Talk:Joe Biden/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Vague "struck down" reference

The article reads: He also authored the landmark Violence Against Women Act of 1994 (VAWA), which contains a broad array of measures to combat domestic violence and provides billions of dollars in federal funds to address gender-based crimes. Although part of this legislation later was struck down as unconstitutional, it was reauthorized in 2000 and 2005. Struck down by who? This sounds vague and awkward. --68.56.17.70 (talk) 21:15, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Amtrak, the Dover Air Force Base

When the article states "He is an advocate for Amtrak, the Dover Air Force Base" I'm assuming this means "He is an advocate for Amtrak, and the Dover Air Force Base." I made the change. If anybody knows if something else was intended, please correct it. --75.4.233.205 (talk) 00:37, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Personal Websites

I am frankly a bit surprised at the number of personal websites cited in this article. I believe our policy still is, that "experts" can only be cited via their website if they have been previously published in that field-of-expertise, by a third-party. Several of the websites cited here, are actually personal websites, no matter what they call themselves, and they are not by neutrally-acknowledged published experts. I'll wait for comments here, before I start trimming. Wjhonson (talk) 01:08, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Androstenedione is not a steriod

"steriods like androstenedione"? Technically, androstenedione is not a steriod. This should be corrected in all fairness. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.197.174.249 (talk) 03:20, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

That assertion is not supported by Wikipedia's own article on Androstenedione. The very first sentence there says: "Androstenedione (also known as 4-androstenedione) is a 19-carbon steroid hormone..." 64.209.16.204 (talk) 17:49, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Confirmed: VP

[1] rootology (T) 05:38, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Unlock the article and include mention of it. Doubtless WP:NOTABLE—Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

It's already mentioned, I just noticed after posting this. rootology (T) 06:08, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

• I've unprotected it. There'll doubtless be developments in the next day or two that will require updates. So long as the article doesn't get excess vandalism we should leave it unlocked. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Hold it.. In no way, shape, or form does the source provided confirm that the selection has been made. Yes, it is an "official" from the party making the statement, but until the Obama campaign releases an official statement to the effect, that's still an unconfirmed rumor. Is it probably true? Yes, but "probably" is not enough for it to be in the article, at this point. --Winger84 (talk) 06:25, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

For example... the announcement that the Obama campaign was offering text-message notification of the official selection to those who chose to sign up for it... I'm one of those people and I have yet to see that text from the campaign. Based on that, plus a lack of a confirming statement from Senator Obama or his campaign manager, we can not assume that the story coming out over the past couple hours is accurate. --Winger84 (talk) 06:31, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It's good enough for the AP, CNN, BBC, and Fox, but not for us? Seems easy enough to update if it turns out to be false, but in the meantime seems to be useful information. On the other hand, it's only a day, either way, no? – Luna Santin (talk) 06:32, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

In fairness, they're all trying to scoop each other on the story. We are trying to build an encyclopedia. Your point to the effect of "it's only a day" is accurate, since Senator Obama's official announcement is scheduled for later today in Springfield, Illinois, but I still strongly feel that we can not include the information without an official statement from the campaign. --Winger84 (talk) 06:36, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd just as soon include it, pending better information, since I imagine people may be incoming to check; however, I realize the impossibility of either of us convincing the other, so will accede the point, absent consensus to the contrary. :) – Luna Santin (talk) 06:42, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I will grant you that this may possibly be an IAR situation, but I think that may set a dangerous precedent. There's not any money on the line for the project or anything like that by being "first," so I'm really hoping that we hold true to established policies and wait for an authoritative source on this one. However, if we have more editors weigh in toward a consensus discussion and I'm outvoted (for lack of a better phrase at 2AM), then I will support whatever decision is made. --Winger84 (talk) 06:46, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I would just say that ABC,NBC,BBC etc were reporting that he has was asked to be Obama's running mate and that he accepted. Edkollin (talk) 06:47, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I can live with that and have noticed that another editor has inserted a line to that effect in the opening section. I caution against making any statement about "it has been confirmed" yet, because it has not been... although it will be, one way or another, within the next ten hours or so. --Winger84 (talk) 06:50, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

It's now up on Obama's presidential website, so it is pretty much official. 76.171.247.84 (talk) 06:55, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, now that's the source that I was looking for. Run with it, my friends! --Winger84 (talk) 06:56, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

What makes you think he will accept? He is Obama's strongest critics. --70.121.198.67 (talk) 06:57, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I hardly believe that it would be on the Senator's official website as it currently appears without an acceptance. Also, and I sadly have no way of proving this, but I've just spoken to someone that I know back home in the Springfield, Illinois area who confirmed to me that Mr. Biden is in town... why else would he be there, on the day of Senator Obama's scheduled announcement on the steps of the Old State Capitol? --Winger84 (talk) 07:00, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I hope you're not suggesting we take your friend's word for it after you refused CNN, NYT, ABC, NBC, ABC, Fox, etc.--chaser - t 07:03, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I most certainly am not saying that. Senator Obama's official website is the authoritative source on this matter, save for an actual verbal statement from Mr. Obama himself (which is expected to take place later today in Illinois). The individual that I spoke to is involved with law enforcement in the area and is in a position of knowledge on this particular subject. --Winger84 (talk) 07:09, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

That should be it. If not this will gown down in media infamy with 1948 and 2000. If true it might go down in campaign infamy with McGovern's 3AM acceptance speechEdkollin (talk) 07:07, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Who spilled the beans on this one? --70.121.198.67 (talk) 07:14, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry if I overstepped on this one, but I got the text message and I saw it on the website, so I updated the article to reflect that.minidoxigirli^-talk-_-contribs 11:36, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia expands its reach into the future

I am pretty sure reading this this morning, that the announcement has not happened yet. That you are sure it is going to happen, even if Obama himself told you it was going to happen, is not the same thing as it having happened. Things predicted for the future should not be down here in the PAST TENSE FOR CHRIST'S SAKES. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.15.65.12 (talk) 08:23, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe he has a special time machine. But yeah, seriously. -76.172.41.63 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 08:48, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it's just grammatical confusion in these tense issues, but an overenthusiastic edit says "if elected" he "will" be... I would prefer "would," even if the ticket's destiny seems certain.

Fixed. Wasted Time R (talk) 17:12, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

VP Announcement

I think it should be stated that Obama first announced Biden as his VP running mate over text messaging.

Be bold! --Soetermans | is listening | what he'd do now? 11:32, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

RE: VP Announcement

I don't think we should state anything but the truth. That is what Wikipedia is all about. Having said that, clearly it was Barack's intention to break the news to his supporters first. One should not blame him for the press stalking Joe Biden at his home in the middle of the night like annoying paparazzi.

By the way I corrected the past tense reference to the Springfield, Illinois rally on August 23, 2008 which as of 2:45 AM PST has not yet occurred. When the announcement does happen, could someone please revert this appropriately back to past tense? Thanks!

-Falconwings1982 August 23, 2008 2:45 AM

Be bold! --Soetermans | is listening | what he'd do now? 11:32, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Grammar correction needed

Under the heading "Presidential campaigns," the following sentence needs to be emended:

"Biden has twice ran for the Democratic nomination for President, he first ran in 1988, and again in 2008."

This sentence should read this way: "Biden has twice RUN for the Democratic nomination for President; [added semicolon] he first ran in 1988, and again in 2008.

Be bold! --Soetermans | is listening | what he'd do now? 11:32, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Reworded and fixed. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:53, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

NPOV

There is not a single listed controversy or negative aspect about Joe Biden whatsoever in this article? The man has never once been involved in anything controversial in all his time in the Senate? In his prior life? No wonder Obama picked him. Or wait... maybe this article is a joke. I submit that if there is not one single controversy about Biden, as reflected by the fact that no part of his page discusses one, then that itself is noteworthy for one of the longest-server senators and it needs to be put in the article, and I will do just that, again.

What controversy would you suggest? If there is something controversial or interesting, let's put it in, if we can get it from factual sources. Otherwise stop yer complaining! -- Yekrats (talk) 11:46, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

No, I agree with you that Biden has never been involved in any controversy or scandal, especially nothing involving editing Wikipedia or plagiarism. THIS IS NOTABLE. This can be said of almost no one who has served several congressional terms, and it needs to be added to the article. Joe Biden has never been involved in any controversy. Ikilled007 (talk) 11:48, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Um, you're not making sense. We should write that he was NOT involved in any scandal? I don't think a person NOT doing something is notable. If we did that, Wikipedia would be full of things non-facts that people never did! -- Yekrats (talk) 12:15, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

It is notable that he has never been involved in any scandal or controversy because he is a career politician and such a claim is practically unheard of. In fact, the only other politician who appears to be this squeaky-clean is Obama (go figure), at least if you get your information from Wikipedia. Look, it's obvious that this article, like the Obama article are POV. Why even pretend? So just put on the page that Biden has never been involved in any scandal or controversy so people who are looking for information about the plagiarism issue or Biden's staff editing wikipedia scandal won't have to scour for information that's not there. They can simply go to the controversies section and see that they imagined it. Doesn't it get old being a partisan hack, Yekrats? Ikilled007 (talk) 12:50, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

First off, be civil. "Partisan hack?" You obviously haven't checked out my edits. I rarely edit political articles.

I guess if you find articles citing that Biden has never had a scandal, then go ahead and put it in. I don't have a problem with it as long as it is properly sourced. Likewise, the opposite; if he's been in something nefarious, let's put that in here too. (Frankly I don't know much amount the man.) Since you're the one who is actively lobbying to put in unsourced material, please tell me: who is the one being partisan, again? -- Yekrats (talk) 16:55, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

86.46.236.81 (talk) 21:04, 23 August 2008 (UTC) see this NYT article for scandal re MBNA, reckon that could be put into a controversies section ?

Wow, his son gets hired by MBNA. That never happens. I'm appalled. Sigh. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:14, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

If the “Senator from MBNA” question (certainly not scandal) is important enough, it would go into one of the senate sections of the article. No "Controversies" section shall exist! Wasted Time R (talk) 21:36, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Section re-edit

The "Controversies" section of this article is in dire need of an enema. 65.189.146.128 (talk) 11:50, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

some 'vandal left a 'funny' message there. I know nothing about Biden but know uninformative snark doesn't have a place here.Numskll (talk) 11:55, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I was IKILLED007 apparently has some private bee in his bonnet over Biden as evidenced by some of his discussions above. Numskll (talk) 11:55, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Am I the only one who thinks it's NOTABLE that one of the longest-serving Congressmen has never been touched by any controversy or scandal? Even Mother Teresa's page has controversy in it. But Joe Biden has never been involved -- nay, never even been accused of anything untoward. Unheard of in politics and definitely NOTABLE given his tenure. But we all know the truth: there is a plagiarism scandal and a wikipedia editing scandal by his staff, but pro-Biden editors refuse to let the sourced information appear in the article. Ok, but if you're going to be POV, then it is definitely NOTABLE that he is scandal/controversy free. And it needs to be put on the page. Ikilled007 (talk) 12:02, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

including a section that says "isn't it remarkable this section is empty" is ridiculous (and suggestive of hidden controversies) and you should know it. If there is something you want to include and can source it appropriately do so. If you want to say Biden is controversy free and have a source that makes such a generalization, do that. But please don't add any more of your pissy editorializing to the article. Thanks Numskll (talk) 13:07, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Editors keep adding the sourced controversy information and partisan hacks like yourself keep deleting it. Who do you think you're fooling? I've added the SOURCED material AGAIN. Let's see if you leave it up. If not, I will add the fact that Wikipedia acknowledges no controversies for this person again. You don't get to have it both ways. Either leave the controversies in or acknowledge that you are white-washing the article, just like the Obama one. Ikilled007 (talk) 13:09, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I've just done some Googling and some reading sbout Biden. The plagiarism issue is handled in the section of the article dealing with 1988 campaign. If you want to make changes to that do so. It seems to encapsulate the events as I understand them from by brief reading. In passing, I'd like to note that your caps lock seems to have an intermittent problem and, in addition that you should probably avoid calling other people names here. Thanks. Numskll (talk)

(od) We don't have separate "Controversies" sections in any of the 2008 presidential or vice presidential candidate articles. Doing so is considered a violation of WP:NPOV, WP:Content forking, and WP:Criticism. A special effort was undertaken to rid all 2008 presidential candidates' articles of such treatment — see here. So they don't exist for Obama, McCain, Hillary, Giuliani, Romney, or any of the others. In Biden's case, the plagiarism material is dealt with in the biographical context it occurred – his 1988 presidential campaign. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:24, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, your special effort missed Joe Lieberman: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Lieberman -- there is a section on controversies and criticisms, and he is a former candidate for VP and very possibly McCain's this year. I'm sure this is purely accidental though, and not bias on the part of editors. Ikilled007 (talk) 14:15, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the work was only done for all 16 or so 2008 presidential candidates (which Biden was at that point). Lieberman was not one of these, so he was missed, as was GWB, Bill Clinton, and no doubt a bunch of others. But the work done should clearly be extended to 2008 vice presidential candidates, including Lieberman if McCain picks him. Ideally it should be extended to everyone, but the 2008 campaign keeps us editors totally busy as it is. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:20, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Jehochman ^Talk 13:42, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

To say that there is no controversies surroudinging Biden is ignorant. War record, plagerism, comments on democrats, family junk, etc. Just read the talk on this page for some. He's a flawed human like the rest of us. But I agree that a "controversy" section is uncalled for in a wiki BLP. Notable information should be integrated where it should be integrated (ie family life section, early career, etc.) --98.243.129.181 (talk) 14:31, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Current Template

Could someone with the appropriate authority put back the "Current" template? I think 100+ edits in less than 12 hours qualifies as "may change rapidly"

Look at the McCain and Obama main articles – the current election tag is only on the campaign section, not the entire biographical article. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:51, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how Obama's method of announcing his Biden pick is that relevant

Especially to be in the intro to the article. This line, "Senator Obama announced Biden as his running mate via a text message and an email to supporters on August 23, 2008," could perhaps be somewhere else in the article? Though I'm not sure it's needed at all. --Just_Mikala (talk) 15:40, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Name another time that a VP candidate has been announced by text message and you might have a point. dposse (talk) 22:57, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

references clean up

Will someone who knows the markup for this stuff better fix the references section? Something's broken (it wasn't me, i swear!) and the second column of references are a mess. Thx 75.22.231.195 (talk) 17:29, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

The edit that did this (which layered on too much detail to the 1988 plagiarism episode in any case) has been backed out. Wasted Time R (talk) 17:36, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Brain aneurysm

Why is there currently no mention of Biden's 1988 aneurysm which is being covered widely in the media right now? Oren0 (talk) 17:27, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

It's in the "Early life and family" section, and has been for a long time. I'm not crazy about the non-chrono organization of the whole article, but the current chaotic period is not the time to try to address it ... Wasted Time R (talk) 17:33, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Error in Biden article

John Edwards, a democratic senator was John Kerry's running mate in 2004 (not John McCain as referenced in the article).

Here is the errant reference: Some thought Biden a possible running mate for presidential candidate John Kerry, but Biden urged Kerry to select Republican Senator John McCain instead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dtw1964 (talk • contribs) 17:50, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

The article is describing who Biden urged Kerry to pick, not who Kerry actually picked. Wasted Time R (talk) 17:59, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Obama Comment

Biden Said Obama Is Not Ready To Serve As President. ABC's George Stephanopoulos: "You were asked is he ready. You said 'I think he can be ready, but right now I don't believe he is. The presidency is not something that lends itself to on-the-job training.'" Sen. Biden: "I think that I stand by the statement." (ABC's, "This Week," 8/19/07) Fast4wrd Fast4wrd 18:48, August 23, 2008

Mistake in Presidential Elections section

Under the Presidential Elections heading, it states that Biden urged Kerry to choose John McCain, but that should be John Edwards.

Annasense (talk) 19:19, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Nope. Check the footnote. It actually said McCain. Jehochman ^Talk 19:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I've added a bit of Biden's quote, so that readers will stop thinking this is a mistake. Wasted Time R (talk) 19:25, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Jill Biden

His wife should have her own article as she's now a major national political figure in her own right and people will be interested in her. She's already been the subject of multiple articles and interviews in places like TIME magazine and NPR and probably more and will definitely be the subject of many more (anybody who ever has paid attention to a presidential election will know this). I tried to add some sources myself but don't really know how it works. I was very disappointed in Wikipedia to come here this morning and not be able to find a very good article!! This is official! Get on it Wikipedia!  :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.79.144.9 (talk) 19:27, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

The article was created earlier today, and I'm sure it will improve in a quick fashion. Wasted Time R (talk) 19:36, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Law School

The article refers to "Syracuse Law School" Not sure if that was what it was called when he attended, but the name today is "Syracuse University College of Law" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.124.17.95 (talk) 23:02, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Merge proposal

It seems the article on Electoral history of Joe Biden would fit nicely into a section within this article. Thoughts?Plhofmei (talk) 23:27, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

A lot of these have been created, with the intention that they live outside the main article (thus allowing them to go into more depth and length of results, third party also-rans, etc). Wasted Time R (talk) 23:31, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

It should stay split to avoid bloating the parent article. --Falcorian ^(talk) 21:34, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

nah, don't as he is now obama's running mate & this article will get bloated Mathmo ^Talk 07:23, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Rapid removal of unsourced statement – The Borgen Project

The statement "The Borgen Project has ranked Biden as one of the top five Senate leaders of all time" was added to the lead paragraph 12 hours ago by an anonymous editor. No other mention of this appears anywhere else in the article. I tagged it as unsourced an hour and a half ago. After searching extensively myself for a source, I decided to immediately remove the statement. This is very quick, of course, but I felt that given the extreme political significance of the article at this time, that stuff may be added to an article to manipulate public opinion, for or against a person, and had to be dealt with right away. I justify it with WP:IAR. If anyone readds it back, can you please source it? Comments? Diderot's dreams (talk) 14:43, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I can't find any cite for this anywhere either. The Borgen Project exists, but doesn't seem to be that well-known. Further, they are a very recent organization with a narrow focus (anti-poverty), so I don't think they have credibility towards deciding who the top five senators of the last 220 years are. The statement had already been moved out of the lead, but now I've removed it altogether. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:15, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Name pronounciation

I just read the news online, so I thought I'd check Biden out. Now this might sound stupid, but English is not my mother tongue. Is it Biden as in Buy-den or Biden as in Bee-den? --Soetermans | is listening | what he'd do now? 06:19, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

The former. —  X  S  G  06:29, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

It's Buy-Den. --70.121.198.67 (talk) 07:16, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Um... that's what XSG meant, I thought. ~user:orngjce223 how am I typing? 04:30, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Biden is the democrat's 08 VP candidate

{{editsemiprotected}} Please change this page to reflect that Biden is the democrat's VP candidate and Obama is the presidential candidate (remove words like presumptive). Source http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/08/23/biden.democrat.vp.candidate/index.html

"Presumptive" is the correct word to use until the convention, when Obama and Biden are officially selected by the delegate roll calls. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:50, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

(Request rejected.) Technically he isn't actually a nominee until the convention selects him. ~user:orngjce223 how am I typing? 04:33, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Edit request

{{editsemiprotected}}

Joe Biden is now Barack Obamas official running mate

Joklserf (talk) 16:30, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that is already in the article's lead section. Wasted Time R (talk) 16:36, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Being named as "one of the 5 best Senators in history" by an obscure project without national relevance or impact may perhaps be fit for the main body of the article, but listing it in the top summary gives it far, far more importance than warranted. I think it should be moved further down to a point more fitting to its signifigance. 71.191.242.23 (talk) 04:29, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I moved it down. Wasted Time R (talk) 05:18, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Daughter's Arrest in 2002

Can this now be included in Joe Biden's family section? http://articles.latimes.com/2002/aug/04/nation/na-briefs4.1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.228.32.22 (talk) 09:11, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

and here is how it is resolved - http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-1461420.html

I'm sorry, but I fail to see the relevance? The young lady was charged with a misdemeanor... and? I'm not trying to be disrespectful, but I just don't see where it's that relevant for her father's article? --Winger84 (talk) 05:03, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Extremely minor, she apologized and case dropped, doesn't belong in this article, not even close. Wasted Time R (talk) 05:16, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Misleading Quote

Starting here: This foreshadowed Biden's January 31 remark on fellow Democratic candidate and Senator Barack Obama, frequently transcribed as... This paragraph wrongly gives the impression that there are two different ways to interpret this sentence. There's already a reference [2] that contains the actual audio and it's really obvious to anyone that there is only one and correct way to transcribe this phrase. 88.117.98.182 (talk) 22:23, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

{{sofixit}} ~user:orngjce223 how am I typing? 04:35, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Why was Biden's 'Political Positions' scrubbed?

Regarding this edit: [[3]]

Dposse cleaned out the reference to a National Journal analysis of Biden's voting history ("Biden had a 94.2 percent liberal voting record in 2007 and lifetime score of 77.5 percent"), claiming NPOV. The same section for (e.g.) McCain contains similar analysis, in fact by the same publication. Can someone revert the passage? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghish (talk • contribs) 23:40, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

We have a whole article on the topic of Political positions of Joe Biden. Picking out a single fact for posting here is inappropriate. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:01, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

We just had a discussion on this very page about the content of that section, where we let it stand. Deleting this should have been brought up for discussion. I've restored it. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 00:04, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree it should be deleted. So does 'discussion' in your opinion mean that you have to agree? 65.60.215.154 (talk) 12:48, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

The 'single fact' in this case amounts to a summary statistic for his voting record; it's solidly useful given that many of the issue-specific entries on the political positions page itself consist of more specialized variations on these statistics - 91% approval from the NEA, 60% from the ACLU, etc. And again, the McCain entry - which is heavily scrutinized and has been a Featured Article - has 50% of its space devoted to these statistics, with the remainder being a summary of high-profile issues on which the candidate has staked much of his campaign. The latter should probably be added as well, though it would likely be very sparse. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghish (talk • contribs) 15:01, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Mr. Vernon: If you are going to restore anything be sure you are not continually linking incorrectly to the National Post and the link to the National Journal stays. 12.210.47.204 (talk) 18:40, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Surname pronunciation

Could someone please add an IPA guide to the pronunciation of 'Biden?' I'm never sure if it's "Bee-den" or "Bai-den" and as a non-American, I'm unlikely to hear his name spoken. Thanks in advance, Sarsaparilla39 (talk) 03:19, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

You're not the only one. See #Name pronounciation above. Maybe we should add something to the article. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:35, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Image scale!

I'm not sure how, but the image obviously needs to be scaled down, I assume it's a mistake. 58.169.44.10 (talk) 08:18, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. WODUP 09:37, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Controversy needs sourcing

I feel that the new controversy section needs sources with the current claims. (68.96.90.83 (talk) 08:26, 24 August 2008 (UTC))

The quote and other text in the section are now supported by a source. WODUP 09:36, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

As has been pointed out several times above, there should not be a "Controversies" section. There hasn't been for any of the 16 articles about 2008 presidential candidates, including Biden when he was one, and this is no time to start now. I've moved the two items here (earmarks and 7-11 quip) into the regular parts of the article where they belong (general Senate overview section, 2008 presidential campaign). I've also added Biden's response on criticism over the 7-11 remark. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:22, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

IQ quote "I think I have a much higher IQ than you! I suspect?"

Just noticed this recent edit, and I've gotta say: huh? I don't see how that fits in the context of the surrounding content. Am I missing something? – Luna Santin (talk) 10:14, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

This seems to have been an attempt to sneak in another 1988 Biden remark/gaffe, but it was soon backed out. If it goes in at all, it should be in the 1988 campaign section, not the 'Early life and family' section. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:31, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

The wingnuts saw it on the Drudge report, and wanted to pollute Wikipedia with that sort of mud-slinging. Typical, really. 65.60.215.154 (talk) 12:50, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

The rise of Knol is because idiots do not see that in the middle of the university achievements in wikipedia here is Joe saying what he has in way of attainment in an interesting and entertaining way. How could this be a gaffe. This is correct and has no spin. Knolipedia I say. ;-) RoddyYoung (talk) 14:31, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

"I think I have a much higher IQ than you" RoddyYoung (talk) 14:35, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Plagiarized Speech Caught on Video

Removed this text from the article:

– the one where he failed to make mention of the originator was caught on video

let's find a source prior to re-adding it. —  X  S  G  00:08, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

In defense of Plagiarism claims...

I've removed this statement from the article:

Biden defended himself by claiming he had correctly credited the original author in all speeches but one.

This statement contains the word "claim" which, in this case, may lead to POV. Let's find a source for this so that we can change the word "claimed" to "stated" or something more NPOV. —  X  S  G  00:14, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

There's this:

• The failure of Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. to attribute part of an Iowa campaign speech to British Labor Party leader Neil Kinnock was unintentional, a Biden aide said Saturday. The New York Times reported in Saturday's editions that in his closing speech at an Aug. 23 debate at the Iowa State Fair, the presidential contender from Delaware lifted Kinnock's speech from a 10-minute commercial without crediting him. Larry Rasky, Biden's campaign press secretary, said the senator "has used this Kinnock speech numerous times prior to and after this debate, and has attributed it to Kinnock every time but this one instance which was pointed out by the Times." "In a two-minute closing statement, when he was limited by time, he inadvertently did not attribute it," Rasky said.
  • "Biden Failure to Credit Speech Called Inadvertent;" AP, Omaha World - Herald. Omaha, Neb.: Sep 13, 1987. pg. 1

And this:

• [Biden] said he had used Kinnock's lines before his Iowa State Fair appearance and has used them in his speeches since-each time with full credit. At the state fair, Biden said, was the only time he had not cited his source. Biden staffers produced an audio tape of Biden's crediting Kinnock in Okoboji, Iowa, on Aug. 29. On the slightly garbled tape, Biden can be heard to say: "There was an advertisement in the last election (in Britain) and I was sent a copy of it. This advertisement for Neil Kinnock, the Labor Party candidate, expressed for me the best way to quickly say" what it is like to be a Democrat. "And I apply it to myself," Biden says on the tape.
  • "No Time to Cite Source, He Says Biden Stirs Row by Using Lines From Briton's Talk;" JAMES RISEN, RICHARD E. MEYER. Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles, Calif.: Sep 13, 1987. pg. 1

So we have both an aide and the subject saying he attributed the remark on other occasions, with the reporter confirming at least one such occasion via audi tape. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:00, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Net Worth and Source of Wealth

A knowledgeable editor should add a new section (with cites to his public disclosures) on his current net worth and the source(s) of his and his family's wealth. Oconnell usa (talk) 15:42, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

His pop was a car salesman and he's been a senator since he was 30. Is there a family wealth? If so, be bold! Find sources and add it yourself! Otherwise, why assume that there's a notable family wealth? Just because he's a politician and a lawyer? —  X  S  G  01:01, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

It should be researched and added, as I have read that he is one of the least wealthy members of the Senate, and that itself is quite notable. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:11, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've added this to the infobox and to the article, based on this LAT story. Answer is net worth is between $59,000 and $366,000, which indeed makes him one of the least wealthy members of the Senate. This AP story gives more details for those interested, but I didn't use it as cite. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:56, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Unless he doesn't own his primary residence, this estimate is likely to be a significant underestimate. A careful perusal of the financial disclosure forms suggests that a residence which is fully owned and not an income-generating asset or investment in any way need not be reported. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.236.139.249 (talk) 23:31, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's not for us to come up with our own definition of net worth. We have to go with what WP:RS give us. The point still holds that he's a lot less wealthy than many senators, who either came into office with lots of money or are married to wealthy spouses or both; Biden is clearly neither. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:17, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

What happens if Biden wins both elections

Why does the p main page say that if Biden wins both elections, the governor of Delaware would appoint someone to serve the first "two years" of his Senate term? The Senate term would be six years, and his VP term would be four years with a chance at re-election. Where does the two years come from? I have taught American government for many years and have never come across this statement. Educate me, please! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cureholder (talk • contribs) 16:58, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Because the appointed senator would only serve until the next general election time (2010), at which point a special election would be held to finish out the remaining four years of that senate term. Wasted Time R (talk) 17:07, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

You have taught American government for many years? I tremble for the future of our country... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.208.186.114 (talk) 17:11, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that's really scary an American government teacher would not know that. Yikes!

This (Delaware) News Journal article addresses the issue. It could be the current governor or the next one, depending on the timing of Biden's resignation from the Senate.--Appraiser (talk) 17:52, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

See also: Seventeenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Coemgenus 18:35, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Political positions section

This section contains this quote:

Biden is considered moderate liberal, with a 77.5 percent liberal voting record in 2006 and lifetime score of 76.8 percent, according to a Washington Post analysis.

The Post analysis doesn't refer to him a "moderate liberal"; rather, it just gives numbers, apparently to give an idea about how "liberal" someone is with respect to the rest of the Senate. The article does name two Presidential candidates who are the "most" and "least" liberal, with Biden's score in-between, but this is only comparing Presidential candidates, not Democrats or liberals en masse.

I propose we keep the scores, but remove the section about "considered moderate liberal", since the article does not state that. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 19:39, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. -Pete (talk) 19:46, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Change made. Thanks for the support, gents. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 19:54, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Applying labels in these sections is nothing but trouble. The more data, the better. The ADA and ACU put out rankings, the National Journal puts out rankings, as does the Almanac of American Politics. The last is the best, because they break it out by social, economic, and foreign subject areas. Wasted Time R (talk) 19:48, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Why have this reference at all ? There's another article on his political positions; one right wing Canadian paper's opinion as to how liberal Biden's votes are is not any sort of coverage on his actual positions; none of them are mentioned here. Just because it's sourced doesn't make it better than an opinion; any assessment of conservative or liberal is subjective. 24.165.116.72 (talk) 07:07, 24 August 2008 (UTC)M

I've added Biden's ADA and ACU scores. The ACU one is from their website and up-to-date through 2007. Unfortunately the ADA doesn't give lifetime scores; you have to dig them out from their different yearly reports and average them yourself (36 years, ugh). I found a USA Today source that gives the lifetime through 2004 (72), but we need a reliable source for what it is through 2007 (I read 75 on someone's personal blog, but that doesn't qualify). Wasted Time R (talk) 13:25, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Progressive Punch gives him an 86% "progressive" voting record (or 30th most liberal in the Senate).[4] This organization rates people from a liberal perspective, but they seem to rate U.S. politicians across the spectrum accurately compared to other organizations. In other words, I don't think the ratings are biased.--Appraiser (talk) 15:48, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Foreign Relations Committee

The part of this article that discusses Biden's plan to partition Iraq by ethnic group refers only to Biden's own website. Some discussion of how controversial this plan was should be included. It aroused strong opposition from Iraqi's themselves, from the Iraq Study Group, and from other foreign relations experts as well. Please review these links and you will see what I mean: "“The geographic boundaries do not run toward partition at all,” said Joost Hiltermann, deputy director of Middle East programs for the International Crisis Group, based in Turkey. “There is no Sunnistan or Shiastan. Nor can you create them given the highly commingled conditions in Iraq, where people remain totally intermixed, especially in the major cities.” See: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/19/weekinreview/19shanker.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin

Iraqi opposition to plan: " Against the backdrop of widespread condemnation of the US Senate's 26 September non-binding resolution sponsored by Senator Biden, the United Iraqi Coalition (UIC) [United Iraqi Alliance] -- the largest Shiite bloc in the Iraqi parliament -- endorsed a 3 October Iraqi parliamentary statement rejecting the US resolution. In addition, the UIC has attempted to distinguish the Biden plan from the federalism project spearheaded by the UIC's main party, the Iraqi Islamic Supreme Council (IISC), expressing concern that opponents of its initiative have been drawing connections between the Senate resolution and the UIC proposal."

See: http://www.juancole.com/2007/10/iraq-shiite-bloc-distances-itself-from.html

From the Iraq study group: "Partitioning Iraq as recommended in the Biden-Gelb plan. Baker said that "devolution could not be managed on an orderly basis" because the boundaries between ethnic regions are confusing."

See: http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/node/2523

• You have a political agenda. Blogs? Get over yourself. 65.60.215.154 (talk) 12:47, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Committee chair

The box indicates that Biden was succeeded by Lugar. But when Democrats regained control of the Senate, Biden was back in as Chair of the Foreign Relations Committee. Should the box now indicate that Biden has now also succeeded Lugar (i.o.w., Biden now also preceded by Lugar)? Observe that, if this box is so clarified, then, for sake of consistency, all the other members whose responsibilities changed when party control switched need to be likewise updated, in both the Senate and the House. Richard David Ramsey 14:57, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

What happened to 2004?

Although this is coming from the hyper-partisan site NewsBusters, this article "More Biden Wiki Wackiness: A Whole Year Disappears" talks about the deletion of the Presidential Campaigns > 2004 section, which IMHO seems relevant. (At least the Biden's opinion of McCain seems relevant since Biden is now running against McCain.)

Should this information be restored?

--69.207.187.96 (talk) 20:54, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Biden didn't run for president in 2004. Almost all of the text that had been under that section is now under the general "Presidential campaigns" heading. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:04, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't removed and it's still there. The page history shows the text was moved a little in this edit with the informative edit summary "moving 2004 section into an intro section here, as he never campaigned for president that year". The article you link claims it's missing in the Sunday 11 AM version, but that version is here and as anybody can determine in seconds by searching the page, for example for "McCain", the text is there. This is why blogs are considered unreliable sources by Wikipedia. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:08, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Is there no end to the stupidity on that NewsBusters page? Although a sensible poster there has very clearly and repeatedly pointed out that nothing was removed and anybody can see so by reading the article, poster after poster there keeps claiming it was removed and attacks Wikipedia and others based on it. Some of them suggest to "restore" this never deleted text and several editors here (probably readers of that site) have already done so, meaning they just duplicate the existing content. I added a source comment at the latest removal of the duplicate.[5] Let's see if that works or I just become the next editor accused of removing it at NewsBusters. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:43, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I've found that blogger and partisan website claims regarding Wikipedia articles are often laughably wrong. There was one I saw a few days ago that maintained that all mention of Carol McCain had been scrubbed from the John McCain article. Nothing could be further from the truth, and furthermore, our Carol McCain article is likely the most comprehensive writeup of her whole life found in any publication, MSM or otherwise. So you just have to realize there are a lot of fools writing on the web out there. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:44, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Senate race

Has Biden explicitly stated that he will still be running for his Senate seat at the same time he is running for VP, or is it still conjecture? -R. fiend (talk) 00:58, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I haven't seen any statement from Biden on this. Since he was already in place as the candidate for the Senate seat, that's the current state of affairs unless he does something otherwise. This (Delaware) News Journal article is the best summary of various Biden-wins-both scenarios I've seen yet. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:14, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Presidential campaigns--innaccurate.

Under the heading Presidential Campaigns, is the following:

"Some thought Biden a possible running mate for presidential candidate John Kerry, but Biden urged Kerry to select Republican Senator John McCain instead, saying the cross-party ticket would help heal the “vicious rift” dividing the country."

However, the article does not say anything about Biden urging Kerry to do anything. It only mentions that BIden thought McCain would be his choice for Kerry's running mate. Thought on changing the wording?—Gaff ^ταλκ 19:30, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

From the start of the story: "Sen. Joseph Biden, a senior Democrat, on Sunday urged Republican Sen. John McCain to run for vice president with the Democratic hopeful, Sen. John Kerry, in order to heal the “vicious rift” dividing America." Since the only way McCain could be on the ticket is if Kerry selected him (and McCain accepted), Biden is clearly "urging" both Kerry and McCain. It's definitely more than just a prediction, which is what you seem to be claiming. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:12, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Fifth youngest?

It seems a bit unlikely that Joe Biden was only the fifth youngest senator when he started, given that he was actually elected before his 30th birthday. Any source for this statement? --KarlFrei (talk) 15:32, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, so I can definitely find a lot of references for this with google, but it is still a surprising statement. This sounds like the sort of fact that everybody copies from someone else without checking. Who were the other four senators? --KarlFrei (talk) 15:34, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Look up John Henry Eaton. There was also that guy from Louisiana, last name Long. Minute Lake (talk) 15:54, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

If the info in a living person's article is questionable and unsourced, it is a Wikipedia mandate that the information be removed. I'll do so now. We can work on getting sources for this so we can add it back. —  X  S  G  19:50, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I removed this text:

Biden took office on January 3, 1973, at age 30, becoming the fifth-youngest U.S. Senator in United States history. At age 30, Biden was at the minimum age to become a U.S. Senator.

replacing it with:

Biden took office on January 3, 1973, at age 30, the minimum age to become a U.S. Senator.

Let's get a source for the removed information. —  X  S  G  19:54, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I've found a solid 2007 NYT/Senate Historical Office writeup on this. Biden is the 6th (not 5th) youngest senator in U.S. history. Read it to see how. I've restored and modified and cited the text to the article. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Bravo! —  X  S  G  06:37, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for finding this! --KarlFrei (talk) 08:36, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

The article noted above in the NY Times is incorrect; Biden was the fifth youngest Senator, not the sixth. The article mentions but does not actually cite the Senate Historical Office. I suspect the Times reporter miscounted because he had mentioned Rush D. Holt, a Representative from New Jersey and son of the fourth youngest Senator, Rush Dew Holt of West Virginia. Here is a link to the Senate's History web site, unfiltered by a Times reporter: [6]. Jakeease (talk) 01:45, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, looks like you're right. My bad, I should have looked at the NYT article more closely. I fixed it and changed the cite (and thanks for finding it). Wasted Time R (talk) 02:51, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Glad to help a bit. :-) Jakeease (talk) 19:46, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Announcement of VP candidacy on Obama ticket

Does anyone else question the relevance of the text message announcing BIden on the ticket coming at 2:45 AM? This seems like trivia that adds nothing informative about the topioc of the article, only bulk.—Gaff ^ταλκ 23:50, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Ehh, it's not vital, but it adds interest and is different from the past. Our writing is supposed to be "engaging"; bits like this help bring that goal about. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:13, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. —Gaff ^ταλκ 18:00, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Shudn't the article mention someplace that Biden has been in the Senate since Obama was just a child, too young to even be charged with a crime? When CSPAN went on the air when Obama was not even old enough to vote, he could have turned on the TV in his living room and seen his (presumptive) future running mate holding forth in the senate? Shouldn't the article mention that when Biden celebrated his 35th anniversary in the senate in January 2008, that Obama was still a green US Senator who was just learning to ride the senate subway by himself? These things should be mentioned in the article. Biden has served longer than McCain!18.171.7.93 (talk) 22:02, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like spin to me. Terjen (talk) 22:28, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

We report the dates of their births and joining the Senate, you decide how you want to compare them. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:14, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Plagiarism

Newsbusters says there's more to the story than we report. [7] 216.153.214.89 (talk) 01:39, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

There's also more to his childhood than he moved from Pennsylvania to Delaware... We've just added the content that we can cite. —  X  S  G  04:52, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Article locking

I recommend locking this article for a while. Illuminatiscott (talk) 05:34, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Please put new discussion at the bottom of the talk page. Second, leaving a message here won't do any good. Go to the Wikipedia:Requests for page protection for article locking. --Soetermans | is listening | what he'd do now? 06:19, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I am going to state again my support for locking this article, I think it will do a disservice to the wiki community if people are allowed to post erroneous information based on political beliefs. I think this article needs to be protected from vandalism. -scarlocke —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.48.250.215 (talk) 03:15, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Again, go to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection, not here, and make your case. To me, even though this article has been getting tons of edits since the veep announcement, nothing so bad has happened as to warrant a full lockdown. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:26, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Negative RIAA MPAA positions. Tech industry opposition?

It looks as if the tech industry is quite negative about Joe Biden. Mac Daily News is not normally a political site, but they site some quite extreme positions against fair use:

• http://www.macdailynews.com/index.php/weblog/comments/18249/
• http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquirer/news/2008/08/25/obama-picks-hollywood-sock

Algr (talk) 01:11, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Biden's positions on fair use, etc. should be added to Political positions of Joe Biden, if not already there. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:00, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Georgia-Russia war

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-assess-bidenaug24,0,935930.story Biden recently traveled to a war-worn Georgia amid the Russian invasion. Can someone add this info into the article? Thanks. --93.177.151.101 (talk) 09:16, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes. You can! —  X  S  G  19:02, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

No, he can't. -- Atama^chat 20:26, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes. He can. ;) —  X  S  G  18:18, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Candidate tag as to whole article

As I noted in the edit summary, his status as a VP nominee means all the info in the article will be in play, as opponents and journalists dig into his background. Therefore, the tag is valid as to the whole article, despite some earlier edit comments. Also, please cite me to some WP that this tag is not appropriate to whole articles? I would argue its very existence, and use on scores of other articles, is evidence of a Wikipedia consensus that it is so appropriate. Audemus Defendere (talk) 04:42, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

There is no WP rule on the election tag, just a common practice we have been using on the candidates' articles for the last year and a half. The tag goes on the campaign section in the main bio article, and on the entire campaign subarticle, but not on the entire main bio article. In this case, the Biden article is already cooling down, and will do so even more now with the Palin announcement. Biden's life is actually fairly well known, since he's run for president twice, and most enterprising veep-slot journalists and oppo researchers are booking flights to Anchorage right now. Wasted Time R (talk) 17:38, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Bogus GA nomination

The GA nomination for this article seems insincere. It was done by User:AnkaraCity, a new user and likely sock who's never worked on this article and has made a bunch of contentious and quickly reverted edits to other articles. In any case, this article is not suitable for GA at this point, not even close. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:27, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

"2008 Senate candidacy" and crystal ball

It seems to me that the whole section from "If he won both races" down comes under the heading of crystal ball. That there are two citations doesn't alter the fact that it is mere speculation. Scolaire (talk) 13:36, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

A description of what procedures take hold if Biden wins both races is definitely appropriate. The mentioning of possible seat replacements is maybe borderline. Wasted Time R (talk) 17:41, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly. Should we mention Joe Lieberman's 2000 VP campaign, because he was running for re-election in the Senate as well? Justice America/(5:15) 17:44, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I've edited the section accordingly. One more question: the article says that "if he won both races, he could resign from the Senate". If he remains on both ballots and wins both contests, does he have any other option, or should it say that he "would" or he "would have to" resign? Scolaire (talk) 09:47, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

He would have to resign, as the AP article states. I've reworded the section to make this and a couple of other points clearer. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:01, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Looks good :-) Scolaire (talk) 13:30, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

No. Could is correct. He could, instead, resign from the Vice Presidency and serve his term as senator. Doubt that's realistic, but it is within the realm of possibilities. The law does not require him to do take the one over the other. Of course, he would have to pick one. --Evb-wiki (talk) 14:34, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:COMMON applies here. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:45, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not fighting hard here. But it's not mandatory he resign from the Senate. Though, if he is to serve as VP, he would have to. --Evb-wiki (talk) 14:50, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

There are people who turn down vice-presidential running mate offers; McGovern was turned down by about five different senators in 1972. But once you've accepted the offer, campaigned in the election, and won, there's been no one who's ever then decided they'd rather remain in the Senate. Yes, we could change the article to say, "If he won both races and decided to be sworn in as vice-president, ..." But that would seem to imply that Biden was undecided about which he wanted to be, and there's absolutely no indication that that is the case. Or we could change the article to say, "If he won both races, he could resign as senator ..." But that would seem to imply he has an option to be both, which he does not. You're taking us a long way here to solve a non-problem in the text. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:57, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Number of images

This article now has too many images, especially as they mostly represent Biden from the same period (the last three years or so). I'm starting to pare them down. If people want to do image research, find some from past decades that we can use.... Wasted Time R (talk) 13:38, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

American Oil Co. executive: Joe Biden's grandfather.

Not mentioned in the article, but should be included if Sarah Palin's husband's employment at an oil field is in her's.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nation/politics/bal-te.infocuswest26aug26,0,4200449.story —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.52.134.234 (talk) 14:30, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

No. The point is potential conflict of interest. Joe Biden's grandfather is long gone. Perhaps Biden's grandfather should be included as part of his family heritage, but Palin's situation has nothing to do with it. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Plagiarism Mention in 1988 Campaign Section

Recently, this text was added to the article:

This however was hardly Biden's only problem. It was also revealed that he had plagiarized an article when he was in law school. As the New York Times pointed out: "The faculty ruled that Mr. Biden would get an F in the course but would have the grade stricken when he retook it the next year. Mr. Biden eventually received a grade of 80 in the course, which, he joked today, prevented him from falling even further in his class rank. Mr. Biden, who graduated from the law school in 1968, was 76th in a class of 85. The file also included Mr. Biden's transcript from his days as an undergraduate at the University of Delaware. In his first three semesters, his grades were C's or D's, with three exceptions: two A's in physical education courses, a B in a course on Great English Writers and an F in R.O.T.C. The grades improved somewhat later but were never exceptional." When questioned by a New Hampshire resident about his grades in law school Biden claimed falsely to have graduated in the "top half" of his class.

I'm unsure if the amount of text spent on it and the placement of the information is appropriate, and wanted to get other opinions before making any substantial changes to it.-Polotet 04:32, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's undue weight and needs to be reduced. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:55, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Which I later did (at the time, before the veep naming), to follow up. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:09, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I strongly disagree that this is "undue weight." This is sourced, it is very specific. And it is certainly relevant if someone claimed to be at the top of their class. To remove it introduces bias. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 18:29, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Can you think of any other WP article that goes into such detail? A B in this, a D in that? No. It's a great example of WP:Undue weight. Overall for the four years, the NYT story says he was an unexceptional student, and we can and do use that. If we can get his class rank as an undergraduate, we can use that too (like we already do with his class rank in law school). But calling out specific grades for the first 3/8 of his undergraduate career is ridiculous. Wasted Time R (talk) 18:34, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Again, I'm not arguing the accuracy of the grades, but their relevance in this article. And note that he never claimed to be in the top half of his undergraduate class. Wasted Time R (talk) 18:35, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I see your point; however, the article as it is written now is not reflective of the source. The NY Times says his later grades - after his first three semesters - were "never exceptional"; not his entire set of grades. Removing the specific grade letters - I can understand WP:Undue weight as a reason for removing. However, I think it would be fair to at least note that Biden started off poorly, as a substitute for specific grades. This reflects the overall tone and information of the original source without being overly specific. Thoughts? --Mr. Vernon (talk) 18:44, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you could say he started poorly and remained unexceptional. Better still would be the class rank, if it is publicly known. Wasted Time R (talk) 18:55, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately I don't have the class rank, and I'd want it to be cited by a primary source to remove the chance of a doctored transcript; in the meantime, may I make the edit as proposed? --Mr. Vernon (talk) 18:57, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, make the edit. But your "doctored transcript" suggestion is a bit paranoid. Wasted Time R (talk) 18:59, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Ordinarily I'd say yes, but remember the "Bush memo" from the last Presidential election? --Mr. Vernon (talk) 19:11, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Wastedtime states that Biden did not claim to be in the "top half of his undergraduate class". In fact, he stated he was the outstanding student in the political science department. In other words he indeed claimed to be number one in political science when he was anything but. The article as it stands seems "sanitized" to soft pedal this fact. If you review the sourced article you will see this is correct. The article also refers to the current law dean and Biden's professor as "downplaying" the plagiarism. Well, yes in 1988 they did downplay it. But they took it quite seriously when it happened. And his explanations were not deemed satisfactory at that time. Read the article again, he plagiarized "four pages" of an article. That's pretty serious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ducksbury (talk • contribs) 21:44, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree that plagiarism is quite serious. I agree that the "downplaying" bit probably shouldn't be here – someone else put it in, and it sounds like the dean/professor backcovering for him years later. As for outstanding student in political science, Biden says in that NYT story "With regard to my being the outstanding student in the political science department, my name was put up for that award by David Ingersoll, who is still at the University of Delaware." I haven't seen anything else on this, but so far it seems like a minor exaggeration at worst. Wasted Time R (talk) 21:52, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

To the contrary, I think it comes across that way only if it's actually included - otherwise it seems like the charges stuck forever and Biden had no defense to them. Since plagiarism is such a serious charge (something that can get people law students kicked out and in court can result in jail time), our policy on biographies of living people requires including this.--chaser - t 00:05, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I fully agree that official findings regarding this, such as this December 1987 board action, definitely should be included. The 'downplaying' referred to verbal comments Delaware staff made in September 1987, when the controversy first started up. Those I didn't think deserved much attention. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:51, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

My bad. I misinterpreted what you said. Sorry.--chaser - t 02:04, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

The specific grades seem irrelevant, although given the repeated claims of academic excellence the overall sense of the text should be maintained. I also note that the phrase "Though Biden had correctly credited the original author in all speeches but one ... " is not supported by the references. It appears that in some speeches he may have referenced Kinnock as a general inspiration, but it was not in the context of this anecdote. Indeed since Biden specifically personalizes the anecdote (e.g. changing Kinnock's reference to his ancestors as Welsh coal-miners, to Biden's (fictional) Pennsylvania coal-miners) it is clear that it was not a simple omission of credit. This wording also tends to minimize the issue, when in fact there are other reports involving use of the words of RFK and Hubert Humphrey without attribution. MeanOnSunday (talk) 06:41, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Joseph Biden was caught up in a plagiarim scandal when Governor Dukakis took video of a Democratic debate and made a campaign hit piece showing that Biden quoted Neil Kinnock, then-leader of the British Labour Party, without attribution. A picture being worth a thousand words, the video outweighed multiple press accounts about Biden's pre- and post-debate use of the British quote while including attribution. Biden was effectively tarred as a plagiarist by Dukakis and was forced out of the race. The Delaware Supreme Court's Board on Professional Responsibility would later clear Biden of law school plagiarism charges brought up in relation to the Dukakis political hit piece.

I would keep the specific grades because specific, accurate information is difficult to find. And some people, including Senator Biden, have ways of eluding any and all direct questions regarding their qualifications. Senator Biden also has a pattern of plagiarizing when he is in pursuit of some prize; and possibly more instances of such actions could be found on investigation. And these things ought to be investigated in anyone who wants the highest office in the land and are therefore relevant.Consolidated.bits (talk) 21:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

The specific grades only reflect the first three semesters of eight, and give undue weight to partial informtion. If we had his overall GPA or class rank for his full time there, then yes we could well include that. But starting off badly in college for the first year or two before getting one's act together is an honored American student tradition. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:51, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

First Wife: Neilia Hunter merits her own article

Neilia Hunter, Biden's first wife who died in a car accident merits her own article. Please let's create one ASAP.

There seems to be some confusion on the source of the Corvette that Biden received as a wedding gift in 1966 and continues to drive today. Some, viz. http://a11news.com/--list Miss Hunter's father and the donor, while others, viz. http://www.usatoday.com/ list the source as Mr. Biden's father. --TMH (talk) 18:20, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure an article is warranted, as tragically her life was cut short way too early. Other political first spouses we have articles for, such as Joan Bennett Kennedy, Carol McCain, Julia Thorne, or Donna Hanover, have had greater public visibility and/or post-marriage accomplishments. And I'm not sure what the significance is of who gave the Corvette – that's the kind of small detail that newspaper articles often get wrong and then carry forward over time, or that people honestly remember differently. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:05, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

7/11 Comments

Where's the section of the 7/11 racist comments he made about not being able to go to any 7/11 or Dunkin' Donuts in Delaware without a think Indian accent? youtube

I agree, this definitely should be in there. We will be getting out the message on all Desi Forums about Biden's comments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Larry Renforth (talk • contribs) 03:36, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

The hatred words of Joe Biden have been spread on many Desi / Indian chat forums now, as stated above. I clicked on ratedesi.com, and sure enough, there is talk of Biden's comments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.235.221.33 (talk) 21:18, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I think it's important that we make sure that these comments are verified before posting them. I suggest locking this article and not allowing such accusations into it without some hard evidence. Given that he is now a running mate for vice president this article will no doubt be subject to vandalism. -scarlocke —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.48.250.215 (talk) 03:13, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

The original poster's link contains the C-SPAN footage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Munseym (talk • contribs) 05:39, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Cellphone photo

How exactly does a photo of a cellphone contribute to this article? It seems horribly out of place, if not downright unencyclopedic. Couldn't this be replaced with a properly sourced quote? Surely the message is posted verbatim on several reputible news sites that could be cited easily. 161.165.196.84 (talk) 20:39, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about? rootology (C)(T) 14:52, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Roman Catholic

Although the article refers to Mr Biden as a Roman Catholic, someone in the Discussion area about Sarah Palin refers to him as an "excommunicted" RC, who "supports abortion". Is this true? Millbanks (talk) 08:24, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth (emphasis in original). That said, I seriously doubt it's true. It may be a reference to the suggestion during the last election that pro-choice Catholic politicians shouldn't be allowed to participate in Communion.--chaser - t 08:47, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I remember a similar flap with Tom Daschle and the bishop in his home district while he was a pro-choice Senator...there have been some cases of people being told they shouldn't take Communion but I've never heard of a prominent politician actually being excommunicated, although the catechism says they theoretically could be. Chaser is right about really good sourcing being needed for a claim like that. Kelly ^hi! 08:51, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

This is the best source I could find to prove we're not making it up. ;-) --chaser - t 09:17, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Nobody can doubt that Biden is deeply a Catholic, who prays every night for abortion to remain legal. According to this site : "Barack Obama didn't choose just any Roman Catholic when he named Joe Biden his vice presidential running mate. He chose a weekly massgoer who once threatened to shove his rosary beads down the throat of the next Republican who said he wasn't religious." I hope he doesn't choke on his own words. Religion is being replaced by politics in America, you can see that there are plenty like him. If the Church didn't excommunicate John Kerry, who supported also partial-birth abortion, that is a form of infanticide, and gay marriage, I doubt they will do the same to him. The Church could spread a revolution against religious fakes if it started to excommunicated all these.85.240.18.225 (talk) 17:04, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Does the Catholic Church excommunicate anyone these days? Seems anachronistic to me. -R. fiend (talk) 21:57, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Not very often. I think the last I heard of was several years ago. rootology (C)(T) 14:52, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

You can read the article about Excommunication in the Wikipedia. It's not anachronistic at all. Recently, the former Zambian bishop Emmanuel Milingo was excommunicated. It's also ironic that the Catholic Church excommunicated Marcel Lefebvre, in 1988, for ordaining bishops without the Vatican permission, and he was from the most conservative wing of the Catholic Church.85.244.55.144 (talk) 15:48, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

7/11 & Dunkin Donuts comments

Video: [8]. Is a rather well-known controversy of Biden; should be included. --141.219.230.232 (talk) 04:39, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

A discussion of this remark is included in the 2008 presidential campaign section. Wasted Time R (talk) 17:39, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Here's a transcript of what Joe Biden said: "In Delaware, the largest growth of population is Indian-Americans, moving from India. You cannot go to a 7/11 or a Dunkin' Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent. I’m not joking." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.234.0.249 (talk) 16:29, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes. That quote is in the article. Right now. Has been all along. So what is this discussion about? Wasted Time R (talk) 23:01, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Inasmuch as the Media Finds It Acceptable to Report on the Sex Life of Governor Palin's 17-year-old Daughter, Will it Now be Appropriate to Include a Section Here on the Sex Life of Biden's Daughter from His Second Wife?

I think it would not be appropriate, but there appears to be a double standard which makes it just dandy to spread rumors about, and to report in the media on, the sex life of Governor Palin's young (17) daughter.

Is what is sauce for the goose also sauce for the gander? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.44.153.18 (talk) 22:08, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Two wrongs don't make a right, in general. In particular, the Palin announcement in question came from the Palin campaign. The rumor that preceded it was both ludicrous and vile, and deserves no place here. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:06, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Biden and the RIAA

Who no mention of the well-documented fact that Joe Biden sponsored very pro-RIAA legislature that involved:

• supporting a bill that would make manipulation of a device so that it would be able to play unauthorized content a federal offence
• signing a letter in which he and some other senators pleaded with the government to take a stronger stance against file-sharers
• supported a new law that tries to ban home-recording of digital radio broadcasts
• supported legislation that was designed to limit encryption possibilities for civilians

68.46.183.96 (talk) 08:31, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

It's mentioned in Political positions of Joe Biden. Switzpaw (talk) 08:39, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Joe Biden thinks glowsticks and bottled water are drug paraphanelia...

...and he sponsored the "Reducing Americans' Vulnerability to Ecstasy Act of 2002," also called the "RAVE Act" which declares them as such. Why is this not included? 68.46.183.96 (talk) 08:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

It's mentioned in Political positions of Joe Biden. Switzpaw (talk) 08:41, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Joe Biden's demanded before the Council on Foreign Relations in October 2002 that the war in Afghanistan be fought by American ground troops "mano-a-mano," i.e. on the ground with no air support. He, understandably, got a lot of flack for the comment. Why isn't this mentioned? 68.46.183.96 (talk) 08:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Not sure, but the appropriate article for that detail would most likely be Political positions of Joe Biden. You may want to ask on Talk:Political_positions_of_Joe_Biden. There has been a recent comment there in which an editor thought more information on Biden's view of Afghanistan should be in that article. Switzpaw (talk) 08:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Caption for image of Biden, Church, and Sadat contains a typographical error

I seriously doubt that the Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty was SUNG. ("signing", not "singing", my friends.) I'd fix it myself, but the page is semi-locked. Zzzcust (talk) 01:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks for the spot. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Failure to Provide Real Information about 2008 Election

It is inappropriate -- particularly for an encyclopedia (as opposed to a pure biography) to talk about the 2008 election without supplying the reader with information about whom he is running against in the 2008 Senate election. Please add a note and link that Biden is seeking re-election, facing as a challenger Christine O'Donnell: www.ChristineODonnell.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.246.71.5 (talk) 19:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

You might want to write an article about her. Also, she is mentioned in United States Senate election in Delaware, 2008.--Appraiser (talk) 19:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Please stop inserting false information

I've corrected it but it gets reverted, often by Wasted Time R. Read the link again. He needed a second surgery on his brain. Fortunately, he's been ok since 1988. So 2, not 1 surgery. 903M (talk) 01:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC) http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=940de5d81739f937a35756c0a96e948260

(Follow-up) This was a misunderstanding, based on 903M not clarifying that the two surgeries were three months apart and the difficulty of distinguishing unformatted New York Times cites. The article now talks about the two different surgeries. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:26, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Organization of article

This article has been organized chronologically at the very start, and then by topic afterwards, especially regarding Biden's Senate career. This approach has its advantages and disadvantages, but it's not working well for coverage of Biden in the 1969-1973 period, when his personal, family, and political life were all very intertwined. So I've tweaked the structure to make everything up to his induction into the Senate more chronological, and will be expanding/reworking that content with the new organization in mind. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Biden's overall political positions

I think it would be a good idea to list some of Biden's positions (with sources) on some of the "hot topic" issues: e.g. abortion, gay marriage, NAFTA, NCLB, etc. 70.254.213.117 (talk) 00:24, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, there's two different approaches on this. I've long believed that the Political positions of Joe Biden article should do this, where we can lay out his positions in some detail. Doing the same in the summary section of the main article here means compressing them into a tight space, and thus risking losing nuance and complexity and getting sound-bites and oversimplication instead. Thus I've always advocated doing the summary section here by just having some interest group ratings that indicate Biden's overall political and ideological leanings. Since Biden's been in the Senate for three decades, there are certainly a lot of metrics to use in this way.

Some editors don't agree with me, and think the 'Political positions' section in the main article should try to summarize his views on various important issues. And now we do have some of that in this article, mostly focused around environmental and energy issues. This is also involved in comparisons with the Sarah Palin article, where what to do with 'Political positions' section is a hot topic. So this is something that a broader consensus is needed on. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:01, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

In some other politicians' articles, I've added a sentence giving two sources, which always largely agree with each other. One is an evaluation by a conservative group; the other is from a progressive group. Unfortunately, Palin does not have a national voting history from which to write an equivalent sentence. I'd be in favor of adding this. Here's Biden's:

Biden received a 86% progressive rating from a self-described non-partisan group that provides a "searchable database of Congressional voting records from a Progressive perspective" and scored a 13% conservative rating by the conservative group, SBE Council.

You can add those if you want, although neither is especially well-known (although I've used ProgressivePunch before somewhere or other). But be sure to identify what year(s) the ratings are for. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:35, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Military Service

Joe Biden Received 5 derferments before being Classified 1-Y due to Asthma as a Teenager. In “Promises to Keep,” a memoir he only recounted a very active youth filled with sports and being a life guard.Lefthandtool (talk) 13:02, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to the Vietnam War era in America. Our article talks about his athletic youth and his draft deferments and reclassification. But no, we can't connect them like you want to. Not mentioning something in a piece you write does not mean it didn't happen (cf. McCain and the "cross in the dirt story" blogger flap of a few weeks ago) and Biden's memoir focuses on his childhood/adolescent stuttering, which was a much more visible/major affliction. Some people with asthma do lead active, athletic lives, all the way up to winning Olympic gold medals. So, in sum: did people concoct all sorts of medical and other reasons to get out of the draft during Vietnam? Yes. Did Biden? We don't know, and per WP:BLP, can't speculate. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:17, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

POSSIBLE CONGRESSIONAL ERRORS

In the section regarding Sen Biden's elected office, it records the majority of the "Congress" during each of his terms. It appears that the "Majority" column refers to the overall congressional majority, when it appears to actually refer to the SENATE majority.

For example, it shows the 97th US Congress, and lists the majority as "Republican" although the majority of the House of Representatives was Democratic. The Senate majority was Republican.

Those from nations other than the US may be confused, as well as those within the US who are not aware of congressional history or politics.

Perhaps placing the word "Senate" just above "Majority" would clarify?

71.252.242.8 (talk) 01:18, 9 September 2008 (UTC) 9/8/08 - Guy Terry

I've changed "Majority" to "Sen. Majority", which should make it clear. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:36, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Position on marijuana

He's anti-marijuana. I think this should be included because it deviates from the standard liberal positions.

http://www.marijuana.com/democratic-candidates/33961-sen-joe-biden-2.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.52.134.234 (talk) 02:58, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Belongs in Political positions of Joe Biden. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:02, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Charming story about Mr. and Mrs. Biden

This needs to be in the article. The sources is first rate, New York Times. It tells of how they met. We can summarize it in a sentence or two. 903M (talk) 04:43, 9 September 2008 (UTC) Did it in one sentence. 903M (talk) 04:49, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

refs removed

This edit removed refs. Now the sentence is unreferenced. QuackGuru 06:52, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I revised that change, such that the reference is back in. Both his sons have come up in news about the campaign (Beau for going to Iraq and possibly succeeding him as senator, Hunter for working for a company that is involved in legislation under Joe's purview), so having a moderate capsule summary of what they do is appropriate for this article. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:07, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Descent

The article claims that Senator Biden is of English descent on his father's side, even though "Biden" is an Irish surname and even though the source cited describes the senator as "Irish-Catholic" and makes no mention of English ancestry. Shouldn't this patent error be corrected? Firstorm (talk) 02:19, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

So Biden's an Irish surname is it? Well, I'm from Ireland and I've never met anyone called Biden, and there's no Biden in the telephone directory for this part of Ireland. What does it matter anyhow? Millbanks (talk) 16:18, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

The source being used is Wargs, and I've added a footnote to make that clear. Wargs entry 32 says "William Biden, b. ... , England". Is this correct? I dunno. In FAC circles, Wargs gets gonged as being unreliable, and you have to use NEHGS instead. I took a quick look, and I didn't find one for Biden there. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:55, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Judiciary Committee and National Domestic Violence Hotline

"In March 2004, Biden enlisted major American technology companies in diagnosing the problems of the Austin, Texas-based National Domestic Violence Hotline, and to donate equipment and expertise to it.[28][25]"

Is that actually within the scope of Judiciary Committee activities? If not it should be in its own section. Also Biden has repeatedly said: "I consider the Violence Against Women Act the single most significant legislation that I’ve crafted during my 35-year tenure in the Senate" so how about a section on Biden's contribution to the Violence Against Women Act

Also i think the National Domestic Violence Hotline should be a clickable external link thus National Domestic Violence Hotline. Then wikipedia readers would have a chance to see what the National Domestic Violence Hotline is all about. 203.108.140.130 (talk) 06:49, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the Violence Against Women Act came out of the Judiciary Committee (see http://www.wcl.american.edu/journal/lawrev/50/foreword.pdf, for example) as have its renewals (see http://www.now.org/issues/violence/vawa/, for example). I agree that it deserves more prominence, possibly including mention in the article's lead section. Regarding the National Domestic Violence Hotline, in-narrative-text external links like you want are usually frowned upon as a matter of style. Better would be that someone start a National Domestic Violence Hotline article itself, and then we can do a normal link to that. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:49, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Follow up — I've added mention of both the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act and Violence Against Women Act into the lead. I've redlinked National Domestic Violence Hotline to encourage someone to write an article for it. I've added the "I consider the Violence Against Women Act the ..." quote into the article body. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:07, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Very much appreciated, thank you 203.108.140.130 (talk) 06:10, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Joe Biden/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   • Per Wikipedia:WTA#Sorts_of_terms_to_avoid, one should avoid the word "claim" when the speaker refers to his own mindset, which this article does many times. Also, try to avoid words like "supposed."
   • Single sentence paragraphs need to be gotten rid of.
   • The lead could be improved by more fully summarizing the article.
   • Use blockquote for the currently-italicized quotations.
   • In general, the use of quotations can probably be lowered - many are not necessary.
   • Either expand "Political positions" or get rid of it. It has a separate article, and that's fine, but the one in this article is way too short for its own section.
   • Some paragraphs are possibly too big, like the first in the 2008 section.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   • So close, but the 1988 section has unsourced information in the first paragraph. Looks good otherwise.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   • The information on Joe Biden's replacement is probably not necessary, or at least does not need to be covered in such detail.
   • The Vice Presidential section in general should be updated to include more focused information on Joe Biden.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   • It's close, but first off, the "claim" stuff should be fixed.
   • Furthermore, the 1988 section overall does not seem to take a NPOV. It takes a bit of a negative tone.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

   • There does seem to be more vandalism lately, but as far as I can tell, no actual edit wars. Someone can correct me if I am wrong on this.

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail: On hold for two weeks.

- Minute Lake (talk) 16:41, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I've take care of all instances of "claim" and "supposed". Still working toward GA quality... —  X  S  G  00:32, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I guess no one read what I wrote above. This nom was insincere, from a new account/troll/sock. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:15, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I read it but made the decision on my own that if I could do something to improve the article toward GA quality, I should. Whether the article's GA nomintation was sincere or no, I believe the article is better for my efforts. And maybe when the article gets a sincere GA nod, no one will be able to find the above faults in it. —  X  S  G  06:39, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

FYI/FWIW this was the GA nominator. Gnangarra 12:42, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I reiterate what is stated above, this article was nominated by a sock puppet. It is not a valid nomination. —Mattisse (Talk) 21:44, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

The bad faith nom notwithstanding, the review is still open. A lot of article work has been done, and I think the above concerns have been responded to, and the article is a plausible contender for GA. I've pinged Minute Lake to see if the re-review can be done. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:50, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

[13:17, September 17, 2008 Minute Lake: I am failing because the time has passed, but a new nomination may be warranted (or a reassessment, I don't have time.)]

The article has a whole lot of flaws. It is difficult to correct it with the election coming up. Take out a flaw and someone thinks you are trying to cover up for the man or trying to smear the man. 903M (talk) 03:48, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Should mention of his autobiography be made?

(From The Christian Science Monitor: "We sat and talked for hundreds and hundreds of hours, trying to figure out the stories that were essential in his life and career," says Mark Zwonitzer, a writer and documentary filmmaker, who worked with Cramer on "What It Takes," and with Biden on "Promises to Keep." Biden's wife, Jill, family, and closest aides sat in on the discussions.)  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 23:31, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

It's listed in the "Works" section. It didn't receive much attention at the time of release, and didn't sell well; see this NY Sun article. There was a spike of attention when Biden was picked for veep, but I haven't seen any follow-up after that. I'm inclined to say that no further mention is necessary. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:52, 19 September 2008 (UTC)