Cannabis Ruderalis

thcscience_admin

    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. 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)

    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]

    This needs to be done. It's a factually wrong sentence. It gets the timeline wrong (he was Delaware AG before deploying to Iraq) and makes it seem like he became an officer IN Iraq, which also isn't true.ItsRainingCatsAndDogsAndMen (talk) 10:33, 2 July 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]
      That sounds like a minor detail which doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article. TopSecretRavenclaw (talk) 03:54, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      If your son was convicted of a crime, would that be a minor detail in your life? Maybe if you were also a criminal, but not if you're an upstanding citizen, and specially not if you're the POTUS. YoPienso (talk) 13:40, 4 July 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]

    Joe is not facing felony tax charges. HiLo48 (talk) 04:53, 24 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]
    If we are honest, the issue is not that Hunter's affairs came under significant scrutiny. It is that Joe's political opponents are trying to use Hunter's affairs to cause political damage to Joe. HiLo48 (talk) 05:02, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Classic WP:SYN. YoPienso (talk) 18:32, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    DO you deny my observation? surely it's also WP:SYN to say "Hunter's affairs came under significant scrutiny." HiLo48 (talk) 04:04, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with your observation, but I don't have an RS for it. On Dec. 10, 2020, PBS asked that question, and sort of answered it. One commentator suggested "the Justice Department would be loathe, especially after 2016 and everything that happened with Hillary Clinton and the investigation into her e-mail server, to take any step that would have spilled out into the open and actually impacted the election." Later, she said, "But in terms of politicization, he's such an easy target for Joe Biden's foes and his political foes because he has had so many problems. He's — it's kind of open season on Hunter Biden." But in the next breath she pointed out that Jeff Sessions, not Bill Barr, started the investigation. If you can find an RS that doesn't try to have it both ways, I would support your adding that point to Presidency of Joe Biden and/or United States House Oversight Committee investigation into the Biden family.
    It's not WP:SYN to say "Hunter's affairs came under significant scrutiny." This is what the NYT ref after that sentence says: "The life of President Biden’s son Hunter Biden has come under intense scrutiny amid investigations by House Republicans and gun charges filed by federal prosecutors." ABC News also has an article titled "Timeline: Hunter Biden under legal, political scrutiny." YoPienso (talk) 22:14, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Ashley Biden’s Diary

    -Ashley Biden writes in her diary about taking showers with her dad (Joe Biden) probably not being appropriate.

    https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/ashley-biden-diary-claims/

    -Ashley Biden’s diary is confirmed by her as real in a court of law.

    https://www.axios.com/2024/06/17/biden-hunter-family-election-2024

    -Many of Wikipedia’s own “reliable sources” have confirmed this story.

    https://www.cnbc.com/2024/04/26/ashley-biden-in-unsealed-letter-to-judge-detailed-pain-from-diary-theft.html

    https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-68776262

    Is there anything else that needs to be proven to add this to his page? WhowinsIwins (talk) 00:00, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Three of your cites do not mention this. One does and quotes her as saying: "I will forever have to deal with the fact that my personal journal can be viewed online." Apparently you would like to add to this against her wishes. Anything else you would like to publish from her stolen, private diary? O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:23, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "Ashley Biden wrote in her letter to the Court that others had "once-grossly" misinterpreted her "once-private" writings and thrown "false accusations that defame my character and those of the people I love."[1]
    Ashley Biden, the author of the diary, says these are false accusations that have been misinterpreted. The accusation of Biden showering with his daughter "probably not being appropriate" should not be included in the article as it is a fringe theory and to include it here would be WP:UNDUE. Marincyclist (talk) 02:37, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I have to say that to this non-American, this seems as much a display of American prudery and puritanism as anything else. In many countries, there would not be an issue at all. If anything is included, the problem would need to be explained to those not automatically as shocked and horrified as we are apparently meant to be. HiLo48 (talk) 00:21, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Debate subsection in 2024 campaign section

    I believe there should be a "2024 debates" subsection in the "2024 presidential campaign" section. The debate yesterday was a watershed moment in the presidential campaign. Many mainstream politicians and institutions are openly calling for him to step down in light of his obvious cognitive issues. It is sufficiently notable to discuss. JDiala (talk) 03:27, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't believe there should be a subsection for debates per WP:WEIGHT, but the consideration among some prominent democrats to try and find a replacement nominee due to his performance in last night's debate is noteworthy. R. G. Checkers talk 03:35, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Added it in. I agree a subsection isn't needed so I just put in a normal paragraph. JDiala (talk) 04:02, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @JDiala There is a page on the 2024 U.S. Presidential Debates. Please do a {main page} link to it. Seananony (talk) 15:51, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Linked. JDiala (talk) 16:17, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    See WP:NPOV HiLo48 (talk) 03:41, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Also see WP:RECENTISM. There is zero evidence that that debate was a "watershed moment" of anything. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:53, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Irrespective of whether you agree with my description of it as a "watershed moment", note that many of Biden's prior debates (in previous campaigns) are mentioned in the article. There is evidence indicating that Friday's debate will be regarded as more significant than those prior debates. For instance, Politico described it as the "worst debate performance in American history." Similar strong sentiments have been echoed by numerous reliable sources. This suggests that this more than meets the inclusion threshold. JDiala (talk) 16:17, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Richard Nixon begs to differ with Politico's descriptor. They are a news source, we are an encyclopedia. We don't benefit from their purple prose, just the facts. (I think there's a guideline supplement or essay on that but I'm not finding it right now.) I note that the articles of Trump, Dubya, and Obama don't mention their debates. That includes Obama's first 2012 debate, which was rated similarly to this Biden debate. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:40, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If it was just a typical Biden didn’t do that good sort of thing, then sure it could be recentism, but when it’s to the point that major people in your party and publications (like the NYT editorial board) are asking you to drop out of the race, then it’s unprecedented and worth note. R. G. Checkers talk 18:41, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We are so in the moment that it can be hard to recognize the RECENTISM, but it is here. Hand-wringing on the part of an editorial board does not mean anything in the grand scheme of things.
    A reminder: The sheer panic Democrats felt in 2012 after Mitt Romney demolished Barack Obama at their first presidential debate in Denver can’t be overstated. It wasn’t one of those classic debate gaffes: Richard Nixon mopping his sweaty brow; Michael Dukakis’s robotic response to whether he’d favor the death penalty if someone raped and murdered his wife; or George H.W. Bush checking his watch; or even Al Gore’s audible sighs. With Obama, it was more nuanced. The usually witty and at times-electrifying President who could fire up a crowd better than anyone was confined to a stage he did not want to be on – and viewers saw that immediately. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:50, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A mention that Biden's performance has been widely panned is probably warranted, but I don't think we need to devote a section to that. Zaathras (talk) 17:07, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree, it doesn’t need a section but some reliable sources like the NYT have mentioned it. Logawinner (talk) 23:07, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Unless somebody has knowledge that the delegates pledged to Biden, are going to abandoned him for somebody else at the Democratic National Convention? We shouldn't add a subsection concerning the first debate. GoodDay (talk) 22:23, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    There is no need for a section on the debate. See WP:RECENTISM. Furthermore I don't believe Biden's performance is particularly noteworthy, most people agree he won on the facts and substance. The debate seems noteworthy now because it is new, will it still be important ten-years from now? I doubt it. Marincyclist (talk) 06:54, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The debate spoke for itself for anyone with their eyes open. It was a catastrophic and landmark turning point for Biden's presidency, so much so that even many democrats want him to step down. All the damage control efforts and subsequent attempts to write it off as mere "RECENTISM" is nonsense. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:08, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Gwillhickers There's a whole page for the debates already. Why duplicate it? Seananony (talk) 03:37, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've added a link to 2024 United States presidential debates in the "See also" section and in the "2024 presidential campaign" section of this BLP. Presently, we seem to be providing adequate coverage.
    Please note: This BLP does include the following:
    The first presidential debate was held on June 27, 2024, between Biden and presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump. Biden's performance was widely criticized, with commentators saying he frequently lost his train of thought and gave meandering answers. Several newspaper columnists declared Trump the winner, and polling indicated most of the public thought Trump won. After the debate, Biden faced calls to step down, including from fellow Democrats and the editorial boards of several major news outlets. YoPienso (talk) 15:05, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Yopienso Wikipedia says, "As a general rule, the "See also" section should not repeat links that appear in the article's body. " Wikipedia:See_also Seananony (talk) 00:55, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Is a hatnote considered the article's body? The link appears only where I inserted it, twice. What do you suggest I should do? YoPienso (talk) 02:40, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Yopienso GDiala added the link on 6/28. See above in this discussion item. I don't think it needs to be in See Also, but it's not a big deal either way. Seananony (talk) 05:26, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • 6/29, I mean.
    Seananony (talk) 05:28, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    OK. JDiala's addition wasn't easy to spot because the blue-link is first presidential debate. I do remember seeing you request that he add it.
    A number of the See also links are in the article, too. This is because the article is lacking one of the Wikipedia:Series templates which for some reason have fallen out of favor and are being replaced with WP:NAV boxes.
    I think I'll just ignore all rules. If somebody removes what I added, that's OK. YoPienso (talk) 13:55, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "Damage control"? Are you accusing any editor here of editing on behalf of a campaign? The rest of your remark ("debate spoke for itself", "catastrophic and landmark turning point") shows me that you lack an understanding of what WP:RECENTISM is. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:07, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    To clarify why I included the quote from the article, I support it 100%. The facts are verifiable and notable. To exclude them would be a whitewash--a misrepresentation by omission.
    Muboshgu, your comment above, There is zero evidence that that debate was a "watershed moment" of anything, could be construed to be damage control; there is considerable evidence in RSs that the debate was a watershed moment. We won't know definitively until Biden drops out of the race or stays in, or if he stays in, whether he wins or loses the election. YoPienso (talk) 15:51, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, construing it as "damage control" is a failure to WP:AGF. "Watershed moment" etc. is unsourced hyperbole. Only history, as you suggest, can tell us one way or the other. This is the point of WP:RECENTISM. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:06, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh please... We all know what "recentism" is. We really don't need you to recite the 'alphabet' for us, though apparently that idea provides a means for some to write this affair off as just another 'ho-hum' affair that will be forgotten by next week. Only history can tell us? What about those who witnessed the debate, and all the comments, many coming from Democrats, that immediately followed, which are still forth coming? You can wait for 'the book' to tell you what happened, as it seems you still don't, or refuse to, get it. This may be the first time in US history where a presidential candidate completely torpedoed his own chances for reelection. You can write this off as, and give us yet another link to, RECENTISM, but I'm afraid at this point most of us know better. Thanx for your guidance just the same.-- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:32, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You really do need to read up on NPOV policy, including RECENTISM. You need to remember that we are an encyclopedia and not a newspaper. I think you're the one failing or refusing to get the point. Your WP:CRYSTAL ball is foggy. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:37, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You really need to read up and RECENTISM yourself. Esp where it says "It is writing without an aim toward a long-term, historical view.". Again, this event will go down in history as Biden's Achilles' heel. Recentism is not some built in excuse used to minimalize significant historical events simply because they just occurred. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:46, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, you do not know what will or will not go down in history. I think you and other editors are blowing this out of proportion with your hyperbole. In other words, without an aim toward a long-term, historical view. See Obama's first 2012 debate and all three of Trump's 2016 debates. Election Day is not for four months. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:56, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Muboshgu, I assure you I'm assuming the best of faith with you.
    I'm writing a few notes about why I don't think calling the debate a "watershed moment" is hyperbolic.
    • NBC called the debate pivotal (synonym of "watershed") and disastrous.
    • In another article, NBC wrote:
    "Democrats just committed collective suicide," said a party strategist who has worked on presidential campaigns. "Biden sounds hoarse, looks tired and is babbling. He is reaffirming everything voters already perceived. President Biden can’t win. This debate is a nail in the political coffin."
    "It’s hard to argue that we shouldn’t nominate someone else," a Democratic consultant who works on down-ballot races said.
    Before the debate, voices on the left weren't declaring "Biden can't win," even if they wondered whether or not he could. Here we have a left-leaning RS reporting that, as a direct result of the debate, people are suggesting it's over for Biden. I take the phrase "a nail in the political coffin" as a rough synonym of watershed and a closer one of disastrous. The anonymous "Democratic consultant" isn't alone in suggesting Biden should withdraw; undoubtedly you've read the NYT editorial explaining why Biden must bow out.
    • That debate sent political shockwaves around the world. This isn't hyperbole. CNN wrote:
    President Joe Biden’s dismal showing at the CNN presidential debate against former President Donald Trump resonated around the world, with foreign diplomats expressing shock and concern [. . .]
    The overwhelming sentiment among more than half a dozen diplomats from Europe, the Middle East and Asia whom CNN spoke to was that it was “a bad night for Biden,” as one European diplomat put it.
    • Virtually every news source across the political spectrum is now, as a direct result of the debate, not only asking if Biden should withdraw, but creating rosters of potential replacements for him.
    YoPienso (talk) 19:22, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I don't mean to go on and on, but since many editors don't click on links, I'm pasting in a little more from that CNN article I quoted from above.
    "Trump ate him alive," said an Arab diplomat.
    "I was shell-shocked. I could not believe my eyes," an Asian diplomat said of Biden’s performance.
    Biden’s debate flop was front-page news across Europe, with left- and right-leaning newspapers excoriating the president — even in France, where the country has its own elections coming up this weekend. YoPienso (talk) 19:30, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I know that you are responding in good faith. Don't you think that these comments that you're reposting are a bit hyperbolic? This is why we wait for the dust to settle on current events so that we can assess their true impacts. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:52, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the warm response.
    You've referred to "unencyclopedic hyperbole" and "unsourced hyperbole" and ascribed them to your fellow editors. Here I'm showing properly sourced responses of international diplomats. Whether or not their comments are hyperbolic isn't ours to ask. We just say what the RSs say.
    Anyway, I'm fine with how we're covering this in the BLP at present--no need to add or subtract until the dust settles. . . or until Biden bombs again or rallies. Cheers, YoPienso (talk) 02:47, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Muboshgu — On the contrary, you're obviously trying to downplay what the rest of the world saw. While I agree we can't say absolutely what will happen with Biden and the democrat presidential candidacy at this point, nor has anyone tried to effect that idea in actual terms here in Talk, let alone in the Biden article, but it's rather easy to see this event in terms of its monumental implications. If you really have your doubts about the consequential aspects, still, all you have to do is look at all the news coverage and commentaries. Even the Democrats aren't so naive that they're just blowing this off as meaningless. Again, we can't speculate in the article about what will happen hereafter, but trying to sweep this under the rug with ideas like "RECENTISM" only serves to exemplify the seriousness of the issue.. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:47, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's still early in the game, but any coverage we afford the Trump-Biden debate and its aftermath will of course be outlined in neutral terms. I'm sure all experienced editors will not attempt to employ the use of embellishing adjectives, pro or con, but given all the many and diverse news accounts and commentaries, this affair will warrant its own section, imo -- esp in the likely event that Biden is replaced. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:44, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Your lack of good faith is disappointing. I am not downplaying anything, other than the unencyclopedic hyperbole that will fade in the coming weeks. The rest of your screed here isn't worth engaging with. I don't have anything left to add here. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:54, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, your lack of good faith seems to be the only real problem, referring to our reference to the debate and all the national and even world wide attention it has received, outlined above by another editor, as "unencyclopedic hyperbole" and "screed". That is indeed a lack of AGF and an attempt at downplaying, as was your repetitive reference to"recentism". It was clearly mentioned above that the event will be covered in neutral terms without the use of embellishing adjectives and such. That is some of the "screed" you're trying to sweep under the rug and won't acknowledge. Fine. That speaks volumes unto itself and only exemplifies at what lengths the denial camp will go in their wish for this event to disappear. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:47, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I just want to add the details at this point, 7/11/2024. Since the 1st debate, there is a call for the president to not run in the 2024 campaign from some politicians who are Democrats. This could make for an informative section with encyclopedic information. For example, President Lyndon Baynes Johnson did cancel his campaign in an election year. President Woodrow Wilson became incapacitated while in office from historians have considered to have been from a stroke or from Spanish Flu.
    I want to enter this conversation taking on both views with how to analyze this in a section is being considerate to a world leader who may be having serious health issues, by addressing the possible need for medical attention and therapeutic services. Starlighsky (talk) 18:00, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Alleged media cover up of Biden's mental state

    Thread retitled from "Media cover up of Biden's mental state". WP:TALKHEADPOV O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:51, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Before the recent debate, every mainstream news source had been repeatedly saying for years that Biden's mental health was fine, and that any claims to the contrary were "right wing conspiracy theories," "fake news," of "cheap fakes."

    However, after the debate, every one of these mainstream news sources admitted that there was indeed something wrong with Biden's mental condition.

    This article needs to address why the media lied and covered up Biden's mental state.

    Beaver's Library Book (talk) 21:36, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Do you have something you wish to add to the article? Otherwise, this would be construed as trolling. Zaathras (talk) 21:38, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Unsubtle NPOV trolling HiLo48 (talk) 00:19, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I just posted a bunch of sources below. Beaver's Library Book (talk) 16:43, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I just posted a long list of sources. Beaver's Library Book (talk) 16:38, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We have been very careful to not include the opinions of psychiatrists about Trump's mental health. We haven't even seen anything like that related to Biden. Which is to say we have more protective of Trump than Biden. Your accusation that the media "lied" about this is just silly. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:26, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I just posted a long list of sources. Beaver's Library Book (talk) 16:38, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Biden's mental capacity has been called into attention, once again, throughout the world, after the debate. This doubt, from other world leaders and news sources, and even among Democrats, hovering over a sitting president, a world leader, and a presidential candidate no less, is a serious affair and needs to be covered. Trying to censure this, and the attempt to scare editors away with threats of "trolling", can be considered a form of trolling itself and will very likely bring an NPOV tag to the article, with an RfC to follow.. It would be best to resolve this honestly from the beginning. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:23, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, Gwillhickers Beaver's Library Book (talk) 16:51, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Beaver's Library Book. — Actually the media is doing a fair job, at least at this point, in exploring Biden's mental state and his capacity to act as a president, now, and prospectively for another four years. The media shouldn't be the issue, but rather the idea of covering this advent in neutral terms here in the Biden article. At this point, the news and other sources touching on this affair are overwhelming. No one can say what the ultimate outcome will be with any certainty, but the doubt and loss of faith over Biden's abilities is impossible to deny at this point. At least we can cover that. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:30, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course they are doing a good job after the debate, because it's now too big to cover up. My criticism is about what they did before the debate. I have posted a bunch of sources below. Beaver's Library Book (talk) 16:43, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We cannot take video clips and use those as sources for any claims about Biden's mental state per no original research. We can use some other sources to say people are concerned, but honestly would be better suited for the articles about his campaign and presidency. We certainly cannot say there's a "cover up" without multiple strong reliable sources saying that exact phrase. It's hard to see how there could even be a cover up given the extensive coverage of the issue over the past 4 years. EvergreenFir (talk) 16:59, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Beaver's Library Book (BLB) has provided a long list of RSs that do allege a media cover-up of Biden's frailty. YoPienso (talk) 17:07, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The official line in rs before the debate was to relegate any public criticism of Biden's mental acuity to partisan conspiracism. Based on his performance in the debate, rs raised questions about it and quoted anonymous sources that said it was apparent to insiders before the debate.
    Note there is no concession in rs that the earlier speculation in right-wing media had any basis in reality. No reasonable observer could have questioned Biden's acuity until they saw his debate performance.
    Therefore, the media did not cover up and has merely been reporting the facts that are available. TFD (talk) 19:32, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So you're saying it was the White House, not the media, that was hiding Biden's weaknesses? YoPienso (talk) 22:50, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    They certainly did for Reagan EvergreenFir (talk) 23:50, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    RS don't say that the White House hid it, merely that some staffers had concerns based on private observations. I am not saying that is my view, just that is how it has been reported. TFD (talk) 01:29, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Please read Brian Stelter's take on that in the Vox article JDiala shared, especially starting with the section "The White House waged war on age reporting." Yet Stelter also blames the media, not for conspiring, but for failing to probe and for lacking courage.
    Also, JDiala's link to a CNN report, "President Joe Biden’s White House repeatedly and aggressively shot down reports on the president’s age and any possible limitations on his ability to perform all the duties of his office." YoPienso (talk) 05:58, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Stelter's article is not rs per Wikipedia:Newsorg. Your quote from CNN merely says that WH officials rejected reports on the president's infirmity, not that they knowingly mislead the public. It too probably also fails rs as news analysis. TFD (talk) 15:23, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Per WP:RSPSS, Vox is considered generally reliable. I don't understand what you want me to find at WP:NEWSORG that would disqualify it. YoPienso (talk) 00:31, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "News organizations" says, "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (invited op-eds and letters to the editor from notable figures) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact."
    The claims you want to include are based on analysis by a non-expert, hence unreliable. TFD (talk) 02:53, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Stelter quotes a multitude of articles from stalwart RSs, as well as quoting or paraphasing many reporters and observers. This isn't an opinion article. It is analysis, and it is reliable for the views and facts reported by the MSM.
    Check out the links here in this excerpt from Stelter's lead:
    The national media wasn’t dodging the story: The biggest newspapers in the country published lengthy stories about Biden’s mental fitness. The public wasn’t in the dark about Biden’s age: Most voters (67 percent in a June Gallup poll) thought he was too old to be president even before the debate. But questions about Biden’s fitness for office were not emphasized as much as they should have been.
    Stelter's sources:
    WaPo, NYT, WSJ, CNN
    Gallup Poll
    "Top reporters on the White House beat"
    "Key members of Biden’s party"
    Ted Cruz
    Charlotte Alter, senior correspondent for Time magazine
    Jack Shafer (Politico)
    The New York Times’s chief White House correspondent Peter Baker
    Chris Cillizza (CNN)
    S. Jay Olshansky, a longevity specialist at the University of Illinois Chicago
    The Atlantic’s Mark Leibovich
    Ezra Klein and Astead Herndon
    Special counsel Robert K. Hur
    MSNBC host Joe Scarborough and Biden biographer Evan Osnos, on record as saying Biden was fine
    Sean Hannity and Laura Ingraham, for their misleading anti-Biden video clips and commentary
    I don't know how you define "expert," but Brian Stelter, despite his aggressive delivery which personally annoys me, has considerable expertise covering politics and the media. He's identified at the top of the article with Brian Stelter is the author of three books about the media industry, a former media reporter at the New York Times, and a former anchor of CNN’s Reliable Sources.
    I say the Vox article is a RS for this BLP. YoPienso (talk) 12:58, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Collapse off-topic conversation

    Media cover up of Trump's mental state

    The morals of the debate was the Biden is mostly reality-based, while Trump is an unhinged liar (or delusional). Oh, the irony. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:56, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Biden has a long history of false statements from claiming that he graduated top of his law class, to saying there were WMDs in Iraq to saying he saw pictures of beheaded babies in Israel. TFD (talk) 03:07, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Whatever, I was just speaking about that debate. And, yup, politicians do lie, but Trump is spewing lies most of the time, in order to seduce his audience.
    Also, taking a widely-accepted statement at face value isn't a lie, even if that statement later turns out to be false. tgeorgescu (talk) 03:28, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Sources

    New York Times, June 24, 2024: "How Misleading Videos Are Trailing Biden as He Battles Age Doubts"
    https://web.archive.org/web/20240621184604/https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/21/us/politics/biden-age-videos.html
    New York Times, July 2, 2024: "Biden’s Lapses Are Increasingly Common, According to Some of Those in the Room"
    https://web.archive.org/web/20240702191943/https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/02/us/politics/biden-lapses.html
    CNN, July 2, 2024: "Biden’s mental fitness could have been better covered leading up to the debate, some White House reporters acknowledge"
    https://edition.cnn.com/2024/07/02/media/biden-mental-fitness
    Vox July 3, 2024: "Did the media botch the Biden age story? Asleep at the wheel? Complicit in a cover-up? The real story is far more complicated — and more interesting."
    https://www.vox.com/politics/358877/biden-age-debate-media-coverage
    The Hill, July 3, 2024: "On Biden’s debate, Democrats have no one to blame but themselves... They did what they did — they lied, they concealed the truth and they rigged their own party’s electoral process — to protect President Biden."
    https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/4751775-biden-mental-decline-democrats-trap/
    USA Today, June 30, 2024: "Democrats gaslighted Americans about Biden's cognitive decline. The debate exposed the truth."
    https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/columnist/2024/06/30/biden-debate-step-aside-mental-fitness-president/74232482007/
    Boston Herald, June 29, 2024: "Democrats... have been telling you endlessly, for years, that... Biden was fit as a fiddle, sharp as a tack and absolutely at the top of his game... Of course, if you’ve been reading this newspaper, or listening to my radio show, you’ve known about Biden’s senility for years."
    https://www.bostonherald.com/2024/06/29/howie-carr-the-truth-about-biden-comes-out-yet-again/
    Magnolia Tribune, July 1, 2024: "They lied: mainstream media covered for Biden until they could cover no more"
    https://magnoliatribune.com/2024/07/01/they-lied/
    Wall St. Journal, June 28, 2024: "The World Saw Biden Deteriorating. Democrats Ignored the Warnings."
    https://www.wsj.com/politics/elections/biden-age-concerns-world-leaders-democrats-6d753921
    Wall St. Journal, July 3, 2024: "Biden’s Frailty Isn’t Breaking News. It took Washington’s news hounds 4½ years to discover his obvious deterioration."
    https://www.wsj.com/articles/bidens-frailty-isnt-breaking-news-media-journalism-2024-presidential-election-4db38931
    MSNBC's Joe Scarborough's said there was nothing wrong with Biden's health, March 2024:
    https://x.com/EndWokeness/status/1806652543084220731
    On July 1, 2024, Elon Musk retweeted a 6 minute video compilation of many mainstream news sources (from before the debate) claiming there was nothing wrong with Biden's mental health
    https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1807757765655625890
    Beaver's Library Book (talk) 16:37, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Funny, the very first source is an article about how right-wing media is faking videos to make it look like Biden is losing it. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:28, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And a lot of the other sources are opinion pieces from right-wingers. Maybe there was a conspiracy to hide Biden's condition, but it does not belong in the article unless rs comment on it and it has substantial coverage. TFD (talk) 01:14, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, specifically, the opinion pieces are from The Hill, USA Today, Boston Herald, and the not-notable Magnolia Tribune. Still, the first three show that RSs are voicing such opinions. Scarborough and Musk were obviously giving their personal opinions, and are widely regarded as off-kilter.
    The NYT article O3000, Ret. referred to doesn't belong on the list because it doesn't support BLB's claim, and because it came out before the debate.
    I don't have a subscription to WSJ so can't comment on those articles.
    That leaves these RSs (and possibly one or more from the WSJ) that show Biden's lack of fitness wasn't accurately reported, due both to White House attempts to hide the facts and the media's reluctance to pursue the facts:
    New York Times, July 2, 2024: "Biden’s Lapses Are Increasingly Common, According to Some of Those in the Room"
    CNN, July 2, 2024: "Biden’s mental fitness could have been better covered leading up to the debate, some White House reporters acknowledge"
    Vox July 3, 2024: "Did the media botch the Biden age story? Asleep at the wheel? Complicit in a cover-up? The real story is far more complicated — and more interesting"
    The Hill, July 3, 2024: "On Biden’s debate, Democrats have no one to blame but themselves... They did what they did — they lied, they concealed the truth and they rigged their own party’s electoral process — to protect President Biden." Stricken because this is an opinion piece I had not intended to include. YoPienso (talk) 00:19, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, the fact that BLB was found to be a sock and subsequently blocked is irrelevant to the usefulness of the sources he provided. YoPienso (talk) 06:36, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Your brief, selective quotes do not represent the gist of these articles. The first source does not indicate media cover up at all. You didn't include that it also mentioned Trump's confusion and incoherence despite a lighter schedule. Do we somehow assume that means there was a media coverup of Trump's mental state? The second does say that the WH press corp wonder if they could have done a better job. It is good that the media reviews itself in this manner. It does not indicate a media coverup. Neither does the third source. The fourth is an opinion columnist. Realize that we would need actual evidence of a coverup implicating multiple mainstream media, a rather unlikely scenario considering competition among the media for "breaking news". O3000, Ret. (talk) 13:09, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a condensation of BLB's list; all I did was omit some sources and tuck the URLs into blue links. What you interpreted as quotes are titles. BLB did add quotes after the title of the Hill article.
    • The NYT, July 2, includes the line, "But the White House may only be showing the Biden they want us to see." This, if not a cover-up conspiracy, is dissembling. Trump's mental state isn't part of this article or this talk page.
    • CNN's article suggests the MSM "under-reported the story of Biden’s age and decline." We apparently agree that this is a RS about the American public not being apprised by the MSM about Biden's frailty.
    • The Vox piece does report that many journalists viewed the White House as not particularly transparent, and even gaslighting and bullying when the media probed into Biden's health.
    • My inclusion of The Hill was an error; please note I had already rejected it in my very first line since it's an opinion piece. I've stricken it.
    My own view is that the White House carefully presented Biden at his best and avoided putting him in situations that would reveal his actual mental and physical decline. I conclude there was a concerted effort to keep us from knowing the truth. The press didn't do their job, but I don't call that a cover-up, per se. We do need to realize that during an election year, between the efforts of the White House and the timidity of the MSM, Biden's condition was deceptively hidden. It wasn't the media, but Robert Hur, who first was bold enough to say the emperor isn't wearing any clothes.
    So I'm not suggesting we say there was a cover-up, but we do need to be clear-eyed and realize that we weren't getting the full story. We have to be sure our own writing doesn't deny the facts, but tells them as the RSs do, without bias. YoPienso (talk) 00:24, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    In conclusion, it seems we can fairly say the White House was not forthcoming about Biden's mental and physical decline. We shouldn't use the word "cover-up," and it doesn't seem we can allege any cover-up by the media.

    July 3rd New York Times article is not properly positioned

    The storyline if the July 3rd article cited here has been denied by the white house and his campaign. Not sure why it is represented so authoritatively.

    "Biden said on July 3 that he was considering whether or not to continue his campaign, dependent on if he could convince the public of his capability to well serve the country if he wins the election."

    There are numerous reliable source reporting that the NYT story is not accurate. The above sentenfe should be changed to "An anonymous source to the New York Times suggested Biden was considering..."

    https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/biden-trump-election-07-03-24#h_d055ce145a365d3b9625e9a97c495e5c

    https://www.axios.com/2024/07/03/biden-trump-nyt-poll-debate-election-2024

    Helpingtoclarify (talk) 20:50, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Removed. The user that added it has misrepresented hearsay as fact. Zaathras (talk) 21:02, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, Biden and his spokespeople denied the report, but that doesn't make it "hearsay" or automatically mean it is false. In retrospect I perhaps could have used less authoritative wording but at the time both the NYT and CNN were reporting what this anonymous source was saying as the truth, and both still are to some degree. I'm not suggesting to re-add the content, but just because Biden denied it doesn't mean it's "hearsay" either. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 21:14, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Biden's later affirmation that he's staying in the race demonstrates my point that many are editing these articles without being cautious regarding WP:NOTNEWS / WP:RECENTISM issues. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:28, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Nonsense. Who has made such edits, and what "articles" (more than one) are you referring to? Has anyone made edits to this, or any article, that Biden is stepping down, or has made any other such conclusions?  No. All that was said is that Biden was "considering whether or not to continue his campaign". WP is not a newspaper, but significant events, often cited by news sources, are routinely added to BLP's and other articles. As for clinging to the idea of "recentism", good luck with that. Biden made history, no matter what the ultimate outcome may turn out to be, and many world leaders, as well as US politicians on both sides of the fence, are now questioning Biden's capacity to act, esp at this unstable time in the nation's, not to mention the world's, history.-- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:44, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The reports of Biden considering dropping out appear to be incorrect and you don't see a problem with editors rushing to include said incorrect story. Gotcha. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:34, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not exactly. You are correct that we can't rush into an account of the debate and its aftermath, and the NYT news clip must have been released before the Dem's made it official that Biden wasn't dropping out, so it indeed needed to be removed from the article. Having said that, the debate, and all its implications is still a very noteworthy event, with, once again, many of Biden's own party questioning his ability to run the country competently -- for another four years. Again, many world leaders were concerned, and I'm sure Hamas, Iran, China and the Soviet Union are quite amused to have such a floundering president sitting in the White House. These concerns, RS's permitting, need to be covered in an objective manner. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:38, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, most Dems who have commented negatively have said they're worried about Trump winning, not Biden being unable to run the country. And your odd comment: I'm sure Hamas, Iran, China and the Soviet Union are quite amused to have such a floundering president sitting in the White House is not helpful. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:36, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, in light of Biden's performance I'm sure worries about Trump were at a peak. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:26, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't even understand your point. First debates by Raegan, Bush, and Obama were disasters. Look, I think he should drop out. But statements like I'm sure Hamas, Iran, China and the Soviet Union are quite amused to have such a floundering president sitting in the White House are out of line here, besides be quite incorrect. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:34, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This was not Biden's first debate with Trump, and I've never seen Reagan, Obama, etc do anything that even came close to Biden's performance, and their administrations were not entertaining the idea that they should step down. During the debate Trump emphasized ....but throughout the entire world, we’re no longer respected as a country. They don’t respect our leadership. They don’t respect the United States anymore. It would seem, in light of current and very unstable events, that Hamas and countries like Iran, China and Russia are considerations that can't be swept under the rug. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:46, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We are supposed to rely on Trump's statements?. Trump is supported by autocrats because he keeps praising autocrats, Kim Jong Un, Putin, Erdoğan, Xi Jinping, Viktor Orban and told Putin he can do what he wants with Ukraine. Indeed, he called Putin's invasion of Ukraine as “genius” and “savvy”. Trump was NOT and is NOT respected by our allies. But my last word -- respond as you like. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:04, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We're supposed to rely on Biden's statements?  The rest of that ramble about "autocrats", praise for Putin, etc, is blatant partisan OR, in its outer most orbit. Pass. We rely on reliable news sources. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:15, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Illegal immigration under Biden's watch

    This article only mentions illegal immigration once, and only inasmuch as to say Biden has offered amnesty to unauthorized immigrants married to American citizens. There is no mention of the many millions of illegal immigrants, (estimates vary...up to 10 million) many of them on the terrorist watch list, drug traffickers and involved in human trafficking. When Biden assumed office he closed down some ten check points along the Texas-Mexico border. Biden finally signed an executive order in an attempt to clamp down on illegal immigration, but the order is a day late and a dollar short and appears to be a last ditch effort by the Biden administration to save face before the election, and is full of loopholes and next to impossible to enforce, which is why the Republicans didn't sign it. None of this is even mentioned, or covered in a brief summary fashion.

    US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Enforcement Statistics, Key Facts:
    • Since President Biden and Secretary Mayorkas took office, there have been more than 9.5 million encounters nationwide[1] and more than 7.8 million encounters at the Southwest border.[2]
    • U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) recorded 247,837 encounters nationwide in April, including 179,725 at the Southwest border (SWB). SWB encounters increased 5% compared to April of Fiscal Year (FY) 2021. Additionally, nearly 2 million known gotaways have evaded U.S. Border Patrol under this administration.[3]
    • Since January 2023, 591,000 individuals have scheduled appointments with the app. [4]
    • Since the program began, 434,800 Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans, and Venezuelans have been mass paroled under the administration’s CHNV parole program.[5]
    • Since FY21, 362 aliens on the terrorist watchlist have been caught crossing our Southwest border illegally.
    • Encounters at the northern border in April of FY24 increased 1,240% compared to April of FY21.[6]

    References

    1. ^ US Customs and Border Protection: Enforcement Statistics
    2. ^ US Customs and Border Protection: Southwest Land Border Encounters
    3. ^ US Customs and Border Protection: Southwest Land Border Encounters
    4. ^ US Customs and Border Protection: CBP Releases April 2024 Monthly Update
    5. ^ CBP Releases April 2024 Monthly Update
    6. ^ CBP Enforcement Statistics

    -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:14, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I see the key words there as "estimates vary. HiLo48 (talk) 23:48, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure what your reply is supposed to amount to, but according to the US Customs and Border Protection, the key words are "...more than 9.5 million encounters nationwide and more than 7.8 million encounters at the Southwest border.". -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:19, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    many of them on the terrorist watch list, drug traffickers and involved in human trafficking When you misrepresent the topic and present Trump 2024 campaign talking points as fact, don't be surprised when other editors decline to engage you seriously. If an IP user said what you said above, it would have likely been deleted it as trolling. Zaathras (talk) 14:16, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Quite. Why I didn't bother responding in addition to the WP:OR, conclusions, speculation, and silly insult. O3000, Ret. (talk) 14:26, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So we should say under Biden record numbers of illegals are being apprehended? Slatersteven (talk) 14:30, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We can say record numbers have crossed both the US northern border, and esp on the US southern border, with many apprehended, including many on the terrorist watch list. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:20, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    THose sources seem to be talking about people being stopped, that means they...were stopped. Slatersteven (talk) 17:23, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Stopped or apprehended, record numbers have crossed. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:34, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It lacks weight in rs for major coverage. That's probably because despite MAGA rhetoric, there was little difference between Biden and his predecessors, including Trump, in this regard. Twenty five years ago, CNN ran a two hour show about illegal immigration every night. It's not a new topic. TFD (talk) 14:33, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And were stopped, which I would argue is the important point. It does not matter how many people try, its if they succeed that matters. Slatersteven (talk) 17:35, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You seem to be suggesting that most individuals were stopped and sent back. At the end of 2022 there have been 11 million people who have crossed with only 2,063,692 apprehensions. Please read Office of Homeland Security Statistics.and USA FACTS -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:03, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Correct. Illegal immigration is not a new problem, but one which has reached alarming proportions under Biden who began closing down check points as soon as he assumed office, and stopped funding for the border wall.[1][2][3][4] Illegal immigration and all the cover it provides for terrorists,[5][6] drug trafficking, human trafficking, etc, is a major issue hanging over Biden's head, which his administration and his supporters try to blow off.(i.e."lacks weight") [7][8][9] For basic numbers we have the US Customs and Border Protection agency:[10] For the associated issues with this major problem there are plenty of others. The fact remains, illegal immigration is only mentioned once in this article, and only in reference to amnesty. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:20, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    1. ^ PBS: Biden halts border wall building after Trump’s final surge, Jan 21, 2021
    2. ^ BBC, President Biden cancels funding for Trump border wall, 11 February 2021
    3. ^ CBS, June 15, 2021
    4. ^ CNN, December 5, 2020
    5. ^ NBC: June 11, 2024: 8 suspected terrorists with possible ISIS ties arrested in New York:, "All eight men crossed through the southern border into the U.S"
    6. ^ Washington Examiner, Oct. 23, 2023: "The total of 736 is the greatest number of known or suspected terrorists (KSTs) apprehended in recorded U.S. history."
    7. ^ ABC News: FBI director warns of 'dangerous individuals' coming across southern border
    8. ^ Homeland Security Committee, FBI Director Wray Confirms the Border Crisis, November 15, 2023
    9. ^ CNN: Biden starts fast on immigration by halting border wall and travel ban
    10. ^ US Customs and Border Protection: Southwest Land Border Encounters
    You're implying that before Biden, illegals used to turn up at and be apprehended at checkpoints that Biden later closed. That's ridiculous. HiLo48 (talk) 23:33, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The check points were certainly no guarantee to stop all crossings, but your suggestion that they did nothing is what seems ridiculous, as well as your implication that a wall is not needed...the same wall Biden, to his credit, is now trying to expand in Texas, finally. But this also is coming at a very late date. His position on the wall when he first assumed office, was that it was "Trump's wall" and was not needed.[1] When asked if he thought resumption of building the wall in Texas was going to help, "he said flatly, “no.”,[2] which more than suggests he's merely putting on appearances in the face of all the evidence, and resultant issues, surrounding the hoards of illegals that have been crossing the border under his watch In any case, it seems as if there is no desire to cover illegal immigration under Biden whatsoever. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:03, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    References

    1. ^ PBS, Jan. 21, 2021
    2. ^ PBS, Oct 5, 2023
    Why would someone trying to illegally enter a country go via a checkpoint? HiLo48 (talk) 00:12, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    According to our laws we are supposed to allow refugees to apply at the border and enter while refugee status is determined. Since we stopped (violating our own laws), they generally cross nearby and then sit and wait to be arrested in the hope that they can then have their cases adjudicated by a court of law. So much for:

    Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!

    Just a silly suggestion -- maybe we should stop the defunding of imigration judges, as planned in a doomed bill. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:28, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Objective3000 — Re: your apparent mocking of the saying, "Give me your tired, your poor,...", any good idea can be taken to the point of absurdity, and tired and poor doesn't include terrorists, drug traffickers, etc. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:42, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh my. I mocked it? You have repeatedly provided your own OR, conclusions based on primary sources. You have been here long enough to understand that we use reliable secondary sources. Particlularly on a contentiouis topic. And repeatedly talking about millions and then saying terrorists, drug traffickers is beginning to sound.... O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:48, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    All my points are backed by reliable news sources, and a couple of primary sources, which are allowed so long as one doesn't try to spin off some sort of absurd conclusion, which I have not, let alone "repeatedly", thank you. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:52, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    HiLo48 — Stopping at a check point didn't mean entry into the country was legal. Checkpoints were positioned on roadways and were meant to deter illegal immigration, they didn't span the remote countryside.. Closing of the checkpoints is just one aspect of Biden's position on illegal immigration in general. In any case, you seem to be avoiding all the other points. Still no thoughts from you, or anyone thus far, about better covering the problem illegal immigration under Biden. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:38, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, my. Everybody knows illegal immigration at the southern border greatly increased under Biden. Here's a WaPo article about it; just scroll down to the graph. Immediately under the graph is this: "Illegal border crossings soared in the months after Biden took office and immediately rolled back many Trump-era restrictions."
    We can't edit properly if we're going to make politically biased arguments against the plain facts. YoPienso (talk) 00:43, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There was a bill to increase border security. But, it would have interfered with a political narrative. As one of Trump's advisors said yesterday: "Chaos is our friend." O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:53, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is all such a trivial problem for a president if he/she just ignores the laws and morality. As one ex-president said, why don't we just shoot them in the leg. But, we are (used to be) a nation of laws. Let us not look at raw stats and draw our own simplistic conclusions as if we know how to deal with the world's intractable problems. There is way too much OR in this section. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:10, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Blur... There is no OR other than your inference that out of control illegal immigration is some "trivial problem". Biden finally decided to resume construction of the wall in Texas. In spite of the fact that his effort amounts to very little, too late, at least he's beginning to see that the overall situation has become more than some "trivial problem". The "laws of morality", it would seem, would include the protection of the citizens in which you preside over. So are you suggesting that there is no need for the article here to cover the situation surrounding illegal immigration under Biden? Rhetorical. It seems you've already answered that for us rather plainly. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:29, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Rhetorical. It seems you've already answered that for us rather plainly.. You need to stop this. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:32, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The second paragraph in the Other domestic policy issues subsection deals with the southern border. I suggest a slight expansion of "This occurred after both allies and critics of Biden criticized his administration's management of the southern border." We should include the unprecented rise in illegal entries and the public's response to it. I'm saying maybe one more sentence. YoPienso (talk) 13:16, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you saying the destabilization of the Venezuelan government has nothing to do with this? We do not draw conclusions here. O3000, Ret. (talk) 13:32, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not saying anything about the destabilization of the Venezuelan government. Why are you mentioning it? It sure sounds like you're trying to find a reason to keep the immigration problem out of Joe Biden's BLP. That's not okay. The immigration problem has been huge. You do know that, right? You do remember the consternation in the border states and the busloads and planeloads of some 100,000 new, undocumented immigrants sent to Martha's Vineyard, NYC, and Chicago. Yes? Did you look at the graph (not "raw statistics") in the WaPo article I linked to?
    In fact, I came here to suggest a stronger mention of immigration problems under Biden and found your off-topic retort. This happened during Biden's presidency. For the purposes of this BLP, it doesn't matter why. I'm now suggesting we move the paragraph about immigration that's currently in the subsection Other domestic policy issues up just above it into a new subsection, Immigration, (or Southern border) and expand it slightly, not more than double the current text. YoPienso (talk) 14:40, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It sure sounds like you're trying to find a reason to keep the immigration problem out of Joe Biden's BLP I'm getting damned tired of WP:AGF violations in this thread. This is not constructive collaboration. Martha's Vineyard, NYC, and Chicago Yes I remember well these disgusting acts by governors who used human beings as political tools. Florida flying humans into Florida to then fly them elsewhere to make political points by claiming they "invaded" Florida. Did you look at the graph (not "raw statistics") in the WaPo article I linked to? Again. we do not do WP:OR here. I'm not saying anything about the destabilization of the Venezuelan government. Why are you mentioning it? You made an OR conclusion. I gave one of many other possible reasons. This is why we don't do OR here. Look, immigration is a worldwide problem. Is it all Biden's fault? O3000, Ret. (talk) 14:57, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not bad faith, but acknowledging the obvious that you're defending Biden. It's a widely-known, impeccably sourced FACT that during Biden's administration there's been a significant immigration problem.
    Your response about sending migrants to sanctuary cities reveals your bias and nothing more.
    Looking at a graph in the WaPo is not OR.
    I'm not saying our immigration problem is Biden's fault. I'm saying it exists. YoPienso (talk) 15:29, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Your response about sending migrants to sanctuary cities reveals your bias and nothing more. Yet another WP:AGF violation. This is pointless as you just keep attacking editors and pointing to raw stats along with your own conclusions. And bolding text does not improve an argument. O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:45, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I included the amnesty program about a week ago, but before then, there was also content in his 100 days section about illegal immigration.
    Also in March, amid a rise in migrants entering the U.S. from Mexico, Biden told migrants, "Don't come over." In the meantime, migrant adults "are being sent back", Biden said, in reference to the continuation of the Trump administration's Title 42 policy for quick deportations. Biden earlier announced that his administration would not deport unaccompanied migrant children; the rise in arrivals of such children exceeded the capacity of facilities meant to shelter them (before they were sent to sponsors), leading the Biden administration in March to direct the Federal Emergency Management Agency to help.
    I think it's reasonable to move this out to domestic issues, where I put the migrant amnesty, and expand the scope since the issue is obviously larger than 100 days. KiharaNoukan (talk) 18:37, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your work on this. I would favor still leaving a line or two about immigration in the 100 days section since apparently editors felt it was important to chronicle the major events of his first 100 days. I don't have any opinion about that and am perfectly willing to let it stand. But, since Biden's stance on immigration was highly anticipated and closely watched, I do think his initial action should be that section, since we have it. To remove the southern border problem from the 100 days section would make it incomplete and could lead some readers to erroneously conclude we were trying to bury it.
    I support your idea of expanding the scope. I think I'll go ahead and start a new subsection on immigration and you can add details from March, 2021 (which will repeat and expand on what you would leave in the 100 days section) and add more recent details. YoPienso (talk) 19:32, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Anything additional belongs in an article on his presidency, not his main page. Given the controversy, it would not make sense to start a new section on this in this article without prior consensus. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:37, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry if I was a bit hasty. But I stand by my edits, which I had already completed before you recommended waiting. I had opened a discussion six hours earlier (at 13:16, 6 July 2024, if you want to find it on this page) that quickly devolved into bickering between us, so I dropped the stick. No one else commented on our discussion.
    Then KiharaNoukan proposed expanding the scope, and we worked collegially on that. Thank you for not reverting our work. No one else has, either, nor has anyone come to Talk with it. This suggests, at the least, a tenuous consensus.
    I look forward to working together with you. YoPienso (talk) 12:57, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I moderately expanded it with the broadest trends throughout his admin, namely the crossing surge from 2021-2023 and the decline (so far) of 2024, with Biden's most recent actions on border enforcement through his asylum restrictions and pressure on Mexico. I also added in humanitarian parole, since that's one of his biggest tools on mitigating illegal border crossings. Nothing repeats from the relatively detailed info on first 100 days, so it can be left in full for now. KiharaNoukan (talk) 22:01, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I greatly appreciate your work. I'm not sure how much space we should give to this topic in the BLP. What I see missing here is how Biden's policies helped produce the surge. The WaPo article I linked to earlier directly ties his policies to the 2021 spike. This isn't to minimize other real causes, such as Covid-19 and the situations immigrants fled in their home countries, but Biden's policies were a big factor, too. The results caused widespread dissatisfaction, particularly from the border states and the MAGA faction, but also from others, and are part of the reason for Biden's historically low approval rate. (See this 2024 Gallup Poll report.)
    This is well-covered in Presidency of Joe Biden, and perhaps doesn't need to be covered here. Still, it seems to me that there should be at least a brief mention here of the role Biden's policies have played in creating exacerbating the present immigration crisis. YoPienso (talk) 13:14, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Polls are meaningless for our purposes. Polls show Trump is trusted more on jobs despite the fact Trump was one of the few presidents who lost jobs while Biden was among the top in gained jobs. Trump trusted more on economy despite experts recently stating his plans would trigger higher inflation. The danger with raw statistics is that they require expert evaluation to examine influential observations. Rather obvious ones in this election.
    As for the immigration spike of 2021, The Brookings Institute states:

    The easing of some pandemic fears and restrictions helped this gain, which contributed largely to rising growth levels of 0.37% in 2021-22 and to 0.49% in 2022-23. These translate into numeric gains of 1.2 million and 1.6 million people in these years, respectively, compared to just 522,000 in 2020-21.

    [2]
    NPR article two months ago:

    The U.S. southern border is as fortified as ever and Texas is carrying out its own enforcement to stop people from crossing illegally, yet observers and analysts agree on this: migrants not only will continue to come, but their numbers will likely increase in the coming months. The expected surge can be attributed not only to seasonal migration patterns, but an increase of people displaced by war, poverty, and climate factors in all continents.

    [3]
    The BBC also discusses that this is a global problem, not specifically US.

    The increases in migrant figures seen at the US-Mexico border seen in the last several years also come at a time when, globally, migration to rich countries is at an all-time high. Statistics from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) released late last year show that 6.1m new permanent migrants moved to its 38 member states in 2022 - a 26% increase over 2021 and 14% higher than in 2019.

    [4]
    As for the US, they also state: "There are four failed states in our hemisphere alone."
    The director of immigration studies at the Cato Institute stated:

    most of the increase in illegal immigration can be blamed on the strength of the labor market rather than the administration’s tinkering with border enforcement policies.

    [5]
    Keep in mind also that Trump used Title 42 to stem immigration due to the pandemic. The pandemic ended, meaning that Title 42 had to be dropped and there was a pent up demand causing a 2021 spike. The point is that we cannot just look at some raw numbers or polls and draw conclusions. This is an extremely complex dynamic that must be documented in an article that is solely about immigration where it can be given the attention that is required – not stuck in a BLP about one person which will necessarily create false impressions. O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:29, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for an in-depth, meaningful reply. I don't think you're seeing the whole picture, though.
    Polls are meaningless for our purposes. [...] The danger with raw statistics is that they require expert evaluation to examine influential observations.
    Reports published by the Gallup and Pew Research polls are expert evaluations and RSs. I don't know why you reject the Gallup Poll and the illustrative graph in the WaPo, or why you call looking at a graph prepared by experts as WP:OR.
    The Brookings Institute, while not targeting Biden, says, "Fortunately, government policy can affect immigration levels, and it would be demographically wise to give serious attention to these policies before U.S. population growth declines even further."
    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."
    I agree the that immigration is a complex subject, and that the immigration crisis under Trump and Biden rightly has its own article, and but its been such a problem for Biden that we have to have at least a summary of it here. YoPienso (talk) 16:49, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I should have said Biden made the immigration problem worse, not that he helped create it. I've amended my comment above. Can't change the edit summary.
    . . . the role Biden's policies have played in creating exacerbating the present immigration crisis. YoPienso (talk) 16:57, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Polling experts primarily look at one-dimensional opinions of non-experts (voters) and to a minor extent why people vote the way they do, based on what a subpercentage inexpertly say about themselves. I'm not saying that this is trivial. But they do not analyze immigration stats to see actual causes -- only perceived causes by nonexperts, which is more a result of minimal information plus disinformation (massives amounts in this election). That is the larger picture. As for your lengthy response, I think you are making my point. The realities behind immigration are extraordinarily complex and should not be put in simplistic terms in one person's bio. (And I would not be in favor of putting Trump's suggested solutions in his bio -- shooting them in the legs and building a moat with alligators along the border.) They belong in an article that can provide far more detail and sourcing. O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:13, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Is there a certain policy that is actually notable and well referenced enough that attributes a significant portion of the border crisis to something Biden did? I see from the BBC that they're discussing a broad reputational change of Trump as being tough on the border vs Biden as soft on the border encouraging migrants to come forward, which is not necessarily a "Biden exacerbated this".
    On big ticket items, Biden continued with Title 42 expulsions up until the authority expired with the end of the COVID public health emergency in May 2023. Obviously, the surge did not start in May 2023. A carveout was granted for minors, and that is mentioned in the 100 days.
    MPP/Remain in Mexico was ended, and then reinstated for the first half of 2022, and ended again; I'm not sure if I can find reflection of this in influencing migrant surges, since the first half of 2022 saw a rather large migrant wave. If anything, sourcing seems to indicate that Biden's removal of it and replacement with CBP One has sparked Mexican willingness to crack heavily and effectively down on migrants, to the extent that they fear Mexican police far more than CPB and are actually deterred.
    Biden's deportation moratorium was blocked, didn't seem to matter either way.
    Catch and release/alternative to detention is more prominent under Biden's DHS, although that is also just a reflection of reality, since CPB and ICE do not have sufficient detention space for migrants.
    DHS's ICE and CPB have faced budget shortfalls, but that's related to problems with Congress. Biden has for instance, asked for supplemental funding in the border bill negotiated with Senate GOP and died after House GOP/Trump signaled opposition.
    PACR and HARP asylum fast-tracks were ended under Biden's DHS. They were pilot programs late into Trump's admin, I can't find usable sources mentioning them.
    The closest I have found is implied inaction in Biden choosing not to implement his asylum restrictions earlier, which has been attributed to the 2024 declines, but that is essentially there anyway from the content I included mentioning his 2024 policies and the decline of crossings, without going to OR. KiharaNoukan (talk) 19:16, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I was working on the article and writing on the talk page when you posted this and I just now saw it. I think my quotes from the BBC article in my post of 16:49, 7 July 2024 to user O3000 answer the questions. If not, the refs I put in the article may. Cheers! YoPienso (talk) 20:11, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for mentioning Title 42. This December 2023 Cato analysis is illuminating in that it seems to indicate Biden inherited the border crisis. Title 42 appears to be the hardly-told story of this whole episode, which now appears to be steadily receding.[6]

    The pattern is unmistakable: Gotaways increased almost continuously in parallel with the use of Title 42 [since March 2020] before falling sharply after it ended. Under Title 42, gotaways hit 73,463 in April 2023. Title 42 ended on May 11, and in June gotaways fell 55 percent from their level in May to 32,840. They have remained down by about 59 percent in October 2023 ... Figure 3 shows the "gotaway" rate—that is, the share of gotaways out of all arrests and gotaways. This is a rough approximation of Border Patrol effectiveness. As it shows, since Title 42 ended, the gotaway rate has fallen dramatically to below 14 percent, the lowest level [since 2005] outside of two months in 2019. This is a return to the trend under the Obama administration in reducing the rate of successful crossings.

    This is also quite interesting in explaining at least one reason there was a border surge in the first place[7]

    Disinformation about "open border" policies is helping spur a massive wave of Central American migrants to take the perilous journey north to the U.S.-Mexico border ... 1 in 4 Central American respondents said they have heard the "border is open," and nearly 1 in 5 respondents said they believed the term "open borders" — and believed most migrants can apply for asylum if they make the trip ... The disinformation originates with politicians and conservative media, according to BSP Research, which conducted the poll ... Media Matters for America, a left-leaning media watchdog group that did research for America's Voice, used a video database to track the use of the term "open borders." The research found Fox News mentioned “open borders” 3,842 times from Nov. 1, 2020, through Aug. 22, 2023. Newsmax mentioned "open borders" 3,257 times during the same period ... "These words by politicians and the message of open borders are being consumed throughout the region, and used by smugglers who are trying to prey on people's desperation"

    Not to mention the Lankford immigration bill that Trump killed, despite the border patrol union (which twice endorsed Trump) instantly endorsing it, which would have changed "catch and release" to "catch and detain." After all, "chaos is our friend," a person close to Trump said.[8] soibangla (talk) 09:27, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Why does such a large amount of coverage belong in Biden's BLP? This would make sense for the article on his presidency, but not here. EvergreenFir (talk) 15:55, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Please edit as you see best to maintain proper WP:WEIGHT. YoPienso (talk) 16:51, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Right now, Joe_Biden#Southern_border looks fine to EvergreenFir (talk) 17:15, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    With input from users O3000, Ret. and Evergreen Fir, I've done a drastic paring of the subsection. Thank you, user KiharaNoukan, for you excellent work. Perhaps it's too much for this article, but you could insert it into another article such as Immigration policy of the Joe Biden administration or Presidency of Joe Biden or Mexico–United States border crisis. My greatly reduced version is by no means a final product, but I hope it's a step in the right direction. We need to mention immigration in a section of the BLP called "Presidency (2021–present)," but it should be only a brief summary. YoPienso (talk) 19:36, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    From my reading, it seems like most of their critiques are with regards to the level of detail and certain claims in the OP and the attempts to attribute the migrant crisis to Biden's policies (what exactly are they?). From above conversations, the problems with details involve claims of drug trafficking via the border, wall expansion, and checkpoint closures. I'm not seeing grave objection to inclusion of big picture policies like humanitarian parole, asylum restrictions from 2024, and general big picture stats explaining the issue and how the situation has evolved.
    I myself have multiple problems with the OP, I would characterize my comments as mostly divorced from the ideas framed there and most of the immediate resulting conversations. Biden's "last ditch effort" has been linked to a substantial slowdown in illegal crossings by RS, and two stats from the "key facts", CBP One applicants and CHNV parolees, are not even illegal immigrants.
    For reference, this is what I would add on the section. I am fine with additions that mention critique of Biden's policies specifically, but they need to be properly sourced and well recognized by RS. I'm not aware of an actual policy Biden utilized that is generally regarded in RS as responsible for the border crisis:
    Illegal border crossings across the Mexico–United States border spiked after a pandemic-era lull from 2020. From 2021 to 2023, illegal crossings surged to record highs, reaching an all-time monthly high in December 2023.[1][2][3][4] Throughout 2024, crossings began to significantly decline from the December record, after Biden implemented restrictions on asylum claims from migrants who cross the border between ports of entry and urged Mexico to crack down on migrants.[5][6][7] Biden has also utilized humanitarian parole on an unprecedented level to mitigate illegal border crossings, allowing migrants to fly into the United States or schedule their entries through official entry points in the US-Mexico border. Over 1 million migrants have been admitted into the US under humanitarian parole as of January 2024.[8][9][10] KiharaNoukan (talk) 07:29, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree that the OP is unlikely to find consensus.
    Biden's initial immigration policies, decisions, and methods are found at Immigration policy of the Joe Biden administration, which is partially sourced from a CNN article. Also click on the links in its first two paragraphs.
    For a formal list of Biden's executive actions, see here.
    Popularly, his policies about the southern border were to reverse all of Trump's policies. YoPienso (talk) 08:13, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Illegal immigration continued...

    The issue of illegal immigration is tucked away in a subsection under another subsection, Domestic policy, politely entitled, Southern border. Illegal immigration is not a "domestic policy". It's an issue that poses a serious national security threat. FBI director Christopher Wray stressed the point that after the Hamas attack on Israel on October 7 of last year, the incentive for terrorist attacks against the United States increased.[11] Indeed we had Hamas activists on college campuses calling for the death of Israel and the US. Just last month 8 suspected terrorists with ties to ISIS crossed the border and were soon arrested in New York, L.A. and Philadelphia, and is only the tip of the iceberg.[12] According to the US Customs and Border Protection , 362 aliens on the terrorist watchlist have been caught crossing the Southwest border illegally since 2021.[13] Under the Southern border subsection there is a main article link to Immigration policy of the Joe Biden administration, but the issue of terrorism is not even mentioned in that article.
    In any case, having a dedicated article on a specific topic doesn't mean we must only treat an issue here with one obtuse sentence, that the Biden administration has simply "mishandled the matter". The topic of illegal immigration and all it implies at this point in time needs to be summarized with a short paragraph at least. Biden's position on illegal immigration should be covered in the Political positions section as is the abortion issue, which is mentioned four times. The Southern border section also ignores the issue of illegal immigration at the northern border, which has witnessed alarming numbers of illegal crossings under Biden's watch. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:08, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, I thought awhile before putting it in "Domestic issues," but think I was right to do so. Why? Because the article of a POTUS is from a US perspective. Although Biden does have dealings with other nations about migration, this isn't an issue primarily about treaties or diplomacy. It's about how immigration affects the US once the migrants enter the country.
    I'm attempting to adhere to WP:WEIGHT. Other editors will work on it with their own insights. It may be expanded a little or a lot, or even deleted.
    I haven't really studied Immigration policy of the Joe Biden administration, but of course you're free to edit there. And here, too! Best wishes, YoPienso (talk) 21:48, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The issue of illegal immigration and all its effects has an inherent WEIGHT. Aside from its impact on national resources, it involves crime, drug trafficking, human trafficking and a backdrop to mask terrorist infiltration. This is a BLP, but this article wouldn't be here if Biden wasn't once a VP, and now a president. It is in that capacity that many issues warrant coverage to one degree or another. Biden's "mishandling of illegal immigration", or more accurately, his ignoring of the issue until (very) lately, is one of the biggest, if not the biggest, criticisms hanging over his head. He has taken measures to offset the problem, but again, the damage has been done, and the wall is far from complete 3 1/2 years later because from the beginning of his term he stopped its funding..This all can be covered, and well sourced, with a paragraph no bigger than this one. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:56, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I suggest you self-rvt this gross BLP vio. O3000, Ret. (talk) 02:02, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Gwillhickers Please try to be just a little bit objective. HiLo48 (talk) 02:12, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Gwillhickers, your POV is that illegal immigration has "inherent weight" and is a super big deal. But we go by what RS say. The question here is how (much) is this related to Joe Biden? EvergreenFir (talk) 17:26, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    References

    1. ^ "Illegal border crossings from Mexico reach highest on record in December before January lull". AP. January 26, 2024.
    2. ^ "Migrant encounters along southwest border reach all-time high of 302,000". ABC News. January 2, 2024.
    3. ^ "December migrant surge at Southern border largest in more than two decades as mayors call for action". CNN. December 29, 2023.
    4. ^ "Migrant encounters at the U.S.-Mexico border hit a record high at the end of 2023". Pew Research. February 14, 2024.
    5. ^ "Illegal crossings at U.S.-Mexico border fall to 3-year low, the lowest level under Biden". CBS News. July 1, 2024.
    6. ^ "A quieter border eases pressure on Biden, with a hand from Mexico". Washington Post. April 30, 2024.
    7. ^ "Biden border restrictions bring sharp drop in illegal crossings". Washington Post. June 26, 2024.
    8. ^ "Biden administration has admitted more than 1 million migrants into U.S. under parole policy Congress is considering restricting". CBS News. January 22, 2024.
    9. ^ "What Is Humanitarian Parole? How an Obscure Biden Immigration Policy Became So Controversial". Wall Street Journal. March 11, 2024.
    10. ^ "Program that allows 30,000 migrants from 4 countries into the US each month upheld by judge". Associated Press. March 8, 2024.
    11. ^ FBI.GOV
    12. ^ NBC news, June 11, 2024
    13. ^ CBP Enforcement Statistics
    Back to your first post after the edit break, Gwillhickers, I see you feel that this issue has been "tucked away." In fact, I just pulled it out of where it was more deeply tucked away under "Other domestic policy issues" so it would be more prominent, which I felt gave it closer to its due weight. I will consider renaming the subsection "Immigration" and add a very brief paragraph about the northern border.
    Looking at the three sources you posted, I have these observations:
    1. FBI Director Wray said nothing about the border in his statement about homeland security. Neither the word "border" nor "Mexico" appears on the page. Wray does warn about foreign terrorists coming to the US, but also warns about "domestic violent extremists" like the three he refers to in Chicago, Ithaca, and Los Angeles.
    2. The 8 Tajikis came through the southern border, but the FBI tracked them and ICE agents arrested them.
    3. You said illegal immigration "involves crime, drug trafficking, human trafficking and a backdrop to mask terrorist infiltration." That's true, but let's not exaggerate it. I couldn't find your 362 figure on the watchlist, but I did find 13,254 Criminal Noncitizens Encountered. Such a tiny percentage! With 929,395 total encounters, only 1.426% were criminals! Now, we don't know how many criminals weren't encountered, but we can tell that MOST of the immigrants are NOT criminals, unlike what some partisan sources claim or imply. YoPienso (talk) 04:12, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    OK let's try this "In what critics called a border crisis the US border service stopped more illegal immigrants than before"? Is that acceptable? Slatersteven (talk) 10:10, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    In what context? I don't really know what you mean. Are you serious or sarcastic? If you're serious, please don't soften the actual border crisis by implying it exists mainly in the minds of critics. It's real. Biden knows it's real. That's why early on he made a big deal about putting Harris in charge of it, and just recently, has made stricter policies aimed at stanching the flow while still having a heart. YoPienso (talk) 11:38, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Its called compromise, you want to say there is a crisis, but others disagree (including RS). So you either work together on a compromise, or it does not get mentioned. Slatersteven (talk) 11:41, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ummm . . . Mexico–United States border crisis
    Which RSs deny there's been a border crisis under Biden? From my perspective, there's been a border crisis for decades. YoPienso (talk) 13:42, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, exactly for decades, not just under Buden.
    https://www.bostonreview.net/articles/there-is-no-migrant-crisis/
    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/mar/18/us-mexico-immigration-border-crisis
    https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2021/03/25/border-crisis-immigration-explained-biden-trump-mexico-478049
    Ohh and Wikipedia is not an RS and that article talked about "encounters", so yes it is talking about interception, which has risen (per my suggested edit). Slatersteven (talk) 13:52, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Also "Senate Republicans swiftly turned against the bill upon its release, after Trump openly said he did not want Joe Biden to score a political win with the legislation." so Bidens attempt to solve it was scuppered by the GOP, should we also say that? Slatersteven (talk) 13:53, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So you agree there's a border crisis as long as we don't claim it's happened entirely under Biden? I'm super good with that.
    The Boston Review article is written by an activist who elsewhere has advocated for the dismantling of the "violent security state," by which she means a nation that guards its borders. Her opinion piece (not so labeled, but apparent) in the BR addresses worldwide migration and argues for doing away with national borders altogether. Not relevant to our discussion.
    The Guardian article quotes a refugee advocate who denies there's a crisis. She herself arrived in the US from Mexico at age 12, hidden in the trunk of a car, and was eventually granted amnesty under Reagan. She sounds like a wonderful person! Yet she's biased. The article quotes another activist who admits only to a border crisis involving children. Mind you, there are also quotes from Gov. Abbott. In it's own voice, The Guardian says, "After four years of racist, chaotic, anti-immigration policies by the Trump administration – as well as growing desperation fuelled by the pandemic and extreme climate events – the number of people seeking to enter the US is rising." The clear implication is that, along with natural factors, the change of administration also encouraged more people to come.
    The Politico article is highly relevant to our discussion. It takes the broader view of why people migrate rather than the narrower view of what's happening at the southern border and within the US. I believe we have a consensus that this is a good way to cover the crisis. The article shows the importance of perceptions by migrants: "There was a perception that with Biden, the border would be more open. And then the reality was that some people actually did get in." [Italics in original.] And it halfheartedly acknowledges the existence of a crisis: "Is there an immigration crisis? Yes. An asylum crisis? You bet. A border crisis? Sort of."
    Wikipedia isn't an RS, but Mexico–United States border crisis lists 64 RSs.
    I'm not sure there's room in this BLP for the fact that Trump maneuvered the defeat of Biden's bill, but it certainly should be (and probably is?) in one or more of the series of articles about Biden's presidency and the border crisis. Collaborative work here will determine how much to include. I opened the sub-subsection and then pared it to the bones and am watching its evolution. YoPienso (talk) 15:19, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I agree that it has been called a border crisis, and has been called that for decades. And I disagree, if you include the border crisis here we must explain all of the above, to give context, that is is not just on Biden. And with that I will comment no more until a reasonable suggestion is given as to how to word this. Assume silence is an objection to any suggested text. Slatersteven (talk) 15:29, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Would you agree with a plain-factual description of the issue under Biden as stated by RS, ie. record/all-time high levels of illegal crossings, without descriptors like crisis? From NYT, AP, ABC, CNN, Pew Research, Washington Post, CBS, VOA Texas Tribune, mentioning that under Biden the border has seen the highest influxes at a yearly rate, monthly rate, daily rate, across 2021, 2022, 2023 take your pick.
    This should work better than broad and ensuing descriptors of "crisis", as presidential administrations do tend to vary in how many migrant crossings occur, with crossings under Biden's admin being an indisputable high mark. I don't think it's NPOV either way to say it is or isn't on Biden, I haven't really seen sourcing to absolve or incriminate him on any policies for this surge, with the possible exception of Biden's policy against detaining children & family units, which is somewhat mentioned in first 100 days but not further elaborated on. However, RS do attribute declines in crossings in 2024 to policies he enacted around that time, which should also be mentioned. KiharaNoukan (talk) 17:10, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure if you're asking me or Slatersteven or everyone, but here I go. . .
    I agree with your ideas. I admire your skill and collegiality. Please proceed if no one objects. YoPienso (talk) 17:15, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well it's not neutral if you ignore the fact that the record increases are in many countries, not just the US. "Under Biden" is not neutral. You can not be neutral if you mention effect without the causes. Which is why this belongs in another article. Indeed, if it does have anything to do with Biden's presidential policies, would it not fit better in his presidency article, not a bio of 80 years and a half century in office? O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:20, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah it can be mentioned under a global migration surge. I fail to see how it being global means it is not fit for inclusion. Global trends impact the US. Should issues around climate change and COVID-19, both clearly global, be left out? I mirrored my edits from longstanding content that discusses inflation under Biden (again, also global for developed countries):
    Amid a surge in inflation and high gas prices, Biden's approval ratings declined, reaching net negative in early 2022.[371][372][373] After 5.9% growth in 2021, real GDP growth cooled in 2022 to 2.1%, after slightly negative growth in the first half spurred recession concerns. Job creation and consumer spending remained strong through the year, as the unemployment rate fell to match a 53-year low of 3.5% in December. Inflation peaked at 9.1% in June before easing to 3.2% by October 2023. Stocks had had their worst year since 2008[374][375][376] before recovering. Widespread predictions of an imminent recession did not materialize in 2022 or 2023, and by late 2023 indicators showed sharply lower inflation with economic acceleration. GDP growth hit 4.9% in the third quarter of 2023 and the year ended with stocks near record highs, with robust holiday spending. KiharaNoukan (talk) 17:24, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well everyone knows climate change and Covid were global and not caused by a president yet (except those that believe climate change is a fraud). Certain politicians and unreliable, but widely watched, media have been heavily pushing the concept that Biden created an immigration problem. The situation is highly complex and there exists fault everywhere (illicit export of guns to Mexican drug gangs, MS-13 gangs in Ecuador that originated in the US, American thirst for drugs -- Purdue Pharma). Pardon me for seemingly going off track. But this needs to be wholly described in one article. The more said in this article, the more difficult to maintain neutrality and avoid the political feeding frenzy. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:06, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comparing climate change and COVID, global phenomena, to Biden's neglect of the borders is not even an analogy. Those things were beyond Biden's control, unlike illegal immigration which he could have slowed down considerably if he made an effort, but he didn't even try. In fact, his approach made it easier. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:15, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks for making my point, inadvertently. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:42, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It would help if you actually addressed the points, rather than generically acclaiming your own opinion. Once again, Biden had no control over the emergence of climate change or COVID, acts of nature, unlike his neglect of the borders, where numbers of illegal immigrants began to drastically increase right after he assumed office. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:49, 8 July 2024 (UTC)..[reply]
    You are displaying the exact problem I am talking about. You mention two things and claim cause and effect completely ignoring so many, many other factors. Immigration just ain't that simple. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:53, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Immigration is complex. So is inflation. So is practically every political issue mentioned here. If applied consistently, exclusion of major issues because of complexity would see deletion of most of this page. KiharaNoukan (talk) 19:21, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Strawman. O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:12, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    How can you say he didn't even try when he kept so many Trump era policies in place and fought in court to keep them in place? Very little changed between the administrations other than tone. Source: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-65574725 EvergreenFir (talk) 19:37, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree with KiharaNoukan and Yopienso on multiple points. — As said, this BLP can cover illegal immigration under Biden as much as any other political or social issue he is involved with. To single out illegal immigration, which by all accounts has boomed under Biden, who closed down check points, stopped funding of the wall as soon as he assumed office, etc, would amount to censorship if all we're going to say is that Biden simply "mishandled the southern border". All that need be done would be to present the numbers and mention some of the resultant affairs that have subsequently occurred. We wouldn't assert that this is the "biggest" issue hanging over Biden's head, (as compared to abortion, inflation, etc) or that it's all his fault, etc. We just present a few of the main facts and let the readers draw their own conclusions. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:15, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      We just present a few of the main facts and let the readers draw their own conclusions. Wasn't that the old Fox line? We provide selected parts of the facts, you decide. You are clearly presenting a totally unobjective set of "facts". As HiLo48 said this morning, "Please try to be just a little bit objective". O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:50, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh I see, Because Fox once expressed the idea of letting the facts speak for themselves, then (poof!) the idea automatically has no merit?? Nonsense. You're asking for objectivity, yet scoff at the idea of presenting the basic facts with no opinions attached. e.g."The biggest issue", etc. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:55, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There are hundreds of facts. You want to present the two that "prove" your assertions. Immigration ain't that simple or it would have been solved around the world long ago. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:03, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a no-brainer. We cover Trump's immigration policies and actions in his BLP. Of course we cover Biden's. YoPienso (talk) 19:04, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:OTHERCONTENT Trump does not have a half-century in government. Also, he proposed and attempted dramatic (extreme) changes in immigration. That's what the discussion is about in his bio. Further, Gee's simplistic proposal is to directly indicate that the immigrations problems are entirely caused by Biden. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:24, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yopienso, Indeed. the double standard here is now becoming an issue. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:32, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    O3000 — Yes, there are hundreds of facts, but there are several basic facts involving Biden's efforts, or lack of them, which have been reported by scores of reliable sources. You're attempt to make this all seem like some complex equation isn't washing. Numbers of illegal aliens have boomed under Biden. Hundreds of individuals on the terrorist watch list have blended in with them and have made the crossing, along with all the drug and human traffickers, with nothing in place to stop them -- and we're supposed to believe their arrival is just some freak coincidence. And someone's length of time in public service doesn't negate the facts.-- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:32, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    But I'm not seeing this delineation based on "some people believe". Like I mentioned, inflation was global too, and does anyone seriously doubt that many, if not most people, lay the blame towards the president, rightfully or wrongfully? Do we see excision of inflation from this article due to it occurring across the world? And there are certainly arguments in RS that presidential action can contribute to the worsening of Climate change. See RS coverage of Biden's energy policy, under which the US saw a record high in oil production, and related climate criticisms.
    Also, it is not NPOV to claim Biden's policies on the border have no effect. They do not blame Biden's policies as a sole or majority cause of the migrant surge, but neither do RS cast Biden as a helpless actor or claim that Biden had no impact on migrants. Drops in migration in 2024 are readily linked to his policies on asylum restrictions and pressure on Mexico. There are also RS that state some of Biden's policies have factored into the surge. Per NYT: It can be more difficult for border agents to detain, deport or otherwise enforce punishments on families than on single adults. There is a legal limit on how long children can be held, and the Biden administration ended the practice of detaining families in 2021. It is murky overall on how much can be attributed to Biden, but as I mentioned above with how the article covers Inflation, why not give the basic stats, point out it is a high priority issue occurring under Biden's admin, and explain the major policies he implemented in response? KiharaNoukan (talk) 19:18, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly! Please carry out your level-headed suggestions. YoPienso (talk) 19:41, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You appear to be trying to "prove" the Biden was negligent in his border policies. That's fine if you think that, but we need RS that explicitly say that and that it be a widely reported view. I think it would be fair to add a line about him being criticized for laxity on the border... there are certainly enough sources for that. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:40, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    KiharaNoukan seems to be as unbiased as a person can be. I agree and believe KN does, too, that "it would be fair to add a line about him being criticized for laxity on the border." YoPienso (talk) 19:42, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that line is still contentious, I've left it out on my most recent edit. It should probably be included in a RS-sourced causes of migration. Working primarily off of this NYT article which does a decent breakdown, a possible line can be:
    The cause of the surge of migration has been attributed to global patterns, such as crime, political instability, and economic strife in Latin American countries, changing demographics of migrants, particularly an influx of family units, and shifts in policy, such as legal limits on detaining families and children. KiharaNoukan (talk) 19:52, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well it looks like criticism has been added, IMO it is jumping the gun without RS grounding in describing what is specifically is there to be criticized, but if it settles the issue, then that's fine. KiharaNoukan (talk) 20:05, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    For the record, the current text says:

    As part of a worldwide migration surge stemming from complex economic and political circumstances across the globe, illegal crossings across the Mexico–United States border increased during Biden’s administration. The border issue has become source of dissatisfaction among voters who believed Biden mishandled it. The Biden administration responded by preventing those who cross the border illegally from applying asylum and increasing deportations.

    This seems accurate and high-level enough for Biden's BLP. What more exactly do you want added? EvergreenFir (talk) 19:43, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The phrase "...dissatisfaction among voters who believed Biden mishandled it. " is a milk toast statement that doesn't touch on the reasons why so many people are concerned with the boom in illegal crossings under Biden. The text should include the idea that the risk of terrorist infiltration and drug and human trafficking has increased.
    For example: "In 2023, CBP, including Air and Marine Operations, has seized 27,293 pounds of fentanyl, coming across the Southwest border—enough to kill more than 6 billion people."[1]. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:56, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, we cannot do that. You are trying to add WP:SYNTH material. That would belong in an article about the border crisis itself, not Biden's BLP. And you are only focusing on one side of the criticism, which has been coming from both liberals and conservatives. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:02, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no SYNTH here. This is all part of what has illegally crossed the border. You're suggesting these affairs are not related to illegal crossings. The article mentions voters concerns. It is not SYNTH to present a few of the major facts behind those concerns. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:06, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It is, at best, WP:COATRACK to "present a few of the major facts behind those concerns". The topic of this article is Joe Biden, not fentanyl or terrorism. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:10, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Biden's closing of dozens of checkpoints and his refusal to resume building of the wall is largely responsible for the surge in mass illegal immigration. This includes things like terrorism and drug trafficking infiltration -- these are only some of the details associated, which are of great concern to citizens. This doesn't make the article about " fentanyl or terrorism". If anything, the text should indicate that serious national security threats have resulted in Biden's mishandling of the border. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:15, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Uh got any citations for Biden's closing of dozens of checkpoints and his refusal to resume building of the wall is largely responsible for the surge in mass illegal immigration? Because Biden's mishandling of the border sounds like your personal opinion. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:23, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "Uh", why don't you review the thread and get back to me instead of inferring that these things are all fictional? The current text says "mishandling of the border". Why don't you check with the editor who made that edit? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:36, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have reviewed this thread. So you do not have citations to back up what you say, only incivility. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:41, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Dozens of sources note Biden's first actions regarding the border upon assuming office, and the immediate sharp rise in illegal crossings.that followed. The US Customs and Border Protection stated, "Since President Biden and Secretary Mayorkas took office, there have been more than 9.5 million encounters nationwide and more than 7.8 million encounters at the Southwest border"[2] Biden's first actions were to shut down dozens of checkpoints and stop funding of the wall, which was a clear indication that Biden was not at all being vigilant about illegal crossings. You can assume that there is no relationship between these things and the sharp rise in illegal crossings if you prefer. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:05, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The clear indication you speak about is your own personal bias and it does not belong here. Otherwise, your assumption of a direct relationship is an illusory correlation. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:34, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    1. ^ US Homeland Security
    2. ^ US Customs and Border Protection: Southwest Land Border Encounters
    My take on the immigration issue in Biden's BLP is that it should simply tell in a few words what happened. I don't think this is the place for analysis of the issue or causes and effects. That's what the main article is for. Here we just note it was a fraught issue. As I said above, "This happened during Biden's presidency. For the purposes of this BLP, it doesn't matter why."
    I would prefer we draw from "Illegal border crossings soared in the months after Biden took office and immediately rolled back many Trump-era restrictions" in the WaPo article I linked to earlier. I would prefer that we note the decline of border crossings after he changed his policy last month. These are decisions to be made by consensus, not by me alone. YoPienso (talk) 20:56, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, this is simplistic. It assumes a connection not proven. It ignores many items: Covid restrictions altered, reversal of policies that resulted in large separations of children from parents, contraction of Covid in densely populated holding areas, Constitutional problems in the mass detentions, situations in other countries behind the base problems that caused so many people to endanger their lives to migrate such long distances, worldwide problems. That's just off the top of my head. Why are some trying to make such an incredibly complex situation sound so simple? This happened during Biden's presidency. For the purposes of this BLP, it doesn't matter why." I have no words for that comment other than BLP is of paramount importance. And he didn't cause it to be 120 degrees in Las Vegas yesterday. O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:02, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Objective3000 Can someone delete the [why?] @Gwillhickers added? Seananony (talk) 12:12, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
     Done – Muboshgu (talk) 15:29, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    eraser Undone. Asking 'why?' is appropriate here. Controversial and empty statements need to be explained with a short statement, backed by reliable sources. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:44, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This article is under enforced WP:BRD. O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:55, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Yopienso I agree. I see too much duplication of main pages, not just on this page but on many others. Link to the main page and just give a quick overview, maybe the page description from that main page. We shouldn't have to debate all these issues on every talk page that may be incidentally related.
    Incidentally, Fareed Zakaria in his new book, Age of Revolutions, says (to paraphrase), if the only people willing to say they will stop immigration are fascists, then people will elect fascists. Something to think about... Seananony (talk) 12:25, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Illegal immigrants didn't begin pouring in because of COVID, or any of the events e.g.in "holding areas". They came to the US seeking opportunity, and unfortunately, so did many drug and human traffickers who could care less about COVID, knowing that checkpoints were gone, and that the wall was going nowhere, and that the Dem's always touted political support for any and all immigrants. A green light if ever there was one. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:03, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]


    References

    Arbitrary break - immigration

    The text was revised and current looks like this. It covers the numeric changes, the context, and the political. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:04, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Evergreen, I think your contribution is superb, touching all the bases impartially without going into great detail.
    That is, if the section was still called "Southern border." I'm fine with adding the northern border, Gwillhickers, but it's out of context where you inserted it, and you didn't cite it. I'm not sure it has enough weight to include in this BLP. I know little about what's happened there, so defer to others' knowledge. If it is weighty enough, I would support the name change and suggest one short paragraph about the Canadian border at the bottom of the section.
    My personal preference is to let Evergreen's version stand. What is our consensus? YoPienso (talk) 21:08, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The former title, Southern border, dismisses the idea of the millions that have crossed the northern border. The title Illegal immigration is all inclusive and much more to the point. I'll provide sources for the Canadian crossings directly. — Here's two: NBC Feb 9, 2023 — CBS news.com, March 15, 2024 -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:20, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - Balanced, accurate, meets WP:NPOV WP:BLP WP:BALANCE even WP:GNG, if it applied.
    • Partial support. Fair and objective in some respects. Equating the sharp rise with illegal crossings, however, that immediately followed after Biden assumed office, to "global migration" is dubious at best. Still no mention of some of the things Biden did at the border upon assuming office, which brings BALANCE into question. BLP doesn't automatically mean we can't note major details in a summary and reference to another related article, nor that we make the article read like an outline. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:20, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support EvergreenFir's version. Given that the vast majority of attention in reliable sources is on the southern border, I don't think the discussion of the northern border has enough weight to include in this article. (Moreover, according to CBP's own statistics, the number of encounters during Biden's presidency at the northern border is less than 5.5% of the number of encounters at the southern border.) Further, almost all of the discussion in the section deals specifically with the southern border. Per WP:DUE, I think it would be better to remove the references to the northern border and revert the heading back to "Southern border." (On the same note, regarding the comment that the title "Southern border" ...dismisses the idea of the millions that have crossed the northern border -- I have not seen any source that supports the "idea" that "millions" have crossed the northern border during Biden's presidency, not even close. Aoi (青い) (talk) 00:49, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Aoi — My apologies, you are correct, not millions, but hundreds of thousands. < NBC Feb 9, 2023 — CBS news.com, March 15, 2024 > Yes, the majority of illegal crossings are at the southern border, and we give weight and coverage accordingly, but the advent at the northern border merits some coverage. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:46, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's proving to be a two way street,. Making sweeping and derogatory accusations about editors is not helping. Please assume good faith, even when one's views are contrary to yours. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:01, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Closing

    I don’t fully understand what this is about but I stumbled across it and it seems very out of hand and non-constructive, particularly user:Gwillhickers and their dubiously accurate POV/soapbox claims more suited to Fox News than a Wikipedia talk page. If someone’s got a legitimate recommendation here please voice it now; otherwise I’d like to close this as unproductive. Dronebogus (talk) 12:35, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Dronebogus — Real issues and viable threats to the country as stated by the Border Protection Agency and the FBI may seem like "soapbox" to some individuals, almost always those trying to water down the issue to the point of obscurity, but this is a prominent view supported by many reliable sources, including government sources. Trying to render the issue as something that was caused by "COVID" and "global migration", etc is highly misleading. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:31, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Your framing about “millions” illegal migrants and “drug dealers” “pouring” over the border because of the “dem’s” [sic] offering support for “any and all immigrants”, while talking approvingly of “the wall”, is hardly neutral. Dronebogus (talk) 04:37, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I suggest we revert to the status quo and fully protect the article until a proper discussion takes place. O3000, Ret. (talk) 13:03, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Support Dronebogus (talk) 13:55, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed, we need an RFC clearly, with an actual suggestion as to what to say, as right now its too one sided. 13:11, 9 July 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by slatersteven (talk • contribs)

    Hasty closures

    To the unregistered user above. — We've been discussing several actual suggestions as to what to say. However, an RfC might help, but I suspect this will just be a prolonged event like the one that's occurring here. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:52, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That “unregistered user” is slatersteven Dronebogus (talk) 04:34, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Getting covid is policy?

    Why is Biden's diagnosis of covid under domestic policy? Seananony (talk) 03:42, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, it was a very important decision Dronebogus (talk) 12:30, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "Decision"? Biden didn't 'decide' to get COVID. Agree with Seananony. Getting COVID is not a domestic policy. This should be mentioned under Biden's personal life. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:35, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's the problem, and the reason I didn't fix this when Seananony first mentioned--this article has no "Personal life" section. Odd, huh? YoPienso (talk) 16:41, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, one among many such things wrong with this article. This is an encyclopedia article, not a promotional piece for Biden, and is supposed to mention the good with the not so good, in neutral well sourced terms. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:56, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It does mention quite negative events about Biden. But we should not add your post hoc conclusions about immigration. O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:05, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not necessary for you to have the last word in every discussion on this thread, Hickers. Stop de-railing. Acalamari 17:36, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "de-railing"? That was a legitimate request. If I'm wrong here I'm sure no one will hesitate to bring it to my attention, where I'll be more than happy to give them the last word. Thanx. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:06, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Gwillhickers See the investigations section. Seananony (talk) 01:11, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Yopienso Maybe drop the section header and put that paragraph about the 2022 diagnosis under the 2022 elections section? Seananony (talk) 01:46, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the article needs a "Personal life" section. YoPienso (talk) 02:26, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. There is no lack of information for a personal life section, there is precedent for articles like these to have one, and it is important information for a biography. QuicoleJR (talk) 02:47, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We do have an article on Biden's personal life, so maybe that's why the article doesn't focus on that. (However, this doesn't mean that the section can't be expanded.) CitationsFreak (talk) 06:20, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It’s a joke Dronebogus (talk) 04:30, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The simple English WP has personal life and health sections we could copy or use as a guide. YoPienso (talk) 12:51, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes that’s sensible. Dronebogus (talk) 15:52, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    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 [why?] 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,[1] 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)[reply]

    References

    1. ^ CNN, December 29, 2023
    "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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    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).[reply]

    @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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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.[1] 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[2][3] 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.[4][5] 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)[reply]
    1. ^ NPR, Sept. 14, 2020
    2. ^ Forbes magazine
    3. ^ CNN, March 7, 2024
    4. ^ US Customs and Border Protection: Enforcement Statistics
    5. ^ US Customs and Border Protection: Southwest Land Border Encounters
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    • The section should state that Biden vowed to reverse Trump's immigration policies. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:55, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Responded to over and over again. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:27, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    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, [1][2] 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)[reply]

    1. ^ BBC, May 20, 2024
    2. ^ NBC, April 17, 2024
    "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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • This is the text in question that was reverted:
    On his first day in office Biden stopped funding for the US-Mexican border wall.[1][2][3]  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.[4]
    General statements of fact. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:26, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    1. ^ "Biden's border wall funding freeze". CBS News. June 15, 2021.
    2. ^ "Biden halts border wall building". PBS. January 21, 2021.
    3. ^ "Biden starts fast on immigration by halting border". CNN. January 20, 2021.
    4. ^ "Executive actions Biden signed in his first 100 days". CNN. April 30, 2021.

    :

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

    Alternative proposal:

    "On his first day in office Biden stopped funding for the US-Mexican border wall,[1] 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.[2] -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:30, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    1. ^ PBS, January 21, 2021
    2. ^ CBS, October 5, 2023
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    .

    Removing the NPOV tag

    Now that the opening statement in the Southern border section is neutral and not misleading, with no unsourced claims that "global migration" and "COVID" were the primary reasons behind the immigration surge, we can remove the NPOV tag. The section still warrants a few more of the pertinent facts, par with the details and size of many other sections, but we can deal with that in due course it seems. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:11, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Now that the opening statement mentions the surge began after Biden assumed office AND amid "global migration"trends, the statement is better balanced. Taking either one of those ideas out of the equation would be misleading. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:19, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    2024 presidential campaign section due for update

    The 2024 presidential campaign section needs to be updated. Renewed calls, and new calls, for President Biden to step down are making the latest news. While there is a dedicated article, Joe Biden 2024 presidential campaign, where all the important details can be delineated, a brief and definitive statement is needed here in the 2024 presidential campaign section. Here are some of the latest updates:

    A brief statement might read.

    Since the June 2024 debate with Donald Trump increasing numbers of Congressional democrats, and others,
    are calling for Biden to step down from the presidential race in 2024    .  Biden, however, still has a majority of support within his party.    .

    This can be followed up with additional news stories covering Biden's ultimate decision. In any event, the affair is no trivial matter, and shouldn't be ignored. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:56, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    See WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENTISM. We are an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:08, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Correct, WP is not a newspaper, but this is not some blanket policy that says we cannot include any noteworthy events that are sourced by reliable news forums. WP policy states:
    WP:NOTNEWS — "News reports. Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion and Wikipedia is not written in news style".
    It says, "most", not exclusively.. After a quick perusal of the source listing in this article, one can see dozens of news stories that have dates that coincide with the event being cited in the article. e.g. citations [347], [349], [476], [521], [522], [701], and many others, are such examples of news stories/citations that coincide with the event being covered. The Israel–Hamas war section is filled with news sources with current dates used as citations, regardless of the "Recentism" that's involved. That Biden is being asked to step down by Congressional Democrats, and others, is a major detail in Biden's political career and should be covered in brief encyclopedic terms. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:31, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for making the update Muboshgu. You might also want to mention that Biden still has a majority of support from within his party, and that top Democrats are standing strong with him.[1]. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:02, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes I found it odd when I noticed that the paragraph of talk of Biden stepping down did not include his statement that he will not. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:01, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    References

    1. ^ Reuters, July 1, 2024

    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)[reply]

    Not linked to what? Slatersteven (talk) 11:18, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Air Force One, Obama, and Paul Ryan A-37Dragonfly (talk) 14:06, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    Rewording needed

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

    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)[reply]

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

    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)[reply]

    source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Joe_Biden

    Leave a Reply