Talk:Joe Biden

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jacobmolga (article contribs).

Infobox picture

Considering a noticeable age difference between the current infobox picture and now, I think it might be time for an image change. I have a few proposals below. Thoughts?

--Cliffmore (talk) 01:02, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

I would support changing it to the second image.  Nixinova  T  C  07:37, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree. However, over at Hillary Clinton, editors opposed updating her 2009 picture until long after the 2016 election was over on the grounds that Secretary of State was the position for which she was most notable. It reminds me of official pictures of Kim Il Sung, which continued to show him as a young revolutionary until he finally died of old age. TFD (talk) 23:11, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Hard to say, I don't know what's more significant, his current run or his Vice Presidency. At some point his Vice Presidency may become less important than his current run but I don't know when that would switch over or if it already has. Geographyinitiative (talk) 05:36, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

I would say that if he wins a few primaries, then a change is definitely needed. There may be a need to change before that, but I'm not familiar with picture-switching policies.Geographyinitiative (talk) 06:04, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Hunter Biden's activities in Ukraine

This information has been reverted, with the following edit summary: "Remove gratuitous insinuation of wrongdoing." I think it is relevant and should be included.

In September 2019 it was reported that President Donald Trump had been pressuring the Ukrainian government to investigate alleged wrongdoing by Biden and his son Hunter Biden, who took a board seat on Ukrainian natural gas company Burisma Holdings.

References

-- Tobby72 (talk) 08:09, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Not good. This makes it sound like taking a board seat is wrongdoing on the the part of Biden and his son. It also omits the fact that it has already been investigated by Ukrainian prosecutors. You can't just stick this in sentences actross multiple articles. It's WP:UNDUE and lacks WP:NPOV.- MrX 🖋 11:07, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

It still is worth mentioning as an accusation that has characterized views on his character. Excluding this would be like excluding allegations against president Trump, those allegations have been important to how people view the individual and should be addressed. That being said, we should note that there is no definitive evidence of illegal acts to prevent the issue of insinuating wrongdoing.Bgrus22 (talk) 23:15, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

that last sentence is about all we'll allow. it would be best of course to just not-mention those conspiracy theories at all --especially with an election coming up, we need to police the POV even harder. Cramyourspam (talk) 15:02, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Joe Biden's 2005 BAPCA Vote

Coming just a few years before the financial crisis this law has been described as an attack on the middle class yet there is an insufficient and inaccurate mention of Biden's vote and lobbying for this disgraceful legislation. The section is biased, dishonest and poorly written: implying BAPCA is a compound of benign pro-consumer legislation.

There needs to be a section dedicated to accurately describing Joe Biden's role in lobbying for, voting for and passing BAPCA in 2005 - whether or not BAPCA is summarized as an atrocity. There is no debate on how hugely significant this law is and Joe Biden's critical role in the legislative process. Perhaps cutting and pasting from Wikipedia's BAPCA page will suffice — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.120.168.70 (talk) 16:48, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bankruptcy_Abuse_Prevention_and_Consumer_Protection_Act

1972 United States Senate election in Delaware

Hello all! Teamsters Union leader Frank Sheeran wrote in 2004 that in 1972 he organized a strike to prevent delivery of a newspaper which had Republican attack ads against Biden. I want to add this sentence to the article, but I imagine it may cause some discussion. Sources for the claim are on the 1972 United States Senate election in Delaware page. What do you think? Geographyinitiative (talk) 02:02, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Here's kind of what I want to do （[1]）Geographyinitiative (talk) 02:07, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces, Nixinova, and Tobby72: Hello all- let me know if you think adding some form this sentence is warranted/worthwhile. I think that if this sentence has a basis in fact, then it probably should be added ie is there confirmation of the events in question, is there anyone who can corroborate any of this besides Sheeran, etc. Wikipedia is about making a neutral encyclopedia and if it is a fact that Sheeran did this stuff and that he later said these were his motives, then I think an encylopedia article would include a passing reference to Sheeran's claims with further analysis in the 1972 United States Senate election in Delaware article. No shame toward Biden- Sheeran goes out of his way to say that Biden probably never knew about this. But in a close race like that, suppressing that Republican attack ad could have made Biden's chances better. That's my personal, unprofessional opinion. Geographyinitiative (talk) 04:48, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Biden is being dishonest about his Iraq war vote

But that only matters if the public sees Biden as dishonest even if he is a liar. Joe Biden's 2002 vote in favor of the Iraq War will be merely incidental if his campaign is successful. This should be mentioned in the Wikipedia article - however the article references this key vote by stating that Biden voted against a later increase after the war already started. That's clear bias, but is being permitted. There should be a mention (an objective analysis?) of how critical an issue the Iraq war vote is for the political campaign. The issue is so important to the Biden campaign (and the Trump campaign) we've seen candidates who won't be elected President, such as Tulsi Gabbard whose campaign is merely an accessory to the referendum, state that she, like Joe Biden (and Hillary Clinton) were merely lied into sanctioning the war by lies from 'the other side.' The public may be willing to swallow this explanation but why can't the article make any mention of this?

Mark Twain: "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.61.8.59 (talk) 14:36, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 December 2019

73.61.8.59 (talk) 14:43, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

The BAPCA act section is incomplete and fails to show how harmful this legislation is. Please change this disinformation. This is as UNAMBIGUOUS as I can be. You do the leg work, this section reads like a campaign ad.