Revision as of 14:32, 29 January 2024 view sourceאלכסנדר סעודה (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users3,245 edits →Conservation and old growth forests: new sectionTag: New topic← 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=yes|class=B|vital=yes|living=yes|listas=Biden, Joe|1= | |||
{{WikiProject Joe Biden|importance=top}} | |||
{{WikiProject Biography|politician-work-group=yes|politician-priority=top}} | |||
{{WikiProject U.S. Congress|importance=High|subject=Person}} | |||
{{WikiProject United States|importance=Top|DE=yes|DE-importance=Mid|USPE=Yes|USPE-importance=Mid|USPresidents=Yes|USPresidents-importance=Top|USGov=y|USGov-importance=top}} | |||
{{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 }} | |||
}} | |||
{{American politics AE |1RR = no |Consensus required = no |BRD = yes}} | |||
{{Not a forum}} | {{Not a forum}} | ||
{{American English}} | {{American English}} | ||
Line 40: | 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 101: | 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 111: | 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 == | |||
== Requesting the “moderate” label be removed from lede, but for different reasons == | |||
While I agree that Joe Biden is in fact a moderate within the Democratic Party, I haven’t yet found another Misplaced Pages page for another politician with enough prominence whose ideological position is mentioned in the lede. It’s really odd to me, especially as this is a relatively new addition to the lede. I haven’t found any former President’s to have a label either in the lede. ] (]) 20:20, 12 December 2023 (UTC) | |||
For example, most other politicians pages say “A member of the ______ party,” rather than, “An ideologically ______ member of the _____ party.” Ultimately, I feel there is an ulterior motive behind the decision to add this label. I agree with it, but it’s been put in the lede for a reason. ] (]) 20:22, 12 December 2023 (UTC) | |||
:Biden isn't a progressive. ] (]) 20:49, 12 December 2023 (UTC) | |||
:Please do not accuse other editors of editing an article with "ulterior motives" unless you have some evidence to support such an accusation. See ]. ] (]) 00:18, 13 December 2023 (UTC) | |||
:{{tq|I haven’t yet found another Misplaced Pages page for another politician with enough prominence whose ideological position is mentioned in the lede.}} ]. But this is irrelevant per ]. ] ] ] (she/they 🎄 🏳️⚧️) 00:18, 21 December 2023 (UTC) | |||
== Israel section == | |||
I agree the CCR suit is undue here, that doesnt have the coverage to merit inclusion, but the criticism of his policies on Israel do have that coverage. @], would you agree generally that criticism of the support Biden has provided for Israel merits including a sentence on it there? Or, as you reverts indicate, are you simply opposed to any coverage at all? Because you also removed {{tq|Several scholars have accused Biden of being complicit in or permitting ].}} citing {{Cite news |last=Finucane |first=Brian |date=2023-11-17 |title=Is Washington Responsible for What Israel Does With American Weapons? |language=en-US |work=Foreign Affairs |url=https://www.foreignaffairs.com/israel/washington-responsible-what-israel-does-american-weapons |access-date=2023-12-14 |issn=0015-7120}}. A number of other sources can be added if you think there isnt weight in sourcing here. ''']''' - 17:23, 14 December 2023 (UTC) | |||
:My thoughts are, this is about his presidency, we can't clutter up this article with stuff about that. ] (]) 17:27, 14 December 2023 (UTC) | |||
::But why then include any part of it? It isnt NPOV to not include prominent controversies for the subjects we cover. If his position on the war is covered then so to should criticism of that position. If it doesnt belong at all, then neither does most of that section. ''']''' - 17:41, 14 December 2023 (UTC) | |||
:::I agree, so why cover it at all. ] (]) 17:48, 14 December 2023 (UTC) | |||
::::Sure, if it was gotten rid of entirely I wouldnt be here. But covering it and not including criticism is why I am here. But currently we cover it in the lead and in a subsection, with nary a hint of any of the substantial criticism it has generated. ''']''' - 18:02, 14 December 2023 (UTC) | |||
:::::There's criticism of Israel's responses to Oct. 7 but nothing substantial and widespread that's particularly personal to Biden. A few fringey criticisms -- that he's responsible for everything alleged to be done by Netanyahu (whom he views with profound disdain) -- don't make it significant enough for his bio.]] 20:46, 14 December 2023 (UTC) | |||
::::::No, there is criticism of the United States in relation to Israel's actions, that criticism is about the policies of Biden, not Israel. And they certainly are not fringe. ''']''' - 14:35, 15 December 2023 (UTC) | |||
:::::::In addition to being FRINGE, we also cannot unduly associate {{purple|"criticism of the United States in relation to Israel's actions"}} with this biography.]] 17:04, 15 December 2023 (UTC) | |||
::::::::There is criticism of Joe Biden's actions as president, which we cover at great length in his biography. ''']''' - 17:19, 15 December 2023 (UTC) | |||
:I agree that the CCR lawsuit is very much ] here. Regarding criticism of Biden's stances on the war, if additional sources could be provided it ''might'' be worth a sentence or two in the biography and possibly some more space in ]. However, the way that sentence was worded seems ]. I don't have access to the full article to read the entire context, but assuming the sentence {{tq|Several scholars have accused Biden of being complicit in or permitting war crimes}} is based on the lede's statement {{tq|Further, U.S. officials risk complicity if Israel uses U.S. support to commit war crimes}} that seems like a misrepresentation of what the source actually says and how strongly it says it. Regardless, if criticism of Biden's positions on Israel were to be included it would need more sourcing to demonstrate due weight. <span style="font-family:Courier New;font-size:3">]</span><sup>]</sup> 21:55, 14 December 2023 (UTC) | |||
:Yes, it is absolutely bonkers that there isn't even a sentence such as "Biden's staunch support for Israel's military campaign in Gaza has sparked significant domestic pushback and protest. Many scholars warn that the United States risks being complicit in war crimes". This is pretty much just a down-the-line account of the situation. Let's do something here. ] (]) 23:28, 27 January 2024 (UTC) | |||
::It s not "bonkers" when what you claim is patently untrue. All presidents have supported Israel's right to self-defends. Many college-aged students and some liberal members of Congress support Palestine. This is all routine. ] (]) 03:07, 28 January 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::It is not routine. And what part of my claim is "patently untrue"? ] (]) 19:02, 28 January 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::1) It is routine, and 2) pretty much all of it. Your position has gained no consensus, so it is time to move on. ] (]) 19:05, 28 January 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::You aren't actually responding to anything I said, it's just "You're wrong". Give me specifics. The SCALE is so much bigger than what has happened before, which makes it worthy and notable. ] (]) 19:17, 28 January 2024 (UTC) | |||
I was actually going to make a new section on this, but I think it's related to this section so I'll add it here: | |||
The nickname "Genocide Joe" has gotten significant coverage, including a response from the White House. It's mentioned in ]'s article. So the question is, shouldn't it be mentioned here on Joe Biden's article, given that it's directed at him? | |||
Just going off of news reports on Google, we have , , , , , , , , , and others providing coverage of this nickname. I think it makes sense to mention this "Genocide Joe" nickname here on Joe Biden's article, and the "Israel" subsection seems like a good place to put it.--] (]) 22:44, 14 December 2023 (UTC) | |||
:One's angry, frustrated little critics create pejoratives all the time, they are rarely noteworthy in that person's biography. It is certainly not noteworthy to the bio of John Kirby either, and should be removed. It was only added on Nov 27th to a little-trafficked Wiki page. ] (]) 23:42, 14 December 2023 (UTC) | |||
::The sentiment . It has more importance internationally, I'd say, then a mere domestic policy dispute. ] (]) 12:32, 15 December 2023 (UTC) | |||
:::US is despised. Dog bites man.]] 13:46, 15 December 2023 (UTC) | |||
I support greater mention of the backlash to Biden's policies re Israel-Hamas, potentially in the lede, depending on other's thoughts. I think this policy is likely to define his presidency in the foreign policy arena, and has already generated significant domestic discontent as well. "Genocide Joe" seems more approopriate for ]. ] (]) 19:07, 6 January 2024 (UTC) | |||
:To this non-American, non-expert, Biden's position on Israel seems broadly the same as that of every president for the past 70 years. If it was different, it would definitely be worthy of comment, but without further explanation, I see very little of long term significance in it. ] (]) 02:38, 7 January 2024 (UTC) | |||
::It's significant because it is getting significant pushback in the streets, at universities, even among politicians in his own party. ] (]) 17:16, 7 January 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::As opposed to strong support, as it would have in the past. ] (]) 17:18, 7 January 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::That is not even remotely a truthful statement. Support of Israel and opposition to Hamas/Palestinians, and vice versa, does not hew to party lines. At the moment we see the likes of Candace Owens and Ilhan Omar condemning Israel, and the likes of Lindsey Graham and Joe Biden united in their Israel support. Even Donald Trump says he will support Israel by deporting pro-Palestinian student protesters. ] (]) 17:39, 7 January 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::Strongly agree with the above re support/opposition cutting in unexpected ways, which is why the situation is notable and is (very,very probably) historic. ] (]) 18:34, 7 January 2024 (UTC) | |||
:This has become a significant issue for Biden and is the main cause for his decline in support among Muslim voters and possibly also why younger voters now favor Trump. Past presidents did not by the way routinely agree with everything Likud did, as Lawrence J. Korb, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, points out.https://responsiblestatecraft.org/2021/05/24/ronald-reagan-wasnt-afraid-to-use-leverage-to-hold-israel-to-task/] I certainly agree that not everything that comes up belongs in the article, but this has now achieved due weight for inclusion. ] (]) 21:53, 28 January 2024 (UTC): | |||
::Agree - ] (]) 02:39, 29 January 2024 (UTC) | |||
== JRB & LBJ == | |||
Perhaps {{ping|Bill Williams}} & {{ping|SPECIFICO}} you may both want to work things out 'here', about President Biden's negotiation skills with the US Congress, concerning whether they need to be included or excluded, in his BLP. ] (]) 19:01, 17 December 2023 (UTC) | |||
:His negotiating skills are irrelevant, the debt ceiling has been raised under every president for decades, with negotiations occurring every single time. Obama and House Republicans "almost" came to a default twice, yet that has no mention in his lead because it is not notable. My edit also removed any mention of Build Back Better, because you aren't going to find failed ideas that never came to fruition in the lead of any other president's article. It isn't notable for the lead and went absolutely nowhere, with barely anything in the IRA being related. ] 19:10, 17 December 2023 (UTC) | |||
::You're stating an incomplete and misleading personal narrative. That has nothing to do with the content, which is significant and widely noted in RS. Failed ideas in a BLP? Mexico's goning to pay for it, Muslim Ban, Secret Plan to end the Vietnam War, "54°40' or fight!", Secession of the Confederacy, and other great ideas that succeeded?]] 19:32, 17 December 2023 (UTC) | |||
:::What would actually be helpful here is to see some text and sources. – ] (]) 20:05, 17 December 2023 (UTC) | |||
::::I thought the text that BW removed was good enough to stay in place.]] 20:11, 17 December 2023 (UTC) | |||
::::: is what the disagreement is about? This is so minor that I don't know that I'll form an opinion either way. – ] (]) 20:16, 17 December 2023 (UTC) | |||
::::::I agree it's minor, so I have given no thought to whether it can be improved. But I do feel that the version I restored is a better reflection of what RS consider significant. The LBJ thing is not on the table for article text, so I hope it is not raised as a reason to gut the existing brief mention of Biden's collaborations with Congress.]] 20:29, 17 December 2023 (UTC) | |||
:::::::It's just pushing a narrative of how amazing Biden is because he saved the U.S. from a default. Meanwhile, every single President has negotiated raising the debt ceiling when that came up in Congress, so you could claim they stopped numerous defaults except for the fact that it isn't notable because these negotiations happen all of the time. The U.S. was "closer" to a default not once but ''twice'' under Obama, yet it doesn't belong in his lead hence it isn't there. Zero reason as to why that belongs in Biden's lead, especially in the POV nonsense way it currently is written. ] 22:33, 26 December 2023 (UTC) | |||
::::::::{{tq|every single President has negotiated raising the debt ceiling }}. This is simply false. "Negotiation" is a new thing. Previously, Congress just passed clean debt ceiling increases. One party in Congress now regularly threatens to destroy the world economy in order to get something they want that they otherwise cannot get Congress to pass. ] (]) 22:58, 26 December 2023 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::Correct. ] shows that this gamesmanship around the debt ceiling began in 1995. – ] (]) 23:14, 26 December 2023 (UTC) | |||
::::::::::I'll go further. Even the Republicans in the current Congress cannot negotiate with each other. The fact that a Democratic president has managed to get major bills passed with this congress is ]. ] (]) 23:21, 26 December 2023 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::::Which brings me back to the point I made on December 17 about wanting to see sources to that effect to get a sense of the WEIGHT RS give his negotiation abilities. – ] (]) 23:37, 26 December 2023 (UTC) | |||
::::::::::::It's a hilarious joke, he negotiated nothing by himself, it was congressional Democrats more than him. Also, O3000 can make some partisan statements against Republicans if he wants (see his irrelevant ranting above), but that doesn't make this DUE for the lead. Obama had two separate "close calls" even worse than what Biden dealt with and Obama negotiated both increases just as much as Biden did. Yet, notice how it isn't in his lead, because a debt ceiling increase is not notable. ] 02:12, 31 December 2023 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::::::In your haste to attack another editor personally, complain about the topic rather than the article, and go on a "but other stuff" tangent, it seems that you forgot to make an actual point. ] (]) 02:16, 31 December 2023 (UTC) | |||
{{od|:::::::::::::}}Include or exclude? Seems to me this content dispute has reached a stalemate. No doubt more editors will need to be invited to give their input. ] (]) 14:30, 31 December 2023 (UTC) | |||
== why was his position on the New Castle County council removed?! == | |||
{{Infobox officeholder | |||
| footnotes = {{Collapsible list | |||
|titlestyle = background:lavender;text-align:center; | |||
|title = Other offices | |||
|bullets = on | |||
| 2007–2009: Chair of the ] | |||
| 2001–2003, 2007–2009: Chair of the ] | |||
| 1987–1995: Chair of the ] | |||
| 1971–1973: Member of the New Castle County Council from the 4th district | |||
}}}} | |||
It seems like it should be worth noting on his bio as a previous office held. lots of other political leaders have a local offices listed before their entry into federal politics. just seems like it's a random thing to remove and I know it was there in the past ] (]) 23:00, 12 January 2024 (UTC) | |||
:It is mentioned in the 2nd paragraph of the opening section, it doesn't need to be in the infobox. ] (]) 00:34, 13 January 2024 (UTC) | |||
:This has been discussed in the past & the consensus was to 'exclude' from the infobox. ] (]) 01:01, 13 January 2024 (UTC) | |||
:Support keeping it at bottom of the page, not in infobox, as it is ''both'' important to the start of his carrer, yet minor when viewing his career as a whole. ] (]) 22:44, 15 January 2024 (UTC) | |||
Any thoughts on adding this position to the footnotes section of the infobox where the Senate chairmanships are? - ] (]) 15:53, 13 January 2024 (UTC) | |||
:Why do we need it, what does it really add? ] (]) 16:02, 13 January 2024 (UTC) | |||
::Helps provide an overall summary of Biden's political career? Keep in mind this is just in the footnotes section at the bottom of the infobox since its a minor point of the overall article. Example provided - ] (]) 16:33, 13 January 2024 (UTC) | |||
:It's fine there. Certainly a good compromise. ]<sup>]</sup> 22:56, 15 January 2024 (UTC) | |||
:No footnote. What's so important about his time on the New Castle Country council, that 'now & then', somebody wants to add it to the infobox? ] (]) 23:21, 15 January 2024 (UTC) | |||
== Post Economies == | |||
Paid positions are self retained and housed by the Federal Government. This particular man comes from background including cooking etectera. Most `presidents` were more interesting because they didn't have internet. I know right. After what came before the great depresssion, it seemed that air conditioning was a problem. Not a problem. I know, right. Well, we've seen them all, from Mary Poppins to Charles Earl. Well, after he gets up, the pastimes of being on tv with his constituents add up. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 14:42, 23 January 2024 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
:What are you suggesting we do to this article? ] (]) 14:44, 23 January 2024 (UTC) | |||
== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 January 2024 == | |||
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 : | |||
{{edit extended-protected|Joe Biden|answered=no}} | |||
Sleepy Joe Biden | |||
{{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.}} | |||
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) | |||
: |
: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) | |||
:{{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) | |||
:::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 == | |||
== Conservation and old growth forests == | |||
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. | |||
Last time when I added content about the issue to the paragraph "presidency 2021 - present" sub section "infrastructure and climate" it was removed as not enough important. Maybe I really made it too long for a summary page. But I think it worth at least 22 words. There are around 500 in this sub section currently I think. This is what I want to write this time: | |||
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. | |||
"During his presidency Biden promoted ] so much, that several records was broken. He took steps to protect ]." | |||
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. | |||
Those are the sources. They explicitly mention climate. | |||
Let me know what you think, I would like to reach a compromise. ] (]) 00:03, 1 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
https://www.americanprogress.org/article/the-biden-administration-has-reached-conservation-records-in-2023/ | |||
: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. | |||
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/dec/19/biden-forest-logging-ban-old-trees | |||
:{{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) | |||
Do you agree that it worth to be written? ] (]) 14:32, 29 January 2024 (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