Talk:Joe Biden

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)

Hair Plugs

We need a section on this. He got them sometime after he bowed out of the '88 race. It didn't look like he had much hair up top to transplant to the front of his melon. Were the plugs made of back hair? Who has the info? Looftie (talk) 18:08, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Here's a little more info: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0808/12760.html

Perhaps it is not back hair after all. Looftie (talk) 18:13, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Who cares? Even if true, (and there isn't a single reliable source that says it is) it's meaningless trivia. --Loonymonkey (talk) 21:52, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Not worth a section, not worth a mention. We generally don't do cosmetics here. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:18, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article4603044.ece

The above is a serious link. Google Biden Hair and you will get over 45 pages of links. As Biden said "the silence was deafening" (though he was referring to the Republican convention, not the lack of mention of his hair on Wikipedia.

The coverage of his hair is relevant. However, it should be very short, probably one sentence. It must not mock him. It must be a statement of fact. It could be mentioned with his other health problems (asthma). 903M (talk) 15:03, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

First, going bald is not a health problem, it's a cosmetic development. Second, we don't usually have "Health" sections in these articles, and your attempt to create one left out the most important episode of Biden's health history (the 1988 brain aneurysms). Third, what source supports your "by his own admission" text? I don't think he's ever said this. Fourth, it's still meaningless, and there's still no consensus that this belongs in the article. Wasted Time R (talk) 15:21, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your pointing out an omission, his 1988 brain aneurysm. He admitted the hair problem in the Senate hearings but 1991 hearings are not online. Check your library for them. 903M (talk) 00:58, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I've looked at Ronald Reagan's article, which is a featured article. It has mention of his skin cancer (in addition to having colon problems and being shot) so there is value to adding health information. Unlike the original poster, we must do this with dignity so only a brief mention (1 sentence or 1/2 sentence) for the hair. Hair transplantation is not shameful or negative, unlike erectile dysfunction or having herpes. 903M (talk) 01:10, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec)First of all, read the article. The material on the brain aneurysm is in the "Family" section, which covers the post-education part of his life, and that's where the hair plug mention would go, if we mentioned it, in sequence with the year in which he did it. There is no point in repeating the aneurysm material, as you just did. Second, you have to give exact citation information for your sources, whether they are online or not. What 1991 hearing was this? Give the committee, the hearings date, and the date of congressional publication. I will indeed then check it. I have accessed congressional hearings records before, for example in the Legal Services Corporation article that I wrote. Third, you need to read WP:RS and learn what WP does and does not consider a reliable source. Op-ed columns and commercial press releases, for example, are no good. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:17, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

To address your second point, real health issues should indeed be addressed, such as Reagan's skin cancer, McCain's skin cancer (which is in his article), and Biden's brain aneurysms (which is in this article). Baldness is not a real health issue, it's just cosmetic. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:18, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

This is not true. See http://seniorhealth.about.com/library/conditions/blbald5.htm where it says in the introduction "some of the causes of baldness may represent serious health problems". Biden's hair transplant can and should be mentioned in a very short and dignified way. I am not suggesting an edit where it says that some people with hair loss have serious medical problems. However, Wasted Time R's contention that hair loss is purely cosmetic is flatly wrong. 903M (talk) 04:34, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Fine, if you can find a reliable source that says he has alopecia areata, we'll include it. The vast majority of men, though, just experience male pattern baldness. By the way, what year did Biden's hair transplantation occur in? Maybe that will help narrow the search for a reliable source. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:18, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Must have been in the late 1980's. In those days, there was no internet as we know it. Otherwise, we'd have tons of references. There are many, many references already but many of those are hair related. There are some reliable sources. We really should report it. Not in a mocking way but as a source of information. Any other medical issues? 903M (talk) 03:12, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Biden has not released his medical records but has released his tax records. If he does, it may contain a phrase or two for this article, probably not more. Will it hide or reveal his hair transplant operation? 903M (talk) 02:42, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I hear he may also have had an in-grown toenail removed in the late 60's. Let's throw this piece of unsubstatiated medical trivia in aswel. (Captain hoek (talk) 14:55, 15 September 2008 (UTC))

That is unsubstantiated. The hair is substantiated. However, mockery is not very wikipedian so any mention of hair transplantation should be brief and done with dignity. 903M (talk) 05:33, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

If the aneurysm operation was a cover for the installation of hair plugs, what was his cover story for the dazzling dental makeover? It is also possible that his eyelids were given a Hollywood adjustment.Lestrade (talk) 02:51, 19 September 2008 (UTC)Lestrade

Your claims are new ones on me. But the claims I've seen on the web about the hair procedure vary greatly: it was done in the 1970s, the early 1980s, the late 1980s, once, twice, multiple times, it was well done, badly done, had to be redone, was improved with redoing, used large plugs, used small plugs, etc etc etc. That's the great thing about the web: anybody can publish anything. We don't quite work like that. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:10, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Great progress! Now we are all in agreement that he did have a hair transplant. The fact that we don't know the exact date is good for the article as mention of it could be limited to a dignified 1 phrase or 1 short sentence, maximum. That is what the article needs, just one very brief mention with absolutely no mockery or sensationalism. This kind of addition improves Wikipedia because we then provide the public with good information yet not to the point of mockery and scorn.

The proposed addition would be something like "Biden has been reported to have undergone hair transplantation. citation 1, 2" 903M (talk) 06:15, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Uh, no, we're not in agreement about anything. You must have missed the <sarcasm> tag. If we don't know what year (or even decade) this occurred in, or what exactly the procedure was, or whether it was part of Lestrade's conspiracy theory, or anything else about it, then we haven't provided any "good information" at all, we've just reported a widely-speculated rumor. Show me where WP:BLP says that we're supposed to report widely-speculated rumors. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:32, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

It is obvious from the photo that Mr. Biden has resisted the general temptation to have his eyelids lifted in the manner of Jack Lemmon, Al Pacino, Tony Shalhoub, etc., etc.Lestrade (talk) 13:14, 19 September 2008 (UTC)Lestrade

I hate to keep spoiling the fun, but we don't put things in articles just because some editors think they are "obvious from the photo". Wasted Time R (talk) 13:43, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• WP:VERIFIABILITY+WP:SOAP. Nuff said. Duuude007 (talk) 14:05, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Hair plugs? he's got a hugh bald spot. GoodDay (talk) 01:42, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Often there isn't enough hair to transplant the entire bald spot. 903M (talk) 00:40, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Prior to his recent VP nomination, if you asked the average American if they had heard of Joe Biden, it would have been met with a response of something like, "Oh yeah, the Senator with the really bad hair transplant". For what its worth, that was the case. Looks like Joe had some improvement in that area, it was quite the joke for awhile in the 80's and 90's. I don't know how what the average American knows about a public figure should weigh into their biography, but there it is. Karl Malden and Jimmy Durante were terrific actors but most Americans remember them for their noses. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cookiehead (talk • contribs) 00:40, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

And what is your WP:RS that describes this view of Biden by the average American? Point us to a Gallup poll or similar source. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:44, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not editing anything into the article, am I? Were you an adult in the 1980's and 1990's in America? I'm sure if you googled it, there would be some mention. I didn't say it should be edited into this article in any way, not to mention a significant portion of it. But, it someone were to want to include something about it, you will find that it was a significant element of his public persona as publicized in the media. I know, I watched television during this time. Am I going to edit something about it into Wikipedia? No, but it someone wants to include a referenced line about it into his personal life section, it wouldn't be out of line. Have you read many biographies on Wikipedia? If it has reliable sources, it's fair game for some sort of inclusion. I apologize for interrupting your political campaign, please continue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cookiehead (talk • contribs) 00:53, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

This tag is added to the article because some seem to think he didn't have it???? The Times of London is one of the most well respected and reliable news sources in the world. I am in favor of removing the tag once we agree he has had it. 903M (talk) 00:39, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

That's just great, 903M. Right when the veep debate is about to take place, and this article will get a huge readership spike, you put a disputed tag on an article because you're still sore that you don't have a consensus to add ... hair plugs. You've just helped damage Wikipedia's credibility. Congratulations. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:44, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

People should always question what they read (rightly or wrongly) especially, unfortunately, from an encyclopedia anyone can edit. As to hair plugs, he seemed not to have them when I saw him on telly tonight, so maybe he had them, but has since had them taken out. Wasted T, out of interest, why don't you want to include what seems to be a sourced fact? If it's not included, the tag does have a point IMHO as leaving out facts implies something about how people are seeking to present the article's subject. Sticky Parkin 02:55, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Agree on this first point, except when there's an pov or disputed tag up on the article, it's a red flag to readers to especially not believe anything in this particular article. When one of those tags is up on an article, it's a declaration that Wikipedia's processes have utterly failed and it's inherently an embarrassment to the project. It's a measure that's just not warranted over a minor matter like this, no matter where one stands on it. As for the hair matter, it's a sourced speculation, it's not a sourced fact. Biden has never acknowledged it, and the claims I've seen on the web vary greatly in the details, not agreeing on the time frame (1970s? early 1980s? late 1980s?) or the number of times it was done (once, twice, multiple times) or the technology being used (large plugs, small plugs, retreatment), etc. To introduce a cosmetic, trivial matter like this that's not acknowledged by the BLP subject and its the subject of so much varied sourcing, just doesn't seem wise or appropriate to me. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:06, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

And now 903M has put the tag up on the whole article, not just the hair place of dispute. 903M, you do not have consensus for this change, and I politely request that you remove the tag over this minor a matter. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:08, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

(ec)I think he's had more put in so it looks very natural. When the wind blows, as it did when he was introduced as the VP pick, there's a big bald spot that can't be covered because of the laws of physics. But I seek facts for Wikipedia and not mockery. That's why I propose a mere 6-8 word sentence, backed by solid reliable sources. No more than 1 sentence, right after other coverage of his medical records. It's time that we stand proud of attempts to improve ourselves. Hair transplantation is nothing to be ashamed of.

As far as the tag, people are not idiots. They can read. The tag says to see the talk page. There, they are read it. If you oppose the position, you can move it. 903M (talk) 03:12, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

[ec] One trivial point does not a disputed article make. Please see WP:POINT. --Evb-wiki (talk) 03:15, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

If it is a trivial matter, then put back the sentence. 903M (talk) 03:21, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

No the triva carries undue weight. --Evb-wiki (talk) 03:23, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

903M, you are holding the entire article's reputation hostage to a claim about cosmetics. You do not have the best interests of the project in mind. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:25, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

And no, we're not going to create a separate Health section just so you can stick in your stupid plugs. That gives too much undue weight to the subject; we don't have a separate Health section in the McCain article or most political BLPs. The aneurysms fit well in the Senate overview section, since he missed so much time there. And hair loss is not a health issue, it's a cosmetic issue! Wasted Time R (talk) 03:38, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

903M, the "content" tag isn't any better than the "disputed" tag. They both tell the reader, don't trust what's here, go find out about Biden somewhere else other than Wikipedia. Is that really the message you want to give? Wasted Time R (talk) 03:58, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

The tag says "The relevance of particular information in (or previously in) this article or section is disputed.

The information may have been removed or included by an editor as a result." The tag does not say "don't trust what's here". If it did, I would oppose the tag. 903M (talk) 04:23, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Given the context right around the tag (marriage, alcoholism, etc), it could easily be read that some major personal scandal has been removed and whitewashed. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:25, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Barred from receiving Communion / Technically Excommunicated

Propose adding the following to "Later personal life":

In September 2008, Biden was barred from receiving Holy Communion by the bishop of Scranton, Pennsylvania because of his support for abortion rights. source

Probably controversial, so thought I would propose it here rather than just adding it. Kelly ^hi! 15:18, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I've added it (with some slight wording modifications) to the "2008 vice-presidential candidacy" section, since this subject was already present there. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:07, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Works for me, thanks. Kelly ^hi! 23:10, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

According to the Catholic Church principles, like it or not, a Catholic can't be other thing then pro-life. Even if he pretends to be personnaly against abortion, being a pro-choice, he totally supports it. So, by supporting laws that allow a crime, without any restrictions, he's under a mortal sin, and being under this, he can't recieve absolution in confession, wich makes him automatically suspended from the sacrament of communion. Even if they aren't officially excommunicated, all the so called pro-choice Catholics are under technical excommunication. The sentence of excommunication exists in Roman Catholic Chanonic Law for those who are under this sentence could return to the Church sooner as possible, wich only can happens if they renounce to their ancient beliefs and full reconciliate with the Church. If the only real Catholics are the pro-life Catholics that means there's a single Catholic from the Democratic Party in the American Senate : Bob Casey, Jr. Sounds unbelievable but it's true. I don't think Joe Biden should appear by now as excommunicated but as a dissident Roman Catholic. His official excommunication as yet to be announced.85.244.48.117 (talk) 14:26, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Your analysis is not what the news media or we go by. As long as politicians self-identify as Roman Catholics, we list them as such. "Dissident Catholic" would mean Biden belonged to some factional organization within Catholicism that was actively battling Vatican authority, which is not the case. Wasted Time R (talk) 21:49, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

You seem to confuse political correctness with a Neutral Point of View. If he's suspended of the sacrament of communion according to the media, he's not a regular Roman Catholic anymore, according to the Church. You wrote : "Dissident Catholic" would mean Biden belonged to some factional organization within Catholicism that was actively battling Vatican authority, which is not the case." That's exactly the case ! Since pro-choice Catholics reject the Vatican authority in the pro-life issue, they are automatically under mortal sin and suspended from the Church. This is more then obvious for any person, whatever his point of view. The problem is that the Catholic Church, specially in the United States, is dominated nowdays by "political correctness", wich puts her in conflict with her moral duties and beliefs. Since he's not formarly excommunicated, at least for now, I think the word "Dissident" would be adequate to show that he's currently suspended of taking communion, according to the site shown above. But I have to agree that "Roman Catholic" by itself doesn't mean nothing more then the religion he claims to belong, even if his own beliefs put that in cause. What I wrote about being Catholic and pro-life is 100 % true, like it or not, from a Catholic perspective, wich is not mine.81.193.215.48 (talk) 03:07, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I noticed this part of the article. It really doesn't make sense. "In September 2008, The New York Times reported that Biden "departed from party doctrine on abortion rights, declaring that as a Catholic, he believes life begins at conception."[110] Many pro-choice Catholics say the same, if you read the criticism from the Catholic Church, he says other things that explain why according to him abortion is totally acceptable. This is just another example of "political correctness".[1]81.193.215.48 (talk) 03:32, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Biden has not been excommunicated, technically or otherwise, from his local parish in Delaware, which is the one that most matters. See this News Journal story about how he still attends Sunday mass there regularly, and has for many years. There's also nothing in that article to suggest he acts as a "dissident" within the church. (I've added this story as a cite to when his religion is first discussed in the article.) Wasted Time R (talk) 12:18, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

A parish is a part of a diocesis, so that's for the local bishop to decide if a person should be suspended of the sacrament of communion. It was recently noticed that he was banned of recieving communion. I also point that this controversial issue should be as much NPOV as possible. I know that many Mafia leaders and criminals were or are practising Catholics and they never were excommunicated for that. The Catholic Church in the past excommunicated all the Catholics who joined Freemasonary, since it was seen as an anti-Catholic institution, and Communist Parties, but that doesn't mean many Catholics did't join them. Of course if they were public figures the Church often openly excommunicated them. That was usual until the Vatican Council II. Even Fidel Castro, who had left the Church long before, was excommunicated when he assumed himself as a communist. Cases of excommunications aren't very common nowdays and usually aply to openly dissident Catholics clergymen, like Marcel Lefebvre and more recently Emmanuel Milingo. There's a great controversy if Biden should be openly excommunicated or not. See this articles :[2]. One thing is certain, if he were to be excommunicated, then all the other pro-choice Democratic and Republican politicians who claim to be Catholics should be. Only the Church in Rome could decide should a serious matter.85.244.48.31 (talk) 14:33, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

You still have no WP:RS saying he is "technically excommunicated" or a "dissident". A bunch of web pages on the Internet discussing something means nothing in terms of WP:V. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:41, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree that calling him a "dissident" can be seen as a personal interpretation, unlike if he were excommunicated. The article already menciones his current religious related controversies. So it's enough NPOV for me.82.154.86.37 (talk) 16:08, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry but I had to delet a user comment that was his personal opinion and was useless. If I had read here someone saying that Biden was an heretic and was going to Hell for his beliefs, I would have done the same. This is not for personal opinions.Mistico (talk) 16:56, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

He/she was making an argument that our article places undue weight on the Scranton bishop's statement, since it suddenly comes now when Biden is a VP nominee, even though Biden's position on this issue has been the same for decades. That's a reasonable point to make on a talk page. Wasted Time R (talk) 17:13, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

For some strange reason only now the bishop decided to take this measure. It's really strange, not to say at least. But we can't forget that the current pope seems more scrict in this issue then is predecessor, so we don't know what is about to happen next, if it's really something about to happen.85.240.23.154 (talk) 05:06, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Political positions section

This section is very unbecoming of the Senator. It is just a compilation of opinions (later part) and a compilation of various lobbying group's opinions. Some groups are omitted. This needs serious rewrite to make it into an encyclopedia. The Daniel Patrick Moynihan article is good because it doesn't have the political positions section. It is possible that some may use this as a political advertisement as older politicians, such as Moynihan and George Washington lack such section. I don't propose removing it but improving it by re-writing it. 903M (talk) 02:41, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

The ADA and ACU ratings are commonly used by scholars to identify where Congressional members place on the ideological spectrum. So that information is relevant and belongs. The National Journal/Almanac of American Politics ratings (which are from journalists and writers, not lobbyists) are also very useful, especially the latter as they break the spectrum down by economic/social/foreign axes and are also used by scholars and serious journalists. If you look at the McCain, Hillary, Obama, etc. articles, they all show these ratings too. So they belong.

The rest of the section is an attempt to summarize the Political positions of John McCain article. I didn't write it, and I don't think it's all that successful. So yes, you can do further work on that. Personally, I think summarizing political positions is hard without getting oversimplistic, and I prefer that readers go to the actual detail article, which can expand upon the positions at length. But most other editors want some level of summarization to be in the main article.

903M, one thing I don't think you appreciate is that a lot of us editors here have been working for a long time on these political candidate articles. There's even a Wiki project on it, Wikipedia:WikiProject United States presidential elections (and which included this Biden article, back when he was still a presidential candidate). The structure and contents of these articles, the fact that there are political positions sections, the fact that the campaign sections are kept up to date with recent news ... all these things that you don't like, have been incorporated into these articles in a fairly regular way. There is a consensus that this treatment of political candidates is encyclopedic for Wikipedia, despite what you personally think or what the DPM or George Washington articles look like. You do not have the only opinion here! You cannot just come along and decide that everything is no good and everything needs a serious rewrite. Wikipedia operates by consensus, and you don't have one. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:55, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

This is the weakest section and the section in most need of fixing. Even Wasted Time R expresses some doubt about it. I am considering improving it. Any suggestions? 903M (talk) 04:38, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

More dignified photo?

Switching photos so the top photo shows Senator Biden wearing a necktie is much more dignified, isn't it? Switching the photo so everyone can see how it looks because it's sometimes hard to envision what the proposed change is. 903M (talk) 04:15, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

There's project-wide consensus that we use the most recent official senate portrait for senators. See Obama, Hillary, McCain, etc. I don't know if that was the one we were using, but it sure isn't the economic forum one. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:18, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, our top photo is the main one from http://biden.senate.gov/. But ours seems washed out from what's on the Senate site. Maybe someone should re-download it and replace it. As for dignified, while you may think not wearing a tie is undignified, I sure don't (have long worked in a field that doesn't require one), and neither does Biden. He's a regular guy, and if he wants his main Senate photo not to have a tie, all the better. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:26, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Let's form a censensus of the best and most representative picture of the man. It's certainly not that tieless photo. How many times did he go to the Senate chambers tieless? Probably never or rarely. If a Senator is insane enough to wear only underwear as his official portrait, I'd say that we should not show him in his underwear unless he usually dressed that way. Any other photos with him in a necktie and suit?

Also, Mr. R's comment "and if he wants his main Senate photo not to have a tie, all the better." then we are letting politicians manipulate Wikipedia by allowing them dictatorial powers to determine what picture we use. We should decide what is the most representative photo, giving moderate consideration to the official one but not letting the politician dictate to us what to use (by making a rule saying that they have that power) 903M (talk) 04:30, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

You're going way off base here. We use official portraits for presidents and vice presidents too, look at George W. Bush or Bill Clinton or Dick Cheney. This isn't manipulation, this is just reflecting how the officeholder is portrayed officially. For all the other photos in the article, we can use what we choose. If Biden is elected vice president, he'll no doubt have a new official photo made of himself, and we'll switch to using that. If this is how Biden the senator wants himself to be viewed, so be it! Nobody else here has complained about the lack of a tie, have they? Wasted Time R (talk) 04:51, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Update – I've re-downloaded and cropped the image from the Biden Senate website. It's now Image:JoeBidenOfficialCroppedv3.jpg and I put it in as the top photo here. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:49, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

It has been known for pics that were too smooth to be removed and swapped for others, for instance a pic on Gillian McKeith in the past didn't genuinely reflect her appearance and was a publicity photo of hers, and the pic at Tony Robbins was also changed because the previous one was of a book cover with all the smoothness that entails. I think 903's one is less cheesy and more serious, and reflects what he's about- he's a politician- in the other one he looks like Steve Martin. But that's just my opinion- consensus of all editors in a discussion/involved in an article is what counts of course. Sticky Parkin 23:21, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

We're not saying those other photos aren't useful or shouldn't be in the article -- they are and they should. We're just saying for the top photo for federal officials, use something official. This rule obviously doesn't pertain to entertainers, writers, and various other professions, where the notion of 'official' doesn't really apply. This rule also has the advantage of avoiding lots of arguments about which photo to use (cf. the Palin article, where we don't have rights to her official state photo because it doesn't fall under the federal public domain laws, and thus there's endless discussion about which of the other photos should go on top). Wasted Time R (talk) 00:55, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

The reasons to use the tieless photo are:
1. photo prominently appears on Biden's senate website

The reasons not to use the tieless photo are:
1. Not a representative photo of him in the Senate. He seems to always wear a suit and tie, at least in pictures and Senate video that I've seen.
2. Required use of a photo dictated by the Senator himself or his office is fundamentally wrong. Wikipedia then can be manipulated by the politician. We MUST maintain editorial control of Wikipedia. Journalists are willing to go to jail in order to protect their editorial freedom. Wikipedia FORBIDS COI/conflict of interests where politicians can determine what appears on Wikipedia.

In practical terms, we can give great deference and great consideration to the politician's choice of photo but we MUST never cede control over to them, which is happening now (editors cite that the official photo must be used.)

3. The photo used is NOT designated as the official photo. I have examined the website carefully. It does not say "Official Senate Photo".

Logic dictates we must replace the photo. I propose a photo with a suit and tie, neutral or friendly expression. There are many of these. 903M (talk) 02:07, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

903M, you have a way of getting overwrought in your Talk discussions, and this is a good example. It makes it hard for anyone to deal with you! WP is not ceding control of anything, this has just been an informal practice, and senators pick their photos based on what they think makes them look good, not to manipulate Wikipedia. And your journalists going to jail is an utterly ridiculous comparison. You are right that this photo doesn't have any "official senate photo" label on it, it's just the first one that comes up at his website. So ... if you're so bonkers on this matter, go ahead and change it and see what other editors say. As for replacements, there are many photos of Biden, but few that we have rights to use. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:35, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Let me clarify. We should give great respect to using an official photo. However, we must not require it. Otherwise, we are ceding editorial control of Wikipedia to outsiders. As a matter of practice, official photos will probably be used 99% of the time.

I seek a representative photo. Probably a little less representative (since one's hair is often slightly wind blown) and probably posed. But it should have him wear a suit and tie and not shirtless or wearing a t-shirt (unless that's how he goes to the Senate floor, which he doesn't). I will search for photos. 903M (talk) 04:14, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

A. picture of Biden in a suit smiling in front of UN seal. Can be cropped. Is in the public domain. http://biden.senate.gov/images/press/press_kit/large/UN_Ban_Line_Up_052107.jpg

B. public domain photo of him addressing a group. Wearing a suit/tie and an American flag pin. http://i405.photobucket.com/albums/pp131/pbjoebiden/DSCF0273.jpg

C. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Joe_Biden_-_World_Economic_Forum_Extraordinary_Annual_Meeting_Jordan_2003.jpg Good photos found so far. 903M (talk) 04:30, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm more interested in the master plot you've discovered. Biden purposely put an undignified photo of himself at the start of his senate website, cleverly knowing that would force Wikipedia to use the same undignified photo at the top of his article, thus diabolically tricking the American people into thinking he sometimes doesn't wear a tie, when in reality he always does! That's some theory ... Wasted Time R (talk) 04:33, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

More likely...Biden wants to look like a steel worker or coal miner, not like a Member of Congress so he put a casual photo on his website. If so, he would be thrilled if others help him by using the photo. But we don't have to guess his motives. All we need to do is write the best article we can and use the best and most representative photos of him. 99.8% of the time, we use the official or what seems like the main photo of the politician. This seems to be the exception. 903M (talk) 04:48, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

If you look at the full-length photo, he's not exactly looking "casual" or like a working stiff. He's wearing pressed gray slacks, a dark blue blazer with gold buttons, a light blue dress shirt, and cuff links. And he's in a standard, face-forward portrait pose. It's got everything you would want from an official photo, except ... oh my god ... no tie! The horrors! So undignified ... Wasted Time R (talk) 04:55, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

He may usually wear a tie on the Senate floor, but I bet, on average he wears a tie less than 12 hours per day, which would mean that tie-less is actually more representative. I actually like the one at the U.N., but you can bet that Palin supporters would object to that, claiming that we are giving undue weight to his foreign policy experience, if that's used as the main photo. Main photos are usually posed (if available) rather than "candid", so I wouldn't consider the others on that basis.--Appraiser (talk) 14:28, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm willing to go with the UN photo as it's better than the tie-less photo. Let's not get into this "less than 12 hours per day"! If one sleeps without clothes then, at 33% of the time, that might be the most common attire! 903M (talk) 01:06, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I went to Biden's website to download the U.N. photo for cropping and found that no credit is given to the photographer. Therefore I have no assurance that it is Public Domain and we can't use it.--Appraiser (talk) 14:32, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Then I propose photo C. Nice looking photo, wears a suit and tie, very representative of how he looks and, for those that don't like it, it will probably be replaced in just a few weeks (maybe 8 weeks) when Biden is elected Vice President and an offical VP photo is released. Senator McCain has almost no chance of winning even though we can't put it in the article yet because of WP:RS 903M (talk) 15:54, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Found! Official photo with him in a suit and tie discovered! 903M (talk) 04:44, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to request that we use the previous photo, the one with no tie. Reasons: 1. The current photo is poorly lit, and his face is not easy to recognize. 2. The previous photo is more current; the one being used now was taken back in the 1990s (before his hair had gone fully gray). I think the previous photo was "dignified" enough and these two factors are more important. Andrew Levine (talk) 07:11, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree, based on reason 2. You can tell from the filenames that Image:Joe Biden, official photo.jpg is likely the top photo the article used to have some time ago, until it was replaced by Image:Joe Biden, official photo portrait 2-cropped.jpg. If we use the earlier photo, we make it appear that Biden is younger than he really is, which surely some people will object to. That's the reason for our unofficial guideline here, to use the most recent portrait available. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:13, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I also prefer tieless-Joe, based on both reasons expressed above. The one where he is sitting just isn't as good, IMO. --Evb-wiki (talk) 12:40, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree. The previous pic was much better than this one. Wearing a tie shouldn't be the standard to change it. --Floridianed (talk) 22:14, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

An argument against the Steve Martin photo (somebody else's description) is that it is not a representative photo. That's why Biden in a gorilla suit would be unsuitable. In the Senate people wear suit and ties. Use of an official photo just takes editorial control out of Wikipedians hands and into publicity handlers and spin doctors. If they release a representative photo, then ok, but if they insist on a Steve Martin photo, we should exert editorial control.

How about the Jordan conference photo, shown in the article. Dignified, representative photo. How about keeping a suit and tie photo until November then if he doesn't change his publicity photo, we cave in and use it.

As far as using old photos, look at the Jimmy Carter article and the John Edwards article. Decades old photo. Jimmy Carter was President a long time ago but John Edwards was running for President just a few months ago. If he can have an old photo, let Biden do the same. If you oppose it, try another suit and tie photo.

My opinion is purely to improve Wikipedia. I want a photo that best represents the subject. Therefore, no goofy photos, no photos showing him using the toilet, no photo of him with a foreign dictator, just a representative photo. 903M (talk) 02:09, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

With presidents, it's typical to use an image from their presidency, even if they live long after their presidents and have lots of other accomplishments. Thus the Bill Clinton top photo doesn't look like him these days either. That's fine, since being president is obviously the most notable thing these people will ever do. With Edwards, again, we're using an official senate portrait, since that was his last time in office. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:07, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

132.236.60.132 (talk) 05:20, 1 October 2008 (UTC)Someone should replace the photo next to "Political Positions" as it is already used as the main photo.

I've done that, moving the old official portrait into the article, just not in the top spot. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:02, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Senate District

No where could I find what Deleware Senate District he respresents. Nor does it talk about the people he prepresents. both would be helpful when wanted Facts about someone. 12.150.192.66 (talk) MAG —Preceding undated comment was added at 16:59, 26 September 2008 (UTC).

U.S. Senators are elected by the entire electorate of a state— in this case, Delaware, 78% caucasian, predominantly Protestant. See the Delaware article.--Appraiser (talk) 17:38, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

The article under "Delaware" states with a purported quote that he "reported" an amount of "earmarks" that he "garnered" for the state he represents. The citation does not state that he "reported" anything, the "quote" is from the author of the article cited, and not the subject, and that same author (not Biden, to whom the statement is attributed) characterizes certain expenditures as "earmarks" and asserts that Biden, the subject of the article, "garnered" those expenditures. The statement is lacking citation, and is therefore clearly beyond NPOV.

This sort of article is helpful at times of particular interest like this, but like those of the other candidates, nowhere near encyclopedic. Sickening. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.197.93.206 (talk) 05:53, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Family section

In this sentence "In the aftermath of the accident, he had trouble focusing on work, and just went through the motions of being a senator." Does anyone else feel that 'just' is a weasel word, likely unintentional? I don't think that anyone would argue that he was negligent to his job, which that vaguely implies. The sentence is important because he was obviously deeply affected but, the wording seems strange. Is there a source that might be able to be used?

An the article sourced for this sentence: "They had met on a blind date with Biden's brother's help though it turned out that Biden had already fancied Jacobs when he saw her in a local advertisement." That sounds unnecessarily creepy [for lack of a better word] to me. Mcoogan75 (talk) 02:32, 3 October 2008 (UTC)