Template:Vital article

	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 is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Joe Biden B‑class Top‑importance Joe Biden is within the scope of WikiProject Joe Biden, a project dedicated to creating and improving content related to Joe Biden. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Joe BidenWikipedia:WikiProject Joe BidenTemplate:WikiProject Joe BidenJoe Biden articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale. Biography: Politics and Government B‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia'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 articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Top-importance). U.S. Congress B‑class 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 Wikipedia. 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 articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is about one (or many) Person(s). United States: Delaware / Presidential elections / Presidents / Government B‑class 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 Wikipedia. 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 articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. 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). Pennsylvania B‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pennsylvania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pennsylvania on Wikipedia. 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 articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Politics: American B‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. 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 articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. 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). College football B‑class Bottom‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject College football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of college football on Wikipedia. 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 articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Bottom This article has been rated as Bottom-importance on the project's importance scale. Science Policy B‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Policy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Science policy on Wikipedia. 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 articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Barack Obama Unassessed (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 articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

	Other banners: Top 25 reports; media mentions; pageviews; section size
Top 50 Report and Top 25 Report annual lists

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

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

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

Survey 2

• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

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

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

• 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 ^{Talk to me} 23:43, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Remove. It's redundant and unnecessary. Its removal causes no ambiguity. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 00:23, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• 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: [Joe Biden] 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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• Remove Superfluous, serves no purpose. ValarianB (talk) 13:47, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• Keep Agree with 331dot's reasoning above. Some1 (talk) 12:25, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• Remove as per VP question. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:19, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Remove As I feel "is" is explanatory enough MraClean (talk) 16:28, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  It has been explained several times above why "is" is not explanatory enough. Biden will always be the 46th president, even way after his terms expire. Nobody advocating removal seems to be addressing this point...  — Amakuru (talk) 19:22, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  No, Biden will always be the man who was the 46th president. The phrasing "is" becomes inaccurate as soon as his term ends. Trump is not the 45th president. He was the 45th president. Washington is not the 1st president, he was such.--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 11:25, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  In concrete linear reality, you're absolutely right, Washington was, has been and always will still have been the first US president. In abstract historical chronology, Amakuru's absolutely right, Biden is the 46th there is, the 46th there was and the 46th there ever will be. You two should join forces, in my opinion. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:42, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  "In concrete linear reality, you're absolutely right" Which is where this issue should end. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 14:57, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Whether a person "is" or "was" the Nth president has to do with whether the person is alive or not. User:Amakuru is correct, "is" vs "was" does not explain whether the person is currently or was formerly President or not, it explains whether the person is alive or not. -- Charlesreid1 (talk) 04:09, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Remove Per MOS:CURRENT. Also just awkward and not concise. ~ HAL333 03:29, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• User:HAL333 Can you please elaborate on why MOS:CURRENT would apply, since it specifically says it doesn't apply to pages updated regularly, as this one very clearly is? - Aoidh (talk) 03:35, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Barack Obama is still the 44th president despite not being the current president. (An alternative would be to just write "Biden is the president..." and leave it at that, but I'm not sure how much support that would have.) -- Vaulter 02:37, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Based on my comments below (see other countries subsection), I would suggest using the form "Biden is an American politician who has served as the 46th president of the United States since [January 20], 2021." -- Vaulter 15:58, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion 2

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

It has been explained severally why the words are needed. Your drum banging is in error I'm afraid!  — Amakuru (talk) 19:20, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

@The Four Deuces:, @MraClean:, @Writethisway: & @SergeWoodzing:, @Binksternet:, @Scope creep:. Would you 'please' give your position at this RFC's survey. Seeing as you've already done so, over at the Harris RFC survey. GoodDay (talk) 16:14, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I will , no problem MraClean (talk) 16:16, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Basic question

It is inconceivable to me that we are discussing this at all as long as the verb is is used in the sentence along with the adjective current, making the exact same point twice. Can anyone explain why we are doing this here and also at the VP talk? The more this nonsense expands and grows, the more flabbergasted I get. Some of us fight to get consensus to keep an obvious, grammatical redundancy which makes the articles's opening sentence look childish and ridiculous? Why? Wikipedia when it's the worst kind of kindergarten. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:52, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned at the beginning. My only concern is that we have the Biden & Harris bios in sync, on this matter :) GoodDay (talk) 14:56, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Would be nice though, wouldn't it, if both articles didn't begin with a grammatical redundancy that makes them both (and the subjects) look silly? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:12, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

+INFINITY to this. I can't believe that anyone is seriously suggesting that, for example, "Barack Obama is the 44th president of the United States" is in any way a valid sentence that requires us to use this redundancy. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 14:11, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to official American government history world. It's not like other valid but fleeting mindsets. It's "frozen in time". InedibleHulk (talk) 15:00, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This type of thinking is no less absolutely right in the Dot Com domain, either, even in articles explicitly updated this March. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:10, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So, people write blatantly counterfactual statements and we are supposed to follow that? Sorry, we can be better than the sources. We don't have to follow their obvious errors.--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 15:33, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Again, it's not an error if you see it the way many historians do. It just seems weird till it's tolerable. Check out the tense for events in articles like June 27, May 19 and January 4. Clearly marked with years that no longer exist and filled with continuously present verbs. It's paradoxical, sure. But both views hold true. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:46, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Still wrong. Those events are over and done with. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 13:47, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly why they are currently historical events. Indefinitely. And yes, sad. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:25, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The so called "...and current" phrase, is used by many incumbent heads of state and or government bios. GoodDay (talk) 19:52, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do you actually mean "... is ... and current"?! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:34, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. GoodDay (talk) 19:59, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sad. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:17, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Other countries

For what it's worth, I decided to lookup how we write about other countries' leaders in their articles. Justin Trudeau is described as the 23rd and current PM of Canada. Andrés Manuel López Obrador has been the 65th president of Mexico since 2018. Jacinda Ardern has been serving as the 40th PM of New Zealand since 2017. Anthony Albanese has been serving as the 31st PM of Australia since 2022. Yoon Suk-yeol has been the 13th president of South Korea since 2022. Emmanuel Macron, Boris Johnson, Fumio Kishida, Micheál Martin and Olaf Scholz all omit the numbers.

Based on this, and some of the comments above, I would suggest rewording this article to say "Biden is an American politician who has served as the 46th president of the United States since [January 20], 2021." -- Vaulter 15:55, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget, to drop in at the RFC at Kamala Harris concerning the same topic. GoodDay (talk) 16:02, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

'He ran unsuccessfully for the Democratic presidential nomination in 1988 and 2008. All totoaled, Biden was a seven-term senator' has typo totoaled. seems like a quick/easy fix. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:245:CE02:5370:BD6F:643E:2C01:4943 (talk • contribs)

 Done - Very easy. - Aoidh (talk) 23:10, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

don't you think that the introductory paragraphs should be far more critical of Biden? he's the most unpopular president (this early into his term) in decades and comparatively bad presidents like Trump, Bush, Carter etc. all have much more critical outlooks StarkGaryen (talk) 09:42, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

StarkGaryen We aren't here to promote or criticize, we are here to summarize independent reliable sources. Most content about his presidency is at Presidency of Joe Biden. If you have changes to propose for the lead that better summarize the content of this article, please offer them. 331dot (talk) 09:49, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

so if I make a preliminary edit which better summarises the presidency so far and gives more in depth, but concise information about the 46th admin, you would be open to accepting it? StarkGaryen (talk) 12:50, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Best to wait until he leaves office in 2025 or 2029, before we start including job performance ratings. GoodDay (talk) 22:33, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

fair enough, but there's already been a lot of edits which portray his presidency as having accomplished a lot (laymen look at the beginning of such articles and seeing this article are likely to get the impression that it's been a very active, energetic and appreciated presidency, which lies in stark contrast to the nationwide, global, and economic sentiment), when in fact there's been a lot of talk among democrats themself of kicking him out, a symptom of how unpopular the presidency is.

in conclusion, I offered nothing opinion-changing in this reply except some feedback over what the tone of the article sounds like StarkGaryen (talk) 12:49, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Biden was recently rated as the 19th best president out of 45, by the SCRI Survey of U.S. Presidents, ranking 12th for integrity.[1] Alright, that's not how I would necessarily rate him, but content is based on reliable sources, not what we think. TFD (talk) 00:24, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

while I do agree that we should use reliable sources; the SCRI survey is nothing other than the opinion of a band of a small closed group of people, who have highly partisan views, so in no way should we be using their opinions as an arbiter of his presidency. The script survey continually re-evaluates its ratings so it can't really be used as empirical data on how popular or objectively good or bad a president is. The popular opinion (basically approval rating) is a much better way of judgement as the biases are weighed down by the nation. StarkGaryen (talk) 12:45, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am unsure that we can make such a change to the lede based upon one opinion poll. Slatersteven (talk) 12:49, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

are you replying to me or the comment above mine? well if it was a reply to me, then I've gotta vigorously disagree with 'one opinion poll'. every single opinion poll taken since around September/august, polls looking at the direction of the nation, as well as polls regarding the effectiveness of the government and congress all offer a uniquely unflattering image of Joe Biden. the economy is suffering, people are resentful, and all the initial optimism on July 4 2021 has evaporated completely StarkGaryen (talk) 12:54, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But that is not the same as " most unpopular president (this early into his term) in decades and comparatively bad presidents like Trump", you need pools saying he is more unpopular than Trump (by the way the siena polls lists 5 presidents as the worst in US history (Trump is one, 2 polls running), Biden is not on that list. So that source disproves your claim. Slatersteven (talk) 13:03, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you understand how this works buddy. The Siena Institute rankings are polls buddy. They're evaluations highly dependent on the biases of the small sample of professors etc. whose opinions are taken into consideration. An approval rating is based on several hundreds of different pollsters independently polling the AMERICAN ELECTORATE for their opinion. And literally all polls show that he's more unpopular than Trump. he's empirically the most disapproved of president this early into his term since like Carter lmao. At this stage (18 months into presidency), no other president has had a worse approval since Truman. No source disproved my claim lol, all you did is misunderstand and misrepresent my point of contention. I recommend you Brush up your contemporary political knowledge before you make weird, incorrect statements. StarkGaryen (talk) 14:18, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That poll listed Trump as worse than Biden, so your claim that there are polls that rank Biden as worse than Trump is not supported by that source. You did actually look at the table of the bottom 5? So where does it say (not your wp:or, the source saying it, that Biden is more unpopular than Trump?

Here are some quotes about Trump "Worst Five Again – Andrew Johnson, Buchanan, Trump, Harding & Pierce" "For the second time, scholars include Donald Trump along with Andrew Johnson, James Buchanan, Warren Harding and Franklin Pierce in the bottom five.", How can Biden be rated as worse in that poll, if he is not even in the bottom 5? Slatersteven (talk) 14:27, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Biden is more unpopular at this point of his term, then Trump was at his. But again, let's wait until Biden leaves office. For all we know, he might be overwhelmingly popular by Nov 2024 & easily win (400+ electoral votes) re-election. GoodDay (talk) 14:29, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2 years into Trump's presidency was 2018, his popularity was at 35% https://news.gallup.com/poll/203198/presidential-approval-ratings-donald-trump.aspx, Bidens is at 39% https://graphics.reuters.com/USA-BIDEN/POLL/nmopagnqapa/ (in fact it has never dropped as low as 35%). This is why we wait, these things fluctuate way too much (as can be seen by both those graphics). Slatersteven (talk) 14:53, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It gets even more confusing when we look at similar polls, Gallop puts Biden at his lowest on 41% (which differs from the poll from Siena), and his average at 46. They put trump at (lowest) 34% and average at only 41% (equal to Bidens lowest). Slatersteven (talk) 15:25, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean to start the 'this president was more unpopular then this president' trend. Again, let's wait until Biden leaves office. GoodDay (talk) 15:28, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

cool StarkGaryen (talk) 05:16, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

all over the news services ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.60.40 (talk) 19:38, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Already mentioned in the BLP. GoodDay (talk) 19:40, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I've removed it as WP:NOTNEWS. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 19:44, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• It remains to be seen if his having covid will be a serious or even notable problem. Suggest we wait. 331dot (talk) 19:45, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Indeed let's wait. Yes he's in his 80th year, but unless/until Harris has to assume his powers & duties (under sections 3 or 4, of the 25th amendment)? then it's not overly noteworthy. Maybe, put it in the Biden administration page. GoodDay (talk) 19:49, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I disagree with removing it and I think it should be restored. A single sentence in the "2022" section is certainly justified, and I mean now. After all we have a whole section in the Trump article about Trump getting Covid.[2] Even though Pence never "assumed Trump's powers" - that's irrelevant. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:52, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, but Trump was hospitalized and he missed a debate because of it. This is not gonna be significant unless it makes an impact. It's probably gonna be like that incident where he broke his foot playing with is dog; it ended up being nothing and is not in this article. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 19:57, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  "Impact" isn't relevant, the fact that the US President has Covid at all is biographically important. ValarianB (talk) 20:00, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Also think it should be included, NOTNEWS is about routine events. This is not routine. nableezy - 20:12, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  BTW note that WP:NOTNEWS starts out by saying "Editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information within its coverage." -- MelanieN (talk) 20:24, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I think it belongs because it received extensive coverage. I imagine the reason for the coverage is that covid remains a key issue in the U.S. Otherwise I don't imagine they would have given as much coverage had he come down with another illness. But we cannot second guess the weight that rs give to different aspects of his presidency. TFD (talk) 21:23, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I second TFD. And look, if it turns out to be nothing significant, we take it out of the article. But his age and the ongoing uncertainty about the disease and the newest variant have led to lots of coverage, with Monkeypox waiting in the on deck circle. SPECIFICO talk 21:30, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I suppose, given the history of the White House's usually down-playing or outright hiding presidential ailments. Its inclusion isn't too premature. GoodDay (talk) 02:27, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I think the current brief, two-sentence mention is just right. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:41, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So, with clarification from White House officials, it appears Biden was diagnosed and treated for "non-melanoma skin cancers" which were removed before his presidency. Should this be mention? Given his skin cancer diagnosis and his two brain aneurysms from the 1980s, maybe a health section should be created? Here's some sources about his non-melanoma skin cancers: AA, Yahoo, AP TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 14:58, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the fact he had skin cancer relevant? Slatersteven (talk) 15:13, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure on this one. I base including/excluding health issues concerning US presidents, on whether or not it seriously effects their ability to do the job. AFAIK, Biden hasn't been in a situation of this nature, which requires Harris to step in, as acting president. What happened in November 2021, was a routine procedure. GoodDay (talk) 15:17, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If I'm reading this right, and I'm still drinking my morning coffee so I am open to being corrected, what happened in November 2021 was the release of a memo from his doctor saying that non-melanoma skin cancers were removed before his presidency started. So, this has been known to us for at least eight months. But, now some are jumping on the inartful way he talked about it yesterday? If it wasn't important enough to add in November, why is it suddenly important enough to add now? – Muboshgu (talk) 15:28, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

He had a colonoscopy in November 2021. A routine check up, which he passed easily. GoodDay (talk) 20:07, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Non-melanoma skin cancers" are not a serious health issue. The term refers to Squamous cell skin cancer and Basal cell carcinoma. Both are very common in older people, usually in sun-exposed areas, and both are usually treated by simple local excision. They almost never lead to serious consequences. He may have other health conditions important enough to mention, but "non-melamona skin cancer" is not one of them. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:37, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not important for this article. I pretty much follow MelanieN's logic here. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 16:27, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

According to APNews, the President had cancer, which was removed prior to taking the presidency. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:54, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There should be a health section since it is normally an issue when a president is either old or has health problems. While skin cancer, polyps and strokes are common among elderly people, they are not common among the age groups most presidents belonged to. TFD (talk) 05:53, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Common or not, the resident's health deserves a section. Especially seeing as how his is particularly poor. Innican Soufou (talk) 00:20, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Copied from User talk:Iamreallygoodatcheckers

You added a statement to Biden's article about "natural gas" prices. I think you mean oil or petroleum prices. Natural gas is different. Andrevan@ 18:29, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrevan: thank you for pointing that out. I meant to put gasoline prices, but I think the POLITICO article that said natural gas tripped me up. If you added back the statement with gasoline than it would be accurate; I would do it myself, but I don't want to be accused of edit warring. The POLITICO article says gasoline prices were elevating and the Bloomberg one said they were at a 7 year high. That is my bad. Thank you, Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 18:56, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This content is UNDUE for Biden's biography. You could just as well tell how many dogs and cats were adopted last year or how the price of chicken is doing. The president doesn't set commodity prices. And its not as if the prices of petroleum products are particuarly high. In fact, the inflation adjusted price is around where it was decades ago, I believe. SPECIFICO talk 19:08, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think the placement of it is off, and it's out of context, but Biden has specifically spoken about gas prices and his actions on energy are relevant to his presidency, though maybe not in a general section about the economy. His energy policy has involved cancelling the Keystone XL pipeline, creating more oil leases despite a campaign promise not to, releasing more oil from the strategic reserve, and going to Saudi Arabia. I don't have the sources handy but that is all recent stuff from Biden's energy policy that I remember reading about. Andrevan@ 19:17, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SPECIFICO, no one is arguing the president sets the prices of anything, but that doesn't make it not significant. RS has covered the gas prices under the Biden Administration and it is relevant for inclusion in this article. As pointed out in the Bloomberg article, it was a 7 year high in 2021. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 19:21, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please take the few seconds time to read what I wrote before responding. This is his biography not his policy article. This is not the Biden Administration article. You can say it's relevant over and over, but that's a song, not an argument for it. I told you to look at inflation adjusted petroleum prices. Please don't post unresponsive replies. Other editors need to take the time to read them before seeing they do not advance the discussion. You should also recall this same distinction -- bio vs. presidential administration -- coming up over and over at the Trump page. This should not be a difficult discussion. SPECIFICO talk 19:30, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SPECIFICO, I think I agree with you more ideologically but I find this response bludgeony. Iamreallygoodatcheckers, consider that gas prices being at a 7 year high isn't really about the economy. Let's think instead about how it relates to Biden's energy policy and his statements about gas prices versus what critics have done. For example, those weird stickers that people stick on the gas pumps. I bet someone has written about the cultural impact of those stickers. See the forest for the trees. "Gas prices are high" is not a fact for Biden's article, but there might be something else you're trying to say that would be relevant to his life and work.Andrevan@ 19:38, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gas prices have nothing to do with Biden, except in tGOP talking points, he confident proclamations of Fox News personalities, and their followers. It is indeed too bad having to repeat this when an editor ignores simple explanations as to the revert. I wish it were not so, but that's how it is. I don't know who copied this from user talk, but maybe the IDHT issue could have been resolved there first and then we would not have to repeat it on article talk. SPECIFICO talk 19:47, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It was me who copied it and I'm just trying to offer a little constructive feedback. I agree that it's kind of a GOP talking point that Biden is bad on gas prices. I also think that we owe some discussion of the "gas price" "issue" in the Biden presidency article since Biden has specifically commented on gas prices and broadcasted his actions to try to lower gas prices. He has tweeted repeatedly that they've gone down for 35 days in a row and stuff like that I believe (not proposing to add this). I think it's more constructive to talk about how we should cover the Biden administration energy policy than fight between editors on behavioral stuff. Andrevan@ 19:51, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You're the one with the gratuitous behavior remark. But sealioning and wasting other editors time is very destructive and should not be encouraged or enabled in any way. The whole sequence of events could have been avoided with a bit more thoughtful consideration and a bit less kneejerk addition of off-topic trivia. SPECIFICO talk 20:20, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Accusing an editor of sealioning is probably a good faith violation unless you can substantiate your arguments, and at that point, you should probably take it to ArbCom. It's better not to accuse people of bad faith, but engage on the substance of arguments. I'm not trying to pick a fight or be patronizing, I'm pointing out that we do owe some discussion to the topic of whether "gas prices" is valid. You've made a legitimate argument that I'm not trying to negate at all, but it's not helpful to make statements that attack Iamreallygoodatcheckers for bad faith, because you won't get anywhere with it. On the gas prices question I agree that it wasn't proper, that is why I reverted the addition but I am instead trying to engage Iamreallygoodatcheckers' enthusiasm and energy on a productive pursuit to improve the article. I should be your ally here, but I think implying that editors are responding before reading, isn't productive. Andrevan@ 20:30, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Take it to my talk page if you care. Not here. SPECIFICO talk 21:33, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Andrevan, I open to seeing gas prices from the perspective of energy rather than economy, and I would encourage you to propose ideas. I just don't know if I'm comfortable continuing this discussion for obvious reasons. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 21:19, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Let's give everyone a chance to cool down and resume discussing in a little while. Andrevan@ 21:21, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Content needs the WEIGHT of RS narratives connecting the oil price to Joe personally or whatnot. I see nobody offering anything of the sort. If this is to be considered for the article, there needs to be sourcing and a mainstream narrative that Joe personally did this or that significant thing or is responsible for whatever. SPECIFICO talk 21:35, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree. Andrevan@ 21:42, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't we wait till his presidency is over, they could go up further or down? Slatersteven (talk) 10:19, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You're proposing to add something 'negative' to this BLP? Anyways, I've no objections to your proposal. GoodDay (talk) 13:40, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]