This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
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)
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)
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.[1] Biden said it was inadvertent due to his not knowing the proper rules of citation. [2] He was permitted to retake the course after receiving a grade of F, which was subsequently dropped from his record. [3] Almost 20 years later in 1987 a Delaware court ruled that Biden had "not violated any rules".[4](Wallamoose (talk) 01:01, 19 September 2008 (UTC))
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))
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))
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)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
This article is in decent shape, but it needs more work before it becomes a Good 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)
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:
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)
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. [5] The Bidens reported earning $320,000 last year, including $71,000 in royalties for his memoir, Promises to Keep: On Life and Politics.[6] The Bidens reported giving $995 in charitable donations last year, about 0.3% of their income and the highest amount in the past decade.[7] Over the decade, the Bidens reported a total of $3,690 in charitable donations, or 0.2% of their income.[8] Biden and his wife gave an average of $369 a year to charity during the past decade, his tax records show. [9] The Bidens reported earning $320,000 last year, including $71,000 in royalties for his memoir, Promises to Keep: On Life and Politics.[10] The Bidens reported giving $995 in charitable donations last year, about 0.3% of their income and the highest amount in the past decade.[11] 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))
[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]
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
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)
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)
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 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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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.[12] source
Probably controversial, so thought I would propose it here rather than just adding it. Kelly hi! 15:18, 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
::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)
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).
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)
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)
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)
:::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)
:::::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)
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)
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)
:::::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)
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)
::(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)
:::::If it is a trivial matter, then put back the sentence. 903M (talk) 03:21, 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)
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)
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)
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):
There is clearly nothing even approaching a consensus to include it. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:50, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
:::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)
::::::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)
::::::::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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
Biden attended the University of Delaware in Newark,[13] where by his own later description he was a lazy student.[14] He graduated with a Bachelor of Arts with a double major in history and political science in 1965,[15] ranked 506th of 688 in his class.[16] He went on to receive his Juris Doctor from Syracuse University College of Law in 1968,[13] where by his own description he again underperformed and ranked 76th of 85 students.[14][17]
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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'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)
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)
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)
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 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)
((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)
cong-bio
was invoked but never defined (see the help page).ap-timeline
was invoked but never defined (see the help page).nyt091887
was invoked but never defined (see the help page).