Jump to content

Talk:Joe Biden/Archive 14

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15Archive 16→Archive 18

Presidential transition article

I just stumbled upon the Presidential transition of Joe Biden article, and since there are many editors with considerably better knowledge of American politics than me are here at the moment, can someone get onto verifying everything written there? I just removed an unsourced "as expected by all" and a "many other nightmare scenarios", there are many entirely unsourced paragraphs, and the whole tone of the article seems a bit odd. -- GN-z11 ☎ ★ 19:09, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 7 November 2020 (4)

it should say.....at 78, Biden will be the oldest person to be sworn-in as US President....don't just say he will be the oldest. Also....the date of the election was Nov. 3...the date of when the national press declared him President-elect is/was Nov. 7, 2020 why be vague in just saying...in November 2020 was the election>?>? List the dates..ok?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.33.130.2 (talk • contribs) 20:42, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree with the addition of "At 78..." I don't think the dates need to be mentioned. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:53, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 7 November 2020 (5)

Minor edit request: in the final sentence of the opening section (beginning with "Thus, he is ..."), change "and the first since Richard Nixon" to "following Richard Nixon". "First since" doesn't quite feel right semantically, given the first half of the sentence. This isn't something that happened multiple times in the past; this is only the second time in history. Myriad100 (talk) 23:06, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

I noticed this as well, and strongly agree. I would change it to "he is only the second non-incumbent vice president to become President-elect of the United States, after Richard Nixon in 1968." Saying that he's the "first since" seems to imply that Nixon is not the only other instance of this, so it just doesn't feel right. Cpotisch (talk) 23:36, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
CpotischMyriad100, that seems quite reasonable, but neither of the listed sources seem to back up that claim, could one of you point out the source you got that from? Thanks :) CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 01:34, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
@CaptainEek: We didn't add it, so we don't know the source. However, the suggested edit is justified completely by what is already written there, so it shouldn't really matter, right? Cpotisch (talk) 01:36, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
Cpotisch, As another person has requested it below I have amended it and found another source. Let me know if you think the new wording should change further, there were several different ideas about how to reword it. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 01:48, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
@CaptainEek: I think that "after" would be better than "besides." Other than that, the wording's good. Thanks. Cpotisch (talk) 01:51, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 8 November 2020 (3)

Change "Category:Biden family|Joe" to "Category:Biden family" in the category section (without the sorting by "Joe").

In 2018, one user, User:Rcb1 changed a bunch of categories on families (like Category:Obama family) so that individuals in them are by first name within the category. However, they implemented this rather inconsistently: It works decently for royalty, but it gets quite clunky and confusing when there are individuals within the family category with a different last name (making this "sorting by first name" thing pretty useless), and it doesn't fit within the standard Wikipedia sort/categorization guidelines. Rcb1's resorting within family categories would be the sort of thing that would require an RfC (if more than just one user actually wanted to implement it). Paintspot Infez (talk) 03:56, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I actually think that's a useful scheme. For example, nearly every page in Category:Obama family ends with "Obama" so sorting everything into the "O" section is kind of useless especially since I'd be scanning that category for someone's first name. I'd rather we work to bring other pages in line rather than edit this page. This probably makes me involved w/r/t this request so I'll leave it to someone else to action. — Wug·a·po·des​ 04:39, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

:: Done —valereee (talk) 11:47, 8 November 2020 (UTC) clearly not enough coffee, this needs more discussion. —valereee (talk) 12:14, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:15, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Reelected or re-elected?

Hi

In the third paragraph of the introductory section it says "Biden was reelected to the Senate six times, and was the fourth-most senior senator". Why 'reelected' not 're-elected' (almost all dictionaries put a hyphen in). Also, why does that sentence also say 'fourth-most' not 'fourth most'?

'Reelected' is also not consistent with the rest of Wikipedia on presidents, eg: in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1792_United_States_presidential_election, in the third paragraph of the introduction to the George Washington election it says: "Adams won 77 electoral votes, enough to win re-election"

Furthermore, in the next sentence, it says "Obama and Biden were reelected in 2012". Again, why not 're-elected'?

Best wishes

Andy (from UK)

Ps the world can breathe again Georgio18 (talk) 09:33, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

I also noticed that on a read through and I agree that they should be hyphened. Would need an admin to change it as the article is currently locked. Govvy (talk) 10:56, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

:: Done —valereee (talk) 11:31, 8 November 2020 (UTC) lol, I'm not getting it right anywhere. —valereee (talk) 12:02, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

No, re-elect is horribly old-fashioned; please put it back. And since I've got you Valereee, you might take a look at User_talk:Oshwah#Joe_Biden. EEng 11:51, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
EEng, hm. Let me take a look at the edits that have been made by EC accounts. If what Jeske Couriano is saying is correct, that could be a pretty important factor. —valereee (talk) 12:22, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
Let's see what Oshwah says when they start editing again and see your comment at their talk. I tend to agree with the argument that there are plenty of eyes on this article, and especially during the US daytime on a Sunday, for us to at least go to EC for a few hours. —valereee (talk) 12:35, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
I hate the way the English looks, Reelect just looks weird without the hyphen, if you type the word into google it will hyphen it. Seems it has both ways on the Cambridge dictionary, I was always taught if the word begins with an E, before a Re, it should be hyphened. Govvy (talk) 15:45, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
Well I hate the way the English look too, but they were pretty brave in holding out against Hitler way back when, so you gotta give them credit. Hyphenating re-elect went out about the same time as co-operation. EEng 16:59, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
I'm in agree-ment. O3000 (talk) 17:04, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
Shirley you mean agre-ement. EEng 18:08, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

To hyphen or not to hyphen, that is the question! Upon the morrow, thy shall see, which will it be, the hey or the ney! Govvy (talk) 18:35, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

(Responding to User:EEng's ping) I'm not the right person to be asking. I've lived in the UK for 30 years, and in British English anything other than "re-elect" would just be flat-out wrong, to the extent that the unhyphenated version instinctively makes me want to correct it. When I left the US "re-elect" would have been preferred but "reelect" would probably have been acceptable, and I don't know how whether AmEng has shifted to the extent that "reelect" is now preferred. On most articles we'd unquestionably go with "re-elect", as a form that's at least acceptable in all variants of English and thus follows WP:COMMONALITY, but this is obviously a US-only topic and as such if "reelect" is genuinely now the preferred term in AmEng this might be one of the rare occasions in which it's appropriate to make a formal decision to disregard the Manual of Style. ‑ Iridescent 20:03, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
My dear friend Arid Desiccant, like it said in the edit summary (though perhaps I should have had the text flash or something), I was pinging you on the question of the article being full protected indefinitely. EEng 21:21, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
On that question, definitely not unless it proves necessary. This is just the kind of article where we need people to be able to edit all the time, since for the next four years it will need to be constantly updated. Full-protection is an absolute last resort for articles (at the time of writing this is one of only two articles in Category:Wikipedia pages protected against vandalism); what full-protection does is hand over control of one of Wikipedia's most important articles to the tiny handful of people who have both admin status and enough interest in the topic to want to edit it. If I didn't think it would provoke a wheel-war, I'd remove the existing protection without a second thought; I think it's totally inappropriate. ‑ Iridescent 21:40, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
As a speaker of American English, I prefer re-elect with a hyphen. I also note the AP style guide uses a hyphen in re-elect [1] CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:37, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
No, it doesn't [2]. EEng 06:52, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Re-elect appears to be a relict. —valereee (talk) 14:45, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Poll

This appears to be a matter of opinion since neither is officially incorrect. Google searches for re-elect: [3], 167 million hits. Google searches for reelect: [4] 5 million hits. But Google searches don’t decide things, consensus does. Keep discussing above, but let’s take a poll - just list yourself under your preferred spelling, no discussion. That might help to clarify things. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:34, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

With all due respect, Melanie: what a colossal waste of time. EEng 23:37, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
If you're gonna use Google, using quotes and the news tab would be more useful; "reelect" gives 124K news articles (and Google telling you it's spelt wrong) while "re-elect" gives 210K. (Also, to avoid code spam, you can simplify Google URLs to just "/search?q=<term>", and, for tabs, just add "&tbm=isch" for 'image-search' or &tbm=nws" for 'news'.)  Nixinova   T   C   00:25, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
reelected
lol, you found a lot of examples of this way, seems lazy like a Trump government not to put a hyphen in! Govvy (talk) 09:01, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, what? EEng 09:18, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
re-elected
Good point. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:41, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Change suggestion

"is an American politician and democratic candidate in the 2020 election for president of the United States of which he is the presumed winner & president-elect, pending confirmation by the electoral college. If elected he will be inaugurated as the 46th president of the United States in January 2021."

Or something similar. Then simply keep it locked til the electoral college has voted, and change it ever so slightly if (or more likely, when) he is actually elected. (And do include who he defeated if that happens) Same if somehow loses. I truly fail to see what the thing is with this "he must be referred to as president-elect NOW" attitude some display here. I hope it's not a case of POV. (And you do realize that wikipedia articles does not determine reality? They should only reflect it) Same with the calls to basically emulate the media in incorrectly (unverifably) claiming that Biden is the president-elect before the fact. Mass media really shouldn't set the standard for how an encyclopedia behaves. Indeed the guidelines here rather discourages acting like a media outlet. 95.202.161.202 (talk) 21:41, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Christ. It's like wikilawyering, but real life, so... lawyering? A) To imply that there will be 20+ faithless voters and the election goes to someone else is unprecedented. Wikipedia needn't speculate on remote possibilities. It also doesn't need to needlessly complicate the prose to satisfy people who want to entertain remote possibilities. B) What you're saying is irrelevant, and it's why things like WP:PRIMARYSOURCE exists. Editors do not use their own reasoning to decide what is or isn't true, or if a label/title is fair, or whatever. Reliable sources do that. And they've done that. So this point has little relevance to Wikipedia's WP:PAGs. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:44, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
It's not an assumption of anything but the opposite: A statement of the actual facts without attached assumptions and incorrect assertions. He isn't the president elect, that's a fact. So why should ot say he is? What you are saying is that editors SHOULD indeed decide what's true and false (rather than simply going by the plain and simple facts) even as you criticise it.95.202.161.202 (talk) 21:54, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
Further.. in regards to primary and secondary source.. Media outlets claims that he is president-elect, that's primary source. If you want to claim they are secondary sources, then what is the primary source? It cannot be the only real one - the electoral college, because that hasn't voted yet. So it is indeed original claim. Also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Breaking_news
"All breaking-news stories, without exception, are primary sources" 95.202.161.202 (talk) 21:59, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
The "actual facts" according to you. This is original research. We don't do that. We use reliable secondary sources, which are nearly unanimous in the simple word in the article also used in previous elections. And this is no longer "breaking news". Immediately after one or two sources called it would be breaking news. When massive sources use the same wording, we use it. O3000 (talk) 22:27, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
No, primary and secondary source are defined things (and not by me lol) and it doesn't mean "a newspaper or media outlet" as you seem to infer. A supposed secondary source that doesn't rely on a primary source - cannot be a secondary source. And your definition of what constitutes breaking news is indeed your definition of it. This is what the guidelines state: "It is better to wait a day or two after an event before adding details to the encyclopedia, than to help spread potentially false rumors." 1 or 2 days does not mean "immediately", now does it? Most sources saying Biden is president elect is from today... Not that this article even cites them correctly.. it goes on for several paragraphs before a single source on anything whatsoever is presented. And not a single source is used to cite him supposedly being president elect. (First source is several paragraphs down - about him having the delegates to become a candidate) So do spare me these baseless claims of this adhering to guidelines. :D I'm one of the few here who is pushing for guidelines to actually be followed. 95.202.161.202 (talk) 22:41, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
You really need to read the Wikipedia policies fully. All of the major news networks, print and television, in the USA are referring to Joe Biden as president-elect save for Fox, which has major reliability issues and seems to be doing it purely out of right-wing partisan pique. Wikipedia reflects what the Wikipedia:Reliable sources coverage is. This is neither "breaking news" nor is it any other form of exception. IHateAccounts (talk) 23:04, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
Fox News does refer to Biden as president-elect. Awoma (talk) 23:11, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
I have read them, and you are unfortunately simply ignoring what "secondary source" (cant have a secondary when there is no primary) means, what reliable means, what verifiable means. As well as the part about breaking news. You in particular also display clear political bias with your statement. Which is incorrect as well - as fox news has indeed called Biden the president elect. https://www.foxnews.com/world/reaction-world-leaders-biden-presidential-election
"World leaders have extended their congratulations to President-elect Joe Biden after he was projected to be the winner of the 2020 presidential election." Not that it matters - you cannot be president elect when you are not elected, it doesn't matter how many (primary to boot) "sources" say so. It's akin to saying religious people outnumbering atheists prove the existance of God.
But maybe a few dictionaries might help you?
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/president-elect
"a person who has been elected president but who has not officially become president yet"
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/president-elect
"a president after election but before induction into office."
https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/president-elect
"A person who has been elected president but has not yet taken up office."
https://www.thefreedictionary.com/presidents-elect
"A person who has been elected president but has not yet been inducted into office."
And how is a (US) president elected? Why: https://www.usa.gov/election#item-36072
"In other U.S. elections, candidates are elected directly by popular vote. But the president and vice president are not elected directly by citizens. Instead, they’re chosen by “electors” through a process called the Electoral College."
So then.. how can a man who has not been elected - be the president elect? The answer is apparently found in "creative" (re)interpretation of the wiki guidelines. 95.202.161.202 (talk) 23:15, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
You are making some basic mistakes. Wikipedia policies follow the secondary sources: "Policy: Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources. Articles may make an analytic, evaluative, interpretive, or synthetic claim only if that has been published by a reliable secondary source." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research#Secondary
In the case of the term "president-elect", American news agencies use the term for the person who has earned enough Electoral College votes to become the next President of the United States. The meeting of the Electoral College itself is a formality, and this is also recognized by the United States Secret Service, which implements heightened protection of that individual from the point of certainty rather than waiting until after the Electoral College officially meets. The primary source in this case is the vote counts released by each of the states, which the various news and statistical reporting agencies collect and then release their evaluation as secondary sources as to whether a particular individual (in this case, President-Elect Biden) has won enough of the state election contests to have an incontrovertible lead in the Electoral College.
"The president-elect of the United States is the person who conclusively appears to have won a presidential election in the United States, but has yet to take office as President." - per President-elect of the United States IHateAccounts (talk) 23:49, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
My friend, it's quite simple. We go by what's WP:VERIFIABLE. Doing otherwise is original research. When nearly every source is referring to him as President-Elect, in addition to world leaders and subject matter experts, we can't say otherwise. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 00:02, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
  • We really need an FAQ on this, but I did the FAQ on why George Floyd's death was a homicide so it's someone else's turn. As we all know an FAQ won't reduce the number of spurious talk posts, but at least it gives us a shorthand way to answer them. EEng 23:56, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
This is a temporary problem primarily by one inexperienced editor that may not be helped by an FAQ. Two week block from this IP for WP:BLUDGEON and WP:IDHT might work, and won't even go on record if the user creates a username. O3000 (talk) 01:00, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
It's someone who has some pretty clear Wikipedia:Competence is required issues and who is refusing to read and understand the policies involved, continuing to make arguments that make little to no sense. I support the proposal of O3000. IHateAccounts (talk) 02:14, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Exactly four years ago, Trump's article said he was "an American businessman and politician who is President-elect of the United States."[5] Similar objections were made but rejected. I see this as similar to prime ministers. We always say that someone was elected prime minister, but actually they are usually appointed by the head of state on the basis that their party won a majority of seats in the legislature. TFD (talk) 07:58, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Our lead currently says this:

Joseph Robinette Biden Jr. (/ˈbaɪdən/ BY-dən; born November 20, 1942) is an American politician and the president-elect of the United States.[nb 1][nb 2] Having defeated incumbent Donald Trump in the 2020 United States presidential election, he will be inaugurated as the 46th president on January 20, 2021. A member of the Democratic Party, Biden served as the 47th vice president from 2009 to 2017 and United States Senator for Delaware from 1973 to 2009.

I think that is a good lead, comparable to the way we have handled previous presidents-elect, and should be kept the way it is. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:04, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Having a note is good. Joe Biden is the President-elect despite the incumbent president's false claims. cookie monster (2020) 755 21:16, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

COVID response plan

I added this to the Political positions of Joe Biden page; I think it deserves a mention here.

Biden pledged a large federal government response to the COVID pandemic akin to the New Deal of Franklin D. Roosevelt following the Great Depression.[1] This would include increased testing for the COVID virus, ensuring a steady supply of personal protective equipment, distributing a vaccine and securing money from Congress for schools and hospitals under the aegis of a national "supply chain commander" who would coordinate the logistics of manufacturing and distributing protective gear and test kits, distributed by a "Pandemic Testing Board" (similar to Roosevelt's War Production Board).[1] Biden also pledged to invoke the Defense Production Act more aggressively than Trump in order to build up supplies, as well as the mobilization of up to 100,000 Americans for a "public health jobs corps" of contact tracers to help track and prevent outbreaks.[1]

References

  1. ^ a b c Goodnough, Abby; Stolberg, Sheryl Gay (15 October 2020). "Biden's Covid Response Plan Draws From F.D.R.'s New Deal". The New York Times. Retrieved 7 November 2020.
(reply to self): Added a modified version of this. --Bangalamania (talk) 22:53, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Small Change

Why does the Post-Vice Presidency (2017-2021) section include 2021? There's nothing in that section from the year 2021?

Also, the first two sentences in the LGBTQ+ sub-section (Biden was the first to speak on gay marriage at a Human Rights Campaign event in Los Angeles in 2012. He also called LGBT workplace discrimination "close to barbaric" and "bizarre".) are outside of the time frame of the section above. Should that part be moved to a different section? I was thinking the Vice President (2009-2017) section specifically. ChipotleHater (talk) 01:17, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

President-elect

Please refer to the FAQ at the top of the page. Ribbet32 (talk) 22:38, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

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.

As I have also mentioned in the Talk page of the Harris article, similarly Mr Biden is not (yet) President-elect. He could more properly be referred to as "presumed President-elect". A president and vice president are elected as such by the Electoral College and confirmed by Congress. At that point, they become President-elect and Vice President-elect pending the formality of inauguration. I accept the article is using the term in the common media and political senses, but this is an encyclopaedia and in the constitutional sense it is not correct and for both this and the Harris article a more careful wording is needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.251.35.95 (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia is based on WP:SECONDARY sources which are in agreement that Biden is president-elect. Note that the term president-elect is not a precise indication of electoral college voting; rather, it is a popular term for the candidate who has clearly won the campaign, even if the voting process is not quite finished. Binksternet (talk) 15:46, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
Please see the FAQ at the top of this page. Your question has been asked and answered many times. Moncrief (talk) 19:09, 16 November 2020 (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.

The most votes ever in a presidential election

Is this stated anywhere?— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 18:06, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

I imagine not yet, because we don't know how many votes he received yet. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:09, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
Well, my source was a quote from an elected official, but she must have gotten in from somewhere. Surely there is a reliable source. Also, I know I've seen that Biden alone received the most votes ever for president. That may actually be true just based on the votes we know about and I'll be back if I can find that.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 18:15, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

While it is likely a true statement, I'm sure that more reliable sources will say it as the tallies are finalized in all 50 states. Plus, it's a strange metric to use, sort of like using high box-office ticket sales in dollar amounts without accounting for inflation. The number of votes should generally go up, assuming similar turnout, simply because the population of the USA continues to rise. IHateAccounts (talk) 18:22, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Have we had this sort of record in an article before?Slatersteven (talk) 18:25, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
I believe we did in the Obama article, but I'm not sure if it's in the current version. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 21:17, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
I think it's likely due for a single sentence at some point. If this becomes something that's repeatedly mentioned in reliable sources, we can surely include it, but I think for now it's too soon. It's obviously due for the election article, as EEng implied. As far as it being trivia, I have to disagree. It's historic and thus encyclopedic, regardless. If the trend of increased voter participation continues, you might have a point, but your reasoning as to why it would ultimately be trivial sort of requires a crystal ball at the moment.Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 21:24, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
I shouldn't have called it trivia -- that's too strong -- but it's a ... factoid? I mean, think of all the other many fascinating things we could tell the reader: first presidential election in which the winner got the same # of electoral votes as the winner of the just-prior election; first president-elect from a state starting with D; presidents married more than once. Somewhere someone mentioned about former vice presidents who got elected president after leaving the vice-presidency -- I mean, really, what is the significance of all this??? This article is about Biden the man, primarily, and the focus should stay on that. EEng 21:40, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
I generally agree, and obviously the main BLP article should be focused on biographical material. I'm sort of at the point where I would contend that this is inherently biographical. Though if and when it's included, it should be weighted accordingly, and it should be a single, simple sentence qualifying and characterizing his successful candidacy. Two at most. The fact is that those other items, which I fully agree are factoids (and some of them truly trivialities), do not have the weight for inclusion that this does. I'm arguing for a weak inclusion, just because it's supportable by policy. But like I said, I'd still like to see how reliable sources deal with it. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 23:46, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
We should mention within the context of total turnout, which was truly remarkable. Highest since 1900, I believe. GreatCaesarsGhost 12:28, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
I agree the high turnout is worth mentioning, but that should be expressed as % of eligible voters, not raw counts. EEng 03:35, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Please stop Wikipedia:Repetition in Argumentation

Repeating the same exact argument over and over ad nauseam is not going to convince anyone that the policy of WP:NOTTRUTH is wrong. Please stop making new sections arguing this point. If you want to argue this point, at least continue an existing thread. As most of these arguments are created by users who have never edited before or IPs who have never edited before, please take a bit of time to learn our procedures before arguing here. As well as that, if you have not made any contributions to Wikipedia in the past, people may not enjoy you joining Wikipedia to argue. If you want to actually encourage discussion instead of receiving a canned response, please also do not make threats like "Wikipedia is breaking a federal law" or call people "Biden-lovers". Unsurprisingly, people do not take kindly to threats or attacks of any sort. If you have read this and refrained from posting the same complaint, thank you so much. Gsquaredxc (talk) 22:14, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Most of these requests are coming from new editors who do not read over an entire article talk page before posting their comments. Liz Read! Talk! 22:23, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Why is that relevant? Moncrief (talk) 22:24, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Would it be possible to make Talk:Joe Biden/FAQ more visible? I feel like the average IP editor might not give up even after seeing Q1 and A1, but we could at least do a better job of communicating the information. KidAd talk 22:27, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Honestly, I'm not expecting IP editors or anyone who would come to request this to read my suggestion. I'm just going to refer to it immediately if someone posts the same thing again. Might even be a valid edit summary for just reverting the edits. Gsquaredxc (talk) 22:35, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Here's what I am doing: copy-pasting this at the bottom of the discusion:

I understand your point of view, but we are following Reliable Sources and standard Wikipedia practice. See “Frequently asked questions (FAQ)” at the top of the page. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:23, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

...and hatting after 24 hours. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:23, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
Jumped the gun a couple sections below. When you get older, time moves more quickly. O3000 (talk) 01:51, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
We only need one of the same discussion on the page so I archived all of the repeated ones. The IP editors that come up with these complaints put in absolutely no effort so I don't feel bad about putting no effort into responding to them. Gsquaredxc (talk) 04:46, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Current or recent health status of Mr Joe Biden?

For example if there are recent pictures of him riding a racing bicycle, or running, or lifting weights, that would be a good indication of good health.

--ee1518 (talk) 12:20, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

No, no it is not. RS saying he is would be.Slatersteven (talk) 12:22, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
A photograph of Mr Biden undertaking exercise would be evidence of his health status per WP:OI. 86.140.67.152 (talk) 14:37, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
That is about use of images, not their accuracy or reliability.Slatersteven (talk) 14:40, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
It would reasonable at some point to note Biden is the oldest president ever, which has lead to some reasonable speculation on his health and longevity. However, the presidency section is currently so short it would be UNDUE now. GreatCaesarsGhost 12:34, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
It's already in the article. Under 2020 presidential election President-elect. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:47, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
I meant specifically concerns raised about health, given his age. Not that the speculation itself is worth noting, but a this becomes an issue during his presidency (as has Trump's apparent age-related degeneration). GreatCaesarsGhost 13:47, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Infobox, what to do with 'succeding' field.

Howdy. Seeing as there's a growing consensus to remove Biden from the 'successor' section of the infobox at Donald Trump's article. Shall we remove Trump from the 'succeding' section of this article's infobox, until Biden takes office? GoodDay (talk) 22:06, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

A growing consensus isn't consensus, it sounds like an ongoing discussion. Can you provide a link to this discussion? Liz Read! Talk! 22:21, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
It's happening at the Trump talkpage. GoodDay (talk) 22:24, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
And I just noticed that you are blocked from editing that article and talk page, is there a reason you are bringing that discussion over here? Liz Read! Talk! 22:27, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
It relates to this article & not to mention all the congressional & gubernatorial bio articles. Do we really want to have a sloppy encyclopedia. GoodDay (talk) 22:30, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
With my vote, it's 7 remove to 6 include. At this point in time, even if it were to be called on the Donald Trump page, I would want a vote here as well. It's too close to apply the same vote to a wide selection of pages. Gsquaredxc (talk) 22:31, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Actually, I do not think we should list Biden as Trump's successor, in the President of the US box, until he has actually taken office. But it's OK to list Trump under "succeeding", in the president-elect box in the Biden article, because that box is obviously a statement of what's going to happen. EEng 20:12, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 November 2020 (2)

In the second marriage section, make a blue link to the Chapel at the United Nations page. There is already one at the Jill Biden page. This should be the same. 68.199.42.28 (talk) 18:14, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

 Done A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 20:20, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Remove "46th"

I'd like to to shorten "inaugurated as the 46th president" to "inaugurated". There has been wide speculation that Trump may resign before the end of his term. While I would not give any weight to what is clearly WP:CRYSTALBALL, I also don't feel anything substantial would be lost. Opinions? GreatCaesarsGhost 16:50, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

I can see this as valid, yes we should remove it until he is.Slatersteven (talk) 16:53, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
And a nuclear weapon could explode in DC. Let's not engage in speculation. Just say what RS say. O3000 (talk) 18:05, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
That’s Trump’s Plan B in case he DOESN’T resign. 2600:1002:B1C1:D596:B428:65E7:89C7:9182 (talk) 03:44, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 November 2020 (2)

In 2017, Joe Biden became the founding chair of the University of Delaware's Biden Institute, a research center that develops public policy solutions for some of the nation’s toughest domestic problems, including civil rights, environmental sustainability and violence against women. 100.14.209.244 (talk) 14:58, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Terasail[Talk] 16:55, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Actually this is already included under Distinctions. —valereee (talk) 13:29, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Making the FAQ easier to see

Might I suggest adding a bigger, redder, more specific message on the edit page, similar to the Sega Genesis talk page? The FAQ on this page only deals with one issue so we might as well make that explicit in the box. Something like "BEFORE ASKING ABOUT THE TERM 'PRESIDENT-ELECT'"... ? Popcornfud (talk) 22:40, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

The link at Template:Editnotices/Page/Talk:Joe Biden gives the wrong pointer for the FAQ; it should point to be Talk:Joe Biden/FAQ. EEng 23:37, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
@EEng: Not eloquent, but I fixed it to link correctly. EvergreenFir (talk) 00:12, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
fwiw the link worked if viewing the editnotice while editing the talk, but not when you go visit Template:Editnotices/Page/Talk:Joe Biden directly. I was too lazy to figure out a fix. Text I just copied from Template:Editnotice/doc#Examples, it may well need changing. BTW, worth remembering that mobile users cannot see editnotices or talk headers (T201595). And, looking at tags on history, most repetitive edits are from mobile phones. So, not sure what to do about that. At Talk:Sushant Singh Rajput the solution was just to have it as the first section, as well, but I'm not sure that helped at all. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:33, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Seriously, how about adding:  ? EEng 01:13, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

I suggest subliminal stimuli. O3000 (talk) 01:41, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
At the risk of repeating myself... I see the wording on the edit page now says "Before editing, consult this article's list of Frequently Asked Questions." As this list of frequently asked questions consists of only one question, why don't we just say here: "BEFORE ASKING ABOUT THE TERM 'PRESIDENT-ELECT', READ THE FAQ"? Popcornfud (talk) 12:49, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
Because we're sure to have more FAQs by the time Trump packs up his circus freak show and goes home. EEng 17:27, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
Then it can be edited back again. It's not like it takes hours to do this stuff. Popcornfud (talk) 21:35, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
Remember, mobile editors can't see any of this, no matter how blinky you make it. It's all hidden behind the teensy "About this page" link, that's not even colored like a link. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 18:13, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, quite an issue. As I say above two ideas are: (a) create an FAQ wrapper that doesn't use tmbox (that will show on the talk page I believe). (b) make the FAQ the first section. This might be completely WP:BITE but there's also the idea of a warn edit filter for brand new mobile edit requests on certain pages. (I know I know... just throwing the idea out there). I'm also confused how IP editors keep making edit requests. The edit button just shows a "This page is protected" message, and the talk page button is hidden. So how on earth they're creating edit requests, nevermind with the edit request template filled in, is quite confusing to me. Do you know how they're doing it? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:40, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
I don't think (a) will work, I don't see the word "intro" at [6]. (b) might be better than nothing, but without custom styling there's nothing to draw the eye to it. I can't explain why some mobile edits have the pre-filled section title. Maybe they're just copying the section titles they see? That would imply that they're reading the title, which is a good sign at least. Suffusion of Yellow (talk)
Ah, I forgot it only shows once you click the "Read as wiki page". ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:11, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Hide his senate posts from infobox

Should we hide Biden's Senate committee chairmanships from the infobox as they did to Chuck Grassley's infobox? --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 12:28, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

We can collapse at least, but note that collapsing does not work on mobile devices (so, on mobiles, it will appear fully uncollapsed anyway). Hence I think the ideal would be to collapse on desktop and hide on mobile entirely. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:51, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 November 2020

See the FAQ above. DÅRTHBØTTØ (T•C) 21:45, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.


Joe Biden is not the President-elect. The election is confirmed as undecided. 2601:2C3:857F:8A90:F063:B1D5:5496:5B16 (talk) 15:48, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Username6892 (Peer Review) 16:03, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
We have had a discussion about this at Talk:Donald Trump. Yes, the electors have not officially voted yet, but reliable sources are saying he is the president-elect, so according to Wikipedia, he is the president-elect. Mrytzkalmyr (talk) 18:02, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Redux

Joe Biden is not the president-elect of the United States. The election results have not been confirmed. 2601:2C3:857F:8A90:F063:B1D5:5496:5B16 (talk) 21:00, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

<sigh> EEng 21:18, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 November 2020

See the FAQ above. DÅRTHBØTTØ (T•C) 19:34, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. 


208.188.184.67 (talk) 18:44, 20 November 2020 (UTC)


Biden did not really win the election. FAKE NEWS!!

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Username6892 (Peer Review) 18:46, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

What does TBA mean in the context of election results?

What does TBA mean in the context of election results? --Werfur (talk) 12:25, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

"To Be Announced". ValarianB (talk) 13:09, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Writings by Biden

Isn't "by Biden" in the section "Writings by Biden" a little redundant as it is self-evident? Wouldn't just "Writings" as the header be more concise? — The Most Comfortable Chair 14:11, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

The Most Comfortable Chair, Such a section does not currently exist in the article as far as I can se? CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:43, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
CaptainEek, it must have been changed to "Publications" recently. — The Most Comfortable Chair 09:43, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Foreign policy

User Slatersteven deletes an important paragraph "Foreign Policy", in my opinion, this can be considered vandalism. I appeal to him, that if he has no reservations about the paragraph, to leave it. Removing Biden's views on world events (Iran, Israel, etc. ), if everything is well sourced, is quite absurd (and against the rules of Wikipedia). Jirka.h23 (talk) 15:14, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

We have an article on it, we do not need it in to places.Slatersteven (talk) 15:16, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
Homonym alert! EEng 15:27, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
Slatersteven, why didn't you say this first time you reverted the edit, that this bothered you? During the first revert, sourcing was required, I took the job and added the sources, at the second no request was made (no reason), until at the next you asked me to take it to the talk page. Nevertheless, I have no problem to defend my edit here. I strongly disagree that there is no reason to add a paragraph "Foreign Policy", Donald Trump, Barack Obama and others have also this paragraph and no one complains, It's also good to know the attitudes of a man who will have so much power in his hands, don't you think? Jirka.h23 (talk) 13:49, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
In both my edit summaries I said it was down to you to make a case one with a link to wp:ONUS and once telling you to take it to the talk page. Nor did you add just on paragraph.Slatersteven (talk) 13:56, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
So? I'm still waiting for your reason for removal. Jirka.h23 (talk) 16:16, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
We have an article on it, we do not need it in two places. We do not repeat information.Slatersteven (talk) 16:17, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
Are you serious? Should I go now and delete all of the same paragraphs in all articles, because they have their own article? Because you forbid it? Should I refer to you? Jirka.h23 (talk) 16:30, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
No, and lay of the making it about me. We do not need this amount of information that just duplicates already existing information (literally a cut and paste job). Now if you want to propose (here) a one paragraph summery go ahead.Slatersteven (talk) 16:36, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
What copy and paste job are you referring to? This was mostly translated from the Czech Wikipedia (looks like you did not even read the text). English sources were also found by me, and not copied from the article. So if you have no serious issue, I am again asking you to stop removing it from the article, as it is: related, standard and well sourced. Do you agree? Jirka.h23 (talk) 18:17, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
NO as we have an article on it already Political positions of Joe Biden. We do not need this in two places in such length (especially when some of it was little, roe then list entries). I think it is time for others to chip in.Slatersteven (talk) 18:20, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
So now there is another reason, excessive size. What will you come up with next? Have you seen how long is this paragraph at Barack Obama? But ok, we can agree on how to shorten it. Jirka.h23 (talk) 21:58, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
I agree with Slatersteven. This is huge complex subject, and we have big separate page where everything was properly described. Selectively including just a few random views (as Jirka.h23 did) was not an improvement. My very best wishes (talk) 23:25, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
So you're saying it's too short? What are you missing there? Anyway, any missing things can always be added. No new topic on Wikipedia has ever been perfect, to delete whole paragraph because of this is quite non-standard. Jirka.h23 (talk) 00:26, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
But alright, I'll wait until the paragraph is delivered by someone else (although I still do not agree with the Slatersteven's unjustified procedure). Jirka.h23 (talk) 12:52, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Logical order of sections

The article is in a haphazard order section-wise. Sometimes it is chronological, otherwise totally mixed up, various topics mingle in a single section, and what is "Reputation" doing in front of the 2008 presidential election? His marriages and children should not be under his senate career but should be a separate section under Private life. The whole article is illogical and looks pierced together. Teemeah 편지 (letter) 15:44, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

No doubt it is pieced together, and could use a careful review of its organization, but a hybrid approach of some kind (not strictly chronological, not strictly thematic, not ...) is probably appropriate here. EEng 18:13, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Can we come up with a standard reply to these edit requests?

Every day we get multiple, identical edit requests objecting to our description of Biden as president-elect. These edits are in good faith but there should be no need for us to discuss it at great length, over and over, each time someone says it. It's an enormous waste of editor time. Do you think we could find a standard cut-and-paste reply - either explaining why we are doing it the way we are, or else referring all of them to one discussion here and closing all the new ones? Wondering what others think. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:45, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

We could put something in an FAQ about this, to say that historically, the "apparent electoral college winner" gets the benefits of the transition prior to the EC meeting, and this is all standard fare. Save for the loser not conceding, that is. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:48, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
lol, I just edit conflicted with Evergreen Fir on creating the FAQ. —valereee (talk) 19:59, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
lol sorry about that. I started this an hour ago, and to drive, and just finished it. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:03, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, folks. From now on when someone brings this up I intend to refer them to the FAQ. I don't think I will immediately hat their request - that would be kind of rude - but maybe hat or archive after 24 hours. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:33, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
If there are new ideas discussed, there should not be laziness and say "already decided by the Wikipedia Court". This is not an issue of pro-Biden people saying one version, pro-Trump saying another version. This is just factual and clear writing. There can be ways to write it that should not offend either side if sides are reasonable. There is just too much crystal balling in Wikipedia on many, even non-USA articles, like "such and such WILL happen on this date" not "is scheduled" or "is expected to". Mink cull (talk) 20:26, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
WP:TRUTH is useful here. We reflect what RS say, even if it is "technically wrong" or we personally disagree. RS almost universally call him president-elect. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:05, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Mink cull, Wikipedia's standard is not to avoid offending any "side", as EvergreenFir states, it's to report what reliable sources say. Liz Read! Talk! 22:13, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Firstly, Wikipedia must not fall into the trap of false balance. In fact, one of the sides is not being “reasonable”. What’s going on here is there’s one end of the US political spectrum that is actively questioning, undermining, and sometimes outright denying the reality of the election result, for the sole reason that it isn’t the result that they wanted. Wikipedia does not change its content to avoid offending people. I seem to recall a prominent conservative commentator saying something like “facts don’t care about your feelings”? Also, if this is not about Trump losing, then why did this sort of thing not become a major on-wiki controversy until after Biden won? 🤔 —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 23:55, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

no, unresolved issue

Sorry, NOT resolved. I bring up issues and ideas not discussed.

I came to the article and was shocked so I came to this talk page. No, there shouldn't be a standard reply but re-evaluation of the Administrative Decision to keep it the way it is.

Reasons to change this includes:

1. Factually wrong

2. Conflicts with other wikipedia articles

3. I don't think there is a formal title of "President-elect". It is purely informal

Current version:

Joseph Robinette Biden Jr. (/ˈbaɪdən/ BY-dən; born November 20, 1942) is an American politician and the president-elect of the United States.[nb 1][nb 2] Having defeated incumbent Donald Trump in the 2020 United States presidential election, he will be inaugurated as the 46th president on January 20, 2021.

What if he dies early? Why disregard the Constitution as far as the winner. CNN is not the King of the United States making decrees.

Suggested version 1 (which satisfies all sides or should) AND EDIT REQUEST

Joseph Robinette Biden Jr. (/ˈbaɪdən/ BY-dən; born November 20, 1942) is an American politician and is expected to be inaugurated as the 46th President of the United States on January 20, 2021. A member of the Democratic Party, Biden served as the 47th vice president from 2009 to 2017 and United States Senator for Delaware from 1973 to 2009.

Suggested version 2 (consistent with the President-elect article in Wikipedia, using identical language)

Joseph Robinette Biden Jr. (/ˈbaɪdən/ BY-dən; born November 20, 1942) is an American politician. He has been declared the president-elect of the United States by numerous media outlets. [nb 1][nb 2] He is expected to be inaugurated as the 46th president on January 20, 2021. A member of the Democratic Party, Biden served as the 47th vice president from 2009 to 2017 and United States Senator for Delaware from 1973 to 2009.

For those who hold Wikipedia power, please do not rule with an iron fist but consider these very neutral, not anti-Biden, not anti-Trump, suggested version. I like Suggested Version 1 but 2 is also ok. Mink cull (talk) 20:12, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a nasty habit of writing "so and so WILL occur on such and such date". Look at the 2020 Olympics. All along, it should have read that the Olympics is SCHEDULED to begin in August 2020, not Olympics will begin in August 2020. Mink cull (talk) 20:14, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

I understand your point of view, but we are following Reliable Sources and standard Wikipedia practice. See “Frequently asked questions (FAQ)" at the top of the page. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:35, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
My Suggested Version 3 accounts for that. For Biden lovers who think that any challenge to him is a pro-Trump move, Suggested Version 3 removes all that. For Trump lovers, Suggested Version 3 is more factual than the current version. I like Suggested Version 1 but 3 is fine with me. Mink cull (talk) 20:44, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
"Biden lovers"? This has nothing to do with people being fond of Biden and pushing him through. For every victor of the presidential elections throughout Wikipedia's two decades, we have always labelled the President-elect as such when the 270 threshold has been reportedly reached. We did this with Obama and Trump in early November of 2008 and 2016, respectively - now we're doing it with Biden. It has absolutely nothing to do with our personal preferences. DÅRTHBØTTØ (T•C) 21:14, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
This has nothing to do with Biden or Trump lovers. It has to do with factuality. If there are Reliable Sources, they at least need to be cited. In 2008 and 2016, there was no dispute over who had won. In this case there is. Many believe those disputes are unfounded, but that is opinion, not fact. If the Trump campaign drops those disputes or they are dismissed, then it would be safe to describe Biden as President-elect (and there would be ample citations available). Otherwise it is not factual to label him as such unconditionally until vote counts are certified and/or the electoral college vote is complete. Regardless of standard Wikipedia practice, I don't understand why anyone would want Wikipedia to display anything other than strictly factual information.PeanutButter1046 (talk) 07:23, 13 November 2020 (UTC)User:PeanutButter1046
Here's what I said the 87th time this came up this week... So you're saying we should wait until December 14th. But wait! On that day, all the electors of each state do is prepare a Certificate of Vote, and these are all forwarded to the Senate, where they are placed in a ceremonial box. Not until January 6, 2021 are these boxes opened and the elector votes tallied up, after which the president of the senate announces the result. So shouldn't we wait until then to say Biden's the president-elect? Or maybe we should wait until the electoral vote is printed in the Journal of the Senate! You see how stupid this all is? EEng 09:01, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
"Much Ado About Nothing" (as a comment, not as a reference to this) comes to mind. Re editorial disagreement supported by reliable sources with differing viewpoints, WP:DUE comes to mind. Too many editorial arguments boil down to "I like my source better than I like your source." Too many others boil down to "I'm right. You're wrong. Period." Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 10:40, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
If this is having to be addressed so much, isn't that a good indication that this is not undisputed? If it is not undisputed until January 6, or whenever, then yes, that is when we should wait to say that it is not disputed. Even if it looks sure or we may want it to be sure sooner doesn't make it okay to go ahead and publish technically unfactual information. To bring this full circle, why not use one of the three suggested edits above to make it accurate? So many rely on Wikipedia to be factual, and I feel it's important that it is. I still don't understand why so many are so resistant to making a simple, easy correction that would make this article factual and accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PeanutButter1046 (talk • contribs) 22:03, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Nice examples

The 2020 Summer Olympics (Japanese: 2020年夏季オリンピック, Hepburn: Nisen Nijū-nen Kaki Orinpikku),[b] officially the Games of the XXXII Olympiad[c] and commonly known as Tokyo 2020,[d] is an international multi-sport event scheduled to take place from 23 July to 8 August 2021 in Tokyo, Japan.

Bad example

The 2021 London mayoral election will be held on 6 May 2021 to elect the mayor of London. (That election is already postponed from 2020) Mink cull (talk) 20:30, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

  • We follow reliable, secondary sources. That's it. We cannot include our opinions, cannot engage in speculation, and cannot engage in original research. Simple. O3000 (talk) 20:34, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
But secondary sources, when they are comprehensive, do make the distinction. Furthermore, my version is better and factually correct. Secondary sources also say the Holocaust never happened. If your problem is the word "president-elect" that can be worked in an encyclopedia fashion. Mink cull (talk) 20:37, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
No valid source says the Holocaust never happened. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:40, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Mr. Mink cull, quality, reliable sources describe Joe Biden as the President-elect, and the related Wikipedia articles will follow suit. You are seriously reaching with comparisons to the Olympics, and the attempt to portray Holocaust denial as legitimate criticism (for the record, no reliable secondary sources question the Holocaust) is getting to areas of antisemitism. IMO, you should tread cautiously here, and reconsider that line of argumentation. ValarianB (talk) 20:43, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

If your problem is the word "president-elect" that can be worked in an encyclopedia fashion. Mink cull (talk) 20:37, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Suggested version 3 (for those who like the word "President-elect")

Joseph Robinette Biden Jr. (/ˈbaɪdən/ BY-dən; born November 20, 1942) is an American politician and is expected to be inaugurated as the 46th President of the United States on January 20, 2021. Several days after the election, Biden was declared the President-elect. A member of the Democratic Party, Biden served as the 47th vice president from 2009 to 2017 and United States Senator for Delaware from 1973 to 2009.

(This would inform kids of the future that there was a delay and cause them to be curious and read more. Certainly the election of 2020 is far different from the election of 2012. Mink cull (talk) 20:41, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Not an improvement. ValarianB (talk) 20:44, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Why do you say so? Wikipedia is not a vote. Please explain, if you wish. It is not my favorite version, #1 is, but #3 is an improvement over the current version. Mink cull (talk) 20:46, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
The current version is what the sources use; "Joe Biden is the president-elect of the United States". Not considered-to-be, not kind-of-is. He just is. We have 2 notes (nb1, nb2) at the end of that statement explaining how the current resident of the White House refusing to accept the reality of the situation. That is all we need. ValarianB (talk) 20:57, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
The current version follows Wikipedia policies and guidelines. And I suggest you strike your comment about the Holocaust as it's an egregious example of Godwin's law. O3000 (talk) 22:46, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Americans are already confused with concession, no concession. Concession is a custom and being polite. It has no legal consequence. Also what is "President-elect"? It means the person that has been elected but the Electoral College has not even met yet. The big problem is that TV networks declare winners when usually they base it on polls, exit polls, and the thinnest of released election results but the official count or even count after 99% of votes are tabulated can take a few days. Wikipedia is just perpetuating the misinformation.

There IS a way to fix Wikipedia. Consider this a EDIT REQUEST. Remove the term "president-elect of the United States" and replace it with "president-elect". If you insist, then "president-elect in the United States". The current way may lead readers to think that this is an official job title or position, which it is not. Admiral James T Kirk (talk) 23:49, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Admiral Kirk, you are violating the "prime directive". O3000 (talk) 00:57, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
[7] EEng 09:12, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
It's fine and good to use the phrase "president-elect of the United States". However, it should be "presumptive president-elect of the United States". Skcin7 (talk) 09:22, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
YES... presumptive. I understand that this is a pedantic point, but one of our jobs is to educate our readers about pedantic details like this. Biden WILL be President-Elect (and then President)... but he isn’t until the electoral college actually ELECTS him. Blueboar (talk) 16:34, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Vice President or Vice President-elect?

I feel as if the "blankname" and "namedata" fields should be used for Kamala Harris under the "President-elect" section of Biden's infobox. It would be more fitting and more accurate than using the "Vice President" field, even though 'elect' is included in brackets. DanJWilde (talk) 15:03, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Joe Biden once said he didn't want his kids to grow up in a "racial jungle" in regards to desegregation.

Joe Biden once said he didn't want his kids to grow up in a "racial jungle" in regards to desegregation. This should be added immediately.

Source: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/biden-racial-jungle-quote/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.124.84.138 (talk) 18:05, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

It’s not particularly relevant to this article since that quote wasn’t a major campaign issue.--65.92.160.124 (talk) 20:56, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
Immediately 31.124.84.138? Why, after over 40 years? The full quote is "Unless we do something about this, my children are going to grow up in a jungle, the jungle being a racial jungle with tensions having built so high that it is going to explode at some point. We have got to make some move on this." Personally I'd give him credit for being very early to identify the tensions that racism have created - but where are the reliable sources discussing this quote, and it's significance? Nfitz (talk) 21:09, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
  • I think it's significant that the future president opposed desegregation because he didn't want his children to grow up in a racial jungle. For Trump, his 'racial views' are listed fine, but for Biden omitted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.124.84.138 (talk) 14:55, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
    There's no doubt he made the comment, but the question is: what did it mean? That's what we need sources on. EEng 04:14, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Bi partisan semantics Praefect777 (talk) 04:04, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Discussion about First Lady and Second Gentleman-designate titles in infoboxes of Jill Biden and Doug Emhoff

Please join a discussion here regarding whether the terms "First Lady of the United States Designate" and "Second Gentleman of the United States Designate" should be in the infoboxes of Jill Biden and Doug Emhoff, spouses of the president-elect and vice president-elect, respectively. We need to come to a consensus. Thank you for your participation. cookie monster (2020) 755 21:31, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Typo: 45th Vice President under Obama not 47th.

Subject says it all. There's a typo on the right column listing Biden's political career.

It's not a typo. The source for the claim that Biden was the 47th VP is in the article. [8] Obama was the 44th President, but that doesn't mean Biden was the 44th or 45th Vice President. FDR had multiple VPs during his tenure. Knope7 (talk) 01:45, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Flashing stop

Matter resolved Arcturus (talk) 14:14, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

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.

Well, I thought Wikipedia intimidation (don't you dare edit this article or talk page!) had reached peak levels on numerous other articles, but then I happened across this page. This is something else! Like many other editors I'm not prepared to contribute to articles or pages where this degree of coercion is used. This flashing image is especially egregious and off-putting. Thanks, but no thanks. Arcturus (talk) 11:10, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

then please do not edit.Slatersteven (talk) 11:17, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
I already told you I'm not going to. Now see below for a suggestion. Arcturus (talk) 11:18, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
I suggest the flashing image is removed from this talk page. Arcturus (talk) 11:18, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Its there for a very good reason, so we do not have to answer the same question 76 times a day. I wish all pages had a faq that said "this has been discussed please do not ask". Nor has any good reason been presented as to why it shouls not be here.Slatersteven (talk) 11:21, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
See above. I spelled out a reason. It's merely your opinion that it's not a good one. Arcturus (talk) 11:23, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
Yes, of course it is. so lets see what others think.Slatersteven (talk) 11:28, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
Oh, don't get your bowels in an uproar. The stop sign is to make sure people see (and, we hope, read) the FAQs; the idea that it means don't you dare edit this article or talk page is your histrionic distortion. In fact, right under the stop sign it says the the FAQs are meant to familiarize you with points that have been previously addressed, though not to prevent further discussion of these issues. Perhaps you didn't read that far. But anyway, if you're too important or delicate or superior to read the FAQs, then as someone already said, in that case it's probably better you not edit this page after all. Funny how things work out, in the end, for the best.
And by the way: you refer to the many other editors whose sensibilities have been ruffled and who choose not to contribute. How do you know? Do you guys have a club – some sort of mutual validation network for the rightously offended? EEng 11:42, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
Please familiarise yourself with WP:NPA. Comment on content, not on contributors. Arcturus (talk) 11:49, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
Please familiarize yourself with WP:DROPTHESTICK. Your preferred pastime seems to be feigning offense at edit notices and FAQs [9]. EEng 20:38, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
Drop the stick? Surely one for you as well. Just out of interest, how much unproductive time did it take you to ferret out that edit of mine? Arcturus (talk) 21:04, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
About 30 seconds. It's front and center on your talk page [10] in the context of your reference to other editors as idiots. Maybe you forgot. EEng 21:10, 18 November 2020 (UTC) And don't call me Shirley.
  • Even with the big red flashing stop, the same question is still being posted.Slatersteven (talk) 16:05, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
    So it's not working anyway? I suspect the main problem with these types of warning is that they don't actually bring editors to the article, but they do persuade some not to bother. Arcturus (talk) 16:19, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
    Well it is working, as it has cut it down, and means we do not havee to waste time posting arguments we have already posted 15 times but just "see the FAQ". If its puts users off, fine, any one put of by it probably is no great loss, if all you care about is this one issue.Slatersteven (talk) 16:22, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment Perhaps as a compromise you could read the FAQ once and then have a system to opt out to never read it again? I do understand the reason for it being there. Biden has won, this is not something new that happens in US politics, elections have always been called and except for extremely rare cases where the call is wrong. The few cases where calls didn't result in a presidential victory is a difference of a single state. Trump to win would need to win Georgia, Pennsylvanian, Arizonia and New Mexico to become president, which is a fantasy dream. It is annoying to see new comments of people simply being upset and denying facts, and I defend it in that context. However maybe as a way to get everyone to be partisan, we can have the FAQ close and never read it again once you read it once. I do admit it is distracting, and perhaps POV pushing. Or the flashing image could be replaced possibly with a less distracting one? Perhaps something more in good faith. It is indeed mildly intimidating. Vallee01 (talk) 09:50, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
    Support this compromise. I would add the suggestion that we word the FAQ in a way that is as kind and non-patronizing as possible. Obviously, there is good reason for calling Biden the President-elect (he is just that). But the "flashing stop" will only embolden the most ardent people who disagree to push their POV even harder. We should also be welcoming of new and good faith editors wanting to improve the article, and the way that courtesy notices are worded and presented are important matters in this regard. HappyWanderer15 (talk) 23:58, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
    How would you suggest changing the wording? EEng 02:43, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
    I suggest a better compromise: The first time you see the FAQ, read it; the second and subsequent times, scroll past it. EEng 02:43, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
The only thing more ridiculous than the flashing stop sign (which is, indeed, magnificently ridiculous) was the sheer number of times agitated editors had been swooping in here to ask redundant questions about the term "president-elect".
FAQ lists are a two-edged sword. I have some experience in this matter, and I have learned that certain people are absolutely impervious and will re-ask the already answered questions, no matter what you do. But that does not mean you shouldn't try! If you only manage to deter 95% of the would-be re-askers, that means you're only putting up with 5% nonsense, and while that's not quite as nice as 0% nonsense, it's something. —Steve Summit (talk) 13:33, 20 November 2020 (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.

Typo: eletorial history table

Trump got 73,000,000 popular votes, not 730,000,000 (which is printed as 73,000,0000)

Thank you. Good eye. I fixed that. Moncrief (talk) 16:14, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
Speaking of typos, there's no such word as "eletorial". There is "electorial", but the standard word is "electoral" (no i), as in electoral college. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 17:43, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 November 2020

Boodos95 (talk) 18:07, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

I just wanted to add a few important things to the personal life section.

State what those things are in the request. 2600:1012:B10C:B98F:0:38:6144:7F01 (talk) 18:10, 19 November 2020 (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) 18:37, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Change the URL of the transition website.

The transition website is now buildbackbetter.gov, not buildbackbetter.com. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.114.73.22 (talk) 17:59, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Where are you seeing a link to the old website? Let me know and I'll be happy to change it. Done: I ran a search and changed to .gov in the two places where it was still .com. Thanks. Moncrief (talk) 19:11, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 November 2020

BIDEN IS NOT THE PRESIDENT OF THE United States, AS THE CONSTITUTION DETAILS THAT THE PRESIDENT IS ELECTED BY THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE. YOU ARE SPREADING MISINFORMATION, AS THE ONLY DOCUMENT THAT MATTERS IN THIS CASE IS THE CONSTITUTION. CHANGE BEING A PRESIDENT TO BEING A POLITICIAN. 2600:6C5D:5B00:C2E3:6546:1921:5745:B86E (talk) 17:27, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: per all other rejected requests. Please read the FAQ. Also, WHY DO PEOPLE THINK TYPING IN CAPS HELPS ANYTHING? – Muboshgu (talk) 17:35, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Nowhere in the article does it say that Biden is currently the President. Moncrief (talk) 18:40, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Electoral Results Table

CBS and CNN, among other reliable sources, have called Georgia for Biden, bringing his projected up from 290 to 306 electoral votes. https://www.cnn.com/2020/11/13/politics/joe-biden-wins-georgia/index.html and https://www.cbsnews.com/news/joe-biden-georgia-first-democrat-win-since-1992-cbs-news-projects/. Mrytzkalmyr (talk) 18:48, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

GSA Administrator Emily W. Murphy letter to Joe Biden

GSA Administrator Emily W. Murphy letter to Joe Biden notifying him of her decision to "ascertain" U.S. federal resources for transition of Presidency of Donald Trump to Presidency of Joe Biden.

Added image of GSA letter to the page, feel free to move it to a different location, remove it, and/or discuss. Thank you, Right cite (talk) 00:27, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Belongs in some article on the election or the transition, not here. EEng 00:48, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
It's in Emily W. Murphy —valereee (talk) 01:16, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
So the image we see here at right was obtained via X-ray? EEng 01:30, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Not sure what you mean about an X-ray. I think it's an ordinary scanned pdf file, scanned using a regular office scanner. The pdf file is from the CNN website[11]. Nsk92 (talk) 02:31, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Well, Valereee said the letter was in Emily Murphy, so I was wondering how someone got a picture of it. Maybe it wasn't X-ray but rather a tremendous ultraviolet or just very powerful light. EEng 03:15, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Not even the slightest reaction. Sometimes I don't know why I even bother. EEng 06:00, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
Whoops, sorry. groan. eyeroll. —valereee (talk) 11:10, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
That's all I ask. EEng 14:52, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
And also in Presidential transition of Joe Biden. That's plenty enough already. Nsk92 (talk) 01:25, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
No problem! Right cite (talk) 02:22, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 November 2020

Please include his electoral promises in this article. I think joebiden.com can be used as a reliable source

I am still waiting for someone to reply here.
I think you have your answer, no one thinks we should do this.Slatersteven (talk) 16:46, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
This is not a place to document his promises. 331dot (talk) 18:41, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Age

A sentence about Biden's age was removed from the lede along with trivial presidential firsts, seconds, and thirds. However, I do believe that some sort of statement regarding Biden being the oldest president does warrant mention in the lede, given that Trump's and Reagan's both mention it. Appreciate any input. Dosafrog (talk) 19:05, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

That Biden will be the oldest president from the first day (not the pointless comparison between his age at his swearing-in to Reagan's second swearing-in) should be mentioned in the article, and maybe even the lead (though given all the important things that really do need to be in the lead, I'm not sure about that). That he's the second left-handed vice-president from a state not ending in r to be elected president after shaking hands with a prime number of female foreign leaders might belong in some satellite article, not here at all. EEng 19:30, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
Yes, include, but not in the lead, just as other common facts about his election removed by EEng. My very best wishes (talk) 21:26, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
Well, I'm not so sure some of that stuff belongs at all:
  • first vice president to be elected president since George H. W. Bush in 1988 – So?
  • second non-incumbent vice president to be elected president – So?
  • first person from Delaware to serve as President – So?
It doesn't take too much reflection to realize how arbitrary these are: why aren't we saying he's the first (or second, or whatever) former (but not current) senator to be elected president? In fact, I suspect he's the only former (but not current) senator to defeat a sitting president running for reelection -- why aren't we saying that? We have list pages exactly so trivia like this can be parked somewhere without cluttering up real articles. EEng 08:02, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
I have no problem with various trivia "firsts" being in the article, as long as they aren't in the lead, which they aren't. Some of those apparently trivial things are kind of important in an American context, for example "only the second Catholic". For our first two centuries, more or less, it was unthinkable for anyone other than a Protestant to be POTUS. (It was also unthinkable for them to be anything other than white and male, but we have finally gotten past one of those restrictions and are working on the other.) -- MelanieN (talk) 16:55, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
You'll notice that the Catholicism wasn't on my list. I'm afraid I'm really going to insist on hearing the significance of these other factoids. For example: there have been 47 presidents, and Virginia, New York, Massachusetts, and Ohio have supplied about half of those. The other 24 presidents emerge randomly from the remaining 46 states, so it's inevitable that almost all of them will be the first (indeed only) president from their particular state.
But the inverse is worth noting: a president from Virginia should probably be noted as the 10th from that state, because that does tell the reader something (about Virginia, anyway). EEng 21:28, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
Well, their "home state" is one of the things that always gets listed about a president. I guess it's part of our national obsession about the importance of states as entities, not just geographical subdivisions. Check out List of presidents of the United States by home state - yes, it's important enough to us to have an article - where I learned that presidents get listed by TWO states: the one where they were born, and the one they are most associated with. That cleared up for me the apparent contradiction that the article lists Delaware even though he was born in Pennsylvania; turns out they both count. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:06, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
P.S. Turns out we also have List of presidents of the United States by age. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:06, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
The article already recounts where he was born, where he grew up, what state he represented, and so on. My objection is bothering with him being "the first" from Delaware -- once again, So what? (And, as you yourself raised, it's not as simple as that -- he was born one place, raised in another. So is he the first from the one, or the first from the other? Or both? So what?) EEng 23:14, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Worth calling out

Joe Biden will be the first and only president the Silent Generation has produced (1928-1945). Can someone please add this to his page? 

 - Biden - Silent generation
 - Trump - Boomer
 - Obama - Boomer
 - Bush II - Boomer
 - Clinton - Boomer
 - Bush 1 - GI generation
 - Reagan - GI generation
 - Carter - GI generation
Seems like WP:TRIVIA to me, especially because generation boundaries are fairly ambiguous and debated. KidAd talk 02:01, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
Agreed. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 02:54, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
Agreed, though it may be worth adding to the Silent Generation article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:24D0:2CA0:5096:D876:AFBB:DAD3 (talk) 04:21, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
Actually I heard this fact discussed on an NPR a few weeks ago by an author of "The Lucky Few", a book about the Silent Generation. It was significant but considering that Trump and Biden are only 4 years apart, I'm not sure if they represent a generational break. Liz Read! Talk! 06:37, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

- I think its cool! fogonthdowns

Maybe this should be noted here, although, that page has it's own issues. -- Sleyece (talk) 16:10, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
Obama a "Boomer"? I don't think so. He is clear-cut GenX, by values, behavior, frame of mind, digital affinity, etc.; not a Boomer. He, Paul Ryan, Sarah Palin, Rand Paul, etc. are of a common generation that clearly stands out from Boomers, like Trump, Bill and Hillary Clinton, Cruz, Pence, and others born in the 1940's and 1950's. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:6000:AA4D:C5B8:222:69FF:FE4C:408B (talk) 02:50, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
The general consensus is that Generation X began in 1965 - Obama was born in 1961, Ryan in 1970. However, you're probably right that 1961 may well be a sort of transitional microgeneration of late Boomers and early Xers, much as late Xers and early Millennials are said to constitute an "Oregon Trail Generation". NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:08, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

"Political Positions" section could use improvement

Normally I'd just start making edits, but this article seems high traffic and controversial.

I think the "Political Positions" section could use some improvements. Here are my suggestions.

  • Reduce the 2 paragraphs about Joe Biden ranking "X% conservative, Y% liberal" to 1 sentence. We already know he's a liberal because he's in the Democratic party. Those 2 paragraphs are taking up about 40% of the section's prose, and discuss zero specific "Political Positions".
  • Add Joe Biden's healthcare position. Currently zero mention. Is he for Medicare For All? Is he happy with the current ACA? Does he want to make changes to the ACA?
  • Add some of Joe Biden's foreign policy positions. Is he warm/neutral/cold toward Russia, China, North Korea, Venezeula, Cuba, Iran, etc? How nationalistic is he? Is he likely to start a unilateral war? Does he have a dislike of "socialism"? Is he likely to continue the Cuba Thaw started under Obama? Is he in favor of abruptly ending current military engagements? etc.

Would you folks be in favor of these changes? If so let me know and I can do some research and make the edits. – Novem Linguae (talk) 01:04, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

  • The first part sounds good
  • Yes, we can add that he wants to keep but make changes to the ACA
  • I dont really know much about his foreign policy specifics, but if you do, please add them.
-Sillygoose762 (talk) 16:04, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
User:Sillygoose762, edits complete. Thanks for your feedback. – Novem Linguae (talk) 03:13, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

On inappropriate contact

@Valjean: Hasn't Joe Biden also been accused of being involved in sexual contact as well? Vallee01 (talk) 20:39, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

IIRC, only once (Joe Biden sexual assault allegation, singular) the highly questionable Paula Reid case. She keeps changing her story. All other claims are about non-sexual contacts that either made the person feel a bit uncomfortable or made observers feel uncomfortable on their behalf, even though the person had absolutely no problems with the contact because they know Joe and understand him. It's important to make it clear these are non-sexual contacts. -- Valjean (talk) 21:26, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
I still think that if there is even a singular accusation of sexual assault there should still be present. After all if it a broad range of accusations it should still state that. I don't know if the case of sexual assault has entitlement evidence or not, and that's not the place to go and state. If the sexual assault genuinely is questionable then it should maintain "accusations of sexual misconduct" followed by the lack of evidence thereof. Vallee01 (talk) 21:50, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
The allegation is mentioned in Joe Biden#Allegations of inappropriate physical contact. TFD (talk) 22:56, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
So then it should be removed "non-sexual" allegations to simply misconduct, if Joe Biden is accused of sexual assault. Even if the entirely unclaimed, it should be removed. Or we can make it clear in the article the legitimacy of the statement is questionable or even false. Still there is a sexual assault case so you should remove "non-sexual" with simply "misconfuct". This seems like a pretty open and shut discussion, there is a allegation of sexual assault. Vallee01 (talk) 01:54, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
"Allegations of non-sexual contacts and one allegation of a sexual assault." Something like that. We should not leave the impression that any contacts other than that one contact are of a sexual nature when there is no evidence or claims that they were. -- Valjean (talk) 01:44, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
Vallee01, I strongly encourage you to more carefully proofread your comments before you actually post them, for grammar and word choice. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 01:46, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
@Valjean: I agree. "Allegations of non-sexual contacts and one allegation of a sexual assault" that seems great wording and makes it clear while there is only a single accusation of sexual misconduct. If there is no objections I will change it. Vallee01 (talk) 01:54, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
@Drmies: Fair. I will keep that in mind, thanks. Vallee01 (talk) 01:54, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
The credibility of the complaint is irrelevant to the significance we provide. It depends on weight. Mainstream media ignored the story for a month and even when they covered it, it did not receive a lot of attention. So the brief mention we provide is due, and it would be undue to change the header or the introduction to the section. Basically we tack it on the end of various complaints where no allegation of sexual misconduct was made. TFD (talk) 07:22, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
We can post things that are credible, or we can post non-credible things that get legitimate coverage. Reid didn't get coverage BECAUSE it wasn't credible. The biggest part of the story was the supposed bias in the MSM in ignore her, which turned out to be entirely appropriate. But THAT was not a story about Biden, so it should not be here. GreatCaesarsGhost 13:04, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
In fact the Reade allegation did receive coverage in mainstream media.[12] The New York Times for example published articles about the case, including "Examining Tara Reade’s Sexual Assault Allegation Against Joe Biden" That article does not say the allegation was not credible, although some opinion pieces may have said that. However, mainstream media waited a month after the story had been widely covered in alternative media before covering it. As you can see from the archives, I opposed inclusion until it had received coverage in mainstream media because I thought that only then did it have adequate weight for inclusion. Additionally, it allowed Biden's campaign to respond. TFD (talk) 17:16, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
"Mainstream media ignored the story for a month" - you mean to say, mainstream media did their due diligence, taking the time to properly research and report on the story ethically? [13] IHateAccounts (talk) 17:36, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
I think the suggestion of Valjean is great "Allegations of non-sexual contacts and one allegation of a sexual assault" is the best way to word the article, we can also remove the "see also" as it referenced in the article. Vallee01 (talk) 09:30, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
I'm not a regular editor here, but I also like this wording (with an embedded piped wikilink) and the idea of getting rid of the "see also" here. The article section goes on to summarize nonsexual allegations and it should similarly summarize that sexual one, basing that summary on content present in the detail article and citing sources cited there. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:51, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
I am going to change the wording, if there are any objections I will revert and keep discussing on talk. Thanks. Vallee01 (talk) 07:47, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
I restored the original wording of the first sentence of the section. The revised wording inserted the phrase "one allegation of a sexual assault" between the phrases "inappropriate non-sexual contacts," and "such as embracing, kissing, gripping, or placing a hand on their shoulder", making the meaning of the sentence unclear. The phrase about the embracing, etc., describes the accusations of "inappropriate non-sexual contacts" so those two phrases should be kept together. The new wording seemed to read that the allegation of sexual assault involved the "embracing, gripping, or placing a hand on their shoulder," which is not accurate. In addition, the deletion of the phrase "with women at public events" makes the meaning of the pronoun "their" later in the sentence ambiguous. I do agree the "see also" is unnecessary as the article is already linked in the following paragraph. Aoi (青い) (talk) 08:22, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
The meaning is supposed to state one allegation of sexual assault, and the rest non-sexual, how do you propose to wording the article? Vallee01 (talk) 16:53, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
I see the current issue, it is indeed poor wording what about changing the wording to: Biden has been accused of inappropriate non-sexual contacts, such as embracing, kissing, gripping, or placing a hand on their shoulder and one allegation of sexual assault. Also isn't kissing an example of "sexual contacts"? Vallee01 (talk) 16:57, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
Context matters. Kissing the back of someone's head (as he has done) can be quite innocent. Showing physical signs of affection can be non-sexual. In some cultures and families, quick kisses on the mouth are non-sexual. Longer kisses on the lips, especially French kissing (tongue), would usually be considered sexual in the United States. So context and allegation matter. -- Valjean (talk) 03:28, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

User:IHateAccounts, I think it is more a matter that the media did it consider it important until it had received extensive coverage in alternative media - left, right and center - and the Biden campaign decided it was important enough to respond. After all, newspapers normally don't take a month to report news. Hence the New York Times published an opinion piece by Linda Hirshman, [https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/06/opinion/tara-reade-joe-biden-vote.html "I Believe Tara Reade. I’m Voting for Joe Biden Anyway. The importance of owning an ugly moral choice."] She compares Reade's allegations to Anita Hill's allegations against Clarence Thomas. TFD (talk) 03:08, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Changing the wording, to "Biden has been accused of inappropriate non-sexual contacts, such as embracing, kissing, gripping, or placing a hand on their shoulder and one allegation of sexual assault." If there are any objections state so. Vallee01 (talk) 22:04, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
I feel that we should also include "sniffing" on the list. Bobby Neir (talk) 16:37, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
The main issue I have with adding non-sexual is it makes an assumption in regards to intent. PackMecEng (talk) 16:40, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
Not doing so makes innocent behavior appear like a sexual assault, and that would be a BLP violation. We should avoid even the shadow of a BLP violation. If RS do not make an explicit allegation that the contact was sexual, we should not leave that option open. The people (men and women) involved would have made a sexual accusation if it was, but none of them did so. Only Reade has done that and she has kept changing her story. It has morphed from descriptions of innocent contact into an allegation that was specifically sexual. She's the only one who has done that, and that constant changing of her story lessens her credibility. -- Valjean (talk) 17:59, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
Making assumptions on intent of a BLP where no evidence exists either way is a BLP vio. There is no implication to restoring the long standing text that I can see past your own personal WP:OR. So no BLP issue with going back to the long standing version that I can see. It also does not help that your version is unsourced. PackMecEng (talk) 18:02, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
I concur with Valjean on this. It's very clear that while Biden has been accused of not having good boundaries with regards to personal space, the conduct mentioned is not intended sexually. Especially when right-wing media loves to lie about it and try desperately to make fake "news" with false accusations, and the fact checks are available [14]. IHateAccounts (talk) 18:13, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
Again just making assumptions without RS backing is WP:OR. The source provided does not support the additional qualifier. It goes against MOS:DOUBT. PackMecEng (talk) 18:20, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
[15] [16] "“I do not consider my experience to have been sexual assault or harassment,” she said." [17] "The Times found no pattern of sexual misconduct by Mr. Biden." but I get it, right-wing individuals are desperate to misrepresent the reporting so they can claim, or at least imply, that Biden has some kind of "sex scandal". IHateAccounts (talk) 18:52, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
While I appreciate the people he had contact with do not consider it sexual assault most of the time, you seem to have missed the actual objection I posted. Which is about intent and sourcing not talking about that. Again, for the last time, if no RS make the statement we cannot make it up on our own to white wash articles. This is basic stuff. Without RS backing the claim, which again your sources do not obviously, it is a BLP violation to make up content like that. PackMecEng (talk) 19:50, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
I understand your point, and this is not the ideal way to solve this problem. What is a better way, using RS? -- Valjean (talk) 20:27, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
Exactly, we should go by what RS say. From what I can tell above, with the sources provided, they do not support in Wikipedia's voice stating what Biden's intent was or was not. I get that some of the people involved did not personally see it as sexual assault or harassment but that is not the question here. PackMecEng (talk) 21:27, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.npr.org/2020/05/20/859280849/sexual-assault-allegation-against-joe-biden-presents-metoo-challenge
  2. ^ https://www.npr.org/2020/04/29/847840765/new-information-emerges-around-biden-sexual-assault-allegation
  3. ^ https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/12/us/politics/joe-biden-tara-reade-sexual-assault-complaint.html

Biden broke a bone in his foot with a dog. This should be in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.26.192.145 (talk) 11:45, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

A. Source. B. please read wp:undue. Why is this relevant?Slatersteven (talk) 11:48, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
If he broke his foot kicking a dog, then I'd say include it. Otherwise no. EEng 14:31, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

I am have no opinion but I can answer about the source, including American, French, British, Australian sources.

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/11/29/biden-will-require-walking-boot-for-several-weeks-after-slipping-fracturing-foot-.html

https://www.france24.com/en/americas/20201130-biden-fractures-in-his-foot-while-playing-with-his-dog

https://www.voanews.com/usa/biden-fractures-foot-while-playing-his-dog

https://www.euronews.com/2020/11/30/us-president-elect-biden-breaks-foot-while-playing-with-dog

https://www.wsj.com/articles/biden-injures-ankle-over-thanksgiving-weekend-11606699070

https://6abc.com/biden-hurt-dog-playing-with-ankle-broken-foot/8385150/

https://apnews.com/article/joe-biden-breaks-foot-playing-with-dog-d4d9a2d939c57befb6ca3dd247a1e8e0

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-55127559

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-11-30/us-politics-live-updates-donald-trump-still-fighting-election/12933304 (Trump tweeting best wishes to Biden about his foot) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Largemaroon1 (talk • contribs) 22:41, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Does a hairline fracture in Biden's foot meet the WP:10YT? I think not. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:44, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Agreed, the issue here isn't sourcing, but whether it's a notable enough event to waste text on in this article. Perhaps if he is still in a boot during the inauguration in January it will be, as he might then be the first president in a boot during his inauguration and it will be in all of the photos. That at least might be a point of trivia ten years from now. Past that, I don't see this being notable enough for mention. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 22:50, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
  • I'm just going to archive this. It's perfectly obvious it doesn't belong in the article, and it would be nice to dispose of one trivially obvious issue without a lot of wasted editor time, for once. EEng 01:03, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 December 2020

Please change "Biden defeated Trump 2020 United States Presidential Election." to "Biden defeated Trump in the 2020 United States Presidential Election." Acyclepath (talk) 02:19, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

 Done Thank you for catching that. — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 02:37, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

First lead paragraph

Recent edits introduced multiple misspellings and stylistic errors in the first lead paragraph. Please review and fix. RedHotPear (talk) 03:59, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Also noting that mentioning seven terms (his seventh term was less than a month) is misleading and unnecessary in that paragraph. I also dispute that age needs to be mentioned in the first lead paragraph; why not other trivia such as second Catholic president? It simply is not necessary, and I recommend leaving trivia to the body. RedHotPear (talk) 04:03, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
Not of the body! EEng 05:55, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
Similar trivia in the third paragraph ("and thus will become the first president to enter office having already received the award.") is also not notable enough for inclusion in the lead. RedHotPear (talk) 04:08, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
Most of this was added today and fairly quickly reverted. Let us know if you still see things you'd like to query. Moncrief (talk) 05:46, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

can[t serve

1) no verficiation of us citizenship and that he ws born in the usa, without this biden can not serve 2) while ignored by the media, the issues presented n regard to cyberware rigging of the usa election are entirely very real and shortly will be tried in us supreme court. they clearly if proven amount to massive acts of traitors, which all agree would strip biden of any us citizenship and so again,qnother way make him in eligible to ever serve when these facts come out … f.n. the 'proven facts of this issue are that a 3 star cyber warefare expert lt gen mcinergy says flat out that cyber ware was used to change sufficient voes in border states to make biden win those states and if these fraudulent votes are taken away, backed out, trump is the easy winner. this is ineffect testimony and as such proof by a cyberware expert lt gen mcinerney who say the above is true and is buttressed by multiple levels of add'l facts … all ignored by the media as fantasies when in effect are online statements by an expert. Such massive national acts of votimg fraud clearly amount to being a traitor and all experts would then agree any such perp as in this case biden would be stripped of us citizenship and so not be eleigble ever to serve … see multiple online proofs of all of this ignored by the fantasy land major media 69.121.189.159 (talk) 14:11, 3 December 2020 (UTC) geo wash sr aka ao (perfect PROOF) ...

Do you have one RS that even reports this?Slatersteven (talk) 14:13, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Drunks are so amusing. EEng 15:22, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Re-election

@MelanieN: Your poll disappeared and the article still has the horrible spelling of Reelection! Govvy (talk) 11:51, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the alert, Govvy. Since discussion had died down, the thread was archived without having been closed. (It wasn't a formal RfC or anything, so it didn't have to be closed.) My “poll” ended up with these results: one very well documented !vote for reelected; four not particularly documented preferences for re-elected; one suggestion for reëlected; and one for “what a colossal waste of time”. Like most of the other commenters, I preferred re-elected and I still do. However, at this point I’m inclined to agree with that last choice. Your mileage may vary. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:41, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
My mileage has been running on low! I would prefer the change, o well, guess it would need more people interested. Govvy (talk) 17:18, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
Since I supplied both the very well documented !vote for reelected and the "colossal waste of time" comment, I obviously win the thread! EEng 21:14, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
Ye but you didn't get the popular vote! heh. Govvy (talk) 23:27, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
I'm filing for a re-count. EEng 00:05, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
I won't certify the results. Mrytzkalmyr (talk) 01:31, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
Right, you shouldn't certify the results because there was obvious !election fraud - EEng !voted twice! -- MelanieN (talk) 22:41, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
Yes, EEng, you clearly won the thread. BTW I let you get by with a "with all due respect" in your comment about the colossal waste of time, but I know you have been here long enough to remember the page Wikipedia:Do not say "With all due respect" - now unfortunately deleted, but a classic nevertheless. 0;-D -- MelanieN (talk) 22:37, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
I meant to ¡vote! for reëlected, and while MelanieN is acting like the results are all final or something, I insist (without evidence, documentation, or justification of any kind, who needs those) that my ¡vote! be counted, and this huge swing means that reëlected obviously wins in a landslide. —Steve Summit (talk) 15:04, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
P.S. [18], [19], [20], [21]. So there.
Well, that settles that. The New Yorker prefers reëlected. Case closed? -- MelanieN (talk) 16:38, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
For what it's worth, as someone who went to school when English was still English, "reëlected" is correct. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:12, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
And as someone who thinks there should be some connection between how words are spelled and how they are pronounced (which I realize is kind of a hopeless goal in English), I object to "reelected" as appearing to be a three syllable word - reel-ect-ed - rather than the four-syllable reality of how it is said and what it means. But oh well, we have bigger issues to fix here. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:36, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
I, for one, support the use of diaeresis marks. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:54, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
My uncle used to take those for his blood pressure. EEng 17:40, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
This feels very twee, and I'm not sure that comments like this add much value. Moncrief (talk) 00:40, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
Forgive me for saying but it does feel like Eng has established WP:OWN over this issue! :/ Govvy (talk) 11:41, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
The New Yorker actually has an article about the diaeresis on reëlect. —valereee (talk) 12:07, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
They're the only major publication still using it, and they feel the need to defend themselves from ridicule. ― Tartan357 Talk 12:34, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Edit Request


Hello, I noticed a typo. In the section 8 "President-elect of the United States" second paragraph, in the sentence "Days after the election Biden created a COVID-19 task force" there is a missing period at the end of the sentence. If someone could add it, that would be great, thank you WhiteWaterBottle (talk) 23:55, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

 Done – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:45, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Lawsuits pending

Unlikely to produce anything useful. PackMecEng (talk) 03:17, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

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.

Since lawsuits are still pending against the election results in multiple states, should we change the phrasing of "Biden defeated Trump in the November 3 election" to something like "Biden has currently won the election, however, lawsuits are pending against the election results in some states."? Bobby Neir (talk) 16:44, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Given the (so far) sterling levels of failure suffered by these lawsuits (and the fact that they have often been condemned for simply being utter junk), no.Slatersteven (talk) 16:47, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
OK, but here is a link to an article explaining that at least two of the lawsuits have been upheld, and many more are still pending: https://www.usatoday.com/in-depth/news/2020/11/16/trump-election-lawsuits-republicans-battleground-states-vote-count/6177538002/ Also, whether or not the lawsuits are upheld later, we should still give the facts, which are that there are pending lawsuits. Bobby Neir (talk) 17:09, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
2 to 8, a 25% failure rate, I stand by "sterling levels of failure". I also note that one of the successful ones can have no effect, as it only extended voting, and its now ended.Slatersteven (talk) 17:23, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
Your article hasn't been updated in 4 days, a number of the "pending" cases have been decided, and all against Trump. If you read your own article, you'll note that none of the two "wins" impact the election result, as called, in any way. The PA case that was won, for example, resulted in ballots that had never been counted in the first place... not being counted. So, they did not impact Biden winning the state (in fact, it could be argued that if there had been enough of these ballots and had they been from areas that were Trump leaning, excluding them prevented them from adding to Trump's total). The second case again does not impact the result of the election; it merely stated that polling locations with machine issues had to stay open in Nevada until 8 PM on November 3rd. They did stay open. So, Biden's winning Nevada included these votes. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 17:25, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
Even if they had won all of the lawsuits (but as of now, they are 2 for 36 I believe), it wouldn't change the result of the election. These lawsuits are performative, not substantive. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:54, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
Bobby Neir, Wikipedia follows reliable sources. Reliable sources say Biden won. No reliable sources cast any realistic doubt on this. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:28, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
Electoral collage

The election has not been completely certified by the electorial collage, just the media. the popular vote does not decide the president so it needs to be changed until after December 14 2020 when they vote, or at least specify he hasnt been certified and there are also audits that can change some of the outcome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.198.182 (talk) 01:59, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Joe Biden is the president-elect, according to all mainstream reliable sources. That's what we care about. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:19, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Additionally, the "media" isn't calling the election based on the popular vote nationwide. They are calling it based on the votes in each state and their respective number of Electors, which is why it has been called at 306 - 232, and not numbers in the tens of million. This standard of "you can't say that until the Electors are sat" is not one we have followed in your or my lifetimes. In 2016, we didn't wait until December before Trump was called president-elect, in fact, he was in the White House meeting with Obama and starting the transition process within 48 hours of the election itself. Not a month and a half later; 48 hours. Nor is this some extra legal action. Ever since at least 1963 and the Presidential Transition Act, we have begun the legal process of transition between one administration to the presumptive president-elect as soon as the winner is clear, and NOT waiting until the Electors are sat in December. We all know that this is not a standard that has been applied ever in our lives. The fact is, people will come up with an excuse to say he isn't president-elect on Dec 14th, since the Electors being sat isn't the acceptance of their result, that happens early January when the report of the Electors is sent to and certified by Congress. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 03:13, 23 November 2020 (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.
  • We should do what RS do. If something changes, we can always change it here. We should generally mirror what's happening in RS, including when they get it wrong. We cannot know they are getting it wrong until after the fact. To do otherwise, because we think they are wrong, would be substituting OR, wishful thinking, crystal ball thinking for dependence on RS, a phenomenon we see all the time with editors who depend on unreliable sources. -- Valjean (talk) 16:44, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
    Well said. EEng 13:47, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Likely defeated?

Please refer to the FAQ at the top of the page. Ribbet32 (talk) 14:55, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

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.

For the purpose of accuracy, should the first paragraph say "likely defeated" and "likely be inaugurated" until we get to Dec 14? Derelekt (talk) 00:10, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

For that matter, why not wait until January 6? EEng 04:30, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
As in the FAQ, wikipedia content is based on reliable sources, which confirm that Biden defeated Trump in the 2020 election. Awoma (talk) 11:09, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
Whilst I agree, technically, consensus says we go with RS. And RS say he won.Slatersteven (talk) 11:13, 27 November 2020 (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.

Missing word or typo under "President-elect of the United States" heading

In the second paragraph under Joe Biden#President-elect of the United States, "all under the aegis of a national "supply chain commander" who would coordinate manufacturing and distribution protective gear and test kits"

After distribution should be the word of. Alternatively, distribution could be changed to distributing.

I cannot make this edit as I'm unfortunately not extended-protected. I know I have an older account that is but I can't remember what it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GardenCosmos (talk • contribs) 10:46, December 4, 2020 (UTC)

This typo was fixed by Slatersteven. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:47, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Need to shorten sections, especially on Senate, VP campaign

Joe Biden's Presidency will no doubt end up taking a good amount of space in this article. As content related to his Presidency expands (as it will do rapidly after January 20th), this article will become unsustainably long, and correspondingly difficult for readers. We should make an effort now to move content that is ultimately WP:UNDUE to related articles that are specifically about his Senate career and VP campaign. What is left behind needs greater summarization and summary style. The lead also suffers from this problem, but being so much shorter and more prominent, it will be more easily fixed as need arises. Ganesha811 (talk) 14:05, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

The 'Post Vice-Presidency' section also could use considerable trimming. In the end, the only things of real note are a) he wrote a book - b) he stayed prominent - c) he decided to run for President. The rest can be much more briefly summarized. I might start there myself after the discussion here. Ganesha811 (talk) 14:08, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Why not move his entire senate career to another article? I remember seeing something like that for the John McCain stuff SRD625 (talk) 12:30, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

There has already been a split to United States Senate career of Joe Biden, though there is significant duplication. The content in the main article here could be of course be trimmed and summarized further, but the "entire" section should certainly not just be chopped out! Ganesha811, while some of that post-VP section could have been moved to the Political positions article, I think some of that should be restored and now it's too short. Reywas92Talk 05:45, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Biden-Ukraine Conspiracy Theory

I currently don't see anything about the Biden-Ukraine conspiracy theory, Trump's attacks on him relating to the theory, etc. If we want to wait until more evidence for or against the theory is presented, that's fine by me, but if not, here is a source from which we can add info about the theory: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/there-s-no-evidence-trump-s-biden-ukraine-accusations-what-n1057851 (does Wikipedia consider NBC an RS?). Mrytzkalmyr (talk) 14:59, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

It has little to do with Biden personally, and is more relevant to his presidential campaign. There is a brief mention in Joe Biden#Campaign,. More can be found in the link in that section to Joe Biden 2020 presidential campaign#Trump–Ukraine scandal and of course the main Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory. ValarianB (talk) 15:22, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
That sounds fair enough. But should we link the part in Campaign to the main Biden-Ukraine Conspiracy Theory article? I don't believe it is currently. Mrytzkalmyr (talk) 15:56, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
Though I will say that on the Donald Trump page Trump's supposed collusion with the Russians is mentioned. I feel that we should try for consistency. Bobby Neir (talk) 16:35, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
That's not consistency. Treating all accusations as equal is not consistency. Proper weight and credibility, per reliable sources, is the test. Biographies are not and should not be cookie cutter templates of each other with no consideration through reliable sources. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 17:28, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
Those sources aren't "reliable" at all, and haven't been for a long time. They aren't "journalists", they are political activists. Who are now blatantly trying to steal an election, while claiming there is no evidence, when in fact, research it for yourself and you'll see how incredibly obvious it is - here's a good start: https://www.zerohedge.com/political/correia-fkery-afoot - and on the legal level see here: https://hereistheevidence.com - don't expect the legacy media (that Wikipedia is absurdly still calling "reliable sources") to report on any of this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.31.129.252 (talk) 17:38, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
It's a shame none of this evidence was submitted in court by Trump's crack legal team. EEng 23:02, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
Zero Hedge or ZeroHedge is a far-right libertarian financial blog. Hard pass. You think you're reading journalists and not political activists? See WP:ZEROHEDGE: that source has been deprecated due to its propagation of conspiracy theories. It is a self-published blog that is biased or opinionated. per WP:RSP. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:41, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, "hard pass", that's the root of the problem, you only look at one side offered to you. I look at both sides and make my own determination, my own discernment to figure out the truth. You just believe whatever one side tells you, so you're in your little bubble where the formerly-mainstream corporate legacy media's coup narrative is believed no matter how many facts we have. You really should read this: https://ckarchive.com/b/8kuqhohzd95e (The Digital Coup and the Great Exposure) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.31.129.252 (talk) 18:33, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Which round here is called wp:or.Slatersteven (talk) 18:36, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

You do realize...

WP:DFTT EvergreenFir (talk) 12:24, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

...that Joe Biden isn't actually president-elect, right? (And, no, the AP doesn't invalidate the Constitution.) DetroitWheels74 (talk) 01:22, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Sign. Wikipedia is based upon what is provided in reliable sources, and RS calls Biden president-elect. AP and all other media have reported, not declared or invented, reported what state election commissions have themselves reported, i.e. that Biden will receive 306 Electoral votes based upon which states he won majorities in. This is how it has been done your entire life. You didn't wait until mid-December to consider Trump the winner of that election, or until mid-December for Obama, etc. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 01:25, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Do you really need an explanation about how this election is different from previous ones? Really? Try pulling your head out of your lefty bubble/rectum. DetroitWheels74 (talk) 12:08, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
You mean in that the incumbent is an incompetent sociopath? Yeah, I get that. EEng 01:25, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
We've heard this over & over again. Kinda getting annoying. GoodDay (talk) 01:47, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
So, who is president-elect? And, exactly what part of the Constitution are you quoting about the term president-elect? I can't find it. (Please realize this is rhetorical.) O3000 (talk) 01:51, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
The argument that a person is not president-elect until they are formally elected by the Electoral College is actually not an irrational one, but the problem is that declaring a person as president-elect upon media projection of the election is how this has ALWAYS been done (including when Trump won in 2016), and the only reason objections are being brought up this time are as a result of nakedly partisan motivations. Basil the Bat Lord (talk) 02:10, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
It's pretty funny watching Wikipedia (which is run by the usual hyper-partisan, disdainful leftists) accusing someone else of being "nakedly partisan"! (It'll be even funnier watching them choke on their own bile if the election actually gets reversed...!) DetroitWheels74 (talk) 12:04, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
As I would if monkeys flew out of my lefty rectum. EEng 01:25, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the US government. Wikipedia does not have to restrict its sources to the US Constitution alone. 2603:8000:A501:9B00:7CC1:BBA1:74AD:B720 (talk) 02:37, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Any one taking bets that we will still be seeing these posts after Dec. 14 when the electors vote? We'll probably still be seeing new editors posting that Biden isn't really President over the next four years. Liz Read! Talk! 02:47, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Cite trolling, soapbox, NOTFORUM, have that comment section closed or comments just reverted entirely, and move on. 2603:8000:A501:9B00:7CC1:BBA1:74AD:B720 (talk) 02:56, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
We absolutely will. They will switch it to when the Electors make their report to Congress, and then switch it to when Congress accepts the Elector's results. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 03:17, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

joe biden president

WP:NOTFORUM EvergreenFir (talk) 22:24, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

It's been a month since Biden won, yet it's a good time to say I told you (I wrote on 7.11) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.137.113.105 (talk) 12:29, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

NO as he does not take office for a month.Slatersteven (talk) 12:38, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Indeed. Soon after Biden is sworn in, reliable sources will start reporting it, and then soon after that, someone will see one and add it to this article. Mrytzkalmyr (talk) 13:59, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
well, can't honestly say wikipedia is a neutral and unbiased source of media since things seem to be leaning pretty far left regarding this years election. edit: neither the media NOR wikipedia chooses our country's president and biden has NOT won the election yet. he is not yet the president elect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.126.24.47 (talk) 21:11, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
If "left" means "reality", yes. EEng 21:39, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
The media reports what they are aware of. Wikipedia does not "choose" anyone. We simply reflect in our writing what is reality. WhoAteMyButter (📬│✏️) 21:44, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Cry us a river, IP. GoodDay (talk) 22:22, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 November 2020

Joe Biden did not attend University of Delaware a fact that the university themselves said. He was however given and honorary degree by them. Also in the US Constitution there is no such name as President-Elect. Joe Biden doesn't get a title until he gets inaugurated in January. Tombstone284 (talk) 22:48, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Sources indicate otherwise concerning Biden's education, and see the FAQ above - reliable sources call him President-elect, the Constitution doesn't enter into it. Acroterion (talk) 23:09, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
@Tombstone284:, did Joe Biden time-travel to 1965 and insert himself into the senior yearbook? Joe Biden at UD, Through the Years. ValarianB (talk) 13:04, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
And Tombstone284, where in the world did you get the idea that the university said he didn't attend there? On the contrary, they affirm he was president of his freshman class, graduated, and then graduated from law school.[22] -- MelanieN (talk) 16:46, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
They may be referring to this story, in which case they are confusing UD with Delaware State University. NO MORE HEROES ⚘ TALK 05:58, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Maybe its time for an addition to the FAQ, "do not ask unless you have an RS backing your claim".Slatersteven (talk) 13:15, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Not that anyone cares about categories anyway

... but why is this in Category:Mid-importance Cape Cod and the Islands articles? EEng 20:41, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

I was going to say "isn't he from there?" but instead, today I got to learn that Cape Cod isn't in Delaware. Who knows? jp×g 21:17, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Next you'll be telling me Cincinnati's not in Iowa. EEng 01:08, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
Whenever you say something like "today I got to learn that Cape Cod isn't in Delaware" you've got to immediately add "a lot of people don't know that." Presidential example, you know -- MelanieN (talk) 21:51, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Because it's tagged as {{WikiProject United States|Cape-Cod=yes|Cape-Cod-importance=Mid}}. Majavah (talk!) 08:51, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Well would it be too much trouble to explain why it's tagged that way? EEng 06:04, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Too weird. I removed it. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:47, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
I wonder who put it there and why. The words "Cape" and "Cod" don't appear in the current version of the article. "Martha", "Vineyard", and "Nantucket" don't either. "Massachusetts" appears only once, in the context of the primaries. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:03, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Link to election article

Seems to me there should be a prominent link to the 2020 Presidential Election article, if not more about the counting and calling of it. Readers likely will think “oops did I miss something?” when they get to that point and the dramatic events are not there and no link either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.193.59 (talk) 09:54, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

It's linked in the second sentence of the lead, but I added [23]. EEng 19:03, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Foot Injury

Considering the amount of controversy I've personally witnessed from conservatives, admittedly on social media, should we include a line in the Transition section mentioning that President-Elect Biden broke his foot? I have included a possible sample of what the sentence could look like, I just can't be bold and add it myself:

On November 28, 2020, President-Elect Biden suffered multiple hairline fractures in his foot while playing with his dog.[1]

Let me know what you guys think. Praefect94 (talk) 21:00, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

See the (possibly prematurely) archived discussion on the topic of the foot injury. Basically, the issue is one of notability and due weight. In the grand scheme of things, injuring his foot doesn't really have notability (at the time we are writing this) for his life to warrant putting it in this biographical article. One user even suggested the ten year test, which basically asks if this is something that will be considered at all significant in 10 years. Injuring his foot while playing with his dog? Probably won't even be trivia in ten years. This could change if the injury becomes more impactful, or if it becomes notable as he wears a boot during his inauguration or something, but not at the time we are writing this. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 21:08, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
That's fair, thank you. Praefect94 (talk) 21:09, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Im leaning towards adding it, but I think it's fine to wait and see if it becomes more notable to his life. If he wears it to the inauguration I think we should add it. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 02:41, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Very otherstuffy, but do we really list every injury suffered by a US president , ever?Slatersteven (talk) 15:52, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Mucha, Sarah; Janfaza, Rachel (3 November 2020). "Biden's doctor says he has hairline fractures in his foot after slipping while playing with his dog". CNN. CNN. CNN. Retrieved 1 December 2020.

Joe Biden is not president elect.

WP:NOTFORUM stuff yet again, see FAQ with the big STOP sign at the top of the page
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Joe Biden is NOT OFFICIALLY the president elect. The media does pick the present. Yet this page has been “locked to prevent vandalism” yet the page has false information on it. I believe this should he changed, with the real and true up-to-date information. We do not yet know who the president elect is, and will not know for some time. This is biased, and even if there was something saying Trump was going to he president again before we actually know I would he raising the same problem about that page. DarthRevanG4 (talk) 07:32, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

See FAQ above. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 07:45, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
"This is biased, and even if there was something saying Trump was going to he president again before we actually know I would he raising the same problem about that page." - I call shenanigans on this statement, seeing as you were nowhere to be found four years ago when the news media referred to Trump as the president-elect at this time in the election process. Acalamari 09:26, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Maybe the OP is only four years old so had only just been born at this point in the electoral process four years ago. That would explain it. But I'm a bit confused by the OP's statement that the media does pick the present; with Christmas coming up I hope someone can clarify that because I've got a little nephew and I'd like to pick out his presents without the media getting involved. EEng 10:12, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Lets not comment on users, it adds nothing.Slatersteven (talk) 10:13, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Let's indent, it makes it easier to tell who you're talking to. And let's not use comma splices, it's a bad habit. EEng 10:19, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
The post by the OP adds nothing except promote Trumpian nonsense. It's only because Trump lost that his supporters are believing the non-reality of him winning. We have no business entertaining that here and it's frustrating we even have to address it in the FAQ. Acalamari 10:37, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
I did indent properly, it was not a reply to any one user. As to "We have no business entertaining that here" maybe, and that is why we can just say "See FAQ above" and leave it at that.Slatersteven (talk) 10:43, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
And the comma splices? EEng 14:04, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Add Biden - Harris Inauguration website

Add the official Biden - Harris Inauguration website, bideninaugural.org to the infobox to the right of the article, next to the transition and campaign website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.114.69.173 (talk) 02:53, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Why do we need to link to an inauguration website if we already link to a transition and campaign website? Praefect94 (talk) 22:02, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Why not? It’s one of Joe Biden’s official website, it should be displayed with the 2 other ones. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.114.69.173 (talk) 01:58, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
On browsing Biden's official website, I couldn't find any links to this site, nor searching for it in Google. Praefect94 (talk) 01:59, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

UTC)

Go to joebiden.com, when it comes with a message to donate press continue to joebiden.com and then press on shop, you will be redirected to the shop page at store.bideninaugural.org, if you go straight to bideninaugural.org, you will see information about the inaugural.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.114.69.173 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 02:03, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Sooooooooo, can you guys add the website now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.114.67.15 (talk) 06:01, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

  • Hold it. We're not a directory. There should be a single link to joebiden.com and nothing else. If Biden's people want to link from there to other sites or whatever, that's their job. EEng 16:37, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Joe_Biden#Second_term_(2013–2017)

What does He continued to be in the forefront mean here? Does it mean he stayed in the public eye? Or that he was heavily involved in policymaking? The first graf of this section is really quite confusing; not really sure what to make of it. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 06:53, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree it is vague. If someone wants to explain how he was involved that's fine. TFD (talk) 02:41, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Speculative Inauguration Status

Providing strong affirmative statements about a near-certain future seems more the purview of those who are trying to establish a narrative than the typical Wikipedia approach. Biden is all but guaranteed to be inaugurated in January of 2021, but that event has not happened, and there is small but real uncertainty as to the status of the election as its conclusion moves through functionaries who have been systematically subjected to external pressure, and to the health of the elderly President-elect. I propose minor hedging language in the statement in the article summary about his inauguration similar to that in the section "President-elect of the United States," but perhaps in firmer terms. Replace "will be inaugurated as the 46th president" with "is positioned to be inaugurated as the 46th president."

I am open to other suggestions. If this has been discussed before and dismissed, please forgive me, and disregard. IRSpeshul (talk) 05:16, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

  • Sure, Biden might die, or a tsunami might strike Washington, or the rules of arithmetic could change to make Trump win the election after all, but no assertion about the future is free of all uncertainty and we needn't waste verbiage reminding readers that such remote contingencies exist. EEng 13:12, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Donny might die, then what?Slatersteven (talk) 13:16, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Then Pence would be president for the remainder of Trump's term, until Biden was inaugurated. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 20:14, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
See the Lawton Chiles, Buddy MacKay & Jeb Bush, 1998–99 situation in Florida. GoodDay (talk) 21:25, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Everyone knows that death, being nature's way of telling you to slow down, has a way of changing people's plans. They don't need to be reminded of that. EEng 04:06, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
  • The possibilities that would lead to Biden not being the 46th president are too unlikely to give much thought to. The reliable sources sure aren't. Trump resigning so Pence can pardon him is one of the sillier ideas I've seen floated. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:41, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
And even if he did, it wouldn't affect the date and time of Biden's inauguration. The only change would probably be that Pence WOULD attend the inauguration, as Trump almost certainly won't. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:42, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
The only reason I raise the point is because, when the President was infected with COVID, there was some legal and electoral speculation among RS about what happens if a candidate dies or becomes incapacitated at multiple stages in the election. It's not a focal point of conversation now, though, I admit. IRSpeshul (talk) 11:43, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
  • @IRSpeshul: if section 3 of the 20th amendment is invoked? we'll make the changes. GoodDay (talk) 21:24, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
    What? EEng 08:35, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
    @EEng: I believe what Good Day is saying that, we'll deal with it if we need to. Section 3 of the 20th Amendment lays out the line of Presidential succession. I don't want to put words in their mouth, though, I may be mistaken. Praefect94 (talk) 09:04, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
    I guess it was the question mark that was puzzling me. EEng 16:33, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
    The 20th Amendment is not the only vehicle that I would consider when using that kind of hedging language, but it is the most clearly enumerated legal vehicle. Speculative events such as a candidate dying before inauguration, the Congressional count of the electoral votes, or before the convention of the Electoral College, for example, has happened once in US history but have never actually happened to a winning candidate. I'm not saying that Wikipedia should be the place to speculate on vehicles for constitutional crisis, just raising a semantic point about stating certainty in future events. IRSpeshul (talk) 11:49, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Per WP:CRYSTALBALL, if something is almost certain to happen then we can say it will happen. Even with past events, not everything is 100% certain. TFD (talk) 11:51, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
    Actually, the past is a lot more uncertain, overall, than is the future. The future is getting nearer and nearer, and always coming into sharper focus; the past is constantly receding, and always getting dimmer. EEng 23:41, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
I was not aware of that nuance of that writing practice. I would advocate leaving article as-is now, thank you for the backup. IRSpeshul (talk) 12:53, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Segregation

Joe Biden's views on segregation should be listed. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/nbcblk/joe-biden-didn-t-just-compromise-segregationists-he-fought-their-n1021626 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.51.59 (talk) 03:39, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

It's already in the article. TFD (talk) 03:56, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Libya: did Joe Biden support or oppose intervention?

This article states in the section on his Vice-Presidency that Biden supported the 2011 intervention in Libya, while simultaneously stating in "Political positions" that he opposed it. Both claims are referenced to reasonable sources. What's going on here? Is it that Biden's position has changed over time, or that two more nuanced statements are being compressed by journalism into "support" or "oppose"? Ganesha811 (talk) 14:56, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Added some wording to clarify. He supported the NATO-led military intervention in Libya in 2011, but not direct intervention by the U.S. alone. IHateAccounts (talk) 15:05, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Add Biden's official Inaugural website, "bideninaugural.org", at the bottom under external links. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.238.64.79 (talk) 03:46, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether it's appropriate here (there's not much there, and we really try to keep external links to a minimum), but I added it at Inauguration of Joe Biden. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 09:17, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
@Sdkb: Seems fine enough. I doubt it we will keep it up in a few months, but I mean I guess it's relevant now. WP:ELOFFICIAL and all that. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 19:33, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
That feels a bit too WP:NOTNEWSy, but I won't revert if you or someone else wants to action the request. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 21:06, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Probably is, but it keeps getting requested. Figured it was safer to add than not. Maybe we'll keep it; who knows? –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 17:48, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 Not done: The website appears to just be a donation website? Where you can donate and buy shirts... WP:ELNO "Sites that require payment or registration to view the relevant content"... You can only buy inauguration gear or sign up for details.. Terasail[✉] 17:18, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
Nevermind, it has already been added. However I do not think it is particularly helpful to anyone, by linking a donation site. Terasail[✉] 17:22, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Can we update the FAQ a little?

We've seen a lot of "the Constitution says.." type of argument from editors (many of them one-time complainers) disputing the president-elect status. And arguably, this argument seems to be the most relatively resembling a good faith argument (even if it isn't). Can we perhaps add an entry in the FAQ answering this, stating that Wikipedia is not limited to just the official sources (like the US Constitution) when citing reliable sources?

Also a reminder that Donald Trump was called president-elect at this time 4 years ago may be a good idea as well. 2600:1012:B024:7B87:0:4D:D78A:3801 (talk) 15:08, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Seems a good idea.Slatersteven (talk) 15:17, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Worth also pointing out that the words "president-elect" never show up in the Constitution, and so it isn't a Constitutional issue regarding who gets called that. The Constitution is absolutely silent on the matter. However, if they would like a legal document referring to "president-elect" prior to the seating of the Electoral College, they can look to the Transition Act of 1963, which explicitly uses the term "president-elect," and since the GSA has ascertained Biden as the winner, he is legally the president-elect. That is a legal fact. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 17:25, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
The GSA bit is a bad idea. The GSA makes its own determination at its own leisure (as we have seen) for its own purposes. That doesn't mean sources can't identify the president-elect before the GSA does. To go down that path plays into the hands of those who want to substitute their own shifting criteria (GSA? Electoral college? Congress' formal receipt of the electors' votes?) for those of reliable sources. EEng 08:17, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Personally I'd cite the specific law, as opposed to government agencies. As we've seen, an agency's interpretation of the law can change from administration to administration, but the text of the law doesn't change but by Congressional act. Praefect94 (talk) 07:19, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
I say again that that takes us down the wrong path. EEng 12:51, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
Please note that I do not mean to say that the GSA should be the deciding factor on when we or anyone else calls a president-elect the president elect. As I said, we do what the the reliable sources say. I would not suggest even adding this to the article beyond stating when the GSA finally did its job. I do dispute that the GSA makes its own determination at its own leisure. What we have witnessed during this election is highly unusual with regards to the GSA behavior. Since 1963, the only election where GSA had been slow to act was in 2000, when it genuinely was unclear who had won the election as it was down to one state with a gap of only 500 votes. That one, they waited, as literally no one could ascertain quickly who had won, having lived through it. The 2020 election was a very different case, and is very much the outlier when it comes to the GSA. Time may show it to become a norm and new political football, but at the moment, there is no reason to believe this will be anything but an outlier. My point, however, with bringing up the GSA is in response to people saying "Biden legally isn't the president-elect until the Electors meet," and legally speaking, that is not true. Nothing in the Constitution states anything about the title "president-elect," including not around the meeting of the Electors. However, legally the 1963 Presidential Transition Act does use the phrase "president-elect" for whom the GSA has ascertained as the winner of the election. We rely on reliable sources who absolutely can make that determination before the GSA (though, ordinarily, the GSA acts roughly as fast, or at least within 24 hours, of when the states have made clear their projected results, as reported by the media, so basically at the same time as the media). I'm merely saying that, as a response to anyone claiming Biden legally isn't the president-elect, the fact is that legally he is, per the GSA letter and their duties with the Presidential Election Act of 1963. Any other legal argument against calling him "president-elect" became moot once that letter was signed. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 02:07, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
We should simply follow RSs in calling Biden the president-elect, and not get into any explanations. EEng 05:15, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
In the article itself, sure, and that is what I said. This discussion is about the FAQ and the continual "Constitutional argument" people we have had coming on the talk page. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 18:22, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
Oops, my misunderstanding. Well, with the electors voting Monday I suggest waiting to see if the problem continues before hammering out another FAQ. EEng 20:55, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
Agree with waiting and seeing... but I'll be honest, this will likely continue past Monday. Once the Electors seat, they will have another goal post. They will claim presidents aren't REALLY elected until Congress receives and approves of the Electoral College votes on January 6th. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 01:43, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Update 3rd note to reflect formal recognition of Joe Biden as president-elect

As of November 24 2020, the General Services Administration (GSA) has formally recognized Joe Biden and Kamala Harris as president-elect and vice president-elect[1][2], respectively. Therefore, the 3rd note of the article should be changed in order to reflect this. Costpap (talk) 08:55, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

  • This is a great example of what doesn't belong in the article on Biden the man. Biden won the election, and the article notes that. The soap opera of Trump's desperate flailings to stay out of prison belongs in the articles on the election, the transition, and Trump himself. Got nothing to do with Biden. EEng 22:05, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
    • If it doesn't belong in the article, then why is it being kept there in the first place? In my opinion, it would be better to remove something which doesn't belong there, rather than keep it while being severely outdated. It should either be updated or removed, not kept there to unintentionally misinform people. Costpap (talk) 08:02, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Staff, Reuters (2020-11-23). "General Services Administration tells Biden transition can formally begin: CNN". Reuters. Retrieved 2020-12-08. {{cite news}}: |first= has generic name (help)
  2. ^ CNN, Kristen Holmes and Jeremy Herb. "First on CNN: Key government agency acknowledges Biden's win and begins formal transition". CNN. Retrieved 2020-12-08. {{cite web}}: |last= has generic name (help)
 Done – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:16, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Oldest president in lede

I added a short sentence that Biden will be the oldest president in US history. Biden's age was consistently brought up throughout the primaries and the general election. Not to WP:FALSEBALANCE, but this was also mentioned in Trump's lede. It was removed, but I think it should be readded. Thoughts? Anon0098 (talk) 05:46, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

The lead is for the most important facts about the man's life, and to keep the lead manageable we have to be ruthless about holding to that. That he'll be president is one such fact; that he'll be the oldest president (or only one from Delaware, or the second Catholic, or ...) is not. It's in the body of the article and that's where it belongs. EEng 06:04, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
We mention in the leads of William Henry Harrison, Ronald Reagan and Donald Trump that they were the oldest presidents in U.S. history. I don't see why Biden, who is older than all of them when they were elected, gets special treatment. Being the 2nd RC or first person from Delaware are trivia, because no one cares. Kennedy being Catholic of course was a big thing 60 years ago when Biden was a young man, but has long ceased to be important. TFD (talk) 07:20, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
WP:OTHERCRAP. It doesn't belong in the leads of those articles either. A measure of the discernment at play in the authorship of those articles may be inferred from the presence of the following in the lead of the Hayes article: Harrison holds the record for having the largest number of grandchildren (25) when he took office. I repeat: that's in the lead! Ridiculous. EEng 21:01, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
I understand the interest in mentioning this. WHH was extremely old and died a month after taking office. Reagan and Trump demonstrated substantial cognitive decline in advanced age (as has Biden), which many credible sources say impacted their actions as president. But unless we are going to talk about age in association with that impact, it seems trivial. 75.188.224.208 (talk) 16:53, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Main picture of Biden in the Infobox should be cropped better

Current image in use
Proposed alternative

The current image being used in the info box is poorly cropped with the subject not covering the majority of the picture and is off-center. The image should be changed to one that is better cropped, preferably with him in the center of the picture and taking up most of it's area. I strongly believe the image "File:Joe Biden official portrait 2013 (cropped) 2.jpg" would be a better replacement. The proposed alternative is better lit and Biden's face can be seen clearer compared to the one in use. Anirudhgiri (talk) 18:21, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind a cropped image.★Trekker (talk) 18:31, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
Why not use the one that is already in the article? 86.140.67.152 (talk) 18:45, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Oppose - the current photo is better, adhering to the Rule of thirds for photography. IHateAccounts (talk) 18:53, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Oppose Current image looks preety good. Rondolinda (talk) 23:46, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
Cropped one follows it well enough for portraits (focal point on eye) EvergreenFir (talk) 06:05, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm seeing generally positive responses to the proposed change and I request someone with the appropriate edit access to execute the change to the photograph as soon as possible. It is known that Wikipedia is used as a source for images and information by everyone from the casual reader to news corporations, and I've already come across the image currently in use where Biden is off center and doesn't cover a majority of the area of the image in various news articles, news telecasts, YouTube videos, memes etc. This is the image of someone who is almost definitely going to be the most powerful man in the world, and the most popular website used to gather information worldwide should at least use an image that is properly cropped to portray him. Anirudhgiri (talk) 20:23, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Frankly, especially given that Biden is now President-elect of the United States, I would say that the current, off-centre image is horrendous, and I cannot understand how anybody would prefer retaining the image as it currently remains. Fully support switching to the proposed alternative where the image is appropriately cropped. Thescrubbythug (talk) 09:53, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

I invite @Nick.mon: to give his two cents here, given that he reverted the image back to the off-centre photo. Thescrubbythug (talk) 03:11, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
Well, I think we should use the official portrait, but I can live with the cropped version too. Anyway, we'll soon have a new official photo. -- Nick.mon (talk) 11:07, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 November 2020

Change the main image in the infobox to "File:Joe Biden official portrait 2013 (cropped) 2.jpg". The change has been discussed and the overwhelming consensus is to change the image from the current off-center one to "File:Joe Biden official portrait 2013 (cropped) 2.jpg", at least until Biden's official presidential portrait is taken. Anirudhgiri (talk) 20:13, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

To editor Anirudhgiri:  done, and thank you very much! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 16:35, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

More discussion

@Paine Ellsworth: Why did you change the picture to the cropped version already? You claimed a consensus for the change in your edit summary, but there is nothing near a consensus in this talk page section. And now that it's a cropped version, EEng has predictably come along to shrink it. ― Tartan357 Talk 04:12, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't know about the crop but MOS:IMGSIZE predicts the size change. EEng 05:08, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
EEng, as the person who wrote this guideline and has been advocating mostly unsuccessfully for small bio infobox images, you have got to know that displaying the portrait at upright=0.8 is going to make it stand out from other articles. Changing the size of the photos for a few prominent people (and spending a lot of time fighting to maintain those changes) is not an effective way to bring about the adoption of this reading of MOS:IMAGESIZE. The fact of the matter is that it doesn't in practice apply to bio infobox portraits in the way that you want it to. Maybe an RfC to add more specific wording to the MOS regarding bio infobox image sizes would help you change this, but until then, we need some consistency across articles. ― Tartan357 Talk 05:56, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
I really don't need any tips on getting things done, or how to spend my editing time, from someone with 6 months tenure and 7K edits, just as Paine Ellsworth doesn't need your help judging consensus. IMGSIZE makes no special provision for lead images to be unusually large; in fact, it goes out of its way to put a special upper cap on their size. And something you'll learn after you've been around a bit longer is that consistency among articles (cf. within any given article) is just about the weakest argument there is; we don't "need" consistency across articles, and without deviation from the norm progress is impossible. And please stop obsessing about process over substance. EEng 07:10, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
EEng, You are right about consistency among articles being a weak justification for changes. I apologize for my rudeness last night. I was in a bad mood for an off-wiki reason. To argue on substance, I think the reason upright=0.8 looks bad is that the infobox stays the same width even though the photo's width has been reduced, creating excessive blank space. I would appreciate it if you could try again to explain to me how exactly IMGSIZE justifies this. I've read it many times now and am still not seeing any statement that portrait images should be at less than upright=1. It says that they can go up to 1, but doesn't appear to comment on how a particular value between 0 and 1 should be chosen. The thing that confuses me most is that you were okay with the uncropped portrait of Biden at upright=1, but are not okay with the cropped version being at 1. Yet, IMGSIZE does not state that the size of people/subjects in images should be a factor in choosing the upright. I'm happy with how Biden's photo looks now, so I'm asking about this purely out of intellectual curiosity. Thanks. ― Tartan357 Talk 22:14, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
The statement at IMGSIZE is deliberately vague because there are many considerations that go into sizing beyond aspect ratio, by no means the least of which is subjective judgment. I didn't intend to apply the size change to one of the versions but not the other -- it was just accident which one might have happened to be displayed at the moment. Very generally, portrait-shaped images look better at upright<1, because at >=1 their heights (and therefore total area) can be overwhelming; the specific size is often determined by the overall needs of all the images in the article, because uniform sizing counts for something too (especially if there are enough images that two or more are visible simultaneously -- a jumble of sizes looks awful). Having said all this, lead images may have special considerations, because they're usually set off alone, and as you point out they're often embedded in an infobox. As I said, it can be quite subjective, and despite the impression you have it's not something I feel particularly strongly about. EEng 11:45, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
EEng, okay, what you're saying now is what I'm reading from IMGSIZE—that up to 1 is okay for portrait-size images, and <1 might be ideal—but that ultimately, choosing an upright between 0 and 1 is subjective and should be done according to the needs of a particular page as established through discussion on a case-by-case basis. Thank you for acknowledging the infobox issue. I think in this case that issue makes upright=1 best, but there are some pages on which I've used an upright <1 (e.g. Alexander Lukashenko) because the lead image is very zoomed-in. So, I'm open to that as an option, but don't see it as the right choice in this case. ― Tartan357 Talk 11:54, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
To editor Tartan357: I included the new image suggested in the #Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 November 2020 made by Anirudhgiri below. A closeup of our next president seemed a better fit, so I granted the edit request. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 05:39, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Paine Ellsworth, this comment does not address my concern about consensus. You say that you made the change because it "seemed a better fit", which does not square with your claim to having a clear consensus for the change. ― Tartan357 Talk 05:43, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
The participants in this discussion have met WP:CONSENSUS or I wouldn't have made the change. What do you think the outcome should be? P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 05:50, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Paine Ellsworth, I agree with IHateAccounts about the rule of thirds, and I disagree with your assessment that this discussion has reached a consensus. Although it's less of an issue for me as long as the photo isn't at upright=0.8, which wasn't discussed here and EEng changed it to. It looked pretty bad that way, so I reverted them. ― Tartan357 Talk 06:01, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
I still prefer the original, uncropped image. And I looked at the upright=0.8 edit and that was awful, please don't repeat that. IHateAccounts (talk) 06:06, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Okay, when I first came to this discussion before I changed the picture, I assessed the !votes and whatever rationales were included. It seemed obvious to me that there was consensus to change the picture. Even when Tartan357's opposition, which came after the change, is figured in, there is still a consensus for the cropped version. The issue of size is a separate issue and can be further discussed between involved editors if necessary. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 06:14, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

RFC regarding picture for infobox

The rule of thirds.

Which should be the community consensus photo for the infobox on this page: the original (zoomed out, american flag on left) or the cropped (zoomed in on Biden's face)? IHateAccounts (talk) 21:47, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

  • The two proposed options
  • Zoomed out
    Zoomed out
  • Zoomed in
    Zoomed in
  • Filer comments: since things seem to be getting a bit heated and people keep trying to change the photo back and forth, changing its height ratio and so on, let's have this a little more informally (and maybe EEng can calm down a bit about it if there's an RFC consensus). Personally I prefer the original. I think it provides a fuller picture, and adheres better to the Rule of thirds for photography, centering Biden's face about 1/3 from the right edge. I am not a fan of EEng's position that the second photo adheres merely because Biden's left eye is about one-third from the right edge; people don't focus just on one portion of a face when viewing a photo. IHateAccounts (talk) 21:51, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
    Excuse me, but what are you talking about? I have never expressed any preference for one picture or the other, nor do I have a preference. EEng 23:00, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
    Note: I have, in an uninvolved capacity, updated the size of the images above from 200px tall to 280px tall to closer match the size they'd be if used in the infobox. Showing them smaller here than they'd actually be could arguably be influencing people toward choosing the more zoomed in option. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 06:03, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
  • This seems silly. Without having read any of the previous discussion on the lead photo, we all know that there will be a presidential portrait of Biden released around January 20, right? That image is going to take the place of whatever image is in there. So, this RfC is to determine which image to use for less than two months? I'll pass on having an opinion. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:05, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
Well, it was apparently necessary to change from the long-used version to a cropped version just a couple of days ago. ― Tartan357 Talk 02:22, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Zoom in - though, it'll only last for two months. PS - Barack Obama's image should be zoomed in as well, at that bio article. GoodDay (talk) 00:33, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Zoom in: Reasons for the change in image already given and discussed at length. Sure, it's only going to be for two months, but we might as well have use an image where the subject is actually in the middle of the picture until then. Anirudhgiri (talk) 17:36, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Uncropped per IHateAccounts. It looks nicer per the rule of thirds, and is version that his office chose to use for official purposes. ― Tartan357 Talk 02:24, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Zoom in: zeroeth of all, this is a stupid argument to be having a couple of months before the photo is deprecated and replaced. But first of all, this seems to me like a specious interpretation of the rule of thirds (photos for identification in infoboxes should not include large amounts of aesthetic whitespace), and second of all, the rule of thirds says that the dividing line should go through the center of the object. The second vertical dividing line on this image goes through the side of his head, a couple pixels right of his eye, before going through his lapel pocket and arm. If we were going to follow the rule of thirds (which the original photo doesn't), it ought to be going directly down the middle of his face, which means the right margin of the image would be cropped out. jp×g 17:33, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Zoom in It bugs me how the other isn't centered. ~ HAL333 22:51, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Zoomed in. I have just added the pictures in a gallery above, to make it easier for people who are new to this discussion to see the options. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:58, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Uncropped. It's an official portrait by a professional photographer, and a well framed one at that. Satisfies rule of thirds, as opposed to the arbitrarily-cropped version. I vote for uncropped until we get a new official portrait come 2021 (and we'll probably have an RfC for that one too, if the framing is in any way similar to this). NO MORE HEROES ⚘ TALK 07:03, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Uncropped. The uncropped versions how the portrait was originally presented and thus should be the one we use. Arbitrarily cropping portraits that have been used for extremely long periods of time is just a waste of time. Keep the uncrossed version and continue to use uncrossed versions of portraits elsewhere. The portrait is framed the way it is because that is how the photographer intended it to be seen, not cropped by some nobody on Wikipedia. Brboyle (talk) 10:07, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment: This discussion was archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. I've un-archived it as the RfC tag is still present and the discussion has not been closed. ― Tartan357 Talk 02:29, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Electoral College Win

Considering the controversies and conspiracies about the voting, and the fact that so much extra attention has been paid to the Electoral College voting yesterday, should we mention that Biden officially received over 270 votes when the Electoral College voted yesterday? I can't edit the article to add such a thing, plus User AlsoWukai deleted an edit that included that. Here is a sample of what that addition would look like:

On 14 December 2020, the Electoral College met and cast 306 electoral votes for Joe Biden, sealing in his win in the 2020 election.

Thanks. Praefect94 (talk) 07:51, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

No, because it's an inevitable formality given his win of the election as established a month ago. We need to always be thinking about what readers ten years hence, coming to this article about Biden the man, will want to read about. It can go in the articles specifically on the election and transition. EEng 07:57, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

4th para of lead

I would argue the fourth paragraph of the lead can be deleted entirely. The most significant fact of the paragraph is already mentioned in the first paragraph, and the other details are not particularly significant from a biographical standpoint, so can safely be left to the body of the article to handle. Finally, that paragraph has citations which should probably be left out of the lead per WP:LEADCITE, since we have been following that convention thus far. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:45, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Good catch. EEng 12:50, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
Added it back—not an uncontroversial removal. The information is relevant, and it's helpful to catch the user back up to modern times (it's odd to end the lead with him being Vice President). Secondly (but less importantly at the moment), we'll soon need a paragraph in the lead to put a general overview of his presidency in the future. Paintspot Infez (talk) 20:04, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
  • not an uncontroversial removal – Well, since the proposal and my endorsement of it sat here without objection for a week before I acted on it, I'd say it was uncontroversial except to the extent you choose to characterize it so.
  • it's odd to end the lead with him being Vice President – Only if you have rigid ideas about the structure of the lead e.g. that it's supposed to be a chronology. I'll note, in this regard, that for some reason the first paragraph of the lead is in reverse chronological order, so that by the time the reader has got through the lead and into the article proper, he's been jerked back and forth like a ragdoll.
  • we'll soon need a paragraph in the lead to put a general overview of his presidency – Yes, and the lead should have that. It doesn't need all the obvious and repetitive stuff which I removed [24] and you've restored.
EEng 05:19, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Should we remove the FAQ?

As I write this, we are approximately nine minutes from the anticipated time in which California will cast their electoral votes, meaning that Joe Biden will officially - beyond even the furthest question - be the President-elect. The vast majority of you will read this after this time, so can we call it kosher for removing the FAQ, as it's not necessary any longer? DÅRTHBØTTØ (T•C) 21:52, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

There's still Congress counting and certifying the votes. And I think we should leave the FAQ as a record to show that he was president-elect even before this. The FAQ isn't there not simply because it's correct but because but to communicate to editors, after all. 2600:1012:B02F:70D4:0:14:9D1D:1001 (talk) 22:42, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
That will not stop people from saying he's not -elect. Not sure Jan. 20 will. I'd wait 'till he's pres. O3000 (talk) 22:50, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
He is officially President-elect no matter what they say as of 5:28 PM Eastern Standard Time. This wiki is for reporting facts, not helping people be in denial about their political loses. He is President-elect until Congress meets on Jan 6th to reaffirm the electoral college's decision, and if their votes hold, he will be President elect for another 2 weeks. Keep your political agenda out of this article. We are Wikipedia, not reddit.FusionLord (talk) 23:19, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
FusionLord, Objective3000 does not appear to be pushing a political agenda. They're saying they'd wait until Biden's president to remove the FAQ point because—at least until January 20—MAGA POV-pushers are still going to come here to disrupt this talk page. ― Tartan357 Talk 01:39, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
The wording needs to be updated, though. He's not the "apparent and expected winner" anymore. He's the straight up legit "winner", period, since the Electoral College has done its work. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:49, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Muboshgu, which I also suggested be done in my comment below. ― Tartan357 Talk 08:07, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep until Biden is sworn in or Trump concedes. Biden was President-elect on November 7. That was already true before the Electoral College voted, and the POV-pushers are not going to stop coming just because the Electoral College has voted. As long as Trump continues to claim victory, these people are likely to keep coming. The FAQ point can be updated to say the Electoral College has voted for Biden and the electoral vote tally is final. ― Tartan357 Talk 01:45, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep because it's one step that may prevent having to deal with people demanding that we change the facts to fit their worldview. If they ignore the FAQ that's a strike against them, they can't use "I didn't know" as an excuse. Praefect94 (talk) 06:31, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep Donny is still president, and Biden is still only president-elect. Agree though it should now say "the EC has confirmed his victory".Slatersteven (talk) 16:55, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
What Slatersteven just said is the bare minimum of what we should do. As the FAQ may be necessary as a deterrent until Biden isn't the President-elect, given that many Trump supporters still are raising issues, I think an update is at least in order, to name the Electoral College itself as the source. DÅRTHBØTTØ (T•C) 17:44, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Well, it should be updated, but not simply to say that he's president-elect because the E.C. has voted, because that's not true: he's been president-elect since a few days after the election. What we can say is that the E.C. voted exactly as expected given the way people voted. EEng 05:22, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

“Days after the election, Biden created a COVID-19 task force”

This seems to be incorrect considering Pence is the chair of an already existing White House Coronavirus Task Force. I suggest different wording, such as: "Days after the election, Biden reappointed members to the White House Coronavirus Task Force." Or something to that effect. Thoughts? Anon0098 (talk) 23:45, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

He created his own task force, the COVID-19 Advisory Board. Only one person, Fauci, is serving on both. So, he didn't "reappoint" members of the task force. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:54, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
I meant reappoint in terms of keeping the office and changing members Anon0098 (talk) 20:04, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
That would be appointing his own picks for new members, not reappointing. And it seems that he is creating a distict organization from the one the Trump administration formed. 2600:1012:B02F:70D4:0:14:9D1D:1001 (talk) 20:21, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Other Information not included in the article

In 2012 an asteroid was named after Joe Biden, 2012_VP113 is nicknamed Biden by those who discovered it. It seems like this information should be included in the article, similar to "in popular culture" sections in other articles.

That would seem to be better mentioned at List of things named after Joe Biden (addendum: it already is mentioned there). It isn't terribly biographically significant to Biden. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 15:38, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
You are right. Consider this matter closed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KevinDaellenbach (talk • contribs) 00:33, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Last sentence of the lead

The last sentence in the lead says, On November 3, 2020 Biden defeated Trump in the 2020 United States presidential election. However, on Nov. 3 there wasn't a winner, and many people didn't even vote on election day. I think it should be changed to Biden defeated Trump in the 2020 presidential election. What do you think? Thanks, Thanoscar21talkcontribs 23:02, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

I'll do that WP:BOLDLY now. The date of Election Day is insignificant. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:08, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
There was a winner on November 3, because all the ballots had been cast & polls were closed. No names changed before or after the ballots were counted. GoodDay (talk) 23:31, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 December 2020

Where the second marriage says United Nations chapel it should say Chapel at the United Nations with the link like the Jill Biden page has. 68.199.42.28 (talk) 01:24, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Done. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 18:23, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Notability of rumors of possible mental decline?

Nope! EvergreenFir (talk) 20:42, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Seems that there is starting to become rumours about the president-elect in a state of mental decline, is this of apt notability/accreditation from sources to have a section about this topic? I understand that these are most likely unfounded campaign smears but may be worth mentioning alongside oldest age when he enters office; either to disprove/prove/give both sides. DannyDouble (talk) 02:26, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

No. Against policy and extensively discussed over the past year. SPECIFICO talk 02:51, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
DannyDouble, please read WP:BLP, especially WP:BLPGOSSIP. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:05, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Mind the Goldwater rule. -- GoodDay (talk) 20:10, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
But note that applies to psychiatrists only (and only APA members at that, though that may be most). Psychologists are off the hook. EEng 20:30, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
Yeah. GoodDay (talk) 20:32, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
Still not a fan of speculation without examination. PackMecEng (talk) 20:58, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Just noting a semi-related discussion recently took place with Feinstein.[25] PackMecEng (talk) 20:33, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

We don't even hear anymore about Pelosi big plans for the 25th amendment. GoodDay (talk) 20:34, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Oldest president inaugurated

If I am correct (and there is a 99.9% chance I am), Joe Biden will become the oldest president inaugurated at age 78, taking the "title" from Donald Trump, who was 70 at the time of his (and who had taken the "title" from Ronald Regan, who was 69 at the time of his inauguration). Are there any sources to back this up? There would have to be considering none of the prior presidents were this old at inauguration. Moline1 (talk) 17:06, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

To be precise, Biden will not only be the oldest president inaugurated at 78, he will be the only president inaugurated at 78, since there have been no other president who were 78 when they were inaugurated. But assuming that what you meant is At 78, Biden will be the oldest president inaugurated, if I am correct (and there is a 100% chance I am) this is already in the article. EEng 17:43, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
It's actually closer to a 99.5% certainty, with a 75% certainty he will survive four years, based on estimates for people his age. TFD (talk) 16:54, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
Actually, Biden is taking the title from Reagan who was inaugurated for his second term, at age nearly 74. One can be inaugurated more the once. GoodDay (talk) 17:16, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
Beyond being the oldest inaugurated, Biden will be the oldest period. Reagan was only 77 when he left office. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 11:12, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

He aint inaugurated yet.Slatersteven (talk) 11:21, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

He will be, barring death. GoodDay (talk) 14:57, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Intro

Perhaps we should start considering what the intro will be, to avoid any edit fights, after Biden takes office. GoodDay (talk) 04:34, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

"Joseph Robinette Biden Jr. (/ˈbaɪdən/ BY-dən; born November 20, 1942) is an American politician and the 46th president of the United States" Praefect94 (talk) 01:49, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
Saying he's American is unnecessary, being president of the United States already implies that. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 18:19, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
I have a vague recollection of someone saying that. EEng 02:35, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
We should add "..since 2021" to the end of the intro. PS: Not sure why "..since 2017" was removed from Donald Trump's article. GoodDay (talk) 15:36, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
To be honest, that was literally copy/pasted from the article, with the 'president elect' portion replaced with the 'President of the United States' portion. Praefect94 (talk) 18:25, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

The introduction of an encyclopedia article should follow the "#1 thing rule". If there was one thing and only one thing we could tell our readers about Joe Biden, what would it be? That he is the president-elect of the United States. Thus, the article should begin, Joseph Robinette Biden Jr. (/ˈbaɪdən/ BY-dən; born November 20, 1942) is the president-elect of the United States. Levivich harass/hound 03:37, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

We're discussing the intro for after Noon EST, January 20, 2021. When the old guy becomes US president. GoodDay (talk) 04:01, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
Probably best to drop "-elect" then ;-) But to be clear, I think "an American politician" should be stricken now, and still stricken then, and stricken for any other US president or vice-president. It's bloody obvious a US president is an American politician. It's kind of a requirement of the job, eh? It's as unnecessarily redundant for an intro sentence as saying "Biden is an American politician and the 46th President of the United States, both the head of state of the United States of America and the chief executive of its federal government, as well as Commander in Chief of its armed forces, leader of the Democratic Party, and an elected official who lives in the White House in Washington, DC." Levivich harass/hound 04:16, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
That bit about using or not using "American" is being discussed at Kamala Harris. No matter the result, it would be good for us to be consistent in this bio intro & the Harris bio intro. GoodDay (talk) 04:45, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

It is customary on almost every Wikipedia biography to put the nationality of the subject in the first sentence, even if it seems redundant. I think we should maintain this custom here. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:45, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

The nationality of the subject is all but required to be in the first sentence of a biography, per MOS:OPENPARABIO and even more specifically at MOS:CONTEXTBIO. And their profession is virtually always included immediately after their nationality. If you click on any dozen random biography articles - such as Dr. Seuss, Joe Namath, Anthony Fauci, Chevy Chase, Dolly Parton, Mr. T, or more specifically politician articles such as Gavin Newsom, Lindsey Graham, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Pete Buttigieg, Justin Trudeau, Emmanuel Macron - you will find that they all begin “so and so is a (nationality) (profession).” This is done even when it seems obvious or redundant - "...is a French politician who has been serving as the president of France since...".
This virtually-universal format can be overruled by local consensus, as was done at Donald Trump. My own opinion is that with this article we should stick with the standard format ..."is an American politician who"... as we have done with all recent presidents; see Barack Obama, George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George H. W. Bush, Ronald Reagan, etc. The argument that “of course he is an American, any idiot knows that” is condescending and dismissive of our worldwide readership. It harms nothing to say “American,” and it puts this article into compliance with MOS and with previous and current practice here. Donald Trump was kind of a special case because he was not a traditional politician. But Joe Biden is a quintessential politician who has served in elective office most of his adult life, so “American politician” defines him perfectly. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:33, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
As usual, I agree with MelanieN. I never liked the consensus for the intro at Trump's page, and want us to not replicate it here. Biden is a politician notable for far more than just being POTUS, and we should be sticking with MOS. I also want us to not use "currently serving as POTUS" or any similar formulation per MOS:CURRENTLY guidance. Saying he "is" POTUS will get across that he is the incumbent (as of January 20). – Muboshgu (talk) 19:42, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
In agreement. The intro at Trump is a mess & shouldn't be repeated here. GoodDay (talk) 19:45, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Reproductive rights

In the political positions section it says "Biden has supported reproductive rights[1]". The more neutral term here would be "abortion" or "pro-choice", which is what the source says too. 98.35.13.170 (talk) 05:02, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree, the current wording implies a certain bias. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 11:11, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
Being pro-choice does not mean being pro-abortion. And since reproductive rights and pro-choice mean the same thing, there is no reason for the change. I realize that we are using the terminology of one side of the issue, but we do that with many issues, for example pro-life and pro 2nd amendment. TFD (talk) 18:24, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
Interesting: All pro-abortionists have 'one' thing in common. None of them were aborted. GoodDay (talk) 18:48, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
@GoodDay: I don't find that interesting, nor is it relevant at all to the article.★Trekker (talk) 19:12, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
From NPR on their policy: On the air, we should use "abortion rights supporter(s)/advocate(s)" and "abortion rights opponent(s)" or derivations thereof (for example: "advocates of abortion rights"). It is acceptable to use the phrase "anti-abortion", but do not use the term "pro-abortion rights". and Do not use "pro-life" and "pro-choice" in copy except when used in the name of a group.
Why? Because In the case of "pro-choice," the language is accurate. Those on that side want women to have the option to choose whether to have an abortion. People who oppose abortion rights don't see it as a choice between two morally equivalent positions, but, opinions aside, that language does go back to the central focus of the legal and political controversy: it is a choice that the Supreme Court so far has ruled lies with the pregnant woman.
"Pro-life" is a bit murkier. The very strong implication is that those on the other side do not value life at all. Some people, of course, support the legal right to choose an abortion while at the same time would not choose that option for themselves, because they, too, value life. Others support abortion rights, but oppose the death penalty.
This is the same guidance from the Associated Press stylebook. Essentially, for the tl;dr among us, the phrases "pro life" and "pro choice" are not neutral. They are the labels chosen by each "side" to push their POV. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:23, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
I agree that "Biden supports abortion" is inaccurate, and pro-choice/pro-life are somewhat non-neutral terms chosen by each side. The fact remains that "reproductive rights" is vague. Both sides generally support what they see as certain "reproductive rights"; pro-choice people expand those rights to include abortion. For us to call abortion a reproductive right wouldn't be NPOV. Probably most accurate is "Biden supports abortion rights" or "Biden supports the legalization of abortion", with "pro-choice" coming in as a distant second choice. Respectfully, 98.35.13.170 (talk) 00:14, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
Agreed with above - "abortion rights" and "anti-abortion" are the proper phrases to use here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:32, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2020/03/19/bidens_pro-abortion_stance_will_cost_him_moderate_voters_142701.html

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 December 2020

Rmv he is assuming office January 21 he might not due to possibility of death 24.146.153.145 (talk) 20:29, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:31, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
He's assuming office on January 20, not January 21. GoodDay (talk) 20:36, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 December 2020

President Elect Joe Biden is the 46th President of the United States NOT the 47th 2603:9000:A204:E496:B4BE:E184:E8C:4D6D (talk) 13:53, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

President-elect Joe Biden is not the 46th president of the US and he's not the 47th president of the US; in fact, he's not any president of the US. He will be 46th president of the US beginning at noon on January 20. He was the 47th vice president of the US, under Obama – and that's what the article says. EEng 13:57, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 Not done per above. Pahunkat (talk) 14:22, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Linked text in article

Not happy with this revert by GoodDay.

An example: surge of U.S. troops in 2007 This made it clear when reading that the linked article is about that specific instance of troop surge. I don't have to hover or click to find out. This was now reverted to: surge of U.S. troops in 2007 When reading, I need to hover or click to find out that what's linked is about this specific instance of troop surge. It's a less specific link text.

Makes sense? Please undo your revert --Distelfinck (talk) 17:03, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

I stand by my revert. We don't need to include more then necessary into the Inauguration of Joe Biden linkage. GoodDay (talk) 17:17, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
GoodDay Okay, and what do you think about the link I mentioned? surge of U.S. troops in 2007 (before your revert) vs surge of U.S. troops in 2007 (after your revert)? With the latter version, before you hover over the link, you could think the linked article would be about surges of U.S. troops in general. You'd be wrong. --Distelfinck (talk) 18:14, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
I'm not interested in that particular edit. Only in the Inauguration one. GoodDay (talk) 18:20, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
@GoodDay: Okay, thank you --Distelfinck (talk) 18:22, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Summary style: article size, and coming Presidency section

In a few weeks, somebody will likely create the #Presidency section, which in time will probably become the largest section, no doubt soon followed by rapid expansion of the child articles Inauguration of Joe Biden and Presidency of Joe Biden, which already exist. It's probably worth spending some time now planning for this. We ought to be slimming down the article now, either by other splits, or by shortening current sections before the presidency begins, when the article will probably start to see rapid, major updates on and after the 20th of January. The article is currently at 238kb (63,866 prose).

A glance at some other articles such as Barack Obama (Presidency of Barack Obama), George W. Bush (Presidency of George W. Bush), Bill Clinton (Presidency of Bill Clinton) and others will give some ideas of the directions that one could take for the organization of child articles, and the refactoring of the main article as the parent article in summary style.

Here are some child articles, and the size of the section in this article (see #Section sizes in the talk header) they are associated with (as of rev. 998015014‎):

Sections with {{Main}} links to child articles; and some sections without a child

Some sections that don't have child articles:

No doubt Parent article sections will be created here soon both for the Inauguration, as well as for the Presidency, which makes slimming down the article now, even more pressing, before it starts to get slammed. Thoughts? Mathglot (talk) 22:19, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Mathglot, I agree entirely. I did some work on this last month, but there's still a long way to go. The Senate career section already has a dedicated article split out, and some information should be moved there and summarized better on this page. The sections on his 2008 campaign is probably overlong, and especially the section on the Presidential Transition is overstuffed with WP:RECENTISM detail that will not be worthwhile having the second he's President.
I also think, that while well-written, the sections on his 2008 and 2012 VP campaigns with Obama can be summarized further, and perhaps the quality content can be moved to new dedicated pages on the topic or subsections of the "Obama campaign" articles for those years. Ganesha811 (talk) 14:45, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
I would also say that I think this is a time to be WP:BOLD and just start making the changes you think need to happen. At worst you'll spark a better discussion than you've gotten so far, since it's been 6 days and you've only got me responding. Ganesha811 (talk) 14:46, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
@Ganesha811:, thanks very much for your comments. Good point about WP:RECENTISM, with which I definitely agree (and which also goes hand-in-hand with WP:NOTNEWSPAPER) and for the comment about the Obama/Veep campaigns. While I'm well aware of WP:BOLD and I'll try to get back here if I can, unfortunately I'm oversubscribed elsewhere, and doubt I'll have the time to do what needs doing here in a timely manner. I mostly raised this in order to alert regulars here to an issue that I thought needed attention somewhat urgently, in the hopes that someone would take it on; I still hope for that, as it will be more difficult to do later, if no one takes it on in the next few days. Mathglot (talk) 22:05, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Howdy @Politicsfan4: & @Surtsicna:. Recommend you both work it out 'here'. GoodDay (talk) 21:43, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

I thought we had worked it out here. Surtsicna (talk) 21:44, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
@Surtsicna: I understand that redirects in the page itself should be left alone, but I thought that people usually don’t have redirects in their infobox? — Politicsfan4 (talk) 22:57, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Redirects are fine in infoboxes too. They are piped only in templates and on the main page. Surtsicna (talk) 23:12, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Biden may not succeed Trump ... maybe Pence

This article could be wrong. 47.19.222.138 (talk) 07:28, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

... uh, no. scheduled to be inaugurated as president and "President-elect" are still accurate even if the "could be wrong" applies through his death. You'll need reliable sources if you claim any other way it's inaccurate. power~enwiki (π, ν) 07:31, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
The "succeeding" parameter in the infobox will be updated if need be. Levivich harass/hound 07:40, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Unless Trump dies, resigns or the Senate convicts him after the House impeaches, before the end of his term? We'll not worry too much about it. GoodDay (talk) 14:05, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Believe it or not, Wikipedia can be edited in real time if new events warranting this change occur. Moncrief (talk) 19:52, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 January 2021 (2)

"is an American politician who is the president-elect of the United States." I would like to change that to "is an American politician who is -currently- the president-elect of the United States." ザアンノウンエディター (talk) 23:43, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

 Not done That really doesn't add anything meaningful, "currently" would be redundant to "is". IHateAccounts (talk) 23:45, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 January 2021

Change president elect to 46th president of the USA Alexsimplz (talk) 12:07, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Technically he is not yet, as he has not been sworn in.Slatersteven (talk) 12:10, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
@Alexsimplz: How many times must this be repeated? We don't make those changes until 12:00 PM NOON EST. GoodDay (talk) 12:11, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
Red XN Not done - per above. Thanoscar21talkcontributions 13:50, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 January 2021 (2)

Today he is now the president since its January 20th and trump has left for Florida 64.222.180.90 (talk) 14:33, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Not yet, not until he is sworn in.Slatersteven (talk) 14:42, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 January 2021 (3)

Change President Elect to President of the United States Logan The Gamer Kid Edits (talk) 15:32, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Will be done at noon. Thanoscar21talkcontributions 16:10, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 January 2021 (3)

Change from president elect to president at 12:00 PM Add inaugartion section 24.47.19.146 (talk) 15:33, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Will be done. Thanoscar21talkcontributions 16:10, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Who's editing the lead to change his title

I'm wondering who is editing the page once Biden is sworn into office as president at noon to reflect his occupation? I want to know now so that nobody gets stuck in an Edit conflict. I was wondering if I could do it? ₛₒₘₑBₒdyₐₙyBₒdy₀₅ (talk) 15:40, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

With 45 minutes left, there won't be consensus. Just, whoever gets there at noon. Thanoscar21talkcontributions 16:13, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello Sahaib3005 (talk) 16:22, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 January 2021 (4)

should be 46th president under the picture not 45th 80.79.148.16 (talk) 16:51, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

 Done – Muboshgu (talk) 16:58, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 January 2021 (4)

to remove reference of president elect as he is now president 104.173.186.101 (talk) 16:51, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

 Already done — Czello 16:52, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 January 2021 (5)

change president-elect to President 208.38.228.21 (talk) 16:54, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Red XN Not done, another 6 minutes to go. Thanoscar21talkcontributions 16:54, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
I guess they're running ahead of schedule? – Muboshgu (talk) 16:57, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
Looking forward to seeing these ten minutes land on the list of silliest edit wars with the nice distinction of also being the shortest AsmodeanUnderscore (talk) 17:02, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 January 2021

Change "the second Catholic president." to "the second Catholic president after John F. Kennedy." Vesuvio14 (talk) 21:39, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

 Already done Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 21:45, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 January 2021

There is a typo on the last sentence in the intro Change "He is oldest president..." to "He is the oldest president..." Hifear267 (talk) 21:43, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

 Done Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 21:46, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 January 2021 (6)

Change him to President Avishai11 (talk) 16:59, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

 Already done – Muboshgu (talk) 17:02, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 January 2021 (6)

change "serving as president of the united states" to "serving as 46th President of the United States. JoeBidenedit (talk) 17:00, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: Not an improvement. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:02, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

How do I add http://www.USPresidentJoeBiden.org to external links?

Yeah that's pretty much all I wanted to ask. The page seems to be frozen. No edit button which is odd for a dictionary everyone is supposed to be able to edit and not at all just a chosen central cabal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.86.32.122 (talk) 02:37, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

That domain forwards to a white house page right now, but it is registered in Australia to an anonymous owner. So there aren't really grounds for including it here. The white house page it redirects to is https://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/president-biden/ . It might be reasonable to link that page directly. 2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:313A (talk) 03:46, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
No, we are not going to add an unofficial URL. No way under the sun. 04:01, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

I see. So this wikithing is run by a cabal. Well thanks for your honesty about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.86.32.122 (talk) 07:37, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Change to lede per WP:PRECISELANG

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Already discussed at #Lede. cookie monster (2020) 755 18:16, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

I propose that the lede be changed to the following:

is an American politician who serves as the 46th president of the United States.

No need for the word "currently" per WP:PRECISELANG. cookie monster (2020) 755 18:06, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Or maybe serving instead of serves? cookie monster (2020) 755 18:07, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
CookieMonster755, 10000%. I have said so in #Lede and #MOS:CURRENTLY. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:09, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
Oops, didn't see the current discussion at #Lede. I will comment there Muboshgu cookie monster (2020) 755 18:11, 21 January 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 18 January 2021

"Biden served as the 47th vice president during the Obama administration from 2009 to 2017" should be changed to "Biden served as the 44th vice president during the Obama administration from 2009 to 2017" 134.126.59.26 (talk) 20:56, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

No it shouldn't, as there were 46 vice presidents before him, due to some presidents having more then one vice president serve under them. GoodDay (talk) 21:01, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
Maybe we should say he was the 47th VP, serving under the 44th P, Obama. That may help people understand the numberings are independent. EEng 21:27, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

"One horse pony" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect One horse pony. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 20#One horse pony until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Seagull123 Φ 17:45, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Inaugural crowd size

I heard his inaugural crowd was the largest ever. EEng 18:30, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Largest ever in the universe. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 18:32, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
It's still haunting him. Thanoscar21talkcontributions 18:32, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
RS?Slatersteven (talk) 18:34, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

John McCain

Please, someone change "John McCain, a U.S. senator from Arizona" into something more appropriate! Hubble314 (talk) 18:10, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

What's the issue with the current wording? — Czello 18:14, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
John McCain was not just "a U.S. senator from Arizona", at least he was Presidential candidate in 2008. I suggest to delete "a U.S. senator from Arizona". John McCain is already mentioned in this article, so he doesn't need to be introduced.

Hubble314 (talk) 18:34, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

So what is he was a candidate, what he is is "a U.S. senator from Arizona". Also John McCain (disambiguation), and for all we know there may yet be other notable John McCain's, this just means we can leave it forever and a day.18:49, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Syracuse University College of Law§

Biden graduated from Syracuse University College of Law. Is it possible to change "Syracuse University" to "Syracuse University College of Law"?§Bppab (talk) 20:19, 20 January 2021 (UTC)http://law.syr.edu/news_events/news/joseph-r.-biden-jr.-l68-becomes-first-syracuse-university-alumnus-elected

Unlabeled comment

Hey everyone, we need to change Biden to president instead of president elect.Joethechickenguy (talk) 17:09, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

2600:387:A:9A2:0:0:0:50 (talk) 21:59, 20 January 2021 (UTC) We should add a more recent portrait of him.

46th President

Change 45th for 46th! Javandy (talk) 16:55, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

There's still a few minutes, but people on this page seem overly eager. Trump's term expires at noon. Thanoscar21talkcontributions 16:57, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
I think there's some confusion about whether the term expires at swearing in or at noon. I can't seem to find anything that clarifies this; I've always heard that the new VP is VP while the old President is President for a few minutes, for example. Just out of curiosity, do you know where I can find the answer to this - whether the President and VP change at noon or at swearing in? Jokullmusic 17:02, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
The 20th Amendment to the US Constitution gives this clarity: Exactly at noon. The amendment doesn't specify a time zone but it's presumed to be EST based on the US Federal Code and precedent. - Unsigned
Thanks, I feel kinda dumb for missing that, lol Jokullmusic 17:09, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
Don't feel bad. For four years we had a president who knew nothing of the Constitution at all. EEng 17:13, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
If he even knows what the Constitution is. Thanoscar21talkcontributions 17:16, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
Are you sure he can even spell "constitution?" SkepticalRaptor (talk) 18:34, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
Please, no political jeering on the talk page. Keep the mockery to yourself. ₛₒₘₑBₒdyₐₙyBₒdy₀₅ (talk) 23:36, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
Please be real. EEng 23:54, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Deleted Images

The most recent edit to date names has had the effect of deleting two images from this article from sections 5 and 6, and I do not have the privileges to restore them. Omnibus (talk) 23:58, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Someone applied a mindless script. Reverted. EEng 01:22, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Pointless sentence in the lead

becoming the first person to have served as vice president to ascend to the presidency since George H. W. Bush in 1989 seems to be a serious stretch in importance to be included in the lead. I suggest we remove it. From a quick count Biden is the 14th15th (thanks for the correction... I guess) VP to ascend to President so I really don't see how it's relevant in the lead here. Especially because we're gonna need all the room we can get for the inevitably longer lead. Aza24 (talk) 19:54, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Biden is the 15th. GoodDay (talk) 19:58, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
So it's even less relevant or significant than Aza24 thought. I agree that this is insignificant trivia at this point. While not the rule per se, it is hardly unusual or out of the ordinary for former VPs to ascend to office as president. Roughly 1/3rd of our presidents were formerly vice presidents. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 20:01, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
I don't object to its removal. Thirteen veeps went directing into the presidency, while only two indirectly. GoodDay (talk) 20:10, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
Well that's not really made clear in that sentence's current form, and anyways, I would think as the second to do so it's still not notable (though I recognize you're not objecting here). Aza24 (talk) 20:33, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
I agree - not needed. ~ HAL333 05:45, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Add stock market had tis highest inauguration day rise in 36 years.

According to marketwatch the stock market had its highest inauguration day rise in 36 years today. https://www.marketwatch.com/story/stock-market-logs-best-inauguration-day-rise-in-36-years-as-biden-takes-office-11611177633?mod=home-page --All the usernames I wanted (talk) 00:18, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

It's trivial. Maybe this could go in his presidency page, but this is an article about him, not the stock market. Thanoscar21talkcontributions 00:46, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
This has a place, but on one of his subarticles. ~ HAL333 02:56, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
Agreed, subarticles.Eccekevin (talk) 06:00, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 January 2021

Restore the unexplained removal of this information, which was well-cited: He had a C average and ranked 506th in his class of 688.[1][2] Shrugcover (talk) 04:31, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

We already have his graduating class rank from law school. We don't need to provide much more detail: his unweighted gpa every second Tuesday wouldn't be of much help either. ~ HAL333 05:44, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
Agreed with HAL, unnecessary. Eccekevin (talk) 06:01, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Dickenson, James R. (September 22, 1987). "Biden academic claims 'inaccurate'". The Washington Post. Retrieved September 21, 2020.
  2. ^ Margolis, Jon (September 22, 1987). "Biden admits errors in school claims". Chicago Tribune. Retrieved September 21, 2020.

Clarence Thomas hearings paragraph - suggested edit

In the paragraph re: Clarence Thomas Hearings, the following sentence appears: "After the committee hearing closed, the public learned that Anita Hill, a University of Oklahoma law school professor, had accused Thomas of making unwelcome sexual comments when they had worked together." This description could be interpreted that Anita Hill came forward of her own volition to make an accusation, when it was an allegation, in fact. The issue came up when Anita Hill responded to a question from the FBI, during routine vetting of Supreme Court nominees, with the information that was has been labeled an "accusation" in this Wikipedia article. She had not come forward on her own, and articles about this incident indicated she likely wouldn't have volunteered anything, except for the FBI question, which must be answered truthfully under the law. Might I suggest a revision to the sentence as follows, to make it clear that she did not make an accusation or allegation without prompting: "After the committee hearing closed, the public learned that Anita Hill, a University of Oklahoma law school professor, had, in response to a question during an FBI interview, alleged that Thomas made sexual comments when they had worked together." At a minimum, changing the verb phrase "had accused" to "had alleged" would be more accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.58.140.175 (talk) 21:09, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

If you have an edit you would like to be made, please cite reliable sources, and submit an edit request on this talkpage. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 21:48, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
If you would still like to request the edit User:172.58.140.175, here are some sources for the point you make, to start off: [1]; [2]
"Days earlier," [prior to Hill's testimony] "another powerful image had imprinted itself on the public’s mind: A group of women House members had charged up the Senate steps to demand that Hill’s claims against Thomas be aired."[3]
I would do it myself, but my prior experiences of the process proved just too tiring for me. I think your change is very worthwhile - best of luck with it. 180.216.180.68 (talk) 10:22, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ SIEGEL, Joel (25 October 2011). "Clarence Thomas-Anita Hill Supreme Court Confirmation Hearing 'Empowered Women' and Panel Member Arlen Specter Still Amazed by Reactions". ABC News. Retrieved 21 January 2021.
  2. ^ Gordy, Cynthia (1 November 2011). "Anita Hill on Thomas Hearing: Defending Her Legacy". The Root. web.archive.org. Retrieved 21 January 2021.
  3. ^ Kennard, Cinny (13 October 2011). "Twenty Years Later: Covering The Anita Hill Story". HuffPost. Retrieved 21 January 2021.

Spelling/Grammar Errors

The part where it says "president of the United States", the 'president' should be capitalised.

Lede

As to avoid edit warring after his inauguration, I am proposing a change to the lede that is meant to be marginally acceptable in the short term. I do not want this discussion to become this. Here's what I'm proposing:

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. A member of the Democratic Party, Biden served as the 47th vice president from 2009 to 2017. He represented Delaware in the United States Senate from 1973 to 2009.

Thoughts? Thanoscar21talkcontributions 00:01, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for raising this question. We are talking about what the lead should be changed to at noon Eastern Time on January 20, right? This would be OK, but I prefer the wording that begins "is an American politician who serves as the 46th and current" etc. That's how we have done most presidential articles (with the exception of Trump). -- MelanieN (talk) 00:20, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
I would leave out the bit about the Obama administration. Mentioning he served as the 47th vice president from 2009 to 2017, will suffice. GoodDay (talk) 00:22, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
I'll add these suggestions, then. Thanoscar21talkcontributions 00:45, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
I would also tweak to "...is the 46th and current president of the United States". GoodDay (talk) 03:13, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
Fixed that, assuming this is the version that has consensus? Thanoscar21talkcontributions 13:24, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
Totally works for me. Thanks for being so responsive. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:43, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
Yup, ready for 20 January 2021, 17:00 UTC. GoodDay (talk) 16:01, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

President Trump's article just says "is the 45th and current" without "American politician". We will be ready at 17:00 UTC±00:00. cookie monster (2020) 755 17:50, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

He's mainly a businessman, though. The politics is just the last four years. Thanoscar21talkcontributions 20:59, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
I would suggest that "American politician" could be removed as redundant - being president of the USA makes you an American politician by definition. (Yes he has been a politician for way longer than Trump ever was, but we're not providing any information about the length of anyone's political career in this sentence either way.) Popcornfud (talk) 14:28, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
No one responded to this suggestion, so after Biden was inaugurated I WP:BOLDLY removed this text myself. I see it has now been reinstated without explanation, by Politicsfan4. Anyone wanna explain why this text is not redundant? Popcornfud (talk) 18:31, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
@Popcornfud: Hey - I reinstated it for consistency with other presidents' ledes, who all use the term "American politican" in theirs. -- Politicsfan4 (talk) 19:50, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
Politicsfan4, thanks for the reply. Yes, that makes sense for ex-presidents because they are no longer presidents - they're politicians (or lawyers, or writers, or whatever they end up being). But it doesn't add any clarity or information when someone is currently the president. All presidents are politicians, but not all politicians are presidents. Popcornfud (talk) 20:40, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
Popcornfud, you can look at the oldiffs of Obama has "American politician" in its lede. Thanoscar21talkcontributions 13:21, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanoscar21, forgive me but I'm not sure what relevance that has? Just because that's what we used to do for the Obama article doesn't mean it was the right thing to do. Popcornfud (talk) 13:23, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

We generally follow the examples set by other pages, as a sort of precedent. Thanoscar21talkcontributions 13:26, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Could someone please now set out the complete and exact text to be substituted when the moment comes? EEng 13:33, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
    I've updated the text according to each suggestion, so the highlighted one should work for the lede. I'm not sure whether anything else needs to be changed urgently. Thanoscar21talkcontributions 13:48, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
    Oh, I see. Next time it would be better to lay out each revised version along the way, instead of changing the original proposed text in situ, which confuses anyone (like me) trying to follow the conversation. EEng 14:08, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
OK sure, but that doesn't wed us to those examples for ever. IMO we can remove this from the Joe Biden page to no detriment. Popcornfud (talk) 13:37, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
Actually, this "precedent" idea is completely wrong. In discussing article X, if there's some arbitrary decision to be made and we really can't see any reason to prefer one approach or another, then saying, "Well, article Y does it such-and-such a way, I guess we could do that" is fine. But there's no "precedent". Every article stands on its own, and if the editors of article X feel a certain way is best, what's in Y is irrelevant except to the extent that discussions at Talk:Y might be informative or persuasive (and I'm not hearing anything about that, just "Trump does it this way", which isn't informative or persuasive at all). Maybe article Y should be changed to match X. EEng 16:19, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
We should always be striving to do things better than we used to. Things got messy on the Trump page, let's not make the same mistakes as we did there. There is no reason to say "and current" in that first sentence. He is the 46th president: fin. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:08, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
I didn't change the lede because consensus is required per the note in the text, so my two cents is that the word "currently" should be removed and replaced by "serving". is an American politician serving as the 46th president of the United States is more encyclopedic. MOS:CURRENTLY suggests also that we avoid using the word currently. cookie monster (2020) 755 18:13, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 January 2021 (2)

It seems the tone of this page is very negative. Starting with his schoolwork as a child to his "foot in mouth" comment in the senate. Almost every paragraph has some disparaging comment or tone. 98.232.60.179 (talk) 20:09, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Red XN Not done — changes must be requested in a "change X to Y" format, not "change X". Thanoscar21talkcontributions 20:12, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Iraq war resolution

Why is there no mention of Biden's role in the Iraq war resolution in this article? --Nbauman (talk) 17:59, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

there is, under the section "Senate Foreign Relations Committee". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.53.232.146 (talk) 22:31, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Pronunciation of middle name

I believe it is appropriate to include the pronunciation of Biden's middle name (Robinette). He pronounces it "ROB-ih-NET" (with a short O), but someone not familiar with this name might think it should be pronounced "ROH-bih-NET" (with a long O). I added the pronunciation just now ([26]), but my change was reverted with the claim (which I dispute) that the "pronunciation is apparent from the spelling". Comments? — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 22:05, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Richwales, I've never heard of someone pronouncing the name "Robin" as "ROH-bin". "-ette" is a common feminine suffix. If others believe that the pronunciation of "Robin" is actually ambiguous, then I don't have any problem with the edit being restored. ― Tartan357 Talk 22:24, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
Richwales, I had assumed that you were simply unfamiliar with the guideline, not that you thought the pronunciation was actually unclear. ― Tartan357 Talk 22:36, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Senate Time Served

Recently, Biden dropped from being the 18th to the 19th longest serving senator in U.S. History, as Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell passed him to take the 18th spot. Negrong502 (talk) 23:04, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Impeachment

Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene has just filed articles for President Biden's first impeachment.[27] A few tech outlets have remarked on this. I don't know if there is conventional secondary coverage at the moment. 2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:313A (talk) 03:43, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

It's political theater and has no real chance of being anything, and indeed has received no significant coverage. Definitely does not belong on this page, but it might belong on Marjorie Taylor Greene's page.Eccekevin (talk) 03:46, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
It looks like there is already an article, Impeachment inquiry against Joe Biden, though it might get deleted. Yeah if I thought it was likely to be successful, I wouldn't have referred to it as Biden's "first" impeachment, since a successful first one means no second one. Thanks. 2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:313A (talk) 03:49, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
Point of fact, the first impeachment of Donald Trump was "successful", but he was not removed from office, and now he faces a second impeachment. Impeachment is akin to indictment, not conviction. -Indy beetle (talk) 07:24, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

American politician

Should we at least include the information that he's an american politician? Would this lead work? : 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. A member of the Democratic Party, Biden previously served as the 47th vice president from 2009 to 2017. He represented Delaware in the United States Senate from 1973 to 2009. Almost every other political article of a person in a current political position state the nationality of the subject before their occupation. ₛₒₘₑBₒdyₐₙyBₒdy₀₅ (talk) 22:20, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Indeed. Reverted back to inclusion of "American politician". There was consensus for this above, and all other U.S. presidents' pages include this language. The only one whose page didn't include "American politician" while they were in office was Trump, who was the sole exception to this standard as he wasn't a politician before becoming president. Paintspot Infez (talk) 22:43, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
Unless I'm misunderstanding something, right now the first sentence already says he's an American politician...?
However, I think we should remove this. I discussed this already above but since we have a section for it now I'll just restate it:
"American politician" should be removed as redundant - being president of the USA makes you an American politician by definition. Articles about other presidents introduce them as "American politicians" (or lawyers, or whatever) because they are ex-presidents. Anyone who is currently American president is by definition also an American politician so this is unnecessary. Popcornfud (talk) 22:46, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
Then why does almost every other major politician currently in a political office have their nationality first? like Angela merkel, Justin Trudeau, Boris Johnson and Emmanuel Macron just to name a few. The reason why trump didn't have "american politician" in his lead is because he wasn't actually in federal politics before becoming president compared to Biden. ₛₒₘₑBₒdyₐₙyBₒdy₀₅ (talk) 22:54, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
There are lots of situations where it would be useful to indicate that sort of information in the lead sentence. For example, to take the Boris Johnson lead: British politician, author, and former journalist who has been Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and Leader of the Conservative Party since 2019.
I take issue with saying Johnson a "politician" there for exactly the same reasons I do here (the British PM is a politician? No shit, Sherlock!). But the other descriptors might have merit - he's an author, sure; and maybe it's important for the lead to say he's also a former journalist. There are debates that could be had about the value of including both of those in the first sentence, but neither of them are completely redundant.
But... the American president is an American politician? No shit, Sherlock! Popcornfud (talk) 23:07, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
As for the issue of indicating his nationality - I think that is implied too, at least in the case of the American presidency. I doubt any readers are going to read any article about the president of the USA and wonder "but what is their nationality?". Keeping up this tradition merely because other articles about other countries' leaders do it doesn't seem convincing to me. Popcornfud (talk) 23:09, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
If the reader had some understanding of how presidential eligibility works in the U.S. Constitution, then sure, it would be easy for that person to read "Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr. is the 46th President of the United States" and know, by inference, that Biden is an American politician. But adding in "is an American politician" accommodates readers who may be unfamiliar with the Constitution's eligibility requirements for the presidency, such as non-American readers on Wikipedia. TehPlaneFreak! talk 17:40, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
I think this is optimising the lead sentence for the wrong thing. Readers will assume the president of the USA is American unless told otherwise, regardless of their knowledge of US presidential eligibility.
Additionally, if the goal here is to actually to specify his nationality in the first sentence, the current solution is suboptimal, since it also necessitates saying that he is a politician, a clear redundancy. Popcornfud (talk) 17:58, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
Go higher up on the talkpage. We're already discussing the lead, which included American politician. GoodDay (talk) 23:10, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
The whole "American politician" thing seems really redundant imo. ~ HAL333 02:58, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
We gotta combine these 'lead' discussions. At the moment there's concurrently 3 or 4 of them occurring. GoodDay (talk) 03:09, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
I think the "American politician" part is redundant. We know by the "president of the United States" part that he's an American politician. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:35, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
It could be Joseph Robinette Biden Jr. is the 46th president of the United States. Kind of like Trump's article during his term as POTUS. cookie monster (2020) 755 18:20, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
That makes way too much sense. There's no way the community will go for it. :-P Levivich harass/hound 05:44, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
We almost always list someone with "X is a [nationality] [general occupation]" for a first sentence in a bio. Why should we make an exception here? Also of note; yes, holding public office often makes you a politician (one who plays politics), but not always. See Robert K. A. Gardiner, Michel Kafando, and Forrest H. Shuford, who are much better characterized as civil servants. Thus, assuming one is a politician because they hold public office is not a watertight deduction. -Indy beetle (talk) 07:30, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

MOS:CURRENTLY

The phrase serving as the 46th and current president is two words longer and imparts no additional information than serving as the 46th president. The present tense is all we need. It's going to be present tense for the next four years minus an hour, barring a shocking turn, and the article will be updated when he leaves office. Let's leave "and currently" out of this page. Please? – Muboshgu (talk) 18:18, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

And while we're at it, we can do without saying he is "serving" as president. He's not just serving as president, he is the president. EEng 18:28, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
Good point, even more concise. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:31, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
Why would you make it more confusing? I would endorse taking out the 46th bit, but not "current". That terminology is used on every page of anyone in an official current role. Same with the term "serving". Prinsgezinde (talk) 18:44, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
Prinsgezinde, more words make for more clutter. And I doubt that the terminology is used on more than a handful of congressional biographies. Saying he is the president is sufficient. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:35, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
Congressional? This is about a country's leader. That's the only reason "46th" is even there. I personally don't see why that bit is necessary. Saying "current President" is much more informative and to the point. I'm certainly fine with "currently serving as the 46th", as long as "currently" or "current" is in there. Prinsgezinde (talk) 02:30, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
Would appreciate if you would stop pushing your version on the lead. There's no consensus for your proposal. GoodDay (talk) 02:40, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
GoodDay I appreciate that you went back on earlier stronger statements you wanted to make so I'll do the same. All I'll say is that what I reverted you to was specifically not my version. My version would have been the original "serving as the 46th and current president", or alternatively "serving as the current president". I also notice people who see this as QAnon or conspiracy theorist wording, which really surprises me. It was actually my belief that not including "current" implied detachment from the fact that he is the President right now, and that some of the editors pushing this word out the lead were denying his position. But this discussion has been pushed up so the first sentence might have to become the subject of an RfC. Prinsgezinde (talk) 11:37, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Please folks leave it as it was "...is the 46th and current president of the United States". Not that useless currently serving mess. GoodDay (talk) 02:39, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree 100% with GoodDay. Let's make it as simple as possible. ~ HAL333 03:02, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
Agreed. Thanoscar21talkcontributions 13:10, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
"Simple" is to not use extra words, like "current", at all. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:36, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

What's with this BS 'currently serving'? Is this some QANON sh**? Is this sh** isn't modified to read legibly as 'is the 46th president', I'm gonna make the edit. I'm simply being polite and chose to see what the 'discussion' was about. Just visited Boris Johnson and Trudeau's page and I don't see this weird QANON type language Kunkuru (talk) 02:59, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

What on Earth are you talking about? What makes you think this benign word choice debate has anything to do with Qanon? ― Tartan357 Talk 06:30, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
What does QAnon even have to do with this discussion? Thanoscar21talkcontributions 13:10, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
Everyone knows that after Biden is sent to Guantanamo along with the other lizard people, Josh Hawley will take over as 46th president. EEng 16:44, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
What the 'bleep' is a Qanon, anyway? Is it a related species to canines? GoodDay (talk) 16:50, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
Over at Wikidata everything starts with Q [28] so I think that's related somehow. EEng 16:53, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
I totally agree with the op. It should be short and concise. How about Joseph Robinette Biden Jr. is an American politician serving as the 46th president of the United States. cookie monster (2020) 755 18:19, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
You see, I'm partial to the "and current" language becasue it imparts a certain degree of formality (IMO) and impresses upon the reader that he's the president of the United States. Thanoscar21talkcontributions 20:25, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
But so does saying "Biden is the president", and with fewer words. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:43, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Reference 142

Reference 142, which is used to support a sentence about how Biden served as junior senator to Roth, doesn't even mention Roth. I tried to find a replacement but failed. ~ HAL333 00:10, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Well, William Roth has this, but WP:WINRS. Thanoscar21talkcontributions 23:12, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Oldest president

Shouldn't we also mention in the lead that he's the oldest person to become president ever? It seems notable and was mentioned for Trump's article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pyroshark1 (talk • contribs) 17:15, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Here’s how I read the discussion up to now:

(Felix558 (talk) 19:56, 22 January 2021 (UTC))

Discussed above. Not in the lead. EEng 17:19, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
In the Trump article lead (which is already a very crowded lead) we read "He became the oldest first-term U.S. president." This information should also be included in Biden's article lead. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:25, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
We've been over this a zillion times. What other articles have is irrelevant. EEng 23:45, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
I think it's definitely noteworthy enough to be in the lead. Incredibly, he became the oldest-ever president on the day of his inauguration. This is an amazing historic fact. Mottezen (talk) 22:19, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
Why is it amazing? Someone has to be oldest. Probably Lincoln was tallest. Why isn't that in his lead? EEng 23:45, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
Lincoln is irrelevant to this discussion, unless you have RS that says he was a lot older than we thought. Mr Ernie (talk) 22:04, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
I also agree it should be mentioned, especially because it is mentioned by many sources.[1][2][3][4][5][6] At this point, there are at least 7 users in favor (User:Felix558, User talk:Pyroshark1, Mr Ernie, Mottezen, User:Dosafrog, User:The Four Deuces, and myself and probably more in the past) while you alone seem to be trying to stop this inclusion. Has there been a proper voting procedure that agreed on the consensus to keep it out? Also, it does not seem trivial. At 78, he is the oldest person to be a sitting, being older than Reagan (who left office at 77 and was the previous oldest president). And you seem to make fun and trivialize the opinions of other editors with your 'tallest' comments. Please build a consensus before removing it. Eccekevin (talk) 05:22, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
Actually, consensus will be needed before adding it, and consensus is based on arguments, not repeating a preference over and over as if it's self-obvious. Plenty of sources mention all kinds of things about Biden, and those things do belong somewhere. But why in the lead? I'm perfectly serious about height as an analogy. You take it as self-evident that being the oldest is of capital importance. Why is it? People are living longer, and staying vigorous longer. Big deal.
I'll draw a contrast. Being the youngest president, or one of the youngest presidents, probably is of real significance, because it says something about the person's drive or ambition or natural talent or something. Being the oldest just means they didn't die and avoided becoming demented (or hid it, I guess). EEng 11:36, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
This is not about dementia, if that is a comment about conspiracy theories about Biden having dementia. This is simply about a noteworthy fact that most national and international media have highlighted and that many users (at this point around 10) believe should be in the lede. The distinction between youngest and oldest while it could be valid, is so far your opinion and not backed by sources or guidelines.Eccekevin (talk) 01:34, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
I would be fine with mentioning this in the lede. ~ HAL333 05:46, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
Agreed, and seem many users are too. Being the only second Catholic president in history (in a nation where Catholicism is the largest denomination) also seems worthy of mention, also given the number of sources that mention it.[7][8][9][10][11][12] Given the really close tied Biden ahs with Delaware, and given Delaware has never had a president, also that seems to be worthy of mention. Since his presidency has just started and there's not much else to include in the lede yet for it, these milestones seem appropriate to be left there until there's a consensus to replace them with other stuff about his presidency.Eccekevin (talk) 06:58, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
This article isn't about Biden's presidency, but rather about Biden. There's plenty to say about him, and the lead is stuffed to the breaking point with it already; no need for padding. And most presidents, unless they're from Massachusetts, Virginia, New York, or Ohio, are from states that never previously produced a president. He's also the first president born in Scranton. So what? It's worth noting, but not in the lead.
The article on William Harrison actually used to say -- AND I AM NOT MAKING THIS UP -- that Harrison holds the record for having the largest number of grandchildren (25) when he took office -- not just his article, but the lead. I'm not kidding. The lead [29]. It's easy to come up with miscellany you can stuff in. What's hard is asking: which facts are truly worth the reader's time and attention in (I will repeat for the umpteenth time) the lead. EEng 11:36, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
The fact that he is the oldest president in U.S. history is important, and I think this fact should remain in the lead. I also think that user User:EEng showed very strange behavior regarding this - he used strong words like "idiocy" to describe good-faith edits by others, he acts like he is "above" other users and that his opinion is most important here. Felix558 (talk) 09:27, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
You keep saying being oldest is leadworthy but never say why. Here, let's end the lead this way: First president from The Silent Generation.[432] First president to assume the office over the age 75 (Biden was 78 when inaugurated).[433] First president whose home state is Delaware.[434] First president to bring Champ and Major a rescue dog to the White House.[435][436] First president to have been a Senator for over 12 years, he was a senator for 36 years (1973–2009).[437] First president to be a Presidential Medal of Freedom recipient prior to taking office.[438] First president to have a woman, an African-American, an Asian-American, a Historically Black College or University (HBCU) graduate, and member of a Black sorority serve as vice president (Kamala Harris).[439][440] First president to appoint an openly gay person to serve in a cabinet position (Pete Buttigieg). First president to appoint an openly transgender federal official to be confirmed by the Senate (Rachel Levine).[441] First president to have the National Security Council include an official dedicated to climate change (John Kerry).[442] First president to appoint a woman to be Director of National Intelligence (Avril Haines).[443] First president to have the National Youth Poet Laureate read a poem at his inauguration (Amanda Gorman).[444] Believe it or not, we had someone who kept sticking the Medal of Freedom thing in over and over -- and I mean sticking it into the lead. Why not copy-paste the whole article into the lead? Then we won't have to exercise any judgment at all about what to include there. EEng 11:36, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
Most of these are a sign of the current times. Example: its hard to compare Biden's appointment of Buttigieg with presidential appointments when homosexuality was illegal. However, age is directly comparable, and Biden's numbers are off the charts. At no point in his presidency will there have been a president that held office at his age. In 240 years. It's just amazing. Mottezen (talk) 18:30, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
As already noted, Biden's age is just as much a sign of the current times: people are living longer, and staying vigorous longer. It's hard to compare Biden's age to the ages of presidents when Americans typically lived half as long as they do now. EEng 20:00, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
I'll grant you it is also a sign of the current times, but that doesn't make it as uninteresting as you think. Check the List of presidents of the United States by age. Along with late 20th century presidents, founding fathers make up some of the longest-living presidents, at a time when elites had a longer life expectancy than average and were more likely to be president. This changed after people from lower classes became more common in elected office. Additionally, you will find that four of the ten oldest presidents were elected in the mid-1800s, in the three decades before the civil war. Isn't that interesting? Mottezen (talk) 21:10, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
The lead of Trump is no standard for what should or shouldn't be included here. That lead is a total dump. Ideally this article doesn't turn into Donald Trump. On the substantive matter, I don't personally think being the oldest president is lead-worthy at all. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:48, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
Stop removing this until a consensun against has been reached. Age is clearly impirtant, and the number of sources that discuss shows it.[13][14][15][16][17][18] These are just a the a few, there's plenty more. Obliviously, as it was noteworthy that JFK was the youngest, it is noteworthy that Biden is the oldest. There is a whole page dedicated to it List of presidents of the United States by age. Stop edit-warring and build a consensus against it. As shown above, plenty users agree and you are in the minority for now. If you keep removing this out of your own initiative in disregard for the rules of proper discussion and the Wikipedia guidelines, I will . Also, stop trivializing user's points of view and their good faith edits. You are not acting properly. Eccekevin (talk) 19:54, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
Eccekevin, it's you who's edit-warring it in. Consensus isn't a majority vote, and there just as many sources on the rescue dogs. [30] EEng 20:04, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
Please don' play dumb. You are diminishing and trivializing our points of view, in a manner not conducive to a real discussion. Obliviously, his age is something or particular note. It has garnered a lot of media discussion and it is quite a primate: the oldest ever president, older at inauguration that the previous oldest was at the end of his term. Given the amount of sources and discussion about this, it is natural that me and the other 7 users want to include, especially cause it is the only thing of note so far of his brief Presidency (yet) Calling us idiots and making fun of our arguments with "dogs" and stuff is not in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines of behavior. Please stop making unilateral decisions and start discussing seriously.Eccekevin (talk) 20:33, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
I assure you I'm not playing dumb, and I didn't call anyone an idiot. My points are absolutely serious. You're using a count of sources as an argument, and I've shown that any number of things which obviously shouldn't be in the lead also have plenty of sources; therefore, a count of sources can't be the criterion. And see below. EEng 20:45, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
You did call us idiots, please refrain from that in the future. And no, I'm not simply counting sources. The weight of those sources matter. His age was the subject of articles and full page headlines in the New York Times, Washington Post, Bloomberg, Guardian, AP News, USA Today and many others.[19][20][21][22][23][24] This is not trivia or compared to your Dogs google link. SHow me all the major outlets dedicated full page articles on his lvoe for dogs before you say these are the same. Eccekevin (talk) 21:09, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
You did call us idiots – No I did not. Either supply a diff, or apologize, or I'll be opening an ANI thread on this. I am not joking. You're new here, and have a lot to learn about how things work. Have a care. EEng 00:25, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
Multiple time you have called our good-faith edits 'idiocy' (here, here and here), and you have trivialized our contributions not only by calling them idiocy, reverting them unilaterally, and being dismissive in your tone, but also with you less than serious comments about Biden and dogs or Lincoln being the tallest.Eccekevin (talk) 01:22, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
Everyone does idiotic things sometimes, and that doesn't mean you're an idiot. (However, it doesn't rule it either, since you press the point.) You really have a talent for getting things backwards: YOU have been adding this material unilaterally and without consensus. It wasn't there before and YOU keep adding it. It's on YOU to get consensus, which isn't a headcount (not to mention that you seem to be counting heads not participating here). EEng 01:49, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
I know enough about how things work here, to recognize behaviour which is not in line with Wikipedia values and policies. Calling good-faith edits of other editors "idiocy" (like User:EEng did), and stubbornly removing content in spite of the fact that the discussion is ongoing about that content (while knowing he is are in a large minority) - such behaviour definitely is not something to look up to. Also, User:EEng directly disobeyed the BRD rule which is active here, by making the same revert more than once per day. Felix558 (talk) 14:35, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
I guess you think that by stubbornly repeating the opposite of reality, you make it true. The bold edit was the insertion, that insertion was reverted, and it's your repeated reinsertion that goes against BRD. Now we'll all watch while you once again going pretend the opposite. Go ahead, really. It's entertaining to watch. What I can't decide is whether this is a case of good-faith lack of WP:CIR, or just plain lying. EEng 14:57, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
I've no objections to mentioning the "oldest" bit. After all, he was older upon taking office, then Reagan was open leaving office. He's certainly the oldest-ever president in office. GoodDay (talk) 19:57, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
To User:EEng: today you deleted at least 2 times this from the article, in spite of our effort to reach consensus here. You are currently in large minority regarding this, so stop removing that sentence from the article. You can not win in this discussion by using force. Felix558 (talk) 20:23, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
Your effort to reach consensus is, so far, just an effort. It's you who keep trying to force it into the article before such a consensus has been reached. EEng 01:49, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
Yes, I deleted it, because "it's obvious" isn't an argument, and a headcount isn't consensus. The longstanding lead (at least back to late November [31]) does not include the age point, so it's up to you to show it belongs there, not to me to show it doesn't -- not to mention that the Delaware and Catholicism stuff keeps getting reinserted as well, which isn't even on the table in this discussion. And to be clear, no one's questioning that these points belong in the article -- the question is whether they go in the lead. EEng 20:45, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
What the lead was in November doesn't matter, he was not president yet. Yesterday he was inaugurated, and he became the oldest living president since 1776. The media thinks its highly relevant and important aspect of his presidency, so do all the other users on here that you keep shutting down because you personally think it should not be mentioned. You are outnumbered here, so at least have the decency to listen to your fellow editors, not insult them, and not take unilateral action.Eccekevin (talk) 21:18, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
The question was raised after the election about how to deal with the fact that he'd be the oldest president, and what was settled on is the way it's been treated for two months (or more): the article talks about it, the lead doesn't. The fact that he's now actually president doesn't change any of the considerations that went into that, nor make this some new and unexplored question. I'm listening to my fellow editors, but all I hear is that it's self-evidently important enough for the lead, a count of sources (by which criterion we'd have to put just about the whole article in the lead), and a count of !votes. EEng 00:21, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
Don't we usually include record breaking stuff in the lead, in terms of age, length, religion, etc.? Check the lead on Teddy Roosevelt or Joe Lieberman for example. The lead is large, but not as large as many others and I think a one sentence mention is appropriate. --someone who didn't sign (User:Sir Joseph)
I explained above why there's a stronger case for youngest than for oldest. EEng 00:21, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
That is an opinion, not a guideline or a consensus. You are free to embrace it as an opinion and argue for it, not to enforce it against the majority of users.Eccekevin (talk) 01:25, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
Yes it's an opinion, but it's an opinion backed by arguments. You really need to stop pretending you can lecture more experienced editors about how Wikipedia works, given that you still, at this late date, think consensus is a headcount. EEng 01:49, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
Consensus in not a headcount. The headcount however shows that you are the only one arguing against the inclusion (maybe one of two, depending on User:ProcrastinatingReader), while the vast majority of other users who have contributed to this discussion see fit for the inclusion. So the onus is on you to create a consensus to remove it. I'm more than happy to go to a RfC if you so desire.Eccekevin (talk) 02:51, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
So if I'm following your correctly, consensus isn't a headcount, but it's a headcount. And you keep bouncing back between claiming you have consensus and asserting that you don't need consensus. For the last time: this insertion was made yesterday and it was reverted, so the burden's on you. Tell me directly: do you not see that? EEng 04:09, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
Well, If I am honest, I do see a consensus. I see 10 users wanting to add the same things, and one user obstinately trying to fight it by calling it an 'idiocy'.Eccekevin (talk) 04:22, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
As pinged, I support removal to be clear. I think it's trivia. FWIW, the WP:ONUS is always on parties seeking inclusion. Suggest WP:DR up to an RfC. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:41, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
I think the ONUS on our part has been fulfilled due to the 1) vast numbers of high-grade sources and 2) vast support among users with the exceptions of you two. As stated before, happy to go to a RfC. Else, this just seems like WP:STONEWALLING. 21:07, 22 January 2021 (UTC)Eccekevin (talk)
I think you're vastly misusing the word "vast". I also support removal (from the lead) as trivia. Someone ping me when it's time to start edit warring. Levivich harass/hound 23:52, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
The issue with sources and presidents is that you have RS reporting whenever the guy takes a dump. I use the example of Trump having 2 scoops of ice cream and the RS frenzy over it as a common example of the media fetish for reporting presidential trivia. It is pure editorial discretion on whether to include or not. There will be piles of sources for various things relating to Biden, not all of it could possibly be in the lead, nor should it be. So using RS as an argument for lead inclusion in a sitting president is mistaken reasoning imo. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:15, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
User:Sir Joseph made a very good point - we usually include record breaking stuff in the lead. Biden is the oldest president in U.S. history, so I think the sentence about such sort of record breaking should stay in the lead. Felix558 (talk) 14:16, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
He's also the first Joe to be president. Levivich harass/hound 23:56, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
I would also support inclusion, age at inauguration has ben a notable aspect of a president. Reagan's age of 69 was noted for decades until Trump broke it. ValarianB (talk) 14:45, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
None of the trivia bits are worthwhile in the lead. Echoing other editors that the WP:ONUS is on those favoring the addition of new information into the lead. Start a RfC if you feel strongly, but there is currently no consensus for inclusion in the lead, and the repeated addition without consensus is unhelpful. RedHotPear (talk) 03:30, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
Sources

  1. ^ Peter, Josh. "Joe Biden will become the oldest president in American history, a title previously held by Ronald Reagan". USA TODAY. Retrieved 21 January 2021.
  2. ^ "Happy birthday, Joe: 78-year-old Biden will be oldest US president to enter office". the Guardian. 20 November 2020. Retrieved 21 January 2021.
  3. ^ "Birthday time: Biden turns 78, will be oldest U.S. president". AP NEWS. 20 November 2020.
  4. ^ https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/joe-biden-age-oldest-president/2021/01/12/91353560-49fe-11eb-839a-cf4ba7b7c48c_story.html. Retrieved 21 January 2021. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
  5. ^ Diaz, Johnny (18 January 2021). "Biden Is the Oldest President to Take the Oath". The New York Times. Retrieved 21 January 2021.
  6. ^ "Biden to Become Oldest President Ever at Inauguration". Bloomberg.com. 19 January 2021. Retrieved 21 January 2021.
  7. ^ "Joe Biden Becomes United States' Second Catholic President". Retrieved 21 January 2021.
  8. ^ SCHOR, ELANA. "Joe Biden's Bible, laden with personal meaning, puts him in line with inaugural tradition". chicagotribune.com. Retrieved 21 January 2021.
  9. ^ Waller, Allyson (20 January 2021). "Joe Biden's Family Bible Has a Long History". The New York Times. Retrieved 21 January 2021.
  10. ^ options, Show more sharing; URLCopied!, Copy Link (20 January 2021). "Biden visits cathedral ahead of swearing-in". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 21 January 2021.
  11. ^ https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/joe-biden-sworn-in/2021/01/20/13465c90-5a7c-11eb-a976-bad6431e03e2_story.html. Retrieved 21 January 2021. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
  12. ^ "Joe Biden is the 2nd Catholic president in US history after JFK". TODAY.com. Retrieved 21 January 2021.
  13. ^ Peter, Josh. "Joe Biden will become the oldest president in American history, a title previously held by Ronald Reagan". USA TODAY. Retrieved 21 January 2021.
  14. ^ "Happy birthday, Joe: 78-year-old Biden will be oldest US president to enter office". the Guardian. 20 November 2020. Retrieved 21 January 2021.
  15. ^ "Birthday time: Biden turns 78, will be oldest U.S. president". AP NEWS. 20 November 2020.
  16. ^ https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/joe-biden-age-oldest-president/2021/01/12/91353560-49fe-11eb-839a-cf4ba7b7c48c_story.html. Retrieved 21 January 2021. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
  17. ^ Diaz, Johnny (18 January 2021). "Biden Is the Oldest President to Take the Oath". The New York Times. Retrieved 21 January 2021.
  18. ^ "Biden to Become Oldest President Ever at Inauguration". Bloomberg.com. 19 January 2021. Retrieved 21 January 2021.
  19. ^ Peter, Josh. "Joe Biden will become the oldest president in American history, a title previously held by Ronald Reagan". USA TODAY. Retrieved 21 January 2021.
  20. ^ "Happy birthday, Joe: 78-year-old Biden will be oldest US president to enter office". the Guardian. 20 November 2020. Retrieved 21 January 2021.
  21. ^ "Birthday time: Biden turns 78, will be oldest U.S. president". AP NEWS. 20 November 2020.
  22. ^ Zak, Dan. "Joe Biden, 78, will lead an American gerontocracy". Washington Post. Retrieved 21 January 2021.
  23. ^ Diaz, Johnny (18 January 2021). "Biden Is the Oldest President to Take the Oath". The New York Times. Retrieved 21 January 2021.
  24. ^ "Biden to Become Oldest President Ever at Inauguration". Bloomberg.com. 19 January 2021. Retrieved 21 January 2021.

New official portrait

Has an official photo been released of President Biden yet? And if so, will it be included here when it has been released? Spark (talk) --Spark1498 (talk) 19:59, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Not yet, he just became president. But yes, it will be included when it's released. Thanoscar21talkcontributions 20:14, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
We'll recognise it, as he'll have the US presidential flag behind him. GoodDay (talk) 15:23, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Infobox too long

The infobox is way too long in length imo. It's a massive scroll. Too many positions and timeframes, imo. Doesn't help that {{Infobox officeholder}} has awful presentation for these roles, too lengthy. Can we slim it down, remove some roles, make it more of a summary?

Collapsing will help on desktop, but not on mobile where the device automatically extends the collapse. In fact, I think the reading experience of this article on mobiles is very suboptimal due to infobox length (visit Joe Biden on your phone and you'll see why). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:23, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

I've attempted some trimming in Special:Diff/1002128834. Let's see if it sticks. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:28, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
But isn't it SOP to include predecessors & successors when listing positions? GoodDay (talk) 00:47, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
I think we need to do something about the length. Most infoboxes on good (not capitalised) articles aren’t this long. Tbh though, I see the Infobox as a summary, and due to the poor construction of this Infobox template (in not having a more compact way to list lesser positions) I think the extraneous roles (chair, council position, etc) should go, leaving just the senate position, VP and presidency. The committee positions are in the lead anyways. It increases the infobox’s usefulness by cutting bloat, imo. Thoughts? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:55, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
What should ideally be possible is some kind of “Committees” sublabel under the Senate position. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:00, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Can I edit the lead section of this page to make it look like this?

There are already about three other discussions on this page about this. Please join those discussions. Thanoscar21talkcontributions 15:48, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

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.

Joseph Robinette Biden Jr. (/ˈbaɪdən/ BY-dən; born November 20, 1942) is the 46th and current president of the United States. A member of the Democratic Party, he served as the 47th vice president from 2009 to 2017 and represented Delaware in the United States Senate from 1973 to 2009.

Donald Trump's page during his term as President of the United States left out "an American politician serving as". AKK-700 (talk) 13:32, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Donald Trump (however) had never been a politician before being president, its was not a job he had done.Slatersteven (talk) 13:34, 23 January 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.

Infobox

So recently somebody removed all the Senate chairmanships from the infobox, as well as the successor and predecessor in the New Castle County Council section. I think they should all remain on the infobox. Any thoughts? - Bokmanrocks01 (talk) 04:11, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

I think they should not. New Castle County Council predecessor and successor are not mentioned anywhere in the article, let alone sourced; the infobox should not contain information that does not appear anywhere else in the article per WP:INFOBOX and WP:LEAD. The chairmanships are not what Biden is best known for and are quite minor compared to vice presidency and presidency. To include them is therefore contrary to what WP:INFOBOX defines as the purpose of an infobox, which is "to summarize key facts that appear in the article. The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance." Surtsicna (talk) 10:34, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Perhaps you should open up a discussion about the need to delete such info, for these US prez & vice prez bios. Boldly deleting can be messy. GoodDay (talk) 13:32, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
The info was boldly added and only then duly deleted. The addition needs consensus. It also needs sources as some of these names are never mentioned in the article. We do not have any chairmanships in the infoboxes of Jimmy Carter, Harry S. Truman, Franklin D. Roosevelt, etc, or even Hillary Clinton. An infobox does not need the minutiae of every office; in fact, that would defeat the purpose of an infobox. Surtsicna (talk) 16:23, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Perhaps, but in the coming days (on & after Jan 20), this article will be subject to many rapid changes. This discussion will likely be expanded. GoodDay (talk) 16:35, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

@Surtsicna: First of all, the reason why there are no chairmanships for FDR and Jimmy Carter was because they were never in Congress. Hillary was never a chair of any Senate committee, and neither was Truman (aside from the no longer existing Truman Committee, which never really was a formal committee, as it only lasted for 3 years), so your point is invalid. Secondly, every chair of a committee includes it in their infobox, so why should this article be any different? - Politicsfan4 (talk) 18:15, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

I recently re-added some of Biden’s offices in his infobox, but they were reverted. I don’t think that this should be a controversial issue whatsoever, as these are important offices, and they are not “ unsourced”. I have been directed to the talk page to gain consensus now to restore them. I would also like to point out that literally every other chair of a Senate committee includes their chairmanship office in their infobox, so it’s not like including it in Biden’s infobox is inconsistent. I’m not sure why anyone would disagree with this. — Politicsfan4 (talk) 17:37, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Now that I’ve read the discussion above, I’m just gonna go ahead and restore them. It seems that most people think that the offices should be restored, and there seems to be no legitimate reason for their removal. - Politicsfan4 (talk) 17:53, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

The lack of sources is always a legitimate reason for removal, and there has been no consensus for inclusion. WP:LEAD and WP:INFOBOX, which state that the infobox must not contain information not found in the text, are legitimate reasons for removal. WP:INFOBOX, which states that the infobox should be concise, is a legitimate reason for removal. Surtsicna (talk) 20:10, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Specifically, nothing in the text suggests (and there are no sources confirming) that Biden was preceded by Richard Lugar or Jesse Helms and succeeded by John Kerry or Richard Lugar or Jesse Helms as chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee or that any of the men ever had anything to do with this committee. Worse yet, Jesse Helms, Chuck Grassley, Dianne Feinstein, Strom Thurmond, Orrin Hatch, Henry Folsom, and Francis Swift are not mentioned anywhere else in the article, so mentioning these (evidently irrelevant) people in the infobox contravenes WP:LEAD, WP:INFOBOX, WP:V, and WP:BLP. Surtsicna (talk) 20:21, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
@Surtsicna: - Here are the sources for the dates, predecessors, and successors of Biden's committee chairmanships:

Foreign Relations Committee: [32]

New Castle County Council: [33]

Senate Judiciary Committee: [34] and Almanac of American Politics 2008, p. 365

You should also note that some refences to these positions are located in the article themselves (such as "Almanac of American Politics 2008, p. 365." cited as a source for Biden's Judiciary membership), as it is not customary to include references in infoboxes. I've removed the citation needed templates for the offices that I have found reputable sources for (I couldn't find any source for his chairmanship of the Narcotic caucus, so I have left those templates there). -- Politicsfan4 (talk) 21:31, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Actually, I have found some sources referencing Biden's membership of the Narcotics Caucus. Here they are:

I have now fully removed the "citation needed" templates that you placed in the infobox. -- Politicsfan4 (talk) 21:44, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Sources need to be cited in the article, not on the talk page. We cannot expect readers to search for citations on talk pages. They need to be readily available. Also, all this information must be also in the body of the article. Per WP:LEAD and WP:INFOBOX, nothing in an infobox should be in the infobox alone. Surtsicna (talk) 23:07, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
I do not see dates on any of these pages. This one was published before Biden became chairman so it obviously does not verify anything. The rest of the links also do not verify any of the predecessor/successor names which have been rammed into the infobox. Surtsicna (talk) 23:16, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
@Surtsicna: Do you sincerely believe that the tags you placed are necessary and/or improve the article? It seems to me that due to their sheer quantity and placement in the infobox, they make the article markedly worse for our readers, and their only function is to make your point. I presume that you do not dispute the accuracy of the information, and so the reader does not need to be made aware that there is dispute going on the talk page about whether to include these items in the infobox. Can't we have this discussion without all the tags? Levivich harass/hound 23:41, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
@Surtsicna: - I agree with Levivich. I’ve temporarily removed the tags for now until this discussion has finished. — Politicsfan4 (talk) 00:22, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
I do sincerely believe that all the information in the article needs to be sourced. Verifiability is the core policy of this project. Verifiability, not truth is what should interest us. The point of citation tags is not (and has never been) to question veracity but to point to the need for sources, which have not yet been provided here. What makes the article markedly worse for our readers is the inclusion of this massive amount of unsourced trivia, to the point that the infobox nows pushes the picture of a 10-year-old Biden down to the First marriage section on my browser. Surtsicna (talk) 09:43, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
I do sincerely believe that all the information in the article needs to be sourced – Like it says at WP:UNSOURCED:
When tagging or removing material for lacking an inline citation, please state your concern that it may not be possible to find a published reliable source and the material therefore may not be verifiable [Footnote:] ... it is advisable to communicate clearly that you have a considered reason to believe the material in question cannot be verified.
So, do you actually believe that it's not possible to find a published reliable source for Biden's chairmanships and so on, or are you just being difficult? EEng 13:03, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
I do seriously believe it is not possible to find published reliable sources about all these people preceding or succeeding Joe Biden in the given date ranges. I also do seriously believe that these names (and dates) are extremely trivial, since these people are not once named in the text. The infobox in the article about the man who will next week be president of the United States is full of unsourced trivia and it makes the whole article completely disarranged. So, will you be citing any sources at least? Surtsicna (talk) 21:15, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
To be blunt, seriously believing that there aren't complete and definitive sources for the chairmanships of Senate committees brings into serious question your competence to edit this article. Seriously. Did you even try? [35] EEng 05:15, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Trivial and verifiable are two very different concerns. Which do you think are not verifiable? Which are trivial? Levivich harass/hound 21:24, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
The same ones, i.e. the names of the people who supposedly preceded and succeeded Biden as chairman of various committees and the dates of chairmanships. They are evidently trivial because they are not mentioned anywhere else in the article. Everything that is in an infobox must appear in the text along with sources. Surtsicna (talk) 23:10, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
That's just flat-out false. WP:INFOBOXREF:
References are acceptable in some cases, but generally not needed in infoboxes if the content is repeated (and cited) elsewhere or if the information is obvious. If the material requires a reference ... and the information does not also appear in the body of the article, the reference should be included in the infobox. However, editors should first consider including the fact in the body of the article.
Seriously, get your facts straight. Why are you wasting everyone's time like this? EEng 05:15, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Seriously, read what you are quoting. This content is not "repeated and cited" anywhere in the article. These names do not appear anywhere in the body of the article. Surtsicna (talk) 13:54, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
You read what I just quoted. It says EITHER the information can be repeated and cited in the article OR if the information does not also appear in the body of the article, the reference should be included in the infobox. EITHER is sufficient. Here's that word again to help you focus: EITHER. And here's a link to wiktionary in case you need to look it up: wiktionary:either. EEng 15:03, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
Thank you. I am always grateful when native speakers go out of their way to improve my English, though what you quoted does not actually say "either" anywhere. In any case, the content neither appears in the body nor is it cited in the infobox. I suppose, however, that your point is that WP:INFOBOXREF contradicts WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE or at least my understanding of it, and indeed it does. Surtsicna (talk) 15:33, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
Duh, obviously the word doesn't appear, nor need it: it's the inescapable implication of the quoted text, so perhaps this native speaker needs to improve your powers of logic as well. As for my point being that WP:INFOBOXREF contradicts WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE, no that's not my point, because WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE says where a piece of key specialised information is difficult to integrate into the body text ... that information may be placed in the infobox, and so is completely consistent with the text I previously quoted from INFOBOXREF. EEng 15:59, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Well, there being no actual specific policy-based objection being raised here, I don't see a problem with it. In my view, none of those offices/chairmanships are trivial (Senate Foreign Relations Committee? Give me a break.). All of the successors/predecessors are easily verified and non-controversial... WP:BLUESKY stuff. It would make the article significantly worse if we added an inline cite for every successor and predecessor in the infobox. It would also make the article worse if we explicitly stated in the body who the predecessor and successor was for each office, just for the purpose of verifying on the page the predecessor and successor (when that information is easily verified and not controversial), assuming the succession/predecession wasn't otherwise significant enough to mention in the top-level biography page. I suppose it wouldn't be terrible if someone wanted to add things like "Biden became chair in YYYY, succeeding XXXX" and "Biden left in YYYY, succeeded by XXXX" to the body (which, I suggest, would be a better thing to do than tag-bombing), but I think that's unnecessary, and thus not really an improvement.
    At bottom, I see the infobox predecessor/successor links as navigational aids, and those don't need to be cited inline. Now, whether the infobox is too long and all those offices need to be listed... that's a separate question. I think that these sorts of navigational aides (at least for more minor offices like chairmanships [minor compared with the offices of POTUS and VPOTUS]) are better left in a nav template at the bottom of the page rather than in the infobox. (Perhaps in an infobox only in a subpage about the political career rather than the main page. It's really only a problem for long-term politicians who have held many offices, which is a minority of our political bios.) But any such change should be made as a sitewide change; a discussion for another day at another page. Levivich harass/hound 23:31, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
    WP:V is a policy. My objection is based on that policy. If the names and dates are easily verified, please cite the sources already. That information must never appear solely in the infobox (and solely in the lead) is plainly stated at WP:INFOBOX and WP:LEAD. If this is so trivial that it should not be mentioned in the text, as you appear to admit, it should not be mentioned in the infobox either. Nothing in WP:V suggests that names of predecessors and successors are exempt from that policy, and obviously they are not. They are also not exempt from WP:LEAD and WP:INFOBOX. Surtsicna (talk) 23:42, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
    information must never appear solely in the infobox – As I explained elsewhere, that's flat-out wrong and you really need to stop repeating it before people start laughing at you. Same goes for the lead. Maybe you should start reading the policies and guidelines you keep citing. EEng 13:07, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
    What part of WP:V requires a citation? And, as you've been asked several times now, what information are you challenging the verifiability of? Surely you're not challenging the verifiability of the Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee (one source for that would be senate.gov)? Because that would be WP:TE and WP:DE, and I'm going to WP:AGF you're removing content on verifiability grounds only because of a good-faith belief the content is not verifiable. So which content is not verifiable? Remember: verified is not a requirement, it's verifiable, per WP:V. Levivich harass/hound 23:45, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
    As I said elsewhere, if Sursicna truly thinks Biden's chairmanships aren't verifiable, then we go from a GF question to a WP:CIR question. EEng 13:07, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
    Also, That information must never appear solely in the infobox (and solely in the lead) is plainly stated at WP:INFOBOX and WP:LEAD. is not correct. Those are MOS sections, and nothing in the MOS is ever a "must", as stated in the WP:MOS guideline itself. Levivich harass/hound 23:51, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
    WP:V says: Any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. It is not enough to merely claim that something is verifiable. It has to be proven by citing sources. WP:PROVEIT: The burden to demonstrate verifiability ... is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution. So, where are the sources verifying the names of Biden's predecessors and successors as chairmen and the dates of his chairmanships? Surtsicna (talk) 00:01, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
    Well, as I said, I think it's tendentious and disruptive of you to challenge that Biden was preceded on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee by Lugar and succeeded by Kerry, but one source for that would be, as I already said, senate.gov. If you doubt this, let me know, and I'll be happy to link to the specific page at senate.gov that verifies this. Levivich harass/hound 00:09, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
    And I think it is disruptive to put so much unsourced, trivial information in an infobox that its entire purpose is defeated and article layout destroyed. That said, please do provide citations for the material. Surtsicna (talk) 00:18, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
    https://www.foreign.senate.gov/about/history/ Levivich harass/hound 00:22, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
    Thank you. That is an excellent source. Now, it is not the Senate committee chairmanships that I find trivial. It is the names of predecessors and successors. You say that the article would be worse off if these people were named in the text because such information is "unnecessary, and thus not really an improvement", and I agree. If they are not important enough to be mentioned in the text, they cannot be important enough to be mentioned in the infobox because the infobox is supposed to be a summary of the most significant information about the subject. Surtsicna (talk) 00:34, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
    I said several rounds of discussion ago, Trivial and verifiable are two very different concerns. Which do you think are not verifiable? Which are trivial? And then you removed all of it saying you challenged the verifiability. Now you're going to tell me that it's not verifiability, it's triviality, that is your concern? Quit wasting my time. Levivich harass/hound 00:41, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
    I am not only now telling you this is trivial. I told you that several rounds ago in response to your question and have been saying it the whole time. I assume that you did not see my response. Have you got any thoughts on what I said here? Surtsicna (talk) 00:50, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

How is it done in the infoboxes of other US presidents & vice presidents, who have prior Congressional careers? GoodDay (talk) 01:09, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Same as here as far as I can tell. Levivich harass/hound 02:52, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
@GoodDay: - Other chairs of committees in Congress include their chairmanships in their infoboxes, it that's what you're wondering. It's pretty obvious to me that Biden's infobox should include his chairmanships as well. -- Politicsfan4 (talk) 03:33, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Yeah that's what I was wondering. GoodDay (talk) 03:38, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
  • So are we done with the particular waste of time? EEng 13:37, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
    No, we do not appear to be. The same issue was brought up today at #Infobox too long by another editor. Your dismissing other editors' concerns as a waste of time is rude and unhelpful. Surtsicna (talk) 13:56, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
    ProcrastinatingReader's concerns about bloat are well founded. Your confused insistence that everything in an infobox must also be in the article – even when the text of the guideline to the contrary is rubbed in your face – is a complete red herring and is moving you perilously close to WP:CIR territory. EEng 15:03, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
    You have been in WP:Incivility territory since your first comment here but I am happy to keep ignoring that. If an infobox is to be a summary of "key facts that appear in the article", as stated in WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE, then it should not contain anything but key facts that appear in the article, right? Surtsicna (talk) 15:33, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
    No, not right. Aside from WP:INFOBOXREF explicitly stating that facts stated in the infobox need not appeaer in the article, WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE – which you just cited – states that where a piece of key specialised information is difficult to integrate into the body text ... that information may be placed in the infobox. It is now apparent that you lack the competence to usefully contribute to this discussion. EEng 15:59, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
    What I lack is the will to continue communicating with someone who appears to be incapable of a civil discussion. On this discussion page alone you have insulted multiple editors, but I suppose I have fared better than those who have had their opinions declared idiocies, no less. Surtsicna (talk) 16:53, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

There's another way to deal with everyones concerns on this matter. Collapse parts of the infobox's entries-in-question. GoodDay (talk) 15:10, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Collapsing won't work. Minerva (the mobile theme on Wikipedia) does not allow collapsing, so it will be automatically expanded. And the mobile experience is where this is a bigger problem, because the infobox is shown right after the first paragraph of the lead in series, rather than in parallel as on desktop. You can verify by visiting the article on a mobile device. The info has to be trimmed - collapsing won't suffice. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:13, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
I did find a way to retain the committee positions whilst still trimming, though. See Special:Permalink/1002249120. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:17, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
Being shown in parallel is also a problem because it is immediately followed by a sidebar, and it has unintended consequences on the left-aligned images. Surtsicna (talk) 15:42, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Succession boxes that need deletion

On this bio & other US president & vice president bios, we've got succession boxes like Longest lived president, Oldest serving president & Oldest living president. Honestly, that's too much, folks. GoodDay (talk) 05:54, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

At least someone around here's sane. EEng 06:24, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
It took a little while, but I have removed all those nonsense titled boxes from all the US president & vice president bios. GoodDay (talk) 17:04, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
No worries, as I've deleted them. Would you believe, there used to be succession boxes called US presidential nominee's spouses & US vice presidential nominee's spouses? which I also deleted out, weeks ago? GoodDay (talk) 15:13, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I would. Thank you for the effort. Nominee boxes are also unnecessary, and look particularly odd under "Party offices" header since they are not offices. Surtsicna (talk) 16:18, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
I've considered removing those as well. But since they've been in place for so many years, I figured it would be better to have an RFC on the matter. GoodDay (talk) 16:37, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
I would be surprised if anyone missed them. The boxes were all swept under the rug a long time ago (precisely because there were so many) and few are aware they even exist. Surtsicna (talk) 18:06, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
If you have an idea for a location to open up an RFC on this matter, covering all bios of US presidents & vice presidents? I would open up such an RFC. I could be bold & delete across the board, but it would be a wasted effort if those deletions were undone. My Wiki-senses tells me that there would be some opposition to deletion of those party-related titles. GoodDay (talk) 18:12, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
Note there's also the Senatorial & Representative nominees, as well as the Gubernatorial & Lieutenant Gubernatorial nominees. GoodDay (talk) 18:15, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics/American politics seems like a natural venue but it gets very little traffic. The few that do care might not see it there. Another option is Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics. If someone opposed the deletion, he or she might suggest a better location. Surtsicna (talk) 18:21, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
Yes WP:POLITICS is ideal & perhaps mirror it to the appropriate Village Pump. Have the RFC in two venues simultaneously. GoodDay (talk) 18:25, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Edit summary fail

I messed up my edit summary just now. The first link should point here, and the second should point here. I also forgot to note that Wikidata, Wikisource and many other Wikipedias are using this image. Sorry. Wodgester (talk) 20:01, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

RFC at WP:POLITICS, concerning succession boxes

Take a peak here, concerning non-office succession boxes, in bios. GoodDay (talk) 02:32, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Preemptive agreement over use of official portrait

Just to work out the formalities, similar to presidents before him, when Biden has his official presidential portrait release this will be the one we will use for his article henceforth. Of course this is seemingly unnnessecary I understand, but I know how anything related to presidents can be jumbled with alternative takes, so I'd rather build consensus now to prevent anything in the future. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 11:44, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

File:President Joe Biden.jpg
artwork

RogerNiceEyes (talk) 17:41, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Is the current photo Biden's official portrait?

On the white house website there is a page that lists every president with their official portrait but the Biden one is just a placeholder image from when he was Pres-Elect https://www.whitehouse.gov/about-the-white-house/presidents/ . And I can't find any place where it lists the current photo at the top of the wiki page as the "offical potrait" of Biden. Righanred (talk) 20:13, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

The image they are using there is captioned "at an event in Jackson, MS", suggesting it's from his campaign, not his term. In that case, I would suggest his staff simply haven't updated it. Besides, if another, definitively "official" one surfaces, we can use that. In the interim, I believe this serves the same visual job as the official portraits we use for the previous 45 presidents (smiling chest-up shot with flag in background), and it's better than the one from 7 years ago taken while he was serving in a different position. (Full disclosure, I was the one added the new portrait a few minutes ago.) Wodgester (talk) 20:22, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
I agree. While we wait for the new official portrait, this current photo is more appropriate than old photo from 2013. Felix558 (talk) 20:28, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
Indeed. In addition, User:KidAd rightfully removed my caption within the infobox of "Official portrait, 2021". He takes issue with the year being unnecessary, which I agree with, and it solves the official-ness problem as well. Wodgester (talk) 20:32, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
Doesn’t seem to be his official portrait. It’s suboptimal imo - shows his face from an angle, not from the front, for example. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:15, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

It always takes a while for the White House to come up with an official portrait. In the case of Trump I think it was close to a year! (And you should have seen the hideous, scowling picture they supplied us within the meantime!) In the interim I think the current pic (also from the White House) is excellent. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:17, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Imo the 2013 pic was better than this. If we want some White House pic, we could at least wait for them to put out something usable. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:03, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
The new photo has good quality, but evidently is not an official portrait. The 2013 photograph is best because it was prepared (comes from a photo shoot) and is official since then. For a politician of his position, we must have in higher consideration the official photographs. I think that the use of this new photograph exemplifies the blind urgency that some users have for "most recent photographs" above things like quality and officialization. Frodar (talk) 23:49, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
I favor using this recent public domain photo posted on whitehouse.gov on January 20, 2021 as opposed to a photo that is eight years old. It may not be the best possible photo, but I am sure that a truly official photo will be provided by the White House in short order. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:55, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
NGL I dislike the new photo, he has such an awkward facial expression and isn't facing forward. Besides, I don't believe it's noticeable which photo is newer/older.Nojus R (talk) 04:41, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

the new image is not even 2021... 2013 is better Hoseina051311 (talk) 15:47, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Wow, I checked the link, that actually make the current image unacceptable for Commons. If the photo is from the campaign for Presidency in August 2020, it is not "a work prepared by an officer or employee of the United States Government as part of that person’s official duties". If I'm right,
If the picture is from that Flickr account, it would be a CC 2.0 license, not public domain. We can't assume a picture is in public domain because it's in a federal govt website (I believe there was a similar issue lately with the Jon Ossoff article). I would agree to restore the 2013 photo as well, and leave it as that until a new official portrait is released. NO MORE HEROES ⚘ TALK 17:24, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
The picture is not found in that Flickr album that Hoseina051311 cites, but the point is the picture definitely is from that same event in August 2020 that the album covers. August 2020 is way before Biden took office and before we can say the photograph comes from "an employee of the Executive Office of the President of the United States, taken or made as part of that person's official duties" as the file license in Commons says. Frodar (talk) 17:37, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
I've restored the 2013 photo. We should wait for a true official presidential portrait. Frodar (talk) 20:28, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
I think it's safe to say that the said photo is free. The White House copyright notice reads "except where otherwise noted, third-party content on this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License". The CC-BY 3.0 license is allowed on Commons (the CC-BY-NC-SA license, the one on the Flickr account, is not allowed). Ahmadtalk 20:49, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
An official portrait has not been released. Restore the 2013 photo. cookie monster (2020) 755 04:35, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Anyone have any idea why "Articles related to Joe Biden" is displaying as "Template:Navboxes"?

I've been tinkering with it, but can't find the problem. Interestingly enough, if you go to edit the section and then preview it, it displays just fine.

The display problem seems to only happen when you're looking at it from the article, which seems odd. --Woko Sapien (talk) 15:46, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

This seems to be the edit that upset it, but the edit had nothing to do with the external links section. --Woko Sapien (talk) 15:49, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Okay, I changed the formatting to the Navboxes top and Navboxes bottom alternative. Seems to have fixed things for now. --Woko Sapien (talk) 16:26, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Future of the Lead

Just at a glance, it's apparent to me that at some point the lead is going to need to be significantly condensed in order to make way for a greater focus on his presidency. Maybe not now (since he just became president and has several years to go) but eventually all of his pre-presidency activities, which currently take up about 80% of the lead, will need to be condensed into a smaller footprint. One potential model is George H.W. Bush's article (since he had a similar public service record to Biden). His lead is structured like this:

  • Paragraph 1: Statement of Fact/Intro
  • Paragraph 2: Early life through vice presidency.
  • Paragraph 3: Presidency
  • Paragraph 4: Post-presidency

Just wanted to bring this up to kick start discussion. Basil the Bat Lord (talk) 11:23, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Basil the Bat Lord, agreed, I think a number of folks have noticed the same issue. Still, not much we can do right now. George H.W. Bush is a great model to look at - there are other US politicians we can also examine to see how we did there.
I think this will happen somewhat organically, too, one RfC at a time over the next couple years. Ganesha811 (talk) 13:56, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Agreed, given some time, this article will eventually improve. Thanoscar21talkcontributions 18:25, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Pipeline

The Joe Biden cancelling of the KEYSTONE pipeline seems to be very significant. I think a sentence or two about it should be put in the Presidency section, including critiques and praises of the cancelling of the pipeline. (More than 10,000 union workers lost their jobs, but environmentalists are saying it will be better for the environment.) NorfolkIsland123 (talk) 14:51, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree, that decision should be mentioned in the Presidency section, with a summary of critiques and praises. Felix558 (talk) 15:44, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
It is extremely significant. I'm going to add it. Thanoscar21talkcontributions 15:50, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Definitely significant, needed to be added, thanks. MaximusEditor (talk) 22:37, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Post-vice presidency, has not ended

Folks, this is getting quite FRUSTRATING now. An editor @QuestFour: keeps insisting on using Post-vice presidency (2017–2021) as a section heading, which is in error. Even though Biden is now president, his post-vice presidency continues. He's president of the US, indeed. But he's also still a former vice president. GoodDay (talk) 10:42, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree, it doesn't sound logical that his Post-vice presidency period has ended in 2021. That period will continue, he will remain a former vice president. I think this section heading should be changed. Felix558 (talk) 13:56, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
I changed it to Out of office from 2017 to 2021. GoodDay (talk) 22:49, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
"Out of office (2017–2021)" works imo. Popcornfud (talk) 22:32, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Trying to explain to some folks that "Post-vice presidency (2017–2021)" as a section header, makes no sense, is like hammering jello to the wall. People, while Biden is president of the United States, he's also still a former vice president. GoodDay (talk) 21:05, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Maybe Between Vice-Presidency and Presidency?Eccekevin (talk) 22:28, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
An acceptable option, though a bit long. GoodDay (talk) 22:31, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
GoodDay, agreed, it doesn't work. Popcornfud (talk) 22:31, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
It's tough, getting folks to open their eyes. GoodDay (talk) 22:37, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

RfC on the infobox length

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Because this was archived before closure, the closing statement is at Talk:Joe_Biden#RFC on infobox length - closing statement and followup recommendations. -- Beland (talk) 10:27, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Should the infobox be shortened? Previously discussed at #Infobox and #Infobox too long. 13:50, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Definitely don’t shorten; if you did that, you’d have to do that for every single senator and every single representative; those Committee Chairmanships are important and they don’t take up that much space SRD625 (talk) 18:29, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

We would not have to do anything else but indeed we should remove clutter from a lot of articles. Not everything needs to go into an infobox. Surtsicna (talk) 20:37, 26 January 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.

Starting section/subsection on mental acuity and gaffes

Biden's mental acuity has been widely covered in reliable independent sources. Should we consider adding this? I was thinking maybe under his sexual assault allegation. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 21:07, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Are they reliable sources, however? --21:09, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Yes they are reliable, and has been covered. Fox News, CNN, etc. all have articles about his mental acuity and health. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 21:15, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Perhaps I should be a little more clear. Are the sources of these accusations reliable? I can find a great many articles in similar sources to what you provided claiming that Trump has any number of mental health conditions, but this isn't mentioned in Donald Trump because the mere coverage of these accusations doesn't make them notable or the sources of them reliable. WP:BLP. This is an issue that causes any number of policy problems, from avoiding gossip, our libel policies, and more. Many of the accusations made against Biden's mental health (and Trump's, for that matter) are being made by people who are either entirely unqualified in the mental health field or who have not made anything close to needed examinations to come to any conclusion, and are violating American Psychiatric Association ethics rules by publishing such claims. It doesn't matter if Fox and CNN both cover the claims of people in no position to be making such claims (that'd be "gossip"). Some of your sources here aren't even that good, and are opinion columns or editorial pieces that aren't even attempting to be real journalism on the issue. Take the Chicago Sun Times article, for example. None of these present any real, professional question of his mental health. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 21:43, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
The accusations are total BS, and should be treated just as seriously by us as the allegations of Trump's mental decline: avoidance. It's a smear attempt that does not comport with BLP. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:16, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Right, I don't see any mention of, "person, woman, man, camera, TV" on Trump's page, and neither should this, either. Thanoscar21talkcontributions 23:06, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
We're not going to flat out say that he is cognitively declining, because we don't know that and the authors of these articles have no expertise in mental health. Trump having a mental health issue or whatever never was really notable for him, it wasn't seriously talked about that's why it's not in the article. These accusations of mental decline may be BS, so could the accusations of sexual assault. With that said, his gaffes and stumbles while speaking have led to mass speculation of mental decline, that is notable of at least mentioning. There is one sentence in this article that even mentions gaffes, that is not due weight. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 00:38, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Iamreallygoodatcheckers, Trump having a mental health issue or whatever never was really notable for him, it wasn't seriously talked about.... do you not remember the person woman man camera TV episode"? That was about Trump taking the Montreal Cognitive Assessment due to his supposed mental decline. Also, try to Google Trump + "narcissistic personality disorder" or Trump + "antisocial personality disorder". The point is that Trump's mental acuity was talked about a lot, and we didn't delve into it because of BLP concerns that the press doesn't follow. Trump's sexual assault allegations, on the other hand, are verifiable. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:59, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Muboshgu Biden's gaffes are well verifiable and have been extensively covered in the media. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 01:02, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Iamreallygoodatcheckers, and? Attributing them to mental acuity is a huge problem. We should follow the Goldwater Rule. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:10, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Muboshgu I'm saying we should have a subsection regarding his well documented gaffes and mishaps. Discuss that and how it has led to speculation regarding his mental acuity. We can do that in neutral respectful manner. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 01:20, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
No, we can't. There is no "respectful manner" to say gaffes *might* represent cognitive decline. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:27, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Ok maybe that can be discussed further later, but should we add a subsection on his gaffes and mishaps? Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 01:31, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
A good compromise may be to have a sub section entitled "gaffes" and talk about the well documented gaffes and mishaps he's had throughout his life and campaign, and mention speculation of mental decline there. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 00:54, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
That's not a good compromise at all, it doesn't belong in the article more than similar "speculation" belongs in Trump's article, especially with the sources you've brought up - Aoidh (talk) 00:56, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Biden's gaffes are not speculation. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 01:04, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Attributing them to "mental decline" absolutely is. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:09, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Attributing them to "mental decline" pure speculation, especially given the lack of a mental health diagnosis. Biden actually does have a speech impediment, that being a stutter he has struggled with his entire life. There's no reason for us to attribute the verbal gaffes to his stutter in article, but here, I'll say that Occam's razor supports the idea that his speech related gaffes are more likely related to a known speech impediment than an unknown mental illness. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 01:36, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
I agree we should add his speech impediment under the section, since it's a likely cause. However, I think we should just mainly talk about how he has been a gaffe machine is whole life. I don't think a speech impediment can explain all his gaffes. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 03:29, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
If he's been a "gaffe machine his whole life" then you have just discounted attributing it to a mental health decline, and this entire conversation is moot. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 15:56, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
For 4 years, it was claimed that Trump was nuts. Now it's claimed that Biden is senile. Perhaps we should wait & see, if Harris & the cabinet invoke Section 4 of the 25th amendment. GoodDay (talk) 01:30, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Why not?, we have a specially made article for Bush named Bushism and I think it's notable enough to be included. "Mental decline" isn't really appropriate, I suggest a less offensive term like "speech impediment" (dementia seems like a politically motivated term so I don't think that fits). PyroFloe (talk) 04:08, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

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 biased) if we ignore all that in this article. We should describe that without attributing it to "mental decline" (because there is no proof for that), but we should mention there was some speculation in the media about "mental decline". Felix558 (talk) 05:36, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Felix558 I completely agree with you. His gaffes are so notable that it would be biased to not mention them, probably borderline NPOV violation. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 23:44, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
For some reason, the word "gaffe" has long been associated with Biden and not with the previous president. Perhaps the word "gaffe" is inadequate and far too gentle to describe well over five years of vicious bullying, rampant ignorance, pathological lying and deranged narcissism, in the pursuit and "performance" of the presidency. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:03, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Proposal

What are you all's thoughts on adding this subsection:

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".[1] 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.[2]

Some of Bidens speech mistakes have been characterized as racially charged.[3] Biden's speech mistakes have included inaccurate or fabricated historical events, including personal stories.[4][5]

During his 2020 campaign, Biden's speech mistakes along with his advancing age led to unsubstantiated, politically motivated speculation of Biden's mental wellness.[6][7]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".[8][9][10]

Thank you for your effort, I think this can serve as a very good base for the subsection about this topic. I would make one change in the last sentence: "reports" should be changed into "report", because as far as I can see the reference you provided mentions only one report (the one made by Dr. Kevin O’Connor, Biden’s primary physician). Felix558 (talk) 01:14, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Thank you, I corrected the last sentence. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 01:36, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
This is a little too lengthy and detailed imo, but a sentence could be added on to the bit about his stuttering. One major issue you have is that those aren't reliable sources. ~ HAL333 01:16, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Which sources are you concerned about? Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 01:36, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Washington Examiner, Fox News, the opinion peice from Detroit, etc. ~ HAL333 02:12, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
The way in which the sources are being utilized is in accordance with WP:RSP. Fox News (other than talk shows) isn't considered non-credible, and it's context is to show that the media speculates about Biden's mental fitness. The Washington Examiner hasn't officially been declared non-credible, but I'll replace it with a source collaborating the same information. The Detroit News is a one of the largest news paper in Detroit, it's credibility hasn't been disputed so we can trust the quotes put forth by Biden in the source, and it's opinion is important for context that some of Bidens gaffes have been considered racially charged. However, I'll go ahead and add another source thats been verified by WP:RSP confirming the claim, just for safe measure.Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 03:46, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
I suspect you might have trouble getting that write-up into the article. Currently, many mainstream sources (like CNN, MSNBC news, etc) have been reluctant to put President Biden in a bad light. GoodDay (talk) 02:17, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Most of these sources on gaffes are ok, but the sources on dementia and cognitive decline are unreliable. Biden (like almost all politiains) has made gaffes from when he started politics, so since he was young. They are not necessarily a sign of Dementia like FoxNews or conservative outlets claim. The Washington Free Beacon is a conservative outlet (and it is not reliable, see here). Rasmusses Reports is a conservative pollster, hence they have a bias towards wanting to inflate claims that Biden is demented. The Examiner is also a heavily conservative outlet. So most of these sources are unusable.Eccekevin (talk) 22:24, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
So far there hasn't been a whole lot of opposition. There are sources discussing this issue on Biden from across the political spectrum. We will be sure to stay in accordance with NPOV. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 03:28, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
This has only been here for a few hours: do not rush such a huge edit onto the page. I told you that I see talk of cognitive decline as unacceptable and so have a lot others. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:03, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
The proposal says the claims are "unsubstantiated". What do you think it should say? In my opinion "possible mental decline" beats the hell out of dementia or something worse. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 05:06, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
For one thing the sources you're citing are largely trash, hardly citations to base content on. Secondly, during Obama's time as president there were plenty of articles criticizing him for his use of dijon mustard, yet oddly that's not in his article; this "gaffe" thing has the same amount of coverage; why should this get more undue coverage than that? I don't see similar content on Trump's article and his misspeaking and mistakes, though goodness knows there's plenty of coverage for that as well. "Possibly mental decline" is a hell of a claim that would require very significant and clear sources, not these trash "we're just asking questions on our opinion piece" articles that are being offered up as sources. - Aoidh (talk) 05:23, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
What sources do you have a problem with? I would certainly say this "gaffe thing" and misspeaks have extremely substantial coverage, at least on par with Trumps false statements, birtherism, bushism, which there are whole articles about. I really don't remember dijon mustard being a staple talking point for well over a year for Obama, like this has for Biden. Bidens blunders have been a staple of his entire career, they more than enough significant coverage in all sources. Literally, 30%+ of American[11]s acknowledge that they believe it's a problem, but apparently its the end of the world with we so much has say that there are "unsubstantiated claims of cognitive decline". If you have a problem with that terminology lets discuss it. It's absolutely and completely preposterous to have no more than one sentence about this tucked away in his senate career. This was talked about in the democratic primaries, in the general election, and still is being talked about today. I'm not claiming that Biden is mentally declining, I'm saying that the media is. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 05:37, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
My guess is, bringing anything perceived as 'negative' into this bio article. Will be under heavy scrutiny. GoodDay (talk) 05:46, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
I think your guess is right lol. However, I'm having a hard time seeing how saying there are "unsubstantiated claims of mental decline" is even negative. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 06:35, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Because it is literally just rumor mongering. "Well, I don't have any proof, but everybody says he's a bit loopy". --Khajidha (talk) 16:10, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Khajidha Your absolutely right. Thats why were calling the accusations "unsubstantiated, politically motivated speculation of mental wellness". This proposal in no way is saying that Biden has a cognitive issue. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 00:51, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Just mentioning the idea with no proof is implying that he has such issues. It is slandering the man.--Khajidha (talk) 01:11, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Can you please clarify if your opposing the adding this to the article entirely, or if you just oppose till there is further consensus. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 05:16, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
I oppose this contentious language because I believe that it violates WP:BLP by implying and inferring a medical condition, and hints that Biden is a racist based on a handful of off-the-cuff remarks. The one time remark about Obama is an especially egregious example of undue weight, when Biden was later selected by Obama to be his vice president and served eight years. That's big time cherry picking. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:31, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
It's fair that you see undue weight with the Obama comment. I would be fine with removing that. Also, we are not implying that he has a medical condition, we are simply saying that the media has made unsubstantiated claims of him having a mental problem. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 05:40, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
The reason it says that the comments were racially charged, this in reference to the "you ain't black" thing, is because a green check marked source (CNBC, which is NBC) under WP:RSP, says they were criticized for being racist.Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 06:21, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support; I don’t see any of this stuff as being offensive but adding more reliable sources and dropping the opinion articles is probably a good idea SRD625 (talk) 18:10, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
SRD625, your concerns have been addressed. If have any other suggestions about the proposal, I would be more than welcome to address them. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 00:56, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Oppose , clearly politically motivated. A line about his gaffes could be included, but a whole section is clearly just meant to attack him politically. All presidents and politicians are prone to gaffes, why single out him? Also, let's please not pretend that Rasmussen Reports accurately convey the opinions of people. They are a legitimate pollster, but a right-wing one and one with its own biases and willingness to propagate the Biden has dementia' motif for political reasons. They are considered Trump's favorite pollster because of how favorably they have portrayed him.[12][13][14][15][16] Hence, if Rasmussen is included, their bias has to made clear to the reader. I specifically oppose the inclusion of Rasmussen Reports data. Additionally, I oppose the politically-charged language of "Biden refused to take a cognitive test'. This was political theatre, with Trump attacking him on Twitter and accusing him of not wanting to take this test, which has never been done for Presidents.[17][18] There's no precedent for Biden or any President taking such test, and it was just done as propaganda during the campaign. It seems politically-motivated to phrase it as he is refusing to do it. Eccekevin (talk) 22:09, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Eccekevin I would like for you to review the updated proposal. I have tried my best to address your issues. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 00:49, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Oppose Everything about this "proposal" is unusable. WP:TNT and walk away. KidAd talk 22:15, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Oppose At the end of the day, we have a proposal here that is motivated by an attempt to include highly biased and not reliably sourced content regarding Biden's mental health. It's been repackaged as "let's just mention the gaffes, and this one public opinion poll about mental health," but at the end of the day, as this very topic name states, this is because those gaffes have been used by certain political groups to try and paint Biden as having declining mental health. It wasn't when Obama got the number of states wrong that one time, and it isn't here for Biden, especially given the admittance that he's had some gaffes for most of his political career. What's next, text about how often he uses words like "malarkey"? --OuroborosCobra (talk) 00:19, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
OuroborosCobra I would like for you to review the updated proposal. Every reference is verified under WP:RSP. I have tried to make the language as neutral in nature as possible. I am not politically motivated, if I was I wouldn't have said that the claims were unsubstantiated. Bidens gaffes, in the same way as Bushism, have received substantial media coverage. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 00:47, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
All right, I have tried my very best to address every complaint. Every reference, is a full verified source under WP:RSP. I would like for everyone to take a look at the updated proposal. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 00:42, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Oppose. It's just not worthy of a subsection. Mostly, because of WP:RECENTISM. Individual sentences (such as the 'you ain't black' or the dementia accusation) can be added to various sections such as the 2020 Campaign, but it makes no sense to tied them all up in a section.Eccekevin (talk) 01:13, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Eccekevin I could see an argument for WP:RECENTISM for the "you ain't black" comment, but his gaffes have been going on for decades, and for some reason have been extensively covered. Particularly, during the 2020 campaign which is where this subsection is being proposed for placement. I would disagree with saying the dementia accusation is recentism because it was such a large talking point throughout the campaign, even if it does fall under WP:RECENTISM, it's still being placed in a section dedicated to the last 3 years, and the accusation is definitely notable for his campaign in the last year or so. Imo the sexual assault allegation is just as much recentism as the dementia allegation, and it gets a whole subsection, as well as independent page. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 01:23, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Exactly, so it should have its own subsection in Joe Biden 2020 presidential campaign, not on Joe Biden. the sexual allegation also should not have a subsection, but that's an unrelated discussion.Eccekevin (talk) 02:29, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Well thats an interesting opinion to hold. However, you opinion is not rooted in precedent of Wikipedia. We have included Biden's sexual assault allegation here, we have Trump's sexual assault allegation in his article. Precedent is to keep these types of notable events in main articles, the gaffe situation is similar in and nature and really isn't even recentism since it's been going on for a long time. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 02:42, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia works by consensus, not precedent (although it can be informative). What happens on the Trump pages isn't law for the Biden page. The consensus on the sexual allegations page has no bearing here. The questions is, is there consensus to dedicate a whole subsection to these gaffes? Biden's gaffes are already described on the page, more or less in chronological order and in the Reputation subsection. I see no need to create a whole new section, it seems contentious and politically motivated. Eccekevin (talk) 02:48, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Iamreallygoodatcheckers, it is neither necessary nor wise for you to respond to everyone who comments here. You've made your proposal and there is no need for further comments unless someone asks you a question. Please read Wikipedia:Don't bludgeon the process and heed that excellent advice. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:55, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks you, Cullen328. I was just trying to ensure we reach a consensus, I wasn't aware of the guideline. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 03:03, 27 January 2021 (UTC)


References

  1. ^ "'I am a gaffe machine': a history of Joe Biden's biggest blunders". the Guardian. 25 April 2019. Retrieved 26 January 2021.
  2. ^ Somvichian-Clausen, Austa (22 November 2019). "Are Joe Biden's gaffes related to a lifelong stuttering problem?". TheHill. Retrieved 26 January 2021.
  3. ^ "Biden risks alienating young Black voters after race remarks". AP NEWS. 8 August 2020. Retrieved 27 January 2021.
  4. ^ Viser, Matt; Jaffe, Greg. "As he campaigns for president, Joe Biden tells a moving but false war story". Washington Post. Retrieved 27 January 2021.
  5. ^ September 23, THE ASSOCIATED PRESS. "Biden makes FDR gaffe during CBS interview". Newsday. Retrieved 26 January 2021.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
  6. ^ "Opinion: You need to stop saying Joe Biden has dementia". The Independent. 12 March 2020. Retrieved 26 January 2021.
  7. ^ Harris, John F. "2020 Becomes the Dementia Campaign". POLITICO. Retrieved 27 January 2021.
  8. ^ "Biden says he hasn't taken a cognitive test: "Why the hell would I take a test?"". www.cbsnews.com. Retrieved 26 January 2021.
  9. ^ Sotomayor, Marianna; UTC, Mike Memoli405d ago / 9:24 PM. "Joe Biden releases medical assessment, described as 'healthy, vigorous'". NBC News. Retrieved 26 January 2021.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
  10. ^ "Joe Biden: 'Why the hell would I take a cognitive test?'". BBC News. Retrieved 27 January 2021.
  11. ^ Sheffield, Matthew (10 September 2018). "Pollster: Rasmussen Research has a pro-GOP bias". TheHill. Retrieved 26 January 2021.
  12. ^ "Trump's favorite poll shows him narrowly losing presidency one day before election". Newsweek. 2 November 2020. Retrieved 26 January 2021.
  13. ^ "Trump's favorite poll shows him narrowly losing presidency one day before election". Newsweek. 2 November 2020. Retrieved 26 January 2021.
  14. ^ "Rasmussen Reports on Axios". Axios. Retrieved 26 January 2021.
  15. ^ "Conservative pollster Rasmussen seems to urge Pence to nullify vote". The Independent. 29 December 2020. Retrieved 26 January 2021.
  16. ^ CNN, By Harry Enten (8 December 2018). "Trump's favorite pollster was the least accurate in the midterms". CNN Digital. {{cite web}}: |last1= has generic name (help)
  17. ^ "Cognitive Test. Trump. Biden. Campaign. Flashpoint". AP NEWS. 23 July 2020. Retrieved 26 January 2021.
  18. ^ "Joe Biden: 'Why the hell would I take a cognitive test?'". BBC News.

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

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

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:23, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Should we at least temporarily remove this image from the article in the time for this discussion to end, to avoid any copyright problems?Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 03:14, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Caption for Biden's official portrait

Since all other previous presidents up to Nixon have a caption below their official photo (the caption is always "Official portrait, XXXX", with XXXX being the year when the photo is taken), is there a consensus to include such caption below Biden's portrait? Felix558 (talk) 18:20, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

I disagree with doing something just because it is done elsewhere. In this instance, the subject is the incumbent president, so the photograph can be assumed to be recent. Surtsicna (talk) 18:25, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
It seems to me you just gave one more reason to add caption. For me, the photo which is 8 years old is not recent, so the reader will have a wrong impression without caption. Felix558 (talk) 18:46, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
The caption is distracting and unnecessary. Readers know who Joe Biden is. Readers know what he looks like. Readers don't care what year a picture was taken. KidAd talk 20:03, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
If you are right, than it's strange why the captions for all other previous presidents up to Nixon have not been removed. Since all those articles have captions, and those captions are the same, it seems to me this has been accepted as a convention. Felix558 (talk) 20:12, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
Sounds like a variation of WP:OTHERSTUFF. I don't care about other pages. KidAd talk 20:14, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
Could someone fix the caption? A Swedish user changed it and the English doesn't make sense, and it's called "Inauguration Day" not "Installation Day". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.7.255.227 (talk) 21:56, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
For what it's worth I'm not a fan of the "Official portrait, [year]" captions as they are not particularly descriptive and I think add unnecessary clutter. It doesn't seem necessary to distinguish there what is "official" or not, just that we are using the best available (quality and composition wise) lead image to identify the subject. Connormah (talk) 18:20, 25 January 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. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 17:47, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Speedy restore There was a caption until recently. It should never have been removed without consensus for the reasons cited above. Alex (talk) 23:23, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Current Occupations

Currently states politician only. Isn't Biden also an Attorney? Advocating for change of "...Biden Jr. is an American politician who is the..." to "...Biden Jr. is an American politician and attorney who is the..." to better reflect his background and occupation.50.75.4.146 (talk) 19:09, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Is he currently serving as an attorney in any capacity? --OuroborosCobra (talk) 19:55, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
I don't believe Biden has practiced law in a very long time, and if he has it's certainly not of notability, particularly to be in the lead. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 07:53, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Biden - the oldest first-term U.S. president

I added today (at the end of the introduction) the fact that Biden is the oldest first-term president in U.S. history, and I also added one reference for that. One editor just removed this from the article, because he think this is "idiocy" and "trivia". However, that same fact stands in the introduction of article about Donald Trump. I think consistency should be one of our main goals here. Do you think we should also remove this fact from the article about Trump, or we should add this fact again to the article about Biden? Felix558 (talk) 03:48, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

As I told F558 on my talk page, this fact belongs in the article somewhere; the idiocy consists in thinking it belongs in the already-very-overburdened lead. We've had this discussion several times, as we have on shoehorning into the lead that he's the first president from Delaware, third ambidextrous president, second VP to become president after a being out of office for a time, and other factoids from the kaleidoscope of combinatoric presidential trivia. Each article stands on its own, and "this other article has it" is about as close to useless an argument as there is. If the inconsistency bothers F558, he should see what he can do about removing it from the lead of the Trump article as well. EEng 03:56, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
The fact that at 79 years, 2 mouths Biden is the oldest person to assume the office of President is definitely relevant, and belongs in the lede. It is far from idiocy and trivia. Vinny Gambino (talk) 11:56, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
To take it a step further, the lede for the Trump Presidency article prominently mentions his false statements. Shouldn't the lede for Biden mention that he continues to make terrible gaffes? Vinny Gambino (talk) 11:56, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Edit request (new image)

Under First marriage, law school, and early career (1966–1972) please replace File:Joe Biden at Age 10.jpg with File:Joe Biden age 10 (retouched).jpg. Cheers. nagualdesign 12:14, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks for taking the time to improve this photo, nagualdesign. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 15:58, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
My pleasure. nagualdesign 16:37, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Request for edit - Senate Judiciary Committee - Clarence Thomas hearings

Please change:

After the committee hearing closed, the public learned that Anita Hill, a University of Oklahoma law school professor, had accused Thomas of making unwelcome sexual comments when they had worked together.

to:

After the committee hearing closed, the public learned that Anita Hill, a University of Oklahoma law school professor, had, in response to questioning by the FBI, alleged that Thomas made sexual comments when they had worked together.

or similar, as per 20 January 2021 suggestion of IP User 172.58.140.175.

Some sources: [1]; [2]

"Days earlier," [prior to Hill's testimony] "another powerful image had imprinted itself on the public’s mind: A group of women House members had charged up the Senate steps to demand that Hill’s claims against Thomas be aired."[3] 180.216.180.68 (talk) 10:20, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ SIEGEL, Joel (25 October 2011). "Clarence Thomas-Anita Hill Supreme Court Confirmation Hearing 'Empowered Women' and Panel Member Arlen Specter Still Amazed by Reactions". ABC News. Retrieved 21 January 2021.
  2. ^ Gordy, Cynthia (1 November 2011). "Anita Hill on Thomas Hearing: Defending Her Legacy". The Root. web.archive.org. Retrieved 21 January 2021.
  3. ^ Kennard, Cinny (13 October 2011). "Twenty Years Later: Covering The Anita Hill Story". HuffPost. Retrieved 21 January 2021.
 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. This is WP:UNDUE detail for this article and is already covered in appropriate detail at the article on the hearings, where it belongs. The proposed change makes the sentence harder to parse and the extra level of detail in how the allegations were brought to the public attention is not needed to describe the impact of the hearings in this article's subject. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:47, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Fair enough, and thanks for your reply, {{User:Eggishorn}}. Only a suggestion, as previously discussed here (without there being any objection made to the substance of the requested change, only to the way it was requested).
I have no skin in the game at all, merely thought that the other IP's suggestion made sense, and might increase the precision of the article. The response up-page to the original requester, was to put it into a formal request,

If you have an edit you would like to be made, please cite reliable sources, and submit an edit request on this talkpage. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 21:48, 20 January 2021 (UTC) [Emphasis added]

and no mention was made of needing to form a consensus prior - nor has that been my previous experience of the process, but then, I am fairly new. Although the policy does say, "consensus should be obtained before requesting changes that are likely to be controversial" the contemplated change did not seem the least controversial to me!
I can see your point about the difficulty of parsing, though, and that the hearings are of secondary importance in this article. 180.216.180.68(talk) 00:30, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Joe Biden's occupations

Currently Joe Biden's occupation is stated as an American politician. But he was also a lawyer (public defendant), author (has written multiple books after vice presidency), and an academic (was the Benjamin Franklin Presidential Practice professor at Penn Biden Center). This should be reflected in the opening sentence of the first paragraph where he is only attributed to be an American politician. Ahnaf.eram (talk) 01:18, 29 January 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahnaf.eram (talk • contribs) 01:02, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree with adding that he was a lawyer and an academic, but I’m unsure on adding that he is an author. Most modern Presidents have written books at this point, and it would beg the question of whether to add them all as authors. — GreenFlash411 9:17 January 29 2021 (UTC)
He is an attorney, in that he has a law degree, but he actually practiced law for about a year before going into politics full time. Most politicians write books. Many politicians take academic positions between jobs, or as a part-time thing while holding office. None of these things are part of his identity. None of them are his lifetime work, which has been almost entirely in holding elective office. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:39, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Let’s say F Scott Fitzgerald became president. We would have to put author as his occupation. That begs the question when do we? I say if they were an author before they became president like Joe Biden Ahnaf.eram (talk) 11:19, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

I'd say a politician writing about politics wouldn't qualify, but something like Bill O'Reilly's books would. GreatCaesarsGhost 13:46, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Infobox caption

This is another one of those petty issues. Before Biden official portrait 2013 (cropped) 2.jpg#mw-jump-to-license this image was replaced in the infobox (and subsequently reinstated), its caption was "Official portrait as Vice President, 2013", as is custom on U.S. presidents' and vice presidents' articles. It was first removed in this edit without prior consensus. Attempts to restore the caption were reverted. Are we not in support of restoring the caption, as there was no consensus on removing it in the first place? throast (talk) 23:43, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Does it really matter if the caption is there or not? If the veep flag is the problem? figure out a way to hide it. GoodDay (talk) 23:48, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
It's not really about that imo, it's about the practice of users reverting restorative, completely justified edits like these when there is no prior consensus for it... throast (talk) 23:53, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
No one has provided a convincing argument for why to include Official portrait, YEAR. As I have said, it is unhelpful. KidAd talk 23:58, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
That's your opinion and if you disagree with it, you should open a thread here to discuss it. Removing a caption that's been there for all this time, as are comparable captions on pretty much all vice presidents' articles, out of nowhere and then continuing to revert edits is wrong imo. throast (talk) 00:03, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
Per WP:ONUS, The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.. So, "IMO" no. KidAd talk 00:06, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
You sought to exclude content that was established and had never been disputed. throast (talk) 00:16, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
Wouldn't fuss too much over it. The dispute will be moot, when Biden's official presidential image is released. GoodDay (talk) 00:18, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

From WP:CAPLENGTH: Infoboxes for things that change over time can mention the year of the image briefly, e.g. "Cosby in 2010" Bill Cosby. A caption is especially useful in this case as the photo is 8 years old and not a presidential one. ― Tartan357 Talk 00:29, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

@GoodDay, this can serve as a basis for including 'Official portrait, 2021' once the old portrait gets replaced by the new one. I agree with the argument above. throast (talk) 00:59, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

I am against removal of caption. Biden looks visibly older today than 8 years ago, so the caption "Official portrait, 2013" is useful - it informs readers that this photo is not recent. The caption should stay until the new official portrait is released. BTW, all articles about previous presidents (up to Nixon) have the same caption "Official portrait, XXXX" in Infobox - I think these captions are there for a reason. Felix558 (talk) 02:07, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Felix558, while I support keeping the caption, pointing to other articles is a weak argument due to the nature of Wikipedia. See WP:OTHERCONTENT. ― Tartan357 Talk 02:42, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
I am going to start an RfC on this. KidAd talk 02:45, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
KidAd, sounds good. I'd appreciate a ping once you've set it up. ― Tartan357 Talk 02:51, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Headings

I think the headings "Allegations of inappropriate physical contact" and "Presidential transition" should be separated from, and displayed on the same level as, the 2020 presidential campaign heading. Alternatively, the 2020 campaign could be made into a level 1 heading with these under it, or the table of contents could be configured to allow three levels of headings instead of two. The main reason is so the "Allegations of inappropriate physical contact" can be seen. If somebody hears that Biden has been accused of making people uncomfortable / sexual assault / harassment, and they want to read more about it, they should be able to find it in the article. It's a little confusing as it is, and one could think that the information had been removed from the article. I'm not sure it would be bad to have a longer table of contents either. Anyways, this is just my opinion, and you can do what you think best. 2601:640:4000:3170:71AC:B34E:314B:868F (talk) 07:14, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Removing "American politician" from lead sentence

This was discussed a bit previously in a couple of places, but got lost. So I'm proposing it again.

I think we should remove "American politician" from the lead sentence, so it becomes: Joseph Robinette Biden Jr. (/ˈbaɪdən/ BY-dən; born November 20, 1942) is the 46th and current president of the United States.

The reason is that, by definition, the president of the USA is 1) American and 2) a politician, so this is redundant.

I understand that we included this in the lead sentences for previous presidents while they were president. I think this was unnecessary in those cases too, and we don't have to blindly follow that example for eternity.

I understand that leads for previous presidents also mention their other jobs/roles/etc. That may make sense in those cases because they're not currently the American president and so it isn't necessarily redundant to say they are/were also politicians. Here it is unnecessary.

I understand that not every reader may know that American presidents are American, and therefore we need to mention Biden's nationality. However, I think this optimises for a seriously narrow subset. Even if we do want to do that, the current solution is inefficient from a copyediting perspective, because it depends on us also mentioning that he's a politician - which is redundant for the president however you slice it. Popcornfud (talk) 19:26, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

I've no objections to this, if it's applied to all the US presidents & vice presidents bios. GoodDay (talk) 19:29, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Well, there's only two of 'em where it would make sense right now. So it wouldn't be a hard job. Popcornfud (talk) 19:34, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Oppose per the reasons I and others laid out at the Kamala Harris discussion.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 22:36, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Oppose removal per Spy-cicle (etc.) above. Paintspot Infez (talk) 23:02, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Oppose Violates MOS:CONTEXTBIO. KidAd talk 23:05, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
MOS:CONTEXTBIO requires "the country of which the person is a citizen, national, or permanent resident", which is provided by the words "United States" in the sentence "Joseph Robinette Biden Jr. ... is the 46th and current president of the United States". Levivich harass/hound 00:17, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
Joseph Robinette Biden Jr. ... is the 46th and current president of the United States only establishes the activities that made the person notable per MOS:CONTEXTBIO. KidAd talk 00:56, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
The sentence also establishes context for the activities that made the person notable. In most modern-day cases, this will be the country of which the person is a citizen, national, or permanent resident... The words "United States" provide the country of which he is a citizen, national, and permanent resident. Levivich harass/hound 02:21, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose SRD625 (talk) 23:55, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose per KidAd. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 00:59, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support — it's obvious that the president of the US is an American politician; doesn't need to be said twice in the lead. Levivich harass/hound 06:02, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Kidad and Spy-circle. Thanoscar21talkcontributions 14:48, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep it's not that obvious that the president is always a politician, especially a career politician. Was Eisenhower a politician? Was Trump, before becoming president? Is the Secretary of Energy a politician, or just a high level government employee? The Secretary of Energy is a ways down in the United States presidential line of succession but still could conceivably become president without ever doing politics stuff like running for office or getting elected. Nelson Rockefeller and Gerald Ford were both appointed to the post of VPOTUS rather than being elected into it in the 1970s, and Ford actually became president (Rockefeller became his VP). They both had held elected office before becoming VP, but that wasn't a mandatory qualification. So it does seem to me that a non-politician could become president, although maybe becoming president automatically turns them into a politician if they weren't already one. 67.160.203.180 (talk) 07:58, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
    I'll just respond to this one. A president is a politician. It doesn't matter if the president was a politician before becoming president. If you are a president, you are a politician. Popcornfud (talk) 11:30, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support per nom and Levivich. This convention of calling American presidents American politicians is very silly indeed. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 15:54, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose Our standard opening sentence for all BLP articles is to define who/what the person IS. That first-sentence definition includes their nationality (see MOS:OPENPARABIO) and their profession. What position they hold or held can follow, often as a later clause of the same sentence. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:10, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
    I'd like to try and convince you that this line of argument is flawed.
    1. MOS:OPENPARABIO does not require "American politician". It also does not require nationality or profession. MOS:OPENPARABIO #3 is Context (location or nationality) (emphasis on "or", for more see MOS:CONTEXTBIO) and #4 is The noteworthy position(s) the person held, activities they took part in, or roles they played (note that the word is position, not profession, and similarly MOS:ROLEBIO refers to "position" and "role", but not "occupation" or "profession"). "Joe Biden is the president of the United States" is 100% compliant with MOS:OPENPARABIO. It provides Biden's location or nationality (United States), and his position (president).
    2. "United States" provides nationality and is actually more specific than "American", which, though commonly used to refer to someone from the US, is a rather US-centric use of the word "American", a word that refers to continents, not a country.
    3. "Politician" is not a profession. A profession requires specialized training, and one need not receive any education to be a politician.
    4. "Politician" is not an occupation or job, which requires remuneration. Nobody gets paid to be a politican.
    5. "President" is an occupation. One gets paid to be President. POTUS is an employee of the federal government. If you ask someone what they do for a living, they say "I'm president" or "I'm governor" or "I'm senator", etc., not "I'm a politician currently serving as president".
    6. All in all, "Joe Biden is the president of the United States" complies with MOS:OPENPARABIO better than "is an American politician", because "American politician" doesn't really state his position or role (or occupation or profession), and it's a little vague on the nationality. Levivich harass/hound 00:15, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
    1. A profession can refer to simply An occupation or career.
    2. I would like to reiterate a point Fowler&fowler made on the Harris talk page. You're assuming that general readers are know that this American office holder is an American citizen with no other citizenship. That is not the case in numerous countries George Papandreou, a former Greek PM, was Greek and American. Mark Carney former Governor of the Bank of England (their Federal Reserve) was a Canadian with dual British nationality. Going back further, Benjamin Franklin, a founding father, and head of the postal service, had dual British and American citizenship.
    3. I do not really get your reasoning here politians like senators, presidents, etc get paid. Politians here is a generalisation since he's been a senator, VP, now president so summarises it well that just one office he's held as he's had a long decades spanning political career.
    4. Again poltician is an encompassing term not really sure I get your point here. If I were a senator if asked I could just easily reply "Senior Senator from New York" or simply "Politican".
    5. Not really sure what else to add here as these points summarise the previous points.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 01:07, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
      I did not use the word "citizen" and I'm making no such assumption. "American" doesn't mean "US citizen". There are tens of millions of Americans who are not US citizens. Citizenship has nothing to do with this lead discussion; it's a red herring. What I'm saying is that, sure as people know the Queen of England is English (which doesn't mean a citizen of the UK), people know the president of the United States is American. "Elizabeth II is a English monarch who is the current Queen of England" is as redundant as "Joe Biden is an American politician who is the current president of the United States". Levivich harass/hound 02:17, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
      What you seem to be suggesting is that someone reading the sentence Joe Biden is president of the United States will ask themselves, "...but what country is he a citizen of?" and that I think is totally unbelievable. Everyone will assume unless told otherwise that the president of a country is a citizen of that country, and a resident, and a national, and that they were born there... unless told otherwise, that's the default assumption for leaders of countries. It's significant when someone leads a country who was not born there, or isn't a citizen, or a resident. Then it's worth mentioning. Otherwise it's redundant. Surely no one would claim that the vast majority of national leaders are not citizens, nationals, and residents, of the countries they lead. Levivich harass/hound 02:24, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support as "American politician" is redundant. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 02:23, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support This is a profoundly stupid convention, not universally applied, and not supported by MOS:CONTEXTBIO. GreatCaesarsGhost 13:55, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose because it is an important detail. WP:OPENPARABIO clearly states that roles/noteworthy titles should be included. The fact that Biden is a politician is essential. If we take a look at the Barack Obama article (which has featured article standards) it clearly states that he is an American politician. This is also a semi-reply to GreatCaesarsGhost.
  • Support - per Levivich. I have to question the cognitive function of anyone who would read that someone was "President of the United States", but would then have to be told that they were an American politician.--Khajidha (talk) 14:28, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Support because during his presidency Donald Trump's intro sentence said "Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is the 45th and current president of the United States."

Section heading: Vice President or Vice president

We've inconsistency on this matter across the US vice president bios. GoodDay (talk) 20:08, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

One is correct according to MOS:SECTIONTITLE and MOS:JOBTITLES and the other is not. Inconsistency is better than being consistently wrong. Surtsicna (talk) 20:19, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
I disagree, as section headings are not a sentence. Vice President in these situations, is a title. Anyways, it's not just you & I, who decides. Other will need to chime in, here. GoodDay (talk)
The guideline I linked you to explicitly says: "Section titles ... should be presented in sentence case, not title case." If that is what you disagree with, the appropriate venue is Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. Surtsicna (talk) 20:26, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
It's unmodified, so that gives some room for both interpretations to be correct. If we intend the section to refer to the title, then "Vice President" is correct. If we intend to refer to the office, then "Vice president" is correct. Personally, I think we're talking about the events during Biden's time in office, so I'm partial to "Vice President". Again, though, the argument can be made for both of these to be correct. —Eyer (he/him) If you reply, add {{reply to|Eyer}} to your message. 20:29, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
But it is not a title. Vice President of the United States would be a title. Vice president on its own is just a common noun, and MOS:JOBTITLES says so. Surtsicna (talk) 20:47, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
So, you wouldn't object to Vice President of the United States (2009–2017), as a section heading? GoodDay (talk) 20:53, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
It would be in line with MOS:JOBTITLES, but a little bit cumbersome and overly precise. I am quite sure it would not sit well with other editors. I suppose you would then also want to change the section title "President (2021–present)" to "President of the United States (2021–present)". Surtsicna (talk) 20:58, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
Just pointing out. If one pushes too far with MOSB:JOBTITLES, one will get backlash. GoodDay (talk) 21:01, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
MOS:JOBTITLES is already a very lenient compromise. I am willing to risk it. Surtsicna (talk) 21:03, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
Apparently, you are. GoodDay (talk) 21:06, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
It should be Vice President when referring to a title. Not sure why there is a discussion, as the job is a constitutional job and the US Constitution refers to the Vice President, not the vice president. Sir Joseph (talk) 20:31, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
MOS:JOBTITLES disagrees. —Eyer (he/him) If you reply, add {{reply to|Eyer}} to your message. 20:33, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
No country's constitution dictates orthography. Surtsicna (talk) 20:47, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
I've little objections to lower-casing in the intros of these bios. But, when it starts being pushed on section headings & also article titles? that's bound to get resistance from a number of editors. GoodDay (talk) 20:50, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
Section titles have always been in sentence case. Surtsicna (talk) 20:53, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
Not always. GoodDay (talk) 20:54, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
I cannot remember the time when they were not. In any case, they are now and have been for quite a while. That means that if we write "vice president" in the text, it is "Vice president" in the section title. Surtsicna (talk) 20:56, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
(See above) Would you object to "Vice President of the United States" as a section header? GoodDay (talk) 20:58, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

It looks to me like this rests on whether the section heading is using the term to refer to a title or an office per MOS:JOBTITLE. I don't think sentence case is the issue, since "Vice President" would be sentence case if we were using it as a title. They're both in sentence case; the capitalization just depends on MOS:JOBTITLE. @GoodDay and Surtsicna: What are your opinions on this being title vs. office usage? That seems like the fundamental issue we can reduce this debate to. ― Tartan357 Talk 22:46, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

You nailed it. That's the distinction that matters here. —Eyer (he/him) If you reply, add {{reply to|Eyer}} to your message. 22:50, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
The section heading should be Vice President (2009–2017). GoodDay (talk) 22:52, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
That statement is awfully prescriptive. —Eyer (he/him) If you reply, add {{reply to|Eyer}} to your message. 22:57, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
A few editors here do seem to share your dilemma, Tartan357. The way I see it, "Vice President" is only a title if it precedes a name. It is a title when we write Vice President Biden, but in any other case it is just a common noun denoting a job. Surtsicna (talk) 22:52, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
Surtsicna, I'm leaning towards supporting that interpretation, although I'm not entirely certain yet. ― Tartan357 Talk 22:54, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
I'm leaning that way too. —Eyer (he/him) If you reply, add {{reply to|Eyer}} to your message. 22:57, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
One more note: my dictionary lists "vice president" as a common noun, in lowercase. It seems like that should be the default, unless we're talking about a title... and titles commonly only precede names. —Eyer (he/him) If you reply, add {{reply to|Eyer}} to your message. 22:59, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
IMHO, this pushing of lower-case naming is a growing concern. Using it in article intros is fine. But, sections headings? we shouldn't. GoodDay (talk) 00:57, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
GoodDay, but why? It seems consistent with policy. ― Tartan357 Talk 03:00, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Merely a MOS, not a policy. GoodDay (talk) 03:02, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
GoodDay, let's not split hairs. I was using "policy" loosely. In most cases, we are obliged to follow the MOS and other guidelines. Personally, I think it's awesome that Wikipedia doesn't allow honorifics or arbitrarily give some (read: powerful) job titles proper noun status. Doing those things unduly elevates and legitimizes the people with those titles. ― Tartan357 Talk 03:09, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
I can't stop the (IMHO) over lower-casing on Wikipedia. But, when given the opportunity, I will post my objections & I so oppose the "Vice president" usage. GoodDay (talk) 03:14, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
GoodDay, sure, and I'm interested in hearing what you have to say about it. Could you answer my above question about why lower-casing, generally, is a practice you find concerning? ― Tartan357 Talk 03:16, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
In the US Constitution, it uses Vice President, not Vice president. GoodDay (talk) 03:21, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure that the US Constitution as was written with ƒ's instead of s's. Style changes. —Eyer (he/him) If you reply, add {{reply to|Eyer}} to your message. 03:22, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

I still oppose lower-casing, as it's obvious that we're mentioning the office. GoodDay (talk) 03:25, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

MOS:JOBTITLES explicitly says that offices need not be capitalized. Your opinion is duly noted. Surtsicna (talk) 18:07, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
It's a MOS only, not policy. Its being used as a sledgehammer to force lower-casing beyond article intros, is problematic. GoodDay (talk) 18:46, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Of course it applies beyond lead sentences. What on Earth did you think it was for? Surtsicna (talk) 18:54, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
It's being forced into too many areas. GoodDay (talk) 18:56, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
GoodDay, "too many areas" seems to be based on nothing other than your opinion. The MOS does not limit the areas in which MOS:JOBTITLE applies. This talk page is not the appropriate venue to hash out your disagreement with the MOS. Please take it to MOS talk. ― Tartan357 Talk 18:58, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

I also oppose using lowercase SRD625 (talk) 18:01, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

IMHO, "Vice President" would be correct and is sentence case, per MOS:SECTIONS. Theodore Roosevelt's career as as State Assemblyman, New York City Police Commissioner, Assistant Secretary of the Navy and Vice President, among other things, are correctly capitalized in headings/subheadings in that article since they are not preceded by a modifier, per MOS:JOBTITLES. So "Biden being sworn in as vice president on January 20, 2009" (the image caption) is also incorrect as it ought to be "Biden being sworn in as Vice President on January 20, 2009" or at a push "Biden being sworn in as the vice president on January 20, 2009", the being the modifier. At least that's how I interpret it. nagualdesign 23:02, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
MOS:JOBTITLE does seem to support this interpretation. ― Tartan357 Talk 23:19, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
No, that is not right. "Biden being sworn in as Vice President of the United States on January 20, 2009" would be correct per MOS:JOBTITLES. "Biden being sworn in as Vice President on January 20, 2009" would not be correct. The very first sentence of MOS:JOBTITLES says that offices such as vice president are common nouns and should be lower case. Therefore, "Vice President" is sentence case only if it precedes the officeholder's name in a sentence. Surtsicna (talk) 18:41, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
Perhaps, we should head over to WP:JOBTITLES & change it, as many of us are usually getting bashed over the head, with it. GoodDay (talk) 18:47, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
WP:JOBTITLES is so complex because it is an uneasy compromise between those who want Wikipedia articles to look academic and those who want them to look like official press releases. I doubt it can be worded any better without one side budging. Surtsicna (talk) 18:56, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
Surtsicna, alright, this makes sense to me. I'm going to support lower case. ― Tartan357 Talk 23:02, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Lower case. The style for job titles was changed within the past year, to capitalize only when it is in front of a person's name. (Personally I hated to see First Lady become first lady, but that's just me.) The reason there is inconsistency with other articles is that nobody has taken it on themselves to go to every biography in the wiki and change it. But when we say "a vice president" or "the vice president," our style is now lower case. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:49, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

That there continues to be reverting & argument against lower-casing at all, is sign of lack of consensus across the project. See bios of British prime ministers, Australia governors-general & prime ministers, New Zealand governors-general & prime ministers, etc etc. GoodDay (talk) 21:52, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
It is a sign of some editors not giving a crap about the consensus that has been reached and doing their own thing regardless. Nothing that has ever been agreed upon on Wikipedia is immune to that. The most essential policies are not. Surtsicna (talk) 23:19, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

RFC on oldest president in lead

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 consensus to include this fact in the lead (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 07:41, 3 February 2021 (UTC)



Should the statement that Biden is the oldest US President be included in the lead section? Mottezen (talk) 07:15, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes/No

The previous discussion was going off the rails.

Ping:User:Pyroshark1, User:Mr Ernie, User:Mottezen, User:Eccekevin, User:HAL333, User:Felix558, User:GoodDay, User:Sir Joseph, User:ValarianB User:EEng, User:ProcrastinatingReader, User:Levivich, User:Sir Joseph, User:RedHotPear

The thing is, people are living longer and staying more vital longer now. It's quite possible that Reagan was effectively older at 69 in 1981 than Biden is today at 78. While it can go in the article, it isn't at the level of importance to be in the lead. --Khajidha (talk) 16:48, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
You're grasping at straws. That makes absolutely no sense Anon0098 (talk) 23:44, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
I can see what Khajidha is TRYING to say, but....no. The biggest problem is that it’s not like we’re not talking about the 18th or 19th Centuries here. The average life expectancy in 1980, when Reagan was elected, was 73.7 years. Now it’s 78.9 years. That’s not a drastic increase. And even then, when the life expectancy circa the 1800s was around the 40s, many Presidents had already exceeded that point by the time they were elected President, and it’s too complicated to be worth mentioning. So no. Reagan was not ‘effectively older’ when he was elected President than Biden. He was younger. — GreenFlash411 7:32 29 January 29 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 infobox image

I think that the current image for Joe Biden is outdated. I know that we’re generally supposed to use the most recent official portrait when it comes to American politicians, but when the image is EIGHT years old, and isn’t even close to the subject’s period of greatest prominence, that’s when I think the rules on official portraits reach their end. While I don’t think the previous image was particularly strong, that was less because it wasn’t an official portrait, and more because the facial expression was odd, his head was partially turned, the image wasn’t particularly high resolution, and it was just overall a pretty weak image to use for the infobox. So, with all that said, I believe that we should change the image to this. I’ve always been a proponent of changing the lead image to one from the campaign trail, but there were really never any strong candidates like those for Sanders, Warren, or Clinton. However, now that he’s president, the White House website released a new placeholder image to use in his bio while they waited for the official portrait. And I think that we should do the same. The image is high resolution, it’s FAR more recent, his facial expression is on point, and it just generally works in an infobox type article. It’s also a wider image, which would shorten the length of the infobox and make it more manageable. (Don’t expect a huge change, just a slight one.) I’m just proposing this until we get an official portrait, but it’s a solid and well crafted image that will work while we wait. Main Wikipedia policy is that we use an image from the subject’s greatest period of prominence. Does anyone here REALLY think that Joe Biden was more prominent as VP in comparison to being president? I don’t think so, and this is the image closest to his presidency that’s at the very least high quality. This took me a while to write, but I hope this convinces you to change the image. Thoughts? The Image Editor (talk) 22:26, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

This discussion is moot. There will soon be an official one. He hasn't even been in office 7 days, give it time. When the official one is out, we shall use that one.Eccekevin (talk) 22:30, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Wait until the WH releases an official photo. GoodDay (talk) 00:01, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Use the 2013 picture until the White House releases an official portrait. cookie monster (2020) 755 00:22, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
I agree with CookieMonster755, lets just keep the current one till a official portrait is released. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 01:00, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
The eight years argument doesn't really make much sense to me, Biden looks (practically) the same as he did in 2013. Nojus R (talk) 03:22, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
It's likely the vice presidential flag in the background (2013 photo), that's caused some editors to push for an updated image. GoodDay (talk) 04:26, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Then crop it a bit.--Khajidha (talk) 15:12, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
I also think current image is far too old. Additional problem is persistent removal of the caption "Official portrait, 2013" by few users. Without it the readers will have a wrong impression, they will think the current old image is recent. Biden HAS changed in the past 8 years, like every person would - just compare the lower 2 images from 2013 and 2021. Felix558 (talk) 12:53, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
To the casual eye, there's not that big of a difference. Thanoscar21talkcontributions 14:46, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Best we keep the 2013 image, until the White House releases an official image of the president. GoodDay (talk) 16:34, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

It's somewhat unusual that it's taken the White House this long to release one. Other Presidents have had portraits taken much closer to inauguration. I support a temporary portrait different from the Vice Presidential one until such a time when the White House published an official portrait. It is important to highlight him in his capacity as President, not his previous job; an honour given to prior President's Wikipedia entries. YallAHallatalk 04:58, 4 February 2021 (UTC) 03:15, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Maybe we should put the one on the White House website. I do agree the current was is a little old and represented him as the VP. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 04:22, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

 Comment: This discussion is a duplicate of Talk:Joe Biden/Archive 14#Is the current photo Biden's official portrait?. ― Tartan357 Talk 04:25, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Keep the 2013 one until official one is released.Eccekevin (talk) 21:00, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Keep 2013 photo until there's an official presidential photo. The others are poorer quality. Sundayclose (talk) 20:42, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Joe_Biden/Archive_14&oldid=1256132636"