Talk:Joe Biden

Plagiarism

Regarding his plagiarism at university, the text reads that the plagiarism was inadvertent due to his not understanding the rules of citation. Ignorance is not a valid defense in most circumstances, in this case plagiarism being the very act of using someones elses material without credit given - regardless of ones claimed intent. It might do to add his actual responses:

My intent was not to deceive anyone, Mr. Biden wrote. For if it were, I would not have been so blatant.

At another point, the young Mr. Biden said that if I had intended to cheat, would I have been so stupid?

Furthermore, a law school student not understanding the rules of footnotes and/or citation doesn't seem to hold water when he selectively footnotes other material. (See Fordham Law Review)

The proper treatment of the plagiarism incidents in the article has been much discussed in the past, as you'll see if you look back through the Talk archives. The key with how the law school incident is described here is to follow how serious the law school and the legal community has viewed it. If the law school thought it was at the most egregious level, they would have expelled him. At the next level, they would have failed him for that course and kept the F on his record. But he got the next level down from that, which is failing him but allowing him to retake the course and remove the F from his record. That supports the notion that there were some mitigating circumstances. Finally, the Delaware board of professional conduct declined to take any action against him in 1987 when it all came to light. As for Biden's comments, I think they are a bit self-serving; plenty of people do things with bad intent stupidly and get caught, the stupidity doesn't prove they didn't have bad intent. It's better just to relate what the law school and the conduct board ruled and leave it at that. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:20, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I suggest re-writing the section regarding the plagiarism accusations in the 1988 campaign to reflect impartiality. The section containing "the campaign ran into trouble when he was accused of plagiarizing a speech" which is followed by a comparison highlighting the differences due to the syntax of the time, it goes on to say that Biden cited Kinnock several times previously. Citing someone for the "formulation" is one thing. Mr. Biden literally took on Kinnocks biography and used the plagiarized speech as if he were Kinnock. When his claims of being the first in his family to go to university, being in the top half of his class, having been granted a full scholarship, as well as finishing with three degrees turns out, in every single case, to be false I do not believe using the term "had inaccurately recollected" is valid. Had it been one mistake, without the blatant speech and personae plagiarism, that would be a different matter. But instead, each one of these "innacurate recollections" taken together is by definition a lie, and should be recorded as such. He stole material, pretended to be someone else, and lied about every detail from his time at university in an effort to lend more power to his speech and therefore garner more support under false pretenses.

Following up this most gracious handling of his egregious acts, we are then treated to even more excuses for Mr. Biden (the incident was magnified due to a lack of news at the time, etc) - with citations coming from some third party opinion.

I am not at all advocating the demonization of the man, rather the introduction of more clearly impartial parlance - this specific incident has rather damning evidence, and should be treated at face value, not with kid gloves. To do otherwise is dishonest revisionism. Archon888 (talk) 18:59, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

You're mixing in two different things — the swiping of the Kinnock speech and of Kinnock's background, and the false statements about his academic performance. As for the Kinnock speech, as the article points out, it wasn't the swiping of words that got him in real trouble, but the partial distortion of his own family background to match Kinnock's. So I'm not sure what you're unhappy about there. As for the academic history, I agree the phrase "inaccurately recollected" is too mushy. Saying "lied" is too loaded and just invites edit wars. I would suggest "falsely stated", which gets the point across. As for what you called the "excuses", the article is simply trying to explain why Biden's campaign got sunk by these revelations, while other presidential campaigns have survived equal or worse and kept on going, sometimes winning (think Bill Clinton with Gennifer Flowers and the ROTC etc, GWB with the DUI, and so on). Wasted Time R (talk) 01:37, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

American-Sponsored Torture

{{editsemiprotected}} Article is missing section on US-sponsored torture during the Bush/Obama administrations. With trillions of dollars in special machinery at its disposal, often referred to as the world's largest dirty tricks infrastructure, the United States is well positioned to cover-up and manufacture false pretexts for sadistic acts of American-sponsored torture. Joe Biden has claimed that he opposes torture, yet reports from innocent civilians indicate that he has not stopped American-sponsored torture. According to Biden, there is no excuse for torture, yet the administration is not only aggressively manufacturing excuses, it is also conducting torture, blind to the consequences. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.121.30.139 (talk) 11:50, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

 Not done sources are needed. CTJF83 pride 20:53, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Agree. This proposal is no good. This is missing (talk) 23:42, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 81.132.194.200, 28 June 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} could you please change the reference to county 'Londonderry' as this is quite offensive to irish people like myself. It is county DERRY!!!!!!!!

81.132.194.200 (talk) 18:05, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

 Not done The source uses "Londonderry".The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 18:30, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

To clarify, per the notice near the top of the Talk:Derry page, this article follows the compromise wherein the city is called Derry and the county is called Londonderry. The reference in the text is to the county, so Londonderry it is. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:26, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Verbal gaffes section

Biden is at least as well known for his verbal gaffes as Dan Quayle, another VP. I think that a section on that topic, similar to the one in the Quayle article should be added to the Biden article, with proper RS sources. Naturally, there is a caution about biography of living persons, but that applies to both men. I thought I would put this idea out here on the talk page before working on the new section. Comments? Scoopczar (talk) 14:39, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

He has so many gaffes that it deserves an article or a section. Most politicians do not have so many gaffes. This is missing (talk) 23:41, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I think it's better when gaffes are integrated into the context they occur in rather than separated out into a separate section. In the Biden article, we have already have:

1. the "During his years as a senator, ..." paragraph in the "Characteristics as senator" subsection, which describes his overall tendencies in this area;
2. the "Presidential campaigns | 1988" subsection which describes in substantial detail the blunders that sunk that candidacy;
3. the "Biden made remarks during the campaign that attracted controversy ..." paragraph of the "Presidential campaigns | 2008" subsection which describes his verbal problems in that campaign;
4. the "Under instructions from the Obama campaign ..." parts of the "2008 vice-presidential candidacy" section which describe Obama getting upset with his gaffes; and
5. the long "In late April 2009, Biden's off-message response ..." paragraph in the Vice Presidency section, which talks about his verbal issues in this role.

So it's clear the article is not ignoring all this. But to pull all of these out of those sections into a separate "Verbal gaffes" section would disrupt the intelligibility and historical coherence of those sections. To duplicate all of them in a separate section would constitute undue weight. I think it's best left as it is. Wasted Time R (talk) 17:22, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

As for the Dan Quayle article, the change to split out "Verbal gaffes" as a separate section was made very recently (a couple of weeks ago) and was a mistake. I've folded that material back into that article's "Vice Presidency section". Wasted Time R (talk) 18:59, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Federal Election Commission fine needs to be added to the 2008 campaign section.

Add the following: On July 17, 2010, the Federal Election Commission fined the Biden Campaign $219,000 for campaign finance violations. http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/07/17/biden.campaign.fine/index.html?hpt=T1

The Biden campaign says it is commonplace but a google search reveals this is political spin. Other campaigns have been fined but usually not so much. Hillary Clinton got a $35,000 fine but that was considered big. Some cases, the FEC doesn't even bother with. http://www.fec.gov/press/press2006/20060126mur.html

Biden supporters should not claim that this bad news should not be here by using a lot of excuses. One sentence will not overwhelm the article. This is missing (talk) 23:41, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I've added a paragraph on this to Joe Biden presidential campaign, 2008#Aftermath. I'm on the fence about whether a sentence on this belongs in the Biden main article or not. It's not insignificant, but it's also true that most campaigns do run into issues in their FEC audits. Let's see what others have to say here and also see if there's much additional news coverage about it. Wasted Time R (talk) 16:51, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Standout Athlete Suddenly Has Asthma When Facing the Draft?

The article contains no discussion of the question why such a standout athlete would suddenly suffer asthma symptoms when faced with the prospect of being drafted and sent to Vietnam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.44.149.170 (talk) 04:21, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

This has been discussed here several times in the past, including at least three discussions in Talk:Joe Biden/Archive 4. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:18, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Reference this entry under the “Early life and education” section: “Biden received five student draft deferments during this period, with the first coming in late 1963 and the last in early 1968, at the peak of the Vietnam War.[16] In April 1968, he was reclassified by the Selective Service System as not available for service due to having had asthma as a teenager.[16]”

I it is alledged on various Internet sources that the reason Biden did not release his full medical records during the campaign was they would reveal the extent to which he went to avoid military induction once he received his draft notice. Although in his best-selling memoir, “Promises to Keep,” he recounted his active childhood, working as a lifeguard and excelling at high school football, he never mentions asthma. It is also alleged that what actually happened was by the time Biden finally got his draft notice in ‘68, he was already a lawyer so knew how to “manipulate the system.” His asthma was not detected during his draft physical but rather Biden appealed his induction by submitting "documentation" from a “private physician” notorious for “discovering” disqualifying features for well connected patients after they were notified for induction.

If true, Biden makes Bush look like a war hero and it should definitely be included in his bio in the same manner in which their Vietnam-era conduct is discussed in the Bush and Cheney pages — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.169.199.18 (talk) 19:20, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia gives little credence to "various Internet sources"; read WP:Reliable sources for what it does rely upon. And the Internet claim that Biden never mentions having asthma in his autobiography is easily disproven: see page 156 of that book right here. Wasted Time R (talk) 20:30, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Order

I think the US Senator box should go above all of his Senate Chairmanships and under VP. It just looks better. When people think of him besides VP they think of Senator. Plus it is his longest serving office and arguably more important than Senate Chairmanships. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Politicsislife (talk • contribs) 04:30, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

 Not done: in my opinion it makes more sense the way it is, being the chair of a Senate committee makes it clear that the person is a senator, and is an additional accomplishment above and beyond being a Senator. Please establish consensus to the contrary if you want the change made. Monty₈₄₅ 15:36, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Awards

Best Unintentional Singer Autotune the News #8 September 1, 2009

Edit request from Eamonn81, 3 March 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} As Joe Biden's is of Catholic Irish heritage his roots come from county Derry. If he was of Protestant northern Irish or British heritage his roots would have come from county Londonderry.

Eamonn81 (talk) 02:47, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:41, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Per the notice near the top of the Talk:Derry page, this article follows the Wikipedia-wide compromise wherein the city is called Derry and the county is called Londonderry. The reference in the text is to the county, so Londonderry it is. It doesn't depend upon the background of the person being discussed. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:07, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

2012 election

Will Biden become Obamas running mate in 2012 as well or is he going to be replaced as VP if Obama is sucessfull in election? Perhaps some information about this could be added in the article. Jerchel (talk) 18:21, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

That is unknown at this time.--William S. Saturn (talk) 18:31, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Title Under his name

He is listed as the 47th President of The United States (underneath his photograph). He is obviously the 47th Vice-President. This needs to be changed. [07:40, August 4, 2011 70.100.121.98]

Fixed. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:52, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Criticism

Biden has been criticized for being "totally unprepared for that post, which will lead the U.S. into a crisis."