Jump to content

Talk:Joe Biden

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Former good articleJoe Biden was one of the Social sciences and society good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
    Article milestones
    DateProcessResult
    September 18, 2008Good article nomineeNot listed
    September 19, 2008Good article nomineeListed
    April 22, 2020Good article reassessmentDelisted
    June 28, 2020Good article reassessmentDelisted
    October 4, 2020Good article nomineeNot listed
    Current status: Delisted good article

    Current consensus

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

    01. Mention that Biden is the oldest president in lead. (Feb 2021)

    02. Deleted non-consensus
    No consensus on section about gaffes. (March 2021 - though closer said that proposer should file a new RfC with a clearer question).

    03. The infobox is shortened. (Feb 2021)

    04. The official 2021 White House portrait should be used as the lead image. (Jan 2021, March 2021)

    05. The infobox 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. (July 2021)

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

    Biden and 88th Annual Academy Awards

    Biden had a standing ovation and addressed the documentary's coverage of assault on college campuses and the need for change. It was a very important action for the very serious issue. I am confused to why that was deleted.

    Starlighsky (talk) 03:08, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    It was deemed trivial by the editor who removed it. I do wonder if it is something worth specifically calling out on the article about his entire life; it may be more appropriate for Political positions of Joe Biden or Presidency of Joe Biden. 331dot (talk) 07:37, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What was deleted was a about, during the Academy Awards, a vice president making a brief speech against rape on college campuses and introducing Lady Gaga's song which addressed the same issue.  Starlighsky (talk) 12:51, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So is this a significant event in HIS life? Slatersteven (talk) 13:00, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would think for the majority of those reading the article, it would be considered as so. Starlighsky (talk) 13:39, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I hope it is not misunderstood as to what I am about to write, but it is the kind of information that Trump supporters would be happy to know was deleted.  Starlighsky (talk) 13:13, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not care what they think, I care what I think. Slatersteven (talk) 13:14, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Which is good thing. I just find the article a bit biased and am trying to help. Here is another example from this article. I want to again mention how Biden spoke at the Academy Awards against rape on college campuses before this quote from the article is read:
    "The political writer Howard Fineman has written: "Biden is not an academic, he's not a theoretical thinker, he's a great street pol. He comes from a long line of working people in Scranton—auto salesmen, car dealers, people who know how to make a sale. He has that great Irish gift." Starlighsky (talk) 13:43, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not seeing how one balances the other. You would need something saying he is an Academic or some such. Slatersteven (talk) 13:46, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    They don't balance each other. However, the quote does not accurately represent the character in the biography and sounds almost racist as well. There already refences in the article to his career as a professor, though. Starlighsky (talk) 16:12, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It definitely does not need an entire section and a block quote. It might be worth a sentence somewhere, but I'm not 100% sure on that. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:45, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Starlighsky and Slatersteven: I added a sentence to the part of the Vice Presidency section that talks about sexual violence. Is this a good compromise? QuicoleJR (talk) 16:00, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    For me, no. It is still just a peice of trivia. Slatersteven (talk) 16:19, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it is a very good compromise and helps for information in the future as well. Lady Gaga sang "Til it happens to you" and was accompanied on-stage by 50 people who had suffered from sexual assault. Starlighsky (talk) 18:20, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    RFC: Should Biden's building of a port to facilitate American aid to Palestinians be mentioned in the lead?

    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. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 17:07, 13 June 2024 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

    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.

    Should Biden's building of a port to facilitate American aid to Palestinians be mentioned in the lead?

    • Option #1: No.
    • Option #2: Yes.
    • Option #3: Aid in general should be mentioned. Not the port itself.

    Does it merit inclusion? KlayCax (talk) 20:24, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Option #1/(Note: RFC submitter): No per WP: CRYSTAL and WP: WEIGHT. It is indeterminate on whether the aid will have a significant impact on reducing the man-made starvation of Palestinians in Gaza. Beyond this, Biden has taken the most pro-Israeli position of any current world leader outside of Israel, opposed a likely upcoming ICC arrest warrant for Benjamin Netanyahu/other Israeli officials, and given billions of dollars towards Israeli military aid, a factor in of itself of the Palestinian famine. Having a majority of the lead talk about Biden's humanitarian aid for Palestinians is therefore WP: UNDUE and goes against normative lead guidelines. It also comes across, in my mind, as a case of blatant whitewashing. KlayCax (talk) 20:53, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Option #2/3: Yes per WP:NPOV. Just as it is mentioned that Biden has sent military aid to Israel, per WP:NPOV it should also be mentioned that Biden has sent humanitarian aid to Palestinian civilians in Gaza.[1][2][3] You can't just put what you like or what suits you.
    I agree with the lead of the article current description about the port in Gaza, although I would have no problem with it mention in general terms that Biden has sent humanitarian aid to Gaza, as Option #3 propose. Esterau16 (talk) 22:21, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Except there's a consensus among humanitarian aid experts that the port will be ultimately inconsequential in preventing mass starvation. Effectively, it will do little to prevent it. How is this notable? KlayCax (talk) 22:57, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A large part of your argument is based on WP:CRYSTAL: It is indeterminate on whether the aid will have a significant impact. And yet you are now making an argument based on the fact you have a WP:CRYSTALBALL. Effectively, it will do little to prevent it. You cannot argue both ways within minutes. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:33, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I was pointing out that most humanitarian aid experts and human rights organizations claim this. Not making a WP: CRYSTAL prediction. (I was typing on my phone. Apologies.)
    But is this matter not WP: CRYSTAL? Why should it be included? Especially when there's no good evidence that it'll make a significant impact. KlayCax (talk) 02:41, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no idea what the impact will be. Apparently you think you do know -- but ironically refer to CRYSTAL. O3000, Ret. (talk) 10:39, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Options 3/1 Seems undue to single out a port in the lead, unless that's the only aid Biden has given to Gaza. (Summoned by bot) Some1 (talk) 22:48, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Options 1 This is a complete absurdity, the attempt to jam every Israel/Palestine tidbit into the biography of an 81 yr-old career politician. Place it in the appropriate sub-article. WP:RECENTISM and WP:UNDUE. Zaathras (talk) 02:08, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Options 1 No, it's too early to assess its long-term significance. TFD (talk) 02:48, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • No (option 1) – Per The Four Deuces, it's too early to assess its long-term significance. This seems like a WP:RECENTISM issue. Graham (talk) 06:02, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 1/3 Too early to put it in the lead. Humanitarian aid in general is already mentioned, I would support keeping it that way. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:45, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 1. Far too soon to know if that specific aid is significant enough to call out in the lead of the article about his entire life- possibly even in the lead of Presidency of Joe Biden. 331dot (talk) 14:45, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 1 it's a minor event in his life--it belongs in foreign policy of the Joe Biden administration where it's clear he has the final ok but lots of high officials are involved. Rjensen (talk) 15:20, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 3 or Option 1, with caveats. (Summoned by bot). The dock is arguably due for a couple of sentences of passing reference in the main body of the article, and some oblique mention of the subject/his administration's relationship to aid to Palestine during the current conflict is probably due for the lead. But I'm joining with the emerging consensus here in judging that the particular detail of the dock is just too discrete and subtle of a detail (relative to the immensity as such a BLP as this), to warrant inclusion in the lead.
      That said, I want to be careful to separate my support from some of the arguments upon which exclusion is proposed above, because there are elements of the OP's !vote that I feel stray more than a little into WP:OR and WP:RGW territory. It is not appropriate for us to be excluding on the basis that this detail would cast the subject in too positive a light in relation to Palestinian people, where he (according to the idiosyncratic views of one or more of our editors) doesn't deserve such a reputation based on other actions. That is far too direct and high level an analysis for our editors to be making by themselves (again, per the obvious role of OR in such reasoning).
      Rather, the valid policy reason not to include this detail in the lead is to observe that the amount of coverage the dock receives in over-arching coverage of the article's subject, as both a contemporary political and ultimately historical figure, is relatively insignificant (at least as best the corpus of sources currently indicates) when compared against the overall content of such a large article, and the demanding constraints of its lead. SnowRise let's rap 19:01, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • What SnowRise said O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:18, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option #1: No, not until we have some idea of its impact, and when the conflict is over. Slatersteven (talk) 09:14, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 1- I, too am of the opinion that it is far too soon to put this in the lede. Let us wait until the long-term impact can be gauged. My 2¢.   Aloha27  talk  11:36, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:Polling is not a substitute for discussion: Is there a reason KlayKlax asked this question in the first place? It seems out of the blue. Kire1975 (talk) 14:34, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a Request for Comment, to settle an editorial dispute. It is not a poll. You should probably take some time to learn these things before quoting guidelines to fellow editors. Zaathras (talk) 00:20, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 1 Obviously UNDUE as per previous comments. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 10:06, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 1 or possibly 3 Obviously UNDUE as per previous comments. and RECENT too. Pincrete (talk) 05:02, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 1. The thing has fallen apart for now anyway. It will take at least a week to repair and may fall apart again the first time there are rough seas. Even during the ten days or so that it was operational, it brought in a tiny fraction of the amount of aid that was envisaged. --Andreas JN466 22:49, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 1 with caveats. Of the three options proposed, not mentioning the floating pier (it is not a port in the strict sense, as per the article about it, and should be called with precision at first mention, especially that there is a Wikipedia article dedicated to a floating pier) makes the most sense given that the structure has been short-lived this far and its importance or impact is not clear at all. And especially that the dock is not even mentioned directly in the current version of this article.
    Further to this, if Biden's humanitarian aid to Palestine wholly depends on the floating pier, i.e. without the pier there is no aid (it is not clear to me without a further investigation whether that is the case), then I suggest either inverting option 3 and referencing the pier instead of aid to favour concrete information over generalities, or dropping any mention of aid from the lead as well.
    I have not gone through the revision history, but I find it strange to discuss the inclusion in the lead of something that is not currently mentioned in the content. I would precede any decision here with adding at least 1-2 sentences about the dock (with a link to its own article) and clarifying its relationship to US humanitarian aid for Palestine. VampaVampa (talk) 19:45, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 1 without any caveats. Gaza floating pier is already broken and meaningless, just a few trucks have passed. It might be notable only as a ridiculous waste of taxpayer's money, solely for the purpose of PR, or just another example for those commenters who harshly criticize Biden administration for incompetence. My very best wishes (talk) 21:06, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • No seems WP:UNDUE, especially for a biography. Prcc27 (talk) 03:35, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No however it can be pagelinked to in 'humanitarian aid' Alexanderkowal (talk) 10:24, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Option 1 per above. LiamKorda 04:01, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    References

    1. ^ https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2024/04/24/israel-hamas-war-news-gaza-palestine/
    2. ^ https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2024/04/23/senate-passes-ukraine-israel-taiwan-tiktok-congress/73416799007/
    3. ^ https://www.voanews.com/a/us-airdrops-of-humanitarian-aid-into-gaza-explained/7511264.html
    • No While it might be significant in the article body it's really just a part of a larger middle east strategy and by itself not due for inclusion in the article lead at all. Springee (talk) 14:03, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 1 UNDUE. Cossde (talk) 04:20, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 1. Undue and excessive information. Not exactly career-defining. — Czello (music) 17:44, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 1 undue.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:41, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 1 This is about him, not his presidency. so Unless he personally built it or personally delivered this aid, this was US government action. Slatersteven (talk) 10:48, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    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.

    Beau's biographical sentence

    Under Second Marriage, it says "Beau Biden became an Army judge advocate in Iraq and later Delaware attorney general"

    He became a military lawyer in the United States, later serving in Iraq. By then, he was already elected the Delaware attorney general. This should read "Beau Biden was elected the Delaware Attorney General as well as serving as a lawyer in the Delaware Army National Guard."

    Does Iraq need to be mentioned? If so, it can be tacked on the sentence I suggest.ItsRainingCatsAndDogsAndMen (talk) 14:10, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Hunter Biden conviction

    @Slatersteven and other interested editors. Hunter Biden has now been convicted of a three felonies. I added a sentence under 'Second marriage' about this, after our existing sentence about Hunter Biden: Hunter Biden worked as a Washington lobbyist and investment adviser; his business dealings and personal life came under significant scrutiny during his father's presidency. While Hunter's conviction is obviously not a central detail about Joe Biden, I think it's still relevant enough to be included here. To put it another way, if we have one sentence on Hunter Biden, we can have two, and a person's son being convicted of a felony is no small matter, particularly when that person is the President and their son's problems have been a political issue during their presidency. Analogously, we mention Billy Carter's issues on Jimmy Carter's page. What are your thoughts on how we handle this? —Ganesha811 (talk) 16:04, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    We already mentioned " business dealings and personal life came under significant scrutiny during his father's presidency" that is all we need to say. Slatersteven (talk) 16:07, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Being the subject of scrutiny (largely from Joe Biden's political opposition) and being convicted of multiple felonies (by a federal jury) are very different things. If there's a way to work everything into one sentence, that would be fine, but I think the conviction is worth mentioning. —Ganesha811 (talk) 16:09, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We are not jamming an unrelated matter into this article, no. The gun conviction does not have a shred of relevance to Joe Biden. Zaathras (talk) 21:41, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If that's consensus, I don't mind, but in that case we should remove the prior sentence about Hunter Biden, or at least the part about his work as a lobbyist and investment advisor. That is even less relevant to Joe Biden. Details about Ashley Biden and Beau Biden earlier in the paragraph could also be removed. —Ganesha811 (talk) 21:43, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Going on a snarky "just remove everything, then!" is not exactly a winning argument for you. The existence of notable siblings and children and other family members are what a reader generally would expect to find in a section about, well, family and relationships. What we don't do is dive into minutiae of them, especially salacious minutiae as that runs afoul of WP:COATRACK. Zaathras (talk) 21:50, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I wasn't trying to be snarky, I was being serious. I don't mind if our policy for that section is "mention his children only insofar as they exist, and link to their pages", but then we should be consistent. If our policy is "mention his children + any details about them that are relevant to Joe Biden and his presidency", then my opinion is that Hunter's conviction is a relevant detail. Currently, our policy is "mention his children + some basic biographical details about them that are not really relevant to Joe, except in the case of Hunter where we add a phrase about scrutiny during Joe's presidency." That's not very clear. The federal government has convicted the President's son of multiple felonies while that President was running the federal government. This is not minutiae, nor is it particularly salacious. I'm sympathetic to the WP:COATRACK argument, though; in which case the first policy I mentioned might be most appropriate. —Ganesha811 (talk) 22:25, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    ... shouldn't that go in his own article? Hunter Biden is not involved in this presidency at all. Trillfendi (talk) 21:45, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    He's not involved in Joe Biden's White House, but he is relevant to Joe Biden's presidency, as a line of controversy and attention which Biden's political opponents have dedicated considerable attention to. Of course, we're not here to reward partisan grandstanding, but given that Hunter has been convicted of 3 federal crimes while Biden heads the federal government. Of course, he's also relevant on Joe Biden's page simply as Joe Biden's son - this article is about the person, not the presidency. —Ganesha811 (talk) 22:27, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is Joe Biden's article, not Hunter's. Joe had absolutely nothing to do with Hunter's crimes. What should appear in this article is any specific action from or statement made by Joe about Hunter and his crimes. Nothing more. HiLo48 (talk) 23:39, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Evidently consensus is running the other way here. Ah well, thanks all for the discussion. —Ganesha811 (talk) 23:45, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Saying that Hunter Biden's personal life came under scrutiny without saying what the outcome was is like saying Joe Biden's election was close without saying who won. Put it in but limit it to one sentence.
    Note also that the editors who most closely watch this article do not necessarily reflect the broader community in what they consider relevant. TFD (talk) 00:17, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think we should include the mention of Hunter's conviction. The WaPo has an article, "Hunter Biden guilty verdict could take personal toll on president."
    Excerpts:
    • "Hunter Biden’s guilty verdict Tuesday, coupled with a trial that resurfaced dark moments in the Biden family history, could weigh heavily on the president in the final months of a grueling reelection campaign, many of the president’s allies privately worry."
    • "The political impact is less clear. . ."
    • "But the personal toll on a president who has already suffered the deaths of two children and grappled for years with his son’s addiction could be far more severe." YoPienso (talk) 02:40, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    All those WaPO quotes are speculative. Note the use of the word "could". We won't write "could" in our article. HiLo48 (talk) 03:20, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The point is, a major RS is commenting on the possible impacts of Hunter's conviction on the POTUS. It doesn't matter if it's speculation; it shows Hunter's trial and outcome are relevant to his father. See Ganesha811's comment made at 22:27, 11 June 2024.
    Also note how s/he dropped the issue for lack of consensus. I'm saying if more editors commented, there might be a consensus. It may be best to wait a few days to see how this impacts Pres. Biden. After all, WP:NOTNEWS. That doesn't mean we should dismiss out of hand inclusion of the event in the very near future. YoPienso (talk) 04:00, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No it shows it might, and we do not engage in predictions. If it has an effect we can say it, in the article about the election or his presidency, not in an article about him (the man). Slatersteven (talk) 11:18, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not our prediction, but predictions reported in reliable sources. That there will be a presidential election in 2024 is also a prediction, but is included in this article because of weight. TFD (talk) 11:46, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, that is because it will happen bar very very unforeseen circumstances, its not pure speculation, this is. Slatersteven (talk) 11:58, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, it's not pure speculation since it's based on conversations he's had with people who chose not to give their names. It's not like a columnist is pondering the situation and imagining how Biden may be feeling. It's fine--probably best--to wait for hard, reliably sourced facts, but let's be clear in our discussion. YoPienso (talk) 18:07, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't think an encyclopedia should include anything about how some unnamed people think someone else is feeling. Also don't like anything WP:CRYSTALBALL related. Also think mention in this article should at least wait for sentencing. There is a difference between 20 years in prison vs. community service or probation. Of course the Hunter Biden article can include more detail. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:22, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:CRYSTALBALL says, "Wikipedia does not predict the future." Reporting informed sources' predictions of the future, whether there will an election in November or Hunter Biden's conviction will affect that election is not a prediction by Wikipedia. Guidelines and policies are not incantations to be chanted when we disagree with an edit. Their relevance should be explained. TFD (talk) 03:26, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There's a lot of words here now, but nobody has yet convinced me that a story about a person who is not the subject of this article should appear in this article. HiLo48 (talk) 02:30, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What about just something short like his business dealings, personal life, and subsequent legal issues came under significant scrutiny during his father's presidency? I don't know if we really need to tell the story on this article. Also, the conviction on the firearms charge is not the only legal issue he's facing, he still yet may be convicted on some pretty significant tax charges (including felony charges) as well. Endwise (talk) 04:16, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    But this is Joe's article, and none of that is about Joe. Your final sentence is pure speculation, and again, not about Joe. HiLo48 (talk) 04:27, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It is not speculation that he is also facing felony tax charges, his trial is in a few months. And this article has multiple paragraphs of material about Joe's family members (which is not unusual for a biography), including already mentioning Hunter's personal life -- I'm suggesting adding two or three words. Endwise (talk) 05:17, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    This thread has morphed from whether or not we should say, "In 2024, Hunter was convicted of three felonies in a federal trial on charges related to his 2018 purchase of a gun purchase [sic] while he was addicted to drugs" to whether we should insert "and subsequent legal issues" into the existing sentence, "Hunter Biden worked as a Washington lobbyist and investment adviser; his business dealings and personal life came under significant scrutiny during his father's presidency." I should hope we can all agree to include the latter, since it's factual, well-sourced, and relevant to Joe Biden; it's relevance is also well-documented in the MSM. At this point, I think we should hold off on the felony convictions because, even if later they become highly relevant to this BLP, they are too recent to include in Joe's now. (Clearly, they should be--and are--included in Hunter's BLP.) YoPienso (talk) 22:14, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I think this seems like a reasonable compromise - it's four words that makes this article more accurate, in an already-existing sentence. —Ganesha811 (talk) 04:15, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course. Everything about Hunter should be recorded in Hunter's bio. But Joe had nothing to do with any of the bad things Hunter did. HiLo48 (talk) 05:35, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Whether or not Joe Biden *caused* the bad things Hunter has done, a brief and summarized mention of those travails is still relevant to this page, both because of their impact on Joe Biden's presidency and because Hunter Biden is Joe's son and we have exceedingly brief biographical summaries of all of his children already on the page, by longstanding consensus. I support the compromise discussed by YoPienso and Endwise above. —Ganesha811 (talk) 12:35, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem is in gaining agreement on precisely what the impact of Hunter's actions on Joe's presidency is. Some will say it's close to zero, whereas the Republican Party will tell you it makes Joe completely unsuited to be president. A common cliche today in the campaigning against Joe is the expression "the Biden crime family". Do WE say that? HiLo48 (talk) 00:45, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Until or unless James and/or Joe Biden are convicted of a crime, no, we do not say that. YoPienso (talk) 15:57, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Do we mention presidential children's legal probs in bios of other US presidents? GoodDay (talk) 02:55, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Hunter is the first child of a POTUS to be convicted of a crime, but no, we don't mention the numerous arrests in modern times of presidents' children. We don't mention Alice Roosevelt's shenanigans (more social than legal) in Teddy's bio. There seems to be no precedent or consensus to mention Hunter's conviction in his father's BLP. Later, we may include it in Presidency of Joe Biden, but it's too recent now.
    I would support editing "Hunter Biden worked as a Washington lobbyist and investment adviser; his business dealings and personal life came under significant scrutiny during his father's presidency." We could go with either "Hunter Biden worked as a Washington lobbyist and investment adviser; his business dealings, personal life, and subsequent legal issues came under significant scrutiny during his father's presidency" or "Hunter Biden worked as a Washington lobbyist and investment adviser; his business dealings and legal issues came under significant scrutiny during his father's presidency." YoPienso (talk) 15:33, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think there's enough support for one of those options that you should add it - wording can be subsequently tweaked. —Ganesha811 (talk) 16:06, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Joe Biden series template

    Why is this template not on this page? All other US president articles have respective "series" templates on their articles. ThingsCanOnlyGetWetter (talk) 13:59, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    TBH, such 'series templates' should be deleted from all US office holders' bio pages. GoodDay (talk) 14:29, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    TBH, I agree with this. I'll get round to doing that. --ThingsCanOnlyGetWetter (talk) 15:30, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    !!! Why no series templates?? They're so useful! YoPienso (talk) 15:35, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    On second thoughts, I now think they have use and have added them back. --ThingsCanOnlyGetWetter (talk) 16:08, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Joe_Biden&oldid=1229400081"