Talk:Joe Biden/Archive 18

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Israel section

I agree the CCR suit is undue here, that doesnt have the coverage to merit inclusion, but the criticism of his policies on Israel do have that coverage. @SPECIFICO, would you agree generally that criticism of the support Biden has provided for Israel merits including a sentence on it there? Or, as you reverts indicate, are you simply opposed to any coverage at all? Because you also removed Several scholars have accused Biden of being complicit in or permitting war crimes. citing Finucane, Brian (2023-11-17). "Is Washington Responsible for What Israel Does With American Weapons?". Foreign Affairs. ISSN 0015-7120. Retrieved 2023-12-14.. A number of other sources can be added if you think there isnt weight in sourcing here. nableezy - 17:23, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

My thoughts are, this is about his presidency, we can't clutter up this article with stuff about that. Slatersteven (talk) 17:27, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

But why then include any part of it? It isnt NPOV to not include prominent controversies for the subjects we cover. If his position on the war is covered then so to should criticism of that position. If it doesnt belong at all, then neither does most of that section. nableezy - 17:41, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree, so why cover it at all. Slatersteven (talk) 17:48, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Sure, if it was gotten rid of entirely I wouldnt be here. But covering it and not including criticism is why I am here. But currently we cover it in the lead and in a subsection, with nary a hint of any of the substantial criticism it has generated. nableezy - 18:02, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

There's criticism of Israel's responses to Oct. 7 but nothing substantial and widespread that's particularly personal to Biden. A few fringey criticisms -- that he's responsible for everything alleged to be done by Netanyahu (whom he views with profound disdain) -- don't make it significant enough for his bio. SPECIFICO talk 20:46, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

No, there is criticism of the United States in relation to Israel's actions, that criticism is about the policies of Biden, not Israel. And they certainly are not fringe. nableezy - 14:35, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

In addition to being FRINGE, we also cannot unduly associate "criticism of the United States in relation to Israel's actions" with this biography. SPECIFICO talk 17:04, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

There is criticism of Joe Biden's actions as president, which we cover at great length in his biography. nableezy - 17:19, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree that the CCR lawsuit is very much WP:UNDUE here. Regarding criticism of Biden's stances on the war, if additional sources could be provided it might be worth a sentence or two in the biography and possibly some more space in Presidency of Joe Biden. However, the way that sentence was worded seems weaselly. I don't have access to the full article to read the entire context, but assuming the sentence Several scholars have accused Biden of being complicit in or permitting war crimes is based on the lede's statement Further, U.S. officials risk complicity if Israel uses U.S. support to commit war crimes that seems like a misrepresentation of what the source actually says and how strongly it says it. Regardless, if criticism of Biden's positions on Israel were to be included it would need more sourcing to demonstrate due weight. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 21:55, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it is absolutely bonkers that there isn't even a sentence such as "Biden's staunch support for Israel's military campaign in Gaza has sparked significant domestic pushback and protest. Many scholars warn that the United States risks being complicit in war crimes". This is pretty much just a down-the-line account of the situation. Let's do something here. Inspector Semenych (talk) 23:28, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

It s not "bonkers" when what you claim is patently untrue. All presidents have supported Israel's right to self-defends. Many college-aged students and some liberal members of Congress support Palestine. This is all routine. Zaathras (talk) 03:07, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

It is not routine. And what part of my claim is "patently untrue"? Inspector Semenych (talk) 19:02, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

1) It is routine, and 2) pretty much all of it. Your position has gained no consensus, so it is time to move on. Zaathras (talk) 19:05, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

You aren't actually responding to anything I said, it's just "You're wrong". Give me specifics. The SCALE is so much bigger than what has happened before, which makes it worthy and notable. Inspector Semenych (talk) 19:17, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

I was actually going to make a new section on this, but I think it's related to this section so I'll add it here:

The nickname "Genocide Joe" has gotten significant coverage, including a response from the White House. It's mentioned in John_Kirby_(admiral)'s article. So the question is, shouldn't it be mentioned here on Joe Biden's article, given that it's directed at him?

Just going off of news reports on Google, we have Yahoo News, CBS News, Washington Examiner, The Guardian, The Hill, CNN, Fox News, The Rolling Stone, Al Jazeera, and others providing coverage of this nickname. I think it makes sense to mention this "Genocide Joe" nickname here on Joe Biden's article, and the "Israel" subsection seems like a good place to put it.--JasonMacker (talk) 22:44, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

One's angry, frustrated little critics create pejoratives all the time, they are rarely noteworthy in that person's biography. It is certainly not noteworthy to the bio of John Kirby either, and should be removed. It was only added on Nov 27th to a little-trafficked Wiki page. Zaathras (talk) 23:42, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

The sentiment is widely held throughout the Middle East. It has more importance internationally, I'd say, then a mere domestic policy dispute. KlayCax (talk) 12:32, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

US is despised. Dog bites man. SPECIFICO talk 13:46, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

I support greater mention of the backlash to Biden's policies re Israel-Hamas, potentially in the lede, depending on other's thoughts. I think this policy is likely to define his presidency in the foreign policy arena, and has already generated significant domestic discontent as well. "Genocide Joe" seems more approopriate for the article specifically about the protests. Inspector Semenych (talk) 19:07, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

To this non-American, non-expert, Biden's position on Israel seems broadly the same as that of every president for the past 70 years. If it was different, it would definitely be worthy of comment, but without further explanation, I see very little of long term significance in it. HiLo48 (talk) 02:38, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

It's significant because it is getting significant pushback in the streets, at universities, even among politicians in his own party. Inspector Semenych (talk) 17:16, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

As opposed to strong support, as it would have in the past. Inspector Semenych (talk) 17:18, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

That is not even remotely a truthful statement. Support of Israel and opposition to Hamas/Palestinians, and vice versa, does not hew to party lines. At the moment we see the likes of Candace Owens and Ilhan Omar condemning Israel, and the likes of Lindsey Graham and Joe Biden united in their Israel support. Even Donald Trump says he will support Israel by deporting pro-Palestinian student protesters. Zaathras (talk) 17:39, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Strongly agree with the above re support/opposition cutting in unexpected ways, which is why the situation is notable and is (very,very probably) historic. Inspector Semenych (talk) 18:34, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

This has become a significant issue for Biden and is the main cause for his decline in support among Muslim voters and possibly also why younger voters now favor Trump. Past presidents did not by the way routinely agree with everything Likud did, as Lawrence J. Korb, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, points out.https://responsiblestatecraft.org/2021/05/24/ronald-reagan-wasnt-afraid-to-use-leverage-to-hold-israel-to-task/] I certainly agree that not everything that comes up belongs in the article, but this has now achieved due weight for inclusion. TFD (talk) 21:53, 28 January 2024 (UTC):

Agree - Inspector Semenych (talk) 02:39, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Conservation and old growth forests

Last time when I added content about the issue to the paragraph "presidency 2021 - present" sub section "infrastructure and climate" it was removed as not enough important. Maybe I really made it too long for a summary page. But I think it worth at least 22 words. There are around 500 in this sub section currently I think. This is what I want to write this time:

"During his presidency Biden promoted nature conservation so much, that several records was broken. He took steps to protect Old-growth forests."

Those are the sources. They explicitly mention climate.

https://www.americanprogress.org/article/the-biden-administration-has-reached-conservation-records-in-2023/

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/dec/19/biden-forest-logging-ban-old-trees

Do you agree that it worth to be written? Alexander Sauda/אלכסנדר סעודה (talk) 14:32, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Not here no. Slatersteven (talk) 14:33, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 January 2024

Sleepy Joe Biden

Change to "Joe Biden, also known as Sleepy Joe Biden, is an American politcian Blah blah blah." DanRayy (talk) 12:56, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

See wp:blp. Slatersteven (talk) 12:58, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Shadow311 (talk) 15:41, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

They have been blocked now anyway. Slatersteven (talk) 15:49, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

County Board tenure should be added to “other offices” in infobox

It should SecretName101 (talk) 02:27, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

See farther up the talkpage, concerning this topic. GoodDay (talk) 02:35, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

why was his position on the New Castle County council removed?!

Joe Biden/Archive 18
Other offices 2007–2009: Chair of the International Narcotics Control Caucus 2001–2003, 2007–2009: Chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee 1987–1995: Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee 1971–1973: Member of the New Castle County Council from the 4th district

It seems like it should be worth noting on his bio as a previous office held. lots of other political leaders have a local offices listed before their entry into federal politics. just seems like it's a random thing to remove and I know it was there in the past 2600:1003:B111:9CE3:0:55:4B2:7101 (talk) 23:00, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

It is mentioned in the 2nd paragraph of the opening section, it doesn't need to be in the infobox. Zaathras (talk) 00:34, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

This has been discussed in the past & the consensus was to 'exclude' from the infobox. GoodDay (talk) 01:01, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Support keeping it at bottom of the page, not in infobox, as it is both important to the start of his carrer, yet minor when viewing his career as a whole. Inspector Semenych (talk) 22:44, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Any thoughts on adding this position to the footnotes section of the infobox where the Senate chairmanships are? - Bokmanrocks01 (talk) 15:53, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Why do we need it, what does it really add? Slatersteven (talk) 16:02, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Helps provide an overall summary of Biden's political career? Keep in mind this is just in the footnotes section at the bottom of the infobox since its a minor point of the overall article. Example provided - Bokmanrocks01 (talk) 16:33, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

It's fine there. Certainly a good compromise. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 22:56, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

No footnote. What's so important about his time on the New Castle Country council, that 'now & then', somebody wants to add it to the infobox? GoodDay (talk) 23:21, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

I say include it on his infobox. It was his first elected office. New Castle County had 385,856 in the 1970 census. If it had 12 district seats then (like it currently does) that means Biden would have been representing a constituency of 32,154. More than almost any state legislature seat. In fact, if he had been in the Delaware State House in the 1970s (which has 41 districts), he'd be representing only 13,368 constituents. I think nobody would oppose including a Delaware State House tenure in the infobox (in fact, it'd probably be listed outright rather than relegated to "other offices"), so why oppose an office where he represented a constituency multitudes larger?? We are talking a sizable county.

We often include county board tenures and city council tenures for politicians that have gone on to the House and Senate. What makes a VP/president so above us noting where they started? SecretName101 (talk) 06:26, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Do we, examples? Slatersteven (talk) 11:40, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Qualifying language in lead about withdrawal from Afghanistan

Currently the lead reads:

"He oversaw the complete withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan that ended the war in Afghanistan, during which the Afghan government collapsed and the Taliban seized control."

Do we think this language in the lead softballs the perception of the United States' withdrawal from Afghanistan? I would like to discuss whether there is a consensus on adding in qualifying language in the lead that the withdrawal yielded bipartisan criticism and was described as chaotic, botched, and/or controversial. While "complete" withdrawal is objective, I feel that the language in the Donald Trump lead reads more critically and maybe we should try to be more balanced. In the Trump lead, for example:

1) "his political positions were described as populist, protectionist, isolationist, and nationalist;" 2) "His election and policies sparked numerous protests;" 3) "Trump promoted conspiracy theories and made many false and misleading statements;" 4) "Many of his comments and actions have been characterized as racially charged or racist and many as misogynistic" and it goes on.

Here are my sources to back up my proposition that the Afghanistan withdrawal be described more critically in the lead:

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/09/28/top-generals-afghanistan-withdrawal-congress-hearing-514491 https://www.politico.com/news/2021/08/18/biden-afghanistan-withdrawal-506065 https://www.cnn.com/2021/08/20/politics/house-republicans-afghanistan-biden-benghazi/index.html https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-58238497 https://www.cbsnews.com/news/biden-afghanistan-withdrawal-taliban-decision/ https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/2-years-withdrawal-afghanistan-continues-cast-pall-biden/story?id=102837216

P.S.: This is not supposed to be a "politically charged" comment. I just wish to have a conversation about building a consensus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ReidLark1n (talk • contribs) 17:51, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

The problem is I am unsure how "the Afghan government collapsed and the Taliban seized control." is not negative. Slatersteven (talk) 17:58, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

I think the withdrawal is separate from the collapse of the Afghan government because the casual inference "He oversaw the complete withdrawal" which led to the "Afghan government collapse" is incorrect. The question is more: "should the language already used later in the article be used in the lead considering another presidential lead uses similar language." ReidLark1n (talk) 18:39, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

The opposition to the Afghanistan withdrawal were just the usual largely partisan screeds, with a dash of hypocrisy, as Biden only followed the plan Trump himself had laid out while in office. No change to the current text is necessary. Zaathras (talk) 18:32, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

The language I proposed is used later in the article... ReidLark1n (talk) 18:40, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

The withdrawal was always going to be chaotic. While it aroused controversy at the time, I don't think it has been long lasting. TFD (talk) 18:43, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

I think the lead currently is fine. Cwater1 (talk) 19:54, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Here are some recent-ish sources: [1] [2] [3] [4]

Per these sources, combined with the ones above, I think that the article needs to be a little more critical of the withdrawal. Cessaune [talk] 03:57, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Since these cites criticize both Biden and Trump, wouldn't they fit better at 2020–2021 U.S. troop withdrawal from Afghanistan than a bio of Biden? O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:04, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

They can be applied in both contexts. Cessaune [talk] 20:06, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

If it is included here, then the criticism of Trump must be included here as it was his agreement and he is criticized in the sources. This would actually have the opposite effect that the OP seems to want. I don't think it's a good idea and the article is already lengthy -- which is why we have articles like 2020–2021 U.S. troop withdrawal from Afghanistan. O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:32, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Well, if it's due it's due, regardless of if it isn't what the OP wants. Cessaune [talk] 20:35, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't think it makes sense be "critical" (which I would argue is actually being objective) of another president in the lead of this president's article. I also would support being "critical" of the same action in lead of Donald Trump (if the withdrawal was a major event related to Donald Trump, which it is not) and have no agenda here but to be WP:NPOV. My point isn't to be "critical" of Joe Biden but rather to balance the wording of both articles and to state what the majority of sources indicate. The sources are overwhelming in suggesting that withdrawal was either "chaotic, botched, and/or controversial." ReidLark1n (talk) 22:22, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

I would advocate that we mention the criticality in the lead as it pertains to Joe Biden, with an excerpt in the article (probably a sentence or two) that talks about the Biden-Trump stuff. It's a relevant, lasting part of his legacy and America's legacy as a whole. Cessaune [talk] 23:15, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

We do not know his legacy.WP:CRSYTAL We have another article in which this can be placed and is obviously DUE. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:10, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Do I need to bring more sources to verify my above statement? I can and I won't. Every single oppose comment above has been straight opinion, simple 'I think' sentences that don't provide any sources, reliable or otherwise, to qualify their statements, don't attempt to glance through the sources that have already been gathered, and fail to provide even the most basic reasoning/substance in their arguments. I'm not going to sit here and try to gather sources to prove something that I already think is decently demonstrated with the sources present, especially when this proposal is doomed to fail simply because people don't think (WP:OR) X, Y, or Z. That's a waste of my time. Cessaune [talk] 02:31, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

What kind of comment is "we do not know his legacy WP:CRSYTAL?" We might as well not have a lead or remove all the critical language from any currently living President's lead. You're missing the point or choosing to ignore it. The article uses the language I proposed and to suggest it doesn't belong in the lead when this language would be in the Trump lead is to have a double standard. ReidLark1n (talk) 05:31, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

What kind of comment is "we do not know his legacy WP:CRSYTAL?" It is a statement of Wikipedia policy. to suggest it doesn't belong in the lead when this language would be in the Trump lead is to have a double standard Where did I suggest anything like this? O3000, Ret. (talk) 12:02, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Linking to 'presidency of', in the lead

An editor has linked (since reverted) "1829 to 1837" to Presidency of Andrew Jackson, in the lead at the Andrew Jackson page. Is this what we're going to do for all the bios of the US presidents? Example here - Should we link "since 2021" or "and current" to the Presidency of Joe Biden page? I'm bringing this up here, as I suspect there's less eyes on the Jackson page. GoodDay (talk) 22:22, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

many of the users are primarily interested in the presidency rather than all the other jobs in government--and we should help them out. The presidency articles are much deeper than the shorter bios. Erasing the link leaves users in the dark on where they should be going and does not help anyone. Rjensen (talk) 22:37, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Ugh, this is a bad idea. Links should be intuitive and not surprising, per WP:EGG. If a reader is reading the Andrew Jackson article and knows absolutely nothing about the subject, what is the expectation of where a linked date range is going to take them? Will it be Jackson-related? Will it be to an article about a specific year? The decade? An important event? The text is too vague to be a worthwhile link name. I'm also having some sort of deja vu here. Didn't we already discuss something similar a few years ago at the Trump article? There was this manic craze by some editors once to link the "45th" in the "45th president" line, and go back and do all the presidents the same way. Zaathras (talk) 00:50, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Yup & thankfully (at the Trump bio) it was rejected. GoodDay (talk) 00:53, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Then we need an early statement that says this is about the person's entire life. For the presidency see Presidency of X that way the reader knows where to go. Rjensen (talk) 01:43, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

You can link "as president" further down. Cessaune [talk] 07:42, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

His presidency

Is covered here Presidency of Joe Biden can we please not keep adding everything he does as president. The article is already too long. Lets only include stuff that RS say is significant about him? Slatersteven (talk) 11:53, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

This information was reverted with the following edit summary: "So, this is about him, not his presidency".

Biden signed a record $886 billion defense spending bill into law on December 22, 2023.

In October 2023, Biden asked Congress for nearly $106 billion in funding for Israel, Ukraine, countering China in the Indo-Pacific, and operations on the Mexico–United States border.

In 2022, Congress approved more than $112 billion in aid to Ukraine. In October 2023, the Biden administration requested $61.4 billion more for Ukraine for the year ahead.

References

Supporting Ukraine and Israel are the most important foreign policy issues Biden has faced during his presidency, so I think it deserves a brief mention. -- Tobby72 (talk) 18:51, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Not everything needs to mentioned nor every article needs to be created. Cwater1 (talk) 18:01, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Presidential Numbering: Biden is NOT the 46th President of the United States

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The way we do presidential numbering is simply wrong. For example, the sentence "Joe Biden is the 46th President of the United States" is just objectively incorrect. He is the 45th president. He is the 45th person to serve as president, therefore he is the 45th president. That's what those words mean. There is no other way to interpret that. You can get away with saying something like "Joe Biden is president number 46" or "Joe Biden served the 46th presidency of the United States" because they refer to more abstract concepts like presidencies, but if you say "46th president" then that is referring to presidents, who are PEOPLE. There have only been 45 PEOPLE who were president of the US, so the numbering CANNOT go above 45. Grover Cleveland is not two people! Tradition does not change the objective truth, that there have been only 45 presidents of the United States. I understand that Cleveland served "two presidencies" but that does not change the number of presidents that we have had. Finnigami (talk) 17:02, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for posting your views, but reliable sources disagree with you; you'll need to get them to change first. This is also an issue larger than this article and should be discussed in a central forum(like the Village Pump). 331dot (talk) 17:12, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Actually, reliable sources agree with me: they all say that there have been 45 total presidents of the united states. Finnigami (talk) 17:32, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

True but he is listed as the 46th president in RS [[5]] ., Slatersteven (talk) 17:35, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Pedantry is of no value here. Cullen328 (talk) 17:38, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

This topic has been discussed extensively over the years. See Talk:List of presidents of the United States/FAQ#Q3. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 17:52, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

For the sake of full disclosure, it has also been debated here and here to similar effect. Woko Sapien (talk) 18:05, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Experts polling assessment of Biden

Should there be content on expert assessments of Biden? There are currently multiple public opinion polls listed, but none of experts. Biden is ranked as the 14th best president of all time (top third) per a poll of historians and presidential experts. (NYT) A 2022 Siena College Research Institute poll ranked him as the 19th greatest president of all time. (Boston Globe) KiharaNoukan (talk) 20:04, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

It would seem a little premature to be discussing historical rankings while still in office but who knows, how has the Wikipedia handled this before? When did such rankings first appear in the Donald Trump article? Zaathras (talk) 23:24, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

I think we included them in the Trump article during his term, but I could be wrong. If historians think they have enough info to rank Biden amongst the other 45 presidents at this point, who are we to argue? I think we can find room to include it. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:38, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't think rankings were added to the lead until after Trumps presidency, but I don't know about the body. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 00:11, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

I think it would be undue in the lead here, but can go in the body. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:24, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

No, any ranking should not be added until after his presidency ends. I would also question the validity of the rankings itself as Biden continues to have the lowest approval rating of any president in recorded US history, which showing him being ranked "14th" will generate a lot of controversy if added to his page. ZR1748 (talk) 00:49, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

1. General approval ratings are not at all relevant to the Siena College Research Institute.

2. Where did you see he has the lowest approval rankings in history? This is very difficult to believe.

3. We don't care about controversy.

4. Having said that, it would be good to wait. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:04, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Support waiting until after his first term because his presidency is still ongoing, and the results of the 2024 United States presidential election may influence his rankings.

I believe his low approval ratings since late 2021 to the present should be mentioned after his first term, but separately from historical/scholarly rankings of his presidency. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 03:24, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Biden DOES NOT have the lowest approval rating of any president in recorded US history. Saying he does is lying. Posting nonsense like that simply shows your own extremely biased position. It certainly won't convince anyone to not vote for him. This non-American knows that rankings of Presidents in the short term are always closely correlated with the party someone supports. Objectivity in such assessments is rare. HiLo48 (talk) 03:51, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

https://news.gallup.com/poll/547763/biden-ends-2023-job-approval.aspx --FMSky (talk) 13:44, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

History began in 1979? Wow, I took history classes decades before history existed. O3000, Ret. (talk) 14:01, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

I disagree with the idea on Trump's article, I disagree with it for the same reason here, let's wait until, after his presidency. Slatersteven (talk) 12:50, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Ranking of presidents should be omitted from both Biden's & Trump's pages. Biden is still in office, while Trump has only been out of office for a short period of time & might return to office. GoodDay (talk) 17:02, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Mishandling of classified documents and poor memory

Biden has mishandled classified documents, but will not be prosecuted due to his poor memory. This should be added to the article.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/rcna96666

Mn06hithere227 (talk) 02:44, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

A partisan holdover from Trump's DoJ taking potshots because he couldn't find anything actionable is not news. Zaathras (talk) 03:01, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Please wait until all of this is documented in reliable sources. And be cognizant that this is a WP:BLP and refrain from making statements like: but will not be prosecuted due to his poor memory. when that is clearly not the actual rationale. WP:NODEADLINE O3000, Ret. (talk) 03:04, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Goldwater rules applies and this is bordering accusing him of dementia, do not add this or at least add a notice mentioning how this has been accused of partianship and the goldwater rule not being respected NotQualified (talk) 12:25, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

maybe i am mistaken however, i am also aware youre allowed to at least say someone is showing signs of a condition (as the 100+ medically trained psychologists have said trump is showing clear signs of rapid degenerating dementia) (not related at all to biden so dont add it) NotQualified (talk) 12:27, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Let the dust settle & don't rely on an individual's opinion in this matter, unless they're a neurologist. AFAIK, section 4 of the 25th amendment, isn't being considered for invocation. GoodDay (talk) 03:15, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

"could portray himself as an "elderly man with a poor memory"", so in fact not a clear cut as implied. Slatersteven (talk) 10:50, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm just seeing this now... I made an edit [6] over at the Public image of Joe Biden article. Perhaps due for here too. SmolBrane (talk) 17:41, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

It definitely seems notable now, at least briefly.

• New York Times states: Special Counsel Report Is Legal Exoneration but Political Nightmare for Biden.
• The Washington Post: Special counsel report paints scathing picture of Biden’s memory
• Axios: Special counsel details on Biden's memory lapses shock Congress
• Politico: Playbook: A day Biden world wishes it could forget

Definitely deserves mention. KlayCax (talk) 18:28, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Additional sources are appreciated. Whether this goes under 'public image' or the current presidency should be discussed. And whether it warrants its own subsection. We also need to integrate against the current content which states

During his presidency, several Republicans have criticized Biden's publicized gaffes as related to cognitive health issues due to his age, which Biden has repeatedly denied.

This has been quick+dirty editing on my part but I didn't see much about this being a partisan matter. SmolBrane (talk) 18:47, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for those additional sources. Mn06hithere227 (talk) 19:31, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Lets be clear the claim is "he could portray himself as an "elderly man with a poor memory"", not that that he is. If this is included we have to be accurate. Slatersteven (talk) 19:00, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

He also portrayed Biden has having poor memory.

• Page 9: “Mr. Biden’s memory was significantly limited, both during his recorded interviews with the ghostwriter in 2017, and in his interview with our office in 2023.”
• Page 208: “Mr. Biden’s memory also appeared to have significant limitations … Mr. Biden’s recorded conversations with [ghostwriter Mark] Zwonitzer from 2017 are often painfully slow, with Mr. Biden struggling to remember events and straining at times to read and relay his own notebook entries. In his interview with our office, Mr. Biden’s memory was worse. He did not remember when he was vice president, forgetting on the first day of the interview when his term ended (‘if it was 2013 — when did I stop being Vice President?’), and forgetting on the second day of the interview when his term began (‘in 2009, am I still Vice President?’).”
• Page 247: “For these jurors, Mr. Biden’s apparent lapses and failures in February and April will likely appear consistent with the diminished faculties and faulty memory he showed in Zwonitzer’s interview recordings and in our interview of him.”

(From link above.) KlayCax (talk) 19:05, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

We definitely need to include something about the Hur report. However, Hur concluded that he was "a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with poor memory." is not that. Hur does not have the medical qualifications to be commenting on Biden's memory. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:07, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I was about to ask where he got his medical degree. This is all quite odd. In such depositions, many people say "I don't recall" or other such in response to large numbers of questions without any concluding suggestion of poor memory. More time may present a clearer picture. An encyclopedia has an advantage over the press. The press are concerned over competition and must print immediately. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:21, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

We could say (assuming we agree its not undue) that "hur says that Biden had a poor memory". But the quoted lines do not line up with "an elderly man with a poor memory". Slatersteven (talk) 19:36, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Isn't this up to our secondary sources to determine for us? Do we have reliable sources saying that Hur or the report are unqualified for the assessment? It would appear DUEness outweighs a procedural objection on medical reliability here. SmolBrane (talk) 20:23, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

When multiple psychiatrists warned of a previous president's mental state, we questioned their qualifications, even though they were psychiatrists, due to the fact they hadn't interviewed him. And over the Goldwater Rule. Anyhow, we will follow RS once they have fully digested the report. O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:29, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

If we were discussing Alzheimer's or dementia I would find this more persuasive. I'm not convinced 'memory problems' constitute a medical diagnosis. Will wait for further editors. SmolBrane (talk) 21:52, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Google memory problems and you get a slew of medical sites. Besides, it was linked to Biden's age, by a person with no medical qualifications. O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:03, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

if you want to be clear the report states “Mr. Biden would likely present himself to a jury, AS HE DID DURING OUR INTERVIEW OF HIM, as a sympathetic, well meaning, elderly man with a poor memory”. The decision to not add the special counsel’s reasoning for not charging Joe Biden is laughable. I especially love that that he was found guilty by a Trump appointed holdover (not true), as if that validates Biden not being charged, but when it comes to explaining why he wasn’t charged it’s because it’s a vindictive Trump appointed holdover. You want to have it both ways. WhowinsIwins (talk) 05:53, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

I find it peculiar that Hur includes speculation as to what Biden's "likely" defense might be, as a vehicle to include "a sympathetic, well meaning, elderly man with a poor memory." Hur was not a Trump holdover, but he is a Republican whom Trump appointed as a US attorney in 2018 and he resigned when Biden took office. Hur's inclusion of the "poor memory" content has echoes of when James Comey, a lifelong Republican at the time, announced in 2016 he would not recommend charges against Hillary, but then immediately cast aspersions upon her, which violated longstanding DOJ policy to avoid tarnishing the reputations of people who have not been indicted. If you can't indict 'em, smear 'em, especially when they're a presidential candidate against the leader of your party. soibangla (talk) 06:16, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

That sounds like your assessment. We don’t rely on that here. Nice theory. Helpingtoclarify (talk) 02:46, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Poor memory: should we conclude that Ivanka Trump is becoming senile because she answered "I don't recall", "I don't know", and "I don't remember" numerous times when she was questioned as a witness in the civil fraud lawsuit against her father? Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 14:39, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Any RS sources saying she has memory issues? There are DOZENS on Biden. Helpingtoclarify (talk) 02:44, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Biden confused the president of Egypt, with the president of Mexico. He also mentioned Mitterand as the current French president. I'm not suggesting any of these verbal mistakes be included? But it's becoming more difficult to exclude. GoodDay (talk) 19:19, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Even CNN is saying how the White House and Biden's allies are in panic mode following the release of documents mentioning Biden's mental health. I think it is worth mentioning the release of the documents in the article.

• Biden’s allies can’t agree on how to combat questions about his age and memory
• Biden tries to lay to rest age concerns, but may have exacerbated them And1987 (talk) 21:51, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

We can include mention of the report, but we aren't going to use news media's sensationalization of it. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:06, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Wow! That's a lot of responses. I would like to thank all of you for offering your opinions on whether or not this should be included. Also thank you for posting links to other sources. I will go along with whatever the talk page consensus ends up being. I think it's a great idea that some of you said this needs more time. Again, thank you for your comments Mn06hithere227 (talk) 19:30, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

What is this nonsense? Stop trying to suppress info and put this into the article please --FMSky (talk) 20:05, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

No one is trying to suppress the subject. Just trying to determine what the addition will look like. WP:AGF O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:08, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. We have no deadline as we strive to get it right the first time. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:19, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Also, Wikipedia is not censored (WP:NOTCENSORED) so please stop claiming that it is. Kasperquickly (talk) 11:17, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Classified documents/information. Here are the bottom lines from Glenn Kessler's analysis of the five specific sets of “documents discovered in the year-long investigation and whether Biden willfully retained national defense information or willfully disclosed it".

• Interviews with ghostwriter: "…the report concludes that the case would be weak, given the Reagan example and given that Biden generally appeared to be careful to not repeat classified information to someone not cleared to receive it".
• Afghanistan documents: "The report concludes it cannot claim that Biden willfully kept this information — and that it may no longer be that sensitive anymore.".
• Handwritten Thanksgiving memo: "The report concludes that Biden did not think this memo was classified and it probably was not."
• Classified materials found at Penn Biden Center and at the University of Delaware: The report exonerates Biden and blames staff error. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 15:20, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Fact check article from CNN: https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/09/politics/fact-check-biden-makes-three-false-claims-about-his-handling-of-classified-information/ Mn06hithere227 (talk) 17:30, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

References

Follow the example of the Trump Talk page

Consensus #39: Do not include any paragraph regarding Trump's mental health or mental fitness for office. Do not bring up for discussion again until an announced formal diagnosis or WP:MEDRS-level sources are provided. This does not prevent inclusion of content about temperamental fitness for office. The editors on the page have been adhering to the consensus, e.g., haven't mentioned Trump confusing Nicky Haley with Nancy Pelosi several times, mistaking E. Jean Carroll for his second wife Marla, accusing Biden of going to start World War II, claiming that his opponent in 2016 was Obama, etc. Hur and his subordinates are neither qualified nor were they tasked to evaluate Biden's memory or mental fitness for office. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 12:39, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Much as I dislike whataboutisms, this does have the germ of a valid point. In an election year we much go the extra mile to avoid bias. Slatersteven (talk) 14:03, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Indeed. GoodDay (talk) 16:45, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

It is a good standard and one we must apply to this page, much as we did to Trump's. The Goldwater rule, in effect. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:51, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Not constructive O3000, Ret. (talk)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Here is how this will likely proceed. @Muboshgu will watch suggested edits and cry foul citing various Wikipedia rules but will not actually make productive suggestions because she fights updates that don’t align with her view of the world. This topic of Joe Biden’s memory is SO CLEARLY a real topic that has broad discussion in RS for over a year. just search “joe Biden memory issues [name of source]. There are articles in CNN, The Hill, Nyt, WaPo. But for some reason this special prosecutor report made it acceptable to be discussed in the mainstream. Kind of like when John Stewart talked about the “outbreak of chocolaty goodness in Hershey, PA”. Helpingtoclarify (talk) 01:13, 10 February 2024 (UTC) Should I consider this a personal attack? I think I should. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:16, 10 February 2024 (UTC) Passes the Duck test. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:32, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

New York Times editorial board statement

This seems notable. KlayCax (talk) 03:33, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

The fact that this is even a discussion shows the state of this encyclopedia. There is not a single logical reason to not include it --FMSky (talk) 03:35, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

FWIW, I'm guessing any mention of the US president's mental fitness to serve? will be based on whether or not section 4 of the 25th amendment has been invoked. AFAIK, the US vice president & a majority of the cabinet have no plans, to invoke. GoodDay (talk) 03:41, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Do we have policies that require us to wait for such an invocation? Due weight is the policy that overarches and our RSes are not pulling punches here. SmolBrane (talk) 03:50, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm not certain (policy wise) what the bar/criteria for inclusion is. GoodDay (talk) 04:03, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Can you humor me and outline your uncertainty more clearly? You have an extraordinary edit count and I don't see the issue... I must be missing something. Your response is truly bewildering. SmolBrane (talk) 04:36, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

I neither support or oppose what's being proposed. My experience tells me the bar will be high, to gain a consensus for inclusion. GoodDay (talk) 04:43, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

An OpEd is not notable. Zaathras (talk) 04:24, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

As ever, weight requires extensive ongoing coverage, so we have to wait. However, this is a country that elected Reagan, George W. Bush and Trump, so maybe mental acuity isn't a requirement for the office. TFD (talk) 06:35, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

There is not a single logical reason to not include it. It states "opinion" at the top of the cite. That makes it not RS. O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:59, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

See above - We go by the Goldwater rule, for these situations. GoodDay (talk) 16:53, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Question

While I myself overwhelmingly agree that this "news" should *NOT* be added to this article, I am somewhat concerned about how this non-inclusion would be perceived by the simpler people, particularly right-wing people on the Internet, who would likely assume that we the Wikipedians are trying to censor information and this might end up damaging the Wikipedia's brand. Does anyone else here have the same concern about that? Kasperquickly (talk) 23:58, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Our overall goals branch from the WP:Five Pillars. There is nothing in our goals about satisfying the right-wing or left-wing. An advantage we have over a politician or news (or "news") source. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:00, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Why is the text below acceptable in the article on the document investigation but is not OK in Biden article??? It’s all sourced and this is such a mainstream discussion. Let’s just copy it here.

Concerns about Biden's age, memory, and mental acuity have been raised throughout Biden's term as president, especially heading into the 2024 presidential election. CNN, NBC, and The Guardian have described concerns regarding Biden's age and memory as his greatest political vulnerability. A NBC News poll conducted shortly before the release of Hur's report found that 76% of voters expressed major or moderate concerns about Biden's mental and physical health. Helpingtoclarify (talk) 01:56, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

An article about a specific topic is about the specific topic. A general biographical article cannot include everything related to a person who has had such a lengthy career, which is why there are many sub-articles about Biden. Inclusion here should look at if an item is likely to pass the WP:ten year test. The news cycle these days is such that everything is "breaking news", and most of it fades quickly away. This report calls for no prosecution and gives one Trump supporters' supposed view based on questions that appeared to have no rationale related to the subject of the deposition. Patience is always useful in such situations. O3000, Ret. (talk) 03:30, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

We can't please all of the people all of the time (after all how would this addition be perceived by left-wing people?). Nor can we please some of the people all of the time, what we can do is strive to please none of the people all of the time (as in we do not have this on Page X we will, not have it on page Y). Slatersteven (talk) 11:48, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

tara reade defected to russia + veracity of her claims (or lack thereof)

‘To my Russian brothers and sisters, I’m sorry right now that American elites are choosing to have such an aggressive stance.’

i feel it's only fair at this point to mention russia has tried smearing biden before irrefutably and due to the inconsistencies in her accounts between just one year (in the article already) there is the extremely high possibility (but NOT guarantee) this is a smear campaign designed to discredit America and biden. i want there to be an editor's consensus on this because this is all highly contentious, but id feel like we'd be beyond remiss to not bring it up. if you read the quotes in the article you can draw you own impression on if you think they come off as scripted. the cia are also suspicious of this

'Several former U.S. intelligence officials told USA TODAY that they were puzzled by Reade's actions and public statements − and highly suspicious of them.'

while none of can definitively say, her accusation is not only inconsistent and timed in a way that makes no sense (biden has ran for election before and she claims he sa'd her in the 90s), why didnt they speak up then if they claim they did it because they didnt want joe to be president, but is also ringing of russian misinformation and her actions show as much. none of clinton's accuser or trump's accusers have ever be falsely arrested or died on suspicious circumstances (to my knowledge), her claims of feeling 'unsafe' have no historical merit to my knowledge. her claims are unfalsifiable by nature as well (however that is normal for claims this old).

look, i want to have consensus among us, regardless of your political opinions on the guy, on whether or not we have to add in some possible warnings. some of the stuff above i mentioned obviously she go in like her defecting or the cia's stance, but this is all just off. sorry if this comes off as editorialisation, thats why i am asking for consensus among all of you on how to approach this so we can have wisdom of the masses.

here are more verbatim quotes where you can judge for yourself

“You have U.S. and European citizens looking for safe haven here,” Reade added. “And luckily, the Kremlin is accommodating. So we're lucky.”

In the hours-long Tuesday conversation—which was live-streamed on Twitter that garnered about 500 viewers—Reade touched upon a litany of topics, ranging from Russia's ongoing war with Ukraine to her critiques of America's “terrible” roads. She asked Russian President Vladimir Putin for citizenship, although she denied any pre-existing ties to Russia. NotQualified (talk) 12:47, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

References