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

  unjust melodramatic much? Your "attempt to engage" was condescending and rude, and moreover everyone is entitled to remove comments from their own talk-page. --JBL (talk) 22:29, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't see how this was condescending and rude. Of course he is allowed to remove comments, but deleting my comment trying to settle the edit-warring issue is not very productive. throast (talk) 22:43, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

• Disagree strongly about the importance of parallelism: pretty much every "yes" vote so far notes that a key reason to include the caption is that Biden's appearance has changed significantly over 8 years or that 8 years is a long period of time; this context-specific detail does not apply in Harris's case. --JBL (talk) 22:29, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

• Yes - Per WP:CAPLENGTH and WP:ACCESSIBILITY. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:07, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
• Yes - People change over time, giving the date and context adds valuable information. --GRuban (talk) 21:42, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
• Yes add a caption something along the lines of "Official portrait, 2013". Especially important to include as the photo is (as of yet) not the official presidental portrait instead his VP one from 2013 thus not that recent.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 03:37, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
• Yes, it's worth noting that the picture doesn't show how he is now. WP:SNOW closure?
• Yes (invited by the bot) Low key information about the picture is informative.North8000 (talk) 14:18, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
• Yes - Accessibility is important. Ideally, it should also have WP:ALT text briefly describing the image without repeating the caption. |alt=Smiling portrait with arms crossed and possibly mention of the flags if the uncropped version is used. – Reidgreg (talk) 12:37, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

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

Temporary suspension of WP:1RR rule

In order to give regular editors the leeway they need to deal with an increase in unhelpful "drive-by" edits, I am temporarily suspending the one-revert rule that has been on this article. The "24-hour BRD" rule still applies. Here's what this means:

• Every editor may now make up to 3 reverts per day per WP:3RR. BUT...
• You may not make the same edit or revert more than once per day per the BRD rule, and after your first time making that edit or revert, you must discuss it on the talk page and wait 24 hours before attempting that edit again.

Put another way, reverts are linked to content. You can revert up to 3 different edits per day, but you can't add or remove the same content more than once per day.

Again, the purpose of this is to allow regular/experienced/content editors to deal with legitimately unhelpful or POV edits. It's not to give people more leeway in edit warring over content disputes that are under discussion or to engage in "tag-team edit warring" where editors take turns reverting the same content over and over. If I see that going on I will start blocking people's accounts, starting with the editors who are reverting against the status quo ante, those reverting against emerging consensus on the talk page, and those who are not using helpful WP:Edit summaries that clearly describe what they're doing and why they're doing it. ~Awilley (talk) 02:09, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Discussion of the above

Point of Order: BRD is not a rule. "The BOLD, revert, discuss cycle (BRD) is an optional method of reaching consensus. This process is not mandated by Wikipedia policy..." (my emphasis) 86.140.67.152 (talk) 08:48, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

It is not mandated by policy, but it is mandated by the discretionary sanctions on this page. To prevent disruption on pages relating to contemporary American politics, any administrator may place any reasonable restriction on pages to ensure compliance with our policies and guidelines. One common restriction is to enforce BRD. Editors who are aware of the sanction and do not comply may be banned or blocked at administrator discretion. For more information see Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Page restrictions. — Wug·a·po·des​ 09:33, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

When something like this is done (a) it really needs to be stated in the post the source of the authority to do it (i.e. DS) -- I for one don't edit much in DS areas so I was completely puzzled; and (b) it's not clear to me that you don't need to issue new DS alerts to editors individually -- how is someone supposed to know the rules have suddenly changed, unless they happen on this thread? EEng 11:31, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

@EEng Worth noting that the DS alerts do not specify any page-specific sanctions, or mention any pages the editor has been editing. So, if I give you a DS alert right now, it won't mention the BRD (nor the 1RR), nor that I'm alerting you due to Joe Biden. So even a new alert doesn't help. It's a crappy system of alerting. FWIW the BRD has been in place (along with 1RR) since November 2019; Awilley just relaxed the 1RR requirement, which maybe makes it a little better. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:42, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Sorry about that, the Discretionary Sanctions bit and link to the relevant Arbcom page are in the template I modified at the top of the talk page. On notifications, I wish there were a better way to do it. There's the template at the top of the talk page and the edit notice whenever you edit the article itself. Since this was a relaxing of restrictions I figured a post on the talkpage would be sufficient to get the attention of the regular editors I was targeting. For the other restriction, typically how things works is that people will "welcome" newcomers to the article with the standard notification template, which I hate. Then if someone runs afoul of the sanctions they usually get a couple of people on their talk page explaining the sanction and asking them to self-revert. It's when they refuse to self-revert that things typically escalate to administrators. ~Awilley (talk) 16:31, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

• Comment On the contrary of the loosening of restrictions, I think this article needs to be subject to WP:0RR, until next January. Given the contested nature of the election and ongoing lawsuits, short-term, continuous vandalism is almost guaranteed and should be adjusted for accordingly. -- Sleyece (talk) 03:44, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Biden makes false claims

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.

---

Mention that Biden falsely claimed the USA had no vaccines when he took office. Prins van Oranje 18:50, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Not really notable. We don't have to include every single falsehood a politician makes. Thanoscar21^talk_contribs 22:45, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

But for Trump it's required? Prins van Oranje 11:08, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Obvious troll account is obvious. Acalamari 12:01, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Oh, I see. I'll close this discussion so people don't start debating on how Wikipedia is biased. Thanoscar21^talk_contribs 15:36, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

References

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

When the other side doesn't agree with you so you call them a troll — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pyromilke (talk • contribs) 16:32, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Infobox proposal

Although there is a consensus for shortening the infobox, there doesn't seem to be consensus on how some particular offices should be handled. For example, there seem to be some editors in favor of keeping the New Castle County Council position in the infobox, but its repeated removal shows how contested this is as well. There is also this revision proposed in the earlier section about the rfc recommendation, but seeing how that is no longer seen in the current version of the article as of this writing, it doesn't seem to be satisfactory for many other editors either. I personally find it problematic, as the phrase "Committees chaired" implies a past position held, which wouldn't be an issue for Biden, who will probably never be a senator again, but if applied to the infoboxes of other senators who are incumbent committee chairs, the past tense would be an issue. I assume the logical outcome of this edit being accepted for Biden is to change the infoboxes of other senators to conform with this new format, so I'm just pointing out this issue now.

Anyways, my proposal is to list the unimportant offices as a bullet point at the footnote section of the infobox, which shortens the length for mobile users as well. I will put an example. This is a format used for many other politicians' articles as well, so it's not a totally unseen format.

Joe Biden/Archive 15
Personal details
Born	Joseph Robinette Biden Jr. (1942-11-20) November 20, 1942 Scranton, Pennsylvania, U.S.
Political party	Democratic
Spouses	Neilia Hunter ​ ​ (m. 1966; died 1972)​ Jill Jacobs ​ (m. 1977)​
Children	Beau Hunter Naomi Ashley
Parents	Joseph Robinette Biden Sr. Catherine Eugenia Finnegan
Relatives	Family of Joe Biden
Residence	White House
Education	University of Delaware (BA) Syracuse University (JD)
Occupation	Politician lawyer author
Awards	List of honors and awards
Signature
Website	joebiden.com White House website
Other offices 2001-2003, 2007-2009: Chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee 2007-2009: Chair of the International Narcotics Control Caucus 1987–1995: Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee 1971-1973: Member of the New Castle County Council from the 4th district

- Bokmanrocks01 (talk) 20:09, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

The fact that the current President of the United States served on a non-notable (see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Castle County Council) city council during his early career years does not deserve a lengthy mention in the infobox and fails MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE. I think the RfC was quite clear on this, and that was consensus if not unanimity (WP:NOTUNANIMITY). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:52, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

My new format is anything but lengthy though. It's literally one bullet point on the the footnotes section. The New Castle County position is mentioned in the article itself as well, so it would not be inappropriate to summarize this somewhere in the infobox - Bokmanrocks01 (talk) 21:03, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

A lot of things are mentioned in the article and don't need to be in the infobox. Please thoroughly read MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE. Key: The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance.

I'm not opposed to different ways of presenting the senate chairmanships, and have no strong opinion on any of the proposed presentations (as long as it's not reverted to the pre-RfC state of being separate titles each). Both your and GoodDay's proposed presentations are all fine with me. I'm strongly opposed to including a non-notable city council position, though. Nobody is going to remember Biden for serving on the New Castle County Council in the early 1970s. It's not key information. If someone wants a full biography on him, they can read the lead or the article. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:05, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

The fact that this is Biden's first elected office and the formal beginning of his political career seems to be a key fact to me. It's also mentioned in Biden's White House page in the second opening paragraph:

"Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr. was born in Scranton, Pennsylvania, the first of four children of Catherine Eugenia Finnegan Biden and Joseph Robinette Biden, Sr. In 1953, the Biden family moved to Claymont, Delaware. President Biden graduated from the University of Delaware and Syracuse Law School and served on the New Castle County Council. "

Notice how nearly all other facts in this paragraph are also key facts included in the infobox as well. - Bokmanrocks01 (talk) 21:16, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Infoboxes are commonly abused and filled with bloat. Some believe that because a field exists in an infobox template that it should be filled. I disagree, and this is why I'm a fan of tailored infoboxes which prevent misuse by limiting options. If one adds every piece of lead content into the infobox, what's the point of having an infobox? People can just read the lead. An infobox needs to be trimmed down to key facts to actually be useful. Otherwise it isn't useful. I'm not proposing removing the city council position from the lead, I'm saying it doesn't really belong in the IB. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:50, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Notes

Infobox again

Why is the entry on Biden's US Senate tenure, being crowded with his Senate chairmanships? Those are suppose to have their own separate sections in the infobox. Biden did not chair those committees during the entirety of his Senate tenure. GoodDay (talk) 20:25, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

You could always add the years he held the chairmanships in parenthesis next to them - Bokmanrocks01 (talk) 20:38, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

I've made some repairs. Put them in their own section & yes, added the service years. GoodDay (talk) 20:45, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Is there consensus for your new format though? I see more edit warring unless we figure out a definitive format here. I think my proposal is pretty good. - Bokmanrocks01 (talk) 20:57, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

You wouldn't be hiding or deleting though, the United States Senator section & January 3, 1973 to January 15, 2009 entry. GoodDay (talk) 21:09, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Well I think there's no disagreement that his tenure as US Senator should be listed prominently in the infobox alongside the offices of VP and POTUS. My format would remove the chairmanships and the New Castle County position as recommended in the rfc from the main infobox body to a smaller bullet-point list in the footnotes section. Thus this would shorten the infobox length for both web browser users and mobile users that seemed to be a key issue for editors. My format is also used for other politicians as well, such as the one for Xi Jinping. Frankly, I haven't seen your format anywhere else though. - Bokmanrocks01 (talk) 21:26, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

No objections, if your proposal is adopted for all the current/former US Senators & US Representatives infoboxes. GoodDay (talk) 21:29, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

@ProcrastinatingReader and GoodDay: I STRONGLY oppose this. Just leave the infobox be, and keep it like every single other officeholder on the face of the earth has it. — Politicsfan4 (talk) 16:19, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Some examples of this format include Patrick Leahy, Dianne Feinstein, and Joe Manchin, with many others. Keep it consistent with other pages. —Politicsfan4 (talk) 16:21, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

RfC consensus is at Talk:Joe_Biden/Archive_14#RfC_on_the_infobox_length. Just because other pages are also problematic doesn't mean we do it to this page as well. See WP:OTHERCONTENT. Discussions on how to best shorten can continue, but to shorten is already agreed to by WP:RFC, which is binding on content. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:32, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

@ProcrastinatingReader: Well, I would favor removing the chairmanships entirely from the infobox over keeping this current format. IMO, it looks terrible, and is inconsistent with other pages. -- Politicsfan4 (talk) 23:53, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

No objection from me, for complete removal. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:17, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Would you consider my format though? At least for the time being. Personally, I think the previous format that matches the infoboxes of other US senators is best, though we would need another rfc to reconsider the decision by the most recent one. - Bokmanrocks01 (talk) 04:12, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm just not interested in any 'edit wars'. GoodDay (talk) 21:51, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

I've deleted the entry. Either we display it like the other current/former US Senators, or not at all. GoodDay (talk) 00:30, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

I personally think the article is perfectly fine as it was before and I can think of plenty of infoboxes that were much much larger than that but were never changed; I’ve also never had any technical issues and I’m on mobile SRD625 (talk) 01:54, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

• Comment On the contrary, we should make Biden's Infobox Wikipedia standard. Literally no one cares about Senate Chairs of House Rankings in Committees. Every U.S. Senator should just be labeled as such unless they have a real office like President Pro Tem or Majority Leader. -- Sleyece (talk) 03:59, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Final decision on my format

So I just want a clear answer from editors on whether they would be fine with my proposed format, since I want to add it to the actual article infobox soon. So far, users who have directly addressed me about my proposed format don't oppose it, but I just want to have your final thoughts here so I could feel we have some sort of agreement when I add my format to the infobox. By the way, my format is the bullet list of the chairmanships in the footnotes, which you can find in the example infobox above. I plan to leave out New Castle County seat for now, as that is still contentious, though it would be helpful if you could clearly state whether you support or oppose the county seat in the infobox as part of your answer as well. Personally, I support keeping the county seat in the infobox. - Bokmanrocks01 (talk) 01:19, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

I like it, and I'd like to thank you for proposing it. It's a sleak and easy to access variant of the current one which is interfering with the body of the article at the moment. I highly doubt many who access this article care to know the specifics of Biden serving on the New Castle County Council or whatever miscellaneous Senate committe chairmanships he held years ago, but if they do wish to know, it's there for them to see in a nice dropbox. CaliIndie (talk) 11:33, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

It looks good to me - it reduces clutter without omitting information. --Woko Sapien (talk) 22:18, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Silent Generation

Biden is the first President from the Silent Generation. Should it be added in the heading along with him being the oldest president, first from Delaware, and second Catholic? 3Kingdoms (talk) 16:26, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

I think this is not notable enough to be included in the lead, but other editors may think differently. I never came upon the term "Silent Generation" until now (I just googled it to see what it means), so I have impression this term is not mentioned often in the media outlets and it's not often used by the public. If that is true, then it's probably not notable enough for the lead. Felix558 (talk) 18:04, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

I actually didn't know that. I'd support adding it. A note, though, in Bill Clinton's article, it's in the public image section. Thanoscar21^talk_{contributions} 20:21, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

I have no objection to adding it somewhere in the article, but I'm really not sure it is notable enough to be placed in the lead. Felix558 (talk) 21:24, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

• I would like to see evidence of coverage to prove notability. I haven't heard of this personally. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 04:01, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't think it's notable enough, but would like to see RS. Eccekevin (talk) 04:37, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Not notable enough for the lead; it does not seem to come up frequently in RS. RedHotPear (talk) 04:43, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Here are a few sources that mention it. [1], [2], [3]. 3Kingdoms (talk) 15:03, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, but those sources are about him being the oldest which is already mentioned and notable. The Silent Generation is mentioned in passing. Also, generation boundaries are somewhat arbitrary. Silent Generation is somehwta 1928-1945, but Trump was born in 1946. He's arguably the same generation as Biden, so I'd be opposed to including this generational statement because, again, it is somewhat arbitrary (unlike age, state of origin, and religion which are more clear cut). Eccekevin (talk) 21:00, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Clinton and W. Bush were also born in 1946. They along with Trump are all considered Baby boomers, as mentioned above that is mention on Clinton's page, but not the heading. I understand your issue, but I think it is a nice piece of info to put in. 3Kingdoms (talk) 00:30, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Exactly, they were born little time apart from Biden, making this distinction arbitrary and useless. Why is the Silent Generation 1928-1945 and not 1930-1947? Arbitrariness, so it is a useless distinction. What does it convey to the reader of importance that the birth date does not on its own? Nothing, hence my opposition. Eccekevin (talk) 01:27, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

I think it might impress upon reader that the man we elected in 2020 is older than the man we elected in 1992. Thanoscar21^talk_{contributions} 02:34, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm not saying it doesn't matter, just not in the lede. That impression is already given to the reader by the fact that it specifies he is the oldest president in history. Eccekevin (talk) 03:21, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm thinking in the Early Life section. Thanoscar21^talk_{contributions} 22:55, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Its end in 1945 cause the Second World War ended. Baby boomers were children of people who came back from the war, generally, hence 1946 is the start. 3Kingdoms (talk) 18:20, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

This is surely trivia. We tell people his DOB. They can make a fuss about his membership of some artificially defined generation elsewhere if they like. HiLo48 (talk) 05:06, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

You can just copy-paste HiLo's comment for me. --Khajidha (talk) 18:16, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

No, generational differences are occassionally more notable in their differences amongst each other, but the Silent generation and the Baby Boomers, especially those born in the late 1940s such as Clinton, Bush 43 or Trump are barely differential from those born in the early 1940s like Biden. Had they grew up in differing circumstances I'd be more open to it, but there's nothing that really separates the two beyond labels. CaliIndie (talk) 20:58, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

The Silent Generation were too young to fight in WW2 and born before the soldiers returned from war causing the Baby Boom. So the dates aren't arbitrary. But most readers would not understand the concept and it would have to be explained. So it is best mentioned in the body of the article rather than the lead. TFD (talk) 06:20, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

...or not mentioned at all. I still don't see the point. HiLo48 (talk) 09:17, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

I know that they call all that were born up through midnight Dec 31 1945 the 'Silent Generation', but I don't really think it is a notable label for folks born during the war. The Silent Generation itself, as a concept, was something of an afterthought. The Boomers were notable because there was a BOOM, literally, and that boom started in '46. Thus, the boomer generation was said to begin in '46, and they were the children of the war generation. The generation in between was later labeled the silent generation, and like others have noted, they were the people that were kids & younger teenagers during the war. Technicalities aside, though, is it REALLY fitting to call babies born DURING the war part of the Silent Generation? they aren't technically boomers, but they're in actuality far closer and more akin to boomers than the people that were older kids/teens during the war, who remembered the Great Depression; which is whom the 'Silent Generation' were dubbed with in mind. Firejuggler86 (talk) 10:12, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

You're right. Reading the article on the Silent generation, it says "The Silent Generation were children of the Great Depression". No qualification. No wording that says "...or soon after", or anything like that. Biden was NOT one of children of the Great Depression. This is one of the least accurately defined "generations", all arbitrary constructs anyway. Putting him in the same category as children born during the depression is very misleading. HiLo48 (talk) 21:38, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, if anything Biden's as much a boomer as the other three. It's also odd enough this boom stretches as far as Obama. I hate these generational labels, rather we'd avoid them altogether. CaliIndie (talk) 07:23, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Exactly. If you look at the actual birthrates, the only "boom" is the 1946-1948 era when the lonely GIs were just getting home. Then it declined. Then another (smaller bump) circa 1953-1954 (when the Korean war vets were coming home), with a fairly steady rate for the rest of the 1950s and a decrease over the 1960s.--Khajidha (talk) 12:36, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Moving the second marriage section

I've moved the second marriage subsection to the Marriages, law school, and early career (1966–1972). I've renamed that section from First marriage law school, and early career (1966–1972) to Marriages, law school, and early career (1966–1972). Thoughts? Thanoscar21^talk_contribs 23:50, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Looks good to me.Eccekevin (talk) 23:42, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Titles of various sections

I personally think that the President (2021 - present) section should be changed to Presidency (2021 - president), as well as for the Vice President (2009 - 2017) section to be changed to Vice Presidency (2009 - 2017). I know that on other pages it's not like this, but I feel this is more natural. Thoughts? Thanoscar21^talk_contribs 23:13, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

It says President on every other President's article except Donald Trump. I think Presidency does make more sense though. Prins van Oranje 14:56, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Someone should create personal life section.

The article is confusing because the section marriages, early caeer law school are all blended together. some of that info about marriages and his children should be moved to personal life section created and other info of early law career and senate career another section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raja1011 (talk • contribs) 06:25, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Each article's needs are different, depending on the facts and how best they can be presented. EEng — Preceding undated comment added 07:24, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 February 2021

Before My Changes: "In April 2019, Biden announced his candidacy in the 2020 presidential election. He became the presumptive Democratic nominee in April 2020 and reached the delegate threshold needed to secure the nomination in June 2020."

Including my proposed changes. "In April 2019, Biden announced his candidacy in the 2020 presidential election. He became the presumptive Democratic nominee in April 2020, beating Bernie Sanders, and reached the delegate threshold needed to secure the nomination in June 2020."

My change adds a mention of Bernie Sanders, who battled Biden for the nomination in 2020 - and was the clear runner-up for the nomination. Gyijfvbjfg (talk) 12:09, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Seems an unnecessary level of detail of Joe Biden's bio. ValarianB (talk) 13:01, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

I wasn't aware three words could add "unnecessary level of detail", to an otherwise fine bio. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gyijfvbjfg (talk • contribs) 13:14, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

There were plenty contenders, not just Sanders. Seems very specific and not appropriate in this page.Eccekevin (talk) 20:07, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, no need to mention Sanders in this article (at least not in this context). I'm not sure we even need the "presumptive nominee" bit. --Khajidha (talk) 17:08, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

New Castle County Council

Is there a reason why Biden's membership in the New Castle county council, keeps being re-added to the infobox? GoodDay (talk) 19:18, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

#RFC on infobox length - closing statement and followup recommendations says in part also keeping New Castle County Council would probably satisfy most or all participants. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:33, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Of course, WP:NOTUNANIMITY, and that appeared to be the closer's suggestions (which are not part of the consensus). Only one supporter expressed their desire in keeping it. It is not key information for the infobox to list a non-notable (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Castle County Council) office the POTUS held back in the 1970s. The entire council, never mind the position itself, isn't even notable enough for an article. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:02, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Not only has the editor who keeps adding it, breached 1RR. But, he also appears to be avoiding the discussion here. Kinda frustrating. GoodDay (talk) 07:07, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Not remotely notable - the editor concerned is a newbe however -----Snowded ^TALK 07:18, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Not notable enough for the Infobox, you were right to remove it. Felix558 (talk) 12:15, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

@GoodDay and Snowded: I was going by what the RFC said: Doing that but also keeping New Castle County Council would probably satisfy most or all participants. I'm not trying to "avoid" anything. -- Politicsfan4 (talk) 14:04, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Apologies if there was miscommunication, I should have included that in my edit summaries. Not trying to be frustrating on purpose. Didn't notice the discussion here. -- Politicsfan4 (talk) 14:08, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

You can't use a suggestion from one party in an RfC as authority for changes -----Snowded ^TALK 05:21, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

@Snowded: well what was the authority for removing it? Is there a consensus that I am unaware of stating that it should not be included in the infobox? — Politicsfan4 (talk) 13:34, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

You need to familiarise yourself with editing here. You were bold, you were reversed, you discuss and new material requires consensus to insert -----Snowded ^TALK 17:48, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

@Politicsfan4: if you're so determined that Biden's tenure on the council-in-question, must be added to the infobox? Then perhaps you should seek support 'here' for its inclusion. Again, as I mentioned before, IMHO it didn't belong, due to its being a 'minor' position. Now, if he'd been a member of either chamber of the Delaware legislature? that would be different. GoodDay (talk) 18:07, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

@GoodDay: I'm just saying, that a casual reader of the article might not see that Biden was a member of the County Council if it's not included in the infobox, and might be under the false impression that he had no political experience before his election to the Senate. There is a very real possibility that they would just head straight for the infobox and miss this relatively important detail. -- Politicsfan4 (talk) 03:46, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

The purpose of an infobox is not to replace the entire article or even the lead. It is not a substitute for prose. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 03:56, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

@ProcrastinatingReader: I never said that the infobox replaces the prose - what I am saying is that casual readers might completely ignore the prose and only read the infobox, and they might think of it as a 'replacement', just as a general note. I'm not trying to advocate for the its inclusion in the infobox by saying this. -- Politicsfan4 (talk) 04:10, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

I mean, there's no evidence for that, and we shouldn't add bloat on the basis of assumptions of how most readers behave. In fact, our PAGs advise doing the opposite all across the board (all the way from WP:SPOILER). Content decisions are not based on assumptions but on PAGs and consensus. MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE is relevant here. There are real downsides to inclusion and no proven upside in favour. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 05:03, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

This matter of triviality is still being contested, unfortunately. ValarianB (talk) 16:23, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Seems wholly trivial and in no way can it be said "if it wasn't for this office he wouldn't have become a U.S. senator", most people who have become US senators have not served on New Castle County Council.Slatersteven (talk) 16:29, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support re-adding By taking out the New Castle County council, we would need to set a bar for inclusion for any offices held by future presidents and future vice-presidents. For the record, in 1970, New Castle County had population 385,000 and the council had 7 districts, so Biden's district had roughly 55,000 residents. That's more than many state legislative districts: each Delaware Senate district today contains about 46,000 residents, for instance. My point is, it'd be much simpler to just include every elected office. Keeping the county council would put the number of offices at 4, which is still not that many. Davey2116 (talk) 18:04, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Proposal

Perhaps if would be acceptable for the New Castle County seat to be included in the infobox under my format? My proposed format is the bullet list in footnotes that I started a discussion section on up above this one. Maybe if it were just a single bullet list item at the footnotes section, along with the chairmanships, it would be more acceptable than being in the main infobox body alongside his offices of POTUS, VPOTUS, and US senator? - Bokmanrocks01 (talk) 18:50, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Having the Senate chairmanships in said footnote, is acceptable. As for the county council seat? IMHO no, as again, it's a 'minor' position. GoodDay (talk) 19:02, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Agree with GoodDay. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 05:03, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

• Comment I'm more open to the idea. Yeah, it's a minor footnote in Biden's resume. But, it'll potentially stop future edit wars. Plus with Bokmanrocks01's format, it doesn't add any real clutter. --Woko Sapien (talk) 22:11, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Yemen inclusion in presidency section does not include proper context

On February 4, 2021, the Biden administration announced that the United States was ending its support for the Saudi-led bombing campaign in Yemen. In his first visit to the State Department as president, Biden said "this war has to end" and that the conflict has created a "humanitarian and strategic catastrophe".

This addition does not include proper context. Biden announced they'd end U.S. distribution of bombs but stock of American-made bombs are already stockpiled by engaged countries, quoting Farea Al-Muslimi, it's a "symbolic" gesture. As for the war, it's still ongoing whether they continued supplying bombs or not. It's in reality an incredibly trivial move and for this section it shouldn't be here because of how minute its impact really is. CaliIndie (talk) 18:48, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

It might be a symbolic gesture, but what can Biden do? Demand Saudi property (the bombs are now in possession by the Saudi military)? I think it's fine as is. Thanoscar21^talk_contribs 23:51, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Cause we're not here to cater to platitudes but reality, if the Saudi military already has a stockpile, like the Times says, it's too little too late. His quote asks to end the war but it's still ongoing, giving readers a false impression Biden is actively ending the war as we speak. Again, false. CaliIndie (talk) 00:03, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Some more sources backing up the far-fetched idea of an unequivocle end to the war just because Biden says he'd like it to happen. Granted, if there is a concrete end or actual pullback, I'd support inclusion, obviously, but the fact remains this isn't one. CaliIndie (talk) 00:17, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

The current text is accurate. It doesn't say he ended the war, but that he ended US support for the Saudis. Seems accurate.Eccekevin (talk) 17:27, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. He said he ended support, and he did. Thanoscar21^talk_contribs 00:11, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't want to bludgeon the process, but maybe I haven't expressed my point as well as I could've so allow me to extract a sample from one of my sources.

It’s well worth noting that in his next breath, Biden said, “We’re going to continue to support and help Saudi Arabia defend its sovereignty and its territorial integrity and its people” from “missile attacks, [unmanned aerial vehicle] strikes, and other threats from Iranian-supplied forces in multiple countries.” This language does not sound all that different from that used by the Obama administration when it announced, on the war’s first day, that it would help the coalition “to defend Saudi Arabia’s border and to protect Yemen’s legitimate government”—as if the Houthis were trying to invade the kingdom (which they weren’t).

You get me? We're not even 5% into the Biden presidency yet, how about we wait to see where this goes, cause it can be very easy falling into the rhetoric. I won't intervene further I just wanted to better explain myself. CaliIndie (talk) 16:03, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't matter — the main thing is that he promised to pull out troops, and he did. If we included every politician's standard fluff-talk, this page would be filled with unnecessary quotations. Thanoscar21^talk_contribs 22:36, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Bruh, have you actually read up on the situation or are you just doing guesswork? We're still in Yemen, from Vox:

The US will also continue to fight terrorist groups in the country that directly threaten America like al-Qaeda or ISIS, a White House spokesperson told me on Friday. In other words, the US military will continue to operate in Yemen, but its focus will turn to terrorists that could plan attacks against the US.

So no, he hasn't "pull[ed] out troops". Ugh, I'm done. CaliIndie (talk) 23:07, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

The page currently states: "On February 4, 2021, the Biden administration announced that the United States was ending its support for the Saudi-led bombing campaign in Yemen. In his first visit to the State Department as president, Biden said "this war has to end" and that the conflict has created a "humanitarian and strategic catastrophe". This seems to be currently accurate and consistent with what you say. It doesn't say Biden pulled troops, nor that the war ended.Eccekevin (talk) 07:50, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Quit twisting my argument, I'm well aware the page doesn't say he's pulling out troops I was responding to the other guy. Like I said, the page does not provide context, which is what I'm asking for. The context being U.S. forces are still in Yemen and will still defend Saudi interests in and around the region. That's it, the current line paints a difficult subject in a black-and-white manner and deludes readers, and clearly some editors. CaliIndie (talk) 13:44, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Okay, I made a mistake, everyone makes mistakes. I meant to say bombs. The page says that he pulled out distribution of bombs, and he did. What needs to be added? Thanoscar21^talk_contribs 14:59, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 March 2021

The fourth paragraph begins with On April 25 2019, Biden announced.... There should be a comma after the 25. Mandoto (Hi) 18:04, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

All done! Thank you for your contributions. — TGHL ↗ (talk) 18:36, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

add a updated portrait

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.

---

Add a new updated pic JohnAlberto2111 (talk) 15:41, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Just add the presidential pic 2601:1C2:101:3480:1D0F:B662:4FA3:5613 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 17:33, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

We're waiting until the White House releases a presidential portrait. GoodDay (talk) 18:35, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Ok 2601:1C2:101:3480:1D0F:B662:4FA3:5613 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 20:58, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 March 2021

Shouldn't his infobox include his leadership roles in the Senate? Biden's role as chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, for example, was pivotal in the confirmation hearings and nominations (failed and successful) of Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas. Frevangelion (talk) 14:47, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

 Not done — discussed here, it was removed since the infobox was too long. Thanks, Thanoscar21^talk_contribs 15:12, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Biden/Harris Official WH Portraits

Considering the interest this has had among many above, I searched on the internet (and EBay) and I had found the commemorative 2021 inauguration tickets. I believe the signed portraits used there will be the official ones? Not sure where else these portraits could have been released for the public and/or for use on Wikipedia. O sang99 (talk) 00:53, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

There's no reason to assume that pictures printed on inauguration tickets, and thus pictures taking before they were president and vice-president, will be their official portraits. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 02:07, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

They are nice pictures, but they're in black and white, so it's not really suitable for Wikipedia. OuroborosCobra makes a good point above as well. Thanoscar21^talk_contribs 15:14, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Nominated for deletion

File:Joe Biden age 10 (retouched).jpg has been nominated for deletion. If there's anyone here who understands US copyright law, please weigh in here. nagualdesign 03:38, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

I've weighed in, I think that it might be acceptable because you retouched it, and that might count as a meaningful contribution/alteration/change. Thanoscar21_{talk, contribs} 16:49, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. nagualdesign 17:37, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Joe Biden age 10 (retouched).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:01, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Joe Biden IS the President of the United States of America

I liked how this article began as written on 20 January 2021. The way it reads now, "Serving as POTUS" sounds like something the Trump Supporters would push forward. Please change. For now, its not Neutral and its disrespectful in my opinion. TimeTravler777777 (talk) 20:10, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

TimeTravler777777, do you mean:

Joseph Robinette Biden Jr. (/ˈbaɪdən/ BY-dən; born November 20, 1942) is an American politician who is the 46th and current president of the United States.

Yeah, I agree the current lead has an odd flow to it ("retired attorney", ^{[n 2]}). but it's certainly not disrespectful in any way. I don't see any discussion to change it (please correct me if I'm wrong), so I've gone ahead and changed it back to how it was before. Thanoscar21_{talk, contribs} 22:13, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

There was such a discussion, with the consensus being to use "...served as...". GoodDay (talk) 22:18, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

GoodDay, is there consensus for the ^{[n 2]} and the "retired attorney" wording? Thanoscar21_{talk, contribs} 22:21, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Check the talkpage archives. GoodDay (talk) 22:21, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm not seeing anything, just a proposal to remove "American politician" from the lede that didn't seem to come to any consensus. Thanoscar21_{talk, contribs} 22:28, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

My energy-level is quite low, these days. By all means, do here (and at Kamala Harris) what you think best. GoodDay (talk) 22:46, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

I also think we should use "is" rather than "serving as". That's how it was for both Trump's page and Obama's. Eccekevin (talk) 22:28, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

"Retired attorney"?

I oppose "retired attorney". He has a law degree, so he is an attorney. And he doesn't actively practice law, but that doesn't make him "retired". But his career has been entirely as a politician, and that is his identity, and that's how we should identify him. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:06, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

OK, here's the history. "Retired attorney" seems to have been aded March 2 by User:Thomascampbell123 with the edit summary "he was previously an attorney" (no mention of discussion or consensus). As far as I can tell that phrase was never in the article before, so it is new content. On March 7 User:Thanoscar21 removed it, saying "revert change to the lead, no discussion to change it". User:GoodDay immediately restored it, saying "There was such a discussion". Well, was there? I can find no such discussion on this current talk page (which is where it should be since it was only introduced to the article on March 2) or in the archives. And since it was newly introduced to the article a few days ago, it should be removed until this discussion reaches a consensus. I am going to remove it while we continue to discuss. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:30, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Biden retired from practicing law in the early 1970s so that should be used in his description. Thomascampbell123 (talk) 00:33, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Thomascampbell123, it shouldn't be in the lede. AFAIK, he's spent the last 51 years in politics, since winning the New Castle City Counsellorship, and history will certainly remember him as a POTUS, not as a lawyer. That info can be added in the body. Thanoscar21_{talk, contribs} 00:38, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Alright, he's already listed as a lawyer in the occupations section. Thomascampbell123 (talk) 00:40, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

The opening sentence ought to read, "Joseph Robinette Biden Jr. (born November 20, 1942) is the 46th president of the United States." Even the bit about being an American politician is moot, at least in the lead. nagualdesign 00:53, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

nagualdesign I don't think so, we want to state that he's an American politician, because he has served other positions too.

That's implicit in the phrase, "president of the United States". nagualdesign 15:22, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Doesn't really indicate that he served in prior political positions. Trump was POTUS but that was the only political office he held. Agree with removing retired attorney though, he isn't notable for that. WildComet (talk) 01:40, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

It does indicate that at this very moment he's an American politician. And the phrase "is an American politician" does not indicate that he served in prior political positions. nagualdesign 11:13, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree with User:nagualdesign, it should state: "Joseph Robinette Biden Jr. (born November 20, 1942) is the 46th president of the United States.". "American politician" is implied, and the facts that he is an attorney can be mentioned elsewhere in the lede. Eccekevin (talk) 22:25, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

I also think we should use "is" rather than "serving as". That's how it was for both Trump's page and Obama's. Eccekevin (talk) 22:28, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Eccekevin, that was because Trump was a businessman/television guy. If you look at Barack Obama, George W. Bush, and Bill Clinton, they all have "American politician", because they all had previous political careers. Thanoscar21_{talk, contribs} 16:52, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Sorry Thanoscar21 if I was unclear. I wasn't talking about "American politician", I am talking about "is" vs. "serving as".Eccekevin (talk) 20:23, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Ah, understood. I don't really have a preference for either, though I think maybe "serving as" is more formal. Thanoscar21_{talk, contribs} 21:12, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

The page still uses "Serving as" instead of the more proper "is". Serving as indicates to those I have polled as being nothing more than Caretaker at best and Acting President at worse. I am now considering applying the banner "Neutrality in dispute" to the top of President Bidens page. I realise a lot of people accept what discredited Trump claims that he won, but reality overrules you all. Joe Biden IS the President of the United States. Sorry please get with reality. I do not consider "Serving as" to be anything but a slur against President Biden. TimeTravler777777 (talk) 18:37, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Seems that there are some opinions proposing 'is', and Thanoscar21 who is neutral. If no one objects, I'll make the switch, but I'll wait for more opinons. Eccekevin (talk) 02:44, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

I think we should have a formal RfC for that. Starting that below. Thanoscar21_{talk, contribs} 00:47, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

RfC: Section on gaffes

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.

---

Under Biden's 2020 campaign, should there be a subsection regarding his gaffes and media speculation regarding mental fitness. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 06:43, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

This is the current proposal, that has undergone some previous discussion:

Throughout Biden's political career, he has been prone to speech mistakes, commonly known as gaffes. In 2018, Biden described himself as a "gaffe machine". He has also stated that his speech mistakes should not be taken seriously and haven't been about a "substantive issue". Since his childhood, Biden has suffered from a speech impediment and stutter, which has been credit by some as the cause of his frequent speech mistakes.

Some of Bidens speech mistakes have been characterized as racially charged. Biden's speech mistakes have included inaccurate or fabricated historical events, including personal stories.

During his 2020 campaign, Biden's speech mistakes along with his advancing age led to unsubstantiated, politically motivated speculation of Biden's mental wellness.Biden has stated that he has not taken a cognitive test; however, a recent medical report stated that he is a "healthy, vigorous, 77-year-old male, who is fit to successfully execute the duties of the Presidency". (due to discussion and clear opposition, this is being removed from the proposal. It's only serving as a distraction from the heart of this discussion)

Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 06:43, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Survey

• Support: it’s gotten so much media attention that it seems important enough SRD625 (talk) 18:17, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support, Biden's gaffes have been present throughout his career. They have been heavily covered in credible sources, more so than your average politician. Throughout his 2020 campaign (including the Democratic primaries and the general election), they were discussed. Additionally, this paragraph allows a natural place to mention his speech impediment, which I would say is notable since Biden has worked with speech impediment organizations. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 23:59, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
• Gaffes definitely. Mental health not based on the sources presented. The sourcing in the discussion is sufficient to support a section on gaffes. Furthermore, additional sourcing on the gaffes, particularly his claim that people who do not support him are not black, is easy to find. The dementia part, as presented below, is not sufficiently well supported. Adoring nanny (talk) 00:35, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support: His gaffes were so numerous, and they are so extensively covered in (both pro-Democrat and pro-Republican) media, that it would be strange (and probably biased) if we ignore all that in this article. I think the proposed subsection is very well written. Felix558 (talk) 01:15, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose This effort to include dubious material about supposed gaffes and alleged mental decline is the definition of WP:TENDENTIOUS. KidAd talk 01:22, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

"Supposed gaffes", I don't think his gaffes are speculation. I understand where you're coming from with the mental decline speculation, Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 02:47, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose - As per the previous, nearly exact same section above. Do sources exist that cover this "gaffes"? Sure. But it's not "extensively covered" by reliable sources, nor do they make the kinds of connections that are being hammered into the talk page. Unless a medical source gives a cause for a medical condition as explanation for something, or a reliable source makes it clear that something medical is happening, it is inappropriate per WP:BLP to make speculations in the article. There are more sources about Obama using the wrong kind of mustard or Trump's "man woman camera tv" nonsense, but there's no mention of those on those articles. - Aoidh (talk) 01:35, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose as has been mentioned time and time again on this talk page, "media speculation regarding mental fitness" is a massive honking WP:BLP violation. If you want to talk about a section on gaffes, I would be open to consideration, but the RfC question says "gaffes and a huge BLP violation" so that's a no from me. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:46, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
• Comment. There does appear to be clear opposition to speculation of mental health. Should this proposal be modified by removing the paragraph regarding mental decline speculation, and focus exclusively on gaffes and speech impediment? Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 02:47, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

@Iamreallygoodatcheckers: Yeah, I would support a section about his gaffes, but speculation about "mental decline" is entirely unencyclopedic. -- Politicsfan4 (talk) 15:16, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

• Comment. I think the last paragraph is where you get into problematic territory. SecretName101 (talk) 08:37, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support - He's commonly known for his gaffes and it's intertwined with his character, odd it isn't here but the sexual assault allegations are since that's more controversial in many ways. No comment on the mental acuity stuff, but it's been hinted at by Julian Castro during the Democratic debates so I think it at least warrants a mention. CaliIndie (talk) 15:46, 3 February 2021 (UTC) — CaliIndie (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Oppose Politicians have vocal blunders all the time, the coverage of Biden's slipups is not nearly at the level of, say, a Bushism yet. Including this now would be an undue focus on a triviality. ValarianB (talk) 18:05, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Considering the fact that this has been going on for his whole life (he has acknowledged publicly) and was definitely a talking point during the election cycle, it's definitely more notable than other politicians. Remember that Bushism has it's own article, we are just proposing a subsection. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 03:34, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support- Biden has decades of gaffes that are well-documented and received plenty of coverage. We have an entire article about stupid things George Bush said so there is a precedent for this.--Rusf10 (talk) 19:18, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn't characterize Bushism as just covering "stupid" things he said. Objectively, it's about, "unconventional statements, phrases, pronunciations, malapropisms, and semantic or linguistic errors in the public speaking" of Bush. SecretName101 (talk) 19:29, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

• Comment. I'd include that David Axelrod, a former Obama administration advisor, called Biden a "gaffe and embellishment machine"
• Support inclusion of gaffes but not mental health The latter seems like a possible BLP violation imo. ~ HAL333 21:30, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
• Yes to gaffes but absolutely not mental health — that's speculation, and Trump's page doesn't include the "person, woman, man, camera... TV!" episode. Just one or two sentences on gaffes would be fine, though. Thanoscar21^talk_{contributions} 22:09, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

  On further thought, no gaffes, but maybe a sentence or two on his most famous ones. Thanoscar21^talk_contribs 22:43, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose per several cogent statements above. The RfC question is very broadly framed and only a narrow slice of what's being proposed is even remotely appropriate. Some sort of section on gaffes may be WP:DUE given enough press coverage, but armchair speculation about Biden's mental health is never going to be unencyclopedic. Generalrelative (talk) 05:38, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Inappropriate. Every politicians (and most humans) makes gaffes, should every politician have a section. I see no indication Biden makes more than the average president. The relevant gaffes, if they meet a notability criteria, can be inserted in the text there they belong. I agree it sounds like WP:TENDENTIOUS. It's this editor's second attempt at including material about Biden's gaffes and mental health, and they were shut down at the first attempt and now trying again.Eccekevin (talk) 08:22, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
• This is confused (Here because invited by the bot to a different RFC here). The question is creation of a separate section. The discussion is mostly about a different question (inclusion/exclusion) which is not in the RFC and thus can't be considered a valid RFC exploration of the second topic. It's a slam dunk that the material should be included, and I'm neutral on whether or not it has a separate section. My argument for a separate section is that there is a substantial amount of wp:due material on it. My argument against a separate section is that I'm generally against separate sections defined by a negative aspect because they become invitations to overly expand on the negative aspect. North8000 (talk) 14:29, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. (1) "Mental wellness" stuff is bullshit innuendo, and doesn't belong anywhere. (2) the stutter/speech impediment stuff is not a "gaffe" and is already appropriately covered in the early life section. (3) As to actual gaffes/campaign statements, they might merit a sentence or two in various campaign-related articles (e.g. Joe Biden 2008 presidential campaign), or even possibly in a short mention in a comprehensive article on Public image of Joe Biden (if we had one, which we do not), but they don't rise to the level of meriting inclusion in this top-line bio. Neutrality^talk 20:01, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per Neutrality, really really isn't Wikipedia's business to make half assertions on peoples mental states, unless by a trained psychiatrist and diagnosis. Support "Some of Bidens speech mistakes have been characterized as racially charged.[3][4] Biden's speech mistakes have included inaccurate or fabricated historical events, including personal stories.[5][6]", excellent worded, sourced and should be included, mental condition I don't think so. Des Vallee (talk) 05:12, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support per Iamreallygoodatcheckers, provided that the paragraph about his mental health is excised. 207.161.86.162 (talk) 07:08, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support the first two paragraphs only, of course. These gaffes have gotten a significant amount of attention, and should be mentioned in some way. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 18:55, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. I think it's perfectly reasonable to include them in the context of other sections, where they're notable (i.e. widely covered) and neutrally sourced. But I don't see how a compendium of alleged gaffes doesn't devolve into a POV nightmare from Day 1. It also literally invites someone to run to the Trump page and start listing the times he walked up the Air Force One stairs with TP trailing on his shoe, or left his umbrella stranded; or when Obama wore "mom jeans"; or when Bush 2 tried to walk through a locked door, then awkwardly stood there for photos, etc. You're opening up a Pandora's box of petty partisanship that I don't see serves the project in any way. On the other hand, if someone started an article of Presidential Gaffes, then listed them by administration, that might be an excellent article. But to single out one president and not expect the same treatment of others? Not to mention the constant vandalism and edit-warring this section would have. It's just a POV rabbit hole that I don't think it serves us to go down. X4n6 (talk) 02:17, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

There is already an entire article on stuff like Bush failing to open a door, see Bushism. I don't think vandalism will be a problem with the protection this article has. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 03:17, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

My point exactly. So let there be one on Bushism and Trumpism, Obamaism, Clintonism, Carterism, Reganism, Bidenism et al. Or even all combined into one article, since some folks don't have one (yet.) So let them all go there. They don't need to be here. Unless you're prepared to have this dedicated section in every POTUS article? Is that what you're advocating? X4n6 (talk) 04:01, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

The reason Obama, Trump, and Clinton don't have articles of that nature is because they didn't receive substantial coverage over their gaffes. Bush and Biden, for the whatever reason it may be, have received substantial coverage for their gaffes. Our place is simply to report what reliable sources say and cover. Biden's gaffes as many arguments above have been widely covered for many years and were one of the main talking points of the 2020 election. The same can't be said for other presidents. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 06:38, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Trump's gaffes have been just as widely reported throughout his public life and during his campaign and tenure. But Trumpism is about a political ideology. No article exists about his gaffes. Although there is an article, Veracity of statements by Donald Trump about his lies. But I also note that Donald Trump does not include a section about his gaffes. I have not tracked his page, but I'm guessing if someone tried to include a section like that, they were checked on either POV or UNDUE grounds. So, for consistency, I think we should follow that lead. X4n6 (talk) 08:20, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

You're right that there is an article on Trump's lies. Why is there one on Trump's lies, but not Bush or Obama, all presidents lie, right? The reason is for the same reason that this section should be included, Trump's lies garnered more weight by RS than other presidents. We don't have an article on every presidents lies, not because other presidents don't lie, but because Trump lied on an unprecedented level that was substantially covered by the media. Same logic applies to Biden and his gaffes. Also, we are not are not asking for an article here, we are asking for a subsection under the 2020 campaign. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 18:37, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your continued response(s). I agree about Trump's lies and why they merit not just inclusion in his article, but their own. Sure there's tons of RS. But those lies aren't just a personal quirk. As you said, they "garnered more weight." That's because they affected policy; and as we've sadly just seen - they continue to affect lives. They are consequential, so impossible to ignore. But you didn't acknowledge that Trump is also a gaffe machine. But you wouldn't know that by any section in his article. Gerald Ford was also a gaffe machine, famously prone to trips and falls. They made Chevy Chase a star on SNL. They're in Ford's article, but don't merit a separate section. George H. W. Bush committed arguably the most famous gaffe of all time, when he vomited into Japanese prime minister, Kiichi Miyazawa's lap at a banquet held in Bush's honor in Japan. But there's no section about it in his article. You won't even find a word about it there. But George H. W. Bush vomiting incident exists. Bush 1's quirky aversion to broccoli isn't mentioned in his article, but George H. W. Bush broccoli comments exists. Despite Reagan's affinity for jellybeans, the word "jellybean" doesn't appear in his article. Obama's thing is basketball. He announced his March Madness brackets every year as president; and even adapted the WH tennis court for tennis and basketball. But "basketball" doesn't appear in his article. So there's evidence of an established pattern that personal quirks, which is all a gaffe is, don't merit sections in presidential articles. They may or may not be their own articles. But sections in president's articles seem to focus on areas of policy and consequence, and personal quirks are inconsequential. I think that precedent is well established and persuasive. We need to aim for consistency. So I'm sorry, because I appreciate your advocacy: but the more I looked the more it became very clear, at least to me, that there's no place for this section in this article. Cheers. X4n6 (talk) 23:31, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Biden's gaffes aren't a personal quirk/hobby or one-time incident, though, they're routine and have occurred numerous times throughout his political career. I don't think they're comparable to Bush's views on broccoli or Obama liking basketball. CaliIndie (talk) 23:36, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Gaffes are indeed nothing more than personal quirks. Can you give examples of where they've been elevated to the level of having policy consequences? And can you show any similarly dedicated sections in any other articles about presidents? X4n6 (talk) 23:44, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

They may be nothing more than personal quirks in your eyes, but to others it's a defining characteristic and that seems to be the case with the number of RS having detailed it over the many years. I don't see how they need to hold policy leverage to see inclusion, that seems like an arbitrary barrier and articles on presidents aren't explicitly about their presidency, which is why they have separate articles for that, like this one for Biden. CaliIndie (talk) 23:51, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

First, it's not just in my eyes: as noted by how interchangeably they're used here; as noted in this 2013 article from Australia; and even this one explaining Trump's unwavering support among some, despite his own history of gaffes and quirks. Your link to the Biden Administration misses the point. You still have not offered any examples of similar sections in other president's biographical articles, which are what I referenced in every example I provided. If/when you can provide any, we can discuss them. But until then, I have confidence in my rationale and am very comfortable with my vote. X4n6 (talk) 00:19, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Ok, so you believe that Biden's gaffes shouldn't be included because they don't affect policy or are just simply not significant. His gaffes have had major effects for his career, Julian Castro targeted him because of it during the primary, of course Trump brought it up, and many RS have stated they hurt his chance with voters. One reference above stated he could lose support from the black community because of his comments that have been characterized as gaffes. They may not necessarily effect policy, but they effect Biden and his career. I don't think the same can be said about Obama being a basketball fan. Also, your belief that it has to effect policy really isn't a policy or guideline on Wikipedia. We are supposed to give due weight to a subject and right now, not mentioning arguably one of the biggest talking points of the election is not giving proper weight. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 05:34, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

While I enjoy a vigorous debate, I've already explained my reasoning, more thoroughly than anyone else. I oppose the section on multiple grounds. Notwithstanding Julian Castro and whatever effect some writers thought there may have been on African American voters, those concerns did not materialize. And in Biden's near half century public career, if the gaffes had significantly affected him performance, surely we'd have known it before his presidency. In the last election they provided some campaign election fodder: but so did Trump's small hands; Rubio questioning the size of Trump's other anatomy; Cruz's supposedly ugly wife, claims of his father's alleged link to the JFK assassination, and his disqualifying Canadian birth; Jeb's "please clap"; et al. Should there also be a section on "Trump's Campaign Taunts:" about "Sleepy Joe;" hiding in the basement; his huge mask; and Trump possibly having to leave the country if he lost to "this guy?" I still maintain his gaffes are quirks and even gave links that agreed. And I've pointed out we don't have similar sections in similar articles. That's a good safeguard against POV creep. You haven't addressed that concern, while arguing that mine don't comport with WP policy or guidelines, which WP:NPOV is. You also noted we're supposed to give due weight, but didn't mention WP:UNDUE - and perhaps more importantly, WP:PROPORTION. I've also said I was fine with a separate article. Maybe channel your energy there. But as I've explained, now ad nauseum, I oppose a separate section here. So I don't see a point to more debate. Since I haven't persuaded you to change your mind either. X4n6 (talk) 14:41, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. (Summoned by bot) I endorse X4n6's logic that I think it's perfectly reasonable to include them in the context of other sections, where they're notable (i.e. widely covered) and neutrally sourced. It isn't clear that this Biden trait has acquired anything like the general coverage of Bush's verbal irregularities yet, nor what would be gained here by extrapolating a general principle from specific occurences. I also agree with North8000's comments about the general undesirability of a separate section on a perceived negative trait unless the trait acquires a much more substantive coverage than seems to be the case here. The (fairly tenuous IMO) justification for the Bushism article is that someone other than WP coined the term after noting the tendency and disecting it. Pincrete (talk) 08:18, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support Very clearly WP:DUE weight given the number of RSs that have covered his plethora gaffes, lies, etc.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 13:54, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose This appears to be an excuse to insinuate Trump's campaign narratives about mental decline. Citing Julian Castro is preposterous. His attempt to push the senility button marked the end of his candidacy, possibly his political career. SPECIFICO talk 15:02, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support Biden's bizarre statements are frequently reported. It's part of his political style which allows him to be excused for offensive statements and endears people to him. There's extensive coverage of Trump's misstatements which are similar although Trump is from the opposing political party. It's useful for readers who hear Biden say something stupid or offensive so they don't get alarmed. TFD (talk) 05:57, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. First, every politician makes gaffes, and Biden's during the 2020 campaign weren't more frequent or more significant. Second, his (perceived) tendency to put his foot in it is a major part of his public persona (he's even made fun of himself for it) and not a particular trait of the 2020 campaign. This is already mentioned throughout the article and also addressed directly in the article under "Reputation," which I think is sufficient. --Tserton (talk) 09:57, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support If this was Donald Trump, it would have been there, no questions asked. 12:00, 18 February 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:642:4100:820:2439:F1E3:CF8C:963A (talk)
• Support Joe Biden's gaffes have been covered a numerous amount of times and he has been mocked for it as well on television and by the press. Excluding its inclusion would not be fair and unbiased reporting for this article.2600:1700:BF40:A1E0:D932:3B0E:8590:DE08 (talk) 23:23, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:CSECTION. Any events that were covered enough should be included per their due weight, but mentioned in prose. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 13:23, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

  Are mother and child OK? EEng 16:36, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Gaff

Gaffe

EEng

Gaff

• Oppose So it appears that, no, we do not, in fact, have a similar section in our article about Donny, who was at least as notable for his gaffs.Slatersteven (talk) 16:42, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

@User:Slatersteven, That's because Trump doesn't nearly gaffe as much as Joe Biden, Not to the point where news sources are significantly talking his gaffes and it used by your opponent as a negative campaign strategy against them. ₛₒₘₑBₒdyₐₙyBₒdy₀₅ (talk) 13:21, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Trump doesn't gaffe? Trump was in the news almost every day for his gaffes. Trump's disinfectant gaffe was used as an attack by Biden in the debates. Thanoscar21^talk_contribs 22:41, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Trump was (ir)responsible for a covfefe of gaffes on an almost daily basis. nagualdesign 03:21, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Says the candidate that literally gaffed one the most embarrassing statements during his 2020 campaign, and I quote "If you have a problem figuring whether for me or trump, then you ain't black" [4]. Biden also claimed that "we didn't have" the covid-19 vaccine before he took office [5]. And let's not remind people, he has whole 20 minute compilation of just his gaffes. [6], [7], [8]. And trump did dozen of youtube campaign ads, some of them ending up on television, of Trump emphasizing Biden's gaffes. ₛₒₘₑBₒdyₐₙyBₒdy₀₅ (talk) 13:43, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

SomeBodyAnyBody05, the point is, both gaffed just as much, or pretty much even. The most embarrassing statement comment, that's objective, and falls under WP:OR. If you'd like compare gaffes, Trump called Nazis "very fine people", gets "constant negative press covfefe", called Tim Cook "Tim Apple", likes to eat "hamberders", is President of "the United Shaysh", wants to find the "oranges of the investigation"... do you see where this is going? We can compare all day, and it'll get us nowhere. It would be appreciated if you found a source saying that Biden gaffed more than Trump. Thanoscar21^talk_contribs 22:04, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

• Support gaffe section, Biden is very notorious for his vary of gaffes he does. This is very sourced and covered information that Biden himself has even acknowledged. I think this should warrant some sort of mention in this article in a extremely neutral format to not be a BLP violation. ₛₒₘₑBₒdyₐₙyBₒdy₀₅ (talk) 13:21, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose agreeing with Tserton, whose points match what I think. Acalamari 13:51, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose - Not extensively covered by reliable sources. Anything that's really newsworthy (such as accidentally launching nuclear missiles) could be mentioned in other coverage of the event or issue. And similar to a "Criticism" section (see WP:CRIT) such a section would be a crap magnet. Sundayclose (talk) 02:27, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support Biden has been known for his gaffes.Sea Ane (talk) 16:27, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose If you do it here then you’ve got to do it for every politician. You see how pointless and tedious that becomes because someone mispronounced a name or forgot a word? Trillfendi (talk) 16:32, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support - Clearly long term and extensive coverage of the topic. With the mental fitness stuff removed I don't see why there would be an issue. I don't buy the argument that if you do it here you have to do it everywhere. Biden is know for it, he is pretty prolific doing it, while others are not as known for it. PackMecEng (talk) 01:17, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

Has there been any mention of possible invocation of Section 4 of the 25th amendment? GoodDay (talk) 03:05, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Not that I've heard of. There may be some speculation, but those are unsubstantiated and isn't of any notability. If you have a reliable source for it, then go ahead. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 03:08, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

We have an article on Trump, do we have a section on Gaffs?Slatersteven (talk) 12:02, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Slatersteven No, because Trump's gaffes haven't received wide spread coverage throughout his entire career, but don't worry we have sections on him lying, his "racial views", inciting violence, and all that sort of stuff that we would never add on another president or Biden's page because reliable sources have covered that for him. The same logic applies here. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 21:11, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Really?, he had a career of 4 years, and yes it did get a lot of coverage [[9]].Slatersteven (talk) 10:03, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

And as does Biden. I don't think this argument should boil down to whataboutism involving Trump all the time. Biden is gaffe prone to the extreme and it plagued his campaign and destroyed the career of a former Obama official, Julian Castro, cause he tried tying it to his mental acuity. I think this warrants mention. CaliIndie (talk) 11:52, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

There is a recent (February 2021) video on Bitchute with Biden apparently completely losing his memory and saying "What am I doing here?" 81.154.172.180 (talk) 15:40, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Do any RS cover this?Slatersteven (talk) 15:46, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

References

American Rescue Plan Act of 2021

Both the lead and the presidency section should include the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021, described in RS as President Biden's first major legislative achievement. RedHotPear (talk) 03:25, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

RedHotPear, agreed, reasonable coverage of it should also be included in the body of the article if it is not already. Ganesha811 (talk) 22:46, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes! It should go in the presidency section of the body as well as the lead. The presidency portions in both the lead and the body are currently out of balance, with several long sentences on executive orders but none on the American Rescue Plan Act. RedHotPear (talk) 06:23, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

RedHotPear, agreed again. I think that unless anyone raises any objections in say, the next 24 hours, you should be WP:BOLD and make the sensible changes you describe. Ganesha811 (talk) 23:32, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Support adding ARP to lede and the article. Would also support significantly condensing the "day one" executive orders list in the lede (perhaps eliminating it almost entirely) to ensure due weight. Go Phightins! 23:41, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

• Strong oppose including the ARPA in the lede. The ARPA isn't a defining moment in his presidency; just because it's his first major bill is, IMO, not sufficient grounds to have it there. Thanoscar21_{talk, contribs} 00:37, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

• What do you think about the inclusion of what's there already about his presidency? Surely ARP is more significant than, say, reaffirming DACA protections (both generally and, more importantly, in how it is covered by reliable sources). From a reliable sources perspective, I do think ARP is being viewed as a potential landmark, potential recentism notwithstanding. Just as one example, NY Times columnists from the left and the right are referring to the bill as a paradigm-shifting moment that may well resemble the most important expansion of the social safety net in decades. Obviously, we'll know more in time, but given that this is the single legislative achievement to date, it is the cornerstone of the "first 100 days agenda" as priority one for his administration, and it is one of the largest appropriations in American history, it strikes me as worth mentioning. Go Phightins! 01:10, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

  • In the long term, DACA will matter to more people than a stimulus package for the short term (for example, who really cares about the CARES act now?). I think maybe we can come back and add things about his presidency in the lead after a couple months; by then, we'll probably have an idea of whether or not the ARPA will be remembered more than the CARES act, which was bigger. On a side note, the CARES act isn't in Trump's page, but that's just because he does so many... questionable things, as well as the page size (430 kB!). Thanks, Thanoscar21_{talk, contribs} 22:53, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

• Well, strongly disagree re: your comparison about whether DACA matters more than a massive stimulus package including a child tax credit that will go to tens of millions of households, but that's really beside the point. It matters how reliable sources are framing them, and there is little question that, at this point, they are treating ARP as a hugely significant win for Biden with huge policy implications. Maybe that will change down the line, but when I read WP:LEDE, the direction to ensure "emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources" points to a pretty clear taxonomy of what should and should not be included as of March 2021. Go Phightins! 23:19, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Agree with Go Phightins! If his overseeing infrastructure spending as vice president for the $800 billion American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 is leadworthy, then surely his proposal, advocacy, and ultimate signing of the $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 is as well. Also echoing that reliable sources have given the bill substantially above-the-norm weight and coverage. RedHotPear (talk) 08:27, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Agree with Go Phightins!, we should condense the "day one" stuff and include this bill, which is one of the largest bills in US spending history, and even if it just passed is obviously an important part of his presidency. Eccekevin (talk) 22:41, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

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

New picture?

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.

---

I'm thinking there should be a more up-to-date picture of Biden on his infobox, not only is the portait currently displayed from 2013, it's his VP portait.

Maybe at least a placeholder can be added until Biden gets an official presidential portrait? SpicyCheese (talk) 19:57, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

I think it should stay as is for now since it:: is the most recent official portraits. 3Kingdoms (talk) 21:04, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

IMO it should be replaced. His VP picture is from 2013, and the Biden White House has already released an official professional picture of him on the White House website. Since it's a US federal government sanctioned picture it should update the 2013 one. If it matters, the Kamala Harris page has already updated her official picture for 2021, and if her posture is an issue, her posture is the same as Biden's. At least the new pic should be a placeholder until there is one facing straight. Phillip Samuel (talk) 21:10, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

I get the feeling this might be the official presidential portrait - or at least what the White House intends to go with for the foreseeable future. Looking at Kamala Harris's most recent portrait, they seem to be taking a less traditional route with their portraits. --Woko Sapien (talk) 21:57, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

I disagree. The Kamala one is an actual portrait picture from after the inauguration. The 2020 Biden pic is taken from a rally, is not a portrait and is before he was inagurated. They're clearly still working on an official one.Eccekevin (talk) 00:02, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

I personally prefer the look of the old portrait - his expression in this one looks kinda uncomfortable, to me - but since the white house has published this as somewhat-official, I think we should go with it. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 21:59, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

References

I did not know about this picture, while not the usual posture, if the US government is using it then so be it. 3Kingdoms (talk) 22:20, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

• Comment - This was already discussed here. Thanoscar21^talk_{contributions} 22:26, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Keep current and wait Until an official one is released. This was taken before his presidency, so it makes sense to wait fot he official presdientail portrait picture.Eccekevin (talk) 23:57, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

• The current photo is way better than File:Portrait_of_United_States_President_Joe_Biden.jpg. It still looks the way he looks now. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:01, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. The 2020 photo is awkward pose, lower quality, not official, and not a portrait. Eccekevin (talk) 05:50, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose — We can wait a couple more months to get the official portrait. Per Eccekevin, it's an awkward pose, low quality, and not an official portrait. Thanoscar21^talk_contribs 16:18, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per Eccekevin. As Thanoscar21 says, we can wait. --Khajidha (talk) 19:18, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support - there was a time I would've opposed, but it's getting too much now and we really, really need to update this portrait with at least an interim one if this isn't the "official" portrait. Looking through the logs we had updated Trump's with one which wasn't his official portrait but an interim one so-to-speak so he had a somewhat updated variant. At this point it's been 8 years between Biden in the photo and Biden now and I don't care if to some people he looks the same, we need to make the president look like he does now otherwise we're being deceptive to a certain extent. CaliIndie (talk) 07:30, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

  Is it really deceptive, though? For citizenship photos in the US, you go ten years without updating your passport picture. What's here on Wikipedia is less than that; by the end of this year, there will certainly be an official picture. Additionally, take a look at Jimmy Carter. His portrait was taken in 1977, and he's still alive. If we change this, then why not change that? The point is that official portraits are official, higher quality, and a pose for the camera. This proposed picture is grainy, his face isn't pointed at the camera, and he looks strained. Thanoscar21^talk_contribs 15:45, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

  Carter is a false equivalency since most people going to his Wikipedia page will majorly be for there for Carter the president and not Carter the governor of Georiga or Carter the Habitats for Humanity worker, so to have his portrait be when he was the president makes perfect sense. Same as with Biden, most people are here for Biden the president, not Biden the vice president. In that way it's deceptive, even with the caption. CaliIndie (talk) 16:27, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

  Okay, maybe the Carter thing was a bad analogy, but what I'm trying to say is that we can wait a few more months. This isn't urgent. And plus, by those same standards, this picture was taken in August, before he was president. This picture is lower quality as well. Thanoscar21^talk_contribs 16:50, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

There's really no urgency, and I don't see how this is at all deceptive. The goal of a Wikipedia picture is to identify a person, not to give the most recent possible picture.Eccekevin (talk) 17:37, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose as he is not facing the camera. This is a candid shot, not a portrait, and I think a portrait is more appropriate. What's the rush? (*rhetorical question) nagualdesign 02:08, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose - For all that his holy on Mount Rushmore, please wait until the White House releases Biden's presidential portrait. GoodDay (talk) 15:51, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Candid shot, not even facing the camera. ValarianB (talk) 16:03, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

How about this image?

I think we could use this image until Biden's portrait comes out. He is smiling and I think we could make use of it beforehand. Interstellarity (talk) 14:37, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support - For reasons I supported the last proposal. CaliIndie (talk) 15:00, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose - this is all pointless fiddling. There is no problem with the current picture and a new official picture should be available soon. --Khajidha (talk) 15:46, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose - Honestly, what is the big emergency behind replacing the current image? Wait until the WH releases Biden's presidential portrait, complete with flag. There's no emergency here. GoodDay (talk) 15:48, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

• You could play off the very real concern that the most powerful man on Earth is behind in his depiction on one of the most valuable sources of modern information by nearly a decade, but some of us would rather we keep up with the times. CaliIndie (talk) 19:03, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

• "Very real concern"? So it's an old picture. So, what? How is that anything to be "concerned" about. It's not going to cause war, famine, plague, and death. It's not even going to cause the sporting event broadcast to start a bit late. And, if you can't recognize current-Biden from the picture here, the problem isn't with the picture. The problem lies in either your eyes or your brain. --Khajidha (talk) 19:27, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

• So am I the one acting out of sorts for wanting to just literally update a photo or are you as you compare that proposition to the four horsemen of the apocalypse and tell me I'm borderline invalid. Guess this is the gutter the talk page is residing in right now. CaliIndie (talk) 19:56, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support I think we need to update the infobox image. The current one is to old. This is a good image, it will be a good place holder till his official portrait comes out. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 06:16, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

  Too old? The only thing that's changed a bit from the old one is that his hair has thinned a bit. This picture is from an Instagram post. Thanoscar21^talk_contribs 15:02, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support I'm all for getting a new image in the infobox for politician especially if there's lots of images to choose from and the current one is 8 years old. We need to have a image that represent President Biden now. ₛₒₘₑBₒdyₐₙyBₒdy₀₅ (talk) 13:09, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

  He looks exactly the same as he did eight years ago. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:46, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

• Strong oppose — what's the hurry? Can't we wait a couple months for the official portrait? Thanoscar21^talk_contribs 22:38, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
• Strong oppose We should use only official one not bad random pictures. Just wait longer. Shadow4dark (talk) 17:39, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
• Strong oppose This is a solution in search of a problem. Just stick with the official 2013 image until/unless there's an official 2021 image. There is nothing wrong with it. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:45, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Most powerful oppose on Earth as, once again, this a candid shot not a portrait, and he is not facing the camera (well, his face is but his eyes aren't). And again, what's the rush? It should be clear already that the consensus is to wait for his official presidential portrait, which should be any time now. As long as the current caption states that it was taken in 2013 there's no issue. nagualdesign 03:37, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Stick to official portraits, not screengrabs from social media. ValarianB (talk) 16:02, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Much prefer an official portrait. ~ HAL333 22:26, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose, agree with Thanoscar21 and HAL. Eccekevin (talk) 22:49, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
• Seems like we are not the only ones waiting Eccekevin (talk) 02:45, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

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

RfC: How about we add this political timeline template?

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.

---

I have made a timeline highlighting the entire political career of Joe Biden. I think we can add this template in this Article as users will find this template easier to read and interpret, rather than going through a number of paragraphs. Use {{Timeline of Joe Biden's Political career}}. Thank you. CX Zoom (talk) 16:08, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Edit: Note: We can also make it collapsible, if it gains consensus. See User:CX Zoom/TestPage3, which is the one transcluded at the right of this discussion. Thank you.User:CX Zoom/TestPage3 CX Zoom (talk) 08:23, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support — I think it's pretty nice. I don't really know where it could go; perhaps the President (2021 – present) section? Thanoscar21^talk_contribs 16:16, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
• Comment - Could it be made collapsible as well? That way it could possibly fit in more places without taking up too much space. Connormah (talk) 18:07, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Yeah it is possible Connormah, you can see the same at User:CX Zoom/TestPage3, which is also present in this page, below the expanded version. I have not yet edited Template:Timeline of Joe Biden's Political career to avoid confusion between the expanded and collapsed versions. CX Zoom (talk) 23:58, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose it looks as confusing as hell, too many things in one table. This is not the kind of time line you can build down to X followed Y.Slatersteven (talk) 18:10, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose I agree with Slatersteven's sentiment. The text is also all messed up when I view it on a tablet. ~ HAL333 18:13, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

It seems a bit off on my desktop PC, its like the font is too big for the rows or something. Too much in too little.Slatersteven (talk) 18:26, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

I had set the font size to be lesser wherever appropriate but User:Jonesey95 changed them all to the regular font size (see [10]). CX Zoom (talk) 18:41, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Which then might make it unreadable as the font will be too small, as I said "Too much in too little".Slatersteven (talk) 18:45, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Actually I had no idea of how this would look like in mobile view. I had a view of this in mobile view and its kinda very surprising to me because there are plenty of Scientific (geological, astronomical, biological) and historical timelines on Wikipedia, which all suffer from the same issues (see Timeline of the early universe and Timeline of human evolution among many others) CX Zoom (talk) 18:56, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Alright, so I've fixed the issue in mobile view as noted by HAL333 by using em units instead of default px units. CX Zoom (talk) 20:46, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Maybe this would be more suitable on one of his subarticles? ~ HAL333 20:49, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose No, adds nothing of value to the reader. Biden's electoral history is displayed succinctly in Joe_Biden#Electoral_history, with more detail at Electoral history of Joe Biden. ValarianB (talk) 19:04, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per ValarianB Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 09:13, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose - I admire the work put into this graph here, but it's not nessecary at all and doesn't accomplice anything you can't get from the infobox alone. CaliIndie (talk) 12:11, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
• Comment — I've commented out the uncollapsed one since the uncollapsed one is messing with the formatting of the rest of the page. Thanoscar21^talk_contribs 15:38, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
• Comment I do think it's a cool chart and I admire the work to create it. I would support it being at Electoral history of Joe Biden. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 23:36, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
• Pretty much as I said in my comments in the Pelosi RfC: While I appreciate that it must have taken a lot of work to create and refine, I have to say that it does not appeal to me. My first response is that it's an accessibility nightmare, although I think all timelines (e.g., for band line-up changes) are themselves inaccessible, so some users will always have to rely on the text being provided in the article.
  Even for me as a (mostly) sighted user, the effect is overcrowdedness. It looks a little broken, a bit misaligned, a little crammed, the fonts mismatched, etc., although I realize the weird capitalization could be fixed. The green- and especially orange-colored links are certainly unexpected, and not at all reassuring.
  I would certainly prefer not to see these added to bio pages, although Iamreallygoodatcheckers' comment just above makes me think about how suitable it might be at Electoral history of Joe Biden (or others' similar articles). Maybe it's just too new a form (and I'm too old?), but it takes time to parse, and seems not to add enough to my understanding. I am therefore not in favor. Sorry, — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 00:02, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per what CaliIndie said. Eccekevin (talk) 22:21, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose I appreciate the effort that you put into making the graph, but it is needless.Sea Ane (talk) 21:10, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support and it can be improved upon over time. I’m not coming across any Wikipedia policy against its inclusion and it appears to meet expectation for WP:Graph, which supports it. TruthGuardians (talk) 12:15, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Personally, I'd be inclined to support—I like it, so long as it's collapsible. Go Phightins! 22:47, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 March 2021

There should be a comma before Jr., as mentioned at the White House here and here. There's also a page here. 79.97.94.94 (talk) 14:29, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: Wikipedia style prefers to omit the comma. See Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Biography#Generational_and_regnal_suffixes. RudolfRed (talk) 18:45, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Only admins should edit Joe Biden because other people could vandelize 2601:1C2:101:3480:6C4E:310B:BAB0:DE2A (talk) 15:37, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

That can be said of any page.Slatersteven (talk) 16:00, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

When was the last time this page was vandalized? There's only about 1,000 administrators, and a fraction of those are active, and a fraction of those are interested in updating politics articles constantly. It just makes no sense to fully protect (protect so only admins can edit) this page when there's clearly no need. Thanoscar21_{talk, contribs} 19:14, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Just want to point out that the page is not fully protected. It's under extended-confirmed protection. 138.207.198.74 (talk) 16:48, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Some of those admins (like me) have this page watchlisted. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:19, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Shorten paragraph dedicated to Vice-Presidency in lead

The lead for this article is in danger of becoming too long, and the problem will only grow worse as Biden's presidency continues. We should summarize or remove much of the paragraph dedicated to Biden's vice-presidency. For comparison, see George H.W. Bush or Richard Nixon - in both cases, basically only a single sentence is given to their Vice-Presidencies. Readers both today and in the future will be better served by greater emphasis on Biden's origins and Presidency than his work as Vice-President. Thoughts? Ganesha811 (talk) 22:45, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree. I mentioned on an earlier version of this talk page that the George H.W. Bush lead is a good model to use for Biden as they both had fairly similar political resumes before being President. Basil the Bat Lord (talk) 00:35, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

I also agree. Perhaps the third paragraph could read something like: Biden was reelected to the Senate six times, and was the fourth-most senior senator when he resigned to serve as Barack Obama's vice president after they won the 2008 presidential election. During eight years as vice president, Biden frequently represented the administration in negotiations with Congress and advised the president on maters of foreign policy. In January 2017, Obama awarded Biden the Presidential Medal of Freedom with distinction, making him the first president to receive it before taking office. Go Phightins! 00:42, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

I disagree. Compared to previous Vice-Presidents, Biden did indeed do more than usual. It harkens back to the fact that when he first agreed to be VP, he did ask for certain areas in which he'd play a more active role - similarly, he mentioned he would want the same from his own VP. So I think it's fair to say that, especially when it comes to his work with Congress, he did most than your average VP, so the parallelism with George HW Bush does not work well. I would not remove from the lede some of the major legislation he played an important part in as VP. Eccekevin (talk) 02:51, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Go Phightins!, this looks pretty good to me (typo on "matters"). I'd be in favor of replacing the existing material in the lead with this. Ganesha811 (talk) 13:46, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Good catch on the typo, Ganesha811. Eccekevin, I understand your point, but I think the concern is that there is going to continue to be a need for the lede to address aspects of his presidency such that something is going to have to give. The vice presidency is covered in detail in the article, and it strikes me that there is an opportunity to do a more parsimonious summary here without losing meaning. Honestly, it's not entirely clear to me that the specific episodes mentioned in the lede are the most consequential per reliable sources except for, perhaps, the debt ceiling and implementing stimulus. I'd be fine keeping those two particulars in if that might be a possible compromise here. Go Phightins! 16:26, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying. It is true on the other hand that he's been president for not long yet, so there's no need to rush. The lede is also not particularly long, especially for such a high-profile figure, so I don't see the urge to cut. That said, I agree some cutting and synthesizing can be done in the VP paragraph, but I urge caution. I'd also ass that among the things I'd leave the Iraq part, as Biden has had quite a large role in those decisions, as Obama himself has said often. I think instead of cutting elements, we could cut the little explanations (such as "which resolved a taxation deadlock;" etc, since the reader can follow the link for the Legislation and find it for themselves). Eccekevin (talk) 22:24, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

I took a gentle swing at trimming the paragraph just now. For one thing, I moved what was the lead sentence to the end of the prior paragraph since it dealt with his time in the Senate. More than happy to keep this conversation going and/or for anyone who's interested to take another swing. I agree with Eccekevin that there's no particular rush. My own concern is mainly about undue weight; length, at this point, is secondary. Go Phightins! 22:36, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

I like what you did moving the election on the paragraph above and shortening it. Concerning the legislation that you cut, I think it's fine, but I re-added the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 because Biden was instrumental in its passing, since it was due to a deal between him and McConnnel. Again, I agree with you that it's about weight here since we have plenty of space. Eccekevin (talk) 22:38, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

That sounds good to me. Go Phightins! 22:48, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Nice. Unless others have huge objections, I think we came to an agreement. Eccekevin (talk) 22:39, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

I think this has been taken care of at this point? Go Phightins! 22:44, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Go Phightins!, further adjustments will be needed as Biden's presidency continues, but I agree we're at a good place for now. Ganesha811 (talk) 15:43, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Ganesha811, Yep. Concur. I think that's right. Go Phightins! 16:53, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 March 2021

I just request a template photo change. Radixsaurus (talk) 13:24, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: that's a pretty crummy photo, and quite low res. I don't see the problem with the current one Volteer1 (talk) 13:50, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Radixsaurus can I suggest you undoing the many edits you made to various Wikipedias adding this photo? It's low-quality compared to the current ones in use. Thanks. Elli (talk | contribs) 14:48, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Considering that the video it's taken from is 4 minutes long, I'm surprised that this would be the single frame chosen. He's not even looking at the camera. And the cropping is just weird. nagualdesign 04:16, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

WP:SPINOFF

Hi ChipotleHater: For sections where WP:SPINOFF already applies, I think we should keep them brief and simple. Normchou ^💬 20:38, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Posted below, will repost here. @Normchou: I don't understand how WP:SPINOFF applies to the revert you made. No new information was added, no sub-articles were added, and nothing was fundamentally changed in the content. I was merely splitting up the section (as it will be done at some point) to make it both easier to read and follow the standards of other president articles.

I think for a brief summary of the subject, four subheadings are excessive. Normchou ^💬 20:47, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

WP:SPINOFF only talks about subpages, not sections within an article. ChipotleHater (talk) 20:39, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

The subject "Presidency (2021–present)" already has its subpages Presidency of Joe Biden and Timeline of the Joe Biden presidency, so per WP:SPINOFF, the handling of that subject in the main article is condensed into a brief summary section. Normchou ^💬 20:44, 22 March 2021 (UTC); edited 21:01, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Border crisis

Over 100,000 people crossed into the US into the last month. There's literally boats crossing all day smuggling in people and crowds of people walking through Mexico. The Texas Guard has been deployed. Some towns in southern Texas have been experiencing problems with security from illegal immigrants. Why doesn't the article on Biden or the Presidency of Joe Biden even mention the border issue? Why are we censoring Wikipedia like the mainstream media? † Encyclopædius 17:47, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

If you have any reliable secondary sources to back up what you're saying I suggest that you add this information to U.S.-Mexico border crisis. This article is about Joe Biden, and unless there has been significant coverage directly linking what you're saying to Joe Biden, as you seem to be asserting, this would not be an appropriate article to mention it. That has nothing to do with censorship. nagualdesign 22:04, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, it doesn't have anything to do with censorship, but I think it does merit a sentence or two. Biden made his first address to the nation about the border issue, so it's not a small issue. Encyclopædius, you could add something through the BRD. Thanoscar21_{talk, contribs} 23:20, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

@Thanoscar21: - Biden's first address was actually on COVID. He had an interview where he addressed the border. starship.paint (exalt) 04:07, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't know that. Thanks for telling me. Thanoscar21_{talk, contribs} 14:17, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

The whole Presidency section is in a crappy state. Currently we're just mouthing-off the press releases of the Biden administration, direct quotes and nothing more. No mention of the well-reported drop of stimulus checks from 2k to 1.4k, nor the recent quotation of Biden calling Vladimir Putin a "killer" which resulted in the Russian ambassador to the U.S. being recalled for the first time in over 20 years. The border crisis is another aspect of this total absence of any substantive coverage of his presidency currently in the article. CaliIndie (talk) 03:27, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Exactly, agreed.† Encyclopædius 12:16, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Also the claim the parliamentarian was the reason the minimum wage increase was axed is a falsehood, the parliamentarian could've been overruled but the article implies the parliamentarian has final say. CaliIndie (talk) 03:30, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

What drop in stimulus checks? There was initial talk of $2000 checks, then $600 checks were approved and sent out, then $1400 checks were approved and sent out. That's not a drop, that's a split. The discussion was always about getting the payouts back to the total of $2000 that had been initially proposed.--Khajidha (talk) 15:47, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Added In March 2021, amid a rise in migrant adults and unaccompanied migrant children entering the U.S. from Mexico, Biden told migrants: "Don't come over." Biden stated that the U.S. was arranging to create a scheme for migrants to "apply for asylum in place", without leaving their original locations. In the meantime, migrant adults "are being sent back", said Biden, in reference to the continuation of the Trump administration's Title 42 policy for quick deportations. That month, the Biden administration directed the Federal Emergency Management Agency to help manage unaccompanied migrant children. starship.paint (exalt) 04:07, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Starship. You know, you don't have to add the full, exact text to the article, and in your edit summary and on the talk page. The content belongs in the article (until somebody argues...); the WP:ES and talk entries can be summaries. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 05:30, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Okay, John. starship.paint (exalt) 15:29, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Where does the source say " rise in migrant adults", I can see it talking about a rise among kids?Slatersteven (talk) 12:20, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Slatersteven original source said largest surge in migrant arrivals in 20 years. Another article: Last week, the DHS said more than 100,441 migrants attempted to cross the border in February alone, the highest since 2019. And 9,297 unaccompanied children were encountered at the US-Mexico border in February, according to official figures. [11]. But you’re right. It doesn’t say adults. It just says ‘migrants’. Would you like to add that back? starship.paint (exalt) 15:29, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

86 million dollars to put up illegal immigrants in hotel rooms. [12] † Encyclopædius 12:40, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

What's your point? Hotels have been used by immigration officials before, including last year, when hundreds of migrants, including children, were held in major hotel chains before being deported under President Donald Trump's pandemic border ban. It seems much more humane than cages. And I'm sure the hotels can use the business. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:53, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Do not write "illegal immigrants" here. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 22:51, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

In all fairness, Obama built the cages. Thanoscar21_{talk, contribs} 21:01, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, Migrants and another source says its children. So no I am not going to add back a word that is not supported, not when other sources say children.Slatersteven (talk) 17:29, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

References

It's more accurate to say that just under 100,000 migrants were detained at the border. While that is high, Trump's administration detained over 130,000 migrants in May 2019.[13] I suppose the estimate of successful migrants is based on the theory that for every migrant detained, at least one makes it through. But that's a big assumption. It's likely that more Mexicans tried to cross the border when Biden became president, mistakenly believing that would be less harsh on illegal immigration. In any case, it doesn't belong in the article until it receives more attention. TFD (talk) 21:52, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. Also, we need something more substantial, e.g. an EO or passage of a bill regarding this incident. At present, this part is not due for this article. Normchou ^💬 00:53, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Many outlets have attributed this crisis to Biden directly. He doesn't need to have personally manned the border crossing himself to warrant responsibility. CaliIndie (talk) 00:58, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

[I]t doesn't belong in the article until it receives more attention. Surely you're joking or I must've misread your statement. This is literally the biggest event of Biden's presidency right now. A quick Google search would paint that picture and probably earn a spot at the Louvre.

Obviously the migrants crossed because Biden was inaugurated and they thought it'd be a free ticket, thanks in no small part because of Biden's own campaign rhetoric. Yes, a border surge happened in 2019, just like it did in 2014 before that, but the difference here is the mismanagement on clear display that even outlets not one to so easily peddle criticism of Biden are taking heed of. And not counting migrants who are merely contained, the number at the border is far exceeding a mere 100k but are estimated at 2 million. I'll say though, with the mounting coverage of this entire crisis, it deserves its own article. CaliIndie (talk) 00:55, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

I would say that literally the biggest event of Biden's presidency is the coronavirus. Which is why we don't rely on our own personal opinions here. Also please keep WP:RECENTISM in mind. We are not a breaking news service. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:24, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm regurgitating the RS consensus and that wasn't even my main point, no opinions of mine were relayed, it's not as if I said something like: It seems much more humane than cages. And I'm sure the hotels can use the business. CaliIndie (talk) 01:50, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

The U.S. government has been detaining illegal immigrants in hotels for decades.[14] It's cheaper than Guantanamo Bay. I agreed that immigration is not the major issue in most news sources, it's coronavirus. TFD (talk) 02:23, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

You are providing sources, which is great, and I'm serious because we're used to getting yelled at and expletives in all caps. His administration is clearly focused primarily on the coronavirus, which is what the sources reflect. What they do on immigration is important and will be included, as appropriate. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:46, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: - per the Los Angeles Times, CTRL-F "Aaron", you can see a chart that most of the migrants entering in 2021 are adults. starship.paint (exalt) 08:56, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

That is better, I not most migrants entering in 2020 were adults too. But it doers show a rise leading up to (and after) Bidens ellection.Slatersteven (talk) 10:29, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

References

Minimum wage

@Aoi: @Ganesha811: You two don't understand how the legislative process works, not much else I can say. The minimum wage increase would be included in the bill itself, if you understand, the minimum wage vote was for an amendment proposed by Bernie Sanders because it was left out of the bill by the parliamentarian. Would it have enough votes? I don't care, but to say the parliamentarian has final say, as the article as it stands implies, it "inaccurate as it is written". Biden vouched for a minimum wage, which is included, the parliamentarian could've been overruled if the advocation for a minimum wage held true and was concrete. CaliIndie (talk) 21:29, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

The question still stands on the relevance that has to the article at hand. This article is not about the Minimum Wage, the Senate Parliamentarian, Kamala Harris, or the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021, it's about Joe Biden. If you can explain how Kamala Harris not overriding the Senate parliamentarian is relevant to Joe Biden, I'm all ears. But perhaps this piece of information would be more relevant in one of the above-listed articles. ChipotleHater (talk) 21:42, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Sure, you could make that point but if you do I suggest you remove the chunk pertaining to the parliamentarian cause it's a falsehood as it stands:

Biden also lobbied for an increase of the federal minimum wage, but this was not included in the final bill after the Senate parliamentarian said the provision violated strict rules.

So to any reader looking at this, they'll come away thinking Biden has his hands tied because of the parliamentarian and didn't have anything he could do to stop it. Well he didn't, because as pointed out with my edit:

The parliamentarian could've been overruled by Vice President Kamala Harris, however no action was taken to do so.

This is fair enough, and it was covered by RS at the time to boot. Now either we remove the aforementioned minimum wage advocacy which led to nothing, or we provide this explanation. That's my view. CaliIndie (talk) 21:46, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

With the Senate parliamentarians ruling, it meant that the amendment would've required 60 votes, not 50, essentially meaning it was all but dead. Sure, Kamala could've ruled over her, but I still don't see the relevance to the article. Biden isn't Kamala, and Kamala isn't Biden. She is her own person, and her not overruling the parliamentarian was her choice, not Biden's. If you can provide a RS that Biden consulted with Kamala to not overrule the parliamentarian, then I would be in favor of adding it. I would suggest adding it to American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 or Presidency of Joe Biden, as that is where you can go in-depth about the political process of the bill. This sentence is merely providing a broad summary of what happened.ChipotleHater (talk) 21:53, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Exactly, so I ask you why even bother providing Biden's lip service over this? Remove this altogether. CaliIndie (talk) 22:03, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Also, I initially missed this but you wanted some refs for Biden advocating not to overrule so here you go. CaliIndie (talk) 22:11, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Because his opinion on increasing the minimum wage is relevant to his article. ChipotleHater (talk) 22:13, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

I can't even begin to tell you how dumb it is to prioritize his words over his actions. CaliIndie (talk) 22:19, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello, you may be right about the Senate parliamentarian provision but because I've seen reliable sources conflict on the issue (I've seen articles on both the Washington Post and The Hill have indicate a vote would be required to overrule the parliamentarian's decision), I'd rather the page just stay silent on the mechanics of overruling the Parliamentarian. I also concur with ChipotleHater's point that whether or not Harris could have overruled the Parliamentarian is not directly relevant to this article, so it's probably not worth going in the weeds about it. Thanks, Aoi (青い) (talk) 22:30, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

This might be my last post to avoid WP:BLUD, but again I'll say it's both false and misleading to have this here when the very fact it could've been overruled still stands. I'm glad you think it being left out saved the stimulus bill from seeing denial in the Senate because of the filibuster (despite the firing of the parliamentarian just as easily leading to a new parliamentarian who could've said it didn't violate Senate rules on reconiliation just as the last one said it did, but I digress) but it stands no reasonable benefit to mouth off Biden's wishes that he could've pushed further but decided he didn't want to, and to document his wishes while avoiding the truth he did take measures to make sure it didn't see a further push, regardless of why, is just disingenuous. CaliIndie (talk) 22:46, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Also I've provided the refs of Biden saying not to overrule, so it does relate to him now. CaliIndie (talk) 22:50, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

There's also this article that says (among other things) White House officials, cognizant of the potential math problem with Senate Democrats if the minimum wage increase were in the final package, had been counting on the provision being stripped, the administration official told CNN. There's also this article which states: Liberal House Democrats are pleading with Vice President Kamala Harris to ignore the ruling of the Senate's parliamentarian and decide that the $15 federal minimum wage can stay in the Covid relief package during Senate floor debate this week. Such a move has not been employed since 1975 -- and taking that tack would generate pushback from senators from both parties who say relying on advice of the parliamentarian is paramount to maintaining order in the Senate. Moreover, the White House has been leery of taking that step, which would also generate staunch opposition from key centrist Democrats like Joe Manchin of West Virginia and risk tanking the underlying $1.9 trillion relief bill. I suspect there should be a way to incorporate the overruling of the parliamentarian into the article without needlessly going too deep into the mechanics of it. As written however, I agree with CaliIndie, it appears to give readers the idea that his hands were tied when it could have absolutely been forced in if he wanted it to be. —Locke Cole • t • c 23:05, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Proposed revision: The package included direct payments to most Americans, an extension of increased unemployment benefits, funds for vaccine distribution and school reopenings, support for small businesses and state and local governments, and expansions of health insurance subsidies and the child tax credit. Biden's initial proposal included an increase of the federal minimum wage to $15 per hour, but after the Senate parliamentarian determined that including the increase in a budget reconciliation bill would violate Senate rules, Democrats declined to pursue overruling the parliamentarian and the increase was removed from the package. The last clause there can probably be wordsmithed a little, but the keys are:

1. $15/hr was part of Biden's proposal (and passed the House)
2. The Senate parliamentarian ruled it didn't adhere to the Byrd rule for reconciliation bills
3. Democrats never pursued it further either by pushing VP Harris to just rule the other way or by trying to get to 51 votes to overturn the ruling, so we really can't say what would have happened. (When there was eventually a stand-alone vote during the "vote-a-rama," eight Dems voted against it, but those circumstances were different.

Thoughts? Go Phightins! 23:17, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm in favor of this edit or something along the lines of it, it's important we don't imply, even unintentionally, that the parliamentarian has unlimited power and that the potential overruling of him wasn't a big story at the time of the bill's creation and passage. CaliIndie (talk) 23:21, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

• Support—couldn't put it better myself. Thanoscar21_{talk, contribs} 00:03, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support. —Locke Cole • t • c 00:35, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

References

• I'm OK with the proposed language. While I still have concerns over whether the topic is WP:DUE, I do appreciate others' concern that additional context is needed. Thank you for proposing the language. Aoi (青い) (talk) 04:48, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

• I went ahead and changed the language. Anyone is free to wordsmith it as you please, but I think the content is appropriate now. Thanks to all. Go Phightins! 10:36, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

"Scheme"

(Copied from User talk:nagualdesign)

In American English, the word "scheme" implies deceit and underhandedness. It is a POV word to use in the article for the President of the United States. It might be totally fine for the Prime Minister of the UK. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:43, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

As I wrote in my edit summary, there is no difference between British and American English with the word scheme. You're conflating it with the difference between the noun and the verb. In the article, it is (or was) used as a noun to mean a program enacted by the government, which is perfectly WP:NPOV. A plan can mean something you intend to do, whereas a scheme (or program, initiative or project if you prefer) is something that's implemented, so "arranging a plan" just sounded clunky to me, and your reasoning seemed a bit silly.

I don't feel particularly strongly about it, but we should really leave it to others to decide which wording to use, so in future please follow WP:BRD (ie, don't revert a revert, and post responses on the article talk page).

In case there's any confusion, we're discussing this edit: [15]

nagualdesign 15:23, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't see an issue with the word scheme here. Elli (talk | contribs) 15:26, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't get particularly nefarious vibes from the word "scheme", and I don't think your average American would bat an eye at the phrase emissions trading scheme for instance. In this case though, "plan" is fine and if anything probably better, may as well leave it as it is now. Volteer1 (talk) 16:00, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

I see a problem with it. Another editor did as well. This is the BLP of the POTUS, and we're saying that the word "scheme" introduces negative bias: isn't that enough? Isn't it also just as easy to use "plan" or another word with no negative connotations? Also, as evidenced by the redirect, nobody calls it an "emissions trading scheme", it's colloquially called "cap and trade". – Muboshgu (talk) 16:27, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

As I said, "plan" is probably better, I don't think we have that substantive of a disagreement. Volteer1 (talk) 16:29, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Volteer1, I was replying to you and Elli at the same time there. Could've been more clear on that. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:30, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Concur with Muboshgu that the connotations of "scheme" in American English are more negative than in British English. No reason it can't be "plan" or some synonym. Go Phightins! 00:37, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Plan No American routinely uses "scheme" in the British sense. Granted, many yanks have heard the Brits` usage and understand what they are trying to say, but it would be needlessly confusing in this context. SPECIFICO talk 00:48, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Health Section?

With the recent stumbling on Air Force One and questions about his mental sharpness, I think it would be useful to address it. Avithemom (talk) 03:04, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

By all means, present reliable sources for discussion. ValarianB (talk) 14:04, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

The mental health part definitely won't be accepted. I'm sure it has been discussed before and rejected. starship.paint (exalt) 09:30, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Capitalization of "President of the United States" in infobox

I notice that unlike articles on his predecessors, "President" is not capitalized in Biden's infobox. Shouldn't it be, as "President of the United States" is a proper noun that is capitalized as such on U.S. government websites? Aeromachinator (talk) 07:27, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Sorry if this first answer is too terse, but maybe the guidance at MOS:JOBTITLES helps you? When the infobox says "46th President of the United States", the capital "P" is incorrect (just like 47th Vice Pres..."). — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 08:41, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

@JohnFromPinckney: Pardon me if I'm getting this wrong, but doesn't that only apply to text within the article and not the infobox? For the infobox, wouldn't it apply that it is denoting the title which Biden holds, being the 46th President? I think this should be changed. CaliIndie (talk) 11:27, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't see why it would make a difference in the infobox, at least not as used here. In the present case we're describing his office (it's just his job, five days a week ). It's really easy to be sure lowercase is right when the word is plural (senators) or follows a cardinal (32nd). More arguable is if we do something like title=President leading to just the word "President" (or with the whole OTUS bit), because then it's implied that we are (or might be) describing his title. He is President. See the example(s) with Nixon in the table at MOS:JOBTITLES. It takes more consideration than we're used to giving it, I find, and some cases are kind of borderline for me still. Hope this helps. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 14:47, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

I just get the impression in the context of the infobox we're moreso describing the various titles he's held than the office he's currently holding, since "46th" would denote he's this specific president representing a title more than an office, but I could be wrong. CaliIndie (talk) 15:52, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Why Was The New Castle County Office Removed?

This happened in i think in Dec 2020-Jan 2021, when i was reading the joe biden wiki, i noticed the next day that it was changed, it went from Senate Chairmanships To The Former Version And Then To Removing the new castle county office, joe served in the new castle county Council from 1971-1973, i wonder why it was removed, and it should be added back Ulepickid60 (talk) 04:50, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Ulepickid60, we removed it since the infobox was getting far too crowded. Thanoscar21_{talk, contribs} 23:51, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

New portrait for Joe?

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.

---

I saw on the 2024 Democratic Primaries page, theres a new photo being used for President Biden, which reflects his current apparence in 2021. The image is public domain and SHOULD be used imo.

Option 1

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gyijfvbjfg (talk • contribs) 02:58, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Oppose: It's fairly low-quality and not an official portrait. It's a candid shot of him having a conversation with someone, as opposed to the current photo, which he posed for. Using it simply because it's newer—in spite of its downsides—would be WP:RECENTISM. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 05:00, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

I mean, he's currently the president. This is obviously going to be the point in his life where he's most notable, I don't see a WP:RECENTISM bias introduced by updating the photo. Volteer1 (talk) 05:32, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Volteer1, when his new official portrait comes out, I agree that we should use that. My recentism concern is with using a candid shot in place of a portrait he posed for solely because of the date it was taken (elevating the importance of the date above all else). ― Tartan357 ^Talk 05:48, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Ahh, I understand what you mean. Yes, I agree. Volteer1 (talk) 05:50, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Support: Quality isn't amazing but it's perfectly fine otherwise. He's smiling, it's a good angle and the best part, it's more recent than 2013 when he was the incumbent vice president. CaliIndie (talk) 05:04, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

He's barely changed since 2013. Plus, there are shamrocks on his tie, which seems odd to have as the portrait. Thanoscar21_{talk, contribs} 14:42, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Biden's an Irish-American anyway, something he's made clear in the past. CaliIndie (talk) 01:37, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Oppose: I agree updating the photo makes sense, but I don't think this specific photo would be most appropriate (low res, not posing/facing the camera). Volteer1 (talk) 05:33, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Support: This is a good portrait to use as a placeholder since most other politicians and world leaders have already had their photos updated without any government officialization. For Example, Putin's image is in practically the same pose as Biden's and has the caption "Putin in 2018" because Putin's official Russian Presidential Photo was taken earlier. I think that this image would be OK but I show a bit more support for the Official White House website which shows him campaigning at Jackson, Mississippi. MahatmaGanadhi (talk) 13:38, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Support: On the basis that the photo was taken WHILE president. I fail to see how the quality of the photo is relevant, it’s a quality photo, both in terms of aesthetics and image quality. Also, in 2017, an informal photo was used on Donald Trump’s page as a placeholder for a while, and everybody seemed fine with that.Willform (talk) 06:46, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

The difference is no government official potrait existed at all for Trump since his presidency was the first time he served public office, but in this case we already have an official portrait to choose from (multiple actually), due to Biden's political tenure.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 12:02, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Support: IMHO until we have an official portrait, this new photo could be a quite good compromise. The pic is recent and he's smiling, so I think we should use it. -- Nick.mon (talk) 08:57, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Option 2

Support: I would like this image to be his Wikipedia picture until his official portrait comes out, as a sort of placeholder. For example, the Wikipedia pictures of Senators like Bernie Sanders, Tulsi Gabbard, Kyrsten Sinema are not their official portraits. So I think if we can use a non-official Portrait for Bernie Sanders, we can use a non-official portrait of Joe Biden as a placeholder for a few months.--Helloguyswhatisup (talk) 23:54, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 00:03, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Support: I would support this image to be the lead pic until his official portrait drops. Donald Trump had a picture like this on this main page until his official portrait came through in September 2017 I believe. Is there any other possible options? Just so that we can have a variety of options. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 09:42, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

The difference is no government official potrait existed at all for Trump since his presidency was the first time he served public office, but in this case we already have an official portrait to choose from (multiple actually), due to Biden's political tenure.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 12:01, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

@Spy-cicle: There is no difference really. Look at Beto O'Rourke, Bernie Sanders, Tulsi Gabbard etc. how their outdated official portraits were replaced with up to date portrait-style photographs. In this case, I feel that having Biden's vice presidential portrait while he's the president is very outdated in itself. We have roughly six months until an official portrait is released and at the mean time I think option 1 is better suited to serve as the lead image. I don't support option 2 because I feel that the pocket of shamrocks might be too distracting and of focus of Biden's face. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 13:39, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

This article is about Biden, not anyone else. Plus, Biden's tie has shamrocks on it, so that's just as distracting. Thanoscar21_{talk, contribs} 14:41, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

@Thanoscar21: Of course this is Biden's page what I'm saying is that official portraits of politicians being replaced with images that are more up to date has been happening. The argument of "oh this is an official vice president portrait" should not have that much weight. Also, if you read what I said I do not support option 2 which has the shamrocks, I support option 1. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 15:14, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

TDKR Chicago 101, if you read what I said, you'd see that the tie has shamrocks on it, and the tie is present in both pictures. Thanoscar21_{talk, contribs} 15:30, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

TDKR Chicago 101, the argument of official portraits being replaced with images that are more up to date has been happening should also not have much weight. Unless there's a guideline behind it, what happens on other pages is not relevant here. See WP:OTHERCONTENT. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 18:08, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Oppose for all the same reasons as outlined in every single one of these requests that keep occuring. Let's wait until they release the official portrait no need to rush. His official potrait from 2013 is far better quality than this image in addition to him actually posing for that photo. Moreover, he has not significantly changed appearance wise since 2013.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 11:58, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

• No Low-quality, sucks, unnecessary. ValarianB (talk) 12:18, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
• Strong, strong, strong oppose! -- Why are people so obsessed with the portrait? We can wait a couple more months, it's not that big of a deal. Thanoscar21_{talk, contribs} 14:30, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Note to closer: we had a discussion with ample participation on a new picture from mid-Feb to mid-March, where I concluded that there was consensus to wait for the official portrait. starship.paint (exalt) 14:55, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

• How about leaving it alone? Trillfendi (talk) 15:05, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
• Facepalm Don't we have better things to worry about than changing the photo? I oppose until there's an official portrait. If they ever get around to releasing one. The 2013 photo is fine. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:21, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

I'd like to note that a lot of the above "support" arguments are just variations of WP:OTHERCONTENT. This article is about Biden, not Donald Trump, not Vladimir Putin, not Bernie Sanders, or anyone else. Arguments should address what is best for this page. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 18:05, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose per Spy-cicle and the fact that, to me at least, he looks like he's giving a cheeky wink. There's already an established consensus from previous RfCs to wait for his presidential portrait. nagualdesign 00:08, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose wait for a new official portrait. Elli (talk | contribs) 00:24, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose There's no rush, wait for the official portrait. The detail of the shamrocks in his tie makes it more unsuitable. Frodar (talk) 23:07, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose previous RfC consensus was to wait for an official WH 2021 portrait, while keeping 2013 image. Pseud 14 (talk) 15:54, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose We should wait for an official portrait and then add that one. Bernspeed (talk) 10:40, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Wait for the official portrait. Mgasparin (talk) 20:37, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

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

Draft?

No mention of his being drafted into the forces. Was this because he was at university? Valetude (talk) 22:13, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

from Washingtontimes[16] 5 student deferments, and then a medial exemption for asthma. A mention could be put in early life if decided. Based on talk page archives it was mentioned at least at some time during articles history. Alternate sources:[17], others out there, mostly from 2008 when he released his selective service draft card [18]. WikiVirusC^(talk) 22:28, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

@Valetude and WikiVirusC: [19] added. starship.paint (exalt) 13:50, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

New Castle County Council

Maybe add that Biden was a member of the New Castle County Council from the 4th district from 5th Jan 1971 to 1st Jan 1973. But keep the Senate chairmanships in the other offices section as to avoid the info box containing too much stuff. People reading the page may just think Joe Biden got to the Senate without any prior political experience. UpstairsSignificance (talk) 16:49, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm sure they can figure out his Council membership by, well, reading the 2nd paragraph of the intro. ValarianB (talk) 18:34, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

They can also figure out he is president by the first sentence, yet we have an infobox saying so. I think this is a reasonable suggestion to outline his elected career without adding too much bloat. Urve (talk) 00:09, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I'm aware they can figure that out without having this in the infobox, but I think it would be helpful to people who don't usually read things other than the infobox (most people) UpstairsSignificance (talk) 18:39, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

"Chair of.............."

Should we include the committees he chaired (when he was a senator) in the infobox? I recall seeing that in January/February until it was removed in March. On Bernie's infobox it displays that he's chair of the Senate Budget Committee.

Shouldn't we also include how he was a County Councillor in the infobox too? Ak-eater06 (talk) 20:32, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

No, we should not. We have had an RfC about this. The infobox is not the place for every minute detail. Surtsicna (talk) 20:56, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

@Surtsicna: yeah but Bernie's has it. Shouldn't we keep it consistent? Ak-eater06 (talk) 13:50, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Bernie is an active Senator, Biden has gone on to be VP and Prez after his Senate career. We make choices to condense as a career lengthens. ValarianB (talk) 14:40, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

WP:OTHERCONTENT, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Thanoscar21_{talk, contribs} 23:43, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

First 100 days

In a few weeks Biden will have reached his first 100 days of his Presidency. Would be sensible for an article be written then for greater detail than will be permissible in the Presidency article? As it was written/created for Obama's and Trump's first 100 days. Pseud 14 (talk) 21:37, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

New portrait has been released?

Forgive me for using Twitter as a source, but I just saw this today: https://twitter.com/BidenHarrisBro/status/1377501247876390916 Can anybody confirm or know where the full-res, color photos are? Some people in the thread are saying these aren't official portraits but were just used for the inaugural. Basil the Bat Lord (talk) 05:32, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

I think we'd rather wait for a source more official than "@BidenHarrisBro", as well-intentioned as they may be. ValarianB (talk) 12:30, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Here's the photo on the Navy's website. Mary Gaulke (talk) 21:15, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

It’s really just a similar photo in a different year. Trillfendi (talk) 21:20, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Image Caption

I added "Official portrait, 2021" as the image caption but the edit was reverted. Why? MogasTheThird (talk) 18:03, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

I think a caption of this portrait now is unnecessary. Just read the lead in WP:CAPTION. It is a bit obvious that it is the official portrait. Frodar (talk) 18:22, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

It's arguably unnecessary, but it isn't actually obvious by looking at it that this image was taken in 2021 so I think we should keep the caption, although I would also support "Biden in 2021" or WTTE. nagualdesign 20:30, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Keep the caption, it is neither obvious that this is the official portrait, nor that it was taken in 2021. He's got plenty of posed portraits taken of him at various dates. --GRuban (talk) 20:40, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

I concur with GRuban, keep the caption. He has had many official portrait in the various positions he has held, nor that it obvious that was taken in 2021.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 21:15, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Agree, the caption should stay. Thanoscar21_{talk, contribs} 22:07, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, I see no reason not to keep the caption. Elli (talk | contribs) 00:07, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Agree with adding "Biden in 2021" as caption.  Nixinova   T   C   00:08, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Agree with using the caption. Not obvious that the image is from 2021. starship.paint (exalt) 07:32, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

You guys slay me. Countless posts here have argued that we desperately, urgently need an updated picture, although ol' Joe hasn't changed much since his VP days. Now we need to caption the updated and extremely current ultra-newest photo because, well, we can't really tell how old the pic is. You kill me, really. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 20:34, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

I think most of us argued that we should wait for an official portrait, that the previous image was okay for the time being because he hasn't changed drastically, and now agree that it isn't obvious that this image is from this year, as opposed to last year or several years ago. Nothing contradictory in that, is there? nagualdesign 07:54, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Such a caption is only clutter. It is entirely reasonable to expect that the infobox portrait of a US president is a recent official portrait. I see nothing informative in it. Surtsicna (talk) 12:09, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

I truly never understand this "clutter" argument. It's not "clutter" or "distracting", it's there to describe the image. Biden has had many portraits and photographs taken that the details of this are not so obvious. It's not doing anything negative by being there, so keep the caption. I'm sure there are more pressing issues about this article other than that. "Biden in 2021" feels like it should be used on a general picture of him. The current caption works well for the official portrait. Randusk (talk) 14:34, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Three words on a page that takes 10s to load on 4G is not my definition of "clutter".  Nixinova   T   C   20:32, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 April 2021

In the introductory section's third paragraph, describing policy actions, Biden's planned withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan should be featured as it is a major foreign policy measure. 138.51.244.29 (talk) 04:30, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:14, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 April 2021-Joe Biden bio

the Please capitalize the word 'American' the end of first paragraph. Thank you. 184.88.104.214 (talk) 05:24, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

I actually just deleted the entire sentence. There seem to be several discussions about this in the archive and it doesn't look like there was ever consensus to add that to the article lead. Aoi (青い) (talk) 05:53, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Senate chairmanships collapsible list in the infobox

I thought the idea for making a collapsible list of the chairmanships was also rejected in earlier discussions because it still lengthened the infobox on mobile? - Bokmanrocks01 (talk) 13:32, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, and so I have removed it. Surtsicna (talk) 08:19, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Is there a solution to the removal of detail that comes with removing the extended offices? Sure, if someone wants to know additional offices they can scroll down to the succession boxes but those only show the year he held those offices without any specific dates. (For example: The succession box says he was the Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee from 1987–1995 but doesn't specify that it was from January 3, 1987 – January 3, 1995). That could be potentially important no? Krisgabwoosh (talk) 21:21, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Seems like exact dates for these things would be most appropriate in the list of office holders. --Khajidha (talk) 12:28, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Official portraits released on Navy website

https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:1x7LF_gh-XUJ:https://www.navy.mil/COMMANDER-FLEET-ACTIVITIES-YOKOSUKA/+&cd=25&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

The photo has been uploaded to the Commons. Floridian (Talk) 00:37, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Cool. I think it's time to change the portraits. Basil the Bat Lord (talk) 00:46, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Don’t think this is an official WH portrait, it’s an image released from the Navy website. Pseud 14 (talk) 01:12, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

It is. Navigate to its description page. "WASHINGTON (March 3, 2021) Official portrait of President Joe Biden, March 3, 2021. (U.S. Navy photo courtesy of the White House by Adam Schultz)" Floridian (Talk) 01:19, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Certainly looks like it. It is probably already on some part of a WH website or very soon to be I imagine, a simliar one has been added at Kamala Harris. In the unlikely event this is not a "official WH portrait" this certainly is an official one of some kind and is better than the previous one.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 01:20, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Offical Caption is "Courtesy of the White House" so i think because of that it is (User_talk:Phillypaboy123Talk — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phillypaboy123 (talk • contribs) 01:22, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Finally, no more "we should change the picture" debates. Thanoscar21_{talk, contribs} 12:45, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank god Phillypaboy123 (talk

Amen to that! nagualdesign 20:29, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Dear god, this one looks worse than the one we were already using. Both his eyes are basically closed all the way. I genuinely think the old one is the better one to use as the lead image. Anirudhgiri (talk) 22:23, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Meh, this is the one he's stated a preference for, so I think we should use it. It likely is going to be the way he is depicted for the next four years, regardless. The fact that he doesn't photograph particularly well is... well, not something we can do much about. Elli (talk | contribs) 00:08, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

But he looks exactly the same as he did eight years ago.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1012:B142:A5FC:80CF:3864:8A92:FB3C (talk) 23:57, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

He does. I don't really have a preference, but some insist on having the absolute latest picture. Thanoscar21_{talk, contribs} 21:16, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 April 2021

I would love to add about how he's helping america and one about his sexuality. Laurenleyo (talk) 14:28, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Pupsterlove02 talk • contribs 14:33, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

RfC: "serving as" vs. "is"

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 the lead be written as:

A:

Joseph Robinette Biden Jr.^{[n 1]} (born November 20, 1942) is an American politician who is the 46th president of the United States.

B:

Joseph Robinette Biden Jr.^{[n 1]} (born November 20, 1942) is an American politician serving as the 46th president of the United States.

I don't have any preference yet, I'll chime in once a few points are made. Thanoscar21_{talk, contribs} 00:54, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

• I think the same points raised in the Donald Trump discussion on the same thing apply here. There are some trends on which presidents "who is" vs "serving as" (or the past tense of each) is used. There is no logical answer to this question that solely applies to Joe Biden or any single president. Accordingly, it should probably be discussed on a relevant WikiProject or MOS talk page as a general matter for presidents, or for office holders in general. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:59, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
• While I concur that this is a question that should have a project-wide MOS-informed answer, I strongly prefer the "serving as" construction because it recognizes that President of the United States is an office one holds, not a person one becomes (i.e. a monarchy). This is informed more by democratic/linguistic values than any particular Wikipedia policy, though. Go Phightins! 01:05, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
• "Is" is more appropriate, since "serving as" can suggest something akin an Acting President. "Is" is what was used for Donald Trump and previous presidents, so I do not see why it should not be used for Joe Biden. Serve is also clunkier and awkward. One does not say "Who served as President in 1895?", but "Who was President in 1895", for example. In the present tense, we wouldn't say "Who is serving ass the President of the United States", but we would say "Who is President of the United States?'. Eccekevin (talk) 22:35, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Wait.. who's serving ass?! nagualdesign 17:00, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

• "Who Is" - I agree with @Eccekevin above--Steamboat2020 (talk) 05:18, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
• Is - per Eccekevin. --Khajidha (talk) 15:18, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
• is per Donald Trump as of 3/16/17 and Barack Obama as of 3/16/09. ValarianB (talk) 16:28, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
• Is per Eccekevin – "serving as" seems clunky to me, and I don't feel any of the monarchistic allusions Go Phightins! is talking about. Actually, I think I prefer and the over either of the two. Volteer1 (talk) 16:48, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
• is. "serving as" sounds less definitive somehow. Perfectly standard English and nothing to do with "the person one becomes". nagualdesign 17:00, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
• Comment I also don't see any of the monarchical allusions. We use "is" all the time to refer to politicians when refering to the position they hold, without any allusions to non-democratic systems.Eccekevin (talk) 19:03, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Not just politicians; My Old Man's a Dustman, Pearl's a Singer and Jerry Was a Race Car Driver. nagualdesign 20:32, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

• and like in our Trump article during his presidency (see ValarianB above). --Distelfinck (talk) 19:16, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

I think we've pretty much reached a consensus here. Happy to withdraw my comment. It's a preference, and probably just an idiosyncratic one that struck me in the moment. No concern if someone wants to make the change. Go Phightins! 22:45, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

• Is per EccekevinSea Ane (talk) 13:30, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
• Serving as - unless we're going to make a corresponding change in the Kamala Harris intro. GoodDay (talk) 18:48, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
• "Who is" (Summoned by bot) - is plain, clear, concise English and normal phrasing. I'm not quite sure what 'serving as' is intended to convey, but it certainly implies some doubt about whether the person really is in that position for the foreseeable future, or is simply the 'stand-in'. I was puzzled when I first came across this usage on WP and still don't see why it is used or what precisely it hopes to convey. Pincrete (talk) 06:48, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
• who is currently serving as the 46th president... – I think "46th and current" is a unnecessarily wordy in my opinion; I also think it sounds better (though I admit that's hard to substantiate). chri. (talk | contribs) 00:15, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
• who is for same reason Eccekvein pointed out such as confusion with an "acting president" or someone temporarily serving. WikiVirusC^(talk) 18:00, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
• is The longer version just adds characters while making things less clear. He IS president. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 23:25, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
• is Clear, succinct, no opportunity for possible misinterpretation. Shearonink (talk) 03:01, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Serving as Chandan Kanti Paul (talk) 15:33, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 April 2021

plz lift the protrction for me and i am assure you that i will follow all the policy of wikipedia Mohammed.Khandwala (talk) 20:25, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

plz lift the protrction for me and i am assure you that i will follow all the policy of wikipedia Mohammed.Khandwala (talk) 20:26, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:29, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

he is the president

Yes, we say he is, so what is your point?Slatersteven (talk) 17:41, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Religion

Is it okay to have someone add a Religion section (Catholic) in the quick facts or is that not necessary? CyberSecurityGuy (talk) 12:47, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

The documentation for the infobox for officeholders (the thing in the top right of the article, which you seem to be referring to) includes the following:

Please note that in June 2017, the |religion= parameter was removed from Infobox officeholder as a result of this discussion.

--Distelfinck (talk) 20:01, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Border wall

The beginning summary says that Joe Biden reversed the Trump border wall, but at the same time doesn't mention that Alejandro Mayorkas revived parts of the construction of the border barrier. Wouldn't that make this page a little misleading?

--HyettsTheGamer2 (talk) 23:49, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

• @HyettsTheGamer2: - are you referring to this? Marginally reliable source, which only says that Alejandro Mayorkas told department employees he may restart border wall construction - no confirmation yet. starship.paint (exalt) 10:51, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

2021 withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan

The last paragraph of the lead (the presidency paragraph) should condense a bit the part on executive orders and briefly reference the 2021 withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan. RedHotPear (talk) 19:04, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Two navigational templates with identical content

Why does this article need both Template:Joe Biden and Template:Joe Biden series, the content of which is identical? This makes the official portrait appears four times in the article. Besides duplicating the content and the function of the navbox, the sidebar invades the Early life section with which it has little to do, pushing the 1965 image down from where it belongs. Other articles having two identical navigational templates is quite a crappy reason for this article to have two identical navigational templates. Surtsicna (talk) 21:05, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't think OTHERSTUFF applies here. Wikipedia:WikiProject United States Presidents seems to have a consistent local MOS about this; it would make sense to then have consistency among articles. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 21:42, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Also, this doesn't only affect presidents. If I'm understanding what you're asking correctly (removing the sidebar as duplication) that would have the effect, if implemented on a wide scale, of removing almost all sidebars from all articles, as they duplicate the navboxes. This is really a proposal for the village pump. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 21:44, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

The page you linked to says: "Not every president warrants a series box. Harrison, Taylor, Garfield are good examples. Use good judgement as to whether a president warrants a series box." Not all articles have sidebars and navboxes with identical content, so this is really not that revolutionary. What I am asking is: why does this article need two identical navigational templates? Why does it need a crammed-in series box that distorts the layout? Surtsicna (talk) 21:48, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

@Surtsicna, @AllegedlyHuman Hi, as I have created some of the Presidential Sidebars, according to me it should be kept in the article as it provides easy navigation through various articles. As you already mentioned that not all articles have sidebars and navboxes are with identical content, its not a big deal, but the main issue is when Sidebars are added with many links and are extremely long, like Joe Biden series or Donald Trump series, which actually distorts the layout, makes it as similar as navboxes and doesn't help in easy navigation. Sidebar Templates should be short and should not distort the layout like John F. Kennedy series or Grover Cleveland series. Also, navboxes are on bottom on the page, while Sidebars are either in beginning or somewhere in middle of the article, which makes it much more noticeable than navboxes. Any president who has served less than 2 years should not get a Sidebar (except in exceptional cases). Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:11, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

I am confused. Biden has not been president for more than 2 years, so why do you think the article needs a sidebar? Surtsicna (talk) 16:32, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

@Surtsicna Due to his previous experience as vice president and long term senator, and Wikipedia has many articles related to him. While writing that statement, I felt that any person who has been President in history for less than 2 years should not get an Sidebar due to less information, or less Wikipedia articles related to his Presidency (like Harrison, Taylor, Garfield). I feel that if there are many articles related to anyone who served less than 2 years, we can have a Sidebar for him. Also, this two year mark is not a formal requirement specified by Wikipedia. Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:49, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

But why are all of those links repeated at the bottom? And do we at least agree that the sidebar in this article is too long and too repetitive? Can we lose the redundant photograph and the likewise redundant links (e.g. to Joe Biden#Early life)? It will never be short enough to stay out of sections in which it is not relevant but it can be made less intrusive. Surtsicna (talk) 18:41, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

• Remove the box per Surtsicna. It is very intrusive on the content of this article when it's at the top of the lead, and all the info is found on the other box. Readers come here to read about Biden in prose, not for a "series" about him.  — Amakuru (talk) 07:03, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Independent politician

Hi AzureCitizen, Politicsfan4! Excuse me for pinging you here but I'd like to understand why should we specify that Biden was an independent before joining the Democratic Party in 1968; this is quite clear and obvious, no one borns as a "Registered Democrat". AzureCitizen, you cited important examples, but those politicians changed their membership while they were "active" politicians, or even while they were holding offices. It's not this situation. So my question is: why do we have to specify that Biden was an Independent (while he was a simple citizen) and we don't have to do it for other presidents like Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and so on? Thank you :) -- Nick.mon (talk) 18:27, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

@Nick.mon: According to the article he specifically stood for office as an independent in 1968.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:54, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

@Amakuru: Oh, my bad! I didn’t know it! -- Nick.mon (talk) 19:37, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Category:Candidates in the 2020 United States presidential election

Per the container category Category:Candidates in the 2020 United States elections, "This category only includes non-incumbents and candidates who did not win election." I would assume this also applies for Category:Candidates in the 2020 United States presidential election; however, when I removed the category it was reverted by another editor simply calling me "incorrect." Bringing this here for further discussion. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 01:12, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

@AllegedlyHuman: since the category is pretty clearly non-defining for people who won election, yeah, it should be removed. Elli (talk | contribs) 18:59, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Ugh, on second thought... I'm not so sure. For one, Category:Candidates in the 2020 United States presidential election should really only have people in it - not categories for people (Wiki categorization like this is a mess). Secondly, that really should not be a category at all, it should be a list (of which we have many). Elli (talk | contribs) 19:01, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

This article should not have been removed from the category Candidates in the 2020 United States presidential election. Biden was a candidate in the 2020 United States presidential election, and, candidates, win or lose, incumbent or challenger, can be included in it. Drdpw (talk) 22:51, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Why on Earth would we have Category:Candidates in the 2020 United States elections and not include incumbents and the winners of said elections? That makes no sense. I think it's the parent category that needs to be modified, and as such, this conversation should probably occur as an RFC on Category talk:Candidates in the 2020 United States elections. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 16:05, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

ONUnicorn, that same disclaimer is on every "Candidates in the x election" category. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 19:10, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Then we should likely have the discussion on Category talk:American political candidates by year, as the result should ideally apply to all categories in that category. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 20:00, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Or maybe Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 20:01, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 May 2021

I need to add that he is the 46 president of the united states and that he is in good health.Arebenack1 (talk) 15:15, 12 May 2021 (UTC) Arebenack1 (talk) 15:15, 12 May 2021 (UTC) ayden rebenack

Not sure we need to add in good health, but we say he is 46th Pres.Slatersteven (talk) 15:18, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:25, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 May 2021 (2)

change:

"The oldest child in a Catholic family, he has a sister, Valerie, and two brothers, Francis and James."

to:

"The oldest child in a Catholic family, he has a sister, Valerie, and two brothers, Francis and James."

Reason:

Catholic directs to the generic (small c) Christian term, not the Roman Catholic Church to which this sentence actually refers to. Editorrandom2124 (talk) 23:49, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

 Done – Muboshgu (talk) 23:58, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Anachronistic Caption?

There is a caption that reads:

Biden with his two predecessors, Barack Obama and Donald Trump, at the latter's inauguration on January 20, 2017

Except that at the time the picture was taken, neither Obama nor Trump were Biden's predecessors, as Biden had not been elected President, and neither Trump nor Obama served as Vice President. Tpkatsa (talk) 21:50, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

makes sense. I dropped the "his two predecessors," part. ValarianB (talk) 18:53, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Lack of Criticism

Why is there no substantive criticism or analysis of Joe Biden's political positions, personal character, nor even a whiff of scandal mentioned in this article (e.g. Biden's connections to China, Hunter Biden, and so on)? This article reads like a hagiography when compared with entries on previous presidents, e.g. Obama and Trump. The fact that Biden has been President for a short while is irrelevant; he has a nearly 50-year political career to examine. What are Wikipedia editors afraid of? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tpkatsa (talk • contribs)

Could you provide reliable sources for these? Thanks. Mrytzkalmyr (talk) 17:12, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

@Tpkatsa: - we cover Hunter Biden. In September 2019, it was reported that Trump had pressured Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky to investigate alleged wrongdoing by Biden and his son Hunter Biden.[309] Despite the allegations, as of September 2019, no evidence has been produced of any wrongdoing by the Bidens.[310][311][312] What else do you know? starship.paint (exalt) 08:07, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

I just noticed that the touching / assault allegations were removed [20] last month, they were sent to Joe Biden 2020 presidential campaign. I will restore / add the important / summarized parts to this article. starship.paint (exalt) 08:15, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

In March 2019 and April 2019, Biden was accused by eight women of previous instances of inappropriate physical contact, such as embracing, touching or kissing. Biden had previously described himself as a "tactile politician" and admitted this behavior has caused trouble for him. In April 2019, Biden pledged to be more "respectful of people's personal space".

In late March 2020, Tara Reade, one of the eight women who previously accused Biden of inappropriate physical contact, made a new allegation against Biden, accusing him of a 1993 sexual assault. There were inconsistences between Reade's 2019 and 2020 allegations. Biden and his campaign vehemently denied the sexual assault allegation.

References

starship.paint (exalt) 09:13, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

I'd like to see a short sentence about that time he kept falling up those stairs, then blamed the wind, it was unprecedented. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:19, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 May 2021

As a head of state, should there not be a prefix used? Officially, The Honorable is used here and here as an honorific for the president within the U.S., and the UN here indicates Excellency internationally. Is it not correct to use The Honorable as a style in the infobox, since that is used as an official style within the U.S.? Randusk (talk) 16:38, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done as this is not being used "to address" the subject. Feel free to continue discussing this below, and if a consensus to make the change emerges reactivate the edit request. — xaosflux ^Talk 17:25, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Redundant words

The first sentence of the article says that Biden "is an American politician who is the 46th and current president of the United States." The fact that the US President is an American politician seems redundant, to the point of being ridiculous, and I propose deleting the first five quoted words. Richard75 (talk) 12:20, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Before becoming president, he was a longtime senator and a vice president. "Politician" is the job which most defines him. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 18:26, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Same Sex Marriage

Under Political Positions, it reads "Biden has supported abortion rights, same-sex marriage...". As is mentioned elsewhere on the page, Biden was vocally opposed and voted against same-sex marriage initiatives at least until 2006, and did not come out in favor of same-sex marriage until 2012. A suggested sentence below:

Instead of: Biden has supported abortion rights,[397] same-sex marriage,[398] the Roe v. Wade decision, and since 2019 has supported repealing the Hyde Amendment (a rule barring the use of federal funds to pay for abortion).

It should read: Biden has supported abortion rights[397] and the Roe v. Wade decision, has supported same-sex marriage since 2012 after voting for the Defense of Marriage ACt in 1996 and affirming traditional marriage in a 2008 vice presidential debate.,[398] , and since 2019 has supported repealing the Hyde Amendment (a rule barring the use of federal funds to pay for abortion).

Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/21/us/politics/biden-gay-rights-lgbt.html

_{The above unsigned comment was left by an anonymous IP at 17:30 on 9 May 2021.}

Absolutely. --BonsMans1 (talk•contributions), 12:06, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

President Info box

His box for being president seems to be removed. This needs to be added back in.

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. That second template was removed as a result of this discussion. There would need to be a new consensus formed to override the previous one. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:43, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

The sidebar should be put back into the article. It’s useful for readers and is included in previous president’s articles. 2A00:23C5:2C03:2D00:496C:4E4E:8994:9D0D (talk) 12:03, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

I do not agree. It does not offer anything that is not already in the article, while taking up space that can be filled by useful content (e.g. images). Surtsicna (talk) 15:22, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 June 2021

blank key way he wanted everyone to like him thats why he gave at all that money 108.59.55.247 (talk) 17:34, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

What?Slatersteven (talk) 17:35, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Elli (talk | contribs) 17:39, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 May 2021

Joe Biden ran with President Obama in 44th.. Not the 47 as it is stated. We havent had a 47th president till 2024. Please fix this error ! 174.215.215.174 (talk) 08:10, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done - I assume you're talking about the first paragraph of the article. Obama was indeed the 44th president but Biden was not the 44th vice president. The US has had more vice presidents than vice presidents. Aoi (青い) (talk) 08:14, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

See also List of vice presidents of the United States. Aoi (青い) (talk) 08:16, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Lead sentence

[21] I suggest writing the lead as Joseph Robinette Biden Jr. is an American politician who has served since 2021 as the 46th and current president of the United States. ("and current" may perhaps be redundant). I don't feel particularly strongly about this matter, but it sounds best to my ear, and I think the year in the first sentence will be helpful as we enter 2022–2025. There was a previous RfC that did not examine this choice. Some examples of sitting officeholder articles that use this format are Mitch McConnell and Jacinda Ardern. — Goszei (talk) 21:01, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't exactly see how this would be an improvement over the current lead sentence. Throast (talk) 18:26, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Requesting a sentence to be added

I'm requesting for the following sentence to be added to Biden's 2020 Election summary at the start of his article. "During Biden's campaign, many people became concerned over Biden's gaffes and comments regarding race and ethnicities." I'm not trying to smear the page in a negative way or anything like that. I noticed Trump's page included a same type of sentence with people concerned over his "language" so I feel it's only necessary to include one for Biden as people were also concerned over his language. I would appreciate it if the sentence were reworded appropriately if needed and sourced properly if needed as well. Lostfan333 (talk) 16:41, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

It has a brief mention in Joe_Biden#Reputation, which IMO is sufficient. ValarianB (talk) 18:29, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

That's the problem. It's brief, and needs to be further explained. If the sentence won't be added at the beginning of the article, then it should be expanded into the Reputation section. Lostfan333 (talk) 21:00, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Disagree. I think that's sufficient. I also don't agree with the WP:FALSEBALANCE you brought up in your initial post on Trump. Biden saying "If you have a problem figuring out whether you're for me or Trump, then you ain't black" is not at all the same as Trump's "many fine people on both sides" regarding a Neo-Nazi march. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:17, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Biden claims Antifa is an idea even though Antifa members have caused death. One specific sentence won't hurt President Biden. Trump's article is extremely specific. Lostfan333 (talk) 01:00, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Antifa is legitimately not an organization. That's not just Biden's opinion but the overwhelming consensus of political scientists as well. Wouldn't you know it, but we have a page on exactly that. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 02:32, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

I simply think that Biden's reputation section from this page needs further details and specific reasons why people would complain about Biden during his campaign. Lostfan333 (talk) 03:29, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

That would be more appropriate in Joe Biden 2020 presidential campaign. What did Biden do during his campaign that was extremely notable that people complained about? I mean, this is politics, opponents complain, that's normal. It has to be something big to be included in this page? I don't think the Antifa comment is particularly egregious. starship.paint (exalt) 07:13, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

MOS:CURRENTLY, again

AllegedlyHuman, we've been over the "46th and current" issue before, here, and here. Saying "and current" is redundant, adding two words that add no value. Where is there consensus saying to include it? I don't see any. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:57, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

I wasn't reverting your edit, I was reverting to a clean version following the link a user added before yours, based on the hidden text at the end of that paragraph. I have no opinion on this matter generally. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 20:00, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Understood. I'm hoping that there's consensus here that the "and current" is redundant and unnecessary. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:12, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Well, the last person who added it also cited the same style guideline to support the addition. So, someone is in the wrong here. Zaathras (talk) 20:55, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

I think it's reasonable to include "and current" here - it provides immediate context. And let's be honest - this page will probably be updated within a minute of Joe Biden no longer being the president. Elli (talk | contribs) 04:50, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Add this

All I see in this Article are positive things about Biden, it's maybe time to make this article seem less biased and add some criticism. I request this to be added. Feel free to shift a few words so it matches with other sentences.

During the press conference at the Geneva Summit, Biden stated that "as usuals," he had been given a list of reporters to call upon to ask questions. Conservative figures such as Rep. Greg Steube reacted on Twitter by asking: "How is this acceptable?" and Steve Guest, a special advisor for communications for Sen. Ted Cruz, called it "embarassing." Reavery (talk) 08:47, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

References

NOt sure this is a major (or even minor) controversy.Slatersteven (talk) 09:48, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. Two WP:FOXNEWS links does not a story make. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 02:33, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Lol, Fox Hysterics. Nope. Zaathras (talk) 02:58, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Sidebar

The sidebar containing Template:Joe Biden series was removed as a result of this discussion. This discussion had two in favor of removal and two against removal; I would argue that is not a consensus for removal but that is besides the point.

The two main criticisms of the sidebar brought up was that 1) it invades into the early life section and pushes an image found within and 2) has repeated information with the Template:Joe Biden at the bottom.

First, the Wikiproject for US Presidents has a style guide for all presidential sidebars and clearly states that "When placing a series box, ensure that it does not conflict with the article's body, and rearrange any photos necessary to make the box fit cleanly, and effectively." This seems to remedy the first criticism, just move the photo found in the Early Life section so it does not conflict with the sidebar.

But secondly and most importantly, every US President since LBJ have the exact same 'issues' within their own articles. All of their series boxes are somewhat intrusive into their main articles and all repeat the same information at the bottom. The result of this consensus has now impacted all of those articles as well because if we kept consistent ideas it would mean the removal of all of their sidebars on their pages. The sidebar should be reinstated immediately to fall in line with the consistent nature of every other modern US President's page. Yeoutie (talk) 21:30, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

The style guide you mention also clearly states: "Not every president warrants a series box." Images should not be moved to accommodate non-essential templates; images should be placed in paragraphs in which they are relevant, per MOS:IMAGELOCATION. If all these series boxes are "somewhat intrusive" and if "all repeat the same information", as you say, then Wikipedia would be better served by removing sidebars from those other articles than by adding one to this article. Surtsicna (talk) 23:30, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

FWIW, I deleted these 'series boxes/side bars' from the articles of all the US presidents & the few vice presidents that had them. I find these boxes merely crowd up the infobox, as well as article content. GoodDay (talk) 20:12, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

The section about political views needs an update

It seems rather amateur that the entire section consists of apparently random ratings by politically motivated groups and think tanks. In light of his lifelong tenure in the Senate and, more importantly, his presidency, it is more appropriate to scholarly analyze (or present previous analyses of) his actions and words. The ratings are hollow and meaningless to the non-American reader whose conception of the terms “liberal” and “conservative” might be inconsistent with the American standards. They should occupy minimal space in the already politically charged and difficult to handle section. This improvements would make it suitable for Wikipedia and its high standards. 109.66.6.108 (talk) 13:22, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Seems fair.Slatersteven (talk) 13:24, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Created new related article - Early life and career of Joe Biden

Modeled after Early life and career of Barack Obama and many other "early life" articles, I've just created the page and would welcome everyone's help in improving it. The content was taken mostly from earlier versions of this page, before the 'Early life' section was trimmed down to its current size. Since I agree that this page's section should not be further expanded, it seemed reasonable to have a separate page where we can go into more detail. I've added some hatnotes to this article linking the new one. Ganesha811 (talk) 13:47, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Image placement

With this edit today I made improvements to the layout of the article's images. My edits was quickly reverted by User:Surtsicna. A consensus of editors at MOS:IMAGES have agreed that "Most images should be on the right side of the page, which is the default placement". When there are multiple images (too many to fit just on the right side), these can be staggered right and left, but this was not the case with my edit. There are many technical and aesthetic reasons to right justify images; reasons which are discussed at MOS:IMAGES and on talk pages there. The input of others would be appreciated. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:50, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

But most images are on the right side, are they not? 18 out of 23, to be precise. Of the remaining 5, 2 are on the left side so that the subjects face the text, as suggested by MOS:IMAGELOCATION. Of the remaining 3, 1 is on the left so that the image may fit into the relevant paragraph and not be pushed downwards by the preceding image on the right. The last 2 would do just as well on the right in my opinion, though some of those on the right could be moved to the left so that the people in them face the text. But in any case, a vast majority will be on the right. Surtsicna (talk) 22:04, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

The direction the subject is facing has little relevance on the photos you reverted, and your revert defied a consensus. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:25, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

No, none of that is true. The explanation is in my previous reply. Surtsicna (talk) 22:52, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

@Surtsicna: These are four of the images you moved left. Which of these images should remain on the left "so that the subjects face the text", or because they do not fit on the right? Magnolia677 (talk) 10:58, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

• 
  1
• 
  2
• 
  3
• 
  4

Only 2. 3 should be on the left, in my opinion, because otherwise the previous image pushes it out of the paragraph discussing his relationship with Obama, where it is most relevant. But none of this matters so much to me. Surtsicna (talk) 11:06, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

@Surtsicna: Even on a widescreen monitor, moving 2 and 3 right does not push any other images. If "none of this matters so much to me", I will restore the image placement to my original edit. Please respond. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:13, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

2 is not about pushing other images. It is about MOS:IMAGELOCATION's suggestion "to place images of people so that they 'look' toward the text". Surtsicna (talk) 11:33, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

First paragraph

At the end of paragraph one, in hidden text: "Please do NOT change without prior consensus on the talk page. Thank you." That discussion clearly had no consensus. Again, I am ambivalent here, as I was before, but no one, not even an admin, should be editing the first paragraph without coming to the talk page and getting demonstrable consensus. This is a community-imposed IAR situation to preserve stability on one of the most important articles we have right now. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 18:59, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

AFAIK, the opening sentence read (for a long time) "...46th president of the United States...". The linkage should not be changed to Presidency of Joe Biden, nor the words "...and current..." be added, without consensus. GoodDay (talk) 19:06, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. WP:SURPRISE applies to links: if it says "president of the United States", it should link to the article President of the United States. "and current" seems superfluous to me as the sentence is in the present tense. Surtsicna (talk) 21:23, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

A ping to the editor whose edit you're discussing would've been appreciated. But apologies, I missed the hidden comment; you should probably move it to the start of the paragraph rather than the end if you want people to see it.

Regarding the actual content question, @Surtsicna, changing where the link targets and which text is being linked over is not two separate tweaks; it's connected. The link should go to the article on Biden's presidency rather than the general article on the U.S. presidency per MOS:SPECIFICLINK, and that then affects the text that is linked over, which when changed to "current president of the United States" rather than just "president of the United States" avoids the MOS:EGG/WP:SURPRISE issue that would otherwise arise. I don't have a strong view about the question of whether to use "46th and current" or just "46th", which is a separate question being discussed below. For the purposes here, linking over text including "46th" would solve the EGG just as well as "current". {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 01:58, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Leave it linked at president of the United States. Nearly all the world leader bios intros on Wikipedia are linked to their office. Not any presidency of.., premiership of..., etc articles. GoodDay (talk) 02:01, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Abosulely no good reason to change to "Presidency of" link here, as explained on the Trump talk page.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 17:06, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

I still would not expect such a link to lead to the article about Biden's presidency, and I think it is more useful to link to the article about the office. I have added a lead section link to his presidency, however. Surtsicna (talk) 07:08, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

I should point out, the editor who made (on June 2, 2021) a linkage change to Presidency of Donald Trump at the Trump article's intro without a consensus, just attempted the same thing at this article's intro (June 23) with a linkage to Presidency of Joe Biden without a consensus. A bold practice, which is quite annoying, tbh. GoodDay (talk) 02:21, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi

Hello. Can anyone fix the mistake here. I can't because I'm ip so I can't edit. It has changed here [[22]] Serbian to Serb. In source write Serbian abuses https://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/24/world/americas/24iht-policy.4.15591832.html . Because if "Serb abuse" is left, the sentence will show that Serb were abused, and not vice versa, Serbian abuses as written in the source. Please see the source and how it says there and I beg someone to fix it. Thank you89.172.124.96 (talk) 21:38, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

 Done -- MelanieN (talk) 23:29, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you 89.172.124.96 (talk) 05:33, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Why is the issue of Biden's fitness to serve as president not treated at all?

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.

---

I've of course checked this article occasionally and have been doing so long time before I became a Wikipedia editor myself. One thing has never ceased to astonish me: the biggest issue concering Biden, his campaign and ultimately his time already served in office is not covered at all. I checked this talk page archive and I could find some threads where the question was raised but it never led to any changes.

So I'd ask myself: why does the article not treat this issue? Reliable Sources, that demonstrate media's and public's widespread concerns over Biden's cognitive state can easily be found. Please Google just "Joe+Biden+dementia". Will this topic ever be discussed in the article, and if not, why?

For comparison, take a look here: Donald Trump#Public profile. Not exactly a hagiography.Potugin (talk) 08:18, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

That is a fair question, Potugin. Can you find articles in which reputable media (such as these) discuss this? Surtsicna (talk) 09:37, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

As above, lets see some of these RS.Slatersteven (talk) 10:06, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm in Europe at the moment, so I may not be able to access all the media outlets I'd like to. Sky News has stuff to offer for example: [23]. (I think some of you might discard Boston Herald as it's a tabloid). Also, I'm a relatively new and infrequent user, so I won't be able to edit the article myself, however, anyone can make suggestions I guess, I'll make mine, you make yours.Potugin (talk) 10:59, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

And there is the issue, Alan Jones is not really medically trained, thus it's only an uniformed opinion (in an opp-edd piece), by a highly controversial figure. Now if you are saying you want something about how some in the media have said he is unfit, OK I can agree with that. But then we need to discuss proper wording. That does not violate wp:undue or wp:fringe. It might be best if this was in fact in an article about his presidency.Slatersteven (talk) 11:14, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

However I am not seeing where we have a section on Trump about unfitness for office due to health.Slatersteven (talk) 11:16, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Let us avoid drawing false equivalencies. There is no section on Trump's dementia, because there isn't much talk about such a thing. There is, however, a long section on False statements, for the simple reason that Trump is known for making plenty of statements that numerous sources checked and considered to have been false. So I think this is fine. As for Alan Jones not being medically trained - well, he doesn't have to be in order to qualify here. If you look at Donald Trump#Allegations of inciting violence, then the sources there are not by criminologists or professional lawyers. Potugin (talk) 11:54, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Then why raise it if it's a false equivalency (was that not what your argument was, "why do we not treat him the same as Trump?"?) And read WP:MEDRS, this is about medical diagnoses. Yes to make medical claims, the source must be qualified.Slatersteven (talk) 11:57, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Potugin, have you forgotten about the "Person Woman Man Camera TV" episode? He was talking about a cognitive test, that he took because of speculation of dementia. It's not included in Trump's article because of WP:BLP, the same reason Republican smears on Biden's mental competency are not included. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:32, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

It isn't an actual issue, it is a piece of troll advocacy by select right-wing media groups, and their fans. Zaathras (talk) 12:08, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

After edit conflict: I will read the policy you linked, viz. WP:MEDRS, because I was quite unaware of it. However, I presume this guideline doesn't tell us that we cannot cite a media figure (or any other relevant person) calling Biden unfit for running the country, or being incoherent, or prone to embarassing gaffes etc. A physician's estimation would be a different matter, and even this isn't difficult to source: [24]. This is quite hotly debated issue, in fact.Potugin (talk) 12:15, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

LOL "Doubts about Mr Biden’s mental health have become a right-wing talking point over the past two years.", that is the point made above, this is a manufactured "controversy" prompted by media pundits making medical judgments. Sorry but this looks more and more innaproprtate.Slatersteven (talk) 12:21, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

You really expect us to include speculation from Google? When the past 5 months in the Oval Office have provided no evidence of so-called ineptitude? And Donald Trump’s article makes no mention of alleged mental health issues or the fact that he slurs his speech. Follow BLP policy and neutrality. Trillfendi (talk) 12:22, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

What kind of straw men are you posting here? I specifically said that Trump article includes lots of unflattering material on controversial aspects of him (like his endless false statements). This is indeed the very essence of "Follow[ing] BLP policy and neutrality". I agree! However, I don't see why it should be any different here. Is there a rule that we are allowed to cite "media pundits" (Slatersteven) when they criticize Trump's false statements, but we aren't allowed to do so when they criticize Biden (like Alan Jones did, and Howie Carr etc. - see above!), say, for constantly mixing things up and revealing other embarassing signs of unfitness? OK, I'll let others speak, too now. BBL.Potugin (talk) 12:30, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

It's not different, this is about specific information, which we do not also have in Trump's article. If you want to add criticisms about his policies OK, fine. If you add to add a section about his social media activity, OK go ahead, Same with approval ratings. IN fact, I will start it off.Slatersteven (talk) 12:35, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

So now you can start to add the SAME kind of information we have on Trump's page.Slatersteven (talk) 12:39, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Why do you need to change your line so often? First it was about RS's. When it proved to be not such an arduous task, you added WP:MEDRS. This, too, isn't a mission impossible really. And now it's about "Same kind of information" once again. Why? These a very different politicans with different upsides and different downsides. And different issues of controversy. Maybe we 2 could now let others opine? Wish you all luck in improving the article with approval ratings struff.Potugin (talk) 12:44, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Medrs is part of RS.Slatersteven (talk) 12:48, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

I know that CNN (and other pro-Democratic media, like BBC news) brought up Section #4 of the 25th amendment several times, during the Trump administration. No doubt, Fox news (and other pro-Republican media, like Sky news) are bringing up the same topic, during the Biden administration. GoodDay (talk) 14:37, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

It's not included because it's a political smear. Sure, he's older and slower now, but examining his extemporaneous speech shows no signs of dementia, only occasional gaffes that anyone might make except they're more visible because of his prominence, and right-wing media pounce on every one of them and they go viral in their echo chamber, and Google picks it up creating the illusion that "everyone's talking about it so there must be something to it," creating yet another fake scandal. Same as it ever was. soibangla (talk) 15:29, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

It's a distraction to argue about Biden's mental state, since per synthesis, we cannot use our own speculations. The relevant policy is weight, which requires significant discussion in reliable sources before inclusion. Reliable sources exclude Fox News, the Daily Mail and opinion pieces, even if published in high quality news sources. But this issue has received little or no coverage. While it may be that the media is biased, that is not an issue we can consider. If you want this article to include speculation on dementia, you have to wait until it becomes an issue in mainstream reputable media. TFD (talk) 17:33, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

On June 18th, the Washington Post had a story about Joe Biden being accused of 'mental impairment', citing a 'white house physician' [25] the same event was also reported on by USA today [26] and The Independent [27]

March 19th, the New York Post published an article claiming stories about his health were 'ignored by press' [28]

On February 8th, an opinion in Newsweek urged him to 'discuss his mental state' [29]

The newspaper "The Hill" invited a panel discussing "Joe Biden's mental health should be on the table" [30]

The New York Times, however, referred to 'a narrative being crafted by conservative news media that he is lacking in his mental facilities.' [31]

Apologies if these are not reliable sources / otherwise not helpful to the discussion you've had, I'm not very familiar with US media. On the surface it appears to me that this is a topic of lively debate in mainstream publications.

Kaidaniel (talk) 22:08, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

NY Post is not reliable. Opinion pieces in here aren't reliable except possibly for opinions of the author but then WP:WEIGHT comes into play. The only possible story here is that a false narrative is being created by far right media but this isn't the article to include that info, as it's a general level one. Volunteer Marek 22:20, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

as I understand it, who started the narrative and its veracity are immaterial as long as it is discussed in reputable sources, but as I understand you maybe this should be included only if it turns out to prompt more publications. Kaidaniel (talk) 23:01, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

It will never be included, in the sense of "the president is mentally impaired", as there is not and has never been a story there. The notable aspect here is the right-wing smear campaign that has been invented around the false narrative of "the president is mentally impaired". Zaathras (talk) 00:25, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

A WP:BLP concern like this requires a high degree of sensitivity. ... the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. Also keep in mind that that "white house physician" is Ronny Jackson, who turned nakedly partisan even before he was forced to withdraw from his Cabinet nomination. Ronny Jackson's opinion is meaningless. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:34, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

The WaPo, USAToday and Independent stories are about Ronny Jackson, Trump's physician who is now a Republican Texas congressman who said Trump "might live to be 200 years old." soibangla (talk) 00:37, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

I would say "Mr Biden has dementia" can definitely not be supported by reputable sources, however "there has been controversy about... Dr J has alleged... Mr Biden has denied... " arguably could be. (Similar to the example about a politician being accused (but not proven) of having an affair mentioned in Wikipedia:BLPPUBLIC.) Incidentally, this is how I came here myself, I was reading about Ronny Jackson and wondered 'sounds like an extreme partisan view, let's see if wikipedia could help me understand' and then I thought about making an edit explaining facts. Seems like wikipedians disagree so maybe best to leave it at that. 2003:DF:733:2265:BAD0:E01B:813C:2EB9 (talk) 20:53, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

We should avoid the innuendo of "some people say" and "just asking questions." soibangla (talk) 23:33, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

This is all opinion and speculation, and NONE of it should be in the article. None. For comparison: for the past four or five years there has been lots of speculation and opinion about Trump's mental health, but we have carefully kept all of it out of the Trump article. We do not report it as fact; we do not even report that there is speculation about it. These articles are BLPs - biographies of living people. Per WP:BLP we require solid, reliable, neutral sourcing to publish negative information about a living person. There is no such sourcing for this claim. None of this is "information". It's just speculation and innuendo. And most of it is clearly partisan. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:06, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Comparing Biden today with the Biden who debated Sarah Palin and Paul Ryan with today's Biden is like comparing Dick Solomon with one of his students. It's similar to comparing John McCain 2000 and John ("Where are you Joe?") McCain 2008. That should be obvious to even the most partisan editors. It's obvious he doesn't have the same grasp of issues, the quickness in responding or the tact in handling people he once did. But since there has been very little written about this, it doesn't belong in the article. At some point scholars will write books and articles about him and we cam add to the article. But until that happens, we have to follow the lead of reliable sources that have chosen for whatever reason to ignore it. TFD (talk) 00:21, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

All this is doing is carrying Fox News' and OANN's water, "Little has been written about it" because there is literally nothing to write about. This is taking Biden's well-known stutter, a few verbal tics, an occasional gaffe-like utterance, and trying to armchair psychoanalyze it into something that isn't there. Zaathras (talk) 01:18, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Here's a clip of Biden speaking against the Reagan administration policy on South Africa. Do you really believe that he has the same capability today? TFD (talk) 02:40, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

More OR and conjecture. If it's really anything beyond basic aging, and presumably important enough for the president's quite bloated article, I figure someone would have provided a good RS saying something in plain voice by now... any minute... AllegedlyHuman (talk) 02:43, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

I will provide you a link to WP:OR since you obviously have never read it: "This policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources, such as deletion discussions or policy noticeboards." So you are a Biden guy. You support his views on race, class, foreign policy, etc. But just stop there. Don't pretend that he has the same cognitive abilities he had just a decade ago. All you do is make yourself appear to be slavishly partisan. TFD (talk) 03:21, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

"Don't pretend that he has the same cognitive abilities he had just a decade ago." Then prove me wrong. And no, "check out this YouTube video and come to the same subjective conclusion on another person's psychological state that I did" doesn't cut it. Honestly, calling it original research was too kind, given that it's barely "research" at all. You want to "evaluate article content and sources"? Me too. Where are they? Nowhere to be found. No one can determine someone's mental state from a video excerpt, comparing that to what they think a person is sometimes like today, and it doesn't make me "slavishly partisan" to point out that mind-bogglingly obvious fact. How do you edit other articles, by actually citing things or by posting YouTube links from the 80s that you came to your own conclusions about? I assume you aren't some kind of psychoanalyst yourself. If you are, I encourage you to publish something in the real world and then come back here. Otherwise, this article will be just fine, relying on reported fact and not the guesses of laymen. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 03:34, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Good lord this talk page is a trainwreck.

The reason why its not added is that there is no good source for it. Simple as that. I don't care how many hoops people jump through, there isn't one. If it couldn't be used in a college essay as a source it can't be used here.

And no, as AllegedlyHuman said, a video from the 1980s isn't the same as an actual source. Sneakycrown (talk) 06:26, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

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

Reputation

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

---

The reputation section reads like a puff piece written by the Biden administration itself. Its quite shameful that an encyclopedia would become a political tool. 80.111.17.229 (talk) 13:19, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Talkpages are for specific, sourced suggestions for article improvement, not for generalized griping. Acroterion (talk) 13:31, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

The problem has been highlighted, implying that it should be de-puff pieced. That's the proposed solution. Delete the nonsense about how "empathetic" he is and all of that idolising. 80.111.17.229 (talk) 13:35, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

A puff piece would be us saying all those things about him in our own voice. Those statements are all sourced as to who said them, we are just reporting them. I see three possible problems you may have with the section: 1) you think we have left out negative statements, 2) you think the quotes are fake, or 3) you don't like that people are saying good things about Biden. For the first, bring us well sourced negative statements. For the second, you would need to demonstrate that. For the third, that's just your own problem. --Khajidha (talk) 15:20, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

But some of it is in Wikipedia's voice. Wikipedia describes Biden as having an "empathetic nature". Reading the reputation section one would think that Biden is revered as some sort of national hero when in reality he has an approval rating of just 52%. That's only half of the population which approve of him, so why is the reputation section a shrine to him? The section clearly represents only a small section of the populace carefully chosen to make Biden look good, it does not reflect the opinions of Americans who have a much more nuanced and rounded view of him as opposed to the mythologizing and romanticizing that Wikipedia is currently doing. 80.111.17.229 (talk) 18:57, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

As Khajidha said: This talk page is for suggesting improvements to the article, not for expressing your opinions. Bring us some actual, reliably sourced material that you think we should add to the article to make it more balanced. Be sure to include the source if you want us to consider it. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:47, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Improvement suggestions are opinions though necessarily but anyway I have suggested improvements. If you read above you will see my diagnosis of the problem and the solution i.e removal. 80.111.17.229 (talk) 21:02, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

P.S. Looking at the section: I can’t imaging what you are talking about. The first paragraph is neutral, it's about money. The second paragraph is quotes from three people. The third paragraph, about “empathetic nature”, is not Wikipedia’s opinion; it is well sourced, including the fact that he is often called upon to give eulogies. And the final paragraph, about being a “gaffe machine”, is anything but puffery. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:55, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

The first paragraph is not something I object to. The second is a cherry picked selection of hagiography. Biden has been described as empathetic by two sources yes, I'm sure you could find two sources calling Bush empathetic as well if you wanted, that does not mean Wikipedia should call him such. Especially when they're opinion pieces. 80.111.17.229 (talk) 21:02, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Do you even know what "in Wikipedia's own voice" means? Because the statement that "Biden has been discussed for his empathetic nature and ability to communicate about grief", followed by two references to such, is not an example of such. --Khajidha (talk) 20:57, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

80.111.17.229, you still haven't offered any examples of what you think we should add to the article to improve it. You are still just griping about what we have. This will be the last time I respond to you unless you come up with something constructive to offer. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:39, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

I thought you would have understood already that I do not intend to propose any additions. An improvement need not be an addition, deletion is also an option. I notice that you have not actually engaged with any of the issues raised subsequently. 80.111.17.229 (talk) 21:54, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Deleting that paragraph is not an improvement. It's all cited and not at all in Wikipedia voice, with specific comments attributed in text to CNN and NYT. This is encyclopedic content that fills in information about Joe Biden the Person. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:31, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Sourced material can still be WP:UNDUE and cherry picked. 80.111.17.229 (talk) 10:05, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

The far-right whined for eight years that the article about President Obama was a promotional piece about him; the far-right then spent four years whining that the Trump article was an attack piece. Now the far-right is whining about the President Biden article being a promotional piece.

Enough. 12+ years of this is tiresome. As others have said, find specifics and offer improvements. If not, stop. Acalamari 22:13, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

This is a very poor response that falls short of the standards Wikipedians should be held to. Accusing me of being far-right or anybody else of being far-right is a personal attack, lets not do that. Please engage constructively as opposed to acrimonious mud-slinging. You are not actually addressing the issues raised above and as reiterated a few times already I have already made suggestions. Have you read my comments above? 80.111.17.229 (talk) 22:22, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

What exactly do you want written into the article 'or' deleted from the article? GoodDay (talk) 01:38, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

The entire second paragraph should be deleted as there is zero evidence that this is his "reputation" as opposed to the personal judgments of Biden's character by select commentators. 80.111.17.229 (talk) 10:05, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

The passage in the text with regards to Biden's empathy has sources and comes from several people. It's not a puff piece but a description of how he is seen by many people. There's no breach of wiki standards here. There is thus no valid reason to extract that from the text. The fact you disagree with that sourced view of Biden is your own opinion. Stripping the passage from the article would then just be introducing YOUR personal judgement into the article. -- fdewaele, 6 July 2021, 10:30 CET.

No, its how he is viewed by liberal media commentators whose perspective is solely mentioned, making it UNDUE. 80.111.17.229 (talk) 12:12, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Care to provied any RS that challenge that view?Slatersteven (talk) 12:15, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

You're not really going to argue that Biden is universally viewed in a positive light are you? 80.111.17.229 (talk) 12:23, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

I am arguing nothing, I am asking for RS that challenge specific claims we have here. It is down to you to prove your claims with reference to RS, not for us to just accept your word.Slatersteven (talk) 12:26, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

It really goes without saying that Joe Biden is a controversial figure as all politicians inherently are. Asking for a source on this is like asking for a source that World War 2 happened or that the sky is blue. There's plenty of sources demonstrating his approval rating hovers in the low 50s so its clearly undue weight to only present the positive information here. 80.111.17.229 (talk) 12:37, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

It's called policy wp:v. Again if you want to add some negative views, fine. But they need to be sourced to RS, not just your opinion.Slatersteven (talk) 12:41, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Donald Trump lost the election, Joe Biden won it fair and square no matter how many times you refuse to accept. Unlike Fox News, Wikipedia does not engage in false data and documents what is verified as accurate. Dinosauce2001 (talk) 18:48, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Throwing my hat into the ring, you say that the thing about Biden's "emphatic nature" and the other such stuff needs to be properly sourced, no? Yet there is a verifiable source from a well-credited journalist already there. Heck, in the same paragraph there's sources from CNN and the NYT, which are generally considered to be extremely legitimate. So surely if you wanted it to be less of a "puff piece" you could just add an equally verifiable source that's more critical of Biden yourself?ExcellentWheatFarmer (talk) 19:29, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't think it is advisable for the section to provide a number of people's opinions. It would be better to find a secondary source that explains it. I note that Biden's current popularity rating is 52% positive and 42% negative, which should be mentioned. The section begins with a report showing Biden's net worth in 2009 as $27k. (Although we don't mention this, it doesn't include his residences or pensions.) This is implicit OR that he's honest. It requires a further source for interpretation. TFD (talk) 21:23, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

I reckon these kinda discussions will continue for quite some time. Heck, they're still going on at the Donald Trump article. GoodDay (talk) 19:03, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

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

Requesting new occupation to be added - Academic

Hello guys, could anyone please add the occupation of academic in the biodata too? He was an adjunct professor of law at the Delaware Law School for 17 years. Not to mention his brief stint as the Benjamin Franklin Presidential Practice Professor at UPenn.

https://www.widener.edu/news/news-archive/he-was-mr-president-he-was-professor-biden-his-widener-law-students — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahnaf.eram (talk • contribs) 23:27, 14 June 2021‎

I've added adjunct professor. starship.paint (exalt) 12:42, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Trivial details in the opener

Despite the very prominent "If an edit you make is reverted you must discuss on the talk page and wait 24 hours before reinstating your edit" warning, @Eccekevin: decided to restore his reverted material regardless, so, admins watching this page may wish to take note. For the subject matter at hand, I find that being the first president from Delaware and the second Catholic to be far too trivial for the lead. Zaathras (talk) 03:25, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

I restored it because it was removed without discussion. Eccekevin (talk) 00:21, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Not every single thing hinges on discussion, we are all free to edit articles without being under a nanny state. Removing someone's edit just for the sake of "no discussion" rather than for the content is disruptive, not to mention your violation of the 24h revert policy in place. Zaathras (talk) 12:59, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

you’re the one who wants to change the page, and since this change is contested, you need to reach a consensus first. Eccekevin (talk) 16:56, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

What I did was support another user's change, I did not initiate this. It is incumbent upon you to actually provide a cogent reason why the text should remain...let's face it, being from Delaware isn't all that exciting, so trumpeting the "1st president from" isn't notable for the lead. Possibly debatable, gut IMO not really notable. Being the second Catholic is a slam-dunk piece of trivi8a though, we don't take note of the next guy to do a thing. If you break the "wait 24 hours before reinstating your edit" for a 2nd time, I will seek sanctions. Zaathras (talk) 21:13, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Zaathras, slow down. Here is the situation: longstanding content was removed. Maybe by another user first, maybe by you first, it doesn't matter. The removal was challenged. Removal of longstanding content from the lead requires talk page discussion if it is challenged, and while discussion goes on, the usual default is to keep the longstanding content. So don't go throwing threats about "sanctions" around, and don't edit war. Stop arguing about the process, about who did what. Per WP:BRD, the removal was Bold; the Revert challenge was within guidelines; it's time for Discussion - and that means discussion about the content itself. Should the material be in the lead, or not? State your position and wait for discussion to develop here. A few days more or less isn't important; what's important is to reach a decision, based on consensus. Maybe consensus will be that the material should be removed from the lead; maybe it will be that the material should be kept in the lead. Consensus decides. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:31, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The bit about Biden being the first president from Delaware and the second Catholic to serve as president are already noted under the heading "President (2021–present)" (subheading "Inauguration") and while I think it's (arguably) DUE enough for inclusion in the article body, it's probably not significant enough for the lead. Per WP:LEAD, The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents. I don't think these bits (though interesting) make the cut. Aoi (青い) (talk) 21:21, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

As MelanieN said, longstanding content cannot be removed without discussion if challenged. So no changes should be made while we disuss it. As to the matter at hand, I believe that Biden's Catholicism, which has garnered a lot of media attention, is indeed worth mentioning. Not only is it significant that in a country where Catholicism is the largest religion he is only the second Catholic president, but he is seen as one of the most religious presidents (see sources above) and his religion keeps making headlines and generating media coverage.Eccekevin (talk) 04:18, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Sources

@Zaathras and Eccekevin: it's hard to know which of you is in breach here, as the line is blurred between the "BRD cycle" and the "24-hour period" enforced on this article. Zaathras has breached the BRD by reinstating a contested edit, while Eccekevin has breached the rule by reverting twice in 24 hours. Either way, you both need to stop edit warring over this immediately, or you will be blocked.  — Amakuru (talk) 07:56, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

As said before, I am simply reinstating to the stable version before the contested removal. Eccekevin (talk) 17:42, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

@Eccekevin: you reverted twice in the space of 24 hours, which is explicitly forbidden on this article, as it explicitly says in the edit notice on this page. It doesn't matter if you think you're "right" about your edits, if you edit war in this fashion again you will be blocked. Please continue discussing here.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:57, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

What to say in the lead about Biden's "firsts" as president

Let's get back to the actual content issue here. For quite a while, the second sentence of the fourth paragraph of the lead has said

"Biden is the oldest elected president, the first to have a female and African-Asian American vice president, the first from Delaware, and the second Catholic president, after John F. Kennedy."

Recently there has been a bit of edit warring over whether to reduce that sentence to

"He is the oldest elected president and the first to have a female vice president."

Let's discuss it, focusing on the content. What are the arguments for including "first from Delaware" and "second Catholic" in the lead? What are the arguments for saying it only in the article text but not in the lead? What is the reason for removing "African-Asian American" from the description of Harris? -- MelanieN (talk) 16:48, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

A little research here, looking for precedents: Regarding “the first from Delaware”: I note that the Barack Obama article says in the lead and in the text that he is the first African-American president, but as far as I could see it does not mention either in the lead or in the text that he is the first president from Hawaii.

Regarding “second Catholic”, you need to realize that for most of the country’s history it was considered impossible for a Catholic to be elected president. When Al Smith ran for president in 1928 there was enormous opposition to him based on anti-Catholic prejudice. When JFK ran in 1960 his Catholicism was also a major campaign issue, to such an extent that he felt obliged to make a speech declaring that as president he would not take orders from the Pope. The second paragraph of the lead to the JFK biography says "Kennedy was the first Catholic elected president." But Biden’s catholicism was not a campaign issue, so as a country we may have moved beyond that issue.

Regarding "African-Asian American vice president": Again looking at the Obama article, it states in the opening paragraph "Obama was the first African-American president of the United States". In the Kamala Harris article, she is described in the opening paragraph as "the first African American and first Asian American vice president." This may or may not relate to what Biden's article says about his vice president. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:14, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm presenting these things for background, not taking a position myself. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:14, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn't be opposed to removing the Delaware part.

I believe that Biden's Catholicism, which has garnered a lot of media attention, is indeed worth mentioning. Not only is it significant that in a country where Catholicism is the largest religion he is only the second Catholic president, but he is seen as one of the most religious presidents (see sources above) and his religion keeps making headlines and generating media coverage. It also made headlines during his campaign and after his election. Also, of note, he was the first Catholic Vice President.Eccekevin (talk) 17:46, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Eh, Catholicism is the largest single denomination, but Protestants as a whole make up twice as large a percentage and the "unaffiliated" population is somewhat larger than the Catholic one. --Khajidha (talk) 18:33, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Sources

Just for completeness, the only one of those that I would even consider for the lead of this article is the oldest elected. "First from Delaware" is pretty "meh". The bits about Harris belong on her page, not this one. And "second" anything is fairly uninteresting.--Khajidha (talk) 17:41, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

I echo Khajidha's comment. starship.paint (exalt) 12:45, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Capitalization in infobox

Per MOS:JOBTITLE, shouldn't "president" not be capitalized in the infobox, since it's modified by "46th", as is the case in the shortdesc? ― Tartan357 ^Talk 03:18, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

"46th" should be removed, I think, because he assumed the office of president, not of "46th president", and did not succeed Trump in the office of "46th president" but in the office of president. Surtsicna (talk) 09:02, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

"46th" is separate from "president of the United States", therefore there's no problem. All the US presidential & vice presidential bios are numbered in their intros & infoboxes. GoodDay (talk) 23:01, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

It is not separate at all. Yes, all are numbered, but I do not see how that refutes my argument. Why should they all be numbered in infobox headings? Surtsicna (talk) 00:35, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Why should they not? Been that way for years on Wikipedia. But of course, if you (or anyone else) wants to open a RFC on the matter, seeking to delete the numberings? Who's to stop any of you? I doubt any of us could predict the outcome. GoodDay (talk) 00:40, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Just put the ordinal into a separate field and all the problems and confusions go away. --Khajidha (talk) 15:25, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Clarify, it is capitalised in the infobox. GoodDay (talk) 23:04, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

GoodDay, right, I'm saying MOS:JOBTITLE suggests it shouldn't be. Read what I wrote again. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 23:58, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

I'd argue it should remain 'capitalised' in the infobox. Let's be certain we're speaking about all government officials, not just Biden. GoodDay (talk) 00:01, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

GoodDay, you'd argue that on what basis? ― Tartan357 ^Talk 00:07, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

It's already decapitalised in the intro. To attempt such a large scale change across Wikipedia in the infoboxes of all government officials of all countries, would be messy & possibly unwelcome from most. GoodDay (talk) 00:26, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

GoodDay, "it would take too much time to implement" is not a valid argument. MOS-backed arguments only, please. I'm sure there's a good reason for why it's capitalized, I'm just trying to find out what it is. It shouldn't be this hard. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 00:46, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

I disagree with decapitalising in the infobox. By all means open up an RFC on the matter, covering all government officials infoboxes. No one can predict what the outcome will be. GoodDay (talk) 01:03, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

GoodDay, I'm just trying to find out why it is capitalized. I actually have little interest in changing it. I want to know why people think it's in line with our guidelines—I'm sure there's a good reason. It seems you don't have that answer. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 01:30, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Been capitalised for the entire 15+ years, I've been on the 'pedia. FWIW, I'm not a huge fan of MOS:JOBTITLES. At least, not in the lack of moderation, concerning its implementation, across articles. GoodDay (talk) 01:36, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

GoodDay, yes, the amount of time it's been that way (and the prominence of this article) makes me think there's a good reason for it. I'm a bit of a JOBTITLES hawk myself so I'm very curious to find out what's going on here so I can properly apply the guideline elsewhere. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 01:38, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Same all over, including monarchs. PS: Ya don't have to ping me, I'm aware of this discussion :) GoodDay (talk) 01:44, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

The ping is added automatically by reply-link. Check it out, it's quite handy. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 01:50, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Cool. I'm old school :) GoodDay (talk) 01:52, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

COVID-19 (China Virus) Vaccines

He is the second President to go through a deadly Pandemic. Biden is the second President to release the vaccines for the COVID-19.

RfC: Should we say he is "current" president in the lead, or not?

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.

---

Consensus is needed on whether to say "46th president" or "46th and current president" in the lead sentence. There has been repeated controversy, and recently some minor edit warring, over those two words. Previous discussions have not reached consensus. -- MelanieN (talk) 02:02, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Just now, sampling multiple examples of how the lead sentence of the article has read over the past three months, I find that it has pretty consistently said the following

…"is an American politician who is the 46th and current president of the United States."

Recently there have been attempts to remove "and current", leaving

..."is an American politician who is the 46th president of the United States."

Today (June 28), "and current" was removed by User:Muboshgu, restored by User:AllegedlyHuman, and removed again by User:Zaathras. I restored "and current" pending discussion here, because that appears to be the longstanding version.

Whether or not to say "and current" was previously discussed in January and again last month. No consensus was reached at either discussion. The failure to reach consensus here suggests that an RfC is needed. Meanwhile, let's respect the hidden comment on that opening paragraph, "Please do NOT change without prior consensus on the talk page. Thank you."

Pinging previous discussants User:Elli, User:GoodDay, User:HAL333, User:Thanoscar21, and User:CookieMonster755. -- MelanieN (talk) 01:51, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

I was thinking of starting an RfC to this effect, since previous attempts at establishing a consensus haven't gotten anywhere – Muboshgu (talk) 01:55, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

I would say "and current", only since it's currently in use. If it works, then why change it? Thanoscar21_{talk, contribs} 02:02, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanoscar21, because it means the same exact thing without those two words in it. We should be concise, no? – Muboshgu (talk) 02:13, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Those words add clarity and have been used for all previous presidents while in office, so why remove them now and potentially add confusion?Eccekevin (talk) 18:18, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Never gave this much thought in the past, but I'm ok with excluding "and current". Also, we've a potential problem in the above discussion, on another matter of this article's intro. GoodDay (talk) 02:04, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Comparing to some other articles

• Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American media personality and businessman who served as the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021.
• Barack Hussein Obama II (born August 4, 1961) is an American politician and attorney who served as the 44th president of the United States from 2009 to 2017.
• George Walker Bush (born July 6, 1946) is an American politician and businessman who served as the 43rd president of the United States from 2001 to 2009.

Given this it seems like there is no ambiguity with our other articles on dropping the "and current". I will note that saying "Donald Trump is an American media personality and businessman and the 45th president of the United States" is grammatically correct - he still is the 45th president and always will be - but given that we avoid that wording, I don't object to dropping the "and current", especially in the interest of brevity. Elli (talk | contribs) 02:41, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Of course those articles don't say "current", because they are NOT the current president any more. But when Trump was president - for example here - the lead sentence said "Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is the 45th and current president of the United States." -- MelanieN (talk) 03:44, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Current is redundant since the wording is in the present tense. Biden is the president, Trump was the president. Readers take that to mean that at this particular time, Biden is the present, while in a past period of time, Trump was president. TFD (talk) 03:03, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Trump was the president, but he always will be the 45th president. The qualifier makes it permanent. You wouldn't say George Washington was the 1st president - it's not like someone else is the 1st president now. Elli (talk | contribs) 03:06, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Personally, I would say that George Washington was the 1st president of the United States. Saying that George Washington is anything sounds odd to me, given that he's been dead for over 200 years. Similarly, saying that Trump is the 45th POTUS isn't helpful to anyone who doesn't know how many presidents there have been to date. nagualdesign 18:22, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

As Bill Clinton once said, it depends on what your definition of "is" is. But seriously folks, "and current" is superfluous. soibangla (talk) 04:04, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

• 46th and current. Wikipedia has always said "and current", for clarity reasons. Maybe it's obvious from the tense, maybe it's not, but we're doing readers a disservice if we fail to make it explicit that the guy is the incumbent. And we did this for Obama and Trump, as well as most other leaders at the time of their incumbency.  — Amakuru (talk) 06:37, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

• Most of the world doesn't count their leaders. "Current" is obviously the more important piece of information. It cannot be excluded. HiLo48 (talk) 07:05, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. "Current" cannot be excluded, and indeed it was used for Obama, Trump, and previous presidents while they were in office.Eccekevin (talk) 18:14, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

• Personally, I think "and current" adds helpful information, particularly for people who are not American or whose first language is not English. For native or fluent speakers of English, the verb "is" makes it obvious that the subject currently holds that position. We don't need to study or parse the sentence; we understand that they are the president right now. (We probably already knew that.) But in this encyclopedia we write for a worldwide audience, and the article about the president of the United States will attract readers from all over, with varying degrees of English proficiency or knowledge of current events. Every day, tens of thousands of people look at this article. Why not give them the benefit of a little extra clarity in the first sentence, even if we think it is redundant or superfluous? I assume that is why we said "current president" for Trump and Obama when they were in office, and I think we should follow that precedent. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:13, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

  As a non-native speaker, I cannot imagine that someone could understand the word "current" and not the present tense of the verb "to be". The latter is the very first thing taught to English language learners. For what it is worth, Elizabeth II is not defined as the "current queen"; but perhaps a more apt comparison would be with Boris Johnson, who is defined as a "politician serving as prime minister". There is no redundancy, and I do not think it lacks clarity. Surtsicna (talk) 17:45, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

  @Surtsicna: because Trump still is the 45th president. There will only ever be one 45th president, and that is Trump. If the sentence just said "Joe Biden is the president", it would be unambiguous. Elli (talk | contribs) 17:49, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

  Would there be anything wrong with defining Biden as an American politician serving as the 46th president of the United States? Surtsicna (talk) 17:52, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

  Yes, there would be something wrong with that. Because there was an RfC in April about whether to say “serving as” vs. “who is”.[32] The RfC was never formally closed, but there was a clear consensus for “is” (11 people favoring “is the” vs. 3 favoring “serving as the”). So that question has been settled. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:08, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

  But "and current" was not part of the "who is" suggestion in that RfC. It has not been settled that "who is the 46th and current" is preferable to "serving as the 46th president". In fact, several people in that discussion stated they preferred "who is the 46th president" because of concision; but when you add two more words, it is hardly clear that the concision is still a factor. Surtsicna (talk) 18:18, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

• Yes as it seems to me that as they never lose the title, it makes it clear he is currently president.Slatersteven (talk) 15:16, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

  Slatersteven, could you clarify? This is an either-or discussion, so it is unclear which approach you are saying "yes" to. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:11, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

  Sorry yes to saying current.Slatersteven (talk) 18:12, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

• How about, "Joseph Robinette Biden Jr. (/ˈbaɪdən/ BY-dən; born November 20, 1942) is an American politician who is currently serving as the 46th president of the United States."? He will always be, or have been, the 46th president but has served in other roles in the past and may serve in other roles in the future. nagualdesign 18:31, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

  That too could do just fine without "currently" :) Surtsicna (talk) 18:41, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

  That version is inaccurate. He is not "currently serving as the 46th president"; he is and always will be the 46th president. This version makes it sound like someone else will be the 46th president later, or someone else has been the 46th president in the past. He is the 46th president; he is currently the incumbent president. You would have to say something like "he is the current president of the United States, the 46th person to serve in that role", which seems unnecessarily convoluted. As for "serving as", see my comment above; "serving as" was rejected in an April RfC. This RfC is just about whether to say "currently" or not. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:52, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

  "Serving as" was rejected in favor of "who is the 46th president" because the latter was deemed more concise. It was not rejected in favour of "who is the 46th and current president", which is obviously less concise than the option chosen in April. Surtsicna (talk) 18:57, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

  Yes, but you have to either say "serving as..." or include "and current", otherwise you're omitting the information that he is currently the dude in power. As previously noted, he will technically always be the 46th president, so it's insufficient to rely on the present/past tense for that information. (It's also a very unclear way of imparting that important detail, which would probably be lost on many of our readers).  — Amakuru (talk) 19:35, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

  Except he's only the 45th person in that role. --Khajidha (talk) 22:26, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

  True, and a lovely bit of trivia that most people are probably not aware of. Grover Cleveland was both the 22nd president and the 24th president. So the version I suggested above does not work. Biden is counted as the 46th president, but he is actually the 45th person to serve in that role. We could really make our readers' heads spin with that one. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:49, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

• One thing that puzzles me (but of course, that's for another discussion) is why we chose (initially at the Trump article, when his was in office) & now at this article, to omit the year the incumbent took office. I'm speaking of course about the "...since 2021" bit, in Biden's case. GoodDay (talk) 19:01, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
• No per MOS:CURRENT. Zaathras (talk) 21:08, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

  Except on pages updated regularly - I don't think there's any risk of a statement in the lead paragraph of this article becoming outdated by more than like, a few minutes. Elli (talk | contribs) 21:22, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

  True. And it also doesn't say to just remove the reference to the phenomenon being current altogether, it says to use "since 2010" of "as of 2021" formulations. The former might work, while the latter would be a bit absurd given that Biden's article is never going to fall stale due to people forgetting about it. But overall, just saying "current" would be the most compliant with the MOS here, as noted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amakuru (talk • contribs)

MOS:CURRENT does not apply as the users above me have stated well. Eccekevin (talk) 18:13, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

• 46th and current Literally two words are added. The brevity gained doesn't outweigh the clarity lost and clarity is the bigger goal here. I personally would find the "and current" helpful, especially if I'm just skimming the article. Wikignometry (talk) 09:15, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
• No. Per the basic fact that no other president of the United States can be described using "is the president" or even "is the Xth president". You may forever have been the Xth president, but (once your term is up) you cannot be written of as "Blanky Blankington is the Xth president". --Khajidha (talk) 14:19, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

  Sorry, Khajidha, but could you clarify? This is not a yes-no RfC, it is a choose-this-option-or-that-one RfC. Are you saying to include "and current", or to leave it out? -- MelanieN (talk) 18:02, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

  Now that is confusing. The thread is titled #RfC: Should we say he is 'current' president in the lead, or not?. That is a yes-no question. Surtsicna (talk) 18:19, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

  That's a good point. So I guess we should assume that "yes" means to say "current", and "no" means to leave it out. But I still have a little trouble understanding what Khajidha is saying we should do. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:54, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

  ..."is an American politician who is the 46th president of the United States." --Khajidha (talk) 23:09, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

• Comment – however the intro is going to be phrased, it is important that it is made clear to readers that he is the incumbent president. He will always be the 46th president, whether serving or otherwise. Whether it is "46th and current president..." or "serving as the 46th president" is up for debate. I prefer "serving as the 46th president" for consistency with past presidents i.e. DJT "...served as the 45th president..." cookie monster (2020) 755 16:02, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

  Except that during Trump's presidency, the article lead said ""Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is the 45th and current president of the United States." The wording changes to "served as" after they leave office. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:04, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Agree with the many good points made by MelanieN. We need to look at Trump's page when he was president, not now. Obviously the phrasing is going to be different.Eccekevin (talk) 18:07, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

• is the 46th and current president this is the wording that was used for Trump when he was in office, and has been used so far in this article, and it the best in my opinion and should not be changed. Eccekevin (talk) 18:07, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
• Current I don't feel super stongly about this and would be fine with either but I do slightly prefer using "current". ~ HAL333 19:48, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
• We should do the exact same thing that we did for Trump, Obama, and Bush during their respective terms. I haven't looked yet to see what that was, but if my memory is accurate I think we included the word "current". There is no reason at all why Biden should be treated any differently; lets no be fanning the flames or giving any legitimacy to the domestic terrorism cult that espouses lie that Biden's illegitimate, that the election was rigged by an elite powerful cabal of Satan worshipping paedophillic blood drinking cannabals, and want to round up everyone that disagrees and have them burnt at the steak. Firejuggler86 (talk) 21:29, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Note re: my comment above - not trying to sound SOAPBOXy, I just find it incredibly ODD as to why the standard wording for current US Presidents, that had been in place since time immemorial is all of a sudden under dispute and being edit warred over. Why?? What changed? Firejuggler86 (talk) 21:43, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
    • • Yes, please try to stay off the soapbox here. I wouldn't say it's been used since "time immemorial", since there have been only four "current" presidents during the lifetime of Wikipedia. I believe the issue was debated with the other presidents also; there are always people who dislike "current". But in the recent cases I am aware of, local consensus settled on "is the xxth and current president". -- MelanieN (talk) 02:14, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
    • I find the "and current" phrasing needlessly wordy and poor writing. That a mistake has been made before is no reason to continue making it. --Khajidha (talk) 23:13, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
• 46th and current The word "current" was used when the previous Presidents were serving, this shouldn't be any different. Sea Ane (talk) 22:15, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
• 46th and current It is clear and consistent. -- Fyrael (talk) 22:29, 29 June 2021 (UTC

From my point of view, just saying he is the 46th president is the best. Anything could change, Biden may step down from president duty in the future. Ethan2345678 (talk) 03:32, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

• 46th and current. You are the 46th president forever, but only currently the president during your term. I think being the current president of the US is information important to Biden's notability, and improves the understanding of readers (especially outside of the US) to include. I also don't think there are MOS:CURRENT concerns for a four year term on an article as heavily monitored as this, that shouldn't be a problem. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 05:45, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
• 46th and current , It brings out clarity and is consistent with what was written for the likes of Obama and Trump while in office. BristolTreeHouse (talk) 13:16, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
• 46th and current per the others above. People unfamiliar with US politics might not know that he's the current US president. Some1 (talk) 14:10, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
• 46th and current - It's better for clarity and it seems to have been the undisputed way of saying it on the pages of other presidents when they were in office. There is also zero chance for this page to not be frequently updated, so no danger there. PraiseVivec (talk) 14:30, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
• No 'and current' is not needed. OK I did something really dumb here, I read all the discussion here, evaluated all the arguments, came to the conclusion that the 'and current' voices had the stronger arguments, while the nay-sayers seemed to be being a bit pedantic and overstating the 'bad English'. So I left a vote for retaining 'and current'. Then before bidding the RfC goodbye, I looked at the opening sentence again. EUREKA, the addition adds nothing IMO and is a bit 'clunky'. Apt analogies are not with Trump, Obama, Bush etc, but with any other BLP or other article where use of present tense is sufficient to imply 'currency'. The distinction between "is the nth" for the current office-holder and "was the nth/served as the nth" for former office holders is sufficient IMO. Nor do I hold with the "he is and always will be the nth president" argument, whilst there may be circumstances in which that statement is grammatically and factually correct, in real world usage we use a past tense or modifier somewhere in the construction if it not current. So goodbye RfC, one is never to old to admit one was wrong or to change one's mind. Pincrete (talk) 15:06, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
• No. It's obvious Biden is the current president, so it becomes a bit redundant to mention it. We only add a number to determine his sequence within that line - no distinction is needed for who is current. It's also clunky as others have astutely noted. Imagine watching a news network like the BBC and having them mention Biden "the 46th and current president of the USA"... who or what do you take me for BBC? Thankfully we don't have that type of BBC. If they did, I'd imagine there is some heavy implication going on: "Biden is the 46th and, ahem, current [*rolls eyes*] president." You know what they say: KISS! Leitmotiv (talk) 17:35, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

It may not be obvious, especially in this highly polarized and contentious era. There have been many attempts at de-legitimatizing said presidency, this included. and current has been used for all past presidents and it is the most accurate and most correct.Eccekevin (talk) 19:31, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

• No - It is obvious by the use of the present tense "is the 46th president" that the 46th is current. Compare this to Donald Trump having "served as the 45th president". Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:46, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Please stop with the citing of the CURRENT state of Trump's article! That is how we word it for PAST presidents. When Trump was president, his article said "Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is the 45th and current president of the United States." -- MelanieN (talk) 18:17, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

It still doesn't refute my reasoning of present vs. past tense. Trump WAS the 45th president. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:31, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

It can also be said that Trump is the 45th president, using the present tense. No other person holds the title of 45th president, and he is till alive. Eccekevin (talk) 19:28, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, but that is just factually wrong. Trump is no longer president. You cannot use "is". He was president, and he is the person who was the 46th president, but there is no way in which he presently is president. --Khajidha (talk) 22:43, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

This is all irrelevant. Nobody has suggested that we should now say "is" for Trump; he is "former" or "was" or "served as". But when he WAS president, we said "is the 45th and current president.". If we are looking for precedents, that is the applicable precedent. (President, precedent - there's a joke or pun in there somewhere.) -- MelanieN (talk) 22:53, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

I seem to recall that the process for developing a consensus on Trump was so challenging that it was not considered to be a precedent for anything else, much like Bush v. Gore. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:07, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

The fact that we used bad writing in the past is no reason to do so now. --Khajidha (talk) 23:25, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

• 46th and current - It improves the understanding of the article's subject and is a no-brainer to include. - Aoidh (talk) 02:18, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
• 46th and current - the same style was used with previous presidents when in office, so there is no reason to treat Pres. Biden differently, plus it is indeed better for clarity. -- fdewaele, 6 July 2021, 21:35 CET.
• Include current I think the consensus is to include the word "current". I personally find the wording "currently serving as the 46th president" to be the most precise. ––FORMALDUDE^(talk) 02:09, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
• 46th and current: When Biden leaves office, it's a very simple matter to remove the word "current". Stix1776 (talk) 02:59, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
• 46th and current - Sounds like this is what is normally done. I can't separate any attempt to change precedent (no pun intended) with certain fringe political motivations. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 20:59, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
• No because of the use of present tense. See Pope Francis, does it say "Pope Francis is the current head..."? — Alalch Emis (talk) 14:46, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

That would make sense if we were calling him only "the president", but we're calling him the 46th president, which you always are (in the present tense) forever. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 15:00, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

By that logic "George Washington is the first president of the United States" is a correct sentence. And that's worse than wrong, it's ridiculous. You are the __th President during your term, but once that term ends you were the __th President. --Khajidha (talk) 01:21, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

There have been no new edits for a week. I am just posting to keep this thread from getting archived. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:07, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

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

Current consensus page

I have created a current consensus page simliar to Trump's: Talk:Joe Biden/Current consensus, to help keep track of what part of the article does or does not have consensus. Thoughts before adding to the main talk page? Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 20:12, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for doing this. Looks OK to me so far. There are some other controversial things that we may have reached informal consensus on; I will look back through the archives. I wish we could list a consensus on "46th and current" vs "46th" alone, but the jury is still out. By my count, the current RfC stands at 21 for "46th and current" and 13 for "46th" without current, but the RfC is still open. We'll see if the eventual closer is able to find consensus in this discussion or not. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:39, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

No worries. Once we close the "46th and current/46th" we can certainly add that. I was also considering adding consensus for "is" over "served as" per this RfC [33] but it was never formally closed. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 21:04, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

I think you could add the "is vs. serving as" discussion even though it was never formally closed. The responses were 11 to 3 for "is". -- MelanieN (talk) 14:36, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

I’ve formally closed it, MelanieN, since I didn’t take part. WP:IAR. starship.paint (exalt) 15:01, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

When the above "46th and current president" RFC is concluded? I'll be seeking a consensus (likely by RFC), to see we should add "since 2021", since the archived RFC was closed with "is". GoodDay (talk) 16:31, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

GoodDay, before posting that question as an RfC it should be discussed here informally - to see if consensus can be reached locally. That is supposed to be a precursor before requesting an RfC, and I don't think there has been a discussion here specifically about "since 2021". -- MelanieN (talk) 16:37, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Over at the Donald Trump article, part ways through his term, the "since 2017" was removed & remained so. I had to do the same for Mike Pence's article, in order to match. If the opposite happens at this article (i.e. we add "since 2021"), then we would/should do the same at the Kamala Harris article. GoodDay (talk) 16:40, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Just out of curiosity, has anyone proposed adding it here? -- MelanieN (talk) 16:46, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

I mentioned it earlier (19:01, on June 28), within the "46th and current" RFC. Pointing out, it was something I'd look at separately & after that RFC's closure. GoodDay (talk) 17:01, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and added the "is vs. serving as" to the current consensus page.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 17:40, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

There have been no objections to adding this subpage to the main talk page so I will add it. User:MelanieN are you able to apply 30/500 protection for it to match Trump's current consensus page? Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 14:50, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

 Done -- MelanieN (talk) 04:22, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Infobox

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.

---

An editor has recently (per WP:JOBTITLES) attempted to lower case President of the United States & Vice President of the United States, in this article's infobox. Now, I've reverted him on the basis of we just don't 'lower case' in the infoboxes of government officials & as well, his changes was putting this article out-of-sync with the other world leader bio articles, not to mention the other US presidents & vice presidents bio articles. GoodDay (talk) 10:24, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Can you provide a guideline-backed rationale for why JOBTITLES should not be followed here? We have guidelines, and they should be followed. You're making an WP:OTHERCONTENT argument. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 16:39, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

You really should open an RFC on this matter for all government officials across the globe, concerning infoboxes. Remember we discussed this, days ago. GoodDay (talk) 17:37, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, we discussed this, and nobody provided a guideline-backed objection, so I decided to be WP:BOLD. I'm a bit annoyed that you reverted when you still don't have a guideline-backed objection. You've said before that you simply don't like MOS:JOBTITLES, and I suspect that is a reason. I am absolutely free to bring one page or any number of pages in compliance with our guidelines. I don't need an RfC to enact a guideline that has already been adopted by the community. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 17:51, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Would you do me a little favour. Look across Wikipedia at all the bios of current & past government officials, different levels of governments infoboxes. Bios of presidents, vice presidents, chancellors, prime ministers, deputy prime ministers, kings, queens, princes, princesses, grand dukes, grand duchess, governors, lieutenant governors, etc etc etc & tell me if they're capitalised. GoodDay (talk) 17:58, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I'm well aware. If it's a community-established convention, then surely you can point me to that MOS item or RfC? There's a lot of hostility to JOBTITLES, and I suspect that may be the reason. Please stop looping back to an WP:OTHERCONTENT argument, that's getting quite tiresome. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 18:03, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Test my theory, then. Head over to the bios of the British prime ministers & decapitalise the offices in their infoboxes. Wait a while afterward. My firm guess is, within hours you'd be reverted on each & everyone of them. Same thing with the Canadian prime ministers, German chancellors, British monarchs, etc etc. GoodDay (talk) 18:07, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm not interested in editing those articles. If you are going to continue to evade backing up your claim to consensus with ANY kind of guideline, discussion, RfC, then we're done here. You've been around for a while, and I know you know how the consensus process works on Wikipedia. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 18:12, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

It's called a quiet consensus. But, if you want to narrow the field of bios. Open an RFC on this topic, concerning only American government officials. Ya know, US presidents, vice presidents, speakers of the House, president pro temps of the Senate, cabinet members, Congressional members, state officials, etc. GoodDay (talk) 18:16, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm not interested in "narrowing the field". MOS:JOBTITLES already applies to all articles. It is a guideline, it exists, it will be followed. Period. A silent consensus only holds so long as there is not an overriding explicit consensus. As you have just admitted you do not have an actual consensus, I will restore the edit once 24 hrs are up, provided someone else does not join this discussion with a good reason why I should not do that. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 18:20, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

If you're not going to open an RFC on this, then I will. GoodDay (talk) 18:21, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

I will not. But I welcome that and will gladly participate if you think a new consensus needs to be developed. Please note that MOS:JOBTITLES only requires the offices be lowercased if they are modified by the order, i.e. "46th" in this case. I'm only trying to lowercase offices in infoboxes that are modified in that way. For example, I would not lowercase "Prime Minister" in the Boris Johnson infobox. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 18:26, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Well, if you're going to have a bio article for a test case? Why not the current US president. Anyways, getting it ready. GoodDay (talk) 18:28, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

GoodDay, my hope in doing it here was to have a well-attended discussion. I suggest WT:MOSBIO for the RfC venue. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 18:33, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Very well, but the status quo must remain (i.e. capitalised), during the RFC at MOSBIO. GoodDay (talk) 18:37, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Of course. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 18:39, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

I've begun the RFC-in-question. GoodDay (talk) 18:47, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

GoodDay, you didn't note that this is only about offices modified by an order. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 19:20, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Oh, you can add that clarification to it, if you wish. Thought my examples already cleared it up. GoodDay (talk) 19:23, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

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