Talk:Presidency of Joe Biden/Archive 1

Archive 1

Question regarding article protection.

Hey everyone, before this article includes further information, should we add an article protection symbol in case of avoiding vandalism?

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.255.79.183 (talk) 23:24, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Articles are not protected preemptively. If vandalism occurs on this page, you or someone else could request page protection here. KidAd talk 23:35, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Does no one else think this article is too soon? Trillfendi (talk) 07:12, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 November 2020

63.153.69.74 (talk) 14:29, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

He's NOT the President the media is not the election officials stop with the false narratives.

 Not done President ≠ President–elect. This article doesn't claim that he is the president. Read it. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 12:43, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 November 2020

Please change "On November 7, four days after Election Day, Biden was projected to have defeated Trump" to "On November 7, four days after Election Day, Biden was projected to have defeated the incumbent president, [[Donald Trump]]". 2001:BB6:4713:4858:5CD8:B31E:5CA5:9682 (talk) 11:01, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

 Done Pahunkat (talk) 11:09, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Redirect to Presidential transition of Joe Biden

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.

---

Yes, I know this article is at Deletion review. Nevertheless, literally every fact contained on this page is also included on Presidential transition of Joe Biden, and like TompaDompa says, this is a WP:REDUNDANTFORK. At the two AfD's (1 - 2), almost all the comments were administrative and there's not really a reason to justify this being a separate article. Redirecting doesn't destroy the page history, and is reversible, so we can do it easily, and on January 20 when Biden actually becomes president then the article can be restored. —Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 06:19, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Note - Deletion review-in-question, has resulted in an endorsement of the failed AfD. GoodDay (talk) 14:55, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

• Support. Articles can be redirected (and eventually un-redirected) as warranted per editorial discretion and consensus. Merely satisfying WP:GNG does not mandate we must give every verifiable entity a standalone article. Wikipedia doesn't run on clickbait, and there is no prize for being "first" to create an article. But unfortunately most Wikipedians would rather play pretend journalist (or rather churnalist) than encyclopedia editor. This stand-alone article would make more sense in mid-to-late January 2021, when it would presumably have non-redundant content worth reading. Lastly, based on the worldview being projected from the current president's universe, this is WP:CRYSTALBALL for an event that won't happen! --Animalparty! (talk) 00:54, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - it's bad enough, what's actually going on during these last few weeks, off of wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 00:31, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
• Comment - I don't know whether we're just following procedure because we did this for Trump in 2016 or what, but this article shouldn't have been created as is. It's not debatable Biden's presidency hasn't started yet, and the incumbent is still challenging it and going by the rules of the U.S. electoral college it is entirely within the realm of possibility, however slim, it might pan out Trump is still the president. So I don't know how Wikipedia is going to manage this if that's the case by December, because this is obviously WP:CRYSTAL. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 14:43, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose The separate page is independently notable. KidAd talk 21:25, 30 November 2020 (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.

Cabinet members

I think that it is a problem to call them cabinet members at this point. They have neither been nominated by a sitting president not confirmed by the Senate. You can call them "picks for cabinet positions", but frankly they're not even nominated yet, and the senate approval process is non-trivial, especially if the Senate is controlled by a party other than the POTUS, which looks like a real possibility. 2600:6C40:1900:166E:613B:167:70B2:A76A (talk) 18:01, 12 December 2020 (UTC)JMM

"List of federal judges appointed by Joe Biden" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect List of federal judges appointed by Joe Biden. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 21#List of federal judges appointed by Joe Biden until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  01:38, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 January 2021

Change "ensuring the availability of glass vials, and syringes at the federal level." to "ensuring the availability of glass vials and syringes at the federal level." under the COVID-19 policy section. 67.86.76.249 (talk) 15:31, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Entire sentence was worded wrong. Thanks for the tip. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 00:56, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

a group of pro-Trump rioters stormed the Capitol building

This is has not been factually proven. The riot started before President Trump finished his speech. He specifically told his followers to go home peacefully. To include such as statement as this promotes false information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.191.130.105 (talk) 14:12, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Source got moved, does anyone have an archive?

Hi all, it looks like this reference has been moved, and I am getting a redirect to the main White House website when I use the link. Does anyone have an archive? We use the source quite a bit in the Economic Policy subsection on the American Rescue Plan.

References

Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:28, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

"List of presidential trips made by Joe Biden (2023)" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect List of presidential trips made by Joe Biden (2023). The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 3#List of presidential trips made by Joe Biden (2023) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. -- Tavix ^(talk) 01:54, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

"Space policy of the Joe Biden administration" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Space policy of the Joe Biden administration. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 3#Space policy of the Joe Biden administration until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. -- Tavix ^(talk) 03:19, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

"Widespread" fraud is misleading

Trump and his allies made false and unsubstantiated claims of fraud, not just "widespread fraud". They made numerous false claims of specific fraud. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:35, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

I think it's reasonable to say they made claims of widespread fraud. They said that they had lost the election because of large amounts of fraud against them; if there was only a small amount of fraud against them, it would not be enough to change the election results. For example, Trump said that 5,000 dead people voted in Georgia.

References

By specifying "widespread" fraud, the readers are given the false impression that there may have been a bunch of fraud going on but that it was not sufficient to be "widespread". Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:11, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Widespread fraud is a more accurate statement. It is common knowledge that there is always some amount of fraud in any election. One person voting using a dead person's registration is fraud. What Trump and his supporters alleged was much greater than that, hence the more accurate term "widespread". Vinny Gambino (talk) 09:45, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

"Policy" vs. "affairs"

@Chandan Kanti Paul: You claim in your edit summary that "'Policy' suits better than 'affairs' in Domestic policy" (and similarly for Foreign policy). You have not defended why that word change "suits better". A consensus has formed for most all the other Presidency articles going at least back to Harry Truman (and actually further back than that) to use the section headings Foreign affairs and Domestic affairs This gives the articles the focus of what issues faced the US and how the various presidents dealt with them. Using the word "policy" focuses more on what the presidents want to do, making them sound more like politicians running for office, rather than statesmen dealing with the issues. Their elections to office are covered in separate articles and are not directly relevant to the topic of their presidencies. We should not overturn the status quo and change all the articles. Discussion... JustinTime55 (talk) 17:27, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

It suits better because President Biden is doing the work, and policy means the full effects of work the American people are getting Chandan Kanti Paul (talk) 06:36, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

@JustinTime55 People are feeling the effects of an administration work and the President and his team are leading the administration and 'affairs' you said doesn't suit much. Thank you! Chandan Kanti Paul (talk) 06:39, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Trump's page also has 'policy' in place of 'affairs' @JustinTime55 Chandan Kanti Paul (talk) 06:44, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

@JustinTime55 Ok the matter has been resolved I will not have any problems if you write 'affairs' and I take back my previous replies. Chandan Kanti Paul (talk) 06:49, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Nothing you have said makes any sense, and doesn't justify overriding the consensus established for all Presidency articles. Policy does not mean "the full effects of work the American people are getting"; it means in this context "a high-level overall plan embracing the general goals and acceptable procedures especially of a governmental body" (Merriam-Webster). Affairs in this context means "affairs plural : commercial, professional, public, or personal business" (Merriam-Webster).

There is nothing special about Biden in this regard, and "Biden is doing the work" is beside the point. (That isn't even true; he has advisors and counselors, and heads of the various executive departments.) "People are feeling the effects of an administration work" is dubious (WP:No original research).

Also, you will find as you participate in more discussions, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS (in this case Trump) is not always regarded as a cogent argument; what counts is whether consensus is present or violated. Also, when you reply to a discussion, you need to indent your response to structure the conversation, by adding a semicolon ":" at the beginning of your reply (add one semicolon to the number that are already there.) JustinTime55 (talk) 15:04, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

@JustinTime55: The matter has been resolved you can write 'affairs'. I will not have any objections Chandan Kanti Paul (talk) 15:42, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Order of foreign and domestic affairs, and defense

Most of the Presidency articles place the Foreign affairs section before Domestic affairs, indicating this is an important responsibility of POTUS. Also, the Defense subsection goes first to indicate the primary importance of this policy. JustinTime55 (talk) 16:37, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

@JustinTime55: I agree, It seems to me like all other Presidency of -- pages for domestic policy to go first, foreign goes second, I think this should be changed as well HistoricalSimon (talk) 12:14, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Phrasing in the “Space policy” section

I removed redundant phrasing in the “Space policy” section of the article, which had the phrase “NASA Administrator” twice in the same sentence. If this is not allowed or incorrect, please revert. LordVesuvius (talk) 00:39, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

First 100 Days

In a few weeks Biden will have reached his first 100 days of his Presidency. Would be sensible for an article be written then for greater detail than will be permissible in the Presidency article? As it was written/created for Obama's and Trump's first 100 days. Pseud 14 (talk) 13:59, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Official portrait

This has been recognized by consensus as a sufficiently "official" White House presidential portrait; see discussion at Talk:Joe Biden. Please stop replacing it with his old VP portrait. JustinTime55 (talk) 15:30, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Biden's and Harris's official portraits have been announced on The Hill. JustinTime55 (talk) 20:17, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 May 2021

soon after Schedule F is mentioned there is a citation that is placed in the middle of a word. -Taltos :) (talk) 13:54, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

 Done ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:04, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Colonial Pipeline

There should be a part talking about the gas shortage happening right now.

What does that have to do with Biden's presidency? Mrytzkalmyr (talk) 14:58, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Change title

IMHO, this article should be re-named Biden administration. The same change of style, should be done to all the preceding Presidency of... articles. GoodDay (talk) 15:49, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

What's your rationale for the change? "Biden administration" wouldn't be terrible, but I don't see anything wrong with the current title. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 17:24, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Joe Biden and Vladimir Putin in Geneva, 16 June 2021 (01).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:36, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Biden's Electoral College victory

This should be added: "Biden had a narrow Electoral College victory from 3 states." He did not decisively win unlike Obama. Much like George W. Bush and Donald Trump. The popular vote does not win elections, the Electoral College. Biden won 7 more million votes than Trump but was 40,000 votes from losing the presidency. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beco Dro (talk • contribs) 22:44, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

@Beco Dro: I'm not sure that should be included because it doesn't seem that relevant to his presidency. If it is included, then it should be in the election section, rather than the lead.

A note about the closeness of the election: Judging by only the percent of electoral votes, the election was close, but equal to the 2016 election which Trump won. Judging by the number of voters that would have been able to swing the election to the other side (i.e. the margin in the states that would have enough electoral votes to switch), the 2020 election was notably closer: 43,000 voters in 2020 vs 79,000 in 2016.[1] —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 02:44, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Removal of Republican Party emphasis during Biden presidency

The editor 'Lights and freedom' is helping the blocked sockpuppet Amandil remove reliably sourced content on the actions and positions taken by the Republican Party in the early stages of the Biden presidency. The content in question has long-term encyclopedic value, as it sheds lights on the interactions between the new administration, his own party, and the other party (which is the exact framing that the high-quality reliable source, Washington Post, uses). The editor's claims that the content is "irrelevant to the particular subject" is contradicted by the reliable source. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:55, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't think it belongs regarding Biden and the American Rescue Plan. It's well known that Republicans are generally opposed to wealth redistribution and government spending, at least more so than Democrats. The article should state that no Republicans voted for the act; however this content added in this location suggests that the Republicans were ignoring the issue of the American Rescue Plan because they didn't care. Based on their prior history and ideology, it's more likely that they were actively opposed to it. The removed text muddled up the section by combining one topic (the American Rescue Plan) with an unrelated controversy (inclusivity and anti-racism issues). —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 04:09, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

That is strictly your own personal and erroneous understanding of politics. Thankfully, we rely on reliable sources rather than Wikipedia editors' hot takes on politics. You also appear to be assuming that readers know what you think you know about politics and that readers in the future will "know that Republicans are generally opposed to wealth redistribution and government spending" (this is also false/contested claim about Republicans). To understand the Biden presidency, it's necessary to cover what the opposition party is doing (as it affects what the presidency can accomplish and the context under which it accomplishes or does not accomplish things). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:52, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Fuck Joe Biden Chants

Please add information about the "Let's Go Brandon!" chants in the article. Master106 (talk) 06:58, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

The whole paragraph about this chant is overly detailed. This event is an unimportant detail. One gets the point that Joe Biden is unpopular to the American Public by showing the approval data. Noahpeaslee11 (talk) 06:02, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 October 2021

Remove the detailed account of when and where people were chanting "F*ck Joe Biden." Noahpeaslee11 (talk) 07:11, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

I would agree that having essentially a full paragraph on this is undue, at least for this article. I would also note that many of the sources (post-2013 Newsweek, New York Post, Washington Examiner) are not particularly reliable, per WP:RSP. This should be heavily trimmed (to a single sentence at most), in my view. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 15:06, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

 Done ––FormalDude talk 03:26, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Omicron surge

The folks from the article Joe Biden recommend that I bring up a discussion from their talk page here. Over there I recommended that it was worth it to mention Biden's response to the current Omicron surge. He argued that the federal government cannot intervene in Omicron. Instead, he argued intervention happens at a state level. This is despite cases rising in all states, causing outrage:

"The Biden administration responded to the global spread of the COVID-19 Omicron variant in December 2021 by advocating for a state-level response over a federal level response. Throughout the surge, the Biden administration has been criticized for a lack of COVID tests, exacerbating the spread of the Omicron variant. When questioned about the apparent shortage of tests, Jen Psaki replied, “Should we just send one to every American? Then what happens if every American has one test? How much does that cost and what happens after that?”, causing backlash. The Biden administration responded by promising an increased supply of at-home tests later in 2022.

In the midst of an all-time high of new COVID cases, the CDC revised their guidelines, recommending five days of quarantine rather than ten without requiring a negative COVID test. This move was criticized by health experts who worry that without rapid testing, COVID-positive people may unknowingly spread COVID in workplaces under the recommended CDC guidelines. Others criticize the CDC for implementing this change following lobbying by the airline industry, leading to social media backlash against the federal government." –2600:1700:FC10:48C0:38A6:1688:7002:994B (talk) 23:27, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Approval ratings key

I am going to add a colour key to the approval ratings section as it is not obvious which line represents the percentage of Americans approving (green), disapproving (red), and uncertain (gray). I had to look the numbers up independently to know which colour represented which data type.--Discott (talk) 14:21, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

New states

With all of the infrastructure debate, I have lost my feel for the likelihood of DC Statehood and PR statehood. Is Biden expected to make either of these happen during his presidency now?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:15, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 March 2022

Add the update that Biden chose to nominate Ketanji Brown Jackson to the soon-vacant supreme court seat. Cocobeans14 (talk) 05:40, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

 Done ––FormalDude talk 05:54, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Biden asks OPEC to increase production

The article already mentions that Biden shut down the keystone pipeline and did other things to stop new drilling projects in the U.S., in order to protect the environment. But it doesn't mention that after he did that, he asked OPEC to increase their own production. It's also been reported by reliable sources that critics have accused Biden of environmental hypocrisy over his request. I am interested in hearing what other editors here think of including or not including this info. Here are some sources:

https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/us-call-opec-its-allies-increase-oil-production-cnbc-2021-08-11/

https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/biden-push-g20-energy-producers-boost-capacity-ease-price-pressures-2021-10-30/

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/04/business/energy-environment/opec-russia-biden.html

https://www.cnn.com/2021/08/13/business/gas-prices-biden-opec/index.html

https://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier/2021/11/06/the-double-irony-of-asking-opec-to-increase-oil-production/

54mmkds (talk) 23:31, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

I think you need to reign in your WP:POV. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:07, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

That's a rather dismissive comment to make to a new editor who is providing reliable sources and asking others for input, Muboshgu.

Personally I've seen the narrative that Biden is hypocritical with environmental policy discussed frequently in the media. Of course that doesn't mean it is automatically okay to include on Wikipedia, but there may be something appropriate to add to either the Energy, environment, and climate section or the Saudi Arabia and Yemen section. ––FormalDude talk 06:04, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

I appreciate all of your comments, including the one that was critical of my suggestion. I agree with Biden that climate change is a serious issue, and I think he has a plausible argument about reducing drilling in the U.S. I admit to being puzzled over his request for OPEC to increase their production. I admit that I have biases, but I have yet to find any human who does not. That is why I asked for feedback from others, instead of just making the edit. We all have biases. I hope that we can listen to each other, and try to reach a consensus. Thank you for your comments. 54mmkds (talk) 01:25, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Keystone XL pipeline

• Biden drags feet on Russian oil ban as WH says Keystone XL pipeline is irrelevant
• Why Biden’s Killing Of Keystone XL Was An Energy Security Blunder
• Kenney says province prepared to take over Keystone XL pipeline: Premier Jason Kenney says Alberta is the best choice to supply energy to the United States and wants to revive the Keystone XL pipeline.

The question is not about the reversal of limiting the burning of oil, gas and coal. It is the following: Should the West finance Putin's war by increasing the price of oil, gas and coal and therefore his revenues?? --Myosci (talk) 22:03, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Notice of group resource

I would like to invite any interested editors here to join the task force for Contemporary History. One of our core goals is to highlight and promote the coverage of contemporary history as its own distinct area here at Wikipedia.

We differ from a simple effort to cover current events, in that we seek to provide the editing community with resources that would allow it to provide broad and comprehensive coverage of articles on contemporary history as a broad topical field, rather than simply on individual current events as they may occur.

to that end, we have set up articles such as 2020s in political history, which allow the whole editing community to adopt a broad scope in keeping wikipedia updated with broad historical trends, topics and events, as they occur, but also as they become relevant to the field of history overall. I hope that sounds helpful and worthwhile to you. you are welcome to join us in any way, or to offer any input or ideas that you may wish. we welcome your input. thanks!! --Sm8900 (talk) 14:46, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 April 2022

Paragraph 4.1, Supreme Court Nominations, Change [Citation Needed] to link the source this information was found in, link seen here: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/senate-poised-confirm-ketanji-brown-jackson-supreme-court-rcna23283 GPZ h (talk) 20:28, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

 Done It's an excerpt from another article. I updated the source there. It may take a bit for it to be corrected on this page due to caching magic and the like. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:11, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Explain revert

FormalDude talkCan you please explain your recent revert of my edit? I added a banner because I noticed that the article was missing information of the administration's response to the 2022 United States infant formula shortage. I was planning to add more relevant info until you responded by reverting the edit and calling me stupid. Phillip Samuel (talk) 07:50, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

I apologize. Please feel free to add any content about the Biden administration's response to the infant formula shortage. ––FormalDude talk 08:03, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Unaccompanied minors

Paragraph is deceptive in presenting actual data:

The number of migrant families and unaccompanied children entering the U.S. from across the Southwest border steeply declined in August, September, and October 2021.

While that may be the case the truth is that US in fact shattered records in the number of unaccompanied minors during 2021. Text needs to be updated to show this.

Politics
U.S. shelters received a record 122,000 unaccompanied migrant children in 2021
By Camilo Montoya-GalvezDecember 23, 2021 / 9:15 AM / CBS News
The Department of Health and Human Services' (HHS) shelter system received 122,000 migrant children who were taken into U.S. custody without their parents in fiscal year 2021, an all-time high that shattered previous records, according to new government figures obtained by CBS News.71.190.233.44 (talk) 00:12, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

edit spree

CommonKnowledgeCreator, it seems to me that much/most of what you're adding belongs in ancillary articles relating to Biden. We should be more selective in what is included here, lest the article explode into a bloated mess. There's still 2+ years of stuff we'll need to cover. soibangla (talk) 00:18, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

@Soibangla: Well, I've already removed it. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:29, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Increase only temporary.

’The S&P 500 stock market index increased 37.4% during the first year after Biden's election, the best first-year performance after a presidential election on record.‘

First off, that number is wrong the increase in his first year was actually 11% - Dow - 1/20/21 31,188.38 Dow - 1/20/22 - 34715.38.

Second, the market is now below what it was when Joe Biden entered office and all economic indicators are that we are headed into a recession.

While I understand WP:Crystal the market fall has given back all those gains and is now down 4% from when Biden took office. Touting an increase which went up in smoke appears as more than a little puffery. Just as an aside the line citing that references an article from November 3, 2021 not a full year into Biden’s term.71.190.233.44 (talk) 16:29, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

I have no interest in this content, but you should be aware that you quoted the Dow Industrials and that the S&P 500 is quite dissimilar. SPECIFICO talk 19:27, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Well, the S&P is down a percentage point which is a big difference from a 37.4% increase which was what was cited at not even a full year into the Biden Presidency so again, puffery. The increase WAS temporary. (and the way things are aside from WP:CRYSTAL I wouldn’t bet on it going up either) 71.190.233.44 (talk) 02:09, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Share prices are not determined by the US president, so I don't think such content is of any encyclopedic significance. SPECIFICO talk 02:36, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Okay, then the line cited at the top of this section should be removed is what you’re saying? It’s currently in the article and if you’re saying it should come out I wouldn’t object. That was the point to begin with - if it’s not of encyclopedic significance it should be removed. 71.190.233.44 (talk) 22:30, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Do you have any opinion about the unaccompanied minor stuff? 71.190.233.44 (talk) 22:31, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

I removed the stock market thing and other content that was more about other things than about Biden's actions. SPECIFICO talk 23:51, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Coolness! And thank you for your attention. :-) 71.190.233.44 (talk) 18:20, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Lead

Why does the lead paragraph state that Biden took over as President during an "economic crisis"? This is simply not true, despite how the cited article (from NBC in far-left San Francisco) tries to spin it. The economy was strong under President Trump - the stock market was doing extremely well after years of stagnation under President Obama, we were net petroleum independent, food prices were reasonable, gasoline prices were low, etc. There is no reason that this article should have a non-NPOV statement like that, especially in the lead. Wikipedia articles should be neutral and truthful. An editor you should not be sifting through a myriad of articles to find one that spins the narrative in the direction that the editor wants, while ignoring all those that paint a more honest picture. Not Illogical (talk) 12:33, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

You wrote, the stock market was doing extremely well after years of stagnation under President Obama, - The S&P500 stock index roughly *tripled* in value during the Obama years. Any other concerns should be preented without the personal complaints. SPECIFICO talk 15:58, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

What are you talking about? The S&P 500 did not triple under Obama. Provide a source for your statement, if you can. Not Illogical (talk) 19:51, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm confident you can pull up a chart from Jan 2009 to Jan 2017. SPECIFICO talk 20:46, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

NASDAQ index quadruple-plus. Almost a quintuplification of value under the Obama stewardship. SPECIFICO talk 22:26, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Also Obama is credited with the low unemployment during his terms. We have an article on Jobs created during U.S. presidential terms. 1,208, 000 new jobs created during his first term, and 10,364,000 new jobs created during his second term. Compared to 3,003,000 jobs lost during Trump's term, and the generally disastrous economy of the Trump years. Dimadick (talk) 09:52, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Lede Addition

Do everyone agree this edit (are the bills due for inclusion on lede)? I disagree, but IMHO we need more opinions. VickKiang (talk) 04:31, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't think this is due for the lead. The other bills mentioned in that lead paragraph (American Rescue Plan Act, bipartisan Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, Build Back Better/Inflation Reduction Act) are pieces of legislation that were very closely associated with the agenda Biden ran for president on. The CHIPS Act and PACT Act seem to be less a product of Biden's agenda in comparison (however, please correct me if I'm wrong--I know Biden mentioned the PACT Act in his State of the Union speech and I know he mentioned that the bill was important to him due to the death of his son, but I don't think he played a major role in wrangling the bill through Congress).

In addition, it doesn't seem as if either of these two bills are mentioned in the article body. In an article of this size and visibility, the lead generally shouldn't contain material that isn't mentioned in the body. Aoi (青い) (talk) 08:54, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, I've WP:BOLDly reverted it. VickKiang (talk) 09:15, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

I disagree with your opinion. THE CHIPS and Science Act and the PACT Act were never mentioned at the beginning after the Inflation Reduction Act edit, and so I decided to bring those accomplishments up  by editing it so that people can get at least a better understanding about Biden's legislative success in August 2022. Soumil1234 (talk) 18:47, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Odd red link

The link to the CHIPS and Science Act is a red link, despite it having a page on here. I’m fairly new to editing and am not sure where I am “supposed” to put these kinds of suggestions, so if this is not the right place to put these kinds of things, please let me know! 65.28.8.128 (talk) 17:15, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Fixed! Thanks. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:18, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Facts

Don’t post a damn source that takes you to a page with 50 ads if you want Anyone to believe Shit !!! So annoying! 2604:2D80:500F:4300:EC1B:79BD:198:CB84 (talk) 11:09, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Sources

Please don’t post a source that sends us to a page with nothing but ads !! I love to read & soak up knowledge however not bs! And leaving a source that sends us to a damn page full of ads grrrrrr !! Whatever — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2D80:500F:4300:EC1B:79BD:198:CB84 (talk) 11:18, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Which source is that? DFlhb (talk) 11:25, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Midterms

I added some copy here [2] some I had added earlier, but I can't find any discussion of why it was removed. Andre🚐 15:49, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Prison exchange

We should mention that Biden exchanged a WNBA player for the merchant of death. I thinks it’s relevant Tentemp (talk) 23:29, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Media appearance section

“Tragic events in Texas” while I agree tragic, is thy encyclopaedic language? Why not just write “the robb school shooting”? 2A02:C7F:2C68:D500:1C9F:61C8:99C0:8A2E (talk) 11:55, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 January 2023

Add a single citation to the introduction section of "Transition period, inauguration, and first 100 days". In the sixth sentence, insert citation for the claim that "thousands" of Trump supporters broke into the Capitol.

https://www.npr.org/2022/01/06/1070736018/jan-6-anniversary-investigation-cases-defendants-justice "The Justice Department has also brought conspiracy charges against about 40 defendants, most of whom prosecutors say have ties to far-right extremist groups such as the Proud Boys or the Oath Keepers. But the department estimates that between 2,000 and 2,500 people entered the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, which means investigators still have a long way to go to hold everyone to account."

// This is in relation to a Talk post claiming this number was wildly inaccurate. NotBrandonJones (talk) 19:41, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

 Done I will add this cite in a second. Andre🚐 20:31, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

"investigators still have a long way to go to hold everyone to account" This may be out of topic, but at some point the statute of limitations will probably prevent further legal actions. Chances of bringing everyone to account are reduced when the years pass. Dimadick (talk) 09:09, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Inflammatory language not factually correct.

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The paragraph as follows overstates matters and needs correction: ‘On January 6, a mob of thousands of Trump supporters violently broke into the Capitol in the hope of overturning Biden's election, forcing Congress to evacuate during the counting of the Electoral College votes.[33] More than 26,000 National Guard members were deployed to the capital for the inauguration, with thousands remaining into the spring.[34]’ There was no mob of thousands violently breaking into the Capitol. This is incorrect. As of this writing it is HUNDREDS not thousands. At least 978 people have been charged in the Capitol insurrection so far. This searchable table shows them all. Additionally, there were 120,000 people in attendance of the protest on January 6th Exclusive: Classified Documents Reveal the Number of January 6 Protestors as many as 120,000—would show up on the Mall on January 6, according to classified numbers still not released by the Secret Service and the FBI but seen by Newsweek. Further the National Guard responded on Jan 6th with 1,100 troops as the citation noted for the passage states and the continued presence of the guard after the Inauguration was 2,300. The secretary of Defense has approved a request to keep nearly 2,300 National Guard personnel at the U.S. Capitol through much of spring, the Pentagon said Tuesday. Let’s tone down the hysteria and keep things accurate and WP:NP108.46.171.68 (talk) 16:12, 25 January 2023 (UTC) Newsweek is considered unreliable: WP:RSP and Insider is marginally reliable. I haven't checked the other citations but I don't believe there is any hysteria. The thousands figure comes from Washington Post as cited: With poles bearing blue Trump flags, a mob that would eventually grow into the thousands bashed through Capitol doors and windows Just because 978 were charged doesn't mean there aren't others who weren't charged. As far as the National Guard, it states All 1,100 members of the D.C. National Guard were activated but then it states Nearly 2,300 Guard personnel will remain at the Capitol through much of the spring. I'm not sure how to reconcile those two but your allegation of hysteria or overstatement is not well-founded regardless. Andre🚐 19:33, 25 January 2023 (UTC) (Personal attack removed), you citing Newsweek as not RSP is mistaken as what WP:RSP states ‘Many editors have noted that there are several exceptions to this standard, so consensus is to evaluate Newsweek content on a case-by-case basis.’108.46.171.68 (talk) 15:19, 2 February 2023 (UTC) Article talk pages are for addressing article content. Do not accuse editors of bias here; that is the behavior that makes back-and-forths pointless. If you really want to, go to the appropriate noticeboard. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:22, 2 February 2023 (UTC) I removed the personal attacks. As far as Newsweek goes, obviously, when there are more high-quality and reliable sources that contradict Newsweek, those sources will be used, not the marginally reliable Newsweek. In controversial cases, dubious sources should not be used. Andre🚐 17:22, 2 February 2023 (UTC) Good, can you cite those sources since you are so readily dismissing Newsweek or is that just evidence of your own bias. You have already made a misstatement regarding whether or not Newsweek falls into the WP:RS that was wrong. (Personal attack removed). 02:12, 4 February 2023 (UTC) 108.46.171.68 (talk) 02:12, 4 February 2023 (UTC) Newsweek is not generally reliable, and is not reliable in this case. It is considered unreliable for contentious or controversial cases. I have not said anything about my personal feelings, and that is another personal attack. As far as the source for "thousands" of supporters see the section below and the sources already in the article. Andre🚐 03:02, 4 February 2023 (UTC) Explain to me if you will exactly how it is unreliable in this case. Aside from you personal opinions and specifically in regard to the article and the series of articles Newsweek published on the January 6th event. Again, WP:RS states clearly that the content on that site should be as follows: consensus is to evaluate Newsweek content on a case-by-case basis. Unless you can specifically explain why this content should be challenged as unreliable there is no validity to your claim aside from you not agreeing with the content there and not providing an alternate source that would invalidate the content that has been referenced. Again, I have implored you as someone who has been on Wikipedia for over 15 years to do a better job and not be dismissive of other views or information. Can you validate in this case why Newsweek and the content in question should be considered unreliable. As it is, those numbers give us a figure to determine just how many people attended the January 6th protest. The list of people charged is also not something that would be called into question, can you provide an alternate source that shows that number as being incorrect? You are the one who is challenging the cited information and one would expect under those circumstances you would have something to validate you claims. I am certainly open to being challenged and do not pretend that I might be wrong but in this instance aside from you doing nothing other than improperly applying principles I am not seeing you provide anything that would dispute the claims. 108.46.171.68 (talk) 03:15, 4 February 2023 (UTC) I am actually not challenging the information. You challenged the information. I am not misapplying principles: you are doing so. It is accepted policy that if you have generally reliable sources that are backing up the statement, such as Washington Post, NPR, CNN, NYT, et al., and then you have a marginally reliable source such as Newsweek, which by Wikipedia consensus is not considered reliable in controversial scenarios per WP:MREL and the discussion It was determined prior that Newsweek, post 2013, is not a reliable source Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_350#Kim_Kardashian_vs_Hunter_Biden Andre🚐 03:20, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Section about Biden's many gaffes during his presidency and concerns about cognitive state

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
What do you guys think about adding a section for the notable gaffes Biden has had during his presidency as well as the concerns about his age and mental state? Not sure if this maybe belongs more in his public image article but it's definitely notable with famous incidents such as him falling down the stairs of Air Force One multiple times, off his bike, and more recently the ice cream gaffe which was taken out of context but still damaged his image. I'm not going to list every single gaffe and fall he has had but there are many more like these and everytime its reported on in the news and people even if they are mainly conservatives raise concerns about his fitness and mental state. These gaffes are having an impact on the publics perception of him with an NBC News poll in June saying 68% of voters have concerns about his mental health up from 51% in October of 2020. 43% of Democrats also have concerns now which is up from 21% in 2020. Of course polls aren't completely reliable but I think this demonstrates his constant gaffes along with the fact he is the oldest president in history are having a cumulative effect overtime on his public perception in regards to his health and mental fitness. I know there are probably W:NPOV concerns about adding this but as long as it's made clear in the new section that he hasn't been diagnosed with anything, his doctor says he is healthy and these are just speculative concerns coming mainly from Republicans it should be fine. UkraineWarProposal (talk) 22:03, 2 August 2023 (UTC) Oppose, not necessary or helpful. Andre🚐 22:13, 2 August 2023 (UTC) Please elaborate. If I wasn't clear let me reiterate that I don't want the concerns about his cognitive state to be presented as fact since they certainly aren't. I think his gaffes are definitely worth including because they have become a staple of his presidency and are widely reported on. The concerns even if they aren't founded on solid evidence or a medical diagnosis are having an impact on his public image which is notable. Again I would like to also ask if this belongs more in the article about his public image. It might be more relevant there then here but I'm not sure. UkraineWarProposal (talk) 22:17, 2 August 2023 (UTC) Current coverage of his gaffes at Joe Biden and Public image of Joe Biden is sufficient. Any mention of his alleged mental acuity issues are unwarranted without medical diagnoses. That was the standard taken for Donald Trump when commentators and independent psychologist were saying he had mental problems. I think specific mention of any gaffes would likely be WP:UNDUE. Iamreallygoodatcheckers talk 22:18, 2 August 2023 (UTC) Not including anything about his alleged poor cognitive state without a diagnosis makes alot of a sense so I withdraw my proposal for that. However I still think there is a lack of coverage of his more recent gaffes during his presidency and the impact it is having on the publics view of him in the public image article. Currently the article just states that conservative news outlets and Donald Trump have questioned Bidens mental acuity. Yet it makes no mention of the numerous gaffes he has had which said conservatives are using as a basis for their allegations. Currently it reads like Donald Trump and other Conservatives are making these allegations based on absolutely nothing which isn't true. UkraineWarProposal (talk) 22:30, 2 August 2023 (UTC) Conservative allegations don't need to have a basis, because American conservatives have departed fact-based reality. Your idea is without merit, so drop it. Andre🚐 23:41, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Foreign Affairs and Israel

It doesn't make sense to include the National Strategy to Combat Antisemitism in this section, since it is a domestic strategy and only mentions Israel a few times. If we were to keep it in this section, we should emphasize sections that directly address the state of Israel, such as " The U.S. Government, led by the Department of State, will continue to combat antisemitism abroad and in international fora—including efforts to delegitimize the State of Israel," although this still inaccurately implies Israel is a Jewish (and not multi-ethnic) state and that criticisms of the government are intrinsically antisemitic. The document does mention that people sometimes assume that Jewish people support the state of Israel and are treated poorly based on this assumption, which might be relevant as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Catboy69 (talk • contribs) 18:34, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

A.I.?

I think the executive order pertaining to AI marked a big moment in the Biden presidency. He's the first president to address AI and will probably be known for his work in helping develop and regulate it much like Space Force for Trump or Affordable Healthcare for Obama or the Patriot Act for Bush. I think it will open up a new generation of enterprise with Biden largely to credit for reigning it in.

"Protect Americans from AI-enabled fraud and deception by establishing standards and best practices for detecting AI-generated content and authenticating official content. The Department of Commerce will develop guidance for content authentication and watermarking to clearly label AI-generated content."

Biden will probably be known as the first A.I. President and the face of a new generation of presidents, where A.I. becomes a perpetual issue much like the Patriot Act. Whether for good or bad, the debate will be open because of what President Biden started.

Just like George Bush lead global conversation on terrorism after the Patriot act was signed in 2001, roughly the next 15 years many journalists, pundits and political analysts argued about the ramifications of it. After Biden leaves office in 2029, I suspect in the next 30 years pundits will have discussions about the historic nature of Biden's executive order and how President Biden (2021-2029) intimated the path for a High-Technology future, and set the parameters thereof.

Just as another historic president Abraham Lincoln (1861-1865) comprehended the need for first intercontinental railroad after he signed the Act into law in 1862, Joe Biden's thorough understanding of AI and the positives and negatives thereof, will have a huge impact on future generations. I think it's (likely) if Joe Biden is known for anything in his presidency, it'll be for COVID relief and being the first high-tech oriented/Futuristic President, especially with the microchips bill and the AI order. Although presidents have used computers in the oval office like Carter and Bush, the amount of legislation related to them was scarce. Joe Biden understands the potential of AI and technology which is why he signed the CHIPS ACT. No president before him has had his mind more oriented towards the future of technology like Joe Biden. If Disruptive Tech, like AI, Electric Cars, Quantum Computing becomes a thing in 20 years, a futuristic oriented president like Joe Biden who understands this issues would be the reason, and would rightfully deserve credit as a benchmark in history. Unlike previous presidents in the 21st Century like Bush, Obama or Trump who didn't have the capacity or mental awareness to understand things like ChatGPT, or high-technology.

68.189.2.14 (talk) 08:38, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

New Line - Approval Ratings and Image

Hello,

I am here to suggest a new line be added to the section referenced by the title above.

In the section "Approval Ratings and Image", it proceeds to mention by quote:

" According to Gallup, in October 2023, Biden's approval rating dropped to 37% and dropped 11 points among Democrats. An October 30, 2023 poll by the Arab American Institute, support for Biden among Arab Americans dropped from 59% in 2020 to 17%. The drop in support has been attributed to the administration's handling of the 2023 Israel-Hamas War."

From this I took the liberty by curiosity to do a quick lookup on Jewish voter support, to which I immediately found an NPR article from November 16 that states Jewish American support for Biden according to a poll conducted on November 5-9 by the "Jewish Electorate Institute” (which is described as "an independent, non-partisan organization dedicated to deepening the public's understanding of Jewish American participation in our democracy.")

This is also inspired; rooted when taking into account the recent Israel-Hamas War, which the Wikipedia line also references.

According to the poll when focusing on and around President Biden:

- "74% of Jewish voters approve of President Biden’s handling of the war between Israel and Hamas." - " 68% of Jewish voters say they would support President Biden over former President Trump who would have the support of only 22% of Jewish voters – an eight-point decline in Jewish voters’ support for Trump compared to a similar poll before the 2020 election." - "President Biden has a job approval of 66% among Jewish voters [. . .]" - "80% of American Jews expressing support for President Biden’s $14.4 billion request to Congress for military aid to Israel and 68% supporting the United States’ calls for a humanitarian pause to enable safe delivery of food, medicine, and water to Gaza." - "91% of Jewish voters believe that someone can be critical of Israeli government policy and still be pro-Israel" - "93 percent, said they're worried about rising antisemitism, and more respondents said they trusted Biden and Democrats to fight antisemitism as compared with former President Donald Trump and Republicans. (NPR)"

Perhaps it would be a good addition to the main Wikipedia subject I have referenced by the title, to include both Arab Americans and Jewish Americans voices when focusing on Biden's Approval Rating.

I must also add that the NPR is listed as a checkmarked reliable source according to Wikipedia. The article I have included here does not seem to be an opinion piece.

Sources Used in Order:

https://www.npr.org/2023/11/16/1213406754/jewish-voters-biden-israel-hamas-war

https://www.jewishelectorateinstitute.org/november-2023-national-survey-of-jewish-voters/

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources (NPR - National Public Radio)

Please do add this to the main subject within the article.

Thank you for reading, and thanks in advance for adding the section I have presented above here.

- Anon Wikipedia Researcher ‘2601-601’ 2601:601:A400:D4A0:283A:FE32:2E7E:91D4 (talk) 05:31, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Mr. Potato Head and the American Rescue Plan.

Currently there is a segment under the American Rescue Plan subheading that goes as follows:

While debates and negotiations over the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 were ongoing, some Republicans, including House minority leader Kevin McCarthy, Donald Trump Jr., and Rep. Madison Cawthorn, focused instead on the decision by the Dr. Seuss estate to stop publishing what many viewed as a racially-offensive Dr. Seuss book and the re-branding of the "Mr. Potato Head" toy.

Is this really relevant to be mentioned in the subheading for the American Rescue Plan for the 'Presidency of Joe Biden' Wikipedia article? it seems to me to have been more so a momentary social media reaction that didn't go anywhere rather than a continued solid push by Republican leadership against the Plan itself. It resulted in no resolutions introduced by the House, nor any pieces of legislation signed, nor any tangible changes towards the plan at all. While Mr. Potato Head was mentioned by those members it was not related to the Plan nor Joe Biden's handling of the pandemic or any actual piece of legislation related to the American Rescue Plan. Even as a vague criticism of liberal policy it appears to have no actual correlation to the plan itself. If anything, it appears to be merely added as a result of recency bias due during the actual negotiations regarding the Plans passage. LosPajaros (talk) 08:25, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

References

New Line - Approval Ratings and Image - Notification

This is a small notification hoping that anyone with editing privileges can read the section " New Line - Approval Ratings and Image" in this talk article, and consider adding it into the respective topic line.

If for whatever reason one of you refuses to add it, please let me know if an issue is there.

Thanks for reading. 2601:601:A400:D4A0:70C7:98D8:123:F936 (talk) 13:47, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Clarifying continued recognition of Jerusalem as the capital

Re Ferret's revert for being unsourced.

As it stands, the bit about keeping the embassy in Jerusalem glosses over the context of why that decision is of significance. It links to United States recognition of Jerusalem as capital of Israel, but per MOS:NOFORCELINK I think adding even a few words of background information would provide a sufficient understanding.

The existing sources on that paragraph cover what I would like to add. Here's what I'd like it to be changed to:

"Early on the Biden administration addressed Trump's recognition of Jerusalem as the Israeli capital. The White House confirmed that the U.S. Embassy would remain in Jerusalem and it would continue to be recognized as the capital."

That should be covered by existing reference [3]https://rollcall.com/2021/02/09/white-house-confirms-biden-will-keep-embassy-in-jerusalem/

Let me know your thoughts. Thanks. Arcturus95 (talk) 20:03, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

While your edit was unsourced at the time, I was primarily reverting the sockpuppet AidanCristianoRonaldo123. If you have sources to back your edit, go forth. -- ferret (talk) 20:22, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Perfect, thanks. Arcturus95 (talk) 20:25, 12 February 2024 (UTC)