Jump to content

Talk:Joe Biden

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

    Current consensus

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    07. In the lead sentence, use 46th and current as opposed to just 46th when referring to Biden as the president. (RfC July 2021)

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

    "Announced military support for Israel" in the lede

    This might have been addressed before, but why does the lede mention only that Biden "announced" military support for Israel? This reads as if it was written prior to his administration actually sending the military aid in unprecedented numbers. If no one objects, I would change it to :

    During the Israel–Hamas war, Biden condemned the actions of Hamas as terrorism and sent extensive military aid to Israel, as well as limited humanitarian aid to the Gaza Strip.

    While we're at it, I think it's also worth using a couple of words to add that the aid was sent despite allegations of war crimes, if anyone would like to discuss that. WikiFouf (talk) 14:43, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    It can be argued that as the US has supported Israel since the 1960's its undue to single out Biden. Slatersteven (talk) 14:45, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think that it's "singling out" Biden because A) no administration has ever sent Israel this much aid in a year, and B) that same year was the deadliest of the entire Israeli-Palestinian conflict WikiFouf (talk) 15:01, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
     Done, with the swap of "extensive" (from my original proposal) to "an unprecedented amount of", more factual. WikiFouf (talk) 19:14, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't thing "unprecedented" is the correct terminology to use in the lead. While Biden has been a strong supporter for high levels of military aid, there have been similar meausres of support by prior administrations such as that of Operation Nickel Grass in the Yom Kippur War. LosPajaros (talk) 22:08, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Never this much in a single year, though, which I think is quite notable. And IMO a factual stat is more descriptive + neutral than just something like "large", "extensive" WikiFouf (talk) 13:24, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Disagree with this. The United States has been strongly supporting Israel for many decades. To imply that this is a Biden creation is not neutral. Esterau16 (talk) 22:35, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Esterau16 Please explain how the sentence implies that this is a "Biden creation"? It states that the amount of military aid sent by the Biden administration since the war started is a record, which is true, as you can read for yourself. WikiFouf (talk) 15:21, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "Unprecedented" is hyperbolic language that suggests there is something out-of-the-ordinary about the Biden administration's support of Israel. Zaathras (talk) 22:37, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm entirely fine with "record amount" if that makes it clearer, but this is the largest amount of military aid ever sent to Israel by the US in a year. Clearly Biden isn't the first president to support Israel; my proposed sentence isn't saying that either. But the aid he's sent during this war is notable – not only statistically but because of human rights concerns – which is why it's been a front-page news subject for more than a year. WikiFouf (talk) 09:35, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Update: I changed the "announced" part since no one objected to that part. Would anyone like to add something about "record amount"? I'd be interested in an RfC to see where people stand on this WikiFouf (talk) 14:48, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would like to ask why do you believe that it is necessary to indicate that he sent limited humanitarian aid to Gaza. Is there a consensus of sources that agree that the amount of humanitarian aid is limited? I agree that it probably is not enough, but it seems to me that calling it limited, especially without sources is pushing a POV. DeathTrain (talk) 02:53, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WikiFouf No reply?--DeathTrain (talk) 15:30, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, wasn't very active recently. US failure in getting humanitarian aid into Gaza has been a major news topic for the past year: see floating pier saga, air dropping, 30-day ultimatum, etc. All of these failures are related to Israel limiting aid into Gaza. In any case, the military aid sent to Israel far outweighs the humanitarian aid to Gaza, so putting them side by side in the same sentence without qualifiers creates false balance imo. WikiFouf (talk) 15:54, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    While I agree that the humanitarian aid is probably insufficient, I still find it to be a violation of WP:NPOV to call it limited. DeathTrain (talk) 19:56, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's literally limited, as I explained WikiFouf (talk) 08:06, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WikiFouf So once again, do you have any sources?--DeathTrain (talk) 14:31, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't have access to my computer at the moment, I can put sources in a couple of days. You can google the examples I've mentioned though, as I said it's been a big news topic WikiFouf (talk) 14:46, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @DeathTrain First, for some perspective, the Biden admin has sent $17.9 billion in military aid to Israel in a year, a historical record, and $1.2 billion in humanitarian aid to Palestinians in the same period. Mentioning both forms of aid side by side without qualifiers is dishonest IMHO. Now here's a variety of sources talking how the humanitarian aid has been limited:
    WikiFouf (talk) 13:48, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @WikiFouf: Most of these sources do not say that the Biden administration is sending a limited amount of aid to Gaza, but that limited aid is actually getting into Gaza, mainly due to obstruction by the Israeli government, right-wing protestors and weather. DeathTrain (talk) 16:36, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @DeathTrain I've been interpreting it in the literal sense, as in the amount of aid is literally (being) limited; not that it's a limited amount as in "a small amount". I do agree with you that the term is not ideal and can lead to confusion, but it's a hard situation to condense properly in just a couple of words. I'm really against putting "military" and "humanitarian aid" side by side just like that, for the reasons I explained. But I'm also not sure that the humanitarian aid saga is something worth dedicating more than a couple of words to. Suggestions? WikiFouf (talk) 20:14, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WikiFouf If you also find the term to be too contentious, we can just remove the entire clause about sending humanitarian aid to Palestine, at least until a consensus can be found. We can also try an RFC. DeathTrain (talk) 15:29, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @DeathTrain I'm fine with that, I'll remove it rn. I was already thinking an RFC could be useful to decide how to include the war in the lede in general, so I'm all for it WikiFouf (talk) 21:52, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    NGO funding revert

    Hi @Muboshgu, I noticed that you reverted my edit about the Biden administration withholding funding from an NGO over its support for a ceasefire in Gaza. I wanted to present my reasoning for including this material on the Joe Biden page and give you a chance to explain your revert, as well as give other editors a chance to weigh in.

    I believe the material meets the criteria for notability, having been covered by The Intercept, a WP:GREL source, as well as by Politico subsidiary E&E News. The article by The Intercept which I cited explains the relevance of this decision, connecting it to Republican attacks on the organization and the EPA at large and to H.R. 9495 gaining traction in Congress. For this reason, I felt the material was better suited to this page than a page such as United States support for Israel in the Israel–Hamas war, since the decision intersects with domestic as well as foreign policy and is relevant to Biden's legacy vis-a-vis the proposed policies of the incoming Trump administration. I am open to including more information explaining the relevancy in a future edit, if that would not strengthen your perception that the material is being given undue coverage. That being said, I think the evidence clearly shows that the due weight of this material is not zero.

    I don't think the language I used in my edit violates NPOV; it describes a dispute without engaging in it. I am open to modifying the way we describe the dispute, however I would note that there is not another significant perspective to describe as the Biden administration has not denied or responded to the assertion that the funding was revoked for the reason The Intercept and CJA provide.

    Let me know what you think, I would like to reach a compromise. Unbandito (talk) 00:03, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The full content of the edit was In November 2024, the Biden administration withheld federal funding from Climate Justice Alliance, a move which CJA and others connected to its support for a ceasefire in Gaza.[1] It was only sourced with The Intercept, not Politico. The Intercept is reliable, but biased to the point that we shouldn't base an edit like this on them. That it was sourced only to The Intercept, that the group "and others" (that seems like WP:WEASEL) "connected" the withholding of funding to Gaza, and your edit did not include anything from the Biden administration is why I said this is POV. Since this was also the "Biden administration" doing it and not Biden himself is why I think it's UNDUE. This is a biography of the man's entire life. The article on his presidency, Presidency of Joe Biden, will get more granular on these four years.

    References

    1. ^ Lacy, Akela (2024-11-29). "Biden Makes His Own Attack on Nonprofit Over Palestine". The Intercept. Retrieved 2024-11-30.

    – Muboshgu (talk) 00:29, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Okay, that makes sense. Presidency of Joe Biden seems like a more appropriate place for it. I will be sure to attribute to The Intercept instead of saying others when adding it there. Intercept credits E&E (Politico) as first reporting the issue in their article, but I can cite that source separately as well. Thanks! Unbandito (talk) 01:48, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Joe_Biden&oldid=1263858990"