Talk:Joe Biden

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?

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)

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)

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)

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).[1] 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)

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: [2]. 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)

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)

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.[3] 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)

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)

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)

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. [4] 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)

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)

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)

7/11 & Dunkin Donuts comments

Video: [5]. 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)

"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)

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)

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)

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)

Biden as teetotaler

In the recent 60 Minutes interview Senator Joe Biden reminded people that he is a teetotaler, something that might not be expected for an Irish Catholic politician with working-class roots. According to a blog related to the Iowa primary Biden has never tasted alcohol. I don't know how accurate this lifetime teetotal claim is. Redhawk69 (talk) 15:00, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Ignore stereotypes. Wasted Time R (talk) 15:32, 1 September 2008 (UTC)