Talk:Joe Biden

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 .

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)

Questionable statement

In the Illegal immigration section there is an empty statement: ". From 2021 to 2023, illegal crossings increased to record highs, reaching an all-time monthly high in December 2023. A tag was inserted but this has been reverted twice now. Previously the statement also said that illegal crossings have surged, which is what the sources say, as indeed, there was a boom in illegal immigration as soon as Biden took office. This was also reverted and now it simply says increased in an effort to diminish that idea. At this point there is a clear effort to water down this section in fuzzy terms, and so a NPOV tag is called for, until this statement can be discussed and the matter resolved. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:19, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

References

"Increased" is neutral, "surged" is not. We should not copy the words directly from sources. The "why" of the increase is not relevant to Biden's biography and should be covered on appropriate pages. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:12, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Since these were Biden's decisions they are relevant in terms of a brief statement, just as many other items are in the article. And "surged" is a plain fact -- the numbers jumped in little time. Neutrality only comes into question if this idea is not true or over stated. If something drastic has occurred, editors should be free to make that idea clear, RS permitting, and we have many. The attempt to diminish such an idea is the only issue about neutrality here. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:26, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Again, you have to demonstrate that Biden's policies led to the increase and that this is not an illusary correlation. You didn't respond to me saying that above. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:28, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

• What's to demonstrate? Check points were shut down, allowing traffic, including cars, trucks and buses, to enter the US unchecked, which indeed has occurred in large numbers, along with the millions that began rushing in as soon as Biden assumed office. That's much more than some circumstantial connection. All we need do is state those facts. If you have facts equal in weight that can challenge that idea in terms of coverage then it's incumbent upon you to provide them and demonstrate that Biden has little to nothing to do with the event. What facts, per RS's, can you offer that would support your position? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:11, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
• Evidently you don't want anything 'demonstrated', which is the reason you reverted the 'why?' question in the first place. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:37, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

  Correlation is not causation. That's a common fallacy. And we are not going to play Fox's game. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:42, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Another straw-man. No one has cited anything by Fox. Or do you feel CNN, NBC, CBS, BBC etc are playing games too? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:32, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

• Citations are needed for your assertions, not my skepticism of your assertions. WP:ONUS is on you. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:54, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Muboshgu — No one has submitted any "assertions" to be entered into the section text. All that is asked is that we state the basic facts as supported by multiple reliable sources. but there seems to be a clear indication that this is not welcomed by some editors, as they don't even want the question asked 'why?' regarding the reasons for the surge in illegal crossings immediately after Biden assumed office. What about your position that the surge in immigration is not connected to anything Biden did. It was asked if there were any facts, per RS, that would indicate that Biden had little or nothing to do with the sharp increase in illegal crossings. Seems if there were concrete facts and sources to support that idea they would have been forthcoming by now. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:14, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

You are not backing up what you claim are "facts" with "reliable sources" and are confused about why we don't accept your assertions? If you had RS, you would have provided them by now. You're wasting your time and ours. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:21, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

This is the same false assertion you made previously. Once again, all facts are backed up with RS. I have not suggested anything be added to the article that is not backed accordingly. And while you were hasty to remove the 'why?' tag, you didn't even check the sources that were used to site "global migration", so it's becoming increasingly difficult to heed any of your advice concerning RS. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:24, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Other issues

The opening statement in the Southern border section was not sourced.

Illegal border crossings at the Mexico–United States border spiked after a pandemic-era lull, amid a global rise in migration.

None of the four sources used to cite this statement say anything about "global migration'". The statement is obviously obscuring the basic facts and should instead read:
Illegal border crossings at the Mexico–United States border have spiked since 2021, which all four sources support, among many others. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:14, 9 July 2024 (UTC).

@Gwillhickers I agree what you propose is accurate and neutral, though probably more accurate to say "since 2020." But it's also true that migration is up post-pandemic all over the world. That's one reason why hard-right candidates are doing so well all over the world. Here's one source: https://blogs.worldbank.org/en/peoplemove/migration-fact-life-and-more-people-ever-are-moving-0 The

It's also true there was a big spike in 2019 (and 2000). https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/02/15/migrant-encounters-at-the-us-mexico-border-hit-a-record-high-at-the-end-of-2023 Seananony (talk) 01:33, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

it's also true that migration is up post-pandemic all over the world suggests it's not Biden's policies causing the increase. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:30, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

When I pared down the section, I cited to a Chr. Sci. Monitor article that says, "A March report from the nonpartisan Migration Policy Institute says that “the rapid increase in arrivals in recent years reflects ongoing crises in the Americas” and instability elsewhere in the world. Other reasons cited include a strong U.S. economy, sophisticated smuggling networks, and the perception that the Biden administration’s policies are more welcoming." That ref is now for some reason after the sentence, "Some lawmakers and pundits have criticized Biden for mishandling the southern border."

For a fuller treatment, I refer you to a BBC article I discussed earlier with another user. I'll paste in part of it here:

That BBC article is titled "Three reasons why so many migrants want to cross from Mexico to US." They are:

1. Pent-up demand after lockdown
2. Global migration trends
3. From Trump to Biden

We both agree with the first two, but you seem to disagree with or ignore the third.

Here are some excerpted quotes from the third reason:

• The switch in the White House in 2021 also contributed, say some experts.
• Under President Biden there was a change of tone and of policy. Deportations fell and "deterrent-focused" policies such as the rapid removal of migrants to Mexico and the building of a border wall ended.
• People trying to cross the border during this time told the BBC they thought that entering and staying in the US was going to be easier now.
• "They feel like there's a pathway to come here," he [an immigration lawyer] added. "It's almost like an invite."

We're stymied here because editors are playing the same blame game described in that CSMonitor article:

"Republicans blame the record levels of illegal immigration on President Biden softening U.S. border security and reversing Trump policies they say had been effective at decreasing flows. Democrats, who describe former President Trump’s policies as inhumane, say the GOP is inflating both the numbers and the blame – and ignoring the impact of a rise in forced global migration." (I'm not labeling editors as members of any party. We could be members of any or no party, but I see these two opposing arguments filling the talk page, wasting time, and producing little. YoPienso (talk) 03:03, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Yopienso — It seems debatable at best that the "global migration trend" is the predominating factor behind the surge in illegal immigration in the US as soon as Biden took the oath of office, wasting no time in reversing Trump's immigration policies. On top of closing numerous check points, allowing traffic to simply roll into the US unchecked, and the suspension of funding for "Trump's wall", much of his rhetoric was sympathetic to the advent of immigration. All this clearly sent a green light to all the prospective immigrants, and subsequently they began making massive crossings into the US in numbers never witnessed before. In any case, the four sources that are in place made no mention of "global migration" trends, or COVID, the likes of which made it seem that Biden had little to nothing to do with matters. This was the opening sentence to the section no less. If there is an item in a given news source that is not quite accurate, feel free to edit accordingly if need be. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:15, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

The RSs don't say the global migration trend is the predominating factor, but one of several. I agree with you that the section should reflect that Biden's policies also were a factor. There's no question about him "softening U.S. border security and reversing Trump policies"; the question is how much of a factor that was in the surge. We have to take into consideration that COVID also was part of the reason there had been such low numbers in 2020. YoPienso (talk) 22:07, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Yopienso — Correct. The sources don't actually say that global migration trends is the predominating factor, but stating this, by itself, in an opening statement, more than suggests this. I added a point, that the surge didn't begin until after Biden assumed office. Together, with the idea of "global migration trends", this is a much more balanced statement. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:29, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

There is no reason to believe the suspension of funding for "Trump's wall" had any effect on immigration. Biden didn't tear down the wall (as Reagan said). And little new wall was ever built. The lie that Biden is allowing traffic to simply roll into the US unchecked has no place in this encyclopedia. Please stop repeating political talking points. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:43, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

• Suspension of the wall is referenced here only in as much as it was among the actions that Biden did that gave incentive to illegal immigration. In any case this idea isn't stated in the article. All we need say is that immigration surged as soon as Biden assumed office. You can assume Biden had nothing to do with it if you prefer. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:49, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

  You can assume Biden had nothing to do with it if you prefer WP:CIV. All we need say is that immigration surged as soon as Biden assumed office. For the umpteenth time, we cannot say A happened and then B happened when there is no indication that A caused B. We do not use tricks like that to mislead our readers. Correlation is not causation. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:56, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

This must be "umpteenth" time you are trying to suppress the basic facts. We can certainly say immigration surged immediately after Biden assumed office. Those are the facts. If that implies Biden had something to do with, fine, but we don't come out and say, in so many words, "It's Biden's fault". iIf this is still not suitable for you there;s nothing else anyone can tell you. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:05, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

• The section should state that Biden vowed to reverse Trump's immigration policies. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:55, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

  That would require we specify which policies. Like separating children from parents. Like placing humans in deplorable conditions which became breeding grounds for Covid. Again, this belongs in a separate article where the entire situation can be detailed. Not in a bio covering the life of one person. This repetition is tiresome. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:01, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

No, it wouldn't require that. All we say is that he reversed Trump's policies. I saw photos of those "cages", btw, where they were receiving food and medical attention and overall had better living conditions than they had out there journeying 100's of miles in the desert heat. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:10, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Of course you wouldn't require that. But if we say reversed, we must say what was reversed. Your suggestions continue to mislead the reader. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:15, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Wrong again. Leaving out basic facts is what's misleading. If readers have any further questions about Trump's policies, those that are totally ignorant of the basic political settings that is, they can inquire. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:21, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Responded to over and over again. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:27, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Are you truly ill-informed? or merely hoping we are? Biden absolutely reversed Trump's immigration policies. Sheesh. Excerpt from the CNN article I linked here:

In his first 100 days in office, Biden signed more than 60 executive actions, 24 of which are direct reversals of Trump’s policies.

Biden has defended the number as necessary to undo what he considers “bad policy” inherited from Trump, especially on immigration.

To date, 10 of his 12 actions on immigration are reversals of Trump’s policies.

YoPienso (talk) 23:25, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Here is Biden's Executive Order 14010 of February 2, 2021, from the National Archives. In Section (F), you'll find 5 specific Trump immigration policies that Biden revoked in this one document. YoPienso (talk) 23:48, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

ill-informed Where did I say anything like this? Anything remotely like this? Of course Biden reversed a large number of Trump policies on many different subjects. How does this in any way mean that it was a cause of an increase in immigration that occurred worldwide? All I asked for was which policies. Does that make me ill-informed? O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:15, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Double standard

O3000, Re:your statement, " this belongs in a separate article where the entire situation can be detailed. Not in a bio covering the life of one person.

This standard is not being followed for issues that are just as important as illegal immigration. Take a look at the size of the

Economy, Infrastructure and climate and the Israel–Hamas war sections. Filled with details. Illegal immigration, the economy and the climate are among the biggest issues facing the gov, and the voters, yet with illegal immigration you seem to want to suppress even the basic and simple details. The double standard being touted is what's really becoming "tiresome". -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:51, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

"you seem to want to suppress even the basic and simple details." "double standard being touted" Please read WP:CIV WP:AGF WP:BATTLEGROUND and stop this nonsense. I did not add those sections, said nothing about including anything in them, and think they should also be reduced, although I don't see how they have the same misleading post hoc problems that you are trying to introduce into the article. What double standard? This is not the presidential article. Further, it is you who wishes to include only misleading talking points without explanation. I recommend that you strike this absurd characterization of my edits. O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:18, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

More multiple accusations and battleground behavior...coming from someone who accuses one of trying to mislead readers? You keep saying this is the President's bio, no place for many details, but again, this is not the case in many of the sections. Hence, it is fair to say a double standard is in place, and any editor should be allowed to say so if they can present reasons. The attempt to rationalize the many details and the size of other sections, with claims that you didn't edit those sections, that's there's no "ad hoc", etc, isn't convincing.

You once stated that fact A doesn't necessarily mean it caused fact B. The same can be said about "global migration trends". The situation at the US-Mexican border is not the same situation the world over. It involves the removal of immigration policies and Biden's actions, including amnesty, that clearly gave a green light to prospective immigrants. While global migration trends may have occurred, they did not result in the drastic surges in immigration as was witnessed here. The surge didn't begin until Biden assumed office and the opening statement should make that clear. It is no more "misleading" that only listing "global immigration trends" in that first statement.. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:59, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Also, the section states that "...Biden implemented restrictions, but you don't want to mention that he removed Trump's restrictions at the very beginning of his term . These are all details involving Biden and immigration. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:05, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

You are making this into a battleground. We may need to bring your behavior to one of the noticeboards if you don't back down from your agenda and engage neutrally. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:09, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Muboshgu — Perhaps I should have not accused you of not wanting to, but then turning around and accusing me of an "agenda" isn't helping matters either, and can also be considered battleground. Okay, imo, if we're going to mention restrictions in general, we should do so inclusively and neutrally. i.e.Biden initially removed restrictions and then added some. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:32, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree lets not have a double standard, so we should give this as much coverage as illegal immigration under any other president, so as to avoid a double standard. Slatersteven (talk) 18:37, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Yopienso provided a link to a CNN article that outlines the Trump immigration policies that Biden reversed.. A more detailed summary of these things can go into the Presidency of Joe Biden, or the First 100 days of the Joe Biden presidency articles if it's not adequately covered there.
Currently the existing text in this article only mentions :
— Throughout 2024, crossings began to significantly decline from the December record, after Biden implemented restrictions...
This sentence should be preceded with:
— During his first hundred days in office Biden signed more than 60 executive actions, 10 of which were direct reversals of Trump’s immigration policies. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:44, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Did not answer my point, lets treat Biden like every other president on this issue. 09:15, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Slatersteven -- I tend to agree, but you might want to be more specific. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:59, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

I see no indication that these changes had anything to do with a huge spike in immigration. Still appears related to end of the pandemic-era lull, amid a global rise in migration and failed South American countries. O3000, Ret. (talk) 12:38, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Objective3000 — What you or I may fail to see is of little consequence. Some readers might give credit to Biden for reversing Trump's policies, others may not. Their call, not ours. We should cover what Biden did  and  didn't do. We can't only cover those that we may find to be favorable to Biden, e.g.amnesty, late day restrictions, etc, in brief summary. Biden's unusually high number of executive orders reversing Trump's policies like amnesty, is a major detail we can't ignore. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:59, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

I will assume that you are not saying that I wish to only cover those that we may find to be favorable to Biden as this would be utter nonsense. I have a long history of removing negative things about Trump. I believe BLP to be one of the most important WP policies. I also see nothing unusual about the number of reversals. The point is that we cannot say Biden did A and then something bad happened suggesting a direct connection not explicitly in our sources. O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:12, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

• Your past editing practice in other articles would have no bearing on matters here in the present. We've been through the other points you're bringing up again This BLP is filled with political details about Biden, and in sections much bigger than the Southern border section. Our opinion about the number of reversals is not the issue here, but their content, all involving immigration. Currently there is only mention about (what you seem to consider) Biden's favorable policies. Once again, we are not having the article say that fact A is the only reason for fact B. We mention the surge of immigration that commenced under Biden, and Biden's political decisions concerning immigration, in summary, that may or may not of had a bearing on matters of immigration, and let the readers draw their own conclusions. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:23, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
• Added major details concerning the southern border. On day one, Biden stopped funding for the wall, and in his first 100 days in office, he issued 60 executive orders, 24 of which were direct reversals of Trump's immigration policies. These actions preceded the restrictive actions he implemented in 2024. This gives a more balanced and summary account of all the major actions Biden effected concerning the border to date. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:38, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

  There is zero evidence that halting "construction of the wall" had any effect. Where do RS say differently? Further, he did not halt all construction and most of the construction during Trump were fixes to existing wall that were previously funded and approved. Many of the reversals were required by law. You continue to add your own personal conclusions creating a great imbalance. let the readers draw their own conclusions means supply partial info designed to push a particular narrative and let the readers decide what you want them to decide. Didn't Fox trademark that? Look, just try to propose some neutral language instead of repeatedly forcing in text that reinforces your own opinions. O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:30, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

The border wall

Courtesy pings to: @Slatersteven, Yopienso, and Muboshgu:

O3000: Re your:recent revert.

• We've been through this before. The language was neutral, and factual. No one has claimed, here, or in the article, that Biden's suspension of funding for the wall had any effect on curbing illegal crossings, so your repetitive accusation that I have added my own conclusions is simply false. We mention Biden's suspension of the funding because this was a major action he effected on his first day in office, and is a definitive example of how he was treating the issue of illegal immigration. The wall was and remains a major controversial issue that has been frequently covered by all the major news sources. We have a section entitled Southern border and it's your view that the wall should not be mentioned at all?? If that is the case then this poses a serious NPOV issue. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:54, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
• Editors were good enough to mention Biden's dealing with the wall in the very lede of the Immigration policy of the Joe Biden administration article, because it's one of the major immigration issues Biden has and is dealing with, and as such, warrants a brief statement in the Southern border section for the same reason. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:14, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

• This is the text in question that was reverted:

On his first day in office Biden stopped funding for the US-Mexican border wall.  In his first 100 days in office he signed more than 60 executive actions, 24 of which were direct reversals of Trump’s immigration policies.

General statements of fact. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:26, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

:

Relevant to his presidency, irrelevant to his biography. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:47, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

This also has been addressed. The statements are relevant to the Southern border section, as are all the other political details that are in this biography. Biden's Presidency and other Biden articles are meant for in depth coverage, which has not been attempted here. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:04, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Seems to me you are the one saying no in-depth coverage here. Just Biden did X and then Y happened, suggesting a direct connection and, as you keep saying, letting the reader decide, while leaving out a very large number of other factors. Statisticians call this Confounding which can lead to a lack of Internal validity. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:09, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Actually, I'm not the one who first raised the issue of covering these things in other articles where they are indeed covered in depth. You keep making the same assertion that covering fact A is like saying it's responsible for fact B, which has not happened here or in the article. Once again, many will commend Biden for stopping the funding for the wall, many will criticize him, yet you're objecting to letting the readers make their own conclusions from neutral language, with the apparent assumption that everyone will fault Biden.
As it is, the Southern border section only mentions a sharp rise in immigration and then follows up with " Global migration trends", COVID, and then Biden's " humanitarian parole". That's it. Biden's first action on day one was a major event regarding a highly controversial issue i.e. the wall, causing a major controversy for the nation, which was covered in all the news sources. Thus far you have offered no viable reasons to keep these major details out of the section, just your notion that everyone will fault Biden if we include them. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:02, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Alternative proposal:

"On his first day in office Biden stopped funding for the US-Mexican border wall, but later in his term he resumed funding for the border wall in Texas in response to a reoccurring surge of crossings in the Rio Grande Valley Sector. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:30, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

From your CBS cite, The reason given by Biden was:

Addressing reporters in the White House Thursday, President Biden said he didn't want to build the wall, but that his hands were tied by the law Congress passed in 2019.

"They have to use the money from what was appropriated," Biden said. "I can't stop that."

When asked if he believes border walls work, the president responded "no."

There were also several statements about the damage the wall would cause. O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:55, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

There must be a lot of factors involved regarding defunding or funding the wall, most of which would be beyond the scope of this section. We should therefore mention Biden's first action, highly publicized and controversial, regarding the defunding of the wall, and later his willingness to fund the wall, also very controversial, in response to the surge in immigration in the Rio Grande Valley Sector. I'm open to anything you can add or modify to this idea that may be needed for a brief summary statement. The point is, the wall was and remains a major factor, geographically and politically, regarding the southern border and we should find a definitive and neutral way to cover it in terms of Biden's overall dealings with it. Not mentioning it at all, in a Southern border section, would leave a big hole in our summary narrative. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:34, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

There was concern expressed about ad hoc, that including certain basic facts involving Biden's first presidential actions would imply that Biden was largely responsible for the surge of immigration. Currently the article does just the opposite, and more than suggests that Biden, a sitting president, was just some innocent bystander who had nothing to do with the incentive behind the sharp rise of immigration immediately after he assumed office. While it certainly is a matter of opinion as to what extent Biden was responsible (i.e. a little or a lot) that determination can not be made without basic and major details. This situation still needs to be remedied with factual and neutral language. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:03, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Since you started this discussion, responses have grown to over 16,000 words, the majority yours. You have not gained consensus. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:29, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Unresponsive. Editors do not need consensus to make factual reliably sourced statements. If the edits in question are not reliably sourced, involve errors, are totally irrelevant, or run on at length in a tangential manner, etc, then they can be deleted or trimmed, but that was not the case. There was no consensus to delete the edits which is required if you are going to challenge factual, relevant, and reliably sourced statements. Major details no less. Two other editors have expressed concerns about the double standard and POV related issues. Rather than edit warring and re-including the statements (per the Warning: active arbitration remedies), there has been discussion, much of which you have participated in, where you often fail to respond to the issue, as you are now, and instead attempt to make issues of e.g. a word count on a Talk page. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:24, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

You say unresponsive. I and others have responded again an again to your repetitive arguments. You say: You had no consensus to delete the edits which is required if you are going to challenge factual, relevant, and reliably sourced statements. No, that is not the only reason for deletion. As Muboshgu said: Again, you have to demonstrate that Biden's policies led to the increase and that this is not an illusary correlation. The onus is on you. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:44, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

We don't have to show any such thing. We simply list major details without adding any conclusions, which I have stressed "again and again". We could also use your yardstick and say we have to show how "global migration trends" and COVID led to an increase. Once again, we simply list major details, and Biden's first action, on his first day in office, stopping the funding of the wall, which was and is a major and controversial national issue, is a major detail. The only thing you seem to have done, "again and again", is the avoidance of that issue with your self styled requirements for inclusion and your false accusations claiming I said that defunding is what led to the increase in immigration. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:03, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

A bit of a silly request

Because I do not have 500 edits on wikipedia, I cant edit this article, I just noticed the image caption for Obama watching Joe Biden debate Paul Ryan on Air Force One was not linked. A bit silly but I thought it would atleast be worth it A-37Dragonfly (talk) 06:23, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Not linked to what? Slatersteven (talk) 11:18, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Air Force One, Obama, and Paul Ryan A-37Dragonfly (talk) 14:06, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Links are normally used where there might be some lack of understanding. I am unsure anyone is not aware of what those things are. By the way, we already link to Obama and Ryan. Slatersteven (talk) 14:12, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

New Castle City Council position?

Is there any reason as to why this position of his is not included in the infobox? It comes off as useful information for understanding his rise to the senate, as otherwise it just appears as though he unseated an incumbent senator right off the bat without any prior political experience. This wouldn't change the dimensions of the box substantially so it seems justifiable to include it. Qqars (talk) 23:11, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

We already had an RFC on this & the result was to exclude. PS - I think it may be time to put something on this topic page, to let unaware editors know this. GoodDay (talk) 02:50, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Consensus to remove Palestine aid from the lead

Hi @Esterau16:. The overwhelming consensus of the RFC was to remove mention of Palestinian aid from the lead. Why has this been reinserted on the page?

• 25 votes were for Option #1: No, aid shouldn't be mentioned
• 1 vote were for Option #2: Yes, the port should be mentioned.
• 4 votes were for Option #3: Aid in general should be mentioned. Not the port itself.

It shouldn't be in the lead. KlayCax (talk) 02:30, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

The RFC you mention refers to the port built in Gaza, not aid in general. The RFC question was clear: «Should Biden's building of a port to facilitate American aid to Palestinians be mentioned in the lead?»

Even the user who closed the RFC made it clear that they are two different things: «Fair to say based on this discussion that editors are against including the mention of the humanitarian port in the lead by a wide margin. Too minor an event to warrant mentioning it in the lede, and besides the lead already covers humanitarian aid for Gaza.»

Do not attempt to distort the RFC. Esterau16 (talk) 03:02, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

He only mentioned it in passing, @Esterau16:. The RFC close was from a non-admin and the wording he made was obviously just sloppy. At no point did he say there was a consensus for #3.

Both options (#2: "port mentioned") and (#3: "aid in general being mentioned") were clearly rejected - even combined - by an overwhelming majority of editors.

25 votes were for removing it entirely, 4 a brief mention of aid, and 1 vote was for including the port. That's a 5 to 1 consensus that the statement should be removed from the page. KlayCax (talk) 04:00, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

All answers refer only to the port built in Gaza. The RFC question refer only to the port built in Gaza. Even the user who closed the RFC made it clear that they are 2 different things. The consensus was to remove the mention of the port built in Gaza from the lead and that has already been removed.

It's pretty clear that you are trying to distort an RFC to suit your personal desires. Esterau16 (talk) 11:23, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

No, Option #3 was: Aid in general should be mentioned. Not the port itself. Including aid in general rather than the port was explicitly listed in the question, @Esterau16:. KlayCax (talk) 17:18, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Again: The question was: «Should Biden's building of a port to facilitate American aid to Palestinians be mentioned in the lead?» The subject under discussion was the port built in gaza, not aid in general. All answers refer only to the port built in Gaza. The user who closed the RFC made it clear that the port in Gaza and aid in general are 2 different things. The only user who says that absolutely any mention of the aid in general should be removed is you. Esterau16 (talk) 20:24, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Rewording needed

The debate did not raise questions about Biden's health; his performance did. Seananony (talk) 03:36, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Could someone move the covid diagnosis subsection to be unset Age & Health section?

It's still under Domestic Policy. Thanks. Seananony (talk) 03:41, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

@Seananony *under, not unset, whatever that is. Seananony (talk) 03:42, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

It's fine where it is at. Can we add that he was in Las Vegas at the time preparing for a campaign event but was cancelled. I'm hoping I'm not getting too off topic. [https://www.newsnationnow.com/politics/biden-positive-for-covid-campaign-event-canceled/] Cwater1 (talk) 22:41, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

• Biden contracted COVID, twice -- once in 2022, and again in 2024. This is personal information -- nothing to do with Domestic policy. There is much personal info on Biden in appropriate sub-sections. e.g. The Brain surgeries section is listed under the U.S. Senate (1973–2009) main section, as this is when his brain surgery issues occurred.  Similarly, the COVID-19 diagnosis sub-section should be listed under the Presidency (2021–present) main section, as this is when Biden's COVID issues occurred. Several editors have already expressed similar concerns over placement of this sub-section here in Talk, and since this topic isn't anything controversial in terms of Biden's politics this should be an easy call. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:45, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Sidebar

The source says there is “consensus” not to add the Template:Joe Biden series sidebar on this page. That so-called consensus by a few editors from 2021 makes no sense. That template is very helpful to see related content. It’s time to add it back. Bohbye (talk) 01:08, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Agree — This is the main Biden article, getting the most page views by far, every day. If anywhere the sidebar belongs in this main article. As it's a rather long side bar, we can always add the sidebar in its collapsed form. See Template documentation -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:14, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Agree. I'm in favor of adding the sidebar with a possible collapsed form should it be too long. I think the consensus was a bit ridiculous, got to be honest. Defeats the purpose of a sidebar. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 18:37, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Calls to step down

Numerous reports have indicated Biden has been considering resigning following multiple calls from members of his party.[https://www.cnn.com/2024/07/17/politics/nancy-pelosi-biden-conversation/index.html; https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/joe-biden-faces-increasing-pressure-quit-race-spent-112098355] He has faced calls to resign since the June 27 debate in Atlanta. Until earlier today, this information was included at the end of his bio section, but has since been removed. This is historical information and should be added back. SiennaVue (talk) 04:19, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Has he explicitly said he has been considering resigning? I haven't got that impression. HiLo48 (talk) 05:17, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

@SiennaVue They're saying he should drop his reelection bid, not resign. Seananony (talk) 04:12, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Looks like the rumors were true. SiennaVue (talk) 17:59, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

He's dropping out of the race as of now.

https://x.com/JoeBiden/status/1815080881981190320 AirNinja (talk) 18:01, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Withdrew

The Guardian [1] ☺Coppertwig (talk) 18:03, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Bidenism

I've created a draft on Bidenism at Draft:Bidenism. It was previously deleted in November 2020, but I believe sufficient independent notability has been established now. Feedback/improvements appreciated. Thanks, C F A 💬 18:29, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Biden campaign start date

Biden announced his 2024 reelection campaign in April of 2023, not April of 2024 (which would have prevented him from running in most of the primaries), as the introduction of this article claims. Atriskofmistake (talk) 16:01, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Fixed. Hopefully correctly. --RegentsPark (comment) 16:16, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/joe-biden-running-reelection-2024-setting-trump-rematch/story?id=98801535 Atriskofmistake (talk) 21:34, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Joe Biden New Castle County Position in the External Links

For awhile, Joe Biden's position as a Member of the New Castle County Council from the 4th district was included in the External Links. I knew it was in the Infobox before, however, it was taken out after a discussion. It was then put in the External Links, until it was taken out back in March without an explanation. It seems like there would be no harm in readding it. Especially if readers would like to know more about Joe Biden's political history. Also, by keeping it in the External Links, it wouldn't really crowd up the Infobox. RandomUserGuy1738 (talk) 17:21, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Why do we need this in external links, as its mentioned in the lede and in the body, Twice is all we need. Slatersteven (talk) 17:35, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Outgoing president?

It is definite that his term will end on January 20th, 2025, barring death. Knowing this, would not it be fair to update his status from Incumbent to Outgoing? He is a lame duck president. Etsaloto (talk) 10:13, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't remember using that term before. He still has all the power of a president. What's the point? And lame duck is derogatory. O3000, Ret. (talk) 10:27, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Biden is the incumbent president. Period. YoPienso (talk) 17:26, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

I was trying to be brief and wound up being curt. See Lame duck (politics) for an explanation of the term and helpful RSs. Maybe my reply should have included my edit summary: "Biden isn't a lame duck until after the election." Regards, YoPienso (talk) 23:24, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

We don't use 'outgoing', in these situations. We stick with 'incumbent', right up until the term ends. GoodDay (talk) 18:59, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

"Joe Biden approval rating", "Joe biden approval rating" and "Biden approval rating"listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirects Joe Biden approval rating, Joe biden approval rating and Biden approval rating have been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether their use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 July 25 § "Joe Biden approval rating" and others until a consensus is reached. Dsuke1998AEOS (talk) 17:12, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

"Draft:Joe Biden" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Draft:Joe Biden has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 July 27 § Draft:Joe Biden until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 16:55, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

"User:TalkSubject/Joe Biden" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect User:TalkSubject/Joe Biden has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 July 27 § User:TalkSubject/Joe Biden until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 17:06, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

"Boe Jiden" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Boe Jiden has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 July 28 § Boe Jiden until a consensus is reached. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 15:36, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Attention AlsoWukai

@AlsoWukai: Stop changing the first sentence, as you did here [2] and here [3]. You are in violation of policy: "You must follow the bold-revert-discuss cycle if your change is reverted. You may not reinstate your edit until you post a talk page message discussing your edit and have waited 24 hours from the time of this talk page message". You are also editing against consensus: "In the lead sentence, use "46th and current" as opposed to just "46th" when referring to Biden as the president. (RfC July 2021)". GA-RT-22 (talk) 00:32, 2 August 2024 (UTC)