Misplaced Pages

Talk:Joe Biden: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 14:04, 26 October 2022 view sourceAndreJustAndre (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users40,391 edits Approval ratings and unpopularity: ReplyTag: Reply← Previous edit Latest revision as of 01:48, 19 December 2024 view source DukeOfDelTaco (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users19,662 edits top: ITN entry 
(994 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Talk header|search=yes}}
{{skip to bottom}}
{{Talk header|search=yes|archive_age=3|archive_units=weeks}}
{{Vital article|class=B|level=5|topic=People|subpage=Politicians}}
{{American politics AE |1RR = no |Consensus required = no |BRD = yes}}
{{Not a forum}} {{Not a forum}}
{{American English}} {{American English}}
Line 30: Line 27:
|action5result=failed |action5result=failed
|action5oldid=981625415 |action5oldid=981625415
|itndate=23 August 2008
|itnlink=Special:Diff/233681908
|currentstatus=DGA |currentstatus=DGA
|topic=Social sciences |topic=Social sciences
}} }}
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|blp=yes|activepol=|1= {{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|blp=activepol|class=B|vital=yes|listas=Biden, Joe|1=
{{WikiProject Joe Biden|class=B|importance=top}} {{WikiProject Biography |politician-work-group=yes|politician-priority=top}}
{{WikiProject U.S. Congress|importance=High|subject=Person}}
{{WikiProject Biography|living=yes|class=B|activepol=yes|politician-work-group=yes|politician-priority=top|listas=Biden, Joe}}
{{WikiProject U.S. Congress|class=B|importance=High|subject=Person}} {{WikiProject United States|importance=High|DE=yes|DE-importance=Mid|USPE=yes|USPE-importance=Mid|USGov=yes|USGov-importance=top}}
{{WikiProject United States|class=B|importance=Top|DE=yes|DE-importance=Mid|USPE=Yes|USPE-importance=Mid|USPresidents=Yes|USPresidents-importance=Top|USGov=y|USGov-importance=top|listas=Biden, Joe}} {{WikiProject United States Presidents |importance=top |trump=yes |trump-importance=high}}
{{WikiProject Pennsylvania|class=B|importance=mid}} {{WikiProject Pennsylvania|importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Politics|class=B|importance=High|American=yes|American-importance=Top}} {{WikiProject Politics|importance=High|American=yes|American-importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject College football|class=B|importance=bottom}} {{WikiProject College football|importance=bottom}}
{{WikiProject Science Policy|class=B|importance=high}} {{WikiProject Science Policy|importance=high}}
{{WikiProject Barack Obama}} {{WikiProject Barack Obama|importance=high}}
}} }}
{{pp-vandalism|small=yes}}
{{Skip to bottom}}
{{American politics AE |1RR = no |Consensus required = no |BRD = yes}}

{{Banner holder|text=Other banners: Top 25 reports; media mentions; pageviews; section size|collapsed=yes|1= {{Banner holder|text=Other banners: Top 25 reports; media mentions; pageviews; section size|collapsed=yes|1=
{{banner holder|text='''Top 50 Report''' and '''Top 25 Report''' annual lists|collapsed=yes|1= {{Banner holder|text='''Top 50 Report''' and '''Top 25 Report''' annual lists|collapsed=yes|1=
{{All time pageviews|82}} {{All time pageviews|82}}
{{Annual report|] and ]}} {{Annual report|], ], and ]}}
{{Top 25 report|May 31 2015|Jan 8 2017|Mar 1 2020|Aug 9 2020|1 Mar 2020|Aug 9 2020|Aug 16 2020|Aug 30 2020|Sep 13 2020|Sep 27 2020|Oct 4 2020|Oct 11 2020|until|Oct 25 2020|Nov 1 2020|Nov 8 2020|Nov 15 2020|Jan 3 2021|Jan 17 2021|Jan 24 2021}} {{Top 25 report|May 31 2015|Jan 8 2017|Mar 1 2020|Aug 9 2020|Aug 16 2020|Aug 30 2020|Sep 13 2020|Sep 27 2020|until|Nov 15 2020|Jan 3 2021|Jan 17 2021|Jan 24 2021|Apr 9 2023|Jun 23 2024|until|Jul 7 2024|Jul 21 2024|Nov 3 2024}}
}} }}
{{Press | collapsed=yes {{Press | collapsed=yes
Line 103: Line 106:
{{User:MiszaBot/config {{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{Talkarchivenav}} |archiveheader = {{Talkarchivenav}}
|maxarchivesize = 400K |maxarchivesize = 50K
|counter = 16 |counter = 19
|minthreadsleft = 5 |minthreadsleft = 3
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |minthreadstoarchive = 1
|algo = old(21d) |algo = old(21d)
Line 113: Line 116:
__TOC__ __TOC__


== Current consensus == <!-- Must be on this page, not the subpage, to support mobile users -->
{{/Current consensus}} {{/Current consensus}}


== "Announced military support for Israel" in the lede ==
== Entering that Inflation Reduction Act can help the USA to achieve its target in the Paris Agreement ==


This might have been addressed before, but why does the lede mention only that Biden "announced" military support for Israel? This reads as if it was written prior to his administration in unprecedented numbers. If no one objects, I would change it to :
I have posted a sentence "With the bill and additional federal and state measures, the USA can fulfill its pledge in the ]: 50% greenhouse gas emissions reduction by the year 2030."


{{green|During the Israel–Hamas war, Biden condemned the actions of Hamas as terrorism and sent extensive military aid to Israel, as well as limited humanitarian aid to the Gaza Strip.}}
It was deleted with this explanation: "Then lets wait and see if they do." But several sentences before there are suggestions about how much the bill wil reduce the GHG emissions. These are also suggestions based on calculations, so why not delete them?


While we're at it, I think it's also worth using a couple of words to add that the aid was sent despite allegations of war crimes, if anyone would like to discuss that. ] (]) 14:43, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Joe_Biden&oldid=prev&diff=1114029121
:It can be argued that as the US has supported Israel since the 1960's its undue to single out Biden. ] (]) 14:45, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

::I don't think that it's "singling out" Biden because A) , and B) that same year ] (]) 15:01, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
Myy edit is not based on my own proposition: the same sources who are cited when talking about suggested GHG reduction several sentences above, says it explicitly (page 1):
:{{done}}, with the swap of "extensive" (from my original proposal) to "an unprecedented amount of", more factual. ] (]) 19:14, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

::I don't thing "unprecedented" is the correct terminology to use in the lead. While Biden has been a strong supporter for high levels of military aid, there have been similar meausres of support by prior administrations such as that of ] in the ]. ] (]) 22:08, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
" If the IRA passes, additional executive and state actions can realistically achieve the U.S. nationallydetermined commitments(NDCs) under the Paris Agreement. "
:::Never this much in a single year, though, which I think is quite notable. And IMO a factual stat is more descriptive + neutral than just something like "large", "extensive" ] (]) 13:24, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

:Disagree with this. The United States has been strongly supporting Israel for many decades. To imply that this is a Biden creation is not neutral. ] (]) 22:35, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
https://energyinnovation.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/Modeling-the-Inflation-Reduction-Act-with-the-US-Energy-Policy-Simulator_August.pdf
::@] Please explain how the sentence implies that this is a "Biden creation"? It states that the amount of military aid sent by the Biden administration since the war started is a record, which is true, as you can read for yourself. ] (]) 15:21, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

:::"Unprecedented" is hyperbolic language that suggests there is something out-of-the-ordinary about the Biden administration's support of Israel. ] (]) 22:37, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
The second source (below the second graph):
::::I'm entirely fine with "record amount" if that makes it clearer, but this ''is'' the largest amount of military aid ever sent to Israel by the US in a year. Clearly Biden isn't the first president to support Israel; my proposed sentence isn't saying that either. But the aid he's sent during this war is notable – not only statistically but because of human rights concerns – which is why it's been a front-page news subject for more than a year. ] (]) 09:35, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

:Update: I changed the "announced" part since no one objected to that part. Would anyone like to add something about "record amount"? I'd be interested in an RfC to see where people stand on this ] (]) 14:48, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
"This is a huge step forward towards the US climate target of 50-52% below 2005 levels in 2030, though clearly more action is needed. No single action on its own will be enough to meet the target. Still the IRA changes the game, not just with the deep emissions reductions it generates but also by cutting the cost of additional action by the executive branch and states, which could put the 2030 target within reach."
::I would like to ask why do you believe that it is necessary to indicate that he sent '''limited''' humanitarian aid to Gaza. Is there a consensus of sources that agree that the amount of humanitarian aid is limited? I agree that it probably is not enough, but it seems to me that calling it limited, especially without sources is ]. ] (]) 02:53, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

:::{{u|WikiFouf}} No reply?--] (]) 15:30, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
https://rhg.com/research/climate-clean-energy-inflation-reduction-act/
::::Sorry, wasn't very active recently. US failure in getting humanitarian aid into Gaza has been a major news topic for the past year: see floating pier saga, air dropping, 30-day ultimatum, etc. All of these failures are related to Israel limiting aid into Gaza. In any case, the military aid sent to Israel far outweighs the humanitarian aid to Gaza, so putting them side by side in the same sentence without qualifiers creates false balance imo. ] (]) 15:54, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

:::::While I agree that the humanitarian aid is probably insufficient, I still find it to be a violation of ] to call it limited. ] (]) 19:56, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
I think this is enough important for being mentioned on the page of ].
::::::It's literally limited, as I explained ] (]) 08:06, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Can the edit be reinstalled? ] (]) 15:23, 6 October 2022 (UTC) :::::::{{u|WikiFouf}} So once again, do you have any sources?--] (]) 14:31, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
:Can does not mean will, so it may well be that he can't meet these commitments. In addition, this is about Biden, not his presidency. So even if he did meet them what does this tell USA bout him? ] (]) 15:26, 6 October 2022 (UTC) ::::::::Don't have access to my computer at the moment, I can put sources in a couple of days. You can google the examples I've mentioned though, as I said it's been a big news topic ] (]) 14:46, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::@] First, for some perspective, the Biden admin has sent in military aid to Israel in a year, a historical record, and in humanitarian aid to Palestinians in the same period. Mentioning both forms of aid side by side without qualifiers is dishonest IMHO. Now here's a variety of sources talking how the humanitarian aid has been limited:

::::::::* 11/24 : (Associated Press)
== To Edit Joe Biden's Infobox To This ==
::::::::* 11/24 : (TIME)

::::::::* 10/24 : (NBC News)
{{atop|result=See ] below. ] (]) 02:56, 12 October 2022 (UTC)}}
::::::::* 10/24 : (BBC)

::::::::* 09/24 : (ProPublica)
Hello.
::::::::* 07/24 : (Economist)

::::::::* 07/24 : (PBS)
I see that the infobox only has 3 offices in it due to a consensus. And while I agree that we should cut down Biden's infobox size, I do '''not''' think that it should be solved by getting rid of offices in the infobox. Sure, right now they are at the bottom of the infobox, but IMHO most readers will easily miss that. His senatorial committee chairmanships are stretches to remove, but I am heavily confused as to why we ever removed his County Council seat.
::::::::* 06/24 : (New York Times)

::::::::* 05/24 : (Reuters)
I think that the infobox I have in this section is way better than the one we have now. We can have all of Biden's offices in his infobox while keeping it to a size. For those who are interested in his senatorial committee chairmanships, they can click a button to view them.
::::::::* 03/24 : (Washington Post)

::::::::* 02/24 : (VOA)
Again, I think this one is way better than the one we have now. Thank you for considering.
::::::::* 02/24 : (CNN)
{{Collapse top}}
::::::::* 01/24 : (Guardian)
{{Infobox officeholder
::::::::] (]) 13:48, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
| image = Joe Biden presidential portrait.jpg
:::::::::{{re|WikiFouf}} Most of these sources do not say that the Biden administration is sending a limited amount of aid to Gaza, but that limited aid is actually getting into Gaza, mainly due to obstruction by the Israeli government, right-wing protestors and weather. ] (]) 16:36, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
| caption = Official portrait, 2021
::::::::::@] I've been interpreting it in the literal sense, as in the amount of aid is literally (being) limited; not that it's a limited amount as in "a small amount". I do agree with you that the term is not ideal and can lead to confusion, but it's a hard situation to condense properly in just a couple of words. I'm really against putting "military" and "humanitarian aid" side by side just like that, for the reasons I explained. But I'm also not sure that the humanitarian aid saga is something worth dedicating more than a couple of words to. Suggestions? ] (]) 20:14, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
| order = 46th
:::::::::::{{U|WikiFouf}} If you also find the term to be too contentious, we can just remove the entire clause about sending humanitarian aid to Palestine, at least until a consensus can be found. We can also try an RFC. ] (]) 15:29, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
| office = President of the United States
::::::::::::@] I'm fine with that, I'll remove it rn. I was already thinking an RFC could be useful to decide how to include the war in the lede in general, so I'm all for it ] (]) 21:52, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
| vicepresident = ]
| term_start = January 20, 2021
| predecessor = ]
| order2 = 47th
| office2 = Vice President of the United States
| president2 = ]
| term_start2 = January 20, 2009
| term_end2 = January 20, 2017
| predecessor2 = ]
| successor2 = ]
| jr/sr3 = United States Senator
| state3 = ]
| term_start3 = January 3, 1973
| term_end3 = January 15, 2009
| predecessor3 = ]
| successor3 = ]
{{collapsed infobox section begin|last=yes|Senatorial committee chairmanships {{nobold|(1987–{{wj}}2009)}}
|titlestyle = border:1px dashed lightgrey;}}{{Infobox officeholder |embed=yes
| office4 = Chair of the ]
| term_start4 = January 3, 2007
| term_end4 = January 3, 2009
| predecessor4 = ]
| successor4 = ]
| term_start5 = June 6, 2001
| term_end5 = January 3, 2003
| predecessor5 = ]
| successor5 = Richard Lugar
| term_start6 = January 3, 2001
| term_end6 = January 20, 2001
| predecessor6 = Jesse Helms
| successor6 = Jesse Helms
| office7 = Chair of the ]
| term_start7 = January 3, 2007
| term_end7 = January 3, 2009
| predecessor7 = ]
| successor7 = ]
| office8 = Chair of the ]
| term_start8 = January 3, 1987
| term_end8 = January 3, 1995
| predecessor8 = ]
| successor8 = ]
{{Collapsed infobox section end}}}}
| office9 = Member of the ]<br>from the 4th district
| term_start9 = January 5, 1971
| term_end9 = January 1, 1973
| predecessor9 = Henry R. Folsom
| successor9 = Francis R. Swift
| birth_name = Joseph Robinette Biden Jr.
| birth_date = {{Birth date and age|1942|11|20}}
| birth_place = ], U.S.
| death_date =
| death_place =
| party = ] (1969–present)
| otherparty = ] (before 1969)
| spouse = {{plainlist|
* {{marriage|]|August 27, 1966|December 18, 1972|reason=died}}
* {{marriage|]|June 17, 1977}}
}}
| children = {{flatlist|
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
}}
| parents =
| relatives = ]
| occupation = {{hlist|Politician|lawyer|author}}
| education = ]
| alma_mater = {{plainlist|
* ] (])
* ] (])
}}
| awards = ]
| signature = Joe Biden Signature.svg
| website = {{plainlist|
* {{URL|joebiden.com|Campaign website}}
* {{URL|whitehouse.gov/administration/president-biden/|White House website}}
}}
}}
{{collapse bottom}}
] (]) 03:11, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

:I agree this is a reasonable change. ]<sup>]</sup> 03:17, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

::Him being chair of Senate Judiciary and Senate Foreign Relations alone are so much more notable than New Castle County Council. I don't personally find these particularly useful. ] (]) 05:37, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

:::{{Ping|Therequiembellishere}} Yeah that’s arguable. But the point is is that the offices belong in the infobox regardless…] (]) 07:42, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

{{abot}}

== RfC on Joe Biden's Infobox Contents ==

<!-- ] 03:01, 16 November 2022 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1668567682}}
{{rfc|pol|rfcid=86FCB0C}}
Should we modify Joe Biden's infobox to include all of his offices in a modified way that still shortens the length of his infobox. I have listed an example below.
'''Example'''
{{Infobox officeholder
| image = Joe Biden presidential portrait.jpg
| caption = Official portrait, 2021
| order = 46th
| office = President of the United States
| vicepresident = ]
| term_start = January 20, 2021
| predecessor = ]
| order2 = 47th
| office2 = Vice President of the United States
| president2 = ]
| term_start2 = January 20, 2009
| term_end2 = January 20, 2017
| predecessor2 = ]
| successor2 = ]
| jr/sr3 = United States Senator
| state3 = ]
| term_start3 = January 3, 1973
| term_end3 = January 15, 2009
| predecessor3 = ]
| successor3 = ]
{{collapsed infobox section begin|last=yes|Senatorial committee chairmanships {{nobold|(1987–{{wj}}2009)}}
|titlestyle = border:1px dashed lightgrey;}}{{Infobox officeholder |embed=yes
| office4 = Chair of the ]
| term_start4 = January 3, 2007
| term_end4 = January 3, 2009
| predecessor4 = ]
| successor4 = ]
| term_start5 = June 6, 2001
| term_end5 = January 3, 2003
| predecessor5 = ]
| successor5 = Richard Lugar
| term_start6 = January 3, 2001
| term_end6 = January 20, 2001
| predecessor6 = Jesse Helms
| successor6 = Jesse Helms
| office7 = Chair of the ]
| term_start7 = January 3, 2007
| term_end7 = January 3, 2009
| predecessor7 = ]
| successor7 = ]
| office8 = Chair of the ]
| term_start8 = January 3, 1987
| term_end8 = January 3, 1995
| predecessor8 = ]
| successor8 = ]
{{Collapsed infobox section end}}}}
| office9 = Member of the ]<br>from the 4th district
| term_start9 = January 5, 1971
| term_end9 = January 1, 1973
| predecessor9 = Henry R. Folsom
| successor9 = Francis R. Swift
| birth_name = Joseph Robinette Biden Jr.
| birth_date = {{Birth date and age|1942|11|20}}
| birth_place = ], U.S.
| death_date =
| death_place =
| party = ] (1969–present)
| otherparty = ] (before 1969)
| spouse = {{plainlist|
* {{marriage|]|August 27, 1966|December 18, 1972|reason=died}}
* {{marriage|]|June 17, 1977}}
}}
| children = {{flatlist|
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
}}
| parents =
| relatives = ]
| occupation = {{hlist|Politician|lawyer|author}}
| education = ]
| alma_mater = {{plainlist|
* ] (])
* ] (])
}}
| awards = ]
| signature = Joe Biden Signature.svg
| website = {{plainlist|
* {{URL|joebiden.com|Campaign website}}
* {{URL|whitehouse.gov/administration/president-biden/|White House website}}
}}
}}
] (]) 02:36, 12 October 2022 (UTC)


== NGO funding revert ==
:{{ping|Iamreallygoodatcheckers|Therequiembellishere}} Courtesy pings to the users who participated in the infobox discussion above. ] (]) 03:01, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
* '''Yes/Support''' ] (]) 03:38, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
* '''Oppose'''. The infobox is slightly shorter on desktop. However, the Senate leadership fields are ''not'' collapsible on the mobile version of Misplaced Pages, resulting in the infobox being significantly longer for mobile users compared to the version currently in the article. ] (]) 04:03, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
*'''Support''' inclusion of New Castle County Council; '''oppose''' inclusion of Senate leadership fields. The Senate leadership positions weren't really ''offices'' in the same sense as the others here, and are reasonable to keep out for brevity. We shouldn't leave out a directly-elected office he held, though. ] (] &#124; ]) 04:22, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' The infobox is supposed to summarize the key points. It doesn't have to summarize every point. &ndash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;(]) 04:23, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
*{{sbb}} '''Oppose'''. Infobox does not exist to provide an all-encompassing, exhaustive, and concise introduction about the subject to the reader. As an element of the lead, its ] is to recapitulate the prominent nuggets that figure in the article's body. To then treat it as a repository of infructuous trivia and facts in existence is to detract from that very purpose. ] (]) 07:53, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
*Well, I was going to support, but after reading {{u|Aoi}}’s comment that this is not collapsible on mobile, I don’t think this is a good idea. I '''oppose''']<sup>]</sup> 14:59, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''', if what it had done to this talk page is anything to go by, too long with pointless trivia that really tells us nothing. ] (]) 15:03, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' – doesn't collapse on mobile and provides an excess of information. As MBlaze Lightening has noted, it goes against the guideline ] which emphasizes brevity for clarity:
::"{{tq|keep in mind the purpose of an infobox: to summarize (and not supplant) 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}}"
:--] (]) 11:11, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
*'''Support''' but '''oppose''' Senate leadership per ]. ] (]) 02:39, 22 October 2022 (UTC)


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


I believe the material meets the criteria for notability, having been covered by ], a ] source, as well as by ] subsidiary ]. The article by The Intercept which I cited explains the relevance of this decision, connecting it to Republican attacks on the organization and the EPA at large and to H.R. 9495 gaining traction in Congress. For this reason, I felt the material was better suited to this page than a page such as ], since the decision intersects with domestic as well as foreign policy and is relevant to Biden's legacy vis-a-vis the proposed policies of the incoming Trump administration. I am open to including more information explaining the relevancy in a future edit, if that would not strengthen your perception that the material is being given undue coverage. That being said, I think the evidence clearly shows that the due weight of this material is not zero.
Seriously? Inflation has increased almost every month that Biden has been in office and has gone from '''' You cannot softpedal those numbers or ignore them and the idea that there has been wage growth is a lie as real wages have reduced because of inflation. This is fluffery of the highest degree after '''' I’m not inclined to mess around with the page but this should be corrected, it’s incredibly biased. ] (]) 02:35, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
:Inflation is higher than average everywhere in the world. The over 95% of the world's population who live outside the USA don't blame Joe Biden for it. Keep your parochial politics out of this article. ] (]) 03:01, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
::You post the five pillars of Misplaced Pages on your talk page, please reread them - specifically '']'' and '']'' I’ve cited sources that clearly contradict the fluffery in the article which needs to be updated to reflect the correct information. ] (]) 12:10, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
:::When you talk about "fluffery" and are clearly here to push right wing talking points, it's harder to treat you with respect and civility. If you want to be treated with civility and respect, you need to first give it. Instead of talking about "fluffery" and bias(everything is biased), say something like "I read this article and I am concerned it does not have a ] because.....". It's a fact that inflation is a global problem not unique to the US, and is actually worse in places like the UK. ] (]) 12:16, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
::I'm not sure why the US vs. world distinction matters here, as it's not related to what the IP posted. I think they just misread the text of the article. ] (]) 12:34, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
:::The common refrain on the US political right at this moment is "inflation is terrible and it's all Joe Biden's/the Democrats' fault"- when it's a global issue not unique to the US and actually worse outside the US- which is an argument that Biden/Democratic policies have blunted inflation, not made it worse. ] (]) 12:38, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
::::I don't think the IP was saying it was Biden's fault? Maybe I'm just naive, and that was actually the subtext. Either way, not too important as it seems pretty clear that that bit of the article is fine. ] (]) 12:53, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
:The text in the article reads {{tq|'''significantly''' elevated inflation}} (not "slightly"), which is accurate. Did you misread it? The point about wage growth is that people are less hard hit by inflation if their earnings are also increasing. But real earnings are still down, so that's why it said it was {{tq|partially offset}} by an increase in wage/salary. So that appears to be accurate as well. Perhaps we could write {{tq|partially offset by the highest <u>nominal</u> wage and salary growth in at least 20 years}} to make it clearer? ] (]) 12:28, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
::I agree that inflation has increased significantly. Whether or not that is Biden's, or Putin's or no one's fault is another issue. ] (]) 14:42, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
:::And that was the core point of my initial response. The OP clearly wants the article to say it is. It would be wrong to do so, and to even ask is pushing ill-informed, standard, right-wing, insular, American, political dogma. ] (]) 21:07, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
::::Your comments are insulting, do everyone a favor and reread ] or read it if you haven’t already,as far as nominal wage growth goes I’m not pulling from right wing sources to make a point here '''' and the inflation rate has gotten even higher than what is listed in the article. I don’t ‘want’ anything... the article should reflect a '']'' and in that case it means that the numbers on the economy should be presented in a clear light. In an article at the beginning of the year CNBC posted this '''' and the inflation numbers have only gotten worse since. I don’t take it upon myself to change the language on the page but I do bring concerns to the talk page and not to be insulted by some editors.] (]) 01:48, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
:::::IP, I wouldn't even try to argue with editors who have a clear bias. Unfortunately, it is why this project is so looked down upon. --] (]) 01:59, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
::::::My bias is to look at global economic matters from a global perspective, not from that of those wanting to score political points inside a country with less than 5% of the world's population. ] (]) 05:30, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
:::::::HiLo48, the initial message was misleading, but there is no point in just insulting the editors. The ] has its own article. ] (]) 19:30, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
::::::::An editor who blames Joe Biden for global inflation is ]. ] (]) 22:00, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
:::::::::The idea you want to treat the inflation data specific to this country, excusing it away by calling it a global problem, independent of the specific economic policies implemented by each country’s leadership shows you are not embracing the idea of ]. Covid 19 was a global problem as well but we did not excuse any leader’s actions in dealing with the pandemic by saying it was a global problem so your argument is specious to say the least. ] (]) 17:19, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
::::::::::"THIS country"? This is a global encyclopaedia. Which country? It's OK. I can guess. It's only American editors that think and write that way. Can you can identify specific actions of Biden's that ] tell us made things worse in the USA than elsewhere in the world? ] (]) 21:48, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
:::::::::::Well, considering that Biden is the President of the United States and I am a citizen of such I wouldn’t really be as concerned about the Biden Administration’s actions as they pertained to say Brazil or Indonesia. I also wouldn’t think someone would believe Biden’s actions would affect the economies of Japan or other countries since that isn’t the subject of the article here. However, apparently you need that to be spelled out for you since you chose to be so snide in your response. You keep changing your tact, first you said, ''‘My bias is to look at global economic matters from a global perspective but this isn’t a page about the global economy,’'' this is a page about the current President of the United States and his actions and policies. I can point to a Forbes article, considered a '']'' '''' as a starting point. Foreign Policy magazine also has an article on it although I’m not seeing that on '']'' for some reason '''' so, I didn’t feel the need to come here to engage in some detailed debate over it as much as call out that the article was not written with '']'' and got some insults from you for my observation. ] (]) 01:47, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
::::::::::::I believe you missed my point completely. And I am as tactful as ever. ] (]) 20:34, 24 October 2022 (UTC)


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


Let me know what you think, I would like to reach a compromise. ] (]) 00:03, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
A recent edit of mine on his approval ratings and overall dismay for him in the public eye was reverted. The explanation I got was "Maintain ]" (keep away from bias). I do not think I was being biased; the edit had a source with the information that I wrote down; I thought it was a necessary edit because that article is trending right now (the article is also from a non-biased news agency); and that article came out today, like a few hours ago. Can I get an explanation? ] (]) 20:36, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
:I can't see that basing content on what "''is trending right now''" is a great way to build a quality encyclopaedia. ] (]) 02:33, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
::It's not. The accompanying text {{tq|With his ], Biden is unpopular in the public eye.}} isn't a neutral way to describe his current polling numbers either. &ndash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;(]) 02:39, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
:::I guess all I'm saying is news sources are starting to report on Biden's very low polling numbers and overall unpopularity. Don't believe me? look;
:::https://www.cnn.com/2022/10/07/politics/biden-unpopular-cnn-poll/index.html
:::https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/voters-care-about-joe-biden-s-unpopularity-not-donald-trump/ar-AAQhEWa
:::https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/white-house/just-how-unpopular-is-joe-biden
:::https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/nov/18/why-are-americans-so-unhappy-with-joe-biden
:::https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2022/10/19/politics/biden-nyt-siena-poll-midterms/index.html
:::https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/biden-mentally-sharp-state-union-b2025207.html
:::https://www.usnews.com/news/the-report/articles/2022-01-21/why-is-joe-biden-so-unpopular
:::https://www.foxnews.com/media/focus-group-rejects-biden-running-2024-stuns-msnbc-analyst-quick-wow
:::https://www.reuters.com/world/us/biden-approval-stuck-40-dark-sign-democrats-midterms-reutersipsos-2022-10-18/
:::https://www.foxnews.com/media/joe-biden-worst-president-will-cain
:::https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2022-election/bidens-approval-rating-still-key-issues-new-poll-shows-rcna48973
:::https://www.foxnews.com/politics/biden-drops-to-38-approval-in-new-national-poll
:::https://www.usnews.com/news/top-news/articles/2022-09-27/biden-approval-edges-up-to-41-reuters-ipsos-finds
:::Perhaps is "With his immensely low approval ratings, Biden is ''considered'' unpopular ''by the general public''" a better sentence? If not I will be happy to just not press forward with this. ] (]) 23:53, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
::::Sources like Fox News, Washington Examiner, and opinion pieces in general wouldn't be usable for this. Misplaced Pages will most likely want to wait until more authoritative reviews of sources talk about Biden's popularity or unpopularity. It's true that Biden's approval has been slightly net negative for most of his time in office, and it's entirely possible that this will be a defining characterization of his presidency, but you definitely aren't going about it in the right way. Check out ], ], ], ], ] ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 04:02, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
:::::{{u|Rexxx7777}}, Trump's approval ratings in 2018 were quite similar to Biden's approval ratings in to 2022. Do you support adding language like {{tpq|immensely low approval ratings}} to Trump’s article as well? Read . ] (]) 04:13, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
::::::I'm guessing that the "immensely" part is a bad addition. So, no, I will accept that since language like that is not appropriate in Biden's article then it should not be used in Trump's. If it was then yes. Is re-writing it as "''With his low approval ratings, Biden is considered unpopular by the general public''" better? ] (]) 01:03, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
:::::Honestly fair enough. ] (]) 01:05, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
::::::{{u|Rexxx7777}}, plenty of reliable sources describe the varying approval ratings of all presidents going back to when presidential approval ratings were first developed. But which specific reliable sources state something that can be reliably paraphrased, {{tpq|Biden is considered unpopular by the general public}}. Or, is that ] based on your individual reading of the polls? ] (]) 05:17, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
:And as you can see from some of those, he is still not the most unpopular president ever, and these are all just snapshots. So lets wait till his presidency is over, and we can see what his lasting image is. ] (]) 09:54, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
::Something about his approval ratings could go in ]. It should also note his approval ratings as a senator and vice president to be complete and not merely recentism bias. &ndash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;(]) 16:44, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
:::We would also need a range, showing how it has risen and fallen. ] (]) 17:02, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
::::Right. As a comparison, I see that ] makes mentions of her approval ratings at a few points in the narrative, noting it as first lady, its peaks during the Lewinsky scandal and as secretary of state, and the "Cultural and political image" section notes her as a "polarizing figure". &ndash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;(]) 17:26, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
:::Actually, there isn’t any bias - you can go to '''' and compare Biden’s numbers against those of his predecessors going back to Truman, you can track it to an identical point in the Presidency of each of his predecessors even and Biden’s numbers are in fact worse than Trump’s. You can also go to the RCP site to see Biden’s numbers and again these are from a variety of pollsters ''''] (]) 17:16, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
::::RCP isn't reliable, and the 538 link shows the opposite. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 18:07, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
:::::As far as I could see in regard to RCP from '']'' is ''‘There is no consensus as to RealClearPolitics's reliability.’'' and that is only insofar as it concerns '''''news'''''. Polling data is accurate and an aggregate of polling being done by reputable pollsters. Five Thirty Eight checked as I am writing this 642 days into the Biden presidency shows Biden’s net approval to be at -11.8 and Trump’s at -9.2 at the same point in his Presidency. So I’m not clear on what you mean by the opposite. ] (]) 01:37, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
::::::RCP is not usable - they have a problematic methodology and cherry-pick. The 538 numbers show that Trump and Biden were roughly at the same point at the same time. I can't exactly tell where the margin of error bars lie (the shaded area in 538' chart) but probably about +-5. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 01:44, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
:::::::On 538, if you go down below you can change the parameters for the charts, '''''days in office / 4 years / 8 years '''''and then the slider on each chart displays a comparison with the currnet President. As for RCP, the most current polls displayed are '''''Rasmussen Reports / Reuters / Ipsos / Economist / YouGov / NBC News / Monmouth / Politico / Morning Consult / CNBC / CBS News / Harvard-Harris / Trafalgar Group(R) / NY Times / Siena / FOX News''''' and RCP themselves are not altering data in anyway as you can click through and see the methodology to each poll. They are an aggregator not a pollster themselves and only averaging the information of all the polls listed. I can understand challenging the as a source in regard to material that originates on the site - articles written by them but in the case of polling data there is no such bias. ] (]) 01:56, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
::::::::There is, actually. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 02:19, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
:::::::::When you start pulling out articles from ''substack'' to validate your point, I have to question the reliability of your sources. It may make for interesting reading but quick research shows '''' and I’m not seeing substack on the list of '']'' so as far as rebuttals go, it’s a bit lacking. ] (]) 14:07, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
::::::::::Nope. The article was written by expert ] who runs ]'s polling model and it is an acceptable ] article. The NY Mag article serves to further reinforce the point. Substack isn't a media outlet, it's a blog/newsletter platform and this would be an expert self-published article. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 15:23, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
:::::::::::I understand who the author is and again, I also saw where Nate Silver had problems with his methodology and self published doesn’t meet the ] requirements - substack is not on that list. ] (]) 13:42, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
::::::::::::You are incorrect. As I linked to, {{tq|Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications}}. Nate Silver's view does not invalidate the fact that Morris has been published as an expert in the Economist, which is a reliable source, and has his own books on the subject, so this would fall under the self-published exception. As mentioned, substack is not an outlet, it's a blog platform. So again, your understanding of the policy at play here is not accurate. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 14:04, 26 October 2022 (UTC)


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


:Okay, that makes sense. ] seems like a more appropriate place for it. I will be sure to attribute to The Intercept instead of saying others when adding it there. Intercept credits E&E (Politico) as first reporting the issue in their article, but I can cite that source separately as well. Thanks! ] (]) 01:48, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
Joe Biden’s grandfather, John Finnegan, was an All-American football player at Santa Clara University.
https://twitter.com/RNCResearch/status/1583159131179225088
"My grandfather Finnegan from Scranton would really be proud of me right now. No, I'm not joking, he would. By the way, he was an All-American football player, John, in Santa Clara."
https://en.wikipedia.org/Santa_Clara_Broncos_football ] (]) 23:36, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
:Too trivial to mention (his grandfather isn't even mentioned in the article, only that his mother's maiden name was Finnegan) and unconfirmed. -- ] (]) 02:40, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
::Seems legit though. But it's more of a ] entry. &ndash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;(]) 16:26, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
:::Except that there's no mention at that article of a grandfather named John Finnegan. It lists his maternal grandfather as Ambrose Joseph Finnegan. -- ] (]) 17:51, 24 October 2022 (UTC) P.S. Ambrose Joseph had a son named John, who would have been Joe Biden's uncle; maybe he got confused on the names. -- ] (]) 17:54, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
::::{{u|MelanieN}}, when Biden said "John", he was not saying that his grandfather's name was John. He was speaking in a conversational way to ] at a campaign rally in Pennsylvania. ] (]) 18:24, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
::::::Thanks, Cullen, that makes sense. -- ] (]) 21:09, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
:::::I have expanded the section about Ambrose Joseph Finnegan in ]. ] (]) 19:06, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
:It cannot be verified, and based on Biden's memory is probably a false claim. ] (]) 18:41, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 01:48, 19 December 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Joe Biden article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19Auto-archiving period: 21 days 
This page is not a forum for general discussion about Joe Biden. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Joe Biden at the Reference desk.
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
Former good articleJoe Biden was one of the Social sciences and society good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
In the news Article milestones
DateProcessResult
September 18, 2008Good article nomineeNot listed
September 19, 2008Good article nomineeListed
April 22, 2020Good article reassessmentDelisted
June 28, 2020Good article reassessmentDelisted
October 4, 2020Good article nomineeNot listed
In the news A news item involving this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the "In the news" column on August 23, 2008.
Current status: Delisted good article
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.This page is about a politician who is running for office or has recently run for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some current political conflict or controversy. For that reason, this article is at increased risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This  level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.
WikiProject iconBiography: Politics and Government
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Top-importance).
WikiProject iconU.S. Congress High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject U.S. Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States Congress on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.U.S. CongressWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. CongressTemplate:WikiProject U.S. CongressU.S. Congress
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
This article is about one (or many) Person(s).
WikiProject iconUnited States: Delaware / Presidential elections / Government High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Delaware (assessed as Mid-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. presidential elections (assessed as Mid-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as Top-importance).
WikiProject iconUnited States Presidents: Donald Trump Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject United States Presidents, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of United States Presidents on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United States PresidentsWikipedia:WikiProject United States PresidentsTemplate:WikiProject United States PresidentsUnited States Presidents
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Donald Trump task force.
WikiProject iconPennsylvania Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Pennsylvania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pennsylvania on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PennsylvaniaWikipedia:WikiProject PennsylvaniaTemplate:WikiProject PennsylvaniaPennsylvania
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconPolitics: American High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as Top-importance).
WikiProject iconCollege football Bottom‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject College football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of college football on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.College footballWikipedia:WikiProject College footballTemplate:WikiProject College footballcollege football
BottomThis article has been rated as Bottom-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconScience Policy High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Policy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Science policy on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Science PolicyWikipedia:WikiProject Science PolicyTemplate:WikiProject Science PolicyScience Policy
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconBarack Obama (inactive)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Barack Obama, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Barack ObamaWikipedia:WikiProject Barack ObamaTemplate:WikiProject Barack ObamaBarack Obama

    Warning: active arbitration remedies

    The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:

    • You must follow the bold-revert-discuss cycle if your change is reverted. You may not reinstate your edit until you post a talk page message discussing your edit and have waited 24 hours from the time of this talk page message

    Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

    Further information
    Enforcement procedures:
    • Violations of any of these restrictions should be reported immediately to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard.
    • Editors who are aware of this topic being designated a contentious topic and who violate these restrictions may be sanctioned by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense.

    The contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topics sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions.

    If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. Remember: When in doubt, don't revert!
              Other banners: Top 25 reports; media mentions; pageviews; section size
              Top 50 Report and Top 25 Report annual lists
    This article has been viewed enough times to make it onto the all-time Top 100 list. It has had 82 million views since December 2007.
    This article has been viewed enough times in a single year to make it into the Top 50 Report annual list. This happened in 2020, 2021, and 2023.
    This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report 24 times. The weeks in which this happened:
    Media mentionThis article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:
    Section sizes
    Section size for Joe Biden (63 sections)
    Section name Byte
    count
    Section
    total
    (Top) 9,552 9,552
    Early life (1942–1965) 9,050 9,050
    Marriages, law school, and early career (1966–1973) 10,599 27,199
    1972 U.S. Senate campaign in Delaware 1,826 1,826
    Death of wife and daughter 3,828 3,828
    Second marriage 8,342 8,342
    Teaching 2,604 2,604
    U.S. Senate (1973–2009) 74 39,489
    Senate activities 19,310 19,310
    Brain surgeries 2,434 2,434
    Senate Judiciary Committee 6,590 6,590
    Senate Foreign Relations Committee 5,856 11,081
    Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq 5,225 5,225
    1988 and 2008 presidential campaigns 44 16,364
    1988 campaign 10,829 10,829
    2008 campaign 5,491 5,491
    2008 and 2012 vice presidential campaigns 49 27,980
    2008 campaign 12,057 12,057
    2012 campaign 15,874 15,874
    Vice presidency (2009–2017) 77 38,370
    First term (2009–2013) 23,882 23,882
    Second term (2013–2017) 10,009 14,411
    Role in the 2016 presidential campaign 4,402 4,402
    Post-vice presidency (2017–2021) 6,681 6,681
    2020 presidential campaign 78 31,911
    Speculation and announcement 3,490 3,490
    Campaign 22,421 22,421
    Presidential transition 5,922 5,922
    Presidency (2021–present) 133 191,131
    Inauguration 6,205 6,205
    First 100 days 13,050 13,050
    Domestic policy 9,091 75,090
    Economy 19,243 19,243
    Judiciary 5,690 5,690
    Infrastructure and climate 13,835 13,835
    Immigration 11,500 11,500
    Pardons and commutations 3,271 3,271
    Pardon of Hunter Biden 6,021 6,021
    2022 elections 6,439 6,439
    Foreign policy 5,772 57,693
    Withdrawal from Afghanistan 11,473 11,473
    Russian invasion of Ukraine 12,113 12,113
    China affairs 10,192 10,192
    Israel–Hamas war 14,104 14,104
    NATO enlargement 4,039 4,039
    Investigations 23 13,988
    Retention of classified documents 5,768 5,768
    Business activities 8,197 8,197
    Age and health concerns 7,291 7,291
    2024 presidential campaign 17,681 17,681
    Political positions 30,857 30,857
    Public image 10,788 19,362
    Job approval 7,095 7,095
    Media depictions 1,479 1,479
    See also 238 238
    Notes 138 138
    References 17 1,680
    Citations 34 34
    Works cited 1,629 1,629
    Further reading 1,430 1,430
    External links 119 11,088
    Official 440 440
    Other 10,529 10,529
    Total 462,520 462,520

    Current consensus

    NOTE: It is recommended to link to this list in your edit summary when reverting, as:
    ] item
    To ensure you are viewing the current list, you may wish to purge this page.

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

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

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

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

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

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

    07. In the lead sentence, use 46th and current as opposed to just 46th when referring to Biden as the president. (RfC July 2021)

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

    "Announced military support for Israel" in the lede

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

    During the Israel–Hamas war, Biden condemned the actions of Hamas as terrorism and sent extensive military aid to Israel, as well as limited humanitarian aid to the Gaza Strip.

    While we're at it, I think it's also worth using a couple of words to add that the aid was sent despite allegations of war crimes, if anyone would like to discuss that. WikiFouf (talk) 14:43, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

    It can be argued that as the US has supported Israel since the 1960's its undue to single out Biden. Slatersteven (talk) 14:45, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
    I don't think that it's "singling out" Biden because A) no administration has ever sent Israel this much aid in a year, and B) that same year was the deadliest of the entire Israeli-Palestinian conflict WikiFouf (talk) 15:01, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
     Done, with the swap of "extensive" (from my original proposal) to "an unprecedented amount of", more factual. WikiFouf (talk) 19:14, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
    I don't thing "unprecedented" is the correct terminology to use in the lead. While Biden has been a strong supporter for high levels of military aid, there have been similar meausres of support by prior administrations such as that of Operation Nickel Grass in the Yom Kippur War. LosPajaros (talk) 22:08, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
    Never this much in a single year, though, which I think is quite notable. And IMO a factual stat is more descriptive + neutral than just something like "large", "extensive" WikiFouf (talk) 13:24, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
    Disagree with this. The United States has been strongly supporting Israel for many decades. To imply that this is a Biden creation is not neutral. Esterau16 (talk) 22:35, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
    @Esterau16 Please explain how the sentence implies that this is a "Biden creation"? It states that the amount of military aid sent by the Biden administration since the war started is a record, which is true, as you can read for yourself. WikiFouf (talk) 15:21, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
    "Unprecedented" is hyperbolic language that suggests there is something out-of-the-ordinary about the Biden administration's support of Israel. Zaathras (talk) 22:37, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
    I'm entirely fine with "record amount" if that makes it clearer, but this is the largest amount of military aid ever sent to Israel by the US in a year. Clearly Biden isn't the first president to support Israel; my proposed sentence isn't saying that either. But the aid he's sent during this war is notable – not only statistically but because of human rights concerns – which is why it's been a front-page news subject for more than a year. WikiFouf (talk) 09:35, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
    Update: I changed the "announced" part since no one objected to that part. Would anyone like to add something about "record amount"? I'd be interested in an RfC to see where people stand on this WikiFouf (talk) 14:48, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
    I would like to ask why do you believe that it is necessary to indicate that he sent limited humanitarian aid to Gaza. Is there a consensus of sources that agree that the amount of humanitarian aid is limited? I agree that it probably is not enough, but it seems to me that calling it limited, especially without sources is pushing a POV. DeathTrain (talk) 02:53, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
    WikiFouf No reply?--DeathTrain (talk) 15:30, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
    Sorry, wasn't very active recently. US failure in getting humanitarian aid into Gaza has been a major news topic for the past year: see floating pier saga, air dropping, 30-day ultimatum, etc. All of these failures are related to Israel limiting aid into Gaza. In any case, the military aid sent to Israel far outweighs the humanitarian aid to Gaza, so putting them side by side in the same sentence without qualifiers creates false balance imo. WikiFouf (talk) 15:54, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
    While I agree that the humanitarian aid is probably insufficient, I still find it to be a violation of WP:NPOV to call it limited. DeathTrain (talk) 19:56, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
    It's literally limited, as I explained WikiFouf (talk) 08:06, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
    WikiFouf So once again, do you have any sources?--DeathTrain (talk) 14:31, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
    Don't have access to my computer at the moment, I can put sources in a couple of days. You can google the examples I've mentioned though, as I said it's been a big news topic WikiFouf (talk) 14:46, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
    @DeathTrain First, for some perspective, the Biden admin has sent $17.9 billion in military aid to Israel in a year, a historical record, and $1.2 billion in humanitarian aid to Palestinians in the same period. Mentioning both forms of aid side by side without qualifiers is dishonest IMHO. Now here's a variety of sources talking how the humanitarian aid has been limited:
    WikiFouf (talk) 13:48, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
    @WikiFouf: Most of these sources do not say that the Biden administration is sending a limited amount of aid to Gaza, but that limited aid is actually getting into Gaza, mainly due to obstruction by the Israeli government, right-wing protestors and weather. DeathTrain (talk) 16:36, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
    @DeathTrain I've been interpreting it in the literal sense, as in the amount of aid is literally (being) limited; not that it's a limited amount as in "a small amount". I do agree with you that the term is not ideal and can lead to confusion, but it's a hard situation to condense properly in just a couple of words. I'm really against putting "military" and "humanitarian aid" side by side just like that, for the reasons I explained. But I'm also not sure that the humanitarian aid saga is something worth dedicating more than a couple of words to. Suggestions? WikiFouf (talk) 20:14, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
    WikiFouf If you also find the term to be too contentious, we can just remove the entire clause about sending humanitarian aid to Palestine, at least until a consensus can be found. We can also try an RFC. DeathTrain (talk) 15:29, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
    @DeathTrain I'm fine with that, I'll remove it rn. I was already thinking an RFC could be useful to decide how to include the war in the lede in general, so I'm all for it WikiFouf (talk) 21:52, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

    NGO funding revert

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

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

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

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

    The full content of the edit was In November 2024, the Biden administration withheld federal funding from Climate Justice Alliance, a move which CJA and others connected to its support for a ceasefire in Gaza. It was only sourced with The Intercept, not Politico. The Intercept is reliable, but biased to the point that we shouldn't base an edit like this on them. That it was sourced only to The Intercept, that the group "and others" (that seems like WP:WEASEL) "connected" the withholding of funding to Gaza, and your edit did not include anything from the Biden administration is why I said this is POV. Since this was also the "Biden administration" doing it and not Biden himself is why I think it's UNDUE. This is a biography of the man's entire life. The article on his presidency, Presidency of Joe Biden, will get more granular on these four years.

    References

    1. Lacy, Akela (2024-11-29). "Biden Makes His Own Attack on Nonprofit Over Palestine". The Intercept. Retrieved 2024-11-30.

    – Muboshgu (talk) 00:29, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

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