No edit summary Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
Novemberjazz (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 578: | Line 578: | ||
::{{green|Readers don't care what year a picture was taken.}} Some readers may not, others may. The caption is there for people who do care, and those who don't can simply ignore it. <b style="font:1.3em/1em Trebuchet MS;letter-spacing:-0.07em">[[User:nagualdesign|<b style="color:#000">nagual</b>]][[User talk:nagualdesign|<b style="color:#ABAB9D">design</b>]]</b> 05:16, 31 January 2021 (UTC) |
::{{green|Readers don't care what year a picture was taken.}} Some readers may not, others may. The caption is there for people who do care, and those who don't can simply ignore it. <b style="font:1.3em/1em Trebuchet MS;letter-spacing:-0.07em">[[User:nagualdesign|<b style="color:#000">nagual</b>]][[User talk:nagualdesign|<b style="color:#ABAB9D">design</b>]]</b> 05:16, 31 January 2021 (UTC) |
||
::{{u|KidAd}}, I can understand the distraction/clutter argument, but I find the rest of your statement rather odd for an encyclopedia. If readers already "know who Joe Biden is" and "know what he looks like", then why have a photo of him at all? Why have an encyclopedia entry? We can't write a biography based on the assumption that readers already know the subject's biographical information. Wikipedia articles are read around the world by people with varying levels of existing knowledge. Things that seem obvious to the writer may not be obvious to many readers; see [[WP:OBVIOUS]]. ― [[User:Tartan357|<span style="color:#990000">'''''Tartan357'''''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Tartan357|<span style="color:#224434">'''Talk'''</span>]]</sup> 05:21, 31 January 2021 (UTC) |
::{{u|KidAd}}, I can understand the distraction/clutter argument, but I find the rest of your statement rather odd for an encyclopedia. If readers already "know who Joe Biden is" and "know what he looks like", then why have a photo of him at all? Why have an encyclopedia entry? We can't write a biography based on the assumption that readers already know the subject's biographical information. Wikipedia articles are read around the world by people with varying levels of existing knowledge. Things that seem obvious to the writer may not be obvious to many readers; see [[WP:OBVIOUS]]. ― [[User:Tartan357|<span style="color:#990000">'''''Tartan357'''''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Tartan357|<span style="color:#224434">'''Talk'''</span>]]</sup> 05:21, 31 January 2021 (UTC) |
||
:::{{tq|Infoboxes normally display the page name as the title of the infobox. If nothing more than the page name needs to be said about the image, then the caption should be omitted as being redundant with the title of the infobox}}. As for {{tq|then why have a photo of him at all? Why have an encyclopedia entry?}}, this line of [[WP:WIKILAWYERING]] appears to be too advanced for me. [[User:KidAd|<span style="background-color: orange; color: black">KidAd</span>]] [[User talk:KidAd|<span style="color: orange">talk</span>]] 07:02, 31 January 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Yes''' it should say "Official portrait, 2013". Biden has visibly aged since then and it's relevant for the reader to know the age of the photo. [[User:Iamreallygoodatcheckers|Iamreallygoodatcheckers]] ([[User talk:Iamreallygoodatcheckers|talk]]) 04:10, 31 January 2021 (UTC) |
*'''Yes''' it should say "Official portrait, 2013". Biden has visibly aged since then and it's relevant for the reader to know the age of the photo. [[User:Iamreallygoodatcheckers|Iamreallygoodatcheckers]] ([[User talk:Iamreallygoodatcheckers|talk]]) 04:10, 31 January 2021 (UTC) |
||
*'''Yes''' per above, for multiple reasons. (1.) The photo was taken 8 years ago, (2.) Consistency with many other pages, (3.) It's an official ''vice presidential'' portrait and it's helpful to clarify that it's not a portrait of him as president (like it is for every other U.S. president's page). <small>[[User:Paintspot|Paintspot Infez]] ([[User talk:Paintspot|talk]])</small> 04:29, 31 January 2021 (UTC) |
*'''Yes''' per above, for multiple reasons. (1.) The photo was taken 8 years ago, (2.) Consistency with many other pages, (3.) It's an official ''vice presidential'' portrait and it's helpful to clarify that it's not a portrait of him as president (like it is for every other U.S. president's page). <small>[[User:Paintspot|Paintspot Infez]] ([[User talk:Paintspot|talk]])</small> 04:29, 31 January 2021 (UTC) |
Revision as of 07:02, 31 January 2021
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 is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Other talk page banners | |
Temporary suspension of WP:1RR rule
In order to give regular editors the leeway they need to deal with an increase in unhelpful "drive-by" edits, I am temporarily suspending the one-revert rule that has been on this article. The "24-hour BRD" rule still applies. Here's what this means:
- Every editor may now make up to 3 reverts per day per WP:3RR. BUT...
- You may not make the same edit or revert more than once per day per the BRD rule, and after your first time making that edit or revert, you must discuss it on the talk page and wait 24 hours before attempting that edit again.
Put another way, reverts are linked to content. You can revert up to 3 different edits per day, but you can't add or remove the same content more than once per day.
Again, the purpose of this is to allow regular/experienced/content editors to deal with legitimately unhelpful or POV edits. It's not to give people more leeway in edit warring over content disputes that are under discussion or to engage in "tag-team edit warring" where editors take turns reverting the same content over and over. If I see that going on I will start blocking people's accounts, starting with the editors who are reverting against the status quo ante, those reverting against emerging consensus on the talk page, and those who are not using helpful WP:Edit summaries that clearly describe what they're doing and why they're doing it. ~Awilley (talk) 02:09, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Discussion of the above
- Point of Order: BRD is not a rule. "The BOLD, revert, discuss cycle (BRD) is an optional method of reaching consensus. This process is not mandated by Wikipedia policy..." (my emphasis) 86.140.67.152 (talk) 08:48, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
- It is not mandated by policy, but it is mandated by the discretionary sanctions on this page. To prevent disruption on pages relating to contemporary American politics, any administrator may place any reasonable restriction on pages to ensure compliance with our policies and guidelines. One common restriction is to enforce BRD. Editors who are aware of the sanction and do not comply may be banned or blocked at administrator discretion. For more information see Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Page restrictions. — Wug·a·po·des 09:33, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
- When something like this is done (a) it really needs to be stated in the post the source of the authority to do it (i.e. DS) -- I for one don't edit much in DS areas so I was completely puzzled; and (b) it's not clear to me that you don't need to issue new DS alerts to editors individually -- how is someone supposed to know the rules have suddenly changed, unless they happen on this thread? EEng 11:31, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
- @EEng Worth noting that the DS alerts do not specify any page-specific sanctions, or mention any pages the editor has been editing. So, if I give you a DS alert right now, it won't mention the BRD (nor the 1RR), nor that I'm alerting you due to Joe Biden. So even a new alert doesn't help. It's a crappy system of alerting. FWIW the BRD has been in place (along with 1RR) since November 2019; Awilley just relaxed the 1RR requirement, which maybe makes it a little better. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:42, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
- Sorry about that, the Discretionary Sanctions bit and link to the relevant Arbcom page are in the template I modified at the top of the talk page. On notifications, I wish there were a better way to do it. There's the template at the top of the talk page and the edit notice whenever you edit the article itself. Since this was a relaxing of restrictions I figured a post on the talkpage would be sufficient to get the attention of the regular editors I was targeting. For the other restriction, typically how things works is that people will "welcome" newcomers to the article with the standard notification template, which I hate. Then if someone runs afoul of the sanctions they usually get a couple of people on their talk page explaining the sanction and asking them to self-revert. It's when they refuse to self-revert that things typically escalate to administrators. ~Awilley (talk) 16:31, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
- @EEng Worth noting that the DS alerts do not specify any page-specific sanctions, or mention any pages the editor has been editing. So, if I give you a DS alert right now, it won't mention the BRD (nor the 1RR), nor that I'm alerting you due to Joe Biden. So even a new alert doesn't help. It's a crappy system of alerting. FWIW the BRD has been in place (along with 1RR) since November 2019; Awilley just relaxed the 1RR requirement, which maybe makes it a little better. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:42, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
- When something like this is done (a) it really needs to be stated in the post the source of the authority to do it (i.e. DS) -- I for one don't edit much in DS areas so I was completely puzzled; and (b) it's not clear to me that you don't need to issue new DS alerts to editors individually -- how is someone supposed to know the rules have suddenly changed, unless they happen on this thread? EEng 11:31, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
- It is not mandated by policy, but it is mandated by the discretionary sanctions on this page. To prevent disruption on pages relating to contemporary American politics, any administrator may place any reasonable restriction on pages to ensure compliance with our policies and guidelines. One common restriction is to enforce BRD. Editors who are aware of the sanction and do not comply may be banned or blocked at administrator discretion. For more information see Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Page restrictions. — Wug·a·po·des 09:33, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
- Comment On the contrary of the loosening of restrictions, I think this article needs to be subject to WP:0RR, until next January. Given the contested nature of the election and ongoing lawsuits, short-term, continuous vandalism is almost guaranteed and should be adjusted for accordingly. -- Sleyece (talk) 03:44, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
Preemptive agreement over use of official portrait
Just to work out the formalities, similar to presidents before him, when Biden has his official presidential portrait release this will be the one we will use for his article henceforth. Of course this is seemingly unnnessecary I understand, but I know how anything related to presidents can be jumbled with alternative takes, so I'd rather build consensus now to prevent anything in the future. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 11:44, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
- Support use of official presidential photographic portrait for use in infobox of article SecretName101 (talk) 18:16, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
- Comment - Just so if folks are wondering. The current official portrait, is Biden's vice presidential portrait. GoodDay (talk) 18:22, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
- Support, and thanks for starting this discussion. Herbfur (Eric, He/Him) (talk) 18:05, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
- other images
RogerNiceEyes (talk) 17:41, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
- Support, his prez official portrait belong there, after he takes office :) GoodDay (talk) 18:55, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
- Support Makes sense to me. ~ HAL333 05:49, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
- Support Official presidential portrait will be fine. Current photo is almost 8 years old, and should definitely be changed soon. Felix558 (talk) 10:07, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
- Support Official presidential portrait is the obvious choice. OnAcademyStreet (talk) 04:32, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Biden - the oldest first-term U.S. president
I added today (at the end of the introduction) the fact that Biden is the oldest first-term president in U.S. history, and I also added one reference for that. One editor just removed this from the article, because he think this is "idiocy" and "trivia". However, that same fact stands in the introduction of article about Donald Trump. I think consistency should be one of our main goals here. Do you think we should also remove this fact from the article about Trump, or we should add this fact again to the article about Biden? Felix558 (talk) 03:48, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
- As I told F558 on my talk page, this fact belongs in the article somewhere; the idiocy consists in thinking it belongs in the already-very-overburdened lead. We've had this discussion several times, as we have on shoehorning into the lead that he's the first president from Delaware, third ambidextrous president, second VP to become president after a being out of office for a time, and other factoids from the kaleidoscope of combinatoric presidential trivia. Each article stands on its own, and "this other article has it" is about as close to useless an argument as there is. If the inconsistency bothers F558, he should see what he can do about removing it from the lead of the Trump article as well. EEng 03:56, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
- The fact that at 79 years, 2 mouths Biden is the oldest person to assume the office of President is definitely relevant, and belongs in the lede. It is far from idiocy and trivia. Vinny Gambino (talk) 11:56, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
- To take it a step further, the lede for the Trump Presidency article prominently mentions his false statements. Shouldn't the lede for Biden mention that he continues to make terrible gaffes? Vinny Gambino (talk) 11:56, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
- The fact that at 79 years, 2 mouths Biden is the oldest person to assume the office of President is definitely relevant, and belongs in the lede. It is far from idiocy and trivia. Vinny Gambino (talk) 11:56, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Current Occupations
Currently states politician only. Isn't Biden also an Attorney? Advocating for change of "...Biden Jr. is an American politician who is the..." to "...Biden Jr. is an American politician and attorney who is the..." to better reflect his background and occupation.50.75.4.146 (talk) 19:09, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
- Is he currently serving as an attorney in any capacity? --OuroborosCobra (talk) 19:55, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
- I don't believe Biden has practiced law in a very long time, and if he has it's certainly not of notability, particularly to be in the lead. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 07:53, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:23, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
- Should we at least temporarily remove this image from the article in the time for this discussion to end, to avoid any copyright problems?Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 03:14, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
RfC on the infobox length
Should the infobox be shortened? Previously discussed at #Infobox and #Infobox too long. 13:50, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
- Shorten, because the purpose of an infobox is "allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance". Jesse Helms, Chuck Grassley, Dianne Feinstein, Strom Thurmond, Orrin Hatch, Henry R. Folsom and Francis R. Swift are never mentioned in the text and can by no stretch of imagination be described as "key facts" regarding Joe Biden. The present length of the infobox is also affecting the layout of the article, with images appearing in wrong sections. Senate chairmanships and county council role do not need to be in the infobox at all, in my opinion, but removing at least predecessor and successor names of these numerous fields will alleviate some of the layout issues. Surtsicna (talk) 13:50, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
- Collapse where required within the infobox. That way you shorten the infobox, without losing any of its content. GoodDay (talk) 15:17, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
- Collapse per GoodDay. Thanoscar21talkcontributions 15:47, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
- For the third time,
Collapsing won't work. Minerva (the mobile theme on Wikipedia) does not allow collapsing, so it will be automatically expanded. And the mobile experience is where this is a bigger problem, because the infobox is shown right after the first paragraph of the lead in series, rather than in parallel as on desktop. You can verify by visiting the article on a mobile device. The info has to be trimmed - collapsing won't suffice.
Shorten: My suggestion is to implement Special:Permalink/1002249120. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:51, 23 January 2021 (UTC) - Shorten by removing past offices. But do the same for others, like George H. W. Bush who has a similarly long list. Having a separate officesbox or something like that later in the article would make more sense. But maybe this requires some work, and a more centralized RFC, rather than just doing Biden's differently. Dicklyon (talk) 23:32, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
- Shorten The infobox is far too long. It ruins the beginning of the article, sandwiching all of the images and messing up the format. But do not collapse - that would violate MOS:PRECOLLAPSE. ~ HAL333 02:27, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
- Shorten by removing Senate chairmanships/positions and narcotics commission. They add unnecessary length ~to a long infobox and do not significantly enlighten the reader. In contrast, the Delaware county council post should be kept - both his first office and his last before becoming a Senator, making the infobox a clearly laid out path of offices to his current position. Ganesha811 (talk) 05:02, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
- Do not shorten Plenty of other politicians have similarly long infoboxes. Even if it was shortened, the long table of contents means that the distance needed to scroll to reach non-lead content wouldn't change. There is no good reason to shorten the infobox. 🌳QuercusOak🍂 09:22, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
- And plenty of others should be shortened too. The less information an infobox contains, the more useful it is (WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE). That and the layout problem are good reasons to shorten the infobox. The table of contents does not appear on mobile devices, which is where scrolling to get to the first sentence is most tedious. Surtsicna (talk) 23:28, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
- Shorten I completely agree with the user's comment. I raised the same suggestion a few months back. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 12:13, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
- Shorten The infobox is definitely far too long. Felix558 (talk) 14:04, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
- Do not shorten per QuercusOak. Biden has been in politics a while, it's not unprecedented to have long inboxes.Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 20:51, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
- Do not shorten Wikipedia is not running out of room the last time I checked. KidAd talk 21:06, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
- But infoboxes are supposed to be as concise as possible. Surtsicna (talk) 23:29, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
- Biden just has a lot of notable things about him. Idk what we could remove. Maybe him being on the county commission could be removed, but it would kinda bug to know every other office was on there and it wasn't. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 01:29, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
- But infoboxes are supposed to be as concise as possible. Surtsicna (talk) 23:29, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
- Shorten – an infobox is suppose to be a summary of content of the individual, not a long list of every single position he held and fact about him. Collapsing just causes loading errors so I think shortening it is a better solution. cookie monster (2020) 755 04:37, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
- Shorten The only offices he held that deserve to be on there are Senator, Vice-President and President. The other offices are crufty. Mottezen (talk) 06:03, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
- Do not shorten per WP:NOTPAPER, second choice collapse key infomation is important to include in the infobox. Regards Spy-cicle💥 Talk? 17:45, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
- Spy-cicle💥 , how are all these names key information if they are not mentioned in the text at all? Surtsicna (talk) 17:59, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
- The article is in need of a rewrite. Instead of trying to remove the name from the infobox as they do not appear in prose, rewrite the article well enough so it can incoporate more of these names. Not every single name is required but I'm mostly concerned General office dates as opposed to preceded or succeded him parameters. Spy-cicle💥 Talk? 18:10, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
- NOTPAPER is totally missing the point (it doesn’t even apply to this). Let’s just make the Infobox so long it touches the footer? Let’s make the whole article part of the lead? Why not? NOTPAPER. Absurd. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:02, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
- False equivalence. Not sure what else meaningful, other than a caption, you could that would be essential to have in his infobox. Spy-cicle💥 Talk? 18:10, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
- I’d argue his DOB, his main notable full offices, his kids, are important things to have. This is an editorial decision to be decided on a per-page basis, all explained in MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE. Hey, if you want to argue a city council position from decades ago meets INFOBOXPURPOSE and is an important summary for the Infobox, be my guest. I think it’s false, but you can make your argument. But NOTPAPER is obviously invalid, not least because NOTPAPER mainly applies to deletion of articles (and thus content) entirely, rather than editorial decisions on presentation, but also because your argument directly implies there should be no limit to Infobox length (which is highly problematic for reasons above, mobile editors, and the fact that insanely long length makes the Infobox stop being an Infobox). There’s a difference between being just an argument I disagree with, or a bad argument altogether, and applying NOTPAPER here falls into the latter. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:16, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
- You've continued down the line of False equivalence so I won't be responding, I suggest you stop bludgeonning the process. Spy-cicle💥 Talk? 19:41, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
- It’s a discussion. This is the only thread I’ve replied to in this section outside my own, and only because this argument is invalid. I hope you’re not suggesting that editors are confined to only the threads they start in discussions. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:47, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
- You've continued down the line of False equivalence so I won't be responding, I suggest you stop bludgeonning the process. Spy-cicle💥 Talk? 19:41, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
- I’d argue his DOB, his main notable full offices, his kids, are important things to have. This is an editorial decision to be decided on a per-page basis, all explained in MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE. Hey, if you want to argue a city council position from decades ago meets INFOBOXPURPOSE and is an important summary for the Infobox, be my guest. I think it’s false, but you can make your argument. But NOTPAPER is obviously invalid, not least because NOTPAPER mainly applies to deletion of articles (and thus content) entirely, rather than editorial decisions on presentation, but also because your argument directly implies there should be no limit to Infobox length (which is highly problematic for reasons above, mobile editors, and the fact that insanely long length makes the Infobox stop being an Infobox). There’s a difference between being just an argument I disagree with, or a bad argument altogether, and applying NOTPAPER here falls into the latter. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:16, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
- False equivalence. Not sure what else meaningful, other than a caption, you could that would be essential to have in his infobox. Spy-cicle💥 Talk? 18:10, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
- Spy-cicle💥 , how are all these names key information if they are not mentioned in the text at all? Surtsicna (talk) 17:59, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Definitely don’t shorten; if you did that, you’d have to do that for every single senator and every single representative; those Committee Chairmanships are important and they don’t take up that much space SRD625 (talk) 18:29, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
- We would not have to do anything else but indeed we should remove clutter from a lot of articles. Not everything needs to go into an infobox. Surtsicna (talk) 20:37, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Caption for Biden's official portrait
Since all other previous presidents up to Nixon have a caption below their official photo (the caption is always "Official portrait, XXXX", with XXXX being the year when the photo is taken), is there a consensus to include such caption below Biden's portrait? Felix558 (talk) 18:20, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
- I disagree with doing something just because it is done elsewhere. In this instance, the subject is the incumbent president, so the photograph can be assumed to be recent. Surtsicna (talk) 18:25, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
- It seems to me you just gave one more reason to add caption. For me, the photo which is 8 years old is not recent, so the reader will have a wrong impression without caption. Felix558 (talk) 18:46, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
- The caption is distracting and unnecessary. Readers know who Joe Biden is. Readers know what he looks like. Readers don't care what year a picture was taken. KidAd talk 20:03, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
- If you are right, than it's strange why the captions for all other previous presidents up to Nixon have not been removed. Since all those articles have captions, and those captions are the same, it seems to me this has been accepted as a convention. Felix558 (talk) 20:12, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
- Sounds like a variation of WP:OTHERSTUFF. I don't care about other pages. KidAd talk 20:14, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
- Could someone fix the caption? A Swedish user changed it and the English doesn't make sense, and it's called "Inauguration Day" not "Installation Day". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.7.255.227 (talk) 21:56, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
- For what it's worth I'm not a fan of the "Official portrait, [year]" captions as they are not particularly descriptive and I think add unnecessary clutter. It doesn't seem necessary to distinguish there what is "official" or not, just that we are using the best available (quality and composition wise) lead image to identify the subject. Connormah (talk) 18:20, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
- Could someone fix the caption? A Swedish user changed it and the English doesn't make sense, and it's called "Inauguration Day" not "Installation Day". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.7.255.227 (talk) 21:56, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
- Sounds like a variation of WP:OTHERSTUFF. I don't care about other pages. KidAd talk 20:14, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
- If you are right, than it's strange why the captions for all other previous presidents up to Nixon have not been removed. Since all those articles have captions, and those captions are the same, it seems to me this has been accepted as a convention. Felix558 (talk) 20:12, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
- The caption is distracting and unnecessary. Readers know who Joe Biden is. Readers know what he looks like. Readers don't care what year a picture was taken. KidAd talk 20:03, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
- It seems to me you just gave one more reason to add caption. For me, the photo which is 8 years old is not recent, so the reader will have a wrong impression without caption. Felix558 (talk) 18:46, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
- Yes add a caption something along the lines of "Official portrait, 2013". Especially important to include as the photo is (as of yet) not the official presidental portrait instead his VP one from 2013 thus not that recent. Regards Spy-cicle💥 Talk? 17:47, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
- Speedy restore There was a caption until recently. It should never have been removed without consensus for the reasons cited above. Alex (talk) 23:23, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Is the current photo Biden's official portrait?
On the white house website there is a page that lists every president with their official portrait but the Biden one is just a placeholder image from when he was Pres-Elect https://www.whitehouse.gov/about-the-white-house/presidents/ . And I can't find any place where it lists the current photo at the top of the wiki page as the "offical potrait" of Biden. Righanred (talk) 20:13, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
- The image they are using there is captioned "at an event in Jackson, MS", suggesting it's from his campaign, not his term. In that case, I would suggest his staff simply haven't updated it. Besides, if another, definitively "official" one surfaces, we can use that. In the interim, I believe this serves the same visual job as the official portraits we use for the previous 45 presidents (smiling chest-up shot with flag in background), and it's better than the one from 7 years ago taken while he was serving in a different position. (Full disclosure, I was the one added the new portrait a few minutes ago.) Wodgester (talk) 20:22, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
- I agree. While we wait for the new official portrait, this current photo is more appropriate than old photo from 2013. Felix558 (talk) 20:28, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
- Indeed. In addition, User:KidAd rightfully removed my caption within the infobox of "Official portrait, 2021". He takes issue with the year being unnecessary, which I agree with, and it solves the official-ness problem as well. Wodgester (talk) 20:32, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
- I agree. While we wait for the new official portrait, this current photo is more appropriate than old photo from 2013. Felix558 (talk) 20:28, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
- Doesn’t seem to be his official portrait. It’s suboptimal imo - shows his face from an angle, not from the front, for example. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:15, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
It always takes a while for the White House to come up with an official portrait. In the case of Trump I think it was close to a year! (And you should have seen the hideous, scowling picture they supplied us within the meantime!) In the interim I think the current pic (also from the White House) is excellent. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:17, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
- Imo the 2013 pic was better than this. If we want some White House pic, we could at least wait for them to put out something usable. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:03, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
- The new photo has good quality, but evidently is not an official portrait. The 2013 photograph is best because it was prepared (comes from a photo shoot) and is official since then. For a politician of his position, we must have in higher consideration the official photographs. I think that the use of this new photograph exemplifies the blind urgency that some users have for "most recent photographs" above things like quality and officialization. Frodar (talk) 23:49, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
- I favor using this recent public domain photo posted on whitehouse.gov on January 20, 2021 as opposed to a photo that is eight years old. It may not be the best possible photo, but I am sure that a truly official photo will be provided by the White House in short order. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:55, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
- NGL I dislike the new photo, he has such an awkward facial expression and isn't facing forward. Besides, I don't believe it's noticeable which photo is newer/older.Nojus R (talk) 04:41, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
- The new photo has good quality, but evidently is not an official portrait. The 2013 photograph is best because it was prepared (comes from a photo shoot) and is official since then. For a politician of his position, we must have in higher consideration the official photographs. I think that the use of this new photograph exemplifies the blind urgency that some users have for "most recent photographs" above things like quality and officialization. Frodar (talk) 23:49, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
- Restore 2013 photo per Nojus R. This new one is of pretty poor quality. ― Tartan357 Talk 06:25, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
- Restore 2013 photo. This new one isn't his official portrait, and it was probably captured with a smartphone or something. Thanoscar21talkcontributions 15:42, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
- Restore 2013 photo this is not official and check the link:
- https://www.flickr.com/photos/bidenforpresident/albums/72157715591266406
the new image is not even 2021... 2013 is better Hoseina051311 (talk) 15:47, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
- Wow, I checked the link, that actually make the current image unacceptable for Commons. If the photo is from the campaign for Presidency in August 2020, it is not "a work prepared by an officer or employee of the United States Government as part of that person’s official duties". If I'm right,
- Restore 2013 photo immediately and nominate for deletion the new one in Commons. Frodar (talk) 17:18, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
- If the picture is from that Flickr account, it would be a CC 2.0 license, not public domain. We can't assume a picture is in public domain because it's in a federal govt website (I believe there was a similar issue lately with the Jon Ossoff article). I would agree to restore the 2013 photo as well, and leave it as that until a new official portrait is released. NO MORE HEROES ⚘ TALK 17:24, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
- The picture is not found in that Flickr album that Hoseina051311 cites, but the point is the picture definitely is from that same event in August 2020 that the album covers. August 2020 is way before Biden took office and before we can say the photograph comes from "an employee of the Executive Office of the President of the United States, taken or made as part of that person's official duties" as the file license in Commons says. Frodar (talk) 17:37, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
- I think it's safe to say that the said photo is free. The White House copyright notice reads "except where otherwise noted, third-party content on this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License". The CC-BY 3.0 license is allowed on Commons (the CC-BY-NC-SA license, the one on the Flickr account, is not allowed). Ahmadtalk 20:49, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
- An official portrait has not been released. Restore the 2013 photo. cookie monster (2020) 755 04:35, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
RFC at WP:POLITICS, concerning succession boxes
Take a peak here, concerning non-office succession boxes, in bios. GoodDay (talk) 02:32, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
RFC on oldest president in lead
Should the statement that Biden is the oldest US President be included in the lead section? Mottezen (talk) 07:15, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Yes/No
The previous discussion was going off the rails.
Ping:User:Pyroshark1, User:Mr Ernie, User:Mottezen, User:Eccekevin, User:HAL333, User:Felix558, User:GoodDay, User:Sir Joseph, User:ValarianB User:EEng, User:ProcrastinatingReader, User:Levivich, User:Sir Joseph, User:RedHotPear
- Yes Because this is a historical record. In 240 years, never has a president been this old, and this one is just getting started. During his whole presidency, no previous president would have had the same age as him. Such unlikely occurrence deserve to be included in the lead section. Mottezen (talk) 07:22, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
- Yes because it's frequently mentioned by the media. ― Tartan357 Talk 07:28, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, as a neutral and noteworthy fact consistent with other articles on previous oldest presidents. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 08:45, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, his age is frequently brought up. During the campaign, a common concern was whether he was too old to run. Regardless of whether or not this is true, mentioning that he is the oldest president is perfectly neutral. 🌳QuercusOak🍂 09:17, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
- Yes just as including a statement about the youngest president in the lede for the Teddy Roosevelt article is apposite.--Goldsztajn (talk) 10:17, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
- Yes It's a historically important fact which unless I'm mistaken has been included on previous presidential biography articles. Basil the Bat Lord (talk) 11:18, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
- No It is pointless trivia.Slatersteven (talk) 11:21, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
- Yes He is the oldest sitting president in U.S. history - that is a noteworthy fact which should be in the lead. His age is frequently brought up in the media. And it's common practice on Wikipedia to include record breaking stuff in the lead. Felix558 (talk) 13:38, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
- Yes - The fact that he's older upon taking office, then the previous record holder (Reagan) was upon leaving office, is quite significant. Also, he'll be past 82 by the end of his current term (Jan 20, 2025) & past 86 at the end of a possible second term (Jan 20, 2029). These facts, potentially can change Harris' status. GoodDay (talk) 14:06, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
- No. His lead has a scarcity of space and there's a lot of important content that is competing for space in the lead. This tidbit is not important enough. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:08, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
- Yes It’s a fact that is constantly brought up. Sure, it’s not the absolute most interesting piece of trivia ever, but it’s something. Biden was older at assuming office than even Reagan was when the latter ended his two-term presidency. It’s a simple fact that can be summed up in one sentence, therefore not taking up so much space. GreenFlash411 — Preceding undated comment added 19:27, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
- Yes. This is a major reason why many people think that he'll be a one-term president. Thanoscar21talkcontributions 23:10, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
- Yes per above. ~ HAL333 19:24, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
- No Pointless trivia. He is also the only president born in 1942. Who cares? KidAd talk 19:32, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
- Yes. Ronald Reagan's lead, for example, notes that he was "was the oldest first-term U.S. president, a distinction he held until 2017"; Theodore Roosevelt's mentions that he was "the youngest person to become President of the United States". Both of these have significant achievements, so it's not like either page is just padding out the lead with trivia there. --Bangalamania (talk) 20:03, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
- No - It's already mentioned in the last paragraph of introduction. It really is just meaningless trivia. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 23:46, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, a significant fact repeatedly discussed by high-quality reliable sources, and many similar facts ("first president who...") have been included after much discussion at other presidents' articles. We have a list of U.S. presidents by age, showing long-term interest in the topic (albeit the list is woefully undersourced at the moment). — Bilorv (talk) 00:27, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
- Yes It's a noteworthy objective fact. Comatmebro (talk) 06:21, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
- Yes Important and vital infomation about this record breaking oldest president that is also shown to be important by ample coverage by reliable sources. Spy-cicle💥 Talk? 17:43, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
- Yes SRD625 (talk) 18:24, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
- Yes in the 250 year history of the US, there has never been an older president. As Teddy Roosevelt was notable for being the youngest, so is Biden notable for being the oldest. Eccekevin (talk) 22:27, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
- comment Also, not only he's oldest, but by quite a margin/ Just look at this graph: Presidential ages at inauguration, United States he is the lone data point on the far right on the graph.Eccekevin (talk) 22:34, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
- Yes It's received a lot of attention and may be all he is remembered for. TFD (talk) 22:48, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
- comment I'd say it's one of two things he may be remembered for, the other being how he ends up handling the COVID pandemic. GreenFlash411 12:48 January 27 2021 (UTC)
- Yes it is noteworthy and deserves to be in the lead Anon0098 (talk) 01:31, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
- Yes - It is one of the most frequently mentioned information about Biden, both in American media and in worldwide coverage. It was also an important point of concern during the election campaign. As mentioned before, the lead on Theodore Roosevelt states that he was the youngest ever American president, so why wouldn't Biden's mention that he was the oldest? PraiseVivec (talk) 13:15, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
- No -pointless trivia. --Khajidha (talk) 14:06, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
- Yes People who try to derail this as "pointless trivia" do not really understand American politics, where the age of presidential candidates has been an issue in presidential elections since Ronald Reagan's election at age 69. It isn't just being old, candidates youth has also been an issue, e.g. Reagan's famous "I am not going to exploit, for political purposes, my opponent’s youth, and inexperience" line, and much was made of Obama's relatively young age in 2008, and also JFK in 1960. We also dealt with questions of Hillary's age and health in 08 and again in 16. It is the height of notability to mention that Biden is the oldest elected president. ValarianB (talk) 16:40, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
- The thing is, people are living longer and staying more vital longer now. It's quite possible that Reagan was effectively older at 69 in 1981 than Biden is today at 78. While it can go in the article, it isn't at the level of importance to be in the lead. --Khajidha (talk) 16:48, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
- You're grasping at straws. That makes absolutely no sense Anon0098 (talk) 23:44, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
- I can see what Khajidha is TRYING to say, but....no. The biggest problem is that it’s not like we’re not talking about the 18th or 19th Centuries here. The average life expectancy in 1980, when Reagan was elected, was 73.7 years. Now it’s 78.9 years. That’s not a drastic increase. And even then, when the life expectancy circa the 1800s was around the 40s, many Presidents had already exceeded that point by the time they were elected President, and it’s too complicated to be worth mentioning. So no. Reagan was not ‘effectively older’ when he was elected President than Biden. He was younger. — GreenFlash411 7:32 29 January 29 2021 (UTC)
- The thing is, people are living longer and staying more vital longer now. It's quite possible that Reagan was effectively older at 69 in 1981 than Biden is today at 78. While it can go in the article, it isn't at the level of importance to be in the lead. --Khajidha (talk) 16:48, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
- Absolutely Yes in the lead. This is one of the very first facts mentioned about him in all reporting. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:17, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
- Yes - It's a historical note that's frequently mentioned by RS. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:43, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
- Yes It is noteworthy and covered by reliable sources. Some1 (talk) 02:10, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
- Yes Considering that it is regarded as a historical-record, (and seems to be covered by many sources), hence I think this is better to mention it in short. Ali Ahwazi (talk) 15:02, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
Post-vice presidency, has not ended
Folks, this is getting quite FRUSTRATING now. An editor @QuestFour: keeps insisting on using Post-vice presidency (2017–2021) as a section heading, which is in error. Even though Biden is now president, his post-vice presidency continues. He's president of the US, indeed. But he's also still a former vice president. GoodDay (talk) 10:42, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
- I agree, it doesn't sound logical that his Post-vice presidency period has ended in 2021. That period will continue, he will remain a former vice president. I think this section heading should be changed. Felix558 (talk) 13:56, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
- I changed it to Out of office from 2017 to 2021. GoodDay (talk) 22:49, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
- "Out of office (2017–2021)" works imo. Popcornfud (talk) 22:32, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
- I changed it to Out of office from 2017 to 2021. GoodDay (talk) 22:49, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Trying to explain to some folks that "Post-vice presidency (2017–2021)" as a section header, makes no sense, is like hammering jello to the wall. People, while Biden is president of the United States, he's also still a former vice president. GoodDay (talk) 21:05, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
- Maybe Between Vice-Presidency and Presidency?Eccekevin (talk) 22:28, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
- GoodDay, agreed, it doesn't work. Popcornfud (talk) 22:31, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Future of the Lead
Just at a glance, it's apparent to me that at some point the lead is going to need to be significantly condensed in order to make way for a greater focus on his presidency. Maybe not now (since he just became president and has several years to go) but eventually all of his pre-presidency activities, which currently take up about 80% of the lead, will need to be condensed into a smaller footprint. One potential model is George H.W. Bush's article (since he had a similar public service record to Biden). His lead is structured like this:
- Paragraph 1: Statement of Fact/Intro
- Paragraph 2: Early life through vice presidency.
- Paragraph 3: Presidency
- Paragraph 4: Post-presidency
Just wanted to bring this up to kick start discussion. Basil the Bat Lord (talk) 11:23, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
- Basil the Bat Lord, agreed, I think a number of folks have noticed the same issue. Still, not much we can do right now. George H.W. Bush is a great model to look at - there are other US politicians we can also examine to see how we did there.
- I think this will happen somewhat organically, too, one RfC at a time over the next couple years. Ganesha811 (talk) 13:56, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
- Agreed, given some time, this article will eventually improve. Thanoscar21talkcontributions 18:25, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Pipeline
The Joe Biden cancelling of the KEYSTONE pipeline seems to be very significant. I think a sentence or two about it should be put in the Presidency section, including critiques and praises of the cancelling of the pipeline. (More than 10,000 union workers lost their jobs, but environmentalists are saying it will be better for the environment.) NorfolkIsland123 (talk) 14:51, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
- I agree, that decision should be mentioned in the Presidency section, with a summary of critiques and praises. Felix558 (talk) 15:44, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
- It is extremely significant. I'm going to add it. Thanoscar21talkcontributions 15:50, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
- Definitely significant, needed to be added, thanks. MaximusEditor (talk) 22:37, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Starting section/subsection on mental acuity and gaffes
Biden's mental acuity has been widely covered in reliable independent sources. Should we consider adding this? I was thinking maybe under his sexual assault allegation. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 21:07, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
- Are they reliable sources, however? --21:09, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
- Yes they are reliable, and has been covered. Fox News, CNN, etc. all have articles about his mental acuity and health. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 21:15, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
- Perhaps I should be a little more clear. Are the sources of these accusations reliable? I can find a great many articles in similar sources to what you provided claiming that Trump has any number of mental health conditions, but this isn't mentioned in Donald Trump because the mere coverage of these accusations doesn't make them notable or the sources of them reliable. WP:BLP. This is an issue that causes any number of policy problems, from avoiding gossip, our libel policies, and more. Many of the accusations made against Biden's mental health (and Trump's, for that matter) are being made by people who are either entirely unqualified in the mental health field or who have not made anything close to needed examinations to come to any conclusion, and are violating American Psychiatric Association ethics rules by publishing such claims. It doesn't matter if Fox and CNN both cover the claims of people in no position to be making such claims (that'd be "gossip"). Some of your sources here aren't even that good, and are opinion columns or editorial pieces that aren't even attempting to be real journalism on the issue. Take the Chicago Sun Times article, for example. None of these present any real, professional question of his mental health. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 21:43, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
- The accusations are total BS, and should be treated just as seriously by us as the allegations of Trump's mental decline: avoidance. It's a smear attempt that does not comport with BLP. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:16, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
- Right, I don't see any mention of, "person, woman, man, camera, TV" on Trump's page, and neither should this, either. Thanoscar21talkcontributions 23:06, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
- We're not going to flat out say that he is cognitively declining, because we don't know that and the authors of these articles have no expertise in mental health. Trump having a mental health issue or whatever never was really notable for him, it wasn't seriously talked about that's why it's not in the article. These accusations of mental decline may be BS, so could the accusations of sexual assault. With that said, his gaffes and stumbles while speaking have led to mass speculation of mental decline, that is notable of at least mentioning. There is one sentence in this article that even mentions gaffes, that is not due weight. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 00:38, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
- Iamreallygoodatcheckers,
Trump having a mental health issue or whatever never was really notable for him, it wasn't seriously talked about
.... do you not remember the person woman man camera TV episode"? That was about Trump taking the Montreal Cognitive Assessment due to his supposed mental decline. Also, try to Google Trump + "narcissistic personality disorder" or Trump + "antisocial personality disorder". The point is that Trump's mental acuity was talked about a lot, and we didn't delve into it because of BLP concerns that the press doesn't follow. Trump's sexual assault allegations, on the other hand, are verifiable. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:59, 25 January 2021 (UTC)- Muboshgu Biden's gaffes are well verifiable and have been extensively covered in the media. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 01:02, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
- Iamreallygoodatcheckers, and? Attributing them to mental acuity is a huge problem. We should follow the Goldwater Rule. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:10, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
- Muboshgu I'm saying we should have a subsection regarding his well documented gaffes and mishaps. Discuss that and how it has led to speculation regarding his mental acuity. We can do that in neutral respectful manner. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 01:20, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
- No, we can't. There is no "respectful manner" to say gaffes *might* represent cognitive decline. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:27, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
- Ok maybe that can be discussed further later, but should we add a subsection on his gaffes and mishaps? Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 01:31, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
- No, we can't. There is no "respectful manner" to say gaffes *might* represent cognitive decline. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:27, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
- Muboshgu I'm saying we should have a subsection regarding his well documented gaffes and mishaps. Discuss that and how it has led to speculation regarding his mental acuity. We can do that in neutral respectful manner. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 01:20, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
- Iamreallygoodatcheckers, and? Attributing them to mental acuity is a huge problem. We should follow the Goldwater Rule. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:10, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
- Muboshgu Biden's gaffes are well verifiable and have been extensively covered in the media. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 01:02, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
- Iamreallygoodatcheckers,
- We're not going to flat out say that he is cognitively declining, because we don't know that and the authors of these articles have no expertise in mental health. Trump having a mental health issue or whatever never was really notable for him, it wasn't seriously talked about that's why it's not in the article. These accusations of mental decline may be BS, so could the accusations of sexual assault. With that said, his gaffes and stumbles while speaking have led to mass speculation of mental decline, that is notable of at least mentioning. There is one sentence in this article that even mentions gaffes, that is not due weight. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 00:38, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
- Right, I don't see any mention of, "person, woman, man, camera, TV" on Trump's page, and neither should this, either. Thanoscar21talkcontributions 23:06, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
- The accusations are total BS, and should be treated just as seriously by us as the allegations of Trump's mental decline: avoidance. It's a smear attempt that does not comport with BLP. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:16, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
- Perhaps I should be a little more clear. Are the sources of these accusations reliable? I can find a great many articles in similar sources to what you provided claiming that Trump has any number of mental health conditions, but this isn't mentioned in Donald Trump because the mere coverage of these accusations doesn't make them notable or the sources of them reliable. WP:BLP. This is an issue that causes any number of policy problems, from avoiding gossip, our libel policies, and more. Many of the accusations made against Biden's mental health (and Trump's, for that matter) are being made by people who are either entirely unqualified in the mental health field or who have not made anything close to needed examinations to come to any conclusion, and are violating American Psychiatric Association ethics rules by publishing such claims. It doesn't matter if Fox and CNN both cover the claims of people in no position to be making such claims (that'd be "gossip"). Some of your sources here aren't even that good, and are opinion columns or editorial pieces that aren't even attempting to be real journalism on the issue. Take the Chicago Sun Times article, for example. None of these present any real, professional question of his mental health. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 21:43, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
- A good compromise may be to have a sub section entitled "gaffes" and talk about the well documented gaffes and mishaps he's had throughout his life and campaign, and mention speculation of mental decline there. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 00:54, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
- That's not a good compromise at all, it doesn't belong in the article more than similar "speculation" belongs in Trump's article, especially with the sources you've brought up - Aoidh (talk) 00:56, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
- Biden's gaffes are not speculation. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 01:04, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
- Attributing them to "mental decline" absolutely is. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:09, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
- Attributing them to "mental decline" pure speculation, especially given the lack of a mental health diagnosis. Biden actually does have a speech impediment, that being a stutter he has struggled with his entire life. There's no reason for us to attribute the verbal gaffes to his stutter in article, but here, I'll say that Occam's razor supports the idea that his speech related gaffes are more likely related to a known speech impediment than an unknown mental illness. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 01:36, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
- I agree we should add his speech impediment under the section, since it's a likely cause. However, I think we should just mainly talk about how he has been a gaffe machine is whole life. I don't think a speech impediment can explain all his gaffes. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 03:29, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
- If he's been a "gaffe machine his whole life" then you have just discounted attributing it to a mental health decline, and this entire conversation is moot. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 15:56, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
- I agree we should add his speech impediment under the section, since it's a likely cause. However, I think we should just mainly talk about how he has been a gaffe machine is whole life. I don't think a speech impediment can explain all his gaffes. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 03:29, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
- Attributing them to "mental decline" pure speculation, especially given the lack of a mental health diagnosis. Biden actually does have a speech impediment, that being a stutter he has struggled with his entire life. There's no reason for us to attribute the verbal gaffes to his stutter in article, but here, I'll say that Occam's razor supports the idea that his speech related gaffes are more likely related to a known speech impediment than an unknown mental illness. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 01:36, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
- Attributing them to "mental decline" absolutely is. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:09, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
- Biden's gaffes are not speculation. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 01:04, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
- That's not a good compromise at all, it doesn't belong in the article more than similar "speculation" belongs in Trump's article, especially with the sources you've brought up - Aoidh (talk) 00:56, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
- For 4 years, it was claimed that Trump was nuts. Now it's claimed that Biden is senile. Perhaps we should wait & see, if Harris & the cabinet invoke Section 4 of the 25th amendment. GoodDay (talk) 01:30, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
- Why not?, we have a specially made article for Bush named Bushism and I think it's notable enough to be included. "Mental decline" isn't really appropriate, I suggest a less offensive term like "speech impediment" (dementia seems like a politically motivated term so I don't think that fits). PyroFloe (talk) 04:08, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
His gaffes were so numerous, and they are so extensively covered in (both pro-Democrat and pro-Republican) media, that it would be strange (and biased) if we ignore all that in this article. We should describe that without attributing it to "mental decline" (because there is no proof for that), but we should mention there was some speculation in the media about "mental decline". Felix558 (talk) 05:36, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
- Felix558 I completely agree with you. His gaffes are so notable that it would be biased to not mention them, probably borderline NPOV violation. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 23:44, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
- For some reason, the word "gaffe" has long been associated with Biden and not with the previous president. Perhaps the word "gaffe" is inadequate and far too gentle to describe well over five years of vicious bullying, rampant ignorance, pathological lying and deranged narcissism, in the pursuit and "performance" of the presidency. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:03, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Proposal
What are you all's thoughts on adding this subsection:
Throughout Biden's political career, he has been prone to speech mistakes, commonly known as gaffes. In 2018, Biden described himself as a "gaffe machine".[1] He has also stated that his speech mistakes should not be taken seriously and haven't been about a "substantive issue". Since his childhood, Biden has suffered from a speech impediment and stutter, which has been credit by some as the cause of his frequent speech mistakes.[2]
Some of Bidens speech mistakes have been characterized as racially charged.[3] During his 2020 campaign, Biden stated black voters who vote for Trump "ain't black", Biden later apologized for the comment.[4] Biden's speech mistakes have included inaccurate or fabricated historical events, including personal stories.[5][6]
During his 2020 campaign, Biden's speech mistakes along with his advancing age led to unsubstantiated, politically motivated speculation of Biden's mental wellness.[7][8]Biden has stated that he has not taken a cognitive test; however, a recent medical report stated that he is a "healthy, vigorous, 77-year-old male, who is fit to successfully execute the duties of the Presidency".[9][10][11]
- Thank you for your effort, I think this can serve as a very good base for the subsection about this topic. I would make one change in the last sentence: "reports" should be changed into "report", because as far as I can see the reference you provided mentions only one report (the one made by Dr. Kevin O’Connor, Biden’s primary physician). Felix558 (talk) 01:14, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you, I corrected the last sentence. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 01:36, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
- This is a little too lengthy and detailed imo, but a sentence could be added on to the bit about his stuttering. One major issue you have is that those aren't reliable sources. ~ HAL333 01:16, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
- Which sources are you concerned about? Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 01:36, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
- Washington Examiner, Fox News, the opinion peice from Detroit, etc. ~ HAL333 02:12, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
- The way in which the sources are being utilized is in accordance with WP:RSP. Fox News (other than talk shows) isn't considered non-credible, and it's context is to show that the media speculates about Biden's mental fitness. The Washington Examiner hasn't officially been declared non-credible, but I'll replace it with a source collaborating the same information. The Detroit News is a one of the largest news paper in Detroit, it's credibility hasn't been disputed so we can trust the quotes put forth by Biden in the source, and it's opinion is important for context that some of Bidens gaffes have been considered racially charged. However, I'll go ahead and add another source thats been verified by WP:RSP confirming the claim, just for safe measure.Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 03:46, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
- Washington Examiner, Fox News, the opinion peice from Detroit, etc. ~ HAL333 02:12, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you, I corrected the last sentence. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 01:36, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
- I suspect you might have trouble getting that write-up into the article. Currently, many mainstream sources (like CNN, MSNBC news, etc) have been reluctant to put President Biden in a bad light. GoodDay (talk) 02:17, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
- Most of these sources on gaffes are ok, but the sources on dementia and cognitive decline are unreliable. Biden (like almost all politiains) has made gaffes from when he started politics, so since he was young. They are not necessarily a sign of Dementia like FoxNews or conservative outlets claim. The Washington Free Beacon is a conservative outlet (and it is not reliable, see here). Rasmusses Reports is a conservative pollster, hence they have a bias towards wanting to inflate claims that Biden is demented. The Examiner is also a heavily conservative outlet. So most of these sources are unusable.Eccekevin (talk) 22:24, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
- So far there hasn't been a whole lot of opposition. There are sources discussing this issue on Biden from across the political spectrum. We will be sure to stay in accordance with NPOV. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 03:28, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
- This has only been here for a few hours: do not rush such a huge edit onto the page. I told you that I see talk of cognitive decline as unacceptable and so have a lot others. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:03, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
- The proposal says the claims are "unsubstantiated". What do you think it should say? In my opinion "possible mental decline" beats the hell out of dementia or something worse. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 05:06, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
- For one thing the sources you're citing are largely trash, hardly citations to base content on. Secondly, during Obama's time as president there were plenty of articles criticizing him for his use of dijon mustard, yet oddly that's not in his article; this "gaffe" thing has the same amount of coverage; why should this get more undue coverage than that? I don't see similar content on Trump's article and his misspeaking and mistakes, though goodness knows there's plenty of coverage for that as well. "Possibly mental decline" is a hell of a claim that would require very significant and clear sources, not these trash "we're just asking questions on our opinion piece" articles that are being offered up as sources. - Aoidh (talk) 05:23, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
- What sources do you have a problem with? I would certainly say this "gaffe thing" and misspeaks have extremely substantial coverage, at least on par with Trumps false statements, birtherism, bushism, which there are whole articles about. I really don't remember dijon mustard being a staple talking point for well over a year for Obama, like this has for Biden. Bidens blunders have been a staple of his entire career, they more than enough significant coverage in all sources. Literally, 30%+ of American[12]s acknowledge that they believe it's a problem, but apparently its the end of the world with we so much has say that there are "unsubstantiated claims of cognitive decline". If you have a problem with that terminology lets discuss it. It's absolutely and completely preposterous to have no more than one sentence about this tucked away in his senate career. This was talked about in the democratic primaries, in the general election, and still is being talked about today. I'm not claiming that Biden is mentally declining, I'm saying that the media is. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 05:37, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
- My guess is, bringing anything perceived as 'negative' into this bio article. Will be under heavy scrutiny. GoodDay (talk) 05:46, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
- I think your guess is right lol. However, I'm having a hard time seeing how saying there are "unsubstantiated claims of mental decline" is even negative. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 06:35, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
- Because it is literally just rumor mongering. "Well, I don't have any proof, but everybody says he's a bit loopy". --Khajidha (talk) 16:10, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
- Khajidha Your absolutely right. Thats why were calling the accusations "unsubstantiated, politically motivated speculation of mental wellness". This proposal in no way is saying that Biden has a cognitive issue. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 00:51, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
- Because it is literally just rumor mongering. "Well, I don't have any proof, but everybody says he's a bit loopy". --Khajidha (talk) 16:10, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
- I think your guess is right lol. However, I'm having a hard time seeing how saying there are "unsubstantiated claims of mental decline" is even negative. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 06:35, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
- My guess is, bringing anything perceived as 'negative' into this bio article. Will be under heavy scrutiny. GoodDay (talk) 05:46, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose addition of this contentious material until there is clearcut consensus to add something (not this specifically) to the article. A conversation dying down a bit is not consensus. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:12, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
- Can you please clarify if your opposing the adding this to the article entirely, or if you just oppose till there is further consensus. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 05:16, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
- I oppose this contentious language because I believe that it violates WP:BLP by implying and inferring a medical condition, and hints that Biden is a racist based on a handful of off-the-cuff remarks. The one time remark about Obama is an especially egregious example of undue weight, when Biden was later selected by Obama to be his vice president and served eight years. That's big time cherry picking. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:31, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
- It's fair that you see undue weight with the Obama comment. I would be fine with removing that. Also, we are not implying that he has a medical condition, we are simply saying that the media has made unsubstantiated claims of him having a mental problem. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 05:40, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
- The reason it says that the comments were racially charged, this in reference to the "you ain't black" thing, is because a green check marked source (CNBC, which is NBC) under WP:RSP, says they were criticized for being racist.Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 06:21, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
- I oppose this contentious language because I believe that it violates WP:BLP by implying and inferring a medical condition, and hints that Biden is a racist based on a handful of off-the-cuff remarks. The one time remark about Obama is an especially egregious example of undue weight, when Biden was later selected by Obama to be his vice president and served eight years. That's big time cherry picking. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:31, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
- Support; I don’t see any of this stuff as being offensive but adding more reliable sources and dropping the opinion articles is probably a good idea SRD625 (talk) 18:10, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
- SRD625, your concerns have been addressed. If have any other suggestions about the proposal, I would be more than welcome to address them. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 00:56, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose , clearly politically motivated. A line about his gaffes could be included, but a whole section is clearly just meant to attack him politically. All presidents and politicians are prone to gaffes, why single out him? Also, let's please not pretend that Rasmussen Reports accurately convey the opinions of people. They are a legitimate pollster, but a right-wing one and one with its own biases and willingness to propagate the Biden has dementia' motif for political reasons. They are considered Trump's favorite pollster because of how favorably they have portrayed him.[13][14][15][16][17] Hence, if Rasmussen is included, their bias has to made clear to the reader. I specifically oppose the inclusion of Rasmussen Reports data. Additionally, I oppose the politically-charged language of "Biden refused to take a cognitive test'. This was political theatre, with Trump attacking him on Twitter and accusing him of not wanting to take this test, which has never been done for Presidents.[18][19] There's no precedent for Biden or any President taking such test, and it was just done as propaganda during the campaign. It seems politically-motivated to phrase it as he is refusing to do it. Eccekevin (talk) 22:09, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
- Eccekevin I would like for you to review the updated proposal. I have tried my best to address your issues. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 00:49, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose Everything about this "proposal" is unusable. WP:TNT and walk away. KidAd talk 22:15, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose At the end of the day, we have a proposal here that is motivated by an attempt to include highly biased and not reliably sourced content regarding Biden's mental health. It's been repackaged as "let's just mention the gaffes, and this one public opinion poll about mental health," but at the end of the day, as this very topic name states, this is because those gaffes have been used by certain political groups to try and paint Biden as having declining mental health. It wasn't when Obama got the number of states wrong that one time, and it isn't here for Biden, especially given the admittance that he's had some gaffes for most of his political career. What's next, text about how often he uses words like "malarkey"? --OuroborosCobra (talk) 00:19, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
- OuroborosCobra I would like for you to review the updated proposal. Every reference is verified under WP:RSP. I have tried to make the language as neutral in nature as possible. I am not politically motivated, if I was I wouldn't have said that the claims were unsubstantiated. Bidens gaffes, in the same way as Bushism, have received substantial media coverage. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 00:47, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
- All right, I have tried my very best to address every complaint. Every reference, is a full verified source under WP:RSP. I would like for everyone to take a look at the updated proposal. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 00:42, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose. It's just not worthy of a subsection. Mostly, because of WP:RECENTISM. Individual sentences (such as the 'you ain't black' or the dementia accusation) can be added to various sections such as the 2020 Campaign, but it makes no sense to tied them all up in a section.Eccekevin (talk) 01:13, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
- Eccekevin I could see an argument for WP:RECENTISM for the "you ain't black" comment, but his gaffes have been going on for decades, and for some reason have been extensively covered. Particularly, during the 2020 campaign which is where this subsection is being proposed for placement. I would disagree with saying the dementia accusation is recentism because it was such a large talking point throughout the campaign, even if it does fall under WP:RECENTISM, it's still being placed in a section dedicated to the last 3 years, and the accusation is definitely notable for his campaign in the last year or so. Imo the sexual assault allegation is just as much recentism as the dementia allegation, and it gets a whole subsection, as well as independent page. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 01:23, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
- Exactly, so it should have its own subsection in Joe Biden 2020 presidential campaign, not on Joe Biden. the sexual allegation also should not have a subsection, but that's an unrelated discussion.Eccekevin (talk) 02:29, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
- Well thats an interesting opinion to hold. However, you opinion is not rooted in precedent of Wikipedia. We have included Biden's sexual assault allegation here, we have Trump's sexual assault allegation in his article. Precedent is to keep these types of notable events in main articles, the gaffe situation is similar in and nature and really isn't even recentism since it's been going on for a long time. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 02:42, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
- Wikipedia works by consensus, not precedent (although it can be informative). What happens on the Trump pages isn't law for the Biden page. The consensus on the sexual allegations page has no bearing here. The questions is, is there consensus to dedicate a whole subsection to these gaffes? Biden's gaffes are already described on the page, more or less in chronological order and in the Reputation subsection. I see no need to create a whole new section, it seems contentious and politically motivated. Eccekevin (talk) 02:48, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
- Well thats an interesting opinion to hold. However, you opinion is not rooted in precedent of Wikipedia. We have included Biden's sexual assault allegation here, we have Trump's sexual assault allegation in his article. Precedent is to keep these types of notable events in main articles, the gaffe situation is similar in and nature and really isn't even recentism since it's been going on for a long time. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 02:42, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
- Exactly, so it should have its own subsection in Joe Biden 2020 presidential campaign, not on Joe Biden. the sexual allegation also should not have a subsection, but that's an unrelated discussion.Eccekevin (talk) 02:29, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
- Eccekevin I could see an argument for WP:RECENTISM for the "you ain't black" comment, but his gaffes have been going on for decades, and for some reason have been extensively covered. Particularly, during the 2020 campaign which is where this subsection is being proposed for placement. I would disagree with saying the dementia accusation is recentism because it was such a large talking point throughout the campaign, even if it does fall under WP:RECENTISM, it's still being placed in a section dedicated to the last 3 years, and the accusation is definitely notable for his campaign in the last year or so. Imo the sexual assault allegation is just as much recentism as the dementia allegation, and it gets a whole subsection, as well as independent page. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 01:23, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose. It's just not worthy of a subsection. Mostly, because of WP:RECENTISM. Individual sentences (such as the 'you ain't black' or the dementia accusation) can be added to various sections such as the 2020 Campaign, but it makes no sense to tied them all up in a section.Eccekevin (talk) 01:13, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Iamreallygoodatcheckers, it is neither necessary nor wise for you to respond to everyone who comments here. You've made your proposal and there is no need for further comments unless someone asks you a question. Please read Wikipedia:Don't bludgeon the process and heed that excellent advice. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:55, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks you, Cullen328. I was just trying to ensure we reach a consensus, I wasn't aware of the guideline. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 03:03, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
References
- ^ "'I am a gaffe machine': a history of Joe Biden's biggest blunders". the Guardian. 25 April 2019. Retrieved 26 January 2021.
- ^ Somvichian-Clausen, Austa (22 November 2019). "Are Joe Biden's gaffes related to a lifelong stuttering problem?". TheHill. Retrieved 26 January 2021.
- ^ "Biden risks alienating young Black voters after race remarks". AP NEWS. 8 August 2020. Retrieved 27 January 2021.
- ^ Wilkie, Christina (22 May 2020). "Biden tells African American radio host: 'You ain't black' if you have trouble deciding between Trump and me". CNBC. Retrieved 26 January 2021.
- ^ Viser, Matt; Jaffe, Greg. "As he campaigns for president, Joe Biden tells a moving but false war story". Washington Post. Retrieved 27 January 2021.
- ^ September 23, THE ASSOCIATED PRESS. "Biden makes FDR gaffe during CBS interview". Newsday. Retrieved 26 January 2021.
{{cite web}}
: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link) - ^ "Opinion: You need to stop saying Joe Biden has dementia". The Independent. 12 March 2020. Retrieved 26 January 2021.
- ^ Harris, John F. "2020 Becomes the Dementia Campaign". POLITICO. Retrieved 27 January 2021.
- ^ "Biden says he hasn't taken a cognitive test: "Why the hell would I take a test?"". www.cbsnews.com. Retrieved 26 January 2021.
- ^ Sotomayor, Marianna; UTC, Mike Memoli405d ago / 9:24 PM. "Joe Biden releases medical assessment, described as 'healthy, vigorous'". NBC News. Retrieved 26 January 2021.
{{cite web}}
: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link) - ^ "Joe Biden: 'Why the hell would I take a cognitive test?'". BBC News. Retrieved 27 January 2021.
- ^ Sheffield, Matthew (10 September 2018). "Pollster: Rasmussen Research has a pro-GOP bias". TheHill. Retrieved 26 January 2021.
- ^ "Trump's favorite poll shows him narrowly losing presidency one day before election". Newsweek. 2 November 2020. Retrieved 26 January 2021.
- ^ "Trump's favorite poll shows him narrowly losing presidency one day before election". Newsweek. 2 November 2020. Retrieved 26 January 2021.
- ^ "Rasmussen Reports on Axios". Axios. Retrieved 26 January 2021.
- ^ "Conservative pollster Rasmussen seems to urge Pence to nullify vote". The Independent. 29 December 2020. Retrieved 26 January 2021.
- ^ CNN, By Harry Enten (8 December 2018). "Trump's favorite pollster was the least accurate in the midterms". CNN Digital.
{{cite web}}
:|last1=
has generic name (help) - ^ "Cognitive Test. Trump. Biden. Campaign. Flashpoint". AP NEWS. 23 July 2020. Retrieved 26 January 2021.
- ^ "Joe Biden: 'Why the hell would I take a cognitive test?'". BBC News.
Anyone have any idea why "Articles related to Joe Biden" is displaying as "Template:Navboxes"?
I've been tinkering with it, but can't find the problem. Interestingly enough, if you go to edit the section and then preview it, it displays just fine.
The display problem seems to only happen when you're looking at it from the article, which seems odd. --Woko Sapien (talk) 15:46, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
- This seems to be the edit that upset it, but the edit had nothing to do with the external links section. --Woko Sapien (talk) 15:49, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Okay, I changed the formatting to the Navboxes top and Navboxes bottom alternative. Seems to have fixed things for now. --Woko Sapien (talk) 16:26, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Request for edit - Senate Judiciary Committee - Clarence Thomas hearings
Please change:
After the committee hearing closed, the public learned that Anita Hill, a University of Oklahoma law school professor, had accused Thomas of making unwelcome sexual comments when they had worked together. |
to:
After the committee hearing closed, the public learned that Anita Hill, a University of Oklahoma law school professor, had, in response to questioning by the FBI, alleged that Thomas made sexual comments when they had worked together. |
or similar, as per 20 January 2021 suggestion of IP User 172.58.140.175.
References
- ^ SIEGEL, Joel (25 October 2011). "Clarence Thomas-Anita Hill Supreme Court Confirmation Hearing 'Empowered Women' and Panel Member Arlen Specter Still Amazed by Reactions". ABC News. Retrieved 21 January 2021.
- ^ Gordy, Cynthia (1 November 2011). "Anita Hill on Thomas Hearing: Defending Her Legacy". The Root. web.archive.org. Retrieved 21 January 2021.
- ^ Kennard, Cinny (13 October 2011). "Twenty Years Later: Covering The Anita Hill Story". HuffPost. Retrieved 21 January 2021.
- Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the
{{edit extended-protected}}
template. This is WP:UNDUE detail for this article and is already covered in appropriate detail at the article on the hearings, where it belongs. The proposed change makes the sentence harder to parse and the extra level of detail in how the allegations were brought to the public attention is not needed to describe the impact of the hearings in this article's subject. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:47, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
- Fair enough, and thanks for your reply, {{User:Eggishorn}}. Only a suggestion, as previously discussed here (without there being any objection made to the substance of the requested change, only to the way it was requested).
- I have no skin in the game at all, merely thought that the other IP's suggestion made sense, and might increase the precision of the article. The response up-page to the original requester, was to put it into a formal request,
If you have an edit you would like to be made, please cite reliable sources, and submit an edit request on this talkpage. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 21:48, 20 January 2021 (UTC) [Emphasis added]
- and no mention was made of needing to form a consensus prior - nor has that been my previous experience of the process, but then, I am fairly new. Although the policy does say, "consensus should be obtained before requesting changes that are likely to be controversial" the contemplated change did not seem the least controversial to me!
- I can see your point about the difficulty of parsing, though, and that the hearings are of secondary importance in this article.180.216.180.68(talk) 00:30, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
Removing "American politician" from lead sentence
This was discussed a bit previously in a couple of places, but got lost. So I'm proposing it again.
I think we should remove "American politician" from the lead sentence, so it becomes: Joseph Robinette Biden Jr. (/ˈbaɪdən/ BY-dən; born November 20, 1942) is the 46th and current president of the United States.
The reason is that, by definition, the president of the USA is 1) American and 2) a politician, so this is redundant.
I understand that we included this in the lead sentences for previous presidents while they were president. I think this was unnecessary in those cases too, and we don't have to blindly follow that example for eternity.
I understand that leads for previous presidents also mention their other jobs/roles/etc. That may make sense in those cases because they're not currently the American president and so it isn't necessarily redundant to say they are/were also politicians. Here it is unnecessary.
I understand that not every reader may know that American presidents are American, and therefore we need to mention Biden's nationality. However, I think this optimises for a seriously narrow subset. Even if we do want to do that, the current solution is inefficient from a copyediting perspective, because it depends on us also mentioning that he's a politician - which is redundant for the president however you slice it. Popcornfud (talk) 19:26, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
- I've no objections to this, if it's applied to all the US presidents & vice presidents bios. GoodDay (talk) 19:29, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
- Well, there's only two of 'em where it would make sense right now. So it wouldn't be a hard job. Popcornfud (talk) 19:34, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose per the reasons I and others laid out at the Kamala Harris discussion. Spy-cicle💥 Talk? 22:36, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose removal per Spy-cicle (etc.) above. Paintspot Infez (talk) 23:02, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose Violates MOS:CONTEXTBIO. KidAd talk 23:05, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
- MOS:CONTEXTBIO requires "the country of which the person is a citizen, national, or permanent resident", which is provided by the words "United States" in the sentence "Joseph Robinette Biden Jr. ... is the 46th and current president of the United States". Levivich harass/hound 00:17, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
Joseph Robinette Biden Jr. ... is the 46th and current president of the United States
only establishesthe activities that made the person notable
per MOS:CONTEXTBIO. KidAd talk 00:56, 29 January 2021 (UTC)- The sentence also establishes
context for the activities that made the person notable. In most modern-day cases, this will be the country of which the person is a citizen, national, or permanent resident...
The words "United States" provide the country of which he is a citizen, national, and permanent resident. Levivich harass/hound 02:21, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
- The sentence also establishes
- MOS:CONTEXTBIO requires "the country of which the person is a citizen, national, or permanent resident", which is provided by the words "United States" in the sentence "Joseph Robinette Biden Jr. ... is the 46th and current president of the United States". Levivich harass/hound 00:17, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose SRD625 (talk) 23:55, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose per KidAd. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 00:59, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
- Support — it's obvious that the president of the US is an American politician; doesn't need to be said twice in the lead. Levivich harass/hound 06:02, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose per Kidad and Spy-circle. Thanoscar21talkcontributions 14:48, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
- Keep it's not that obvious that the president is always a politician, especially a career politician. Was Eisenhower a politician? Was Trump, before becoming president? Is the Secretary of Energy a politician, or just a high level government employee? The Secretary of Energy is a ways down in the United States presidential line of succession but still could conceivably become president without ever doing politics stuff like running for office or getting elected. Nelson Rockefeller and Gerald Ford were both appointed to the post of VPOTUS rather than being elected into it in the 1970s, and Ford actually became president (Rockefeller became his VP). They both had held elected office before becoming VP, but that wasn't a mandatory qualification. So it does seem to me that a non-politician could become president, although maybe becoming president automatically turns them into a politician if they weren't already one. 67.160.203.180 (talk) 07:58, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
- I'll just respond to this one. A president is a politician. It doesn't matter if the president was a politician before becoming president. If you are a president, you are a politician. Popcornfud (talk) 11:30, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
- Support per nom and Levivich. This convention of calling American presidents American politicians is very silly indeed. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 15:54, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose Our standard opening sentence for all BLP articles is to define who/what the person IS. That first-sentence definition includes their nationality (see MOS:OPENPARABIO) and their profession. What position they hold or held can follow, often as a later clause of the same sentence. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:10, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
- I'd like to try and convince you that this line of argument is flawed.
- MOS:OPENPARABIO does not require "American politician". It also does not require nationality or profession. MOS:OPENPARABIO #3 is
Context (location or nationality)
(emphasis on "or", for more see MOS:CONTEXTBIO) and #4 isThe noteworthy position(s) the person held, activities they took part in, or roles they played
(note that the word is position, not profession, and similarly MOS:ROLEBIO refers to "position" and "role", but not "occupation" or "profession"). "Joe Biden is the president of the United States" is 100% compliant with MOS:OPENPARABIO. It provides Biden's location or nationality (United States), and his position (president). - "United States" provides nationality and is actually more specific than "American", which, though commonly used to refer to someone from the US, is a rather US-centric use of the word "American", a word that refers to continents, not a country.
- "Politician" is not a profession. A profession requires specialized training, and one need not receive any education to be a politician.
- "Politician" is not an occupation or job, which requires remuneration. Nobody gets paid to be a politican.
- "President" is an occupation. One gets paid to be President. POTUS is an employee of the federal government. If you ask someone what they do for a living, they say "I'm president" or "I'm governor" or "I'm senator", etc., not "I'm a politician currently serving as president".
- All in all, "Joe Biden is the president of the United States" complies with MOS:OPENPARABIO better than "is an American politician", because "American politician" doesn't really state his position or role (or occupation or profession), and it's a little vague on the nationality. Levivich harass/hound 00:15, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
- A profession can refer to simply An occupation or career.
- I would like to reiterate a point Fowler&fowler made on the Harris talk page. You're assuming that general readers are know that this American office holder is an American citizen with no other citizenship. That is not the case in numerous countries George Papandreou, a former Greek PM, was Greek and American. Mark Carney former Governor of the Bank of England (their Federal Reserve) was a Canadian with dual British nationality. Going back further, Benjamin Franklin, a founding father, and head of the postal service, had dual British and American citizenship.
- I do not really get your reasoning here politians like senators, presidents, etc get paid. Politians here is a generalisation since he's been a senator, VP, now president so summarises it well that just one office he's held as he's had a long decades spanning political career.
- Again poltician is an encompassing term not really sure I get your point here. If I were a senator if asked I could just easily reply "Senior Senator from New York" or simply "Politican".
- Not really sure what else to add here as these points summarise the previous points. Spy-cicle💥 Talk? 01:07, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
- I did not use the word "citizen" and I'm making no such assumption. "American" doesn't mean "US citizen". There are tens of millions of Americans who are not US citizens. Citizenship has nothing to do with this lead discussion; it's a red herring. What I'm saying is that, sure as people know the Queen of England is English (which doesn't mean a citizen of the UK), people know the president of the United States is American. "Elizabeth II is a English monarch who is the current Queen of England" is as redundant as "Joe Biden is an American politician who is the current president of the United States". Levivich harass/hound 02:17, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
- What you seem to be suggesting is that someone reading the sentence
Joe Biden is president of the United States
will ask themselves, "...but what country is he a citizen of?" and that I think is totally unbelievable. Everyone will assume unless told otherwise that the president of a country is a citizen of that country, and a resident, and a national, and that they were born there... unless told otherwise, that's the default assumption for leaders of countries. It's significant when someone leads a country who was not born there, or isn't a citizen, or a resident. Then it's worth mentioning. Otherwise it's redundant. Surely no one would claim that the vast majority of national leaders are not citizens, nationals, and residents, of the countries they lead. Levivich harass/hound 02:24, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
- MOS:OPENPARABIO does not require "American politician". It also does not require nationality or profession. MOS:OPENPARABIO #3 is
- I'd like to try and convince you that this line of argument is flawed.
- Support as "American politician" is redundant. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 02:23, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
- Support This is a profoundly stupid convention, not universally applied, and not supported by MOS:CONTEXTBIO. GreatCaesarsGhost 13:55, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
New infobox image
-
Official portrait as Vice President (January 10, 2013)
-
Placeholder image on The White House’s website (March 8, 2020)
-
Another image from The White House’s website (August 21, 2020)
-
Donald Trump portrait taken 5 days prior to his inauguration
-
Barack Obama portrait taken 7 days prior to his first inaugaration
I think that the current image for Joe Biden is outdated. I know that we’re generally supposed to use the most recent official portrait when it comes to American politicians, but when the image is EIGHT years old, and isn’t even close to the subject’s period of greatest prominence, that’s when I think the rules on official portraits reach their end. While I don’t think the previous image was particularly strong, that was less because it wasn’t an official portrait, and more because the facial expression was odd, his head was partially turned, the image wasn’t particularly high resolution, and it was just overall a pretty weak image to use for the infobox. So, with all that said, I believe that we should change the image to this. I’ve always been a proponent of changing the lead image to one from the campaign trail, but there were really never any strong candidates like those for Sanders, Warren, or Clinton. However, now that he’s president, the White House website released a new placeholder image to use in his bio while they waited for the official portrait. And I think that we should do the same. The image is high resolution, it’s FAR more recent, his facial expression is on point, and it just generally works in an infobox type article. It’s also a wider image, which would shorten the length of the infobox and make it more manageable. (Don’t expect a huge change, just a slight one.) I’m just proposing this until we get an official portrait, but it’s a solid and well crafted image that will work while we wait. Main Wikipedia policy is that we use an image from the subject’s greatest period of prominence. Does anyone here REALLY think that Joe Biden was more prominent as VP in comparison to being president? I don’t think so, and this is the image closest to his presidency that’s at the very least high quality. This took me a while to write, but I hope this convinces you to change the image. Thoughts? The Image Editor (talk) 22:26, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
- This discussion is moot. There will soon be an official one. He hasn't even been in office 7 days, give it time. When the official one is out, we shall use that one.Eccekevin (talk) 22:30, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
- Use the 2013 picture until the White House releases an official portrait. cookie monster (2020) 755 00:22, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
- I agree with CookieMonster755, lets just keep the current one till a official portrait is released. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 01:00, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
- The eight years argument doesn't really make much sense to me, Biden looks (practically) the same as he did in 2013. Nojus R (talk) 03:22, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
- I also think current image is far too old. Additional problem is persistent removal of the caption "Official portrait, 2013" by few users. Without it the readers will have a wrong impression, they will think the current old image is recent. Biden HAS changed in the past 8 years, like every person would - just compare the lower 2 images from 2013 and 2021. Felix558 (talk) 12:53, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
- To the casual eye, there's not that big of a difference. Thanoscar21talkcontributions 14:46, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Best we keep the 2013 image, until the White House releases an official image of the president. GoodDay (talk) 16:34, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
It's somewhat unusual that it's taken the White House this long to release one. Other Presidents have had portraits taken much closer to inauguration. I support a temporary portrait different from the Vice Presidential one until such a time when the White House published an official portrait. It is important to highlight him in his capacity as President, not his previous job; an honour given to prior President's Wikipedia entries. Yallahalla (talk) 03:15, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Maybe we should put the one on the White House website. I do agree the current was is a little old and represented him as the VP. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 04:22, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Comment: This discussion is a duplicate of #Is the current photo Biden's official portrait?. ― Tartan357 Talk 04:25, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Keep the 2013 one until official one is released.Eccekevin (talk) 21:00, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Edit request (new image)
Under First marriage, law school, and early career (1966–1972) please replace File:Joe Biden at Age 10.jpg with File:Joe Biden age 10 (retouched).jpg. Cheers. nagualdesign 12:14, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
- Done. Thanks for taking the time to improve this photo, nagualdesign. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 15:58, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Joe Biden's occupations
Currently Joe Biden's occupation is stated as an American politician. But he was also a lawyer (public defendant), author (has written multiple books after vice presidency), and an academic (was the Benjamin Franklin Presidential Practice professor at Penn Biden Center). This should be reflected in the opening sentence of the first paragraph where he is only attributed to be an American politician. Ahnaf.eram (talk) 01:18, 29 January 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahnaf.eram (talk • contribs) 01:02, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
- I agree with adding that he was a lawyer and an academic, but I’m unsure on adding that he is an author. Most modern Presidents have written books at this point, and it would beg the question of whether to add them all as authors. — GreenFlash411 9:17 January 29 2021 (UTC)
- He is an attorney, in that he has a law degree, but he actually practiced law for about a year before going into politics full time. Most politicians write books. Many politicians take academic positions between jobs, or as a part-time thing while holding office. None of these things are part of his identity. None of them are his lifetime work, which has been almost entirely in holding elective office. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:39, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
Let’s say F Scott Fitzgerald became president. We would have to put author as his occupation. That begs the question when do we? I say if they were an author before they became president like Joe Biden Ahnaf.eram (talk) 11:19, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
- I'd say a politician writing about politics wouldn't qualify, but something like Bill O'Reilly's books would. GreatCaesarsGhost 13:46, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
This is another one of those petty issues. Before this image was replaced in the infobox (and subsequently reinstated), its caption was "Official portrait as Vice President, 2013", as is custom on U.S. presidents' and vice presidents' articles. It was first removed in this edit without prior consensus. Attempts to restore the caption were reverted. Are we not in support of restoring the caption, as there was no consensus on removing it in the first place? throast (talk) 23:43, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
- Does it really matter if the caption is there or not? If the veep flag is the problem? figure out a way to hide it. GoodDay (talk) 23:48, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
- It's not really about that imo, it's about the practice of users reverting restorative, completely justified edits like these when there is no prior consensus for it... throast (talk) 23:53, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
- No one has provided a convincing argument for why to include
Official portrait, YEAR
. As I have said, it is unhelpful. KidAd talk 23:58, 30 January 2021 (UTC)- That's your opinion and if you disagree with it, you should open a thread here to discuss it. Removing a caption that's been there for all this time, as are comparable captions on pretty much all vice presidents' articles, out of nowhere and then continuing to revert edits is wrong imo. throast (talk) 00:03, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
- No one has provided a convincing argument for why to include
- It's not really about that imo, it's about the practice of users reverting restorative, completely justified edits like these when there is no prior consensus for it... throast (talk) 23:53, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
- Wouldn't fuss too much over it. The dispute will be moot, when Biden's official presidential image is released. GoodDay (talk) 00:18, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
From WP:CAPLENGTH: Infoboxes for things that change over time can mention the year of the image briefly, e.g. "Cosby in 2010" Bill Cosby.
A caption is especially useful in this case as the photo is 8 years old and not a presidential one. ― Tartan357 Talk 00:29, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
- @GoodDay, this can serve as a basis for including 'Official portrait, 2021' once the old portrait gets replaced by the new one. I agree with the argument above. throast (talk) 00:59, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
I am against removal of caption. Biden looks visibly older today than 8 years ago, so the caption "Official portrait, 2013" is useful - it informs readers that this photo is not recent. The caption should stay until the new official portrait is released. BTW, all articles about previous presidents (up to Nixon) have the same caption "Official portrait, XXXX" in Infobox - I think these captions are there for a reason. Felix558 (talk) 02:07, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
- Felix558, while I support keeping the caption, pointing to other articles is a weak argument due to the nature of Wikipedia. See WP:OTHERCONTENT. ― Tartan357 Talk 02:42, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
Should Biden's infobox include a caption? KidAd talk 02:58, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
Yes/No
Pinging recent editors and commenters, including: Tartan357, Felix558, GoodDay, Surtsicna, Spy-cicle.
- Neutral - I've no opposition to 'inclusion' or 'exclusion' of a caption, TBH. Best advice I can give? follow the examples of the other US presidents & vice presidents bio articles. GoodDay (talk) 03:02, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
- No Based on my comment in an above section, the caption is distracting and unnecessary clutter. Readers know who Joe Biden is. Readers know what he looks like. Readers don't care what year a picture was taken. KidAd talk 03:25, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
- Readers don't care what year a picture was taken. Some readers may not, others may. The caption is there for people who do care, and those who don't can simply ignore it. nagualdesign 05:16, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
- KidAd, I can understand the distraction/clutter argument, but I find the rest of your statement rather odd for an encyclopedia. If readers already "know who Joe Biden is" and "know what he looks like", then why have a photo of him at all? Why have an encyclopedia entry? We can't write a biography based on the assumption that readers already know the subject's biographical information. Wikipedia articles are read around the world by people with varying levels of existing knowledge. Things that seem obvious to the writer may not be obvious to many readers; see WP:OBVIOUS. ― Tartan357 Talk 05:21, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
Infoboxes normally display the page name as the title of the infobox. If nothing more than the page name needs to be said about the image, then the caption should be omitted as being redundant with the title of the infobox
. As forthen why have a photo of him at all? Why have an encyclopedia entry?
, this line of WP:WIKILAWYERING appears to be too advanced for me. KidAd talk 07:02, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
- Yes it should say "Official portrait, 2013". Biden has visibly aged since then and it's relevant for the reader to know the age of the photo. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 04:10, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
- Yes per above, for multiple reasons. (1.) The photo was taken 8 years ago, (2.) Consistency with many other pages, (3.) It's an official vice presidential portrait and it's helpful to clarify that it's not a portrait of him as president (like it is for every other U.S. president's page). Paintspot Infez (talk) 04:29, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
- Yes It's helpful information and is particularly relevant in this case as the photo is from when he was Vice President, not President. For an article of such principal notability, that's information that readers should be made aware of. Basil the Bat Lord (talk) 04:40, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
- Yes for the current photo, weak yes for the presidential portrait when that becomes available. WP:CAPLENGTH allows us some latitude in deciding whether to use a caption, and it provides for briefly giving the year in infoboxes
for things that change over time
, for which it gives people as an example. CAPLENGTH doesn't require us to do that in every case, but when a photo is both 8 years old and not from the subject's period of greatest prominence, a caption becomes uniquely useful. ― Tartan357 Talk 05:13, 31 January 2021 (UTC) - Yes per Paintspot. nagualdesign 05:16, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
- I would lean toward just the year, or "as vice president". I don't really see the need to denote a distinction whether a portrait is "official" or not as that is not particularly descriptive. Connormah (talk) 06:35, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
I personally think there should be captions for all images but that’s just because I’m visually impaired SRD625 (talk) 07:02, 31 January 2021 (UTC)