Talk:Joe Biden/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

NOTE: 903M (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has been blocked as a sockpuppet of Dereks1x, editing in evasion of his community ban. As such, his comments are stricken. Tvoz/talk 05:18, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Plagiarizing

This page says that: "It was also alleged that, during his time as a law student at Syracuse, Biden had plagiarized a law review article."

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B0DE3DB143FF93BA2575AC0A961948260

Biden acknowledged a mistake in his youth, when he plagiarized a law review article for a paper he wrote in his first year at law school.

Mr. Biden insisted, however, that he had done nothing malevolent, that he had simply misunderstood the need to cite sources carefully. And he asserted that another controversy, concerning recent reports of his using material from others' speeches without attribution, was much ado about nothing. There is nothing "alleged" about this. It is fact and this page should be edited to show so (using the above reference). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bavarian323i (talk • contribs) 01:24, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

See this later NYT story, which is the cite behind our text "The Delaware Supreme Court's Board of Professional Responsibility cleared Biden of plagiarism charges regarding the law school paper in late 1987, several months after he had withdrawn from the campaign.[75]". Wasted Time R (talk) 01:31, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I've reviewed these articles. Biden admits he plagarized. I don't know how anyone can dispute this. Five pages out of 15? Give me a break. The verifiable information from the articles shows that after the story became public some 20 years later when Biden was running for president he had to report the incident to the Delaware Supreme Court because it could affect his standing as a lawyer (apparently he didn't report the college incident when he applied to the bar which is also probably a violation, but I'm sure Biden will say it was just another oversight). Anyway, it's a good thing he's a prominent Delaware politician because the panel of lawyers and non-lawyers, ruled on Dec. 21, 1987, that Mr. Biden "had not violated any rules", as the NYT reports without having to qualify a bogus statement by saying "The News Journal reported". In no way shape or form was Biden cleared of plagarizing, how could he be? That's total baloney. How could a Delaware court's professional review board adjudicate on 20 year old plagarism issues? The record of his plagarism and his own admissions speak for themselves. I know the NYT headline reads "Professional Board Clears Biden In Two Allegations of Plagiarism", and they say he was cleared of plagarizing, but how could the court say he didn't plagarize? The NYT won't even touch the claim, they have to justify it by stating: "The News Journal reported today". I'm sure the NYT article's writer knew it was bogus. The court decided whether he violated their professional rules for lawyers, which are apparently fairly low in Deleware.

Accordingly, I added the following edits. I hope we won't have to dispute this extensively, but I'm sure we can all be fair and include the verifiable parts. What we can't do is rewrite history or sanitize the facts to benefit Sen. B.

At Syracuse Biden plagiarized 5 of 15 pages in a law review article. Biden said it was inadvertent due to his not knowing the proper rules of citation. He was permitted to retake the course after receiving a grade of F, which was subsequently dropped from his record. Almost 20 years later in 1987 a Delaware court ruled that Biden had "not violated any rules".(Wallamoose (talk) 01:01, 19 September 2008 (UTC))

We have two distinct issues here: (1) where in the article we place this material and (2) what we say. Regarding (1), it can either be in the education section early on, or the 1988 campaign section later, but it can't be duplicated in both, as that would give it WP:Undue weight. Wallamoose, is your preference that it go into the education section early? Wasted Time R (talk) 01:09, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay I gotcha. Sorry by the way, I didn't mean to be jerky about the whole thing, but I was trying to figure out the whole story for a while and it was a little tricky to decpiher all this old stuff and what happened when. In the end I tried to be pretty careful to be accurate...

1) It definitely needs to go in the education section. As I recall he was almost kicked out. And it's certainly notable because it's been reported on a lot. I haven't had a chance to go back to the 1988 section. I was going to do that next. It came up then in a completely new context as a political issue. So I think it can be mentioned appropriately without duplicating the detailed facts of the first part. It's really two different events because one occured in Law School and the other during his candidacy for President. Of course that's when it became public. So I think it belongs both places. I would also like to point out that I tried to be pretty concise. It could be expanded on, and some people might argue that it should be, but I tried to keep it short and sweet. 2)I'm flexible on how you want to word it, as long as it's accurate and not whitewashed or exaggerated. Is there a problem with the way I've worded it? I tried to be pretty straight, but I'm not perfect. (Wallamoose (talk) 01:25, 19 September 2008 (UTC))

Ok, I had been pondering moving the plagiarism material up to the Education section ever since I last restructured the article, but your comments and those of another editor have convinced me that's the best way. So I've done that. The 1988 section now makes a back reference to it. As for the content, I think the key here is that the 1987 Delaware board ruling referred to his standing as a lawyer, which could have been jeopardized by the plagiarism charge. It was that that he was cleared on. The original law school ruling, which seems to have been "yes, this was plagiarism, but not so bad that we kick you out, you get an F but can retake the course", still stands as well. Hopefully my revisions now get all this across. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:59, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I thought I wrote a note saying the edits you made look great, but now I don't see it. I think I lost it because another post was made inbetween, and I didn't do that cut paste thing you have to do when it says "someone has posted" before you made yours or whatever. So I'm really confused and who knows if what I wrote will show up somewhere...

Anyway, I realize now, comparing edit history, that much of the information was already in the article. But I guess when you read one part and then another and then the newspaper articles it all gets confusing. Mostly I was just trying to sort out why it was "alleged".

I think you handled the edits elegantly and I think the way it's stated is appropriate, and I think it needed to be with his academic stuff.

Somebody may want to add quotes and hype it up or add to the mention of it in the 1988 campaign part when it was a political issue (or even use it somehow as it's affecting the 2008 campaign) but I'm satisfied. At least for now... Party on. (Wallamoose (talk) 04:18, 19 September 2008 (UTC))

Thanks for your agreement/praise. Yes, it's definitely better put in with the academic stuff. Otherwise, readers would wonder what happened to it, was Biden being whitewashed, etc., before they got to where it was. As for edit conflict warnings, yes you have to cut and paste from the bottom part of that conflict window; once you cancel or move out of that, what you did is gone. Very annoying: especially on a Talk page, better software would just apply your edits somewhere else and mark with with an "(EC)" or something. Oh well. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:41, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Let's have some respect for the man

He is Joseph Biden. Let's name the article after what people call him. He's only used Joe recently. He's been Joseph for many years. This is different than Jimmy Carter, who was governor and president calling himself "Jimmy". Let's rename this article Joseph Biden and redirect Joe to Joseph.

http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm gives the names we should use. Mike Crapo, not Michael. Norm Coleman, not Norman. But Joseph Biden, not Joe. Christopher Dodd, not Chris. 903M (talk) 05:31, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names), "Use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things." Currently Joe is more commonly used for Biden than Joseph. (5:1 on Google using quotation marks). Also look at his website. We should also respect his preference.--Appraiser (talk) 14:52, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

The current article name is fine. And I think he's been "Joe" for a long time, including his 1988 presidential campaign. Wasted Time R (talk) 21:05, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Joe Biden/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

This article is in decent shape, but it needs more work before it becomes a Good Article.

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   In the lead, this sentence ---> "He is an attorney and became a senator in 1973 at the Constitutional minimum age of 30", reads very strange, might need to be re-worded. In the Early life and education section, spell out "J.D.", I mean I know what it means, but how 'bout the reader who reads this article. In the Family and early political career section, "Popular Republican incumbent Senator J. Caleb Boggs was considering retirement", remove "popular" since it is a peacock term, per here. Same section, this sentence ---> "Biden's campaign had virtually no money, was managed by his sister Valerie Biden Owens (who would go on to manage his future campaigns as well)", maybe adding "which" before "was". Same section, "As a single father for five years, Biden left standing orders that he be interrupted in the Senate at any time if his boys called", maybe replacing "boys" to "sons"? Same section, "In remembrance of the accident, Biden does not work on each December 18", remove "each" makes the sentence read strange. In the 2008 Senate candidacy section, this sentence ---> "If he won both races, he would have to resign from the Senate by Inauguration Day – January 20, 2009[103] assuming he chose to become Vice President", remove "he chose" and add "he becomes Vice President". Cause, didn't he accept the VP nomination at the DNC?

   Check. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 16:25, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   In the lead, and anywhere else in the article, "U.S." needs to be "US", per here. In the Early life and education section, it would be best if "Claymont, Deleware" is linked once, per here. In the Family and early political career section, this sentence ---> "and he had overcome her parents' initial reluctance for her to be seeing a Roman Catholic", "seeing" doesn't seem to be the right word, how 'bout "dating"? In the Family and early political career section, link "Wilmington" once. In the Political positions section, add (ACLU) after "American Civil Liberties Union", the reader might not know what it means. The article should have a consistency between "%" and "percent".

   Check. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 16:25, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   It would be best if the book sources use {{cite book}} template. References go after the parentheses.

   Check. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 16:25, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   Is there a source for this ---> "Biden has since won additional terms, usually with about 60 percent of the vote. Biden spent 28 years as a junior Senator due to the two-year seniority of his Republican colleague William V. Roth. After Roth was defeated for re-election by Thomas R. Carper in 2000 Biden became Delaware's senior Senator. He is now the longest-serving U.S. Senator in Delaware history"? In the Judiciary Committee section, in paragraph 6, are there sources available in the first three sentences? Does Reference 64 cover all this ---> "Biden has twice run for the Democratic nomination for President, first in 1988, and again in 2008. Both times he was unsuccessful. He also considered joining the Democratic field of candidates for the 2004 presidential race but decided otherwise, saying he did not have enough time to cultivate a sufficient fundraising base. Biden had urged Republican Senator John McCain to run with Kerry, saying the cross-party ticket would help heal the “vicious rift” in U.S. politics"?

   Check. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 16:25, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   If the statements above can be answered, I will pass the article. Good luck with improving this article!

--  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 20:55, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your comments and for taking on the review, ThinkBlue! I'm already working on them. Wasted Time R (talk) 21:33, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

You are welcome and do hit me up when you get the concerns done. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 22:08, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Have done a bunch, but a few more still to go. Back on later this evening to work on them, will let you know when done. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:34, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, I believe I have now made changes to address all of your concerns. (There was also an unrelated move of the law school plagiarism material from the 1988 section to the Early life and education section, due to other editors' comments.) The only exceptions are these:

• I really, really don't like the idea of changing all the "U.S." to "US". It's quite contrary to how standard American political writing is done. I believe that WP:MoS#Acronyms_and_abbreviations gives me leeway to use "U.S." here, because this is a very United States-specific article and because there are few if any other abbreviated country names (such as UK) here. Usages like "U.S. Senate" and "U.S. Supreme Court" are right this context, while "US Senate" and "US Supreme Court" just aren't.
  • Alright, but, I was just going with what "U.S." is being referred to now a days. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 16:25, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
• I've changed to use "percent" not "%" consistently throughout the article text, but still use "%" in the election results tables at the end. I believe this is consistent with what WP:MOS#Percentages recommends.
  • That's fine. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 16:25, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
• I believe {{cite book}} is used throughout the article for book cites. If there are any that don't, let me know which they are. For the one very frequently cited book, The Almanac of American Politics 2008, I've put the base cite in the References section at the bottom, and used a short-form reference to it in all the footnotes. This is a standard scheme that I've seen used in many FA articles.
  • Hmm, I swore I saw somewhere that the cite book format wasn't really being used. Hmm, weird. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 16:25, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
• I couldn't find a cite for the after-Roth junior-to-senior senator statement, but it shouldn't need one, as it's self-evident once you see what years Roth served. If you still object to it, the statement could just be removed; despite what some Wikipedia editors seem to think, the junior/senior senator distinction isn't all that important in real life.
  • Its fine, but, statements like those will be asked to be proven, but its fine here. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 16:25, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Anyway, thanks again for the review, and let me know if you have any further issues. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:30, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

There are many flaws in the article. However, fixing them quickly would lead to edit warring as negative changes tend to be opposed by supporters. A few areas look like a campaign article but taking them out just weeks before an election can't be realistically done. This is why the good article consideration should be put on hold until mid November. Otherwise, the GA designation will stifle changes because once the award is given, it will be even harder to change and improve. 903M (talk) 06:27, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

903M, you need to be specific about the "many flaws". So far, all you've harped upon is the hair plugs thing, over and over and over. What are the "few areas" that look like campaign material? Be specific. And you're wrong about the timing. This article gets the least amount of edits and edit warring of any of the four presidential/vice presidential candidates, so we can and do accommodate comments and suggestions. And getting a GA doesn't stifle anything; it just means the article is "good", not that it can't be better. And as an example of articles not being put on hold just because the election is near, the John McCain article was promoted to FA in August, just a month ago. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:02, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Not to interfere here, but if this "hair plugs" things is added to the article, that sort of info. might be considered trivial and may not be appropriate of its use. But, if he hasn't made any comment about that, don't add it, it would be useless to include. Overall, all the comments I left have been dealt with and I would like to congratulate Wasted Time R for getting the stuff I left at the talkpage, cause I have gone off and passed the article to GA. Congrats. ;) Also, if you are having thoughts in nominating the article for FA, I would recommend opening a peer review, for glitches that I may have missed, believe me it'll be a bridge to somewhere. :P --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 16:25, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again very much for the review!! Wasted Time R (talk) 23:02, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Income and contributions to charity

I added this information to the article under the later personal life section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wallamoose (talk • contribs) 22:36, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Biden and his wife gave an average of $369 a year to charity during the past decade, his tax records show. The Bidens reported earning $320,000 last year, including $71,000 in royalties for his memoir, Promises to Keep: On Life and Politics. The Bidens reported giving $995 in charitable donations last year, about 0.3% of their income and the highest amount in the past decade. Over the decade, the Bidens reported a total of $3,690 in charitable donations, or 0.2% of their income. Biden and his wife gave an average of $369 a year to charity during the past decade, his tax records show. The Bidens reported earning $320,000 last year, including $71,000 in royalties for his memoir, Promises to Keep: On Life and Politics. The Bidens reported giving $995 in charitable donations last year, about 0.3% of their income and the highest amount in the past decade. Over the decade, the Bidens reported a total of $3,690 in charitable donations, or 0.2% of their income. USA Today Sept. 12, 2008[1](Wallamoose (talk) 22:30, 18 September 2008 (UTC))

This is way too detailed to go into the article. The article does discuss Biden's general net worth, which these tax returns illustrate, and in fact footnote 38 in the current version (Broder's NYT story) is about the tax returns release, from which the reader can see the same kind of info as you mention. If the point you're trying to make is that the Bidens didn't give much to charity, they may not have had much excess income to give, it's hard to tell. In any case, we don't usually go into giving to charity in BLPs, unless it's a major aspect of their lives, such as philanthropists and the like. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:37, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

[I just discovered this put on a user page]
Joe is a Senator and a VP candidate. So his income and charitable contributions are both noteworth and relevant. That's why the USA Today reported them. I'd like to have them put back in, but I don't want to start an edit war. What say you? [23:10, September 18, 2008 Wallamoose]

As indicated above, I agree with Loonymonkey's reverting of this material. His exact income figures aren't very notable, it's just what every Senator makes; as we state in the article, he has "almost no outside income or investment income." (The royalties from Promises to Keep are unusual, most of his career it's just been Senate income with a little extra from Widener.) And again, amounts of charitable giving is not something we normally include. Unless you walk in someone else's shoes, choose not to judge them ... Wasted Time R (talk) 00:45, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmmmmm... Well, it's been widely reported on. I mean this is from a USA Today Story. And it's been discussed elsewhere. So I mean I respect that the biography shouldn't attempt to slam the person. But I think how much he gives is noteworthy and it's certainly verifiable.

It seems like you're objecting to it because it makes him look bad? But I mean they have to disclose their tax records for a reason. And this is what the news media found in them that's worth reporting. And I think it's interesting.

It's not my job to defend, explain or contextualize why he did or didn't give. If you wanted to add the same info on Bush or Cheney or Palin or whoever, I can't imagine anyone objecting. It's public information. Well I guess some people will object to anything. But I think it belongs in the article. It's hardly trivial compared to some of the other things that go in these biographies!

How about a couple sentences saying how much he and his wife earned, how much he gave, and his average giving over the last ten years? Wasted Time seems to be a master of cutting things down... (Wallamoose (talk) 05:24, 19 September 2008 (UTC))

As the USA Today article states, the Bidens give to charity in forms other than money. For example, our Jill Biden article states: "[Jill] Biden is also the president of the Biden Breast Health Initiative, a non-profit organization begun in 1993 that provides educational breast health awareness programs free of charge to schools and other groups in the state of Delaware.[14][15] Biden is also involved with Book Buddies, which gives books to low-income children, and Delaware Boots on the Ground, which supports military families.[13]" Are you going to count that for nothing? On what grounds; remember, time is money. And are you going to get into the whole discussion from USA Today about what the "averages" are for charitable giving among income groups, and how it tends to be distorted by people giving very large amounts?

Furthermore, you're wrong that candidates "have" to disclose their tax returns. They don't have to, and some candidates or their spouses don't (for example, Cindy McCain so far). When they do, it's usually to show that they don't have sources of income that represent conflicts of interest with their government position. We've already made clear in the article that Biden has very little outside income. Yes, I know this got media attention a few days ago when Limbaugh bashed Biden for having made no money and thus being unfit to manage the U.S. economy, but the article already explains that Biden's young entrance into elective office sort of forced this to happen.

In sum, if you look at all the articles on political candidates that we have, you'll see that we commonly describe the net worth of the candidates, which we do here, but that we usually don't list salaries or items on tax returns. I don't see any reason to start doing so here. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:45, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Military service

My class is curious about Joseph Biden's military experience. As a possible Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces he must have some first hand experience in this matter. All men who came of age in the 1960's served their country in national service. The men of his generation made great sacrificees. My class has been unable to find any background in this area. Where can we find information on this? Our concern is health. If his possibly poor health prevented him to serve as a young man then would he be fit as a heartbeat away as our Commander in Chief? Sincerely, Dan DeVol

Biden received five draft deferments and was later disqualified from military service because of asthma as a teenager. This should probably go in the article if it isn't already, I'll take a look. Kelly ^hi! 01:08, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

It's already in the article. Kelly ^hi! 01:10, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Telling wheelchaired man: "Stand up Chuck, let them see you"

Recently Biden urged a wheelchair-bound crippled man to "stand up", sources [2] [3], video [4]. The person was apparently Missouri Senator Chuck Graham, we already have an article about him with the story included. However he was only the victim of this really and has much less to do with the issue than Biden, so the inclusion there seems questionable.Hobartimus (talk) 08:36, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

An innocent mistake that he immediately corrected and handled as gracefully as possible. When you're doing these stump speeches, you're handed a list of local politicos that you're supposed to mention; he was reading off the name of Graham and hadn't seen who he was yet. Doesn't belong in either article (and as of right now, isn't in the Graham article either). Wasted Time R (talk) 11:00, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we should create Gaffes spoken by major political figures. (Just kidding)--Appraiser (talk) 16:36, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure that it would not be an appropriate section. We all need a little humor. It could certainly be equal opportunity for all political persuasions.--Dstern1 (talk) 03:26, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

We have List of incidents famously considered great blunders#Political, Microphone gaffe#Political, Bushism#Top Quotes. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:21, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Our math is confusing

It says more than once that he become senator at age 30, the minimum age. Then it says that he's the 5th youngest Senator. These are conflicting statements. The problem is that he wasn't exactly 30. Otherwise, he would be the youngest Senator.

There needs to be some rewriting to make this sound better. I can do it but I will wait at least a day, maybe longer. 903M (talk) 06:20, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

John Eaton and Armistead Mason were elected to the Senate at age twenty-eight in 1818 and 1816 respectively. Henry Clay was admitted to the Senate in 1806 at age twenty-nine. Rush Holt was elected to the Senate in 1934 at age twenty-nine but wasn't sworn in until he turned thirty on June 21, 1935. Joe Biden was thirty years, one month, and fourteen days old when he was sworn in as United States Senator in January of 1973. TheScotch (talk) 09:40, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

In other words, read the footnote the article gives on this (currently fn 32, to this U.S. Senate account). But I don't think we want to get into the tangled history of all these younger senators in our article. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:49, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

(I've taken the liberty of deleting your spacing colon so that it's easier to tell we have two different speakers here. Hope you don't mind.) Sorry, I didn't see the footnote. No, we don't need to mention the younger four. It's a curious thing that they were all arguably in violation of the constitution, but it wouldn't have been necessary. We could have had four senators who were weeks or days younger than Biden rather than years. I don't think there's anything "conflicting" or confusing about the way the article currently reads. TheScotch (talk) 05:00, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Biden's claims about driver

I see there was a skirmish yesterday over this edit about Biden's occasional claims that the driver in the 1972 accident was drinking. The debate about whether this was a WP:RS was misguided: yes, this clearly is, it's a regular news article in The News Journal, a serious and good-quality newspaper. (The "blog" reference above the story is to another part of the paper, and the comments section below it is something that a lot of newspapers do, open up comments on news articles.) In fact, our article already uses this same story as a cite, currently footnote 21, to support our statement that the driver was cleared of any wrongdoing.

The better question is, does this edit belong in the article on other grounds? I thought about it at the time that I added the bit about the driver, and decided no. Biden has only made this supposition about the driver a few times, perhaps only twice (2001 and 2007). And one of those times he just said 'allegedly'. Biden's autobiography doesn't make the claim nor does his website bio, so he hasn't made the claim in any 'official' contexts. Biden's a loose talker; look over a long enough period, and you can find him saying practically anything once or twice. It's unfortunate that the press picked up on one of these statements and printed it without first checking Delaware sources to see if it was true. But on balance, I don't think Biden's occasional statements here merit inclusion, and so I agree with Evb-wiki's reversion on undue weight grounds. And even if it were included, SEWilco's placement is problematic in that it jumps the chronology. An alternative would be to just add it as explanatory text to the footnote 21 that's already there. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:50, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

"This article is not very good"

This article has seen much effort by others but is not very good. There are some things that make it look like something less than an encyclopedia. If I remove sections, that will make many mad. I don't seek to create anger. I looked up another Senator's article and it is much better. That article is timeless and doesn't look like an ad. See Daniel Patrick Moynihan where the tone and content is much better. I'm sure I can find others that illustrate the point better. Any objections to large scale revisions to make the Biden article scholarly? If allowed, I would shift the focus of the article quite a bit and hack out about 15% of it, reorganise it, and add better structure to it. In terms of politics, the overall tone would not change but some supporters may object if some positive information is removed and some opponents may object if some negative information is removed. 903M (talk) 03:48, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Additional fault: Very heavily centered on the 110th Congress, look at the headings. By then, he had been a Senator for decades. This makes the article read like a newspaper, not an encyclopedia. Help is on the way...me. I will slowly give this more historical balance so that it is an encyclopedic article and a good article. Join me and helping. If it is hard now, it will be impossible once it is a "good article". 903M (talk) 04:36, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I do object 903M. You don't quite know what you are saying or what you are doing. For one, the article already is a Good Article. That determination was made by the GA reviewer ThinkBlue on September 19. You since have been editing the GA review page when it is already closed! (I've brought your comments over here to the bottom of the general talk page, because this is a new topic.) For another, the article is not "very heavily centered" on the 110th Congress. You misread the article structure -- that's just one small section that shows what committees and subcommittees he is assigned to. The subsequent sections are parallel to it, not underneath it, and do cover his full senate career. Even more troubling, you don't know how to edit. Look at this edit here you did a few hours ago. You lost the wikilinks underneath honorary degree, Saint Joseph's University, adjunct professor, Widener University School of Law, and constitutional law. Worse, you lost the citations too, instead just putting hardcoded footnote numbers in. You must have copied-and-pasted from the rendered article instead of from the edit version of the article. This is totally unacceptable! If you don't know how to do complex move-stuff-around-in-the-article edits, you shouldn't be try to learn it here on this very high-readership, high-profile article. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:29, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Now, as to substance. I am a reasonable person, and am glad you are now focused on the substance of the article, not hair plugs. But you need to have a consensus for the idea that this article "is not very good" and needs "large scale revisions". Who else is saying this besides you? This article has already had two GA reviews, by Minute Lake (who wasn't able to finish it due to personal time constraints, but thought the article was sound in this sense) and ThinkBlue, and neither of them saw the large-scale flaws that you do. Most of the other comments here on the talk page have been focused on treatment of particular biographical events, not the article as a whole. Does ths article need improvement? Of course, all our articles do, by definition. Are there structural changes that might benefit it? Sure, that's possible, some have already been done. But the situation isn't as bad as you seem to think -- nobody else here seems to be waiting for you to come to the article's rescue!

So what I suggest is, that you don't edit the article at first. Instead, here on the talk page, state what your plan for improvement would be. Say what structure you would like to see, perhaps with a proposed Table of Contents. Say how the focus would be shifted. Say what specific changes will make the article more "scholarly". List the specific topics that would be in the 15% of the article that you want to remove. Then we can discuss each of these in turn. Again, I'm reasonable, and so are most other editors here. But to be honest again, you don't have a consensus for doing large-scale changes yourself nor the editing skills to carry it off without messing up the article. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:48, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Finally, regarding your comparison to Daniel Patrick Moynihan. There are several different ways to approach biographical articles for political figures, and no one way fits all subjects. But just at a glance, I don't think the Daniel Patrick Moynihan article is that great. It buries his entire Senate career as a subsection under a top-level "Political career" section. It creates a tiny top-level "Public speaker" section with someone's uncited opinion as the only content. It creates a top-level "Commission on Government Secrecy" section, when that's part of his political career also and isn't nearly as important as his senate career, his UN ambassadorship, and his time in the LBJ and Nixon administrations, all of which are covered with subsections. References are weak throughout the article. The lead section is way too short for a person of this many accomplishments. And so on. So no, I wouldn't use that article as a model. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:57, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

To address a couple of your specific points so far. While I don't think the "110th Congress" heading was misleading, neither was it necessary, as the committee/subcommittee assignments could be subsumed into the overview Senate section. So I've done so. Regarding the "Later personal life" section, I agree that this is the clunkiest section in the whole article. I've changed its name slightly to "Later personal life and activities" to indicate there's a variety of non-Senate, non-Pres/VP-candidate material in it. But I agree that a better solution for it still waits. Your change last night, to move some of it into the overview Senate section, was misguided, because his Widener teaching isn't one of his Senate activities.

In part our difficulty with that section is because this article is largely organized by topic rather than pure chronology. If you want to consider a pure chronological approach that cuts across topic lines (which I have generally favored for other articles), we can certainly discuss that. It would mean having an early senate career section (everything up to 1987), the 1988 presidential campaign section (which took place in 1987), and then a later senate career section (everything after 1987, until the 2008 presidential and vice-presidential campaign sections). We'd have to do some research work to come up with pre-1987 senate material, which this article is currently very short on. This approach would certainly have some merit, as it would group the Bork hearings, the Kinnock et al collapse of his presidential campaign, and the brain aneurysms and long recovery into a sequence; most observers (and Biden himself) believes this sequence was the key one of his political career, which is kind of lost given the current organization. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:21, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Wasted Time R, thank you for your time handling this. In a highly-charged election season, high-profile articles are frequent targets of editors with a political agendum. Without the benefit of knowing who's trying to accomplish what, the best course is to make changes very incrementally, so that the numerous "watchers" can easily see the changes each edit produced. I'd hope that any large-scale restructuring be postponed until after the election.--Appraiser (talk) 13:34, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks and yes, upon further thought I don't want to embark upon a full chronological restructuring at this point. We'll know more about the future course of the article after the election, of course. One good structural thing from a flurry of edits by 903M and myself tonight, however, is that we've gotten rid of the "Later personal life" section, which was always troublesome. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:02, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

List of foreign leaders Joe Biden has met

This article has been nominated for deletion. Since I don't see any mention of the article here, I thought I'd add one, since, ironically, there's some discussion of it over at Talk:Sarah Palin.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 23:12, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

It's not long for this world. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:56, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Not that it deserves to be an article, but the reason given for its deletion is wrong. A factual list can't be protected by copyright. 147.136.249.101 (talk) 05:38, 25 September 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".[5]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 :[6]. 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)

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)

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)

He's balding. Get a grip. It happens. Ike was bald as a billiard ball, no one talks about that now. What's really happening here? [Duplicate complaint about Delaware earmarks part of article moved to new section at bottom of Talk here]

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) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.197.93.206 (talk)

After further thought, anything is better than having the "don't believe anything you read here" warning tag on the article. I've restored the hair plugs bit (with the alleged cite properly formatted) and taken off the tag. I've had it with this issue. If someone wants to run a WP:RfC and solicit further comments from the community and decide once and for all whether this stays or goes, fine. But I've put too much work into this article to have it wrecked with a warning tag. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:43, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Don't sweat the small stuff brother. Frankly, Biden's hair plugs go to his character. He's a phoney. But mostly I just wanted to thank you for your efforts to be fair and have the best article possible. (Wallamoose (talk) 15:27, 3 October 2008 (UTC))

Since 1960, any White House occupant must fulfill the requirement of having apparently healthy hair and teeth. All else is of secondary concern. Since this requirement is only for purposes of superficial appearance, it is acceptable for the hair and teeth to be artificial instead of natural. The voting public is mainly concerned here with perception and outward effect.Lestrade (talk) 22:58, 3 October 2008 (UTC)Lestrade

You're a saint, Wasted Time R. It's unbelievable how much discussion is being devoted to inserting an unnotable bit of trivia that seems to have no purpose but to embarrass the subject of the article. —KCinDC (talk) 04:24, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this is unnotable trivia, with only embarrassment as its goal, and I don't see any consensus for its inclusion - I see one editor's insistence on it and blackmail by tag. So I would suggest its removal from the article. Tvoz/talk 04:44, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

And I think we all should take a look at the SPA editor who opened this thread - Looftie (talk · contribs · logs) - whose 7 edits include 2 [7] and [8] which were redirects of Hair plugs to Joe Biden, demonstrating that this was a prank, or a dirty trick, or juvenile bullshit. So I think this entire thread is specious, and the rallying support it received by one editor at best questionable. Tvoz/talk 04:59, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Good catch. It does appear that we've been pranked. I'm definitely for removal. —KCinDC (talk) 05:10, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Gentlefolk, let's all agree that the hair plugs story is irrelevant (afterall, the Constitution doesn't mention human hair among the qualifications for the Presidency & Vice Presidency). In otherwords? remove the Dispute Tag. GoodDay (talk) 13:52, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think constitutional requirements are relevant to the argument. The Constitution doesn't mention the vast majority of what's in this article, and I don't think we want to cut it down to just his birthdate and citizenship. But the dispute tag has been removed, and I hope it will still that way. —KCinDC (talk) 14:02, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

The Constitution doesn't mention the condition of a candidate's hair, but the current cultural environment considers that condition to be of prime importance. In opposition to GoodDay's assertion, I maintain that a full head of hair and a complete set of white, flashing teeth are culturally an absolute necessity in order to be considered as able to fulfill the position of president or vice–president in today's cultural climate.Lestrade (talk) 14:20, 4 October 2008 (UTC)Lestrade

We can discuss this till the cows come home, but surveying the positions of editors so far (forgive me if I missed anyone):

• For inclusion: Looftie, 903M, Sticky Parkin (see 903M talk page)
• Against inclusion: Loonymonkey, Wasted Time R, Captain hoek, Duuude007, Evb-wiki, KCinDC, Tvoz, GoodDay, Tarc (per edit summary), QuackGuru (per edit summary)
• Unclear: Lestrade, Cookiehead, Wallamoose

There is clearly nothing even approaching a consensus to include it. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:50, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Let's keep it out, before we pull all our hair out. Let's simply brush this discussion aside. GoodDay (talk) 15:05, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

PS- Just wanna congratulate ya'll, for discussing things here (at talk), before adding/deleting things on this article (same with Palin page). GoodDay (talk) 00:39, 6 October 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)

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)

It certainly does, and "fancied" isn't American English, which is what should be used in an article about an American politician. A little better might be "had already noticed her in a local advertisement." —KCinDC (talk) 04:18, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I changed it. —KCinDC (talk) 15:13, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Earmarks quote

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)

You're right, there should have been no quote there or 'Biden reported'. I've reworded it to indicate it's a straight fact about how much in earmarks Biden acquired for Delaware. I think though it's clear that these expenditures were earmarks, not just the Hill writer's opinion.

As for being sickening, keep making comments here about what the article is lacking, that's how it will get better. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:26, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Joe_Biden#Early_life_and_education

I'm no expert on Joe Biden—in fact I'm only just learning about him—but this section gives a lot of weight—perhaps too much weight—to negative aspects of his life. It looks like about a third of it is dedicated to casting him in a negative light: how poorly he did in high school, college, and law school; allegations of plagiarism; implications of draft-dodging. I realize that all of this is well sourced, that we're allowed to include negative material in BLPs, and that want to avoid hagiography, but my concern is one of WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT, and it seems like this article perhaps gives unbalanced presentation of—can I call him "Joe"?—Joe's early life. For instance, he's claimed he went to law school on an academic scholarship and this is not mentioned in the article (I haven't tried to find verifiable sources to confirm or disconfirm this). Anyways, when I read that section, I say to myself "It really looks like whoever wrote this is trying to make Biden look bad," and that strikes me as problematic. What do others think? Yilloslime (t) 00:44, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

If you have notable and verifiable information on accomplishments he made during this time you're welcome to post them. I think his class rank and his problems with plagarism and possible draft dodging are significant. Regarding his claims about scholarships, he's been caught lying and distorting this record, as well as how many majors he's completed. In my opinion there should be an entire section on all the lies and mistatements he told in the VP debate. (Wallamoose (talk) 07:54, 5 October 2008 (UTC))

The full scholarship thing was perhaps not the best example. My point, however, is that we can exercise editorial discretion, and we're not obligated to include every verifiable, reliably sourced factoid that we can dig up, but we are obligated to write an NPOV article. And the balance of neutral, positive, and negative material included about him in this section seems off.Yilloslime (t) 16:26, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's a really neutral observation. By the way, "possible draft dodging"? Have you asserted this on Dick Cheney as well? Tvoz/talk 08:10, 5 October 2008 (UTC) Tvoz/talk 08:10, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, first let me say there's a well-established tradition now in American politics of national candidates having lousy or underperforming academic records. So it's not necessary a negative light! While some of us were hitting the books hard and puzzling out difficult material in a variety of subjects, others apparently were skipping all that, and instead figuring how how the political world works and would soon leapfrog us. Who knew? ;-)

But to this case, we have an organizational dilemma. His academic record and law school quasi-plagiarism both came up during his 1988 presidential bid and helped rapidly sink it. So therefore it's clearly notable to describe. Do we include it when it chronologically happened ("Early life and education" section) or when it later surfaced and became controversial ("1988" section)? We originally went with the second approach, but it proved difficult. Editors would see nothing about the plagiarism in the early section, think we were whitewashing the matter, and start adding duplicate material on it. So on balance, I think it's better the way it is now.

As for the draft and Vietnam, this was a crucial factor in that time that many had to face. We just describe what happened. Lots of people took student deferments, it's not a negative light. (The whole system was quite arguably unfair, but that's a subject for Conscription in the United States.) Lots of people were not involved in anti-war activities, that's not a negative light either, but merely an illustration of where he was at at the time. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:31, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I understand the organizational dilemma, but as it currently stands the duplication of the information between the two sections gives it more weight than seems justified. —KCinDC (talk) 16:35, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I hear ya, and I know how hard it can be figure out the best way to organize critical info. But with regard to just this section, and just his academic record, I still the section harps too much on his poor performance:

Biden attended the University of Delaware in Newark, where by his own later description he was a lazy student. He graduated with a Bachelor of Arts with a double major in history and political science in 1965, ranked 506th of 688 in his class. He went on to receive his Juris Doctor from Syracuse University College of Law in 1968, where by his own description he again underperformed and ranked 76th of 85 students.

Basically, the section keeps repeating that he did poorly, giving it undue emphasis. Do we really need to say both that "by his own later description he was a lazy student" at UD and that he ranked 506th of 668? And do we really need to say both that "by his own description he again underperformed" in law school and that ranked 76th of 85? Couldn't we just include either his ranks or his own descriptions of his performances? And the word "again," which I've highlighted above, really seems POV to me. It seems to function to just drive home his lackluster academic record in an unnecessary way. Yilloslime (t) 16:39, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

The "by his own later description he was a lazy student" was included by me for BLP reasons as Biden's explanation for his poor academic performance. Because otherwise, the reader may just conclude he was unable to do decent work at a college level. The specific undergraduate rank was included by me to combat those editors who wanted to harp on his really bad grades for his first three semesters there. See Talk:Joe_Biden/Archive_2#Plagiarism Mention in 1988 Campaign Section for some of the prior history on how the article got to this point. Wasted Time R (talk) 16:59, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I should add that I hadn't realized the 76/85 law school rank had been in the article twice. That's definitely a mistake. But I would be tempted to keep it in up front, and in the 1988 section just say that he hadn't been close to the top half of his class as claimed. Otherwise other editors will think it's missing from the article altogether as soon as they don't see it in "Early life and education", and add it there. Wasted Time R (talk) 18:00, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

(ec)I've gone ahead made a change, which I think leaves the essential in content intact, while resolving the over-emphasis issue described above. W/r/t "by his own later description he was a lazy student", would not object to putting it back in if the "ranked 506th of 688 in his class," statement was removed. Anyways, I think—or at least I hope—that the fact that he went to law school speaks for itself, and most people will understand that you've got to be pretty smart to get accepted. IMHO, the section looks a little more balanced now, (though, there're still the paragraphs on draft dodging and plagiarism to deal with) and as long as editors aren't harping on his really bad grades, I think this is an improvement. Yilloslime (t) 18:03, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

for the record, I fully support this edit by Wasted Time R. Yilloslime (t) 22:31, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

edit request

On October 5, 2008 he suspended his campaigning activities due to the death of his mother-in-law. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackiehal (talk • contribs)

Source? --Evb-wiki (talk) 21:02, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I've added it. Wasted Time R (talk) 21:19, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Also with regard to his current VP bid, the only information given about his debate with Palin is that it happened on October 2. Is there any reason why it doesn't say that he is considered to have won the debate? This is well sourced over at United States vice-presidential debate, 2008 and Sarah Palin, and seems salient enough to mention here. Yilloslime (t) 22:40, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and added a sentence about his performance lifted almost verbatim from Sarah Palin. Yilloslime (t) 22:47, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

misplacement of symbols

the () at the pronounciation also covers his birth date. It should only be covering part of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Renacance (talk • contribs) 15:06, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean? It looks fine to me. Putting the pronunciation and birthdate inside parentheses is standard in bios. How else would you do it? —KCinDC (talk) 15:13, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I think it is more definate. Renacance (talk) 13:59, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I would keep the parenthases around the pronounciation and put a comma between the date and the other part. Renacance (talk) 14:08, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Biden's ancestry

Until a week or two ago the paragraph about his background mentioned both English and Irish ancestry. Now someone has edited out the reference to English ancestry to leave only Irish. This is a clear distortion - the document cited to demonstrate his Irish heritage also clearly details his English heritage.

Is there any reason for this change having been made, other than an apparent pro-Irish and anti-English agenda?

As an additional source, the surname map of Great Britain hosted at the National Trust website indicates that the name Biden (which is very uncommon, reducing the chance of error) originates from the south of England. Shiresman (talk) 15:21, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

It was taken out by this edit six days ago, by User:Firstorm, with the edit summary "Factual change: cited source indicates that an ancestor on his father's side, though Irish by blood, was born in England." All I know is that the only source being used so far is wargs.com, which is not considered a WP:RS when articles are up for FAC. Wasted Time R (talk) 16:22, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Presumably then wargs shouldn't be relied upon to demonstrate his Irish ancestry either? Or am I missing something obvious? Shiresman (talk) 00:37, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, regardless of the FAC disapproval, a lot of regular WP articles still make reference to wargs. The FAC reviewers trust in NEHGS, which if you look at this contents page have publicly-available geneologies on Hillary, Obama, and McCain, but alas not Biden. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:00, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Does Biden ever publicly talk about his ancestry? If not, and if there's no WP:RS, maybe the statement should be deleted.--Appraiser (talk) 14:40, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

There has been a lot of attention to Biden's Irish ancestry; this Google News search provides a bunch of instances just in recent days, and this Google search shows many more references in general. To remove the Irish ancestry from the article would seem to defy WP:COMMON. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:26, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not in favour of editing out the reference to his Irish ancestry. I'm in favour of restoring the reference to his English ancestry (the "explanation" given for its removal is entirely unsatisfactory).Shiresman (talk) 23:33, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

So then restore it, and strengthen the sourcing for it if possible. The editor who pulled it out hasn't participated in this discussion. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:48, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Mr. Biden's own website (mentioned as his official Senate 'site under "External Links") states that he is "Irish Catholic" (or something similar; the website isn't up at this moment); it makes no mention of any English ancestry whatsoever, and, aside from the previous version of this article (which, as pointed out, referenced in support only WARGS), I know of nothing which indicates he has any English ancestry. I edited out of concern for accuracy, not from any sort of "pro-Irish and anti-English agenda". Firstorm (talk) 04:38, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Here's possible source for saying "Irish and English"[9].--Appraiser (talk) 13:28, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I saw that a while back, and while on the surface it should be a WP:RS, in this case the contents make me suspect it's a Wikipedia echo of an earlier state of this article. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:15, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

NPOV section

I have placed a neutrality dispute on the section related to his 2008 Presidential campaign due to undue weight placed on gaffes rather than substantive, encyclopedic information about the campaign. ⟳ausa کui ^× 07:06, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I've reworked the section, reducing the space given to the gaffes (pushing some of the material into footnotes) and moving it later in the section, and adding material earlier on the substantive themes and popular results of his campaign. I've removed the npov tag in the hopes that this will satisfy your concerns. Look it over, and if you still object, I'll work on it some more. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:12, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Quick question from the ignorant

I'm not too well versed in the American political system. The article says he is both a vice presidential nominee and a candidate for re-election the Senate. What happens if he wins both? Could he serve as both a Senator and Vice-President at the same time? Would there have to be a fresh election for his senate seat?--122.109.145.227 (talk) 17:34, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

See the archived discussion here. --Evb-wiki (talk) 18:59, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Love the politicians in the state of Delaware

Most of them have either been both mayor, senator, governor and state representative at one time or another. Look at Pierre du pont IV, Michael Castle and Thomas Carper.

Very interesting politics indeed... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.172.90.193 (talk) 02:53, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand the point you're trying to make and I don't see what relevance it has to our article on Biden. Wasted Time R (talk) 21:03, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Postnomial letters

According to the article, Biden has a Ph. D in law. Should we put the letters "Ph.D" after his name?66.159.69.132 (talk) 15:53, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

No. See MOS:BIO#Academic titles. (Also, it's a J.D.) —KCinDC (talk) 16:30, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Protection

Hello everyone!
I have fully protected this page (along with the pages of the other candidates) until after the election because it is becoming impossible to handle the vandalism, edit warring, and pure drama that these pages are generating. As such, non-admin users will be unable to directly edit the page. Fear not, however, this is still a wiki and you have my firm promise that I and as many neutral admins as we can spare will be watching this page and the others to make requested edits. Simply start a new header and place {{editprotected}} along with an explanation of your edit. If your edit may be considered controversial, some time will be given to determine community consensus before it is made.
I am very sorry for the inconvenience this will cause but I believe the benefits outweigh the losses. Please feel free to direct any questions about this situation, my choice to protect, or protection in general to my talk page. Thanks, and have a wonderful weekend. ~ L'Aquatique[talk] 05:00, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I've been a regular here for about two months (like a lot of others), and I have not seen the "excessive vandalism" that resulted in the recent complete lock-down "edit protection" that appeared today. Is this a "pre-emptive strike" or just a profolactic? --Evb-wiki (talk) 05:09, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Are you copying and pasting? Tsk tsk! No, I'm just kidding. Seriously, though. There has been a lot of vandalism going on, even if you haven't noticed, and it's wearing our troops out just trying to deal with it. There's also the problem that these are BLP articles. So yes, it's something of a prophylactic, but I and the others feel that it is necessary to protect Wikipedia as a whole and individual editors. ~ L'Aquatique[talk] 05:19, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Where has this extraordinary amount of vandalism been going on? I haven't been watching this page, but I've been active on Sarah Palin and haven't seen a whole lot. And what vandalism there has been has been quickly reverted without the need for "wearing out" your "troops", precisely because so many people have their eyes on it. Seriously, I've seen far more vandalism on Cole & Dylan Sprouse than on Sarah Palin. And you should have seen Zebra a few months ago! So I question the need for this action. -- Zsero (talk) 06:17, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I concur with continuing the lockdown thru November 5. However, the huge tag is hideous. The small padlock symbol would work just as well. We have been through this before.Ferrylodge (talk) 07:32, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I've made known my unhappiness about this here at WP:AN/I. In the case of this article, it's really silly. Of the four candidates, Biden has received by far the least amount of press coverage, and this article has been pretty quiet (modulo one long disruption a while ago by an infamous sock). Indeed, if you look at the article history, we've had several days with no changes at all! Hardly 'heavy vandalism'! And as it happens, I was about to make several edits here, to include a photo from the mid-1990s and to include some sourced material I recently found about Biden's earlier years in the Senate, which our current coverage of is thin. Blah. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:19, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I agree with you. There has been little to no vandalism on this page, however it was decided [not by me] that it would be protected along with the others to prevent the appearance of bias. ~ L'Aquatique[talk] 02:51, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I understand that rationale. I was a little cranky when I woke up this morning and saw what had happened, so my wording above was a bit too strong. I think a case can also be made for only fully protecting the articles of the four that need it, but it's clearly something with reasonable arguments on both sides. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:55, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Add image

{{editprotected}} I propose to add this image: Image:BidenDoverAFB1997.jpg. We currently have no image known to be from the 1990s and no image that is taken in his home state of Delaware. So while this image admittedly isn't the greatest, I think it should be added to the article for these reasons. It should go in the "Delaware matters" section, and the image currently there should be moved up, maybe to the "U.S. Senator" beginning part. The caption for the new image should read something like: "Biden receiving a 1997 tour of a new facility at Delaware's Dover Air Force Base." Thanks. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:41, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

 Done Hope you don't mind, I moved the existing image down instead since it seemed to have more to do with his history as a senator than with his foreign policy experience. If you disagree, let me know and I'll change it. ~ L'Aquatique[talk] 02:56, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Error. There's an extra ] after .jpg, so image doesn't show. --Evb-wiki (talk) 02:59, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Aw crud. I am truly a ditz at times... ~ L'Aquatique[talk] 03:11, 31 October 2008 (UTC)