Talk:Joe Biden#rfc 82C4B78

On the article it states that he was the 47th Vice President. He was the 45th. Someone correct this. 71.93.39.133 (talk) 19:55, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

:He was the 47th vice president. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:06, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

:You are confused with the fact that he served with the 45th President. There have been more vice-presidents than presidents. See List of vice presidents of the United States. Peaceray (talk) 21:03, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

::Biden was the 46th president. Mpeaker (talk) 02:26, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Tapper and Thompson's book has huge implications for reflections on Biden's presidency. Sort of surprised it's allegations aren't included yet beyond a mention in "Further Reading." Be-Plants (talk) 19:39, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

:Obviously most readers here will not have read the book you refer to, nor know anything about its basic premise. Perhaps you could explain some more. HiLo48 (talk) 00:39, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

::Original Sin details President Biden's cognitive decline--and has opened massive debate about the conduct of him and his top aides in concealing this fact from the public, then running for reelection in 2024. Be-Plants (talk) 03:34, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Doesn't read like an objective account to me. HiLo48 (talk) 03:53, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

::::Per WP:RS, the personal opinions of Wikipedia editors don't determine what is considered a reliable source whose perspectives should be reflected in a Wikipedia article per WP:NPOV - rather, its general {{tq|reputation for fact-checking and accuracy}} does. Regards, HaeB (talk) 07:13, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

:Speaking as the editor who [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joe_Biden&diff=prev&oldid=1284711064 removed] a paragraph about this book two months ago because it had not yet been published yet, I agree that now that it has come out and its findings have received ample coverage in independent RS as well, the topic that it covers needs to be given more weight in this article per WP:NPOV. Regards, HaeB (talk) 07:13, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

::Are they medical profesionals? Slatersteven (talk) 08:04, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

::That was my take. These are well-respected reporters, to be sure. And even if part of their work is editorializing (much is not), the huge amount of attention it garnered should be covered. As to @Slatersteven's question, no, they are not medical professionals. However, they are not making medical claims; they are reporting on facts and anecdotes from the Biden administration without making claims as to the cause of Biden's alleged decline. Be-Plants (talk) 23:37, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Obviously Wikipedia should not be interested in anecdotes. And rather than facts, most of the rest that is describe in our article is the opinions of people. Significant people in many cases, sure, but still opinions. HiLo48 (talk) 00:07, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

::::Again, I'm not advocating the article state the book's claims as true, simply to discuss the book and it's claims due to the huge amount of discussion it generated.

::::If you're looking for evidence that the book is built on top-tier reporting rather than opinions, view the following resources. The Atlantic even states that the authors "do little editorializing."

::::[https://www.theatlantic.com/books/archive/2025/05/biden-original-sin-decline/682818/ An Autopsy Report on Biden’s In-Office Decline - The Atlantic]

::::[https://www.npr.org/2025/05/20/nx-s1-5398050/joe-bidens-decline-jake-tapper-original-sin Jake Tapper details Joe Biden's alleged decline in 'Original Sin' : NPR]

::::[https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/13/books/review/originial-sin-jake-tapper-alex-thompson.html Book Review: ‘Original Sin,’ by Jake Tapper and Alex Thompson - The New York Times] Be-Plants (talk) 02:10, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

::::I am confused, is not a claim of mental decline a medical diagnosis? Slatersteven (talk) 11:33, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::It is not. It's a reporting of behaviors/symptoms. Not a diagnosis. Be-Plants (talk) 19:01, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::So they draw no conclusions? Slatersteven (talk) 12:47, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

:Anyways, I just wanted to bring it up. If there isn't consensus, that's fine. Thanks all for the input. Be-Plants (talk) 21:22, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Can we rely on medical professions who have actually examined the subject? Same as with Trump. A large number of psychiatrists questioned his mental state. I was against inclusion as they did not examine him. 00:12, 4 June 2025 (UTC)O3000, Ret. (talk)

The subsection regarding the 2022 midterm elections is very substantial in contrast to similar mentions of presidential midterms among other presidential Wikipedia pages. In addition, the party in power is widely agreed to be the more deciding factor in the midterm elections than the president as an individual. Both Donald Trump's and Barack Obama's pages both barely mention the midterm elections, and when they do, it's only with regards to a hostile congress. Similarly, even President's like George W. Bush, who had an even stronger showing of support for the incumbent in the 2002 United States elections do not see mention of the midterm results at all on their pages- with the only exception being that of FDR who sees them mentioned in the context of perpetrating further New Deal Policies. Given there was no similar policy continuation following the 2022 midterms, and midterm results are mentioned more in passing in similar presidential articles, shouldn't the '2022 midterm elections' subsection be removed? LosPajaros (talk) 01:17, 11 June 2025 (UTC)