Jump to content

Talk:Joe Biden

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good articleJoe Biden was one of the Social sciences and society good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
In the news Article milestones
DateProcessResult
September 18, 2008Good article nomineeNot listed
September 19, 2008Good article nomineeListed
April 22, 2020Good article reassessmentDelisted
June 28, 2020Good article reassessmentDelisted
October 4, 2020Good article nomineeNot listed
In the news A news item involving this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "In the news" column on August 23, 2008.
Current status: Delisted good article

    Current consensus

    [edit]

    NOTE: It is recommended to link to this list in your edit summary when reverting, as:
    [[Talk:Joe Biden#Current consensus|current consensus]] item [n]
    To ensure you are viewing the current list, you may wish to purge this page.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    siblings in the children section

    [edit]

    in the info box table there is a line for biden's children but it lists his siblings in it randomly can't fix this as it's locked. please fix 173.206.111.217 (talk) 03:01, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I've removed the list. Thanks for bringing this up. Aoi (青い) (talk) 03:08, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Lead length

    [edit]

    The lead is now much too long - it should be re-reduced to a more appropriate length. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:52, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Yeah, I agree. too much detail makes it beyond appropriate and might be too long for readers. 🗽Freedoxm🗽(talk • contribs) 06:49, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    The lead is appropriately long due to Biden's 55-year political career. It made sense to compress Biden's 38-year Senate career when he was running for reelection, but now that he is a one-term president it should be expanded again from where it was in 2024. --Plumber (talk) 04:13, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    That argument makes no sense - there's no reason to go back to 2010 just because he's not running for reelection. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:44, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    There is no reason to include the Build Back Better Act in the lead since it failed, so I trimmed it following your suggestions. But then you put it back without any explanation, while claiming to be trimming the article. What you are actually doing is reverting edits made in good faith without a real explanation. If there are parts of the Senate career in the lead you think should be removed, why not bring them up here? --Plumber (talk) 06:20, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    When your initial edit was reverted, why did you not come here to propose what you thought should be added? That is what the tag at the top of this page requires you to do. What you have done instead does not seem in good faith. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:05, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a talk page about Joe Biden, not us. I created a compromise edit following your suggestions and am still wondering what other editors think of it. --Plumber (talk) 18:36, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It appears above that another editor agreed with me that your proposal was overly long. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:57, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep. 🗽Freedoxm🗽(talk • contribs) 01:59, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    The lead should definitely mention Biden's time as Senate chairs. It should probably not mention Build Back Better since that failed. --Plumber (talk) 19:13, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Polling aggregators

    [edit]

    Why not report the percentage of reliable polling aggregators in the lead? For a general picture, it's not correct to report only and exclusively the evaluation from an academic point of view. JacktheBrown (talk) 18:59, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Generally speaking, giving too much weight to polling aggregators directly runs into WP:OR / WP:SYNTH issues. Especially when dealing with a high-profile subject like this, it's better to cite them via secondary sources; if a polling average is significant there will be significant amounts of secondary coverage discussing it. If there isn't, it definitely does not belong in the lead, and I'd generally oppose putting it in the body as well - lots of secondary sources discuss the polling here; if we pluck out data-points or numbers ourselves, there's a huge risk of us creating a narrative out of them ourselves, even if we don't intend to do so. Better to rely on secondary coverage, which we can rely on to outright say what the numbers mean and when they're significant. --Aquillion (talk) 10:01, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    2020 presidential campaign section - indications of one-term "bridge" candidacy

    [edit]

    Has this been discussed here before? There's some conflicting RS reports on this, so I'm wondering if a sentence about this "indication" may be DUE for the 2020 presidential campaign section.

    Politico: Biden signals to aides that he would serve only a single term "While the option of making a public pledge remains available, Biden has for now settled on an alternative strategy: quietly indicating that he will almost certainly not run for a second term while declining to make a promise that he and his advisers fear could turn him into a lame duck and sap him of his political capital."

    Axios: How Biden went from “bridge” candidate to two-term hopeful "President Biden's insistence on staying in the 2024 race has seemingly defied his own pledge to serve as a transitional president to a younger generation of Democratic leaders."

    NYT: Joe Biden Weighing Unique Steps to Reassure Voters Concerned About His Age "Also under discussion is a possible pledge to serve only one term and framing Mr. Biden’s 2020 campaign as a one-time rescue mission for a beleaguered country, according to multiple party officials....But Mr. Biden is uneasy with the prospect of pledging up front not to seek re-election, believing that it would make him a lame-duck president before he even takes office and cripple his ability to get anything done, according to some of his aides."

    NYT: Why Biden’s Choice of Running Mate Has Momentous Implications "And Mr. Biden himself has increasingly pushed into the political foreground the overwhelming reason that his choice may be the most consequential in decades: the expectation, downplayed but not exactly denied by the Biden campaign, that the 77-year-old would be a one-term president."

    NPR: Biden Says He Expects To Run For A 2nd Term "There had been speculation in 2019 that Biden would serve only one term because of his age. He would turn 82 in 2024."

    The Atlantic: Will Biden’s Presidency Be One-and-Done? "But Biden is a unique case. Wittingly or not, he gave rise to the prospect of bowing out after four years when he described himself during the 2020 campaign as a “bridge” to a younger generation of political leaders"

    The Atlantic: So Much for Biden the Bridge President "Look, I view myself as a bridge, not as anything else,” Biden said at a rally in Detroit, one of his last pre-lockdown campaign appearances of the 2020 Democratic primaries....Few paid much attention to the future president’s remarks at the time. They appeared consistent with a prevailing assumption about his campaign: that Biden was running as an emergency-stopgap option. And once the emergency—Donald Trump—was dealt with, the old pro was expected to make way for that “entire generation.”"

    The Hill: Biden indicates he would only serve one term as president: report "Former Vice President Joe Biden has reportedly signaled that he would only serve one term in the White House if elected in 2020 as the top-tier Democratic candidate faces questions about his age."

    Business Insider 2019 "Biden, 77, who has said he's "not sure" he'd even be running if Trump wasn't president, has reportedly signaled to campaign aides he would only serve one term, according to a recent Politico report. Last Wednesday, in response to the report, the former vice president publicly denied any plans to only serve one term if elected."

    Cheers. DN (talk) 09:00, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Vice presidency of Joe Biden

    [edit]

    One editor put a tag claiming this article is too long. Nearly every section of the article already has a page aside from a possible Vice presidency of Joe Biden. Since there was already a page for the Vice presidency of Al Gore, creating a Biden one was simple --Plumber (talk) 03:59, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Joe_Biden&oldid=1282292847"