Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:39, 23 June 2022

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Joe Biden article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19Auto-archiving period: 21 days

Template:Vital article

Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article: You must follow the bold-revert-discuss cycle if your change is reverted. You may not reinstate your edit until you post a talk page message discussing your edit and have waited 24 hours from the time of this talk page message Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. Further information Enforcement procedures: Violations of any of these restrictions should be reported immediately to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. Editors who are aware of this topic being designated a contentious topic and who violate these restrictions may be sanctioned by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense. The contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topics sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions. If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. Remember: When in doubt, don't revert!

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Joe Biden. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Joe Biden at the Reference desk.

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

	Joe 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 Date Process Result September 18, 2008 Good article nominee Not listed September 19, 2008 Good article nominee Listed April 22, 2020 Good article reassessment Delisted June 28, 2020 Good article reassessment Delisted October 4, 2020 Good article nominee Not listed Current status: Delisted good article

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Template:WikiProject Joe BidenPlease add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography: Politics and Government This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Top-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. U.S. Congress High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject U.S. Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States Congress on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.U.S. CongressWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. CongressTemplate:WikiProject U.S. CongressU.S. Congress High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is about one (or many) Person(s). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. United States: Delaware / Presidential elections / Presidents / Government Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Delaware (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. presidential elections (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject United States Presidents (assessed as Top-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as Top-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Pennsylvania Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pennsylvania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pennsylvania on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PennsylvaniaWikipedia:WikiProject PennsylvaniaTemplate:WikiProject PennsylvaniaPennsylvania Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Politics: American High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as Top-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. College football Bottom‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject College football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of college football on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.College footballWikipedia:WikiProject College footballTemplate:WikiProject College footballcollege football Bottom This article has been rated as Bottom-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Science Policy High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Policy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Science policy on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Science PolicyWikipedia:WikiProject Science PolicyTemplate:WikiProject Science PolicyScience Policy High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Barack Obama (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Barack Obama, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Barack ObamaWikipedia:WikiProject Barack ObamaTemplate:WikiProject Barack ObamaBarack Obama

Other banners: Top 25 reports; media mentions; pageviews; section size

Top 50 Report and Top 25 Report annual lists This article has been viewed enough times to make it onto the all-time Top 100 list. It has had 82 million views since December 2007. This article has been viewed enough times in a single year to make it into the Top 50 Report annual list. This happened in 2020 and 2021. This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report 20 times. The weeks in which this happened: May 31 to June 6, 2015 January 8 to 14, 2017 March 1 to 7, 2020 August 9 to 15, 2020 March 1 to 7, 2020 August 9 to 15, 2020 August 16 to 22, 2020 August 30 to September 5, 2020 September 13 to 19, 2020 September 27 to October 3, 2020 October 4 to 10, 2020 October 11 to 17, 2020 October 18 to 24, 2020 October 25 to 31, 2020 November 1 to 7, 2020 November 8 to 14, 2020 November 15 to 21, 2020 January 3 to 9, 2021 January 17 to 23, 2021 January 24 to 30, 2021 This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations: Brian Krebs (August 29, 2008). "Misplaced Pages Edits Forecast Vice Presidential Picks". The Washington Post. (none) (August 17, 2009). "The 50 most-viewed Misplaced Pages articles in 2009 and 2008". The Daily Telegraph. Maxwell Tani (May 15, 2015). "Meet the guy who has protected Hillary Clinton's Misplaced Pages page for almost a decade". Business Insider. Alex Pasternack (March 7, 2020). "How Misplaced Pages's volunteers became the web's best weapon against misinformation". Fast Company. Kalev Leetaru (April 29, 2020). "Biden vs. Kavanaugh: How the #MeToo Numbers Stack Up". Real Clear Politics. Mayank Aggarwal (July 16, 2021). "Nobody should trust Misplaced Pages, says man who invented Misplaced Pages". The Independent. Madeleine Spence (August 1, 2021). "Larry Sanger: 'I wouldn't trust Misplaced Pages — and I helped to invent it'". The Sunday Times. Jack Beresford (September 2, 2021). "Misplaced Pages 'War in Afghanistan' Article Describes It As a 'Taliban Victory'". Newsweek. Section sizes Section size for Joe Biden (63 sections) Section name Byte count Section total (Top) 9,552 9,552 Early life (1942–1965) 9,050 9,050 Marriages, law school, and early career (1966–1973) 10,599 27,199 1972 U.S. Senate campaign in Delaware 1,826 1,826 Death of wife and daughter 3,828 3,828 Second marriage 8,342 8,342 Teaching 2,604 2,604 U.S. Senate (1973–2009) 74 39,489 Senate activities 19,310 19,310 Brain surgeries 2,434 2,434 Senate Judiciary Committee 6,590 6,590 Senate Foreign Relations Committee 5,856 11,081 Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq 5,225 5,225 1988 and 2008 presidential campaigns 44 16,364 1988 campaign 10,829 10,829 2008 campaign 5,491 5,491 2008 and 2012 vice presidential campaigns 49 27,980 2008 campaign 12,057 12,057 2012 campaign 15,874 15,874 Vice presidency (2009–2017) 77 38,370 First term (2009–2013) 23,882 23,882 Second term (2013–2017) 10,009 14,411 Role in the 2016 presidential campaign 4,402 4,402 Post-vice presidency (2017–2021) 6,681 6,681 2020 presidential campaign 78 31,911 Speculation and announcement 3,490 3,490 Campaign 22,421 22,421 Presidential transition 5,922 5,922 Presidency (2021–present) 133 191,131 Inauguration 6,205 6,205 First 100 days 13,050 13,050 Domestic policy 9,091 75,090 Economy 19,243 19,243 Judiciary 5,690 5,690 Infrastructure and climate 13,835 13,835 Immigration 11,500 11,500 Pardons and commutations 3,271 3,271 Pardon of Hunter Biden 6,021 6,021 2022 elections 6,439 6,439 Foreign policy 5,772 57,693 Withdrawal from Afghanistan 11,473 11,473 Russian invasion of Ukraine 12,113 12,113 China affairs 10,192 10,192 Israel–Hamas war 14,104 14,104 NATO enlargement 4,039 4,039 Investigations 23 13,988 Retention of classified documents 5,768 5,768 Business activities 8,197 8,197 Age and health concerns 7,291 7,291 2024 presidential campaign 17,681 17,681 Political positions 30,857 30,857 Public image 10,788 19,362 Job approval 7,095 7,095 Media depictions 1,479 1,479 See also 238 238 Notes 138 138 References 17 1,680 Citations 34 34 Works cited 1,629 1,629 Further reading 1,430 1,430 External links 119 11,088 Official 440 440 Other 10,529 10,529 Total 462,520 462,520

• v
• e

NOTE: It is recommended to link to this list in your edit summary when reverting, as:
] item
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)

RfC: Should the lede contain information on criticism for Biden's Afghanistan handling?

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 the lede contain information on the criticism of Biden's Afghanistan withdrawal (see refs at https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Joe_Biden/Archive_16#Lead_sentence_about_Afghan_withdrawal) with the following possible wording (which is similar to the content at Presidency of Joe Biden)? VickKiang (talk) 07:04, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

He completed the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan, during which the Afghan government collapsed and the Taliban seized control, resulting in bipartisan criticism.

Survey

Discussion

There is a similar previous version, but the previous wording is too negative to me, mainly the words "haphazard" and "chaotic", as well as being a bit too long:

He faced bipartisan criticism over the manner of the withdrawal of Americans and Afghan allies, with it being described as haphazard, chaotic, and poorly planned.

No This topic is already discussed in Withdrawal of United States troops from Afghanistan (2020–2021) and Presidency of Joe Biden. Nythar (talk) 07:16, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

No This is covered elsewhere and doesn't need to be in his personal biography. And as someone who's not even American, so not taking a partisan position here, I cannot help but see this proposal as politically motivated. HiLo48 (talk) 10:15, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

No Not relevant to Biden's biographical article. ValarianB (talk) 11:48, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your replies! Therefore, do you believe that the criticism is too minor to be mentioned in the lede? I could see criticism mentioned in the lead sections of other presidents, such as John Adams and George W Bush, but am perfectly fine should the result be not including. Many thanks! VickKiang (talk)

No. Undue. Neutrality 22:46, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

• Bad RfC There needs to be an informal discussion first on proposal ideas. Otherwise, it will be hard to get a proposal that could meet the community's wishes. @VickKiang: I think you should abord this RfC and turn it to a discussion so some good ideas can be brewed. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 23:25, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

No The lead is already too long, and this is already discussed in the article and Withdrawal of United States troops from Afghanistan (2020–2021) and Presidency of Joe Biden (like Nythar already said). Iraniangal777 (talk) 04:36, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Excuse me admin the creator of pages ?

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.

I'm not put with poiltcs side with side with the America, Do you find any Trump Supporters that have edited the Misplaced Pages Page say bad about Joe Biden? That you have been denied the editing ? 171.252.226.66 (talk) 15:40, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

@171.252.226.66 Their editing (fixed spelling) You need to read and understand it. 171.252.226.66 (talk) 15:41, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

I am unsure what you are asking, we have not forbidden a side for editing this page. But users are expected to obey policy. Slatersteven (talk) 15:44, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Your post is a tad incoherent. I'm guessing that english, isn't your first language. GoodDay (talk) 16:35, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

@171.252.226.66 Everybody, I know this Misplaced Pages page is not allowed politics right. but all you need to take a look at that someone who trying to destroying the page and say bad and ineffective about this guy. When you see someone have a vandalism to ruining the page you need to contact the adminstrator to ban IP that guy. if they use a account, you can say to the adminstrator to ban that account forever never perform a edit again. Do all of you understand? 171.252.226.66 (talk) 11:38, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

What are you talking about, really? Slatersteven (talk) 11:45, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

@171.252.226.66 A sorry for a little bit annoying. I was actually worried about that the someone that use a account and edit this content screw up of the work on this page. So I must suggested everyone ( all of you ) need to have a strongest measures to stop the account that they have edit the page to some kind of vandalism of it. I just come here to talk out of the steps to improve the secure of the page. It very happy to all the someone that want to read about this page on Misplaced Pages now become interested Because that the edit icon on this page was locked. This is a steps to improve the secure of the page. So thanks everybody that have read my message. Thanks also and good afternoon. 171.252.226.66 (talk) 16:09, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, but you are making no sense. Slatersteven (talk) 16:13, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Opinions vs. Facts

How are we to know what is a opinion based fact in the article or an actual fact? some info may be biased but seem true.

--Cakepops4everr (talk) 23:52, 4 June 2022 (UTC)cakepops4everr

The article should state facts, while opinions should be attributed in text. If you have any examples where you think this has not been done, please mention them. Bear in mind that opinions that have consensus support in reliable sources are usually treated as facts. That Biden won the election for example is treated as a fact because that is the consensus in reliable sources. TFD (talk) 00:31, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

I think this should be added to the opening part - "some consider Biden one of the worst presidents in American history" Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.90.232 (talk) 05:08, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Some also think he's a lizardperson who harvests the blood of infants. We don't put what "some people" think unless it's reported as important by reliable sources EvergreenFir (talk) 05:12, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

So, you are saying some people think Biden is a Sleestak?!?!!? I had not heard that but I imagine anything is possible. (people are way too serious sometimes - please excuse the feeble attempt at humor). 71.190.233.44 (talk) 19:49, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 June 2022

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change Biden being the 47th Vice President under Obama. He was the 44th Vice President under Obama. Biden is the 46th President now; how is that even possible?. 2603:6080:2F00:9D36:15B2:EDED:8862:1123 (talk) 15:19, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

No he was not, are we going to have to list them all? Slatersteven (talk) 15:25, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

•  Not done The counts for Vice President are different than for President due to the VP needing to vacate the position to take over for a president. Some presidents did not have a VP, and some had different ones. 331dot (talk) 15:25, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: It's possible because some presidents had two vice presidents. FDR had three. See List of vice presidents of the United States. Smh. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:27, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

...and that's how the blooper occurred in the 1947 movie "Miracle on 34th street", where Kringle said Tompkins was JQ Adams' veep. GoodDay (talk) 20:17, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

'46th and current president...' or just '46th president...'

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists: Politics, government, and law Biographies History and geography When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Should we have the phrase "...and current", removed from the intro? GoodDay (talk) 21:53, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Note: Same RFC being held at the Kamala Harris bio. GoodDay (talk) 09:12, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

I think it should be kept. Pauloroboto (talk) 09:24, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Survey

• Neutral - Doesn't matter to me, as long we keep Biden's & Harris' intros in sync, on this matter. GoodDay (talk) 21:53, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
• Remove "And current" is redundant with the present tense and adds nothing. It is also against MOS. MOS:REALTIME gives the example: The information that "The current president, Cristina Fernández, took office in 2007", or "Cristina Fernández has been president since 2007", is better rendered "Cristina Fernández became president in 2007". – Muboshgu (talk) 22:21, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
• Keep because just saying he's the "46th president of the United States" is still ambiguous as to whether he is still serving, and that fact that he's still serving is critical biographical information. It would be an accurate statement to say "Donald Trump is the 45th president of the United States" even though he's no longer serving in office because the statement is ambiguous. I've seen some concerns with MOS:REALTIME brought up, and I believe it should be ignored in this situation because the purpose of it is almost certainly not an issue in this high profile article. REALTIME discourages words like currently because they may go out of date. However, it's extremely unlikely for this article to not be updated the second Joe Biden's successor says "So help me God;" therefore, this issue the guideline is trying to address is practically irrelevant in the context of this article. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 23:38, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

  No. Trump WAS the 46th president. He no longer is such. He is only the person who WAS such. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 15:42, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

  I also support some alternative proposals. For example, Joseph Robinette Biden Jr. is an American politician who has been the 46th president of the United States since January 1, 2021. would be good. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 01:36, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm guessing you meant "January 20, 2021". GoodDay (talk) 21:14, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes that is what I meant. lol sorry. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 01:06, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

• Remove; temporal language should be avoided. Even though this article is likely to be updated the moment that it changes, there still could exist permalinks to specific versions, offline and printed copies, etc., and all of those will become inaccurate over time. Language which will not become outdated and inaccurate should always be preferred over language that will, so we should always avoid "now", "currently", "today", and so on. If it is crucial to emphasize that Biden is serving now, it can easily be stated that his term began on 20 January 2021—the lack of an end date makes very clear that he's still the president. Alternatively, language such as "As of June 2022, Biden is the president of the United States" could also be used; that too would never become inaccurate. Seraphimblade 23:43, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
• Remove. It's redundant and unnecessary. Its removal causes no ambiguity. --jpgordon 00:23, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
• Remove per MOS:CURRENT and because this is already conveyed in the infobox. We don't need to reference the timeframe at all except in positions that are not numbered by order of servitude, such as the Senate position held by Chris Coons since 2010. If we were to use a timeframe, like we do at Jair Bolsonaro, we would write: is an American politician who has served as the 46th president of the United States since 2021. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:47, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

  MOS:CURRENT says Except on pages updated regularly. I think the point of it is so that information doesn't go out of date. This page will presumably have dozens of active editors on it the second Biden leaves office, so I don't think there is anything to worry about regarding MOS:CURRENT/things going out of date. I do like your suggested wording though. Endwise (talk) 09:33, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

• Keep (or rephrase) - In my opinion, the best policy to cite in this particular case is actually WP:IAR. I will fully acknowledge the manual of style guidelines to avoid the word "current" and other temporal language... the trouble is that with regards to Presidents of the United States, the past tense is NEVER used. Once you are the 6th, 26th, or 46th President of the United States, you are ALWAYS, in the present tense, the nth President of the United States. As such, the current one needs some other language to distinguish it from past ones. Again, I think WP:IAR is an acceptable approach here, as the argument in the MOS is that the text should stand no matter when it is read, as who knows the next time an article will be updated... but we all know that there is a 0% chance of THIS text not being updated the INSTANT the next president is sworn in (if not sooner-- people jump the gun sometimes). Like Iamreallygoodatcheckers above, I would accept an alternate rephrasing that distinguishes the current president from past presidents, but I oppose having the current president having the exact same descriptive text as all previous presidents... even if relevant distinguishing information is in the infobox. The lead itself needs to be clear. Fieari (talk) 07:38, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
• Rephrase/keep. The question "is he currently the president of the US?" is a valid question that many readers will have, and the fact that Biden is currently the president is the largest reason he is notable and why most of the readers of this article will be here, so I think it should be mentioned in the first sentence. Relegation to an infobox isn't great, as most people don't read them, particularly people looking for basic info like who the president of the US is. The wording now is fine, but I think the suggestion given by LaundryPizza03 is worded slightly better: Joe Biden is an American politician who has served as the 46th president of the United States since 2021. As I said above, I don't think there are MOS:CURRENT concerns with this, as the guideline states "Except on pages updated regularly", which this is. Regarding redundancy, it won't be obvious to every reader at least that "is an American politician who is the Nth president of the United states" means that he's currently the president (particularly to those who don't know who the president of the US is). Endwise (talk) 09:45, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
• Remove Superfluous, serves no purpose. ValarianB (talk) 13:47, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
• Keep removing seems biased towards educated people in developed western countries who would “obviously” know he’s the current president. Dronebogus (talk) 14:14, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose-ish The text should clearly state that he is the president of the United States. I'd be ok with dropping the 46th and replacing the text with "is the president of the United States". The fact of someone being the president is the main point, not whether they are/were the i-th or j-th president. --RegentsPark (comment) 21:06, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
• Keep. Many people may not know how many prior presidents there has been or that 46 is the current one. 331dot (talk) 21:19, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
• Keep Agree with 331dot's reasoning above. Some1 (talk) 12:25, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
• Remove - redundant. It is blindingly obvious that the person who "is the ___th President" is currently serving. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 15:42, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
• Keep, obviously. Him being the current president is a separate and distinct attribute compared with him being the 46th. It may seem obvious to some that "is" implies still serving, but logically it doesn't convey absolute certainty on the matter. "Obama is the 44th president" and "Trump is the 45th president" could still be held to be true, given that nobody else will ever hold the title of "44th president". It is also fairly common to continue using President as a title even after they leave office - President Clinton, President Obama etc. We're literally talking about two words here, and they are relevant and useful, so no reason at all to chop them.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:08, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
• Keep - Per, ironically, MOS:CURRENT, the same style guideline being used to suggest removal. Those would actually read what MOS:CURRENT says would note that the very first words say that it does not apply to "pages updated regularly." I don't think anyone can seriously argue that this page is not kept updated regularly, therefore MOS:CURRENT's wording does not apply here. I couldn't find any similar discussion on Donald Trump's article but I do note that when he was president it said the 45th and current president of the United States, seemingly without issue if the talk page archive titles and what I could find on the talk page are anything to go by. The wording is not redundant here because while he is the 46th president, that does not automatically make him the current president, because once his term is up he will still be the 46th president but will no longer be the current one, therefore it's neither redundant nor superfluous to make this clear in the lede, and conflating the word current with the use of present tense does not make the article clear; its removal will make the article more vague and the lede less concise and factual, a clear step back for the article and those wishing to understand what it is saying. - Aoidh (talk) 12:33, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
• Keep - Just saying he's the 46th president doesn't tell you if that is the one who is in office now or not. Someone might say it's too obvious, but an encyclopedia is supposed to be matter of fact, even for "obvious" stuff. Useitorloseit (talk) 21:39, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Discussion

On June 12, 2022. An editor 'here' & at the Kamala Harris page, removed the phrase "...and current", without seeking a consensus to do so. As I understand it, such changes to both these bios' leads isn't welcomed without a consensus. Therefore, I've restored the status quo in the lead of both bios-in-question. GoodDay (talk) 22:14, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Current is obviously better. Dronebogus (talk) 22:24, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

No, it is not. I will still bang the drum that "and currently" adds nothing besides two unnecessary words. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:25, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't care which is used, but I think making such a change (that was unilaterally made) on June 12, isn't the way to go. Anyways, now we're in the 'D' phase of WP:BRD. FWIW, nearly all (if not all) current leaders are using the "...and current". GoodDay (talk) 22:43, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

And I think that nearly all (if not all) current leader pages are wrong in doing so, though I recognize that I am on the short end of that consensus as of now. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:12, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

I think its fine with "current" in the lead. Eruditess (talk) 15:04, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

FWIW, two attempts have been made to remove "...and current" over at Kamala Harris' bio intro. For those who favour removing the phrase, please open up an RFC on this matter. Attempts to edit-war in such changes will only lead to eventual blocks, follow the WP:BRD method. GoodDay (talk) 21:47, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

The sequential number is trivia. "Current" is a critical piece of information. HiLo48 (talk) 23:03, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

... which is conveyed by saying that he is the president. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:09, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

True. So they're BOTH trivia. HiLo48 (talk) 23:16, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Some of you have mentioned "46th president of the United States, since 2021". That was proposed many months ago & didn't get passed. GoodDay (talk) 21:16, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Has rephrasing as "is currently the 46th" been considered? Senorangel (talk) 00:36, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

He'll always be the 46th president of the United States. GoodDay (talk) 00:40, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, but he can be currently the 46th only now. This way, both the sequential numbering and the ongoing nature of the term are covered. Senorangel (talk) 01:52, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Then change the "46th and current president of the United States" to "46th president of the United States, since 2021". GoodDay (talk) 01:59, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

No, he always will be the person who was the 46th president. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 15:42, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Explain his dad's "financial setbacks"?

I think the current wording is too vague, could mean a lot of things. I'd rather say he lost money in furniture and cropdusting ventures. The exact wording doesn't matter as much as the actual nature of the issues/problems/woes. The facts are already sourced inline and the article is more informative with them than without.

Less importantly, I also still believe "suffering" (in any form) is needlessly loaded language. Sometimes it makes a subject seem pathetic, sometimes resilient, but always something. Plainer English often works best, but again, that's small potatoes.

SPECIFICO and others, maybe mull it over. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:57, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

I agree with InedibleHulk. Explaining what set them back financially is more precise and doesn't take up a lot of space in comparison to the current wording. Suffering comes across as loaded and seems to be problematic with WP:NEWSSTYLE and WP:EMPHATIC Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 03:30, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

This isn't a biography of Biden's father, going into minutiae of exactly what endeavours brought about the family hardship is not important. As for "suffering", the usage here is the 2nd entry in the dictionary, "to sustain injury, disadvantage, or loss". So, not an uncommon or obscure usage. It does not make the subject pathetic, you're reading things into the word that just aren't there. ValarianB (talk) 05:46, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

I would agree, this is not about Biden. Slatersteven (talk) 10:42, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

It's far from minute or exact. Doesn't even relay how he lost the money or to whom, just in what. Whether it's vague and emotive or plain and descriptive, it's of course going to be more about his dad. The whole paragraph already exists only to discuss his parents and upbringing. Would lost money in two failed startups be imprecise enough for you? It would still better explain the verifiable situation than "suffered financial setbacks", which could suggest stock market troubles, overspending or an unexpected medical expense instead of the general truth. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:57, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Papa Biden's "financial setbacks" are clearly relevant considering Joe's modest means, which of course is a big part of his biography. Joe didn't inherit tons of money from his rich father. (Take your pick of which politician I was thinking of when I typed that last sentence.) "Financial setbacks" is vague and so using a few more words to convey that there were two failed startups is beneficial. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:00, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Before I was edit conflicted, I wanted to add that I never said "suffered" was uncommon or obscure. I've removed more than a hundred from Misplaced Pages over the years. It just has connotations and length that "lost" or "had" doesn't. And I'm going to imagine that "rich father" remark's a veiled jab against my queen, but it's cool, she deserved it. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:14, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Are they? Lost of people are not born rich, but make their own way in life. All we need to say is that he was not born into money. Slatersteven (talk) 12:02, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

If that's all we need, do we (or you) still want to continue describing Big Joe's unemployment in Scranton, rental in Claymont, mortgage in Mayfield and ultimate triumphant metamorphosis into "a successful used-car salesman, maintaining the family in a middle-class lifestyle"? InedibleHulk (talk) 02:17, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

I do not think it is important why Biden Sr. had financial losses and the term suffer does not say anything about his feelings.$30,900 I do not think that for most people parents with four children who send them to private schools (the tuition at Joe Biden's school today $30,900 per year) would be considered "of modest means." It' just spin. American politicians like to pretend that they came from poverty and worked their way up against adversity. TFD (talk) 03:09, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Again, I'm not aiming to delve into the Whys and Hows. Way too complex. But even the What (losses) isn't clear by "setbacks". A rising cost of living can be a financial setback without loss, as can a drop in income or pretty much any large-but-fair purchase. As two smart folks who know a shiny political spinjob when we see it, I think we could settle on keeping his "suffering" but trading his "setbacks" for "losses". InedibleHulk (talk) 04:01, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

I think it should be "suffered business setbacks" not suffered financial setbacks. "Ventures" sounds like harebrained schemes. SPECIFICO talk 16:22, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

How about "experienced financial setbacks", to avoid the doubly negative tone? HiLo48 (talk) 03:27, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Too vague. The original text was lost money in furniture and cropdusting ventures. What's wrong with that? Seven words that make it clear exactly what happened. If you want, lost money in two business ventures is enough. (Assuming it was two, I don't have an account with them.) "Venture" is a business term, like venture capital. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:34, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

I'd based two on "Biden Sr tried to set up a furniture store with a friend, only for the friend to apparently run off with their start-up money. Next, he attempted a crop-dusting enterprise – and again lost his cash." To me, "business setbacks" makes it sound like he actually got these projects off the ground, then ran them both poorly. Any venture, scheme, plan, plot, enterprise, setup or idea can range from absolute foolishness to sheer genius, but without an adjective, I don't think whichever noun suggests anything cognitive. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:45, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages articles that use American English
• Delisted good articles
• Former good article nominees
• Biography articles of living people
• All unassessed articles
• B-Class biography articles
• B-Class biography (politics and government) articles
• Top-importance biography (politics and government) articles
• Politics and government work group articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• B-Class U.S. Congress articles
• High-importance U.S. Congress articles
• WikiProject U.S. Congress persons
• B-Class United States articles
• Top-importance United States articles
• B-Class United States articles of Top-importance
• B-Class Delaware articles
• Mid-importance Delaware articles
• WikiProject Delaware articles
• B-Class United States presidential elections articles
• Mid-importance United States presidential elections articles
• WikiProject United States presidential elections articles
• B-Class United States Presidents articles
• Top-importance United States Presidents articles
• WikiProject United States Presidents articles
• B-Class United States Government articles
• Top-importance United States Government articles
• WikiProject United States Government articles
• WikiProject United States articles
• B-Class Pennsylvania articles
• Mid-importance Pennsylvania articles
• B-Class politics articles
• High-importance politics articles
• B-Class American politics articles
• Top-importance American politics articles
• American politics task force articles
• WikiProject Politics articles
• B-Class college football articles
• Bottom-importance college football articles
• WikiProject College football articles
• B-Class Science Policy articles
• High-importance Science Policy articles
• Pages in the Misplaced Pages Top 25 Report
• Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment