Revision as of 09:35, 12 April 2023 view source331dot (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators182,362 edits Reverted 1 edit by 61.7.138.183 (talk): This is not the place to communicate with Biden, please go to the White House websiteTags: Twinkle Undo← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 01:48, 19 December 2024 view source DukeOfDelTaco (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users19,662 edits →top: ITN entry | ||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Talk header|search=yes}} | |||
{{skip to bottom}} | |||
{{Talk header|search=yes|archive_age=3|archive_units=weeks}} | |||
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|blp=yes|activepol=|1= | |||
{{Vital article|class=B|level=5|topic=People|subpage=Politicians}} | |||
{{WikiProject Joe Biden|class=B|importance=top}} | |||
{{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|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 Pennsylvania|class=B|importance=mid}} | |||
{{WikiProject Politics|class=B|importance=High|American=yes|American-importance=Top}} | |||
{{WikiProject College football|class=B|importance=bottom}} | |||
{{WikiProject Science Policy|class=B|importance=high}} | |||
{{WikiProject Barack Obama |class=B}} | |||
}} | |||
{{American politics AE |1RR = no |Consensus required = no |BRD = yes}} | |||
{{Not a forum}} | {{Not a forum}} | ||
{{American English}} | {{American English}} | ||
Line 41: | 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 | ||
}} | |||
}}{{Banner holder|text=Other banners: Top 25 reports; media mentions; pageviews; section size|collapsed=yes|1= | |||
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|blp=activepol|class=B|vital=yes|listas=Biden, Joe|1= | |||
{{banner holder|text='''Top 50 Report''' and '''Top 25 Report''' annual lists|collapsed=yes|1= | |||
{{WikiProject Biography |politician-work-group=yes|politician-priority=top}} | |||
{{WikiProject U.S. Congress|importance=High|subject=Person}} | |||
{{WikiProject United States|importance=High|DE=yes|DE-importance=Mid|USPE=yes|USPE-importance=Mid|USGov=yes|USGov-importance=top}} | |||
{{WikiProject United States Presidents |importance=top |trump=yes |trump-importance=high}} | |||
{{WikiProject Pennsylvania|importance=mid}} | |||
{{WikiProject Politics|importance=High|American=yes|American-importance=Top}} | |||
{{WikiProject College football|importance=bottom}} | |||
{{WikiProject Science Policy|importance=high}} | |||
{{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='''Top 50 Report''' and '''Top 25 Report''' annual lists|collapsed=yes|1= | |||
{{All time pageviews|82}} | {{All time pageviews|82}} | ||
{{Annual report|] |
{{Annual report|], ], and ]}} | ||
{{Top 25 report|May 31 2015|Jan 8 2017|Mar 1 |
{{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 102: | Line 106: | ||
{{User:MiszaBot/config | {{User:MiszaBot/config | ||
|archiveheader = {{Talkarchivenav}} | |archiveheader = {{Talkarchivenav}} | ||
|maxarchivesize = |
|maxarchivesize = 50K | ||
|counter = |
|counter = 19 | ||
|minthreadsleft = |
|minthreadsleft = 3 | ||
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 | |minthreadstoarchive = 1 | ||
|algo = old(21d) | |algo = old(21d) | ||
Line 112: | 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 == | |||
== Prose == | |||
"Biden signed the Respect for Marriage Act, which codified protections for same-sex marriage and repealed DOMA and the CHIPS and Science Act" it took visiting the CHIPS and Science Act page to realise that it was not among the repealed acts. This could be worded better. ] (]) 18:19, 4 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
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 : | |||
{{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.}} | |||
:That phrase was removed, addressing your issue. But I definitely think the lead should mention the CHIPS Act; it's a pretty huge policy, and one of Biden's signature achievements. ] (]) 00:43, 6 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
::{{re|DFlhb}} I went ahead and added CHIPs to the lead. ]<sup>]</sup> 01:12, 6 March 2023 | |||
:::I think there should be a separate place for his achievements in the general article. The fist part already reads more like a Biden praise page than a neutral article.] (]) 18:43, 8 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
While we're at it, I think it's also worth using a couple of words to add that the aid was sent despite allegations of war crimes, if anyone would like to discuss that. ] (]) 14:43, 8 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
== Reality == | |||
: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) | |||
What - no observation that he was elected the the largest percentage of the eligible vote in history? He's the most popular presidential candidate ever, in all of US history. No discussion of that? He got 81 million votes, he was also elected defying the "Bellwether counties." This is an exceptionally notable president. Who could have guessed he could be elected? | |||
::I don't think that it's "singling out" Biden because A) , and B) that same year ] (]) 15:01, 8 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
:sources? ] (]) 13:26, 25 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
:{{done}}, with the swap of "extensive" (from my original proposal) to "an unprecedented amount of", more factual. ] (]) 19:14, 10 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
::Dude, much of this article already reads more like a Biden campaign ad than a neutral encyclopedia article. It’s already mentioned how many votes he got in 2020. That also doesn’t make him the most popular president in history. His approval rating has been stuck in the low 40s since 2021. I’m not saying I support or don’t support Biden, I’m just pointing out this article lacks a lot of neutrality.] (]) 18:41, 8 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
::I don't thing "unprecedented" is the correct terminology to use in the lead. While Biden has been a strong supporter for high levels of military aid, there have been similar meausres of support by prior administrations such as that of ] in the ]. ] (]) 22:08, 10 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::Never this much in a single year, though, which I think is quite notable. And IMO a factual stat is more descriptive + neutral than just something like "large", "extensive" ] (]) 13:24, 11 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
:Disagree with this. The United States has been strongly supporting Israel for many decades. To imply that this is a Biden creation is not neutral. ] (]) 22:35, 12 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
::@] Please explain how the sentence implies that this is a "Biden creation"? It states that the amount of military aid sent by the Biden administration since the war started is a record, which is true, as you can read for yourself. ] (]) 15:21, 13 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::"Unprecedented" is hyperbolic language that suggests there is something out-of-the-ordinary about the Biden administration's support of Israel. ] (]) 22:37, 13 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::I'm entirely fine with "record amount" if that makes it clearer, but this ''is'' the largest amount of military aid ever sent to Israel by the US in a year. Clearly Biden isn't the first president to support Israel; my proposed sentence isn't saying that either. But the aid he's sent during this war is notable – not only statistically but because of human rights concerns – which is why it's been a front-page news subject for more than a year. ] (]) 09:35, 14 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
:Update: I changed the "announced" part since no one objected to that part. Would anyone like to add something about "record amount"? I'd be interested in an RfC to see where people stand on this ] (]) 14:48, 3 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::I would like to ask why do you believe that it is necessary to indicate that he sent '''limited''' humanitarian aid to Gaza. Is there 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) | |||
::::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) | |||
::::::It's literally limited, as I explained ] (]) 08:06, 8 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::::{{u|WikiFouf}} So once again, do you have any sources?--] (]) 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 ] (]) 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) | |||
::::::::* 11/24 : (TIME) | |||
::::::::* 10/24 : (NBC News) | |||
::::::::* 10/24 : (BBC) | |||
::::::::* 09/24 : (ProPublica) | |||
::::::::* 07/24 : (Economist) | |||
::::::::* 07/24 : (PBS) | |||
::::::::* 06/24 : (New York Times) | |||
::::::::* 05/24 : (Reuters) | |||
::::::::* 03/24 : (Washington Post) | |||
::::::::* 02/24 : (VOA) | |||
::::::::* 02/24 : (CNN) | |||
::::::::* 01/24 : (Guardian) | |||
::::::::] (]) 13:48, 10 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::{{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) | |||
::::::::::@] 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) | |||
:::::::::::{{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) | |||
::::::::::::@] 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) | |||
== |
== NGO funding revert == | ||
Hi @], I noticed that you reverted my edit about the Biden administration withholding funding from an NGO over its support for a ceasefire in Gaza. I wanted to present my reasoning for including this material on the Joe Biden page and give you a chance to explain your revert, as well as give other editors a chance to weigh in. | |||
I question the judgment call of including a voice file of Biden right after he caught COVID; COVID is well known to cause someone's voice to sound different, and to my ears, that's reflected in the audio file. | |||
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. | |||
There's a second related issue; Biden's speech patterns have changed quite significantly in recent years (due to normal aging; among other things, it's slower than it used to be), and I think a "representative" voice sample should ideally come from earlier years, for example 2012 (is that Biden-Ryan debate freely licensed?). The only point of a voice file is to illustrate a person's normal timbre, pitch, loudness, cadence, phonation, etc, and we must strive to be neutral and representative of the overall person; a voice recording at an advanced age is IMO not the point here, regardless of which period of his life is most notable. ] (]) 16:00, 25 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
:It would be best to include his voice as US president. But, not while he had covid. ] (]) 16:19, 25 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
:I don't understand why we need a voice file for Biden. His voice is not of particular significance to his notability or public image. Not to the extent of Trump or Obama for example. Also, yea, an audio of file of when he had COVID would not be optimal. ]<sup>]</sup> 19:58, 25 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
::I don't think we should adopt elaborate inclusion criteria for voices (and {{tq|significance to notability or public image}} is pretty fuzzy/subjective). It's unnecessary and will just lead to endless talk page arguments. AFAIK, the only criteria we apply for signatures is: if it's freely-licensed, add it. Since I guess we're now adding voices, they should be treated the same. ] (]) 22:59, 25 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
:::I just realized the extent in which we include these audio files. It's every president since they started recording stuff pretty much. I suppose there isn't standard for inclusion, just whether it's freely licensed. ]<sup>]</sup> 01:46, 27 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
:It's obviously subjective, but his voice sounds pretty normal to me in the Covid clip. I agree with GoodDay that if we have a voice clip, it should be from his Presidency. If you want to hear what Biden's voice sounds like when it's abnormal, you can watch from a time when he had a cold. —] (]) 01:36, 27 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
::I think it might be better if the voice file present was more representative of his presidency or a notable accomplishment. I have attatched an audio file titled: Joe Biden gives remarks on the Inflation Reduction Act.ogg | |||
::Here he gives his prepared remarks in regards to the passing of the Inflation Reduction Act (the date of the video is from July 28th 2022). I think this audio file might be a better fit for his profile as it is representative of one of his most significant policy accomplishments that is of a similar weight to the other U.S. presidents where they're either Announcing military actions (Trump, Obama, Clinton), or announcing policy advancements (Carter and Reagen). I think that this audio file doesn't have any real concerns about audio issues or his voice being abnormal due to sickness. As such, I think it might be a bit more appropriate for his profile. ] (]) 01:03, 1 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
:::We should have an audio clip from the ]. It's a pretty significant speech. ] (]) 18:19, 1 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
::::I agree, however, that speech is about 20 minutes long so it would likely be better off as a video clip established further down in the actual article itself then as the voice box ] (]) 19:28, 1 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
:::::I mean use a small audio excerpt from the speech, not the entire speech ] (]) 22:54, 1 April 2023 (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. | |||
== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 April 2023 == | |||
Let me know what you think, I would like to reach a compromise. ] (]) 00:03, 1 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
{{edit extended-protected|Joe Biden|answered=yes}} | |||
In the Vice-President section, the article states Biden met with Serbian President Vucinic in 2016. In 2016, Vucinic was Prime Minister, not President. It's even written in the already linked source. ] (]) 17:30, 9 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
:{{done}}--] <small>(])</small> 18:51, 9 April 2023 (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. | |||
== Abortion in the Lead == | |||
:{{reflist-talk}} – ] (]) 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) | |||
Considering Biden's abortion executive orders have negligible impact on the availablility of abortion in places impacted by "near-total bans on abortion access passed in a majority of Republican-controlled states," and the fact that this is literally one sentence in the body, I think this is completely UNDUE for the lead. ] 23:29, 11 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
:The sentence doesn't even state what "measures" Biden took because he has nearly zero power to do anything affecting abortion access in Republican controlled states that completely banned it, and most of the sentence is just stating that the Supreme Court made a decision (unrelated to Biden, whom the lead is about) and that Biden criticized it (if you seriously think Biden saying something is DUE for the lead when the lead is entirely about his life and actions, that shows how irrelevant this content is). ] 23:31, 11 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
:Agree that mentioning abortion is UNDUE for lead. {{u|Andrevan}}, in response to your , yes, abortion has been is a salient political issue since ''Dobbs'', but that doesn't mean that Biden has done anything significant to advance abortion access. The issue has been concentrated more so on the Supreme Court, state legislatures, and perhaps Congress, considering the midterms, but not so much on Biden or his presidency. First and foremost, there is very little about Biden's response to ''Dobbs'' in this article; in fact, the sentence in the lead is the ''exact same sentence'' as the one sentence about abortion during his presidency that can be found at the bottom of the political positions section. There's nothing else. It's pretty standard rule that content not substantial in the body shouldn't be in the lead; that's even more true for someone as significant as the president of the United States. I even went and checked out ] and there isn't much of significance about his actions regarding abortion there either. Furthermore, I'm really struggling to see how individual states choosing to prohibit abortion is related enough to Biden for a lead mention. | |||
: | |||
:For this material to be included in the lead it's going to need to be established that it's ] and that ] is on those who support including the content. This is new content and it needs to removed till a consensus can be obtained ]<sup>]</sup> 23:54, 11 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
::OK, ok, I get it. Consider the new material challenged. I didn't mean to offend anyone. ''']'''<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> 00:08, 12 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
:::I think you should self-revert and remove the challenged content from the lead because of the reasons stated above. If anyone thinks it should stay, then I would like to see an argument in favor and the addition of some actual content to the body of the article, rather than having literally one sentence in the body and one in the lead when all other content in the body is 100x as long as the lead. ] 00:17, 12 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
::::<s>Didn't you revert it already? ''']'''<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> 00:17, 12 April 2023 (UTC)</s> Nevermind, I see that was a different edit. ''']'''<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> 00:19, 12 April 2023 (UTC) Because you edited after I did, I cannot easily undo the edit. If you want to revert it you may consider it my acceptance of your challenge and not an out of process revert. ''']'''<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> 00:26, 12 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
:::::Understood, thanks for the discussion. I do think more content could be added about abortion in the article, but sourced content must be added before anything is mentioned in the lead, otherwise there is nothing in the body for the lead to summarize. ] 02:31, 12 April 2023 (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. |
|
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. |
Joe 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. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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:
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.
|
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- "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)
- @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)
- 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:
- 11/24 : Why is only limited aid getting to Palestinians inside Gaza? (Associated Press)
- 11/24 : Israel Misses U.S. Deadline to ‘Surge’ Aid for Gaza, Humanitarian Groups Say (TIME)
- 10/24 : U.S. warns Israel it may restrict military aid if Gaza humanitarian situation doesn't improve (NBC News)
- 10/24 : UN says 'trickle' of aid reaches north Gaza, as Israel denies blocking access (BBC)
- 09/24 : Israel Deliberately Blocked Humanitarian Aid to Gaza, Two Government Bodies Concluded. Antony Blinken Rejected Them. (ProPublica)
- 07/24 : Why food is piling up on the edge of Gaza (Economist)
- 07/24 : U.S. military’s Gaza pier, built to carry humanitarian aid, will be dismantled after weather and security problems (PBS)
- 06/24 : U.S. Pier for Gaza Aid Is Failing, and Could Be Dismantled Early (New York Times)
- 05/24 : Gaza aid piles up in Egypt, US pier delivery falters (Reuters)
- 03/24 : Dropping aid from planes is expensive and inefficient. Why do it? (Washington Post)
- 02/24 : Why Isn't Desperately Needed Aid Reaching Palestinians in Gaza? (VOA)
- 02/24 : Why only a trickle of aid is getting into Gaza (CNN)
- 01/24 : US insists it’s trying to get aid into Gaza as UN warns millions ‘at risk of famine’ (Guardian)
- 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)
- 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'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: 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)
- WikiFouf So once again, do you have any sources?--DeathTrain (talk) 14:31, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- It's literally limited, as I explained WikiFouf (talk) 08:06, 8 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)
- 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)
- WikiFouf No reply?--DeathTrain (talk) 15:30, 7 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)
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
- 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)
- Misplaced Pages articles that use American English
- Delisted good articles
- Former good article nominees
- Misplaced Pages In the news articles
- Biography articles of living people
- Active politicians
- B-Class level-5 vital articles
- Misplaced Pages level-5 vital articles in People
- B-Class vital articles in People
- B-Class biography articles
- B-Class biography (politics and government) articles
- Top-importance biography (politics and government) articles
- Politics and government work group articles
- WikiProject Biography articles
- B-Class U.S. Congress articles
- High-importance U.S. Congress articles
- WikiProject U.S. Congress persons
- B-Class United States articles
- High-importance United States articles
- B-Class United States articles of High-importance
- B-Class Delaware articles
- Mid-importance Delaware articles
- WikiProject Delaware articles
- B-Class United States presidential elections articles
- Mid-importance United States presidential elections articles
- WikiProject United States presidential elections articles
- B-Class United States Government articles
- Top-importance United States Government articles
- WikiProject United States Government articles
- WikiProject United States articles
- B-Class United States Presidents articles
- Top-importance United States Presidents articles
- B-Class Donald Trump articles
- High-importance Donald Trump articles
- Donald Trump task force articles
- B-Class Pennsylvania articles
- Mid-importance Pennsylvania articles
- B-Class politics articles
- High-importance politics articles
- B-Class American politics articles
- Top-importance American politics articles
- American politics task force articles
- WikiProject Politics articles
- B-Class college football articles
- Bottom-importance college football articles
- WikiProject College football articles
- B-Class Science Policy articles
- High-importance Science Policy articles
- Pages in the Misplaced Pages Top 25 Report
- Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press