Jump to content

Talk:Joe Biden

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good articleJoe Biden was one of the Social sciences and society good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
In the news Article milestones
DateProcessResult
September 18, 2008Good article nomineeNot listed
September 19, 2008Good article nomineeListed
April 22, 2020Good article reassessmentDelisted
June 28, 2020Good article reassessmentDelisted
October 4, 2020Good article nomineeNot listed
In the news A news item involving this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "In the news" column on August 23, 2008.
Current status: Delisted good article

    Current consensus

    [edit]

    NOTE: It is recommended to link to this list in your edit summary when reverting, as:
    [[Talk:Joe Biden#Current consensus|current consensus]] item [n]
    To ensure you are viewing the current list, you may wish to purge this page.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    ‘served as’

    [edit]

    Every other president (Obama, Bush, Clinton) gets 'American politician who served as the ..th president of the United States' - sounds better, more professional, more encyclopaedic. Biden just gets 'was'.

    Think this needs looked at. It's bizarre how little people seem to care about consistency across multiple articles covering the same thing. Westdoggys (talk) 20:02, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Disagree. "Served as" seems less respectful to me. It reminds me of a large rock that serves as a doorstop. Or the large seashells that served as bookends on my grandmother's shelves. We should be removing all these silly "served as" phrasings and replacing them with "was". Unless of course the person in question was only some sort of interim, make do holder of a position.--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 21:19, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Unless ... only some sort of interim, make do holder of a position. — In which case the person "was acting [position]". Mitch Ames (talk) 05:02, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    To me (and aparently several others) "served as" carries the same connotations as "acting". "Was" is completely unambiguous. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 00:35, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes,User:Khajidha is right. All our Manual of Style guidelines emphasise simplicity and clarity over flowery language. We should simply say "was". HiLo48 (talk) 22:26, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, then maybe I'm just a little pedantic but shouldn't ALL former presidents at least be described in the same way? Westdoggys (talk) 02:08, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Did you not see where I said that we should be removing "served as" from other articles?--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 02:37, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I absolutely agree on this. If all presidents say "served as" on their respective pages, then why not on this page? I prefer "served as" rather than "was". It's more professional and respectful. BRELMAAJ2024 (talk) 04:43, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Because it doesn't matter that much and unilaterally enforcing your preferred diction across articles without or against consensus is disruptive. There is no sense in spontaneously deciding we shall have a formula now as if this hasn't been the subject of sparring for years and years. Consistency between articles isn't actually something one should care about most of the time—worry about improving each article on its own terms. Remsense ‥ 论 04:48, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I also prefer "served as" and it makes sense to use it here for consistency. Marincyclist (talk) 04:47, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think we should say "was", rather than "served as". It's concise, neutral and factually correct. "Served as" adds no value at all. (This applies to all presidents, prime ministers, etc, in all countries - it's not limited to US presidents.) Mitch Ames (talk) 04:53, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Quite. To provide an answer to the rhetorical question posed above: the reason why we don't enforce consistency on relatively subjective matters like this is because editors' views often diametrically oppose one another. Such disputes are often best worked out on a case by case basis by editors motivated to improve the particular article at hand, informed by other site policies like WP:NPOV. When this isn't the case, that's what our WP:Manual of Style is for—generally, issues of this kind are not ruled on within it, allowing editors to think for themselves. Remsense ‥ 论 04:58, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 February 2025

    [edit]

    it says joe Biden is still in office change that — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123456789ksbs (talk • contribs) 15:37, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Where does it say that? --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 12:32, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The Infobox says In office: January 20, 2021 – January 20, 2025 – Muboshgu (talk) 19:51, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Which quite clearly indicates that he is not currently in office. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 04:24, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    He was the 46th President not the 47th. You folks need to learn history.

    [edit]

    He was the 46th president, not the 47th. 2600:6C40:F00:1CA7:A5A5:8D75:B37C:F5B6 (talk) 19:44, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Are you referring to the opening paragraph? Want to reread it? I'll add emphasis: Joseph Robinette Biden Jr. (born November 20, 1942) is an American politician who was the 46th president of the United States from 2021 to 2025. A member of the Democratic Party, he served as the 47th vice president from 2009 to 2017 under President Barack Obama, and represented Delaware in the U.S. Senate from 1973 to 2009. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:48, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    [edit]

    hello guys, i think this topic is necessary. Joe Biden has multiple legal proceedings or criminal cases against him

    1 sexual harassment allegations from several women

    2 defense for children international v Biden is a case regarding his and some of his officials for alleged complicity in not preventing the genocide in gaza or at least the disproportionate war crimes and crimes against humanity committed by the Israeli army in the context of the war between Israel and Hamas. Case start date 11/13/2023.

    3 the complaint made by the US NGO DAWN to the international criminal court against him for the possibility of having allowed and enabled with military and political assistance to Israel to commit war crimes against Palestinian civilians in the Israel-Hamas war date 01/24/2025 Bajricvasco (talk) 00:13, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    can someone help me to insert it thanksBajricvasco (talk) 15:10, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The first is documented at Joe Biden sexual misconduct allegation. The complainent defected to Russia. The second case was dismissed. I don't think the third complaint went anywhere. But you are welcome to find reliable sources. O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:27, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok anyway for the first one I meant several women because many women have declared that they had been sexually harassed by him over the years not only the first one. for the second one in my opinion it can be included even if archived or at least in the Biden presidency, the third one went to the attorney general of the international criminal court and there is a probability of opening an investigation into his and some of his officials. Bajricvasco (talk) 16:05, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    On the "several women", I think they were connected to the first case and dubious. If you can find reliable sources otherwise, provide them. On the second, I agree with Jason that a link to the article could be added. On the third, unfortunately, the ICC does not have jurisdiction in the US and I don't see how they can "investigate". It is briefly mentioned at Democracy for the Arab World Now. In the unlikely event it goes anywhere, it could be mentioned here. O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:21, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Reade was one of several women who accused Biden in 2019 of "physical contact that made them uncomfortable, such as unwanted hugs, kisses on the head, and standing uncomfortably close," according to ABC News. this is written in the background on the joe biden sexual harassment accusation page, but i wanted to know if it's possible to put this on joe biden's page and not the joe biden sexual harassment accusation page thanks anyway. Bajricvasco (talk) 16:59, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Something like this must be handled in detail and in context, as it is in the Joe Biden sexual misconduct allegation article. O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:13, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    here the source https://www.swissinfo.ch/ita/altre-2-donne-accusano-biden-traballa-corsa-casa-bianca/44869964.
    please read the article if you want it can also be translated. Bajricvasco (talk) 17:14, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Regardless of whether the case was dismissed, there is a Wikipedia article (Defense for Children International – Palestine et al v. Biden et al) that could be mentioned within this article's Gaza war section. JasonMacker (talk) 16:07, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    But upon considering it, I think that the dismissed lawsuit is too minor to mention in this article. Instead, I added United States complicity in Israeli war crimes in the Gaza war in the "further information" of the Gaza war subsection, which does mention the lawsuit. JasonMacker (talk) 16:17, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    siblings in the children section

    [edit]

    in the info box table there is a line for biden's children but it lists his siblings in it randomly can't fix this as it's locked. please fix 173.206.111.217 (talk) 03:01, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I've removed the list. Thanks for bringing this up. Aoi (青い) (talk) 03:08, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Lead length

    [edit]

    The lead is now much too long - it should be re-reduced to a more appropriate length. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:52, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Yeah, I agree. too much detail makes it beyond appropriate and might be too long for readers. 🗽Freedoxm🗽(talk • contribs) 06:49, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    The lead is appropriately long due to Biden's 55-year political career. It made sense to compress Biden's 38-year Senate career when he was running for reelection, but now that he is a one-term president it should be expanded again from where it was in 2024. --Plumber (talk) 04:13, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    That argument makes no sense - there's no reason to go back to 2010 just because he's not running for reelection. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:44, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    There is no reason to include the Build Back Better Act in the lead since it failed, so I trimmed it following your suggestions. But then you put it back without any explanation, while claiming to be trimming the article. What you are actually doing is reverting edits made in good faith without a real explanation. If there are parts of the Senate career in the lead you think should be removed, why not bring them up here? --Plumber (talk) 06:20, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    When your initial edit was reverted, why did you not come here to propose what you thought should be added? That is what the tag at the top of this page requires you to do. What you have done instead does not seem in good faith. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:05, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a talk page about Joe Biden, not us. I created a compromise edit following your suggestions and am still wondering what other editors think of it. --Plumber (talk) 18:36, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Joe_Biden&oldid=1280456076"