Talk:Joe Biden

Temporary suspension of WP:1RR rule

In order to give regular editors the leeway they need to deal with an increase in unhelpful "drive-by" edits, I am temporarily suspending the one-revert rule that has been on this article. The "24-hour BRD" rule still applies. Here's what this means:

• Every editor may now make up to 3 reverts per day per WP:3RR. BUT...
• You may not make the same edit or revert more than once per day per the BRD rule, and after your first time making that edit or revert, you must discuss it on the talk page and wait 24 hours before attempting that edit again.

Put another way, reverts are linked to content. You can revert up to 3 different edits per day, but you can't add or remove the same content more than once per day.

Again, the purpose of this is to allow regular/experienced/content editors to deal with legitimately unhelpful or POV edits. It's not to give people more leeway in edit warring over content disputes that are under discussion or to engage in "tag-team edit warring" where editors take turns reverting the same content over and over. If I see that going on I will start blocking people's accounts, starting with the editors who are reverting against the status quo ante, those reverting against emerging consensus on the talk page, and those who are not using helpful WP:Edit summaries that clearly describe what they're doing and why they're doing it. ~Awilley (talk) 02:09, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Discussion of the above

Point of Order: BRD is not a rule. "The BOLD, revert, discuss cycle (BRD) is an optional method of reaching consensus. This process is not mandated by Wikipedia policy..." (my emphasis) 86.140.67.152 (talk) 08:48, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

It is not mandated by policy, but it is mandated by the discretionary sanctions on this page. To prevent disruption on pages relating to contemporary American politics, any administrator may place any reasonable restriction on pages to ensure compliance with our policies and guidelines. One common restriction is to enforce BRD. Editors who are aware of the sanction and do not comply may be banned or blocked at administrator discretion. For more information see Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Page restrictions. — Wug·a·po·des​ 09:33, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

When something like this is done (a) it really needs to be stated in the post the source of the authority to do it (i.e. DS) -- I for one don't edit much in DS areas so I was completely puzzled; and (b) it's not clear to me that you don't need to issue new DS alerts to editors individually -- how is someone supposed to know the rules have suddenly changed, unless they happen on this thread? EEng 11:31, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

@EEng Worth noting that the DS alerts do not specify any page-specific sanctions, or mention any pages the editor has been editing. So, if I give you a DS alert right now, it won't mention the BRD (nor the 1RR), nor that I'm alerting you due to Joe Biden. So even a new alert doesn't help. It's a crappy system of alerting. FWIW the BRD has been in place (along with 1RR) since November 2019; Awilley just relaxed the 1RR requirement, which maybe makes it a little better. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:42, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Sorry about that, the Discretionary Sanctions bit and link to the relevant Arbcom page are in the template I modified at the top of the talk page. On notifications, I wish there were a better way to do it. There's the template at the top of the talk page and the edit notice whenever you edit the article itself. Since this was a relaxing of restrictions I figured a post on the talkpage would be sufficient to get the attention of the regular editors I was targeting. For the other restriction, typically how things works is that people will "welcome" newcomers to the article with the standard notification template, which I hate. Then if someone runs afoul of the sanctions they usually get a couple of people on their talk page explaining the sanction and asking them to self-revert. It's when they refuse to self-revert that things typically escalate to administrators. ~Awilley (talk) 16:31, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

• Comment On the contrary of the loosening of restrictions, I think this article needs to be subject to WP:0RR, until next January. Given the contested nature of the election and ongoing lawsuits, short-term, continuous vandalism is almost guaranteed and should be adjusted for accordingly. -- Sleyece (talk) 03:44, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Preemptive agreement over use of official portrait

Just to work out the formalities, similar to presidents before him, when Biden has his official presidential portrait release this will be the one we will use for his article henceforth. Of course this is seemingly unnnessecary I understand, but I know how anything related to presidents can be jumbled with alternative takes, so I'd rather build consensus now to prevent anything in the future. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 11:44, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support use of official presidential photographic portrait for use in infobox of article SecretName101 (talk) 18:16, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
• Comment - Just so if folks are wondering. The current official portrait, is Biden's vice presidential portrait. GoodDay (talk) 18:22, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support, and thanks for starting this discussion. Herbfur (Eric, He/Him) (talk) 18:05, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
• other images

File:President Joe Biden.jpg

artwork

RogerNiceEyes (talk) 17:41, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support, his prez official portrait belong there, after he takes office :) GoodDay (talk) 18:55, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support Makes sense to me. ~ HAL333 05:49, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support Official presidential portrait will be fine. Current photo is almost 8 years old, and should definitely be changed soon. Felix558 (talk) 10:07, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Infobox

So recently somebody removed all the Senate chairmanships from the infobox, as well as the successor and predecessor in the New Castle County Council section. I think they should all remain on the infobox. Any thoughts? - Bokmanrocks01 (talk) 04:11, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

I think they should not. New Castle County Council predecessor and successor are not mentioned anywhere in the article, let alone sourced; the infobox should not contain information that does not appear anywhere else in the article per WP:INFOBOX and WP:LEAD. The chairmanships are not what Biden is best known for and are quite minor compared to vice presidency and presidency. To include them is therefore contrary to what WP:INFOBOX defines as the purpose of an infobox, which is "to summarize key facts that appear in the article. The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance." Surtsicna (talk) 10:34, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps you should open up a discussion about the need to delete such info, for these US prez & vice prez bios. Boldly deleting can be messy. GoodDay (talk) 13:32, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

The info was boldly added and only then duly deleted. The addition needs consensus. It also needs sources as some of these names are never mentioned in the article. We do not have any chairmanships in the infoboxes of Jimmy Carter, Harry S. Truman, Franklin D. Roosevelt, etc, or even Hillary Clinton. An infobox does not need the minutiae of every office; in fact, that would defeat the purpose of an infobox. Surtsicna (talk) 16:23, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps, but in the coming days (on & after Jan 20), this article will be subject to many rapid changes. This discussion will likely be expanded. GoodDay (talk) 16:35, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

@Surtsicna: First of all, the reason why there are no chairmanships for FDR and Jimmy Carter was because they were never in Congress. Hillary was never a chair of any Senate committee, and neither was Truman (aside from the no longer existing Truman Committee, which never really was a formal committee, as it only lasted for 3 years), so your point is invalid. Secondly, every chair of a committee includes it in their infobox, so why should this article be any different? - Politicsfan4 (talk) 18:15, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

I recently re-added some of Biden’s offices in his infobox, but they were reverted. I don’t think that this should be a controversial issue whatsoever, as these are important offices, and they are not “ unsourced”. I have been directed to the talk page to gain consensus now to restore them. I would also like to point out that literally every other chair of a Senate committee includes their chairmanship office in their infobox, so it’s not like including it in Biden’s infobox is inconsistent. I’m not sure why anyone would disagree with this. — Politicsfan4 (talk) 17:37, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Now that I’ve read the discussion above, I’m just gonna go ahead and restore them. It seems that most people think that the offices should be restored, and there seems to be no legitimate reason for their removal. - Politicsfan4 (talk) 17:53, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

The lack of sources is always a legitimate reason for removal, and there has been no consensus for inclusion. WP:LEAD and WP:INFOBOX, which state that the infobox must not contain information not found in the text, are legitimate reasons for removal. WP:INFOBOX, which states that the infobox should be concise, is a legitimate reason for removal. Surtsicna (talk) 20:10, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Specifically, nothing in the text suggests (and there are no sources confirming) that Biden was preceded by Richard Lugar or Jesse Helms and succeeded by John Kerry or Richard Lugar or Jesse Helms as chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee or that any of the men ever had anything to do with this committee. Worse yet, Jesse Helms, Chuck Grassley, Dianne Feinstein, Strom Thurmond, Orrin Hatch, Henry Folsom, and Francis Swift are not mentioned anywhere else in the article, so mentioning these (evidently irrelevant) people in the infobox contravenes WP:LEAD, WP:INFOBOX, WP:V, and WP:BLP. Surtsicna (talk) 20:21, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

@Surtsicna: - Here are the sources for the dates, predecessors, and successors of Biden's committee chairmanships:

Foreign Relations Committee: [1]

New Castle County Council: [2]

Senate Judiciary Committee: [3] and Almanac of American Politics 2008, p. 365

You should also note that some refences to these positions are located in the article themselves (such as "Almanac of American Politics 2008, p. 365." cited as a source for Biden's Judiciary membership), as it is not customary to include references in infoboxes. I've removed the citation needed templates for the offices that I have found reputable sources for (I couldn't find any source for his chairmanship of the Narcotic caucus, so I have left those templates there). -- Politicsfan4 (talk) 21:31, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Actually, I have found some sources referencing Biden's membership of the Narcotics Caucus. Here they are:

• https://littlesis.org/org/13058-United_States_Senate_Caucus_on_International_Narcotics_Control_Committee
• https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-108shrg98053/html/CHRG-108shrg98053.htm
• Almanac of American Politics 2008, p. 364.

I have now fully removed the "citation needed" templates that you placed in the infobox. -- Politicsfan4 (talk) 21:44, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Sources need to be cited in the article, not on the talk page. We cannot expect readers to search for citations on talk pages. They need to be readily available. Also, all this information must be also in the body of the article. Per WP:LEAD and WP:INFOBOX, nothing in an infobox should be in the infobox alone. Surtsicna (talk) 23:07, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

I do not see dates on any of these pages. This one was published before Biden became chairman so it obviously does not verify anything. The rest of the links also do not verify any of the predecessor/successor names which have been rammed into the infobox. Surtsicna (talk) 23:16, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

@Surtsicna: Do you sincerely believe that the tags you placed are necessary and/or improve the article? It seems to me that due to their sheer quantity and placement in the infobox, they make the article markedly worse for our readers, and their only function is to make your point. I presume that you do not dispute the accuracy of the information, and so the reader does not need to be made aware that there is dispute going on the talk page about whether to include these items in the infobox. Can't we have this discussion without all the tags? Levivich ^harass/_hound 23:41, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

@Surtsicna: - I agree with Levivich. I’ve temporarily removed the tags for now until this discussion has finished. — Politicsfan4 (talk) 00:22, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

I do sincerely believe that all the information in the article needs to be sourced. Verifiability is the core policy of this project. Verifiability, not truth is what should interest us. The point of citation tags is not (and has never been) to question veracity but to point to the need for sources, which have not yet been provided here. What makes the article markedly worse for our readers is the inclusion of this massive amount of unsourced trivia, to the point that the infobox nows pushes the picture of a 10-year-old Biden down to the First marriage section on my browser. Surtsicna (talk) 09:43, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

I do sincerely believe that all the information in the article needs to be sourced – Like it says at WP:UNSOURCED:

When tagging or removing material for lacking an inline citation, please state your concern that it may not be possible to find a published reliable source and the material therefore may not be verifiable [Footnote:] ... it is advisable to communicate clearly that you have a considered reason to believe the material in question cannot be verified.

So, do you actually believe that it's not possible to find a published reliable source for Biden's chairmanships and so on, or are you just being difficult? EEng 13:03, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

I do seriously believe it is not possible to find published reliable sources about all these people preceding or succeeding Joe Biden in the given date ranges. I also do seriously believe that these names (and dates) are extremely trivial, since these people are not once named in the text. The infobox in the article about the man who will next week be president of the United States is full of unsourced trivia and it makes the whole article completely disarranged. So, will you be citing any sources at least? Surtsicna (talk) 21:15, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

To be blunt, seriously believing that there aren't complete and definitive sources for the chairmanships of Senate committees brings into serious question your competence to edit this article. Seriously. Did you even try? [4] EEng 05:15, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Trivial and verifiable are two very different concerns. Which do you think are not verifiable? Which are trivial? Levivich ^harass/_hound 21:24, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

The same ones, i.e. the names of the people who supposedly preceded and succeeded Biden as chairman of various committees and the dates of chairmanships. They are evidently trivial because they are not mentioned anywhere else in the article. Everything that is in an infobox must appear in the text along with sources. Surtsicna (talk) 23:10, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

That's just flat-out false. WP:INFOBOXREF:

References are acceptable in some cases, but generally not needed in infoboxes if the content is repeated (and cited) elsewhere or if the information is obvious. If the material requires a reference ... and the information does not also appear in the body of the article, the reference should be included in the infobox. However, editors should first consider including the fact in the body of the article.

Seriously, get your facts straight. Why are you wasting everyone's time like this? EEng 05:15, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Seriously, read what you are quoting. This content is not "repeated and cited" anywhere in the article. These names do not appear anywhere in the body of the article. Surtsicna (talk) 13:54, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

You read what I just quoted. It says EITHER the information can be repeated and cited in the article OR if the information does not also appear in the body of the article, the reference should be included in the infobox. EITHER is sufficient. Here's that word again to help you focus: EITHER. And here's a link to wiktionary in case you need to look it up: wiktionary:either. EEng 15:03, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. I am always grateful when native speakers go out of their way to improve my English, though what you quoted does not actually say "either" anywhere. In any case, the content neither appears in the body nor is it cited in the infobox. I suppose, however, that your point is that WP:INFOBOXREF contradicts WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE or at least my understanding of it, and indeed it does. Surtsicna (talk) 15:33, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

• Well, there being no actual specific policy-based objection being raised here, I don't see a problem with it. In my view, none of those offices/chairmanships are trivial (Senate Foreign Relations Committee? Give me a break.). All of the successors/predecessors are easily verified and non-controversial... WP:BLUESKY stuff. It would make the article significantly worse if we added an inline cite for every successor and predecessor in the infobox. It would also make the article worse if we explicitly stated in the body who the predecessor and successor was for each office, just for the purpose of verifying on the page the predecessor and successor (when that information is easily verified and not controversial), assuming the succession/predecession wasn't otherwise significant enough to mention in the top-level biography page. I suppose it wouldn't be terrible if someone wanted to add things like "Biden became chair in YYYY, succeeding XXXX" and "Biden left in YYYY, succeeded by XXXX" to the body (which, I suggest, would be a better thing to do than tag-bombing), but I think that's unnecessary, and thus not really an improvement.
  At bottom, I see the infobox predecessor/successor links as navigational aids, and those don't need to be cited inline. Now, whether the infobox is too long and all those offices need to be listed... that's a separate question. I think that these sorts of navigational aides (at least for more minor offices like chairmanships [minor compared with the offices of POTUS and VPOTUS]) are better left in a nav template at the bottom of the page rather than in the infobox. (Perhaps in an infobox only in a subpage about the political career rather than the main page. It's really only a problem for long-term politicians who have held many offices, which is a minority of our political bios.) But any such change should be made as a sitewide change; a discussion for another day at another page. Levivich ^harass/_hound 23:31, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

  WP:V is a policy. My objection is based on that policy. If the names and dates are easily verified, please cite the sources already. That information must never appear solely in the infobox (and solely in the lead) is plainly stated at WP:INFOBOX and WP:LEAD. If this is so trivial that it should not be mentioned in the text, as you appear to admit, it should not be mentioned in the infobox either. Nothing in WP:V suggests that names of predecessors and successors are exempt from that policy, and obviously they are not. They are also not exempt from WP:LEAD and WP:INFOBOX. Surtsicna (talk) 23:42, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

  information must never appear solely in the infobox – As I explained elsewhere, that's flat-out wrong and you really need to stop repeating it before people start laughing at you. Same goes for the lead. Maybe you should start reading the policies and guidelines you keep citing. EEng 13:07, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

  What part of WP:V requires a citation? And, as you've been asked several times now, what information are you challenging the verifiability of? Surely you're not challenging the verifiability of the Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee (one source for that would be senate.gov)? Because that would be WP:TE and WP:DE, and I'm going to WP:AGF you're removing content on verifiability grounds only because of a good-faith belief the content is not verifiable. So which content is not verifiable? Remember: verified is not a requirement, it's verifiable, per WP:V. Levivich ^harass/_hound 23:45, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

  As I said elsewhere, if Sursicna truly thinks Biden's chairmanships aren't verifiable, then we go from a GF question to a WP:CIR question. EEng 13:07, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

  Also, That information must never appear solely in the infobox (and solely in the lead) is plainly stated at WP:INFOBOX and WP:LEAD. is not correct. Those are MOS sections, and nothing in the MOS is ever a "must", as stated in the WP:MOS guideline itself. Levivich ^harass/_hound 23:51, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

  WP:V says: Any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. It is not enough to merely claim that something is verifiable. It has to be proven by citing sources. WP:PROVEIT: The burden to demonstrate verifiability ... is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution. So, where are the sources verifying the names of Biden's predecessors and successors as chairmen and the dates of his chairmanships? Surtsicna (talk) 00:01, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

  Well, as I said, I think it's tendentious and disruptive of you to challenge that Biden was preceded on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee by Lugar and succeeded by Kerry, but one source for that would be, as I already said, senate.gov. If you doubt this, let me know, and I'll be happy to link to the specific page at senate.gov that verifies this. Levivich ^harass/_hound 00:09, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

  And I think it is disruptive to put so much unsourced, trivial information in an infobox that its entire purpose is defeated and article layout destroyed. That said, please do provide citations for the material. Surtsicna (talk) 00:18, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

  https://www.foreign.senate.gov/about/history/ Levivich ^harass/_hound 00:22, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

  Thank you. That is an excellent source. Now, it is not the Senate committee chairmanships that I find trivial. It is the names of predecessors and successors. You say that the article would be worse off if these people were named in the text because such information is "unnecessary, and thus not really an improvement", and I agree. If they are not important enough to be mentioned in the text, they cannot be important enough to be mentioned in the infobox because the infobox is supposed to be a summary of the most significant information about the subject. Surtsicna (talk) 00:34, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

  I said several rounds of discussion ago, Trivial and verifiable are two very different concerns. Which do you think are not verifiable? Which are trivial? And then you removed all of it saying you challenged the verifiability. Now you're going to tell me that it's not verifiability, it's triviality, that is your concern? Quit wasting my time. Levivich ^harass/_hound 00:41, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

  I am not only now telling you this is trivial. I told you that several rounds ago in response to your question and have been saying it the whole time. I assume that you did not see my response. Have you got any thoughts on what I said here? Surtsicna (talk) 00:50, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

How is it done in the infoboxes of other US presidents & vice presidents, who have prior Congressional careers? GoodDay (talk) 01:09, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Same as here as far as I can tell. Levivich ^harass/_hound 02:52, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

@GoodDay: - Other chairs of committees in Congress include their chairmanships in their infoboxes, it that's what you're wondering. It's pretty obvious to me that Biden's infobox should include his chairmanships as well. -- Politicsfan4 (talk) 03:33, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Yeah that's what I was wondering. GoodDay (talk) 03:38, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

• So are we done with the particular waste of time? EEng 13:37, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

  No, we do not appear to be. The same issue was brought up today at #Infobox too long by another editor. Your dismissing other editors' concerns as a waste of time is rude and unhelpful. Surtsicna (talk) 13:56, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

  ProcrastinatingReader's concerns about bloat are well founded. Your confused insistence that everything in an infobox must also be in the article – even when the text of the guideline to the contrary is rubbed in your face – is a complete red herring and is moving you perilously close to WP:CIR territory. EEng 15:03, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

  You have been in WP:Incivility territory since your first comment here but I am happy to keep ignoring that. If an infobox is to be a summary of "key facts that appear in the article", as stated in WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE, then it should not contain anything but key facts that appear in the article, right? Surtsicna (talk) 15:33, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

There's another way to deal with everyones concerns on this matter. Collapse parts of the infobox's entries-in-question. GoodDay (talk) 15:10, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Collapsing won't work. Minerva (the mobile theme on Wikipedia) does not allow collapsing, so it will be automatically expanded. And the mobile experience is where this is a bigger problem, because the infobox is shown right after the first paragraph of the lead in series, rather than in parallel as on desktop. You can verify by visiting the article on a mobile device. The info has to be trimmed - collapsing won't suffice. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:13, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

I did find a way to retain the committee positions whilst still trimming, though. See Special:Permalink/1002249120. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:17, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 January 2021

"Biden served as the 47th vice president during the Obama administration from 2009 to 2017" should be changed to "Biden served as the 44th vice president during the Obama administration from 2009 to 2017" 134.126.59.26 (talk) 20:56, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

No it shouldn't, as there were 46 vice presidents before him, due to some presidents having more then one vice president serve under them. GoodDay (talk) 21:01, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

• Not done. (ec) While Biden was vice president to the 44th president, being Obama, he was not the 44th vice president. Some presidents have had more than one vice president over their times in office. See List of vice presidents of the United States. The 44th vice president was Dan Quayle, serving under George HW Bush. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 21:02, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Maybe we should say he was the 47th VP, serving under the 44th P, Obama. That may help people understand the numberings are independent. EEng 21:27, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Lede

As to avoid edit warring after his inauguration, I am proposing a change to the lede that is meant to be marginally acceptable in the short term. I do not want this discussion to become this. Here's what I'm proposing:

Joseph Robinette Biden Jr. (/ˈbaɪdən/ BY-dən; born November 20, 1942) is an American politician who is the 46th and current president of the United States. A member of the Democratic Party, Biden served as the 47th vice president from 2009 to 2017. He represented Delaware in the United States Senate from 1973 to 2009.

Thoughts? Thanoscar21^talk_{contributions} 00:01, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for raising this question. We are talking about what the lead should be changed to at noon Eastern Time on January 20, right? This would be OK, but I prefer the wording that begins "is an American politician who serves as the 46th and current" etc. That's how we have done most presidential articles (with the exception of Trump). -- MelanieN (talk) 00:20, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

I would leave out the bit about the Obama administration. Mentioning he served as the 47th vice president from 2009 to 2017, will suffice. GoodDay (talk) 00:22, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

I'll add these suggestions, then. Thanoscar21^talk_{contributions} 00:45, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

I would also tweak to "...is the 46th and current president of the United States". GoodDay (talk) 03:13, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Fixed that, assuming this is the version that has consensus? Thanoscar21^talk_{contributions} 13:24, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Totally works for me. Thanks for being so responsive. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:43, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Yup, ready for 20 January 2021, 17:00 UTC. GoodDay (talk) 16:01, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

President Trump's article just says "is the 45th and current" without "American politician". We will be ready at 17:00 UTC±00:00. cookie monster (2020) 755 17:50, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

He's mainly a businessman, though. The politics is just the last four years. Thanoscar21^talk_{contributions} 20:59, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

I would suggest that "American politician" could be removed as redundant - being president of the USA makes you an American politician by definition. (Yes he has been a politician for way longer than Trump ever was, but we're not providing any information about the length of anyone's political career in this sentence either way.) Popcornfud (talk) 14:28, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

No one responded to this suggestion, so after Biden was inaugurated I WP:BOLDLY removed this text myself. I see it has now been reinstated without explanation, by Politicsfan4. Anyone wanna explain why this text is not redundant? Popcornfud (talk) 18:31, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

@Popcornfud: Hey - I reinstated it for consistency with other presidents' ledes, who all use the term "American politican" in theirs. -- Politicsfan4 (talk) 19:50, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Politicsfan4, thanks for the reply. Yes, that makes sense for ex-presidents because they are no longer presidents - they're politicians (or lawyers, or writers, or whatever they end up being). But it doesn't add any clarity or information when someone is currently the president. All presidents are politicians, but not all politicians are presidents. Popcornfud (talk) 20:40, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Popcornfud, you can look at the oldiffs of Obama has "American politician" in its lede. Thanoscar21^talk_{contributions} 13:21, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanoscar21, forgive me but I'm not sure what relevance that has? Just because that's what we used to do for the Obama article doesn't mean it was the right thing to do. Popcornfud (talk) 13:23, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

We generally follow the examples set by other pages, as a sort of precedent. Thanoscar21^talk_{contributions} 13:26, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

• Could someone please now set out the complete and exact text to be substituted when the moment comes? EEng 13:33, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

  I've updated the text according to each suggestion, so the highlighted one should work for the lede. I'm not sure whether anything else needs to be changed urgently. Thanoscar21^talk_{contributions} 13:48, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

  Oh, I see. Next time it would be better to lay out each revised version along the way, instead of changing the original proposed text in situ, which confuses anyone (like me) trying to follow the conversation. EEng 14:08, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

OK sure, but that doesn't wed us to those examples for ever. IMO we can remove this from the Joe Biden page to no detriment. Popcornfud (talk) 13:37, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Actually, this "precedent" idea is completely wrong. In discussing article X, if there's some arbitrary decision to be made and we really can't see any reason to prefer one approach or another, then saying, "Well, article Y does it such-and-such a way, I guess we could do that" is fine. But there's no "precedent". Every article stands on its own, and if the editors of article X feel a certain way is best, what's in Y is irrelevant except to the extent that discussions at Talk:Y might be informative or persuasive (and I'm not hearing anything about that, just "Trump does it this way", which isn't informative or persuasive at all). Maybe article Y should be changed to match X. EEng 16:19, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

We should always be striving to do things better than we used to. Things got messy on the Trump page, let's not make the same mistakes as we did there. There is no reason to say "and current" in that first sentence. He is the 46th president: fin. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:08, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

I didn't change the lede because consensus is required per the note in the text, so my two cents is that the word "currently" should be removed and replaced by "serving". is an American politician serving as the 46th president of the United States is more encyclopedic. MOS:CURRENTLY suggests also that we avoid using the word currently. cookie monster (2020) 755 18:13, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Biden - the oldest first-term U.S. president

I added today (at the end of the introduction) the fact that Biden is the oldest first-term president in U.S. history, and I also added one reference for that. One editor just removed this from the article, because he think this is "idiocy" and "trivia". However, that same fact stands in the introduction of article about Donald Trump. I think consistency should be one of our main goals here. Do you think we should also remove this fact from the article about Trump, or we should add this fact again to the article about Biden? Felix558 (talk) 03:48, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

As I told F558 on my talk page, this fact belongs in the article somewhere; the idiocy consists in thinking it belongs in the already-very-overburdened lead. We've had this discussion several times, as we have on shoehorning into the lead that he's the first president from Delaware, third ambidextrous president, second VP to become president after a being out of office for a time, and other factoids from the kaleidoscope of combinatoric presidential trivia. Each article stands on its own, and "this other article has it" is about as close to useless an argument as there is. If the inconsistency bothers F558, he should see what he can do about removing it from the lead of the Trump article as well. EEng 03:56, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

46th President

Change 45th for 46th! Javandy (talk) 16:55, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

There's still a few minutes, but people on this page seem overly eager. Trump's term expires at noon. Thanoscar21^talk_{contributions} 16:57, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

I think there's some confusion about whether the term expires at swearing in or at noon. I can't seem to find anything that clarifies this; I've always heard that the new VP is VP while the old President is President for a few minutes, for example. Just out of curiosity, do you know where I can find the answer to this - whether the President and VP change at noon or at swearing in? Jokullmusic 17:02, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

The 20th Amendment to the US Constitution gives this clarity: Exactly at noon. The amendment doesn't specify a time zone but it's presumed to be EST based on the US Federal Code and precedent. - Unsigned

Thanks, I feel kinda dumb for missing that, lol Jokullmusic 17:09, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Don't feel bad. For four years we had a president who knew nothing of the Constitution at all. EEng 17:13, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

If he even knows what the Constitution is. Thanoscar21^talk_{contributions} 17:16, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Are you sure he can even spell "constitution?" SkepticalRaptor (talk) 18:34, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Please, no political jeering on the talk page. Keep the mockery to yourself. ₛₒₘₑBₒdyₐₙyBₒdy₀₅ (talk) 23:36, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Please be real. EEng 23:54, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Unlabeled comment

Hey everyone, we need to change Biden to president instead of president elect.Joethechickenguy (talk) 17:09, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

2600:387:A:9A2:0:0:0:50 (talk) 21:59, 20 January 2021 (UTC) We should add a more recent portrait of him.

Oldest president

Shouldn't we also mention in the lead that he's the oldest person to become president ever? It seems notable and was mentioned for Trump's article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pyroshark1 (talk • contribs) 17:15, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Here’s how I read the discussion up to now:

• Supports including "oldest president" in the lead: User:Pyroshark1, User:Mr Ernie, User:Mottezen, User:Eccekevin, User:HAL333, User:Felix558, User:GoodDay, User:Sir Joseph, User:ValarianB
• Opposes: User:EEng, User:ProcrastinatingReader, User:Levivich

(Felix558 (talk) 19:56, 22 January 2021 (UTC))

Discussed above. Not in the lead. EEng 17:19, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

In the Trump article lead (which is already a very crowded lead) we read "He became the oldest first-term U.S. president." This information should also be included in Biden's article lead. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:25, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

We've been over this a zillion times. What other articles have is irrelevant. EEng 23:45, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

I think it's definitely noteworthy enough to be in the lead. Incredibly, he became the oldest-ever president on the day of his inauguration. This is an amazing historic fact. Mottezen (talk) 22:19, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Why is it amazing? Someone has to be oldest. Probably Lincoln was tallest. Why isn't that in his lead? EEng 23:45, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Lincoln is irrelevant to this discussion, unless you have RS that says he was a lot older than we thought. Mr Ernie (talk) 22:04, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

I also agree it should be mentioned, especially because it is mentioned by many sources. At this point, there are at least 7 users in favor (User:Felix558, User talk:Pyroshark1, Mr Ernie, Mottezen, User:Dosafrog, User:The Four Deuces, and myself and probably more in the past) while you alone seem to be trying to stop this inclusion. Has there been a proper voting procedure that agreed on the consensus to keep it out? Also, it does not seem trivial. At 78, he is the oldest person to be a sitting, being older than Reagan (who left office at 77 and was the previous oldest president). And you seem to make fun and trivialize the opinions of other editors with your 'tallest' comments. Please build a consensus before removing it. Eccekevin (talk) 05:22, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Actually, consensus will be needed before adding it, and consensus is based on arguments, not repeating a preference over and over as if it's self-obvious. Plenty of sources mention all kinds of things about Biden, and those things do belong somewhere. But why in the lead? I'm perfectly serious about height as an analogy. You take it as self-evident that being the oldest is of capital importance. Why is it? People are living longer, and staying vigorous longer. Big deal.

I'll draw a contrast. Being the youngest president, or one of the youngest presidents, probably is of real significance, because it says something about the person's drive or ambition or natural talent or something. Being the oldest just means they didn't die and avoided becoming demented (or hid it, I guess). EEng 11:36, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

This is not about dementia, if that is a comment about conspiracy theories about Biden having dementia. This is simply about a noteworthy fact that most national and international media have highlighted and that many users (at this point around 10) believe should be in the lede. The distinction between youngest and oldest while it could be valid, is so far your opinion and not backed by sources or guidelines.Eccekevin (talk) 01:34, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

I would be fine with mentioning this in the lede. ~ HAL333 05:46, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, and seem many users are too. Being the only second Catholic president in history (in a nation where Catholicism is the largest denomination) also seems worthy of mention, also given the number of sources that mention it. Given the really close tied Biden ahs with Delaware, and given Delaware has never had a president, also that seems to be worthy of mention. Since his presidency has just started and there's not much else to include in the lede yet for it, these milestones seem appropriate to be left there until there's a consensus to replace them with other stuff about his presidency.Eccekevin (talk) 06:58, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

This article isn't about Biden's presidency, but rather about Biden. There's plenty to say about him, and the lead is stuffed to the breaking point with it already; no need for padding. And most presidents, unless they're from Massachusetts, Virginia, New York, or Ohio, are from states that never previously produced a president. He's also the first president born in Scranton. So what? It's worth noting, but not in the lead.

The article on William Harrison actually used to say -- AND I AM NOT MAKING THIS UP -- that Harrison holds the record for having the largest number of grandchildren (25) when he took office -- not just his article, but the lead. I'm not kidding. The lead [5]. It's easy to come up with miscellany you can stuff in. What's hard is asking: which facts are truly worth the reader's time and attention in (I will repeat for the umpteenth time) the lead. EEng 11:36, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

The fact that he is the oldest president in U.S. history is important, and I think this fact should remain in the lead. I also think that user User:EEng showed very strange behavior regarding this - he used strong words like "idiocy" to describe good-faith edits by others, he acts like he is "above" other users and that his opinion is most important here. Felix558 (talk) 09:27, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

You keep saying being oldest is leadworthy but never say why. Here, let's end the lead this way: First president from The Silent Generation.[432] First president to assume the office over the age 75 (Biden was 78 when inaugurated).[433] First president whose home state is Delaware.[434] First president to bring Champ and Major a rescue dog to the White House.[435][436] First president to have been a Senator for over 12 years, he was a senator for 36 years (1973–2009).[437] First president to be a Presidential Medal of Freedom recipient prior to taking office.[438] First president to have a woman, an African-American, an Asian-American, a Historically Black College or University (HBCU) graduate, and member of a Black sorority serve as vice president (Kamala Harris).[439][440] First president to appoint an openly gay person to serve in a cabinet position (Pete Buttigieg). First president to appoint an openly transgender federal official to be confirmed by the Senate (Rachel Levine).[441] First president to have the National Security Council include an official dedicated to climate change (John Kerry).[442] First president to appoint a woman to be Director of National Intelligence (Avril Haines).[443] First president to have the National Youth Poet Laureate read a poem at his inauguration (Amanda Gorman).[444] Believe it or not, we had someone who kept sticking the Medal of Freedom thing in over and over -- and I mean sticking it into the lead. Why not copy-paste the whole article into the lead? Then we won't have to exercise any judgment at all about what to include there. EEng 11:36, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Most of these are a sign of the current times. Example: its hard to compare Biden's appointment of Buttigieg with presidential appointments when homosexuality was illegal. However, age is directly comparable, and Biden's numbers are off the charts. At no point in his presidency will there have been a president that held office at his age. In 240 years. It's just amazing. Mottezen (talk) 18:30, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

As already noted, Biden's age is just as much a sign of the current times: people are living longer, and staying vigorous longer. It's hard to compare Biden's age to the ages of presidents when Americans typically lived half as long as they do now. EEng 20:00, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

I'll grant you it is also a sign of the current times, but that doesn't make it as uninteresting as you think. Check the List of presidents of the United States by age. Along with late 20th century presidents, founding fathers make up some of the longest-living presidents, at a time when elites had a longer life expectancy than average and were more likely to be president. This changed after people from lower classes became more common in elected office. Additionally, you will find that four of the ten oldest presidents were elected in the mid-1800s, in the three decades before the civil war. Isn't that interesting? Mottezen (talk) 21:10, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

The lead of Trump is no standard for what should or shouldn't be included here. That lead is a total dump. Ideally this article doesn't turn into Donald Trump. On the substantive matter, I don't personally think being the oldest president is lead-worthy at all. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:48, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Stop removing this until a consensun against has been reached. Age is clearly impirtant, and the number of sources that discuss shows it. These are just a the a few, there's plenty more. Obliviously, as it was noteworthy that JFK was the youngest, it is noteworthy that Biden is the oldest. There is a whole page dedicated to it List of presidents of the United States by age. Stop edit-warring and build a consensus against it. As shown above, plenty users agree and you are in the minority for now. If you keep removing this out of your own initiative in disregard for the rules of proper discussion and the Wikipedia guidelines, I will . Also, stop trivializing user's points of view and their good faith edits. You are not acting properly. Eccekevin (talk) 19:54, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Eccekevin, it's you who's edit-warring it in. Consensus isn't a majority vote, and there just as many sources on the rescue dogs. [6] EEng 20:04, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Please don' play dumb. You are diminishing and trivializing our points of view, in a manner not conducive to a real discussion. Obliviously, his age is something or particular note. It has garnered a lot of media discussion and it is quite a primate: the oldest ever president, older at inauguration that the previous oldest was at the end of his term. Given the amount of sources and discussion about this, it is natural that me and the other 7 users want to include, especially cause it is the only thing of note so far of his brief Presidency (yet) Calling us idiots and making fun of our arguments with "dogs" and stuff is not in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines of behavior. Please stop making unilateral decisions and start discussing seriously.Eccekevin (talk) 20:33, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

I assure you I'm not playing dumb, and I didn't call anyone an idiot. My points are absolutely serious. You're using a count of sources as an argument, and I've shown that any number of things which obviously shouldn't be in the lead also have plenty of sources; therefore, a count of sources can't be the criterion. And see below. EEng 20:45, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

You did call us idiots, please refrain from that in the future. And no, I'm not simply counting sources. The weight of those sources matter. His age was the subject of articles and full page headlines in the New York Times, Washington Post, Bloomberg, Guardian, AP News, USA Today and many others. This is not trivia or compared to your Dogs google link. SHow me all the major outlets dedicated full page articles on his lvoe for dogs before you say these are the same. Eccekevin (talk) 21:09, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

You did call us idiots – No I did not. Either supply a diff, or apologize, or I'll be opening an ANI thread on this. I am not joking. You're new here, and have a lot to learn about how things work. Have a care. EEng 00:25, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Multiple time you have called our good-faith edits 'idiocy' (here, here and here), and you have trivialized our contributions not only by calling them idiocy, reverting them unilaterally, and being dismissive in your tone, but also with you less than serious comments about Biden and dogs or Lincoln being the tallest.Eccekevin (talk) 01:22, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Everyone does idiotic things sometimes, and that doesn't mean you're an idiot. (However, it doesn't rule it either, since you press the point.) You really have a talent for getting things backwards: YOU have been adding this material unilaterally and without consensus. It wasn't there before and YOU keep adding it. It's on YOU to get consensus, which isn't a headcount (not to mention that you seem to be counting heads not participating here). EEng 01:49, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

I know enough about how things work here, to recognize behaviour which is not in line with Wikipedia values and policies. Calling good-faith edits of other editors "idiocy" (like User:EEng did), and stubbornly removing content in spite of the fact that the discussion is ongoing about that content (while knowing he is are in a large minority) - such behaviour definitely is not something to look up to. Also, User:EEng directly disobeyed the BRD rule which is active here, by making the same revert more than once per day. Felix558 (talk) 14:35, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

I guess you think that by stubbornly repeating the opposite of reality, you make it true. The bold edit was the insertion, that insertion was reverted, and it's your repeated reinsertion that goes against BRD. Now we'll all watch while you once again going pretend the opposite. Go ahead, really. It's entertaining to watch. What I can't decide is whether this is a case of good-faith lack of WP:CIR, or just plain lying. EEng 14:57, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

I've no objections to mentioning the "oldest" bit. After all, he was older upon taking office, then Reagan was open leaving office. He's certainly the oldest-ever president in office. GoodDay (talk) 19:57, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

To User:EEng: today you deleted at least 2 times this from the article, in spite of our effort to reach consensus here. You are currently in large minority regarding this, so stop removing that sentence from the article. You can not win in this discussion by using force. Felix558 (talk) 20:23, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Your effort to reach consensus is, so far, just an effort. It's you who keep trying to force it into the article before such a consensus has been reached. EEng 01:49, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I deleted it, because "it's obvious" isn't an argument, and a headcount isn't consensus. The longstanding lead (at least back to late November [7]) does not include the age point, so it's up to you to show it belongs there, not to me to show it doesn't -- not to mention that the Delaware and Catholicism stuff keeps getting reinserted as well, which isn't even on the table in this discussion. And to be clear, no one's questioning that these points belong in the article -- the question is whether they go in the lead. EEng 20:45, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

What the lead was in November doesn't matter, he was not president yet. Yesterday he was inaugurated, and he became the oldest living president since 1776. The media thinks its highly relevant and important aspect of his presidency, so do all the other users on here that you keep shutting down because you personally think it should not be mentioned. You are outnumbered here, so at least have the decency to listen to your fellow editors, not insult them, and not take unilateral action.Eccekevin (talk) 21:18, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

The question was raised after the election about how to deal with the fact that he'd be the oldest president, and what was settled on is the way it's been treated for two months (or more): the article talks about it, the lead doesn't. The fact that he's now actually president doesn't change any of the considerations that went into that, nor make this some new and unexplored question. I'm listening to my fellow editors, but all I hear is that it's self-evidently important enough for the lead, a count of sources (by which criterion we'd have to put just about the whole article in the lead), and a count of !votes. EEng 00:21, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Don't we usually include record breaking stuff in the lead, in terms of age, length, religion, etc.? Check the lead on Teddy Roosevelt or Joe Lieberman for example. The lead is large, but not as large as many others and I think a one sentence mention is appropriate. --someone who didn't sign (User:Sir Joseph)

I explained above why there's a stronger case for youngest than for oldest. EEng 00:21, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

That is an opinion, not a guideline or a consensus. You are free to embrace it as an opinion and argue for it, not to enforce it against the majority of users.Eccekevin (talk) 01:25, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes it's an opinion, but it's an opinion backed by arguments. You really need to stop pretending you can lecture more experienced editors about how Wikipedia works, given that you still, at this late date, think consensus is a headcount. EEng 01:49, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Consensus in not a headcount. The headcount however shows that you are the only one arguing against the inclusion (maybe one of two, depending on User:ProcrastinatingReader), while the vast majority of other users who have contributed to this discussion see fit for the inclusion. So the onus is on you to create a consensus to remove it. I'm more than happy to go to a RfC if you so desire.Eccekevin (talk) 02:51, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

So if I'm following your correctly, consensus isn't a headcount, but it's a headcount. And you keep bouncing back between claiming you have consensus and asserting that you don't need consensus. For the last time: this insertion was made yesterday and it was reverted, so the burden's on you. Tell me directly: do you not see that? EEng 04:09, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Well, If I am honest, I do see a consensus. I see 10 users wanting to add the same things, and one user obstinately trying to fight it by calling it an 'idiocy'.Eccekevin (talk) 04:22, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

As pinged, I support removal to be clear. I think it's trivia. FWIW, the WP:ONUS is always on parties seeking inclusion. Suggest WP:DR up to an RfC. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:41, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

I think the ONUS on our part has been fulfilled due to the 1) vast numbers of high-grade sources and 2) vast support among users with the exceptions of you two. As stated before, happy to go to a RfC. Else, this just seems like WP:STONEWALLING. 21:07, 22 January 2021 (UTC)Eccekevin (talk)

I think you're vastly misusing the word "vast". I also support removal (from the lead) as trivia. Someone ping me when it's time to start edit warring. Levivich ^harass/_hound 23:52, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

The issue with sources and presidents is that you have RS reporting whenever the guy takes a dump. I use the example of Trump having 2 scoops of ice cream and the RS frenzy over it as a common example of the media fetish for reporting presidential trivia. It is pure editorial discretion on whether to include or not. There will be piles of sources for various things relating to Biden, not all of it could possibly be in the lead, nor should it be. So using RS as an argument for lead inclusion in a sitting president is mistaken reasoning imo. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:15, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

User:Sir Joseph made a very good point - we usually include record breaking stuff in the lead. Biden is the oldest president in U.S. history, so I think the sentence about such sort of record breaking should stay in the lead. Felix558 (talk) 14:16, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

He's also the first Joe to be president. Levivich ^harass/_hound 23:56, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

I would also support inclusion, age at inauguration has ben a notable aspect of a president. Reagan's age of 69 was noted for decades until Trump broke it. ValarianB (talk) 14:45, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

None of the trivia bits are worthwhile in the lead. Echoing other editors that the WP:ONUS is on those favoring the addition of new information into the lead. Start a RfC if you feel strongly, but there is currently no consensus for inclusion in the lead, and the repeated addition without consensus is unhelpful. RedHotPear (talk) 03:30, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Sources

"One horse pony" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect One horse pony. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 20#One horse pony until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Seagull123 Φ 17:45, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

John McCain

Please, someone change "John McCain, a U.S. senator from Arizona" into something more appropriate! Hubble314 (talk) 18:10, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

What's the issue with the current wording? — Czello 18:14, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

John McCain was not just "a U.S. senator from Arizona", at least he was Presidential candidate in 2008. I suggest to delete "a U.S. senator from Arizona". John McCain is already mentioned in this article, so he doesn't need to be introduced.

Hubble314 (talk) 18:34, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

So what is he was a candidate, what he is is "a U.S. senator from Arizona". Also John McCain (disambiguation), and for all we know there may yet be other notable John McCain's, this just means we can leave it forever and a day.18:49, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

MOS:CURRENTLY

The phrase serving as the 46th and current president is two words longer and imparts no additional information than serving as the 46th president. The present tense is all we need. It's going to be present tense for the next four years minus an hour, barring a shocking turn, and the article will be updated when he leaves office. Let's leave "and currently" out of this page. Please? – Muboshgu (talk) 18:18, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

And while we're at it, we can do without saying he is "serving" as president. He's not just serving as president, he is the president. EEng 18:28, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Good point, even more concise. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:31, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Why would you make it more confusing? I would endorse taking out the 46th bit, but not "current". That terminology is used on every page of anyone in an official current role. Same with the term "serving". Prinsgezinde (talk) 18:44, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Prinsgezinde, more words make for more clutter. And I doubt that the terminology is used on more than a handful of congressional biographies. Saying he is the president is sufficient. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:35, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Congressional? This is about a country's leader. That's the only reason "46th" is even there. I personally don't see why that bit is necessary. Saying "current President" is much more informative and to the point. I'm certainly fine with "currently serving as the 46th", as long as "currently" or "current" is in there. Prinsgezinde (talk) 02:30, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Would appreciate if you would stop pushing your version on the lead. There's no consensus for your proposal. GoodDay (talk) 02:40, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

GoodDay I appreciate that you went back on earlier stronger statements you wanted to make so I'll do the same. All I'll say is that what I reverted you to was specifically not my version. My version would have been the original "serving as the 46th and current president", or alternatively "serving as the current president". I also notice people who see this as QAnon or conspiracy theorist wording, which really surprises me. It was actually my belief that not including "current" implied detachment from the fact that he is the President right now, and that some of the editors pushing this word out the lead were denying his position. But this discussion has been pushed up so the first sentence might have to become the subject of an RfC. Prinsgezinde (talk) 11:37, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Please folks leave it as it was "...is the 46th and current president of the United States". Not that useless currently serving mess. GoodDay (talk) 02:39, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree 100% with GoodDay. Let's make it as simple as possible. ~ HAL333 03:02, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. Thanoscar21^talk_{contributions} 13:10, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

"Simple" is to not use extra words, like "current", at all. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:36, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

What's with this BS 'currently serving'? Is this some QANON sh**? Is this sh** isn't modified to read legibly as 'is the 46th president', I'm gonna make the edit. I'm simply being polite and chose to see what the 'discussion' was about. Just visited Boris Johnson and Trudeau's page and I don't see this weird QANON type language Kunkuru (talk) 02:59, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

What on Earth are you talking about? What makes you think this benign word choice debate has anything to do with Qanon? ― Tartan357 ^Talk 06:30, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

What does QAnon even have to do with this discussion? Thanoscar21^talk_{contributions} 13:10, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Everyone knows that after Biden is sent to Guantanamo along with the other lizard people, Josh Hawley will take over as 46th president. EEng 16:44, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

What the 'bleep' is a Qanon, anyway? Is it a related species to canines? GoodDay (talk) 16:50, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Over at Wikidata everything starts with Q [8] so I think that's related somehow. EEng 16:53, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

I totally agree with the op. It should be short and concise. How about Joseph Robinette Biden Jr. is an American politician serving as the 46th president of the United States. cookie monster (2020) 755 18:19, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

You see, I'm partial to the "and current" language becasue it imparts a certain degree of formality (IMO) and impresses upon the reader that he's the president of the United States. Thanoscar21^talk_{contributions} 20:25, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

But so does saying "Biden is the president", and with fewer words. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:43, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Inaugural crowd size

I heard his inaugural crowd was the largest ever. EEng 18:30, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Largest ever in the universe. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 18:32, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

It's still haunting him. Thanoscar21^talk_{contributions} 18:32, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

RS?Slatersteven (talk) 18:34, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Current Occupations

Currently states politician only. Isn't Biden also an Attorney? Advocating for change of "...Biden Jr. is an American politician who is the..." to "...Biden Jr. is an American politician and attorney who is the..." to better reflect his background and occupation.50.75.4.146 (talk) 19:09, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Is he currently serving as an attorney in any capacity? --OuroborosCobra (talk) 19:55, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Pointless sentence in the lead

becoming the first person to have served as vice president to ascend to the presidency since George H. W. Bush in 1989 seems to be a serious stretch in importance to be included in the lead. I suggest we remove it. From a quick count Biden is the 14th15th (thanks for the correction... I guess) VP to ascend to President so I really don't see how it's relevant in the lead here. Especially because we're gonna need all the room we can get for the inevitably longer lead. Aza24 (talk) 19:54, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Biden is the 15th. GoodDay (talk) 19:58, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

So it's even less relevant or significant than Aza24 thought. I agree that this is insignificant trivia at this point. While not the rule per se, it is hardly unusual or out of the ordinary for former VPs to ascend to office as president. Roughly 1/3rd of our presidents were formerly vice presidents. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 20:01, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't object to its removal. Thirteen veeps went directing into the presidency, while only two indirectly. GoodDay (talk) 20:10, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Well that's not really made clear in that sentence's current form, and anyways, I would think as the second to do so it's still not notable (though I recognize you're not objecting here). Aza24 (talk) 20:33, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree - not needed. ~ HAL333 05:45, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Syracuse University College of Law§

Biden graduated from Syracuse University College of Law. Is it possible to change "Syracuse University" to "Syracuse University College of Law"?§Bppab (talk) 20:19, 20 January 2021 (UTC)http://law.syr.edu/news_events/news/joseph-r.-biden-jr.-l68-becomes-first-syracuse-university-alumnus-elected

Clarence Thomas hearings paragraph - suggested edit

In the paragraph re: Clarence Thomas Hearings, the following sentence appears: "After the committee hearing closed, the public learned that Anita Hill, a University of Oklahoma law school professor, had accused Thomas of making unwelcome sexual comments when they had worked together." This description could be interpreted that Anita Hill came forward of her own volition to make an accusation, when it was an allegation, in fact. The issue came up when Anita Hill responded to a question from the FBI, during routine vetting of Supreme Court nominees, with the information that was has been labeled an "accusation" in this Wikipedia article. She had not come forward on her own, and articles about this incident indicated she likely wouldn't have volunteered anything, except for the FBI question, which must be answered truthfully under the law. Might I suggest a revision to the sentence as follows, to make it clear that she did not make an accusation or allegation without prompting: "After the committee hearing closed, the public learned that Anita Hill, a University of Oklahoma law school professor, had, in response to a question during an FBI interview, alleged that Thomas made sexual comments when they had worked together." At a minimum, changing the verb phrase "had accused" to "had alleged" would be more accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.58.140.175 (talk) 21:09, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

• Strong reliable sources verifying your assertions would go a long way toward gaining consensus on that point. 174.212.222.109 (talk) 21:16, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

If you have an edit you would like to be made, please cite reliable sources, and submit an edit request on this talkpage. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 21:48, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

If you would still like to request the edit User:172.58.140.175, here are some sources for the point you make, to start off: ;

"Days earlier," [prior to Hill's testimony] "another powerful image had imprinted itself on the public’s mind: A group of women House members had charged up the Senate steps to demand that Hill’s claims against Thomas be aired."

I would do it myself, but my prior experiences of the process proved just too tiring for me. I think your change is very worthwhile - best of luck with it. 180.216.180.68 (talk) 10:22, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

References

American politician

Should we at least include the information that he's an american politician? Would this lead work? : Joseph Robinette Biden Jr. (/ˈbaɪdən/ BY-dən; born November 20, 1942) is an American politician who is the 46th and current president of the United States. A member of the Democratic Party, Biden previously served as the 47th vice president from 2009 to 2017. He represented Delaware in the United States Senate from 1973 to 2009. Almost every other political article of a person in a current political position state the nationality of the subject before their occupation. ₛₒₘₑBₒdyₐₙyBₒdy₀₅ (talk) 22:20, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Indeed. Reverted back to inclusion of "American politician". There was consensus for this above, and all other U.S. presidents' pages include this language. The only one whose page didn't include "American politician" while they were in office was Trump, who was the sole exception to this standard as he wasn't a politician before becoming president. Paintspot Infez (talk) 22:43, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Unless I'm misunderstanding something, right now the first sentence already says he's an American politician...?

However, I think we should remove this. I discussed this already above but since we have a section for it now I'll just restate it:

"American politician" should be removed as redundant - being president of the USA makes you an American politician by definition. Articles about other presidents introduce them as "American politicians" (or lawyers, or whatever) because they are ex-presidents. Anyone who is currently American president is by definition also an American politician so this is unnecessary. Popcornfud (talk) 22:46, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Then why does almost every other major politician currently in a political office have their nationality first? like Angela merkel, Justin Trudeau, Boris Johnson and Emmanuel Macron just to name a few. The reason why trump didn't have "american politician" in his lead is because he wasn't actually in federal politics before becoming president compared to Biden. ₛₒₘₑBₒdyₐₙyBₒdy₀₅ (talk) 22:54, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

There are lots of situations where it would be useful to indicate that sort of information in the lead sentence. For example, to take the Boris Johnson lead: British politician, author, and former journalist who has been Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and Leader of the Conservative Party since 2019.

I take issue with saying Johnson a "politician" there for exactly the same reasons I do here (the British PM is a politician? No shit, Sherlock!). But the other descriptors might have merit - he's an author, sure; and maybe it's important for the lead to say he's also a former journalist. There are debates that could be had about the value of including both of those in the first sentence, but neither of them are completely redundant.

But... the American president is an American politician? No shit, Sherlock! Popcornfud (talk) 23:07, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

As for the issue of indicating his nationality - I think that is implied too, at least in the case of the American presidency. I doubt any readers are going to read any article about the president of the USA and wonder "but what is their nationality?". Keeping up this tradition merely because other articles about other countries' leaders do it doesn't seem convincing to me. Popcornfud (talk) 23:09, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

If the reader had some understanding of how presidential eligibility works in the U.S. Constitution, then sure, it would be easy for that person to read "Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr. is the 46th President of the United States" and know, by inference, that Biden is an American politician. But adding in "is an American politician" accommodates readers who may be unfamiliar with the Constitution's eligibility requirements for the presidency, such as non-American readers on Wikipedia. TehPlaneFreak! talk 17:40, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

I think this is optimising the lead sentence for the wrong thing. Readers will assume the president of the USA is American unless told otherwise, regardless of their knowledge of US presidential eligibility.

Additionally, if the goal here is to actually to specify his nationality in the first sentence, the current solution is suboptimal, since it also necessitates saying that he is a politician, a clear redundancy. Popcornfud (talk) 17:58, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Go higher up on the talkpage. We're already discussing the lead, which included American politician. GoodDay (talk) 23:10, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

The whole "American politician" thing seems really redundant imo. ~ HAL333 02:58, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

We gotta combine these 'lead' discussions. At the moment there's concurrently 3 or 4 of them occurring. GoodDay (talk) 03:09, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

I think the "American politician" part is redundant. We know by the "president of the United States" part that he's an American politician. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:35, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

It could be Joseph Robinette Biden Jr. is the 46th president of the United States. Kind of like Trump's article during his term as POTUS. cookie monster (2020) 755 18:20, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

That makes way too much sense. There's no way the community will go for it. :-P Levivich ^harass/_hound 05:44, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

We almost always list someone with "X is a [nationality] [general occupation]" for a first sentence in a bio. Why should we make an exception here? Also of note; yes, holding public office often makes you a politician (one who plays politics), but not always. See Robert K. A. Gardiner, Michel Kafando, and Forrest H. Shuford, who are much better characterized as civil servants. Thus, assuming one is a politician because they hold public office is not a watertight deduction. -Indy beetle (talk) 07:30, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Deleted Images

The most recent edit to date names has had the effect of deleting two images from this article from sections 5 and 6, and I do not have the privileges to restore them. Omnibus (talk) 23:58, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Someone applied a mindless script. Reverted. EEng 01:22, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Reference 142

Reference 142, which is used to support a sentence about how Biden served as junior senator to Roth, doesn't even mention Roth. I tried to find a replacement but failed. ~ HAL333 00:10, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Well, William Roth has this, but WP:WINRS. Thanoscar21^talk_{contributions} 23:12, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Add stock market had tis highest inauguration day rise in 36 years.

According to marketwatch the stock market had its highest inauguration day rise in 36 years today. https://www.marketwatch.com/story/stock-market-logs-best-inauguration-day-rise-in-36-years-as-biden-takes-office-11611177633?mod=home-page --All the usernames I wanted (talk) 00:18, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

It's trivial. Maybe this could go in his presidency page, but this is an article about him, not the stock market. Thanoscar21^talk_{contributions} 00:46, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

This has a place, but on one of his subarticles. ~ HAL333 02:56, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, subarticles.Eccekevin (talk) 06:00, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 January 2021

Restore the unexplained removal of this information, which was well-cited: He had a C average and ranked 506th in his class of 688. Shrugcover (talk) 04:31, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

We already have his graduating class rank from law school. We don't need to provide much more detail: his unweighted gpa every second Tuesday wouldn't be of much help either. ~ HAL333 05:44, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Agreed with HAL, unnecessary. Eccekevin (talk) 06:01, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

References

Spelling/Grammar Errors

The part where it says "president of the United States", the 'president' should be capitalised.

• This is incorrect, please refer to president of the United States. 777burger ^{talk contribs} 17:04, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Iraq war resolution

Why is there no mention of Biden's role in the Iraq war resolution in this article? --Nbauman (talk) 17:59, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

there is, under the section "Senate Foreign Relations Committee". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.53.232.146 (talk) 22:31, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Change to lede per WP:PRECISELANG

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Already discussed at #Lede. cookie monster (2020) 755 18:16, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

---

I propose that the lede be changed to the following:

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

No need for the word "currently" per WP:PRECISELANG. cookie monster (2020) 755 18:06, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Or maybe serving instead of serves? cookie monster (2020) 755 18:07, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

CookieMonster755, 10000%. I have said so in #Lede and #MOS:CURRENTLY. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:09, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Oops, didn't see the current discussion at #Lede. I will comment there Muboshgu cookie monster (2020) 755 18:11, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

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

New official portrait

Has an official photo been released of President Biden yet? And if so, will it be included here when it has been released? Spark (talk) --Spark1498 (talk) 19:59, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Not yet, he just became president. But yes, it will be included when it's released. Thanoscar21^talk_{contributions} 20:14, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

We'll recognise it, as he'll have the US presidential flag behind him. GoodDay (talk) 15:23, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 January 2021 (2)

It seems the tone of this page is very negative. Starting with his schoolwork as a child to his "foot in mouth" comment in the senate. Almost every paragraph has some disparaging comment or tone. 98.232.60.179 (talk) 20:09, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

N Not done — changes must be requested in a "change X to Y" format, not "change X". Thanoscar21^talk_{contributions} 20:12, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Pronunciation of middle name

I believe it is appropriate to include the pronunciation of Biden's middle name (Robinette). He pronounces it "ROB-ih-NET" (with a short O), but someone not familiar with this name might think it should be pronounced "ROH-bih-NET" (with a long O). I added the pronunciation just now ([9]), but my change was reverted with the claim (which I dispute) that the "pronunciation is apparent from the spelling". Comments? — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 22:05, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Richwales, I've never heard of someone pronouncing the name "Robin" as "ROH-bin". "-ette" is a common feminine suffix. If others believe that the pronunciation of "Robin" is actually ambiguous, then I don't have any problem with the edit being restored. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 22:24, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Richwales, I had assumed that you were simply unfamiliar with the guideline, not that you thought the pronunciation was actually unclear. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 22:36, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Senate Time Served

Recently, Biden dropped from being the 18th to the 19th longest serving senator in U.S. History, as Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell passed him to take the 18th spot. Negrong502 (talk) 23:04, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Impeachment

Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene has just filed articles for President Biden's first impeachment.[10] A few tech outlets have remarked on this. I don't know if there is conventional secondary coverage at the moment. 2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:313A (talk) 03:43, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

It's political theater and has no real chance of being anything, and indeed has received no significant coverage. Definitely does not belong on this page, but it might belong on Marjorie Taylor Greene's page.Eccekevin (talk) 03:46, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

It looks like there is already an article, Impeachment inquiry against Joe Biden, though it might get deleted. Yeah if I thought it was likely to be successful, I wouldn't have referred to it as Biden's "first" impeachment, since a successful first one means no second one. Thanks. 2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:313A (talk) 03:49, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Point of fact, the first impeachment of Donald Trump was "successful", but he was not removed from office, and now he faces a second impeachment. Impeachment is akin to indictment, not conviction. -Indy beetle (talk) 07:24, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Succession boxes that need deletion

On this bio & other US president & vice president bios, we've got succession boxes like Longest lived president, Oldest serving president & Oldest living president. Honestly, that's too much, folks. GoodDay (talk) 05:54, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

At least someone around here's sane. EEng 06:24, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

It took a little while, but I have removed all those nonsense titled boxes from all the US president & vice president bios. GoodDay (talk) 17:04, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support removal Pointless. ~ HAL333 21:54, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
• I have been removing such nonsense for some time but it always creeps back in. Surtsicna (talk) 13:18, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

No worries, as I've deleted them. Would you believe, there used to be succession boxes called US presidential nominee's spouses & US vice presidential nominee's spouses? which I also deleted out, weeks ago? GoodDay (talk) 15:13, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Joe Biden at Age 10.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:23, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Infobox too long

The infobox is way too long in length imo. It's a massive scroll. Too many positions and timeframes, imo. Doesn't help that {{Infobox officeholder}} has awful presentation for these roles, too lengthy. Can we slim it down, remove some roles, make it more of a summary?

Collapsing will help on desktop, but not on mobile where the device automatically extends the collapse. In fact, I think the reading experience of this article on mobiles is very suboptimal due to infobox length (visit Joe Biden on your phone and you'll see why). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:23, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

I've attempted some trimming in Special:Diff/1002128834. Let's see if it sticks. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:28, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

But isn't it SOP to include predecessors & successors when listing positions? GoodDay (talk) 00:47, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

I think we need to do something about the length. Most infoboxes on good (not capitalised) articles aren’t this long. Tbh though, I see the Infobox as a summary, and due to the poor construction of this Infobox template (in not having a more compact way to list lesser positions) I think the extraneous roles (chair, council position, etc) should go, leaving just the senate position, VP and presidency. The committee positions are in the lead anyways. It increases the infobox’s usefulness by cutting bloat, imo. Thoughts? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:55, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

What should ideally be possible is some kind of “Committees” sublabel under the Senate position. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:00, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

• Yes, ProcrastinatingReader, the infobox is atrocious. Not only does it name a dozen people who are not once mentioned in the text (thus contravening WP:INFOBOX and WP:LEAD) without providing any inline sources for them (thus contravening WP:V policy), it also colludes with the sidebar to bump the image of a 10-year-old Biden into the section discussing his marriage. And that is bizarre and unhelpful. Surtsicna (talk) 09:46, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

  As mentioned elsewhere on this page, your continued insistence that everything in an infobox needs to also be in the article is bringing you into WP:CIR territory. The pertinent guideline (WP:INFOBOXREF) is clear:

  References are acceptable in some cases, but generally not needed in infoboxes if the content is repeated (and cited) elsewhere or if the information is obvious. If the material requires a reference ... and the information does not also appear in the body of the article, the reference should be included in the infobox.

  I'm considering pinning a little box to the top of this page: "It has been X hours since Surtsicna falsely claimed that everything in an infobox needs to be in the article as well." EEng 15:15, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

  I don't think WP:V is the big issue here, as I'm sure these facts are all verifiable, but it does contravene MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE I think. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:00, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

  Interestingly my change was reverted for "WP:NOTPAPER", Special:Diff/1002149416, which is an amusing rationale to use. I had never thought WP:NOTPAPER meant WP:BLOATEVERYTHING. Oh well. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:02, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

  @ProcrastinatingReader Your concern prompted me to start an #RfC on the infobox length. Surtsicna (talk) 14:37, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

• Here is one way to trim down the committee chairs: Special:Permalink/1002249120. Thoughts? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:07, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

• It looks good and it is an obvious solution. Surtsicna (talk) 15:40, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Can I edit the lead section of this page to make it look like this?

Joseph Robinette Biden Jr. (/ˈbaɪdən/ BY-dən; born November 20, 1942) is the 46th and current president of the United States. A member of the Democratic Party, he served as the 47th vice president from 2009 to 2017 and represented Delaware in the United States Senate from 1973 to 2009.

Donald Trump's page during his term as President of the United States left out "an American politician serving as". AKK-700 (talk) 13:32, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Donald Trump (however) had never been a politician before being president, its was not a job he had done.Slatersteven (talk) 13:34, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

RfC on the infobox length

Should the infobox be shortened? Previously discussed at #Infobox and #Infobox too long. 13:50, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

• Yes, because the purpose of an infobox is "allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance". Jesse Helms, Chuck Grassley, Dianne Feinstein, Strom Thurmond, Orrin Hatch, Henry R. Folsom and Francis R. Swift are never mentioned in the text and can by no stretch of imagination be described as "key facts" regarding Joe Biden. The present length of the infobox is also affecting the layout of the article, with images appearing in wrong sections. Senate chairmanships and county council role do not need to be in the infobox at all, in my opinion, but removing at least predecessor and successor names of these numerous fields will alleviate some of the layout issues. Surtsicna (talk) 13:50, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
• Collapse where required within the infobox. That way you shorten the infobox, without losing any of its content. GoodDay (talk) 15:17, 23 January 2021 (UTC)