Talk:Joe Biden

Requesting new occupation to be added - Academic

Hello guys, could anyone please add the occupation of academic in the biodata too? He was an adjunct professor of law at the Delaware Law School for 17 years. Not to mention his brief stint as the Benjamin Franklin Presidential Practice Professor at UPenn.

https://www.widener.edu/news/news-archive/he-was-mr-president-he-was-professor-biden-his-widener-law-students

Why is the issue of Biden's fitness to serve as president not treated at all?

I've of course checked this article occasionally and have been doing so long time before I became a Wikipedia editor myself. One thing has never ceased to astonish me: the biggest issue concering Biden, his campaign and ultimately his time already served in office is not covered at all. I checked this talk page archive and I could find some threads where the question was raised but it never led to any changes.

So I'd ask myself: why does the article not treat this issue? Reliable Sources, that demonstrate media's and public's widespread concerns over Biden's cognitive state can easily be found. Please Google just "Joe+Biden+dementia". Will this topic ever be discussed in the article, and if not, why?

For comparison, take a look here: Donald Trump#Public profile. Not exactly a hagiography.Potugin (talk) 08:18, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

That is a fair question, Potugin. Can you find articles in which reputable media (such as these) discuss this? Surtsicna (talk) 09:37, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

As above, lets see some of these RS.Slatersteven (talk) 10:06, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm in Europe at the moment, so I may not be able to access all the media outlets I'd like to. Sky News has stuff to offer for example: [1]. (I think some of you might discard Boston Herald as it's a tabloid). Also, I'm a relatively new and infrequent user, so I won't be able to edit the article myself, however, anyone can make suggestions I guess, I'll make mine, you make yours.Potugin (talk) 10:59, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

And there is the issue, Alan Jones is not really medically trained, thus it's only an uniformed opinion (in an opp-edd piece), by a highly controversial figure. Now if you are saying you want something about how some in the media have said he is unfit, OK I can agree with that. But then we need to discuss proper wording. That does not violate wp:undue or wp:fringe. It might be best if this was in fact in an article about his presidency.Slatersteven (talk) 11:14, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

However I am not seeing where we have a section on Trump about unfitness for office due to health.Slatersteven (talk) 11:16, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Let us avoid drawing false equivalencies. There is no section on Trump's dementia, because there isn't much talk about such a thing. There is, however, a long section on False statements, for the simple reason that Trump is known for making plenty of statements that numerous sources checked and considered to have been false. So I think this is fine. As for Alan Jones not being medically trained - well, he doesn't have to be in order to qualify here. If you look at Donald Trump#Allegations of inciting violence, then the sources there are not by criminologists or professional lawyers. Potugin (talk) 11:54, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Then why raise it if it's a false equivalency (was that not what your argument was, "why do we not treat him the same as Trump?"?) And read WP:MEDRS, this is about medical diagnoses. Yes to make medical claims, the source must be qualified.Slatersteven (talk) 11:57, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Potugin, have you forgotten about the "Person Woman Man Camera TV" episode? He was talking about a cognitive test, that he took because of speculation of dementia. It's not included in Trump's article because of WP:BLP, the same reason Republican smears on Biden's mental competency are not included. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:32, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

It isn't an actual issue, it is a piece of troll advocacy by select right-wing media groups, and their fans. Zaathras (talk) 12:08, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

After edit conflict: I will read the policy you linked, viz. WP:MEDRS, because I was quite unaware of it. However, I presume this guideline doesn't tell us that we cannot cite a media figure (or any other relevant person) calling Biden unfit for running the country, or being incoherent, or prone to embarassing gaffes etc. A physician's estimation would be a different matter, and even this isn't difficult to source: [2]. This is quite hotly debated issue, in fact.Potugin (talk) 12:15, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

LOL "Doubts about Mr Biden’s mental health have become a right-wing talking point over the past two years.", that is the point made above, this is a manufactured "controversy" prompted by media pundits making medical judgments. Sorry but this looks more and more innaproprtate.Slatersteven (talk) 12:21, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

You really expect us to include speculation from Google? When the past 5 months in the Oval Office have provided no evidence of so-called ineptitude? And Donald Trump’s article makes no mention of alleged mental health issues or the fact that he slurs his speech. Follow BLP policy and neutrality. Trillfendi (talk) 12:22, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

What kind of straw men are you posting here? I specifically said that Trump article includes lots of unflattering material on controversial aspects of him (like his endless false statements). This is indeed the very essence of "Follow[ing] BLP policy and neutrality". I agree! However, I don't see why it should be any different here. Is there a rule that we are allowed to cite "media pundits" (Slatersteven) when they criticize Trump's false statements, but we aren't allowed to do so when they criticize Biden (like Alan Jones did, and Howie Carr etc. - see above!), say, for constantly mixing things up and revealing other embarassing signs of unfitness? OK, I'll let others speak, too now. BBL.Potugin (talk) 12:30, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

It's not different, this is about specific information, which we do not also have in Trump's article. If you want to add criticisms about his policies OK, fine. If you add to add a section about his social media activity, OK go ahead, Same with approval ratings. IN fact, I will start it off.Slatersteven (talk) 12:35, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

So now you can start to add the SAME kind of information we have on Trump's page.Slatersteven (talk) 12:39, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Why do you need to change your line so often? First it was about RS's. When it proved to be not such an arduous task, you added WP:MEDRS. This, too, isn't a mission impossible really. And now it's about "Same kind of information" once again. Why? These a very different politicans with different upsides and different downsides. And different issues of controversy. Maybe we 2 could now let others opine? Wish you all luck in improving the article with approval ratings struff.Potugin (talk) 12:44, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Medrs is part of RS.Slatersteven (talk) 12:48, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

I know that CNN (and other pro-Democratic media, like BBC news) brought up Section #4 of the 25th amendment several times, during the Trump administration. No doubt, Fox news (and other pro-Republican media, like Sky news) are bringing up the same topic, during the Biden administration. GoodDay (talk) 14:37, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

It's not included because it's a political smear. Sure, he's older and slower now, but examining his extemporaneous speech shows no signs of dementia, only occasional gaffes that anyone might make except they're more visible because of his prominence, and right-wing media pounce on every one of them and they go viral in their echo chamber, and Google picks it up creating the illusion that "everyone's talking about it so there must be something to it," creating yet another fake scandal. Same as it ever was. soibangla (talk) 15:29, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

It's a distraction to argue about Biden's mental state, since per synthesis, we cannot use our own speculations. The relevant policy is weight, which requires significant discussion in reliable sources before inclusion. Reliable sources exclude Fox News, the Daily Mail and opinion pieces, even if published in high quality news sources. But this issue has received little or no coverage. While it may be that the media is biased, that is not an issue we can consider. If you want this article to include speculation on dementia, you have to wait until it becomes an issue in mainstream reputable media. TFD (talk) 17:33, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

On June 18th, the Washington Post had a story about Joe Biden being accused of 'mental impairment', citing a 'white house physician' [3] the same event was also reported on by USA today [4] and The Independent [5]

March 19th, the New York Post published an article claiming stories about his health were 'ignored by press' [6]

On February 8th, an opinion in Newsweek urged him to 'discuss his mental state' [7]

The newspaper "The Hill" invited a panel discussing "Joe Biden's mental health should be on the table" [8]

The New York Times, however, referred to 'a narrative being crafted by conservative news media that he is lacking in his mental facilities.' [9]

Apologies if these are not reliable sources / otherwise not helpful to the discussion you've had, I'm not very familiar with US media. On the surface it appears to me that this is a topic of lively debate in mainstream publications.

Kaidaniel (talk) 22:08, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

NY Post is not reliable. Opinion pieces in here aren't reliable except possibly for opinions of the author but then WP:WEIGHT comes into play. The only possible story here is that a false narrative is being created by far right media but this isn't the article to include that info, as it's a general level one. Volunteer Marek 22:20, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

as I understand it, who started the narrative and its veracity are immaterial as long as it is discussed in reputable sources, but as I understand you maybe this should be included only if it turns out to prompt more publications. Kaidaniel (talk) 23:01, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

It will never be included, in the sense of "the president is mentally impaired", as there is not and has never been a story there. The notable aspect here is the right-wing smear campaign that has been invented around the false narrative of "the president is mentally impaired". Zaathras (talk) 00:25, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

A WP:BLP concern like this requires a high degree of sensitivity. ... the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. Also keep in mind that that "white house physician" is Ronny Jackson, who turned nakedly partisan even before he was forced to withdraw from his Cabinet nomination. Ronny Jackson's opinion is meaningless. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:34, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

The WaPo, USAToday and Independent stories are about Ronny Jackson, Trump's physician who is now a Republican Texas congressman who said Trump "might live to be 200 years old." soibangla (talk) 00:37, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

I would say "Mr Biden has dementia" can definitely not be supported by reputable sources, however "there has been controversy about... Dr J has alleged... Mr Biden has denied... " arguably could be. (Similar to the example about a politician being accused (but not proven) of having an affair mentioned in Wikipedia:BLPPUBLIC.) Incidentally, this is how I came here myself, I was reading about Ronny Jackson and wondered 'sounds like an extreme partisan view, let's see if wikipedia could help me understand' and then I thought about making an edit explaining facts. Seems like wikipedians disagree so maybe best to leave it at that. 2003:DF:733:2265:BAD0:E01B:813C:2EB9 (talk) 20:53, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

We should avoid the innuendo of "some people say" and "just asking questions." soibangla (talk) 23:33, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

This is all opinion and speculation, and NONE of it should be in the article. None. For comparison: for the past four or five years there has been lots of speculation and opinion about Trump's mental health, but we have carefully kept all of it out of the Trump article. We do not report it as fact; we do not even report that there is speculation about it. These articles are BLPs - biographies of living people. Per WP:BLP we require solid, reliable, neutral sourcing to publish negative information about a living person. There is no such sourcing for this claim. None of this is "information". It's just speculation and innuendo. And most of it is clearly partisan. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:06, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Comparing Biden today with the Biden who debated Sarah Palin and Paul Ryan with today's Biden is like comparing Dick Solomon with one of his students. It's similar to comparing John McCain 2000 and John ("Where are you Joe?") McCain 2008. That should be obvious to even the most partisan editors. It's obvious he doesn't have the same grasp of issues, the quickness in responding or the tact in handling people he once did. But since there has been very little written about this, it doesn't belong in the article. At some point scholars will write books and articles about him and we cam add to the article. But until that happens, we have to follow the lead of reliable sources that have chosen for whatever reason to ignore it. TFD (talk) 00:21, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

All this is doing is carrying Fox News' and OANN's water, "Little has been written about it" because there is literally nothing to write about. This is taking Biden's well-known stutter, a few verbal tics, an occasional gaffe-like utterance, and trying to armchair psychoanalyze it into something that isn't there. Zaathras (talk) 01:18, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Here's a clip of Biden speaking against the Reagan administration policy on South Africa. Do you really believe that he has the same capability today? TFD (talk) 02:40, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

More OR and conjecture. If it's really anything beyond basic aging, and presumably important enough for the president's quite bloated article, I figure someone would have provided a good RS saying something in plain voice by now... any minute... AllegedlyHuman (talk) 02:43, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

I will provide you a link to WP:OR since you obviously have never read it: "This policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources, such as deletion discussions or policy noticeboards." So you are a Biden guy. You support his views on race, class, foreign policy, etc. But just stop there. Don't pretend that he has the same cognitive abilities he had just a decade ago. All you do is make yourself appear to be slavishly partisan. TFD (talk) 03:21, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

"Don't pretend that he has the same cognitive abilities he had just a decade ago." Then prove me wrong. And no, "check out this YouTube video and come to the same subjective conclusion on another person's psychological state that I did" doesn't cut it. Honestly, calling it original research was too kind, given that it's barely "research" at all. You want to "evaluate article content and sources"? Me too. Where are they? Nowhere to be found. No one can determine someone's mental state from a video excerpt, comparing that to what they think a person is sometimes like today, and it doesn't make me "slavishly partisan" to point out that mind-bogglingly obvious fact. How do you edit other articles, by actually citing things or by posting YouTube links from the 80s that you came to your own conclusions about? I assume you aren't some kind of psychoanalyst yourself. If you are, I encourage you to publish something in the real world and then come back here. Otherwise, this article will be just fine, relying on reported fact and not the guesses of laymen. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 03:34, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Good lord this talk page is a trainwreck.

The reason why its not added is that there is no good source for it. Simple as that. I don't care how many hoops people jump through, there isn't one. If it couldn't be used in a college essay as a source it can't be used here.

And no, as AllegedlyHuman said, a video from the 1980s isn't the same as an actual source. Sneakycrown (talk) 06:26, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Image placement

With this edit today I made improvements to the layout of the article's images. My edits was quickly reverted by User:Surtsicna. A consensus of editors at MOS:IMAGES have agreed that "Most images should be on the right side of the page, which is the default placement". When there are multiple images (too many to fit just on the right side), these can be staggered right and left, but this was not the case with my edit. There are many technical and aesthetic reasons to right justify images; reasons which are discussed at MOS:IMAGES and on talk pages there. The input of others would be appreciated. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:50, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

But most images are on the right side, are they not? 18 out of 23, to be precise. Of the remaining 5, 2 are on the left side so that the subjects face the text, as suggested by MOS:IMAGELOCATION. Of the remaining 3, 1 is on the left so that the image may fit into the relevant paragraph and not be pushed downwards by the preceding image on the right. The last 2 would do just as well on the right in my opinion, though some of those on the right could be moved to the left so that the people in them face the text. But in any case, a vast majority will be on the right. Surtsicna (talk) 22:04, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

The direction the subject is facing has little relevance on the photos you reverted, and your revert defied a consensus. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:25, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

No, none of that is true. The explanation is in my previous reply. Surtsicna (talk) 22:52, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

@Surtsicna: These are four of the images you moved left. Which of these images should remain on the left "so that the subjects face the text", or because they do not fit on the right? Magnolia677 (talk) 10:58, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

• 
  1
• 
  2
• 
  3
• 
  4

Only 2. 3 should be on the left, in my opinion, because otherwise the previous image pushes it out of the paragraph discussing his relationship with Obama, where it is most relevant. But none of this matters so much to me. Surtsicna (talk) 11:06, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

@Surtsicna: Even on a widescreen monitor, moving 2 and 3 right does not push any other images. If "none of this matters so much to me", I will restore the image placement to my original edit. Please respond. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:13, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

2 is not about pushing other images. It is about MOS:IMAGELOCATION's suggestion "to place images of people so that they 'look' toward the text". Surtsicna (talk) 11:33, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Trivial details in the opener

Despite the very prominent "If an edit you make is reverted you must discuss on the talk page and wait 24 hours before reinstating your edit" warning, @Eccekevin: decided to restore his reverted material regardless, so, admins watching this page may wish to take note. For the subject matter at hand, I find that being the first president from Delaware and the second Catholic to be far too trivial for the lead. Zaathras (talk) 03:25, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

I restored it because it was removed without discussion. Eccekevin (talk) 00:21, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Not every single thing hinges on discussion, we are all free to edit articles without being under a nanny state. Removing someone's edit just for the sake of "no discussion" rather than for the content is disruptive, not to mention your violation of the 24h revert policy in place. Zaathras (talk) 12:59, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

you’re the one who wants to change the page, and since this change is contested, you need to reach a consensus first. Eccekevin (talk) 16:56, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

What I did was support another user's change, I did not initiate this. It is incumbent upon you to actually provide a cogent reason why the text should remain...let's face it, being from Delaware isn't all that exciting, so trumpeting the "1st president from" isn't notable for the lead. Possibly debatable, gut IMO not really notable. Being the second Catholic is a slam-dunk piece of trivi8a though, we don't take note of the next guy to do a thing. If you break the "wait 24 hours before reinstating your edit" for a 2nd time, I will seek sanctions. Zaathras (talk) 21:13, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Zaathras, slow down. Here is the situation: longstanding content was removed. Maybe by another user first, maybe by you first, it doesn't matter. The removal was challenged. Removal of longstanding content from the lead requires talk page discussion if it is challenged, and while discussion goes on, the usual default is to keep the longstanding content. So don't go throwing threats about "sanctions" around, and don't edit war. Stop arguing about the process, about who did what. Per WP:BRD, the removal was Bold; the Revert challenge was within guidelines; it's time for Discussion - and that means discussion about the content itself. Should the material be in the lead, or not? State your position and wait for discussion to develop here. A few days more or less isn't important; what's important is to reach a decision, based on consensus. Maybe consensus will be that the material should be removed from the lead; maybe it will be that the material should be kept in the lead. Consensus decides. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:31, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The bit about Biden being the first president from Delaware and the second Catholic to serve as president are already noted under the heading "President (2021–present)" (subheading "Inauguration") and while I think it's (arguably) DUE enough for inclusion in the article body, it's probably not significant enough for the lead. Per WP:LEAD, The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents. I don't think these bits (though interesting) make the cut. Aoi (青い) (talk) 21:21, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

As MelanieN said, longstanding content cannot be removed without discussion if challenged. So no changes should be made while we disuss it. As to the matter at hand, I believe that Biden's Catholicism, which has garnered a lot of media attention, is indeed worth mentioning. Not only is it significant that in a country where Catholicism is the largest religion he is only the second Catholic president, but he is seen as one of the most religious presidents (see sources above) and his religion keeps making headlines and generating media coverage.Eccekevin (talk) 04:18, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Sources

@Zaathras and Eccekevin: it's hard to know which of you is in breach here, as the line is blurred between the "BRD cycle" and the "24-hour period" enforced on this article. Zaathras has breached the BRD by reinstating a contested edit, while Eccekevin has breached the rule by reverting twice in 24 hours. Either way, you both need to stop edit warring over this immediately, or you will be blocked.  — Amakuru (talk) 07:56, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

As said before, I am simply reinstating to the stable version before the contested removal. Eccekevin (talk) 17:42, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

@Eccekevin: you reverted twice in the space of 24 hours, which is explicitly forbidden on this article, as it explicitly says in the edit notice on this page. It doesn't matter if you think you're "right" about your edits, if you edit war in this fashion again you will be blocked. Please continue discussing here.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:57, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

What to say in the lead about Biden's "firsts" as president

Let's get back to the actual content issue here. For quite a while, the second sentence of the fourth paragraph of the lead has said

"Biden is the oldest elected president, the first to have a female and African-Asian American vice president, the first from Delaware, and the second Catholic president, after John F. Kennedy."

Recently there has been a bit of edit warring over whether to reduce that sentence to

"He is the oldest elected president and the first to have a female vice president."

Let's discuss it, focusing on the content. What are the arguments for including "first from Delaware" and "second Catholic" in the lead? What are the arguments for saying it only in the article text but not in the lead? What is the reason for removing "African-Asian American" from the description of Harris? -- MelanieN (talk) 16:48, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

A little research here, looking for precedents: Regarding “the first from Delaware”: I note that the Barack Obama article says in the lead and in the text that he is the first African-American president, but as far as I could see it does not mention either in the lead or in the text that he is the first president from Hawaii.

Regarding “second Catholic”, you need to realize that for most of the country’s history it was considered impossible for a Catholic to be elected president. When Al Smith ran for president in 1928 there was enormous opposition to him based on anti-Catholic prejudice. When JFK ran in 1960 his Catholicism was also a major campaign issue, to such an extent that he felt obliged to make a speech declaring that as president he would not take orders from the Pope. The second paragraph of the lead to the JFK biography says "Kennedy was the first Catholic elected president." But Biden’s catholicism was not a campaign issue, so as a country we may have moved beyond that issue.

Regarding "African-Asian American vice president": Again looking at the Obama article, it states in the opening paragraph "Obama was the first African-American president of the United States". In the Kamala Harris article, she is described in the opening paragraph as "the first African American and first Asian American vice president." This may or may not relate to what Biden's article says about his vice president. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:14, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm presenting these things for background, not taking a position myself. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:14, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn't be opposed to removing the Delaware part.

I believe that Biden's Catholicism, which has garnered a lot of media attention, is indeed worth mentioning. Not only is it significant that in a country where Catholicism is the largest religion he is only the second Catholic president, but he is seen as one of the most religious presidents (see sources above) and his religion keeps making headlines and generating media coverage. It also made headlines during his campaign and after his election. Also, of note, he was the first Catholic Vice President.Eccekevin (talk) 17:46, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Eh, Catholicism is the largest single denomination, but Protestants as a whole make up twice as large a percentage and the "unaffiliated" population is somewhat larger than the Catholic one. --Khajidha (talk) 18:33, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Sources

First paragraph

At the end of paragraph one, in hidden text: "Please do NOT change without prior consensus on the talk page. Thank you." That discussion clearly had no consensus. Again, I am ambivalent here, as I was before, but no one, not even an admin, should be editing the first paragraph without coming to the talk page and getting demonstrable consensus. This is a community-imposed IAR situation to preserve stability on one of the most important articles we have right now. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 18:59, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

AFAIK, the opening sentence read (for a long time) "...46th president of the United States...". The linkage should not be changed to Presidency of Joe Biden, nor the words "...and current..." be added, without consensus. GoodDay (talk) 19:06, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. WP:SURPRISE applies to links: if it says "president of the United States", it should link to the article President of the United States. "and current" seems superfluous to me as the sentence is in the present tense. Surtsicna (talk) 21:23, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

A ping to the editor whose edit you're discussing would've been appreciated. But apologies, I missed the hidden comment; you should probably move it to the start of the paragraph rather than the end if you want people to see it.

Regarding the actual content question, @Surtsicna, changing where the link targets and which text is being linked over is not two separate tweaks; it's connected. The link should go to the article on Biden's presidency rather than the general article on the U.S. presidency per MOS:SPECIFICLINK, and that then affects the text that is linked over, which when changed to "current president of the United States" rather than just "president of the United States" avoids the MOS:EGG/WP:SURPRISE issue that would otherwise arise. I don't have a strong view about the question of whether to use "46th and current" or just "46th", which is a separate question being discussed below. For the purposes here, linking over text including "46th" would solve the EGG just as well as "current". {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 01:58, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Leave it linked at president of the United States. Nearly all the world leader bios intros on Wikipedia are linked to their office. Not any presidency of.., premiership of..., etc articles. GoodDay (talk) 02:01, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Abosulely no good reason to change to "Presidency of" link here, as explained on the Trump talk page.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 17:06, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

I still would not expect such a link to lead to the article about Biden's presidency, and I think it is more useful to link to the article about the office. I have added a lead section link to his presidency, however. Surtsicna (talk) 07:08, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

I should point out, the editor who made (on June 2, 2021) a linkage change to Presidency of Donald Trump at the Trump article's intro without a consensus, just attempted the same thing at this article's intro (June 23) with a linkage to Presidency of Joe Biden without a consensus. A bold practice, which is quite annoying, tbh. GoodDay (talk) 02:21, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

RfC: Should we say he is "current" president in the lead, or not?

Consensus is needed on whether to say "46th president" or "46th and current president" in the lead sentence. There has been repeated controversy, and recently some minor edit warring, over those two words. Previous discussions have not reached consensus. -- MelanieN (talk) 02:02, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Just now, sampling multiple examples of how the lead sentence of the article has read over the past three months, I find that it has pretty consistently said the following

…"is an American politician who is the 46th and current president of the United States."

Recently there have been attempts to remove "and current", leaving

..."is an American politician who is the 46th president of the United States."

Today (June 28), "and current" was removed by User:Muboshgu, restored by User:AllegedlyHuman, and removed again by User:Zaathras. I restored "and current" pending discussion here, because that appears to be the longstanding version.

Whether or not to say "and current" was previously discussed in January and again last month. No consensus was reached at either discussion. The failure to reach consensus here suggests that an RfC is needed. Meanwhile, let's respect the hidden comment on that opening paragraph, "Please do NOT change without prior consensus on the talk page. Thank you."

Pinging previous discussants User:Elli, User:GoodDay, User:HAL333, User:Thanoscar21, and User:CookieMonster755. -- MelanieN (talk) 01:51, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

I was thinking of starting an RfC to this effect, since previous attempts at establishing a consensus haven't gotten anywhere – Muboshgu (talk) 01:55, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

I would say "and current", only since it's currently in use. If it works, then why change it? Thanoscar21_{talk, contribs} 02:02, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanoscar21, because it means the same exact thing without those two words in it. We should be concise, no? – Muboshgu (talk) 02:13, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Those words add clarity and have been used for all previous presidents while in office, so why remove them now and potentially add confusion?Eccekevin (talk) 18:18, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Never gave this much thought in the past, but I'm ok with excluding "and current". Also, we've a potential problem in the above discussion, on another matter of this article's intro. GoodDay (talk) 02:04, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Comparing to some other articles

• Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American media personality and businessman who served as the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021.
• Barack Hussein Obama II (born August 4, 1961) is an American politician and attorney who served as the 44th president of the United States from 2009 to 2017.
• George Walker Bush (born July 6, 1946) is an American politician and businessman who served as the 43rd president of the United States from 2001 to 2009.

Given this it seems like there is no ambiguity with our other articles on dropping the "and current". I will note that saying "Donald Trump is an American media personality and businessman and the 45th president of the United States" is grammatically correct - he still is the 45th president and always will be - but given that we avoid that wording, I don't object to dropping the "and current", especially in the interest of brevity. Elli (talk | contribs) 02:41, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Of course those articles don't say "current", because they are NOT the current president any more. But when Trump was president - for example here - the lead sentence said "Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is the 45th and current president of the United States." -- MelanieN (talk) 03:44, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Current is redundant since the wording is in the present tense. Biden is the president, Trump was the president. Readers take that to mean that at this particular time, Biden is the present, while in a past period of time, Trump was president. TFD (talk) 03:03, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Trump was the president, but he always will be the 45th president. The qualifier makes it permanent. You wouldn't say George Washington was the 1st president - it's not like someone else is the 1st president now. Elli (talk | contribs) 03:06, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Personally, I would say that George Washington was the 1st president of the United States. Saying that George Washington is anything sounds odd to me, given that he's been dead for over 200 years. Similarly, saying that Trump is the 45th POTUS isn't helpful to anyone who doesn't know how many presidents there have been to date. nagualdesign 18:22, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

As Bill Clinton once said, it depends on what your definition of "is" is. But seriously folks, "and current" is superfluous. soibangla (talk) 04:04, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

• 46th and current. Wikipedia has always said "and current", for clarity reasons. Maybe it's obvious from the tense, maybe it's not, but we're doing readers a disservice if we fail to make it explicit that the guy is the incumbent. And we did this for Obama and Trump, as well as most other leaders at the time of their incumbency.  — Amakuru (talk) 06:37, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

• Most of the world doesn't count their leaders. "Current" is obviously the more important piece of information. It cannot be excluded. HiLo48 (talk) 07:05, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. "Current" cannot be excluded, and indeed it was used for Obama, Trump, and previous presidents while they were in office.Eccekevin (talk) 18:14, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

• Personally, I think "and current" adds helpful information, particularly for people who are not American or whose first language is not English. For native or fluent speakers of English, the verb "is" makes it obvious that the subject currently holds that position. We don't need to study or parse the sentence; we understand that they are the president right now. (We probably already knew that.) But in this encyclopedia we write for a worldwide audience, and the article about the president of the United States will attract readers from all over, with varying degrees of English proficiency or knowledge of current events. Every day, tens of thousands of people look at this article. Why not give them the benefit of a little extra clarity in the first sentence, even if we think it is redundant or superfluous? I assume that is why we said "current president" for Trump and Obama when they were in office, and I think we should follow that precedent. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:13, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

  As a non-native speaker, I cannot imagine that someone could understand the word "current" and not the present tense of the verb "to be". The latter is the very first thing taught to English language learners. For what it is worth, Elizabeth II is not defined as the "current queen"; but perhaps a more apt comparison would be with Boris Johnson, who is defined as a "politician serving as prime minister". There is no redundancy, and I do not think it lacks clarity. Surtsicna (talk) 17:45, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

  @Surtsicna: because Trump still is the 45th president. There will only ever be one 45th president, and that is Trump. If the sentence just said "Joe Biden is the president", it would be unambiguous. Elli (talk | contribs) 17:49, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

  Would there be anything wrong with defining Biden as an American politician serving as the 46th president of the United States? Surtsicna (talk) 17:52, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

  Yes, there would be something wrong with that. Because there was an RfC in April about whether to say “serving as” vs. “who is”.[10] The RfC was never formally closed, but there was a clear consensus for “is” (11 people favoring “is the” vs. 3 favoring “serving as the”). So that question has been settled. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:08, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

  But "and current" was not part of the "who is" suggestion in that RfC. It has not been settled that "who is the 46th and current" is preferable to "serving as the 46th president". In fact, several people in that discussion stated they preferred "who is the 46th president" because of concision; but when you add two more words, it is hardly clear that the concision is still a factor. Surtsicna (talk) 18:18, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

• Yes as it seems to me that as they never lose the title, it makes it clear he is currently president.Slatersteven (talk) 15:16, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

  Slatersteven, could you clarify? This is an either-or discussion, so it is unclear which approach you are saying "yes" to. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:11, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

  Sorry yes to saying current.Slatersteven (talk) 18:12, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

• How about, "Joseph Robinette Biden Jr. (/ˈbaɪdən/ BY-dən; born November 20, 1942) is an American politician who is currently serving as the 46th president of the United States."? He will always be, or have been, the 46th president but has served in other roles in the past and may serve in other roles in the future. nagualdesign 18:31, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

  That too could do just fine without "currently" :) Surtsicna (talk) 18:41, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

  That version is inaccurate. He is not "currently serving as the 46th president"; he is and always will be the 46th president. This version makes it sound like someone else will be the 46th president later, or someone else has been the 46th president in the past. He is the 46th president; he is currently the incumbent president. You would have to say something like "he is the current president of the United States, the 46th person to serve in that role", which seems unnecessarily convoluted. As for "serving as", see my comment above; "serving as" was rejected in an April RfC. This RfC is just about whether to say "currently" or not. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:52, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

  "Serving as" was rejected in favor of "who is the 46th president" because the latter was deemed more concise. It was not rejected in favour of "who is the 46th and current president", which is obviously less concise than the option chosen in April. Surtsicna (talk) 18:57, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

  Yes, but you have to either say "serving as..." or include "and current", otherwise you're omitting the information that he is currently the dude in power. As previously noted, he will technically always be the 46th president, so it's insufficient to rely on the present/past tense for that information. (It's also a very unclear way of imparting that important detail, which would probably be lost on many of our readers).  — Amakuru (talk) 19:35, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

  Except he's only the 45th person in that role. --Khajidha (talk) 22:26, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

  True, and a lovely bit of trivia that most people are probably not aware of. Grover Cleveland was both the 22nd president and the 24th president. So the version I suggested above does not work. Biden is counted as the 46th president, but he is actually the 45th person to serve in that role. We could really make our readers' heads spin with that one. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:49, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

• One thing that puzzles me (but of course, that's for another discussion) is why we chose (initially at the Trump article, when his was in office) & now at this article, to omit the year the incumbent took office. I'm speaking of course about the "...since 2021" bit, in Biden's case. GoodDay (talk) 19:01, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
• No per MOS:CURRENT. Zaathras (talk) 21:08, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

  Except on pages updated regularly - I don't think there's any risk of a statement in the lead paragraph of this article becoming outdated by more than like, a few minutes. Elli (talk | contribs) 21:22, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

  True. And it also doesn't say to just remove the reference to the phenomenon being current altogether, it says to use "since 2010" of "as of 2021" formulations. The former might work, while the latter would be a bit absurd given that Biden's article is never going to fall stale due to people forgetting about it. But overall, just saying "current" would be the most compliant with the MOS here, as noted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amakuru (talk • contribs)

MOS:CURRENT does not apply as the users above me have stated well. Eccekevin (talk) 18:13, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

• 46th and current Literally two words are added. The brevity gained doesn't outweigh the clarity lost and clarity is the bigger goal here. I personally would find the "and current" helpful, especially if I'm just skimming the article. Wikignometry (talk) 09:15, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
• No. Per the basic fact that no other president of the United States can be described using "is the president" or even "is the Xth president". You may forever have been the Xth president, but (once your term is up) you cannot be written of as "Blanky Blankington is the Xth president". --Khajidha (talk) 14:19, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

  Sorry, Khajidha, but could you clarify? This is not a yes-no RfC, it is a choose-this-option-or-that-one RfC. Are you saying to include "and current", or to leave it out? -- MelanieN (talk) 18:02, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

  Now that is confusing. The thread is titled #RfC: Should we say he is 'current' president in the lead, or not?. That is a yes-no question. Surtsicna (talk) 18:19, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

  That's a good point. So I guess we should assume that "yes" means to say "current", and "no" means to leave it out. But I still have a little trouble understanding what Khajidha is saying we should do. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:54, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

  ..."is an American politician who is the 46th president of the United States." --Khajidha (talk) 23:09, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

• Comment – however the intro is going to be phrased, it is important that it is made clear to readers that he is the incumbent president. He will always be the 46th president, whether serving or otherwise. Whether it is "46th and current president..." or "serving as the 46th president" is up for debate. I prefer "serving as the 46th president" for consistency with past presidents i.e. DJT "...served as the 45th president..." cookie monster (2020) 755 16:02, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

  Except that during Trump's presidency, the article lead said ""Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is the 45th and current president of the United States." The wording changes to "served as" after they leave office. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:04, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Agree with the many good points made by MelanieN. We need to look at Trump's page when he was president, not now. Obviously the phrasing is going to be different.Eccekevin (talk) 18:07, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

• is the 46th and current president this is the wording that was used for Trump when he was in office, and has been used so far in this article, and it the best in my opinion and should not be changed. Eccekevin (talk) 18:07, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
• Current I don't feel super stongly about this and would be fine with either but I do slightly prefer using "current". ~ HAL333 19:48, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
• We should do the exact same thing that we did for Trump, Obama, and Bush during their respective terms. I haven't looked yet to see what that was, but if my memory is accurate I think we included the word "current". There is no reason at all why Biden should be treated any differently; lets no be fanning the flames or giving any legitimacy to the domestic terrorism cult that espouses lie that Biden's illegitimate, that the election was rigged by an elite powerful cabal of Satan worshipping paedophillic blood drinking cannabals, and want to round up everyone that disagrees and have them burnt at the steak. Firejuggler86 (talk) 21:29, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Note re: my comment above - not trying to sound SOAPBOXy, I just find it incredibly ODD as to why the standard wording for current US Presidents, that had been in place since time immemorial is all of a sudden under dispute and being edit warred over. Why?? What changed? Firejuggler86 (talk) 21:43, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
    • • Yes, please try to stay off the soapbox here. I wouldn't say it's been used since "time immemorial", since there have been only four "current" presidents during the lifetime of Wikipedia. I believe the issue was debated with the other presidents also; there are always people who dislike "current". But in the recent cases I am aware of, local consensus settled on "is the xxth and current president". -- MelanieN (talk) 02:14, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
    • I find the "and current" phrasing needlessly wordy and poor writing. That a mistake has been made before is no reason to continue making it. --Khajidha (talk) 23:13, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
• 46th and current The word "current" was used when the previous Presidents were serving, this shouldn't be any different. Sea Ane (talk) 22:15, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
• 46th and current It is clear and consistent. -- Fyrael (talk) 22:29, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

From my point of view, just saying he is the 46th president is the best. Anything could change, Biden may step down from president duty in the future. Ethan2345678 (talk) 03:32, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

• 46th and current. You are the 46th president forever, but only currently the president during your term. I think being the current president of the US is information important to Biden's notability, and improves the understanding of readers (especially outside of the US) to include. I also don't think there are MOS:CURRENT concerns for a four year term on an article as heavily monitored as this, that shouldn't be a problem. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 05:45, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
• 46th and current , It brings out clarity and is consistent with what was written for the likes of Obama and Trump while in office. BristolTreeHouse (talk) 13:16, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
• 46th and current per the others above. People unfamiliar with US politics might not know that he's the current US president. Some1 (talk) 14:10, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
• 46th and current - It's better for clarity and it seems to have been the undisputed way of saying it on the pages of other presidents when they were in office. There is also zero chance for this page to not be frequently updated, so no danger there. PraiseVivec (talk) 14:30, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi

Hello. Can anyone fix the mistake here. I can't because I'm ip so I can't edit. It has changed here [[11]] Serbian to Serb. In source write Serbian abuses https://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/24/world/americas/24iht-policy.4.15591832.html . Because if "Serb abuse" is left, the sentence will show that Serb were abused, and not vice versa, Serbian abuses as written in the source. Please see the source and how it says there and I beg someone to fix it. Thank you89.172.124.96 (talk) 21:38, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

 Done -- MelanieN (talk) 23:29, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you89.172.124.96 (talk) 05:31, 2 July 2021 (UTC)