Talk:Joe Biden

Current consensus

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

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

02. No consensus on section about gaffes. (March 2021 - though closer said that proposer should file a new RfC with a clearer question). Deleted: this list is only for consensuses.

03. The infobox is shortened. (Feb 2021)

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

05. The infobox caption is "Official portrait, 2021". (April 2021)

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

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

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

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

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

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

Option #1/(Note: RFC submitter): No per WP: CRYSTAL and WP: WEIGHT. It is indeterminate on whether the aid will have a significant impact on reducing the man-made starvation of Palestinians in Gaza. Beyond this, Biden has taken the most pro-Israeli position of any current world leader outside of Israel, opposed a likely upcoming ICC arrest warrant for Benjamin Netanyahu/other Israeli officials, and given billions of dollars towards Israeli military aid, a factor in of itself of the Palestinian famine. Having a majority of the lead talk about Biden's humanitarian aid for Palestinians is therefore WP: UNDUE and goes against normative lead guidelines. It also comes across, in my mind, as a case of blatant whitewashing. KlayCax (talk) 20:53, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Option #2/3: Yes per WP:NPOV. Just as it is mentioned that Biden has sent military aid to Israel, per WP:NPOV it should also be mentioned that Biden has sent humanitarian aid to Palestinian civilians in Gaza. You can't just put what you like or what suits you.

I agree with the lead of the article current description about the port in Gaza, although I would have no problem with it mention in general terms that Biden has sent humanitarian aid to Gaza, as Option #3 propose. Esterau16 (talk) 22:21, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Except there's a consensus among humanitarian aid experts that the port will be ultimately inconsequential in preventing mass starvation. Effectively, it will do little to prevent it. How is this notable? KlayCax (talk) 22:57, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

A large part of your argument is based on WP:CRYSTAL: It is indeterminate on whether the aid will have a significant impact. And yet you are now making an argument based on the fact you have a WP:CRYSTALBALL. Effectively, it will do little to prevent it. You cannot argue both ways within minutes. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:33, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

I was pointing out that most humanitarian aid experts and human rights organizations claim this. Not making a WP: CRYSTAL prediction. (I was typing on my phone. Apologies.)

But is this matter not WP: CRYSTAL? Why should it be included? Especially when there's no good evidence that it'll make a significant impact. KlayCax (talk) 02:41, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

I have no idea what the impact will be. Apparently you think you do know -- but ironically refer to CRYSTAL. O3000, Ret. (talk) 10:39, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Options 3/1 Seems undue to single out a port in the lead, unless that's the only aid Biden has given to Gaza. (Summoned by bot) Some1 (talk) 22:48, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Options 1 This is a complete absurdity, the attempt to jam every Israel/Palestine tidbit into the biography of an 81 yr-old career politician. Place it in the appropriate sub-article. WP:RECENTISM and WP:UNDUE. Zaathras (talk) 02:08, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

• Options 1 No, it's too early to assess its long-term significance. TFD (talk) 02:48, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
• No (option 1) – Per The Four Deuces, it's too early to assess its long-term significance. This seems like a WP:RECENTISM issue. Graham (talk) 06:02, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1/3 Too early to put it in the lead. Humanitarian aid in general is already mentioned, I would support keeping it that way. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:45, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1. Far too soon to know if that specific aid is significant enough to call out in the lead of the article about his entire life- possibly even in the lead of Presidency of Joe Biden. 331dot (talk) 14:45, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1 it's a minor event in his life--it belongs in foreign policy of the Joe Biden administration where it's clear he has the final ok but lots of high officials are involved. Rjensen (talk) 15:20, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
• Option 3 or Option 1, with caveats. (Summoned by bot). The dock is arguably due for a couple of sentences of passing reference in the main body of the article, and some oblique mention of the subject/his administration's relationship to aid to Palestine during the current conflict is probably due for the lead. But I'm joining with the emerging consensus here in judging that the particular detail of the dock is just too discrete and subtle of a detail (relative to the immensity as such a BLP as this), to warrant inclusion in the lead.
  That said, I want to be careful to separate my support from some of the arguments upon which exclusion is proposed above, because there are elements of the OP's !vote that I feel stray more than a little into WP:OR and WP:RGW territory. It is not appropriate for us to be excluding on the basis that this detail would cast the subject in too positive a light in relation to Palestinian people, where he (according to the idiosyncratic views of one or more of our editors) doesn't deserve such a reputation based on other actions. That is far too direct and high level an analysis for our editors to be making by themselves (again, per the obvious role of OR in such reasoning).
  Rather, the valid policy reason not to include this detail in the lead is to observe that the amount of coverage the dock receives in over-arching coverage of the article's subject, as both a contemporary political and ultimately historical figure, is relatively insignificant (at least as best the corpus of sources currently indicates) when compared against the overall content of such a large article, and the demanding constraints of its lead. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 19:01, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
• What SnowRise said O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:18, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
• Option #1: No, not until we have some idea of its impact, and when the conflict is over. Slatersteven (talk) 09:14, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

• Option 1 It is way too early to put something like this in the lead. This could be revisited down the road when there's a clearer picture of history, but for someone with a long biography like Biden this is WP:UNDUE for the lead. I agree with with RJensen this type of thing is better suited at foreign policy of the Joe Biden administration.Nemov (talk) 13:41, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

• Option 1- I, too am of the opinion that it is far too soon to put this in the lede. Let us wait until the long-term impact can be gauged. My 2¢.   Aloha27  talk  11:36, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

WP:Polling is not a substitute for discussion: Is there a reason KlayKlax asked this question in the first place? It seems out of the blue. Kire1975 (talk) 14:34, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

This is a Request for Comment, to settle an editorial dispute. It is not a poll. You should probably take some time to learn these things before quoting guidelines to fellow editors. Zaathras (talk) 00:20, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

• Option 1 Obviously UNDUE as per previous comments. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 10:06, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1 or possibly 3 Obviously UNDUE as per previous comments. and RECENT too. Pincrete (talk) 05:02, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1. The thing has fallen apart for now anyway. It will take at least a week to repair and may fall apart again the first time there are rough seas. Even during the ten days or so that it was operational, it brought in a tiny fraction of the amount of aid that was envisaged. --Andreas JN466 22:49, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

• Option 1 with caveats. Of the three options proposed, not mentioning the floating pier (it is not a port in the strict sense, as per the article about it, and should be called with precision at first mention, especially that there is a Wikipedia article dedicated to a floating pier) makes the most sense given that the structure has been short-lived this far and its importance or impact is not clear at all. And especially that the dock is not even mentioned directly in the current version of this article.

Further to this, if Biden's humanitarian aid to Palestine wholly depends on the floating pier, i.e. without the pier there is no aid (it is not clear to me without a further investigation whether that is the case), then I suggest either inverting option 3 and referencing the pier instead of aid to favour concrete information over generalities, or dropping any mention of aid from the lead as well.

I have not gone through the revision history, but I find it strange to discuss the inclusion in the lead of something that is not currently mentioned in the content. I would precede any decision here with adding at least 1-2 sentences about the dock (with a link to its own article) and clarifying its relationship to US humanitarian aid for Palestine. VampaVampa (talk) 19:45, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

• Option 1 without any caveats. Gaza floating pier is already broken and meaningless, just a few trucks have passed. It might be notable only as a ridiculous waste of taxpayer's money, solely for the purpose of PR, or just another example for those commenters who harshly criticize Biden administration for incompetence. My very best wishes (talk) 21:06, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
• No seems WP:UNDUE, especially for a biography. Prcc27 (talk) 03:35, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

No however it can be pagelinked to in 'humanitarian aid' Alexanderkowal (talk) 10:24, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Option 1 per above. LiamKorda 04:01, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

References

• No While it might be significant in the article body it's really just a part of a larger middle east strategy and by itself not due for inclusion in the article lead at all. Springee (talk) 14:03, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1 UNDUE. Cossde (talk) 04:20, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1. Undue and excessive information. Not exactly career-defining. — Czello ^(music) 17:44, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1 undue.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:41, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1 This is about him, not his presidency. so Unless he personally built it or personally delivered this aid, this was US government action. Slatersteven (talk) 10:48, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

... 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)

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)

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)

Evidently consensus is running the other way here. Ah well, thanks all for the discussion. —Ganesha811 (talk) 23:45, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Joe is not facing felony tax charges. HiLo48 (talk) 04:53, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

Classic WP:SYN. YoPienso (talk) 18:32, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Joe Biden series template

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

TBH, such 'series templates' should be deleted from all US office holders' bio pages. GoodDay (talk) 14:29, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

TBH, I agree with this. I'll get round to doing that. --ThingsCanOnlyGetWetter (talk) 15:30, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

!!! Why no series templates?? They're so useful! YoPienso (talk) 15:35, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

On second thoughts, I now think they have use and have added them back. --ThingsCanOnlyGetWetter (talk) 16:08, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Scholastic history

Thread retitled from "Biden did not rank near the bottom of his class just because of his plagiarism". WP:TALKHEADPOV

This line about Biden's law school class ranking

He ranked 76th in a class of 85 students after failing a course because he plagiarized a law review article for a paper he wrote in his first year at law school

strongly implies that he ranked so low because he failed a single course due to plagiarism, but that is a coloring not supported by the source. His grades were otherwise poor, as the cited NYT source notes:

The file also included Mr. Biden's transcript from his days as an undergraduate at the University of Delaware. In his first three semesters, his grades were C's or D's, with three exceptions: two A's in physical education courses, a B in a course on Great English Writers and an F in R.O.T.C. The grades improved somewhat later but were never exceptional. Sysiphis (talk) 15:51, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

His undergraduate years were at the University of Delaware, but he went to law school at Syracuse. His undergrad grades had no bearing on his law school rank, but I think you're conflating the two. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:58, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

I mean to say that it is not supported by the source that this one failed course was the reason for his low rank. It seems to suggest he was simply a poor student in general. It also seems the F he got did not even contribute to his poor rank, as it was stricken:

The faculty ruled that Mr. Biden would get an F in the course but would have the grade stricken when he retook it the next year. Mr. Biden eventually received a grade of 80 in the course, which, he joked today, prevented him from falling even further in his class rank. Mr. Biden, who graduated from the law school in 1968, was 76th in a class of 85.

The two facts should be separated, like so:

"In his first year of law school he failed a course because he plagiarized a law review article for a paper he wrote, but the course was later stricken from his record and took the course again the next year, earning an 80. He graduated ranked 76th in a class of 85 students." Sysiphis (talk) 16:40, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Ah I see. There's a little bit of OR/SYNTH going on there, indicating that the one paper is the reason his rank was that low, when he was probably just a mediocre student in general and that one paper is but one example of it. I imagine the plagiarism issue is played up in that sentence because of the plagiarism issue in his 1988 presidential campaign. I would actually think the one paper in law school is too unimportant to include, and we can simply remove it from the notation of where he ranked in the class. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:10, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

How about let's not remove it, as it was an actually important enough to be an issue in his first presidential campaign, and just fix the SYNTH. My previous example fixes it. Sysiphis (talk) 22:18, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

In a general BLP, I don't see we need that level of detail about his college career. But the plagiarism issue is a thing in itself, and shouldn't be swept under the rug. And there it is, in the 1988 campaign subsection, which has 3 paragraphs about plagiarism, though the word itself it used only once. That subsection needs some work. YoPienso (talk) 22:30, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

The plagiarism of the speech is important enough to keep in the article, in the 1988 campaign section as YoPienso says. The plagiarism in a law school paper is not an issue with any WP:LASTING noteworthiness. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:34, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Here's a whole WaPo article about his plagiarism and falsehoods. The NY Times wrote that his school records "disclosed relatively poor grades in college and law school, mixed evaluations from teachers and details of the plagiarism." YoPienso (talk) 22:37, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

The New York Times wrote an article mentioning it very recently. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/22/us/politics/klain-kaufman-biden-campaign-election.html

It was Mr. Kaufman who was brutally direct with Mr. Biden when a plagiarism scandal threatened his first campaign for president in 1987. “There’s only one way to stop the sharks,” Mr. Kaufman told him at the time, “and that’s pull out.” Mr. Biden did.

It's a very consequential detail in his life. Definitely of lasting noteworthiness.

Based on YoPienso's comments, and that the section title contains "law school" and that someone's grades in law school are one of the very most noteworthy pieces of information concerning their time there, I am changing my suggested edit to:

In his first year of law school he failed a course because he plagiarized a law review article for a paper he wrote, however the course was later stricken. His grades were relatively poor, and he graduated ranked 76th in a class of 85 students. Sysiphis (talk) 00:02, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Note some changes I suggest:

In his first year of law school Biden failed a course because he plagiarized a law review article; however, the F was stricken when he took the course again, earning a B. His college grades were average, and he graduated from law school ranked 76th in a class of 85 students. YoPienso (talk) 01:17, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

It feels redundant to mention the grade he got for a failed course. Also, "relatively poor" grades are not "average". Respectfully, I stand by my suggested edit. Sysiphis (talk) 01:34, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm wrong about the "average" grades. I thought I'd read in one of our sources a list of his grades, which averaged out to about a C. If I saw it, I couldn't find it again.

Please do make the following changes:

• semi-colon after wrote
• comma after however
• replace course with grade, failing grade, or F

YoPienso (talk) 18:35, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Deal.

Could someone with extended edit permission please make the following edit:

Replace the line

He ranked 76th in a class of 85 students after failing a course because he plagiarized a law review article for a paper he wrote in his first year at law school.

with

In his first year of law school he failed a course because he plagiarized a law review article for a paper he wrote; however, the failing grade was later stricken. His grades were relatively poor, and he graduated ranked 76th in a class of 85 students.

It is all from the same NYT article, no need to change or add any sources.

Thank you, it would be much appreciated. Sysiphis (talk) 20:02, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

 Done I took the libery of removing the word "ranked" since it's understood with the ordinal number "76th." YoPienso (talk) 21:43, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! Sysiphis (talk) 20:30, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

"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)