Misplaced Pages

Latest revision as of 17:08, 16 January 2025

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.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

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.

Article milestones Date Process Result September 18, 2008 Good article nominee Not listed September 19, 2008 Good article nominee Listed April 22, 2020 Good article reassessment Delisted June 28, 2020 Good article reassessment Delisted October 4, 2020 Good article nominee Not listed A news item involving this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the "In the news" column on August 23, 2008. Current status: Delisted good article

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.This page is about a politician who is running for office or has recently run for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some current political conflict or controversy. For that reason, this article is at increased risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

This  level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Biography: Politics and Government This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Top-importance). U.S. Congress High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject U.S. Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States Congress on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.U.S. CongressWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. CongressTemplate:WikiProject U.S. CongressU.S. Congress High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is about one (or many) Person(s). United States: Delaware / Presidential elections / Government Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Delaware (assessed as High-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. presidential elections (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as Top-importance). United States Presidents: Donald Trump Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States Presidents, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of United States Presidents on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United States PresidentsWikipedia:WikiProject United States PresidentsTemplate:WikiProject United States PresidentsUnited States Presidents Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale. This article is supported by the Donald Trump task force. Pennsylvania Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pennsylvania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pennsylvania on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PennsylvaniaWikipedia:WikiProject PennsylvaniaTemplate:WikiProject PennsylvaniaPennsylvania Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Politics: American High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as Top-importance). College football Bottom‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject College football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of college football on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.College footballWikipedia:WikiProject College footballTemplate:WikiProject College footballcollege football Bottom This article has been rated as Bottom-importance on the project's importance scale. Science Policy High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Policy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Science policy on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Science PolicyWikipedia:WikiProject Science PolicyTemplate:WikiProject Science PolicyScience Policy High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Barack Obama (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Barack Obama, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Barack ObamaWikipedia:WikiProject Barack ObamaTemplate:WikiProject Barack ObamaBarack Obama

Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article: You must follow the bold-revert-discuss cycle if your change is reverted. You may not reinstate your edit until you post a talk page message discussing your edit and have waited 24 hours from the time of this talk page message Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. Further information Enforcement procedures: Violations of any of these restrictions should be reported immediately to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. Editors who are aware of this topic being designated a contentious topic and who violate these restrictions may be sanctioned by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense. The contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topics sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions. If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. Remember: When in doubt, don't revert!

Other banners: Top 25 reports; media mentions; pageviews; section size

Top 50 Report and Top 25 Report annual lists This article has been viewed enough times to make it onto the all-time Top 100 list. It has had 82 million views since December 2007. This article has been viewed enough times in a single year to make it into the Top 50 Report annual list. This happened in 2020, 2021, 2023, and 2024. This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report 24 times. The weeks in which this happened: May 31 to June 6, 2015 January 8 to 14, 2017 March 1 to 7, 2020 August 9 to 15, 2020 August 16 to 22, 2020 August 30 to September 5, 2020 September 13 to 19, 2020 September 27 to October 3, 2020 October 4 to 10, 2020 October 11 to 17, 2020 October 18 to 24, 2020 October 25 to 31, 2020 November 1 to 7, 2020 November 8 to 14, 2020 November 15 to 21, 2020 January 3 to 9, 2021 January 17 to 23, 2021 January 24 to 30, 2021 April 9 to 15, 2023 June 23 to 29, 2024 June 30 to July 6, 2024 July 7 to 13, 2024 July 21 to 27, 2024 November 3 to 9, 2024 This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations: Brian Krebs (August 29, 2008). "Misplaced Pages Edits Forecast Vice Presidential Picks". The Washington Post. (none) (August 17, 2009). "The 50 most-viewed Misplaced Pages articles in 2009 and 2008". The Daily Telegraph. Maxwell Tani (May 15, 2015). "Meet the guy who has protected Hillary Clinton's Misplaced Pages page for almost a decade". Business Insider. Alex Pasternack (March 7, 2020). "How Misplaced Pages's volunteers became the web's best weapon against misinformation". Fast Company. Kalev Leetaru (April 29, 2020). "Biden vs. Kavanaugh: How the #MeToo Numbers Stack Up". Real Clear Politics. Mayank Aggarwal (July 16, 2021). "Nobody should trust Misplaced Pages, says man who invented Misplaced Pages". The Independent. Madeleine Spence (August 1, 2021). "Larry Sanger: 'I wouldn't trust Misplaced Pages — and I helped to invent it'". The Sunday Times. Jack Beresford (September 2, 2021). "Misplaced Pages 'War in Afghanistan' Article Describes It As a 'Taliban Victory'". Newsweek. Section sizes Section size for Joe Biden (64 sections) Section name Byte count Section total (Top) 9,819 9,819 Early life (1942–1965) 9,059 9,059 Marriages, law school, and early career (1966–1973) 10,450 27,033 1972 U.S. Senate campaign in Delaware 1,826 1,826 Death of wife and daughter 3,802 3,802 Second marriage 8,351 8,351 Teaching 2,604 2,604 U.S. Senate (1973–2009) 74 39,472 Senate activities 19,293 19,293 Brain surgeries 2,434 2,434 Senate Judiciary Committee 6,590 6,590 Senate Foreign Relations Committee 5,856 11,081 Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq 5,225 5,225 1988 and 2008 presidential campaigns 44 16,364 1988 campaign 10,829 10,829 2008 campaign 5,491 5,491 2008 and 2012 vice presidential campaigns 49 27,951 2008 campaign 12,032 12,032 2012 campaign 15,870 15,870 Vice presidency (2009–2017) 77 38,362 First term (2009–2013) 23,882 23,882 Second term (2013–2017) 10,003 14,403 Role in the 2016 presidential campaign 4,400 4,400 Post-vice presidency (2017–2021) 6,681 6,681 2020 presidential campaign 78 31,894 Speculation and announcement 3,490 3,490 Campaign 22,406 22,406 Presidential transition 5,920 5,920 Presidency (2021–present) 133 198,978 Inauguration 6,205 6,205 First 100 days 13,050 13,050 Domestic policy 9,091 75,432 Economy 19,261 19,261 Judiciary 5,670 5,670 Infrastructure and climate 14,608 14,608 Immigration 11,541 11,541 Pardons and commutations 3,460 3,460 Pardon of Hunter Biden 5,366 5,366 2022 elections 6,435 6,435 Foreign policy 7,782 60,634 Withdrawal from Afghanistan 11,473 11,473 Russian invasion of Ukraine 12,113 12,113 China affairs 10,227 10,227 Israel–Hamas war 15,000 15,000 NATO enlargement 4,039 4,039 Investigations 23 13,988 Retention of classified documents 5,768 5,768 Business activities 8,197 8,197 Age and health concerns 8,851 8,851 2024 presidential campaign 20,685 20,685 Political positions 30,857 30,857 Public image 10,788 22,767 Job approval 7,113 7,113 Media depictions 1,474 1,474 Legacy 3,392 3,392 See also 238 238 Notes 138 138 References 17 1,680 Citations 34 34 Works cited 1,629 1,629 Further reading 1,430 1,430 External links 119 10,928 Official 440 440 Other 10,369 10,369 Total 473,651 473,651

Current consensus

• v
• e

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)

Biden believes he could have won re-election

In December 2024, as was widely reported, Biden told aides he regretted his decision to withdraw from the race; believing he would have won the election as his party's nominee.

This information is confirmed by multiple WP:RS and is obviously relevant to his notability as a politician. ZebulonMorn (talk) 15:36, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

But is it actually relevant, (assuming its true). Slatersteven (talk) 15:47, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

"Anonymous Sources Said" is a red flag for WP:BLP articles. We're not a tabloid. Zaathras (talk) 22:34, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

References

1. Massie, Graeme (December 29, 2024). "Biden still regrets dropping out of 2024 race and believes he could have beaten Trump, says report". The Independent. Retrieved December 29, 2024.
2. Pager, Tyler (December 28, 2024). "Joe Biden's lonely battle to sell his vision of American democracy". The Washington Post. Retrieved December 29, 2024.
3. Tait, Robert (December 28, 2024). "Biden reportedly regrets ending re-election campaign and says he'd have defeated Trump". The Guardian. Retrieved December 29, 2024.
4. Calder, Rich (December 28, 2024). "Biden regrets leaving presidential race, thinks he could've beaten Trump: report". New York Post. Retrieved December 29, 2024.
5. Stimson, Brie (December 28, 2024). "Biden still regrets dropping out of 2024 presidential race, believes he could have beaten Trump: report". Fox News. Retrieved December 29, 2024.

Oldest living President of the United States box???

Aren't we pushing it too much, with trivia? Do we really need an Oldest living President of the United States succession box??? GoodDay (talk) 00:24, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

No objections? I've deleted it. GoodDay (talk) 20:30, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

RfC on ways to include Gaza war in the lede

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists: Biographies Politics, government, and law History and geography When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

The current single sentence on Gaza in the lede is as follows: During the Israel–Hamas war, Biden condemned the actions of Hamas as terrorism and sent military aid to Israel, as well as humanitarian aid to the Gaza Strip. The sentence is regularly modified, including the word "limited" which keeps being added/removed in front of "humanitarian aid". I started a discussion on this topic a while ago; it didn't get a lot of input and didn't lead to a consensus. I thought this RfC could generate a larger discussion and settle a few related questions at once:

• Should the "military aid" and "humanitarian aid" be mentioned side by side as is?
• Should we mention that the amount of military aid sent to Israel is a historical record?
• Next to the mention of military aid, should there be a mention of allegations of war crimes against Israel?

Feel free to expand the discussion to other questions. My hope is that we can workshop a sentence that has a consensus behind it. Thanks! WikiFouf (talk) 13:58, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

• Remove sentence outright: I'm not entirely convinced that Gaza bears mentioning in the lede at all. The lede should probably only contain a single paragraph on Biden's entire presidency; is a war between two other countries one of the 7 or 8 most important things in Biden's entire presidency? _pbp 19:31, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
• (Summoned by bot) but I'm having a hard time with this RfC. I'm surprised the article doesn't mention Israel at all outside of the events since October 2023. It's written in a poor timeline/recentist style with no historical context. I hope that will change once his departure from office provides some space to clean things up without the pressure to add the headlines of the day. i.e. It's well documented that Biden has for decades viewed the US-Israel relationship as fundamental to US interests in the Middle East, advocating military aid throughout his career. His decisions since 2023 were largely a continuation of that position rather than emerging from a vacuum. What changed most (putting aside arguments about the how the nature of this particular conflict was different from those in the past) was greater international outcry and, most importantly, persistence amid significant domestic opposition/pressure. The current sentence, which includes both military and humanitarian aid is acceptable in terms of summarizing the current article. No, obviously it shouldn't mention war crimes, which are mentioned nowhere in the article. Yes, of course we should include some summary of a long, four-paragraph section. If the article were to be improved, I'd think the ranking of relevant bits for the summary would be (1) Long-term commitment to US-Israel relations, (2) military support for Israel as president amid significant domestic opposition and international criticism, (3) humanitarian aid and pressuring Israel to address the humanitarian crisis, (4) being for or against various ceasefires. YMMV. — Rhododendrites \\ 20:33, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
• Comment — As with Rhododendrites, this is a tough RfC. I am split between removing this sentence outright and including it. The U.S. is said to have sent Israel $17.9 billion in the year since the war began, but the U.S. regularly spends a magnitude greater than that biannually on Ukraine aid. The Israel–Hamas war was not a defining moment of Biden's presidency. However, my conviction for that belief is not as strong as the other editors here, and I see no issue with keeping the sentence. If you were to ask me what defined Biden's foreign policy, I would say the wars in Ukraine and Gaza.

The question posed here is effectively whether or not this sentence gives undue weight to Hamas or Israel. It would not be reasonable to exclude one form of aid from this sentence. Biden showed embrace towards Israel in the weeks after Hamas led its assault on the country, but that support has since significant waned. When it comes to neutrality, it is not particularly unfair to say that Biden sent military aid to Israel and humanitarian aid to Gaza because that does not presuppose an impression on the reader in the way that going into further detail would. In other words, regardless of your opinion on Israel and/or Gaza, the fact is that the U.S.—this is a distinction that may or may not be important to other editors here—has supported Israel and the Gaza Strip.

By contrast, the other two bullet points do suggest that Biden is supportive of Israel and that he is supportive of war crimes, respectively. Leaving this sentence as vague as possible is not only a benefit to avoid these kinds of discussions, but also to prevent the lede from expanding into multiple paragraphs. The "historical record" here is not necessarily relevant to the broadest point possible. That relationship between additional details and the plain facts is strained by the third bullet point, which has no relevance to providing aid and highly suggests that Biden is complicit in war crimes. That may be true, but it is not neutral without a widespread understanding that there is an intent to support war crimes with aid. In the simplest possible form, Biden provided military aid to Israel and humanitarian aid to the Gaza Strip. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 05:47, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

I recently read an article in The New York Times about Biden's legacy that includes the war in Gaza. Given today's news that Israel and Hamas signed an armistice with U.S. assistance, I find that excluding this sentence is not a solution. It was a struggle during his presidency that lost him support. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 22:11, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

• Remove from lead Joe Biden's political history goes back 50 years and this isn't central enough to his biography to justify mentioning in the lead. This could be revisited later to properly weigh as the Gaza story is still unfolding. As it stands now, this isn't important enough to the story of Joe Biden to justify inclusion in the lead. Nemov (talk) 15:04, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

  @Nemov: like it or not, the enormous amount of aid that outgoing President Biden authorised to Israel was one of the major events of his presidency.
  "Joe Biden's political history goes back 50 years and this isn't central enough to his biography to justify mentioning in the lead." In any biography, the events of a presidency are, of course, much more important than those that took place decades earlier; your statement, therefore, isn't valid in this case. JacktheBrown (talk) 01:05, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

  Thankfully you're not the arbiter of what is or isn't valid. Nemov (talk) 01:43, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

  Of course not, but what I wrote remains correct. JacktheBrown (talk) 07:11, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

• Equal mention of the military and humanitarian aid is false balance imo. I disagree with the assertion that the war was not a defining aspect of Biden's presidency and I don't understand what factual basis the comments minimizing its significance are supposed to have; it clearly deserves a mention, despite the bare assertion that it doesn't. Rhododendrites has the right idea. Biden has been a staunch supporter of Israel for decades. The lead should mention his administration's pro-Israel stance in the war in the context of his support for Israel throughout his entire career. Monk of Monk Hall (talk) 03:36, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

  +1. JacktheBrown (talk) 01:09, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

• I don't think that the "historical record" is a good idea. I first thought you meant that the US had sent more aid to Israel than to any other conflict, including WWII, which is wrong. It's just ("just"?) the most ever sent from the US to Israel. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:07, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
• Remove per Nemov. Andre🚐 03:09, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
• Retain in some form; his policy towards Israel was a sufficiently major part of his presidency, and has sufficient coverage as a major aspect of his political trajectory, that it deserves a brief mention in the lead of his bio. It's also discussed in the article, which means a brief sentence in the lead is good to summarize it. The exact wording, however, is tricky. Most of the changes mentioned in the RFC are not improvements. The historical record part seems like it's getting too deeply into the weeds for the lead-in; the war crimes part, while a bit more central to why his actions had the impact on his reputation that they did and why they faced more backlash than is usual, is too tangential for the lead, too. And, also, if we were going to mention anything related to that at all it would be the backlash inside his party first, since that's what relates to him directly; mentioning the reason for the backlash instead is putting the horse before the cart. But none of that necessarily needs to go in the lead. If it's going to be expanded at all, what's needed is a few words on Biden's own views on US relations with Israel - this is his biography, after all, and they're views that were actually significant in terms of impact. With all that said there's nothing so glaringly wrong with the current version that it really requires any changes, and I fail to see how removing it entirely would be an improvement given that it was, all else aside, one of the major challenges of his presidency. --Aquillion (talk) 17:54, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

"Should the "military aid" and "humanitarian aid" be mentioned side by side as is?" No, in my opinion it's not necessary.

"Should we mention that the amount of military aid sent to Israel is a historical record?" Yes, absolutely; it's a fact and Misplaced Pages should focus mainly on historical facts. JacktheBrown (talk) 00:46, 16 January 2025 (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
• Top-importance United States articles
• B-Class United States articles of Top-importance
• B-Class Delaware articles
• High-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
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment