This is an old revision of this page, as edited by YeIsBraveAndAManOfGod (talk | contribs) at 17:55, 30 October 2022 (edit summary removed). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 17:55, 30 October 2022 by YeIsBraveAndAManOfGod (talk | contribs) (edit summary removed)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)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 |
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.
|
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.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Template:WikiProject Joe BidenPlease add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
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)
To Edit Joe Biden's Infobox To This
See #RfC on Joe Biden's Infobox Contents below. Aoi (青い) (talk) 02:56, 12 October 2022 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hello.
I see that the infobox only has 3 offices in it due to a consensus. And while I agree that we should cut down Biden's infobox size, I do not think that it should be solved by getting rid of offices in the infobox. Sure, right now they are at the bottom of the infobox, but IMHO most readers will easily miss that. His senatorial committee chairmanships are stretches to remove, but I am heavily confused as to why we ever removed his County Council seat.
I think that the infobox I have in this section is way better than the one we have now. We can have all of Biden's offices in his infobox while keeping it to a size. For those who are interested in his senatorial committee chairmanships, they caan click a button to view them.
Again, I think this one is way better than the one we have now. Thank you for considering.
Extended content | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Bbraxtonlee (talk) 03:11, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
- I agree this is a reasonable change. Iamreallygoodatcheckers 03:17, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
- Him being chair of Senate Judiciary and Senate Foreign Relations alone are so much more notable than New Castle County Council. I don't personally find these particularly useful. Therequiembellishere (talk) 05:37, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
- @Therequiembellishere: Yeah that’s arguable. But the point is is that the offices belong in the infobox regardless…Bbraxtonlee (talk) 07:42, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
RfC on Joe Biden's Infobox Contents
|
Should we modify Joe Biden's infobox to include all of his offices in a modified way that still shortens the length of his infobox. I have listed an example below. Example
Joe Biden | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Official portrait, 2021 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
46th President of the United States | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Incumbent | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Assumed office January 20, 2021 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Vice President | Kamala Harris | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Preceded by | Donald Trump | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
47th Vice President of the United States | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
In office January 20, 2009 – January 20, 2017 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
President | Barack Obama | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Preceded by | Dick Cheney | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Succeeded by | Mike Pence | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
United States Senator from Delaware | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
In office January 3, 1973 – January 15, 2009 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Preceded by | J. Caleb Boggs | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Succeeded by | Ted Kaufman | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Member of the New Castle County Council from the 4th district | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
In office January 5, 1971 – January 1, 1973 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Preceded by | Henry R. Folsom | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Succeeded by | Francis R. Swift | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Personal details | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Born | Joseph Robinette Biden Jr. (1942-11-20) November 20, 1942 (age 82) Scranton, Pennsylvania, U.S. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Political party | Democratic (1969–present) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Other political affiliations | Independent (before 1969) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Spouses |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Children | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Relatives | Biden family | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Education | Archmere Academy | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Alma mater | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Occupation |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Awards | List of honors and awards | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Signature | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Website | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bbraxtonlee (talk) 02:36, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
- @Iamreallygoodatcheckers and Therequiembellishere: Courtesy pings to the users who participated in the infobox discussion above. Aoi (青い) (talk) 03:01, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
- Yes/Support Bbraxtonlee (talk) 03:38, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose. The infobox is slightly shorter on desktop. However, the Senate leadership fields are not collapsible on the mobile version of Misplaced Pages, resulting in the infobox being significantly longer for mobile users compared to the version currently in the article. Aoi (青い) (talk) 04:03, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
- Support inclusion of New Castle County Council; oppose inclusion of Senate leadership fields. The Senate leadership positions weren't really offices in the same sense as the others here, and are reasonable to keep out for brevity. We shouldn't leave out a directly-elected office he held, though. Elli (talk | contribs) 04:22, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose The infobox is supposed to summarize the key points. It doesn't have to summarize every point. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:23, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
- (Summoned by bot) Oppose. Infobox does not exist to provide an all-encompassing, exhaustive, and concise introduction about the subject to the reader. As an element of the lead, its purpose is to recapitulate the prominent nuggets that figure in the article's body. To then treat it as a repository of infructuous trivia and facts in existence is to detract from that very purpose. MBlaze Lightning (talk) 07:53, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
- Well, I was going to support, but after reading Aoi’s comment that this is not collapsible on mobile, I don’t think this is a good idea. I oppose Iamreallygoodatcheckers 14:59, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose, if what it had done to this talk page is anything to go by, too long with pointless trivia that really tells us nothing. Slatersteven (talk) 15:03, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose – doesn't collapse on mobile and provides an excess of information. As MBlaze Lightening has noted, it goes against the guideline MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE which emphasizes brevity for clarity:
- "
keep in mind the purpose of an infobox: to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article ... The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance
"
- "
- --Guest2625 (talk) 11:11, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
- Support but oppose Senate leadership per User:Elli. Cessaune (talk) 02:39, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
Slightly elevated inflation?
Seriously? Inflation has increased almost every month that Biden has been in office and has gone from 1.4% the month he took office to it’s current rate of 8.2% going as high as 9.1 in June of 2022. You cannot softpedal those numbers or ignore them and the idea that there has been wage growth is a lie as real wages have reduced because of inflation. This is fluffery of the highest degree after adjusting for inflation, “real” weekly earnings went down 4.4%. I’m not inclined to mess around with the page but this should be corrected, it’s incredibly biased. 71.190.233.44 (talk) 02:35, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
- Inflation is higher than average everywhere in the world. The over 95% of the world's population who live outside the USA don't blame Joe Biden for it. Keep your parochial politics out of this article. HiLo48 (talk) 03:01, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
- You post the five pillars of Misplaced Pages on your talk page, please reread them - specifically Misplaced Pages is written from a neutral point of view and Misplaced Pages's editors should treat each other with respect and civility I’ve cited sources that clearly contradict the fluffery in the article which needs to be updated to reflect the correct information. 71.190.233.44 (talk) 12:10, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
- When you talk about "fluffery" and are clearly here to push right wing talking points, it's harder to treat you with respect and civility. If you want to be treated with civility and respect, you need to first give it. Instead of talking about "fluffery" and bias(everything is biased), say something like "I read this article and I am concerned it does not have a neutral point of view because.....". It's a fact that inflation is a global problem not unique to the US, and is actually worse in places like the UK. 331dot (talk) 12:16, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not sure why the US vs. world distinction matters here, as it's not related to what the IP posted. I think they just misread the text of the article. Endwise (talk) 12:34, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
- The common refrain on the US political right at this moment is "inflation is terrible and it's all Joe Biden's/the Democrats' fault"- when it's a global issue not unique to the US and actually worse outside the US- which is an argument that Biden/Democratic policies have blunted inflation, not made it worse. 331dot (talk) 12:38, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
- I don't think the IP was saying it was Biden's fault? Maybe I'm just naive, and that was actually the subtext. Either way, not too important as it seems pretty clear that that bit of the article is fine. Endwise (talk) 12:53, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
- The common refrain on the US political right at this moment is "inflation is terrible and it's all Joe Biden's/the Democrats' fault"- when it's a global issue not unique to the US and actually worse outside the US- which is an argument that Biden/Democratic policies have blunted inflation, not made it worse. 331dot (talk) 12:38, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
- You post the five pillars of Misplaced Pages on your talk page, please reread them - specifically Misplaced Pages is written from a neutral point of view and Misplaced Pages's editors should treat each other with respect and civility I’ve cited sources that clearly contradict the fluffery in the article which needs to be updated to reflect the correct information. 71.190.233.44 (talk) 12:10, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
- The text in the article reads
significantly elevated inflation
(not "slightly"), which is accurate. Did you misread it? The point about wage growth is that people are less hard hit by inflation if their earnings are also increasing. But real earnings are still down, so that's why it said it waspartially offset
by an increase in wage/salary. So that appears to be accurate as well. Perhaps we could writepartially offset by the highest nominal wage and salary growth in at least 20 years
to make it clearer? Endwise (talk) 12:28, 18 October 2022 (UTC)- I agree that inflation has increased significantly. Whether or not that is Biden's, or Putin's or no one's fault is another issue. TFD (talk) 14:42, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
- And that was the core point of my initial response. The OP clearly wants the article to say it is. It would be wrong to do so, and to even ask is pushing ill-informed, standard, right-wing, insular, American, political dogma. HiLo48 (talk) 21:07, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
- Your comments are insulting, do everyone a favor and reread WP:PA or read it if you haven’t already,as far as nominal wage growth goes I’m not pulling from right wing sources to make a point here Biden's boast about rising wages ignores effect of inflation and the inflation rate has gotten even higher than what is listed in the article. I don’t ‘want’ anything... the article should reflect a WP:NPOV and in that case it means that the numbers on the economy should be presented in a clear light. In an article at the beginning of the year CNBC posted this Despite higher wages, inflation gave the average worker a 2.4% pay cut last year and the inflation numbers have only gotten worse since. I don’t take it upon myself to change the language on the page but I do bring concerns to the talk page and not to be insulted by some editors.71.190.233.44 (talk) 01:48, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
- IP, I wouldn't even try to argue with editors who have a clear bias. Unfortunately, it is why this project is so looked down upon. --Malerooster (talk) 01:59, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
- My bias is to look at global economic matters from a global perspective, not from that of those wanting to score political points inside a country with less than 5% of the world's population. HiLo48 (talk) 05:30, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
- HiLo48, the initial message was misleading, but there is no point in just insulting the editors. The 2021–2022 inflation surge has its own article. Dimadick (talk) 19:30, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
- An editor who blames Joe Biden for global inflation is not here to build a great encyclopaedia. HiLo48 (talk) 22:00, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
- The idea you want to treat the inflation data specific to this country, excusing it away by calling it a global problem, independent of the specific economic policies implemented by each country’s leadership shows you are not embracing the idea of Misplaced Pages:NPOV. Covid 19 was a global problem as well but we did not excuse any leader’s actions in dealing with the pandemic by saying it was a global problem so your argument is specious to say the least. 71.190.233.44 (talk) 17:19, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
- "THIS country"? This is a global encyclopaedia. Which country? It's OK. I can guess. It's only American editors that think and write that way. Can you can identify specific actions of Biden's that good sources tell us made things worse in the USA than elsewhere in the world? HiLo48 (talk) 21:48, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
- Well, considering that Biden is the President of the United States and I am a citizen of such I wouldn’t really be as concerned about the Biden Administration’s actions as they pertained to say Brazil or Indonesia. I also wouldn’t think someone would believe Biden’s actions would affect the economies of Japan or other countries since that isn’t the subject of the article here. However, apparently you need that to be spelled out for you since you chose to be so snide in your response. You keep changing your tact, first you said, ‘My bias is to look at global economic matters from a global perspective but this isn’t a page about the global economy,’ this is a page about the current President of the United States and his actions and policies. I can point to a Forbes article, considered a WP:RSP https://www.forbes.com/sites/adammillsap/2022/08/10/inflation-still-high-and-bidens-policies-are-not-helping/ as a starting point. Foreign Policy magazine also has an article on it although I’m not seeing that on WP:RSP for some reason https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/11/15/fuel-inflation-oil-gas-energy-transition-climate-change-biden/ so, I didn’t feel the need to come here to engage in some detailed debate over it as much as call out that the article was not written with N:POV and got some insults from you for my observation. 71.190.233.44 (talk) 01:47, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
- I believe you missed my point completely. And I am as tactful as ever. HiLo48 (talk) 20:34, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
- Biden is not making inflation better or worse per se, but there are plenty of reliable sources that talk about his mixed messaging on inflation and the effectiveness of his countermeasures.
- https://www.forbes.com/advisor/personal-finance/inflation-reduction-act/
- https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2022/08/15/by-the-numbers-the-inflation-reduction-act/
- https://www.politico.com/news/2022/06/14/biden-economy-afl-cio-00039580
- https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/13/us/politics/biden-inflation-report-economy.html
- https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2022-election/democrats-struggle-message-inflation-final-midterm-push-rcna52676
- The article doesn't do a bad job as is, but I see the concerns of my IP friend. Y'all need to take a deep breath. Cessaune (talk) 21:33, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
- I believe you missed my point completely. And I am as tactful as ever. HiLo48 (talk) 20:34, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
- Well, considering that Biden is the President of the United States and I am a citizen of such I wouldn’t really be as concerned about the Biden Administration’s actions as they pertained to say Brazil or Indonesia. I also wouldn’t think someone would believe Biden’s actions would affect the economies of Japan or other countries since that isn’t the subject of the article here. However, apparently you need that to be spelled out for you since you chose to be so snide in your response. You keep changing your tact, first you said, ‘My bias is to look at global economic matters from a global perspective but this isn’t a page about the global economy,’ this is a page about the current President of the United States and his actions and policies. I can point to a Forbes article, considered a WP:RSP https://www.forbes.com/sites/adammillsap/2022/08/10/inflation-still-high-and-bidens-policies-are-not-helping/ as a starting point. Foreign Policy magazine also has an article on it although I’m not seeing that on WP:RSP for some reason https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/11/15/fuel-inflation-oil-gas-energy-transition-climate-change-biden/ so, I didn’t feel the need to come here to engage in some detailed debate over it as much as call out that the article was not written with N:POV and got some insults from you for my observation. 71.190.233.44 (talk) 01:47, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
- "THIS country"? This is a global encyclopaedia. Which country? It's OK. I can guess. It's only American editors that think and write that way. Can you can identify specific actions of Biden's that good sources tell us made things worse in the USA than elsewhere in the world? HiLo48 (talk) 21:48, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
- The idea you want to treat the inflation data specific to this country, excusing it away by calling it a global problem, independent of the specific economic policies implemented by each country’s leadership shows you are not embracing the idea of Misplaced Pages:NPOV. Covid 19 was a global problem as well but we did not excuse any leader’s actions in dealing with the pandemic by saying it was a global problem so your argument is specious to say the least. 71.190.233.44 (talk) 17:19, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
- An editor who blames Joe Biden for global inflation is not here to build a great encyclopaedia. HiLo48 (talk) 22:00, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
- HiLo48, the initial message was misleading, but there is no point in just insulting the editors. The 2021–2022 inflation surge has its own article. Dimadick (talk) 19:30, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
- My bias is to look at global economic matters from a global perspective, not from that of those wanting to score political points inside a country with less than 5% of the world's population. HiLo48 (talk) 05:30, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
- IP, I wouldn't even try to argue with editors who have a clear bias. Unfortunately, it is why this project is so looked down upon. --Malerooster (talk) 01:59, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
- Your comments are insulting, do everyone a favor and reread WP:PA or read it if you haven’t already,as far as nominal wage growth goes I’m not pulling from right wing sources to make a point here Biden's boast about rising wages ignores effect of inflation and the inflation rate has gotten even higher than what is listed in the article. I don’t ‘want’ anything... the article should reflect a WP:NPOV and in that case it means that the numbers on the economy should be presented in a clear light. In an article at the beginning of the year CNBC posted this Despite higher wages, inflation gave the average worker a 2.4% pay cut last year and the inflation numbers have only gotten worse since. I don’t take it upon myself to change the language on the page but I do bring concerns to the talk page and not to be insulted by some editors.71.190.233.44 (talk) 01:48, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
- And that was the core point of my initial response. The OP clearly wants the article to say it is. It would be wrong to do so, and to even ask is pushing ill-informed, standard, right-wing, insular, American, political dogma. HiLo48 (talk) 21:07, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
- I agree that inflation has increased significantly. Whether or not that is Biden's, or Putin's or no one's fault is another issue. TFD (talk) 14:42, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
Approval ratings and unpopularity
A recent edit of mine on his approval ratings and overall dismay for him in the public eye was reverted. The explanation I got was "Maintain WP:NPOV" (keep away from bias). I do not think I was being biased; the edit had a source with the information that I wrote down; I thought it was a necessary edit because that article is trending right now (the article is also from a non-biased news agency); and that article came out today, like a few hours ago. Can I get an explanation? Rexxx7777 (talk) 20:36, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
- I can't see that basing content on what "is trending right now" is a great way to build a quality encyclopaedia. HiLo48 (talk) 02:33, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
- It's not. The accompanying text
With his immensely low approval ratings, Biden is unpopular in the public eye.
isn't a neutral way to describe his current polling numbers either. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:39, 21 October 2022 (UTC)- I guess all I'm saying is news sources are starting to report on Biden's very low polling numbers and overall unpopularity. Don't believe me? look;
- https://www.cnn.com/2022/10/07/politics/biden-unpopular-cnn-poll/index.html
- https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/voters-care-about-joe-biden-s-unpopularity-not-donald-trump/ar-AAQhEWa
- https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/white-house/just-how-unpopular-is-joe-biden
- https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/nov/18/why-are-americans-so-unhappy-with-joe-biden
- https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2022/10/19/politics/biden-nyt-siena-poll-midterms/index.html
- https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/biden-mentally-sharp-state-union-b2025207.html
- https://www.usnews.com/news/the-report/articles/2022-01-21/why-is-joe-biden-so-unpopular
- https://www.foxnews.com/media/focus-group-rejects-biden-running-2024-stuns-msnbc-analyst-quick-wow
- https://www.reuters.com/world/us/biden-approval-stuck-40-dark-sign-democrats-midterms-reutersipsos-2022-10-18/
- https://www.foxnews.com/media/joe-biden-worst-president-will-cain
- https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2022-election/bidens-approval-rating-still-key-issues-new-poll-shows-rcna48973
- https://www.foxnews.com/politics/biden-drops-to-38-approval-in-new-national-poll
- https://www.usnews.com/news/top-news/articles/2022-09-27/biden-approval-edges-up-to-41-reuters-ipsos-finds
- Perhaps is "With his immensely low approval ratings, Biden is considered unpopular by the general public" a better sentence? If not I will be happy to just not press forward with this. Rexxx7777 (talk) 23:53, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
- Sources like Fox News, Washington Examiner, and opinion pieces in general wouldn't be usable for this. Misplaced Pages will most likely want to wait until more authoritative reviews of sources talk about Biden's popularity or unpopularity. It's true that Biden's approval has been slightly net negative for most of his time in office, and it's entirely possible that this will be a defining characterization of his presidency, but you definitely aren't going about it in the right way. Check out WP:10YEARSTEST, WP:RECENTISM, WP:NPOV, WP:RSOPINION, WP:RSP Andre🚐 04:02, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
- Rexxx7777, Trump's approval ratings in 2018 were quite similar to Biden's approval ratings in to 2022. Do you support adding language like
immensely low approval ratings
to Trump’s article as well? Read this. Cullen328 (talk) 04:13, 21 October 2022 (UTC)- I'm guessing that the "immensely" part is a bad addition. So, no, I will accept that since language like that is not appropriate in Biden's article then it should not be used in Trump's. If it was then yes. Is re-writing it as "With his low approval ratings, Biden is considered unpopular by the general public" better? Rexxx7777 (talk) 01:03, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
- Honestly fair enough. Rexxx7777 (talk) 01:05, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
- Rexxx7777, plenty of reliable sources describe the varying approval ratings of all presidents going back to when presidential approval ratings were first developed. But which specific reliable sources state something that can be reliably paraphrased,
Biden is considered unpopular by the general public
. Or, is that synthesis based on your individual reading of the polls? Cullen328 (talk) 05:17, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
- Rexxx7777, plenty of reliable sources describe the varying approval ratings of all presidents going back to when presidential approval ratings were first developed. But which specific reliable sources state something that can be reliably paraphrased,
- Rexxx7777, Trump's approval ratings in 2018 were quite similar to Biden's approval ratings in to 2022. Do you support adding language like
- Sources like Fox News, Washington Examiner, and opinion pieces in general wouldn't be usable for this. Misplaced Pages will most likely want to wait until more authoritative reviews of sources talk about Biden's popularity or unpopularity. It's true that Biden's approval has been slightly net negative for most of his time in office, and it's entirely possible that this will be a defining characterization of his presidency, but you definitely aren't going about it in the right way. Check out WP:10YEARSTEST, WP:RECENTISM, WP:NPOV, WP:RSOPINION, WP:RSP Andre🚐 04:02, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
- It's not. The accompanying text
- And as you can see from some of those, he is still not the most unpopular president ever, and these are all just snapshots. So lets wait till his presidency is over, and we can see what his lasting image is. Slatersteven (talk) 09:54, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
- Something about his approval ratings could go in Joe Biden#Reputation. It should also note his approval ratings as a senator and vice president to be complete and not merely recentism bias. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:44, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
- We would also need a range, showing how it has risen and fallen. Slatersteven (talk) 17:02, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
- Right. As a comparison, I see that Hillary Clinton makes mentions of her approval ratings at a few points in the narrative, noting it as first lady, its peaks during the Lewinsky scandal and as secretary of state, and the "Cultural and political image" section notes her as a "polarizing figure". – Muboshgu (talk) 17:26, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
- Actually, there isn’t any bias - you can go to https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/biden-approval-rating/?ex_cid=rrpromo and compare Biden’s numbers against those of his predecessors going back to Truman, you can track it to an identical point in the Presidency of each of his predecessors even and Biden’s numbers are in fact worse than Trump’s. You can also go to the RCP site to see Biden’s numbers and again these are from a variety of pollsters https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president-biden-job-approval-7320.html71.190.233.44 (talk) 17:16, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
- RCP isn't reliable, and the 538 link shows the opposite. Andre🚐 18:07, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
- As far as I could see in regard to RCP from WP:RSP is ‘There is no consensus as to RealClearPolitics's reliability.’ and that is only insofar as it concerns news. Polling data is accurate and an aggregate of polling being done by reputable pollsters. Five Thirty Eight checked as I am writing this 642 days into the Biden presidency shows Biden’s net approval to be at -11.8 and Trump’s at -9.2 at the same point in his Presidency. So I’m not clear on what you mean by the opposite. 71.190.233.44 (talk) 01:37, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
- RCP is not usable - they have a problematic methodology and cherry-pick. The 538 numbers show that Trump and Biden were roughly at the same point at the same time. I can't exactly tell where the margin of error bars lie (the shaded area in 538' chart) but probably about +-5. Andre🚐 01:44, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
- On 538, if you go down below you can change the parameters for the charts, days in office / 4 years / 8 years and then the slider on each chart displays a comparison with the currnet President. As for RCP, the most current polls displayed are Rasmussen Reports / Reuters / Ipsos / Economist / YouGov / NBC News / Monmouth / Politico / Morning Consult / CNBC / CBS News / Harvard-Harris / Trafalgar Group(R) / NY Times / Siena / FOX News and RCP themselves are not altering data in anyway as you can click through and see the methodology to each poll. They are an aggregator not a pollster themselves and only averaging the information of all the polls listed. I can understand challenging the as a source in regard to material that originates on the site - articles written by them but in the case of polling data there is no such bias. 71.190.233.44 (talk) 01:56, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
- There is, actually. Andre🚐 02:19, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
- When you start pulling out articles from substack to validate your point, I have to question the reliability of your sources. It may make for interesting reading but quick research shows even Nate Silver had a problem with the author of the article and I’m not seeing substack on the list of WP:RSP so as far as rebuttals go, it’s a bit lacking. 71.190.233.44 (talk) 14:07, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
- Nope. The article was written by expert G. Elliott Morris who runs The Economist's polling model and it is an acceptable WP:SELFPUBLISHED article. The NY Mag article serves to further reinforce the point. Substack isn't a media outlet, it's a blog/newsletter platform and this would be an expert self-published article. Andre🚐 15:23, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
- I understand who the author is and again, I also saw where Nate Silver had problems with his methodology and self published doesn’t meet the WP:RSP requirements - substack is not on that list. 71.190.233.44 (talk) 13:42, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
- You are incorrect. As I linked to,
Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications
. Nate Silver's view does not invalidate the fact that Morris has been published as an expert in the Economist, which is a reliable source, and has his own books on the subject, so this would fall under the self-published exception. As mentioned, substack is not an outlet, it's a blog platform. So again, your understanding of the policy at play here is not accurate. Andre🚐 14:04, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
- You are incorrect. As I linked to,
- I understand who the author is and again, I also saw where Nate Silver had problems with his methodology and self published doesn’t meet the WP:RSP requirements - substack is not on that list. 71.190.233.44 (talk) 13:42, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
- Nope. The article was written by expert G. Elliott Morris who runs The Economist's polling model and it is an acceptable WP:SELFPUBLISHED article. The NY Mag article serves to further reinforce the point. Substack isn't a media outlet, it's a blog/newsletter platform and this would be an expert self-published article. Andre🚐 15:23, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
- When you start pulling out articles from substack to validate your point, I have to question the reliability of your sources. It may make for interesting reading but quick research shows even Nate Silver had a problem with the author of the article and I’m not seeing substack on the list of WP:RSP so as far as rebuttals go, it’s a bit lacking. 71.190.233.44 (talk) 14:07, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
- There is, actually. Andre🚐 02:19, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
- On 538, if you go down below you can change the parameters for the charts, days in office / 4 years / 8 years and then the slider on each chart displays a comparison with the currnet President. As for RCP, the most current polls displayed are Rasmussen Reports / Reuters / Ipsos / Economist / YouGov / NBC News / Monmouth / Politico / Morning Consult / CNBC / CBS News / Harvard-Harris / Trafalgar Group(R) / NY Times / Siena / FOX News and RCP themselves are not altering data in anyway as you can click through and see the methodology to each poll. They are an aggregator not a pollster themselves and only averaging the information of all the polls listed. I can understand challenging the as a source in regard to material that originates on the site - articles written by them but in the case of polling data there is no such bias. 71.190.233.44 (talk) 01:56, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
- RCP is not usable - they have a problematic methodology and cherry-pick. The 538 numbers show that Trump and Biden were roughly at the same point at the same time. I can't exactly tell where the margin of error bars lie (the shaded area in 538' chart) but probably about +-5. Andre🚐 01:44, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
- As far as I could see in regard to RCP from WP:RSP is ‘There is no consensus as to RealClearPolitics's reliability.’ and that is only insofar as it concerns news. Polling data is accurate and an aggregate of polling being done by reputable pollsters. Five Thirty Eight checked as I am writing this 642 days into the Biden presidency shows Biden’s net approval to be at -11.8 and Trump’s at -9.2 at the same point in his Presidency. So I’m not clear on what you mean by the opposite. 71.190.233.44 (talk) 01:37, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
- RCP isn't reliable, and the 538 link shows the opposite. Andre🚐 18:07, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
- We would also need a range, showing how it has risen and fallen. Slatersteven (talk) 17:02, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
- Something about his approval ratings could go in Joe Biden#Reputation. It should also note his approval ratings as a senator and vice president to be complete and not merely recentism bias. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:44, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
Grandfather John Finnegan was an All-American football player at Santa Clara University
Joe Biden’s grandfather, John Finnegan, was an All-American football player at Santa Clara University. https://twitter.com/RNCResearch/status/1583159131179225088 "My grandfather Finnegan from Scranton would really be proud of me right now. No, I'm not joking, he would. By the way, he was an All-American football player, John, in Santa Clara." https://en.wikipedia.org/Santa_Clara_Broncos_football 96.250.75.178 (talk) 23:36, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
- Too trivial to mention (his grandfather isn't even mentioned in the article, only that his mother's maiden name was Finnegan) and unconfirmed. -- MelanieN (talk) 02:40, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
- Seems legit though. But it's more of a Family of Joe Biden entry. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:26, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
- Except that there's no mention at that article of a grandfather named John Finnegan. It lists his maternal grandfather as Ambrose Joseph Finnegan. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:51, 24 October 2022 (UTC) P.S. Ambrose Joseph had a son named John, who would have been Joe Biden's uncle; maybe he got confused on the names. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:54, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
- MelanieN, when Biden said "John", he was not saying that his grandfather's name was John. He was speaking in a conversational way to John Fetterman at a campaign rally in Pennsylvania. Cullen328 (talk) 18:24, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks, Cullen, that makes sense. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:09, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
- I have expanded the section about Ambrose Joseph Finnegan in Family of Joe Biden. Cullen328 (talk) 19:06, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
- MelanieN, when Biden said "John", he was not saying that his grandfather's name was John. He was speaking in a conversational way to John Fetterman at a campaign rally in Pennsylvania. Cullen328 (talk) 18:24, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
- Except that there's no mention at that article of a grandfather named John Finnegan. It lists his maternal grandfather as Ambrose Joseph Finnegan. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:51, 24 October 2022 (UTC) P.S. Ambrose Joseph had a son named John, who would have been Joe Biden's uncle; maybe he got confused on the names. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:54, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
- Seems legit though. But it's more of a Family of Joe Biden entry. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:26, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
- It cannot be verified, and based on Biden's memory is probably a false claim. TFD (talk) 18:41, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
- Your fact check does cast doubt on "All American". However, there is evidence, including in the grandfather's 1957 obituary (when Biden was only 15, long before he became presidential or even senatorial material), that he was a star athlete and obtained national recognition. "All American" looks to me like an innocent overstatement of a basically true fact. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:20, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages articles that use American English
- Delisted good articles
- Former good article nominees
- Biography articles of living people
- All unassessed articles
- 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
- 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 Presidents articles
- Top-importance United States Presidents articles
- WikiProject United States Presidents articles
- B-Class United States Government articles
- Top-importance United States Government articles
- WikiProject United States Government articles
- WikiProject United States 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