Talk:Joe Biden

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Wasted Time R (talk | contribs) at 14:24, 23 August 2008 (→‎Wikipedia expands its reach into the future: restore this comment, clobbered by someone else's change). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Daughter's Arrest in 2002

Can this now be included in Joe Biden's family section? http://articles.latimes.com/2002/aug/04/nation/na-briefs4.1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.228.32.22 (talk) 09:11, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

and here is how it is resolved - http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-1461420.html

comments removed from article

Staffers in the offices of Senator Joe Biden removed a paragraph from this entry about his 1996 plagiarism scandal, as well as changing the section regarding a possible 2008 candidacy to read very positively. A second staffer toned down and removed information about other plagiarism issues as well. The same addresses from Biden's office edited the article on the Hamas, which has recently won a majority in the Palestinian Legislative Council, and is listed as a terrorist organization by Australia, Canada, the European Union, Israel, and the United States, to give its first two paragraphs a more biased stance by removing information about its social welfare programs.

stilltim: in case you hadn't noticed, wikipedia is among the top 20 most highly ranked web sites (AFAIK... correct me if i'm wrong). That means that an incident between Joe Biden's staff and wikipedia is an event of importance in his political career. Moreover, surely the honesty of politicians and their willingness to accept criticism is an important part of their record in any democracy? Your displacing of the wikinews link to the external articles section does not remove the need for a paragraph or two of the article itself to discuss the events. The wikinews link: {{wikinews|Wikinews investigates Wikipedia vandalism by United States Senate staff members}} which (i presume) was heavily worked on to make it fairly NPOV, is one way to try to argue that a paragraph or two are not needed. But you can't remove both the pargraph and the wikinews inset box. An external link at the bottom of the article is not enough - people only read external links if they want to know more.
stilltim (still) - you wrote on my page At the time the article was truly a mess and it's hard to imagine saying that anyone trying to bring some order and sense to it could be "vandalizing" it. They may have been, but I doubt it, I think they were just trying to rescue it. Either way the Wikinews article is POV. Are you seriously trying to say that e.g. this edit was trying to bring some sense and order? In any case, if the wikinews article is POV, then the place to argue that is wikinews:Talk:Wikinews investigates Wikipedia usage by U.S. Senate staff members, not my personal page. Please go to the wikinews talk page to justify your claim of POV. Thanks. Boud 16:03, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Biden's staff edits

It should be noted at the top of this talk page that staffers from Biden's senate offices have been known to edit this article in a way to promote the senator - so please be aware of anonymous editors. Removal of the controversy sections may have been from staffers as well, as they are documented as doing such. [1] --66.227.194.89 01:09, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, you're now at the top. "The U.S. Senate Sergeant at Arms owns the IP block 156.33.0.0 to 156.33.255.255". The 14 July 2005 edit was made by 156.33.15.201. The 15 July 2005 edit was made by 156.33.15.27. They could just as easily have registered names, tho. Andyvphil 15:14, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Staffers are people too; they have the right to edit even anonymously. Only if they violate the genrally accepted guidelines... it's just a note that we keep alert for edits that would violate a la Joh Lott type. Chivista 15:01, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I believe there is a Wiki guideline against editing by the subjects. I remember seeing some discussion of this at Political Research Associates where Chip Berlet is an active editor. I don't have a problem with this myself as long as the edits are NPOV, but the Biden staff edits weren't. The plagiarism brouhaha was in 1987, by the way, not 1996 as the WikiNews report states. And I just got sucked into rewriting that whole section because I was unhappy with the way "alleged" was used and there turned out to be so many things wrong. A lot of the details don't seem to be on the web -- e.g., I'm still not clear on whether Biden was bounced from his law school class for plagiarism or whether he just wrote a very bad one-source paper and flunked. Andyvphil 15:14, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re-introduction of removed plagiarism claim

With reference to this article (the link to the WikiNews article on their page is invalid; don't bother trying to navigate to it):

"Wikipedia edits in Congress are not coming from the House of Represenatives alone. An edit from the Senate in July removed references to a plagiarism scandal with Senator Joe Biden, who has informally said he may seek a Democratic nomination for president in 2008. As of February 4, 2006, the edit has not fixed by Wikipedia users. On February 2, 2006, the same IP address introduced a bias into the article on the Hamas, the largest Palestinian Islamic movement, which has recently made headlines for winning a majority in Palestinian Legislative Council elections."

Further research by myself has yielded that the address in question is, in fact, 156.33.15.27, which can be clearly seen by the user's edits of both the Hamas article and this one, and by how this user is the only user that has edited both of these articles in the specified times (the user edited the Hamas article on February 2, 2006, and this one in July of 2005). The article's allegations that "references to a plagiarism scandal with Senator Joe Biden [were also removed]" proved to be true as well. Though a reference to the claim vaguely exists in the current revision ("His recent campaign opponent, Raymond J. Clatworthy, criticized him for making "blunt and controversial" statements, such as threatening pilots that he would "screw" them unless they supported one of his proposals, and for falsely claiming credit for the writing of Megan's Law."), the meat of the accusation was largely removed. Here is the exact text that was removed:

Another plagerism controversy occured during Biden's [[1996]] U.S. Senate reelection campaign. A television advertisement that was put out by his campaign listed various laws that he had written, the list included the [[Megan's Law]]. The Megan's Law was actually authored and sponsored by Congressman [[Dick Zimmer]] of New Jersey (U.S. Public Law 104-145). It is not known whether or not Biden was personally aware of the content of this particular advertisement before it was aired.

I believe that, seeing as how this offers a much more detailed analysis of the claim, it should be somehow reintroduced into the article. This, however, is only my opinion; I leave it up to you to decide exactly how (or if) it shall be added to the article.--HoCkEy PUCK 00:58, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NB: Not currently in mainspace, and probably shouldn't be. But there's a new tool, wikiscanner, to detect this sort of thing.[2] Would be nice to have edits from COI ranges automatically tagged... Andyvphil 08:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the Plagiarism Kerfuffle

Under the 1988 Presidential Campaign heaqding, we find a paragraph that starts "It was also discovered that Biden had plagiarized while in law school ..." and ends "Both Syracuse University Law School and the Delaware State Bar Association cleared Biden of plagiarism charges."

If the Senator was cleared of those charges, does it make sense to leave a glaring, incorrect, accusation at the start of that paragraph? I think a small wording change would be appropriate. I'll take care of it. Mmahaffie 15:45, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Back to Mmahaffie's original point. I don't see why that paragraph about his law school days is relevant at all. If he was cleared, he was cleared. Lets cut it. -MrFizyx 14:53, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would like to agree, but the issue is part of the public discussion and keeps coming back up. I think it is better to have it out there factually and let the readers conclude what they will from those facts, rather than from hyped up suppositions. Mmahaffie made the changes he suggested. stilltim 00:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I couldn't find any cite saying Syracuse cleared Biden of anything, and what the Board of Professional Responsibility of the Delaware Supreme Court was probably actually asked to confirm was that he had not done anything to disqualify his practicing law (as Clinton was disqualified). Known and punished cheating in school wouldn't be enough, certainly not in a Democrat state where he's Senator! There are a couple NP:V articles, not available on the web or not for free, where the titles claim Biden admitted "plagiarism" in law school...but I can't find the quote. See my note above on the uncertainty of the details of the underlying event. Anyway, after Dukakis stuck in the knife on his channelling Kinnock the Ford Pinto effect was in full gear. BTW, the version of the "Kinnock" quote in the previous version apparently had unindicated elisions. Is there a transcript on CSPAN somewhere? The more complete version indicates his wife was also the first in her family to go to college, and I've run across statements that that too was untrue, but I can't confirm. Nor can I confirm the statement (tho I left it) that he now says his father was a car saleman. It's not on his Senate website bio pages. Andyvphil 15:48, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Worked on this some more after seeing some problems with Stilltim's rewrite. Some details still need better cites and clarification, but just suppressing mention of 76/85 hides what really happened to Biden in '87, which still dogs him today: he acquired a one-line media tag, became a late-night talk show monologue joke. I think the cites are available to show to what extent it was deserved or undeserved, and his article should provide the facts in NPOV form. Gerald Ford may have been the least clumsy President and the Ford Pinto didn't burn any more often than the Chevy Vega, and maybe Biden made the honor roll after he decided to work at it, just like he said. Wikipedia readers want to know! Andyvphil 03:35, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality

I believe that the neutrality of this article must now be questioned after reading this (http://www.delawareonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060210/NEWS/602100350) article in The News Journal. Link47 20:38, 10 February 2006 (UTC) Link is dead. Andyvphil 14:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • The edits to this article referenced in the aforementioned report were made in June/July 2005. Subsequent to that date numerous editors, myself included, have completely rewritten the then existing article. In writing the present article we have, to the best of our knowledge and ability, tried to produce a fair, balanced, and unbiased accounting, and have not intentionally included any of our own opinions or any information that cannot be verified by the references noted on the article. I have, therefore, removed the POV template recently placed. stilltim 23:33, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clarence Thomas hearings

Please give more information on Biden's role in the Anita Hill, Clarence Thomas hearings. I've been told he was not very unbiased and would like to know more.

Page name

He's almost always called "Joe Biden"...

Acegikmo1 02:44, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Good comment, I added the nickname. I'm planning a thorough rewrite of this article, but have done the other incumbents in Delaware first as they are a bit easier.

stilltim 03:59, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I moved it to Joe Biden, because our policy is to use common names (and because of the standard set by the title of the Joe Lieberman article). Neutralitytalk 04:41, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

Chicken?

What's the deal with the picture of the blue hen? /blahedo (t) 04:10, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I wonder what the point of the chicken is...
I was just wondering too... I'm going to remove it. --Quasipalm 19:36, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Blue Hen Chicken is a proud symbol of Delaware, recalling the tenacity and ferocity of our Revolutionary ancestors. Anyone from Delaware would be pleased to have this symbol associated with them, and anyone wanting to understand a person from Delaware would find it worth their time to understand this.

stilltim 21:12, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bidens religion

I thought Biden was Jewish, and seems as if I have seen profiles saying so. Is he Catholic convert?


Biden is Roman Catholic and always has been to the best of my knowledge.

stilltim 00:33, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • In his book: "Promises to Keep", he has stated that he was born and raised Roman Catholic with a long family history of being Catholic.Dflav1138 (talk) 21:09, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Biden: a terrorist?

He supported albanian terrorists on all occasions during the kosovo war


Yes I have seen a documentary that stated that also. If i have time, I will look around for it. Interesting point tho. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Learna United Kingdom (talk • contribs) 01:32, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Photo

The new photo (16 January Image:BidenJosephR.jpg) is too small, maybe someone will find a nice high quality one? feydey 20:05, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hair Transplant

I added a sentence the other day pointing out that Biden was one of the first and most prominent persons ever to receive hair transplant surgery and it was removed the following day. I added it again. Let's see how long it stays this time.

Please add a source for Your claim or it will be deleted again, thanks. feydey 02:51, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note

Removed per Wikipedia:Libel policy. "The goal of Wikipedia is to create an encyclopedic information source adhering to a neutral point-of-view style of prose, with all information being referenced through the citation of reliable published sources, so as to maintain a standard of verifiability. For this reason, all contributors should recognize that it is their responsibility to ensure that material posted on Wikipedia is not defamatory. It is Wikipedia policy to delete libellous revisions from the page history." stilltim 21:54, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2008 bid

Where is there a link that says Biden is running for President? I added one. --myselfalso 12:37, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Biden has not officially said he is running for president. He has only said that he is planning to run at this point. This is wrong all over wikipedia. The Secretary of Funk 22:29, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


"Indian" comments

I readded all of the information regarding this controversy because it was in the news for at least a week. I don't think this qualifies as adding "indiscriminate information" either, as it was mentioned near the top of the national news for a few days. And this would not be inconsistent with other articles on U.S. Senators. Plus, it appears there wasn't any discussion on this topic at all.

Is this section too long? Probably. Anyone, please edit out some of the material too make it shorter if you would like (but please keep in mind that removing the entire section isn't really "indiscriminate information editing"). Thanks. Ufwuct 23:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Regarding your question about the paragraph on the "Indian-American controversy" in the Biden article. It is my opinion, and I think widely held, that an encyclodedia article should contain information of substance and lasting importance, something people would consider newsworthy years after the event. This issue is one of probably dozens/hundreds of such issues effecting public figures, and to describe each one in such detail would make an entirely unreadable article. These incidents are mostly useful for illustrating aspects of a public person's career and personality. This topic is already covered in the article, however, and the examples given have certainly stood the time test. If this incident comes to rank there with them it should be added, but I doubt that it will. Perhaps you should consider wrting something about it for Wikinews?
  • There are places for this information in WP. See the policy on news reports: "Wikipedia should not offer first-hand news reports on breaking stories (however, our sister project Wikinews does exactly that)." Wikipedia does have many encyclopedia articles on topics of historical significance that are currently in the news, and can be significantly more up-to-date than most reference sources since we can incorporate new developments and facts as they are made known." They are in Portal:Current events which you can see for examples.
  • I know you mean well, but this is official WP policy. It is not my intent to see the story omitted, but rather delivered in the appropriate way. As pointed out in the policy there are at least two appropriate places for this contribution, but the encyclopedia is not one of them. All news stories belong in Wikinews or current events, but as encyclopedia editors, we must indeed discriminate among them. That's what editors do. We need to wait at least a few weeks or months to see if the incident is "weighty" or "notable." Hence the prohibition on breaking stories. Please move this contribution to one or both of these locations, until it becomes clear that these remarks have had some meaningful and substantial long-term effect on the overall campaign or his career. stilltim 22:28, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Stilltim, I agree with most of your points in theory, though I'm not sure exactly how this information could be construed as original research (or "original thought" as you put it). Please direct me to the sentence or sentences that you feel violate this policy.
I agree that Wikipedia-proper is not the place for news. And, as I said previously, I think the content is too long and the length has the potential to distort the overall picture of Joe Biden. I do think it deserves some mention in the article, however. I may shorten this topic to 2 sentences and place under the 2008 Presidential Campaign section (perhaps with a link to a Wikinews article). We still don't know what effect it will have on his presidential aspirations, but that doesn't mean that all mentions of the incident should be purged from the article. Maybe we haven't heard much about it because of the August recess? Maybe it will be used against him at the end of the recess or as the 2006 elections come closer? We don't know the answer to either of these questions.
What we do know is that: 1. there is much more to his career than this incident (hence my promise to shorten the article), 2. he received substantial criticism (and so it deserves some mention in the main article, with more information on Wikinews).
Articles about current events are frequently written on Wikipedia-proper. For the most part, they are edited as the significance of that event becomes clearer. Originally it was thought that Pluto would remain a planet and that we would have several more. Editors made a guess at the time that this would be a very significant story. That was a reasonable assumption to make, and it was reasonable to write about on Wikipedia-proper. It later became clear that we would (officially) only have 8 planets. At that point, the significance of the previous reclassification scheme was reduced. However, I think it would be unwise to remove all mentions of this first reclassification scheme based on its downgraded significance (or to relegate the information only to Wikinews). Somebody will want to read about that later. Who? Astronomers, astronauts, history buffs, housewives? Similarly, someone will probably want to read about Joe Biden's mishaps, or at least be directed to a Wikinews story via his article on Wikipedia-proper. Who? Right-wing conspiracy "theorists"? Left-wing people looking to defend Biden's remarks by reading Biden's response to the incident? History buffs? Indians? People reading about 7-11? Let's at least provide these or other potential future readers with a mention in his article. If they care enough about it, they'll go to Wikinews or search outside of Wiki projects. Also, I think once the controversy dies down and people realize that George Allen doesn't have horns, the controversy sections for his article should be shortened. Your experience on this would be appreciated. Because I have exhausted myself in writing this ridiculously long response to you, I won't make any substantial changes right now, but will keep it on My Watchlist to work on later. Thanks. Ufwuct 02:38, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Update:I've added the material to Wikinews [3], if only in rudimentary form. I'll come back tomorrow to edit this page. Thanks in advance for your patience. Ufwuct 03:08, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have now made some more changes. I hope this version will be satisfactory and I truly hope that no one feel the need to take out this topic again any time soon. (Let's wait awhile and see if it becomes NN before deleting it.) Thanks. Ufwuct 03:21, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction

User:Stilltim, you have now twice removed information from the introduction, most recently without replying to my message at your Talk page regarding my changes. In the last summary "remove POV and repetitive information," your removed information that IMO wasn't duplicated (not repetitive) and not really "POV". Tim, please reply here to explain what POV you are removing. Maybe I'm missing something? Kaisershatner 15:23, 8 September 2006 (UTC) Addendum: I have cited the "likely candidate" thing in case that's the source of your POV concern. Kaisershatner 15:35, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Another Wikicrock

"Indian" comments and now racist comments regarding Obama, yet there is no controvery section in this article. At the same time, every pipsqueak conservative talk show host has a big fat controvery section about hearsay comments/positions from 30 years ago. It's final: Wikipedia is nothing more than a partisan prop via repeated and overwhelmingly obvious systemic bias. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 21:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you add a criticism section? This is Wikipedia after all. --Lincoln F. Stern 19:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2008 Presidential Campaign

Biden has officially announced he's running for president, though I'm not sure when/where he made it official... Anybody know? -- MyrddinEmrys 06:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

this page needs expansion!!!

im not sure how to place such a tag...yet Joe Biden could be the next US president or vice president...he has a realistic chance...he looks the part and seems somewhat reasonable...a touch hawkish it seems...yet not foolhardy...anyways...this page needs some serious expansion...all presidential candidates for 2008 need serious expansions...looking at hillaries page...and comparing to this...i see Biden has been a senator since 1973 and we see nothing of his general senate record...hillary has been senator a fraction of that time and has a detailed page...there is no excuse for this...and in fact most US senators could use a moderate expansion...these are some of the most powerful people on the planet...yes there are other centers of gravity in the states...billionaire tycoons...some corporate execs...media moguls...the president...a few people in various agencies & think tanks or law firms...etc...yet the US senators should have a little more as to their general records...

as to this thing about plaigerism and senate staffers editing this page...i dont know people..its not exactly watergate...if the best dirt u can find on Biden is he didnt footnote enough and a couple staffers added or removed something from his wikipedia page...yall are going to have a hard time negative campaigning against him...i would support an expansion of the senate staffer issue...yet in a broader expansion of the page...GWs & cheneys pages are mainly good stuff after all...and as to a staffer tinkering with the page...well anyone is supposed to be able to edit wikipedia...thats the basic premise...if a staffer saw to add something more to the page or remove something they felt not factual...then that is somewhat reasonable...i mean come on...you think someone isnt on top of GWs page and Cheneys page?...just with an IP u cant track...even jimmy wales himself has tinkered with his own page several times...anyways it tells us something...as to Mr Wales's creation...i think from what i know of mr wales that he really just had an interesting experimental idea for a novel encylopedia format...i think it has taken off far beyond his wildest imaginings...and it is far more than an encylopedia now...it has become like another TV network almost and a serious big player international media information outlet...yet with a totally different control mechanism than most normal TV networks or something...its quite interesting...Benjiwolf 12:50, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I am shocked at how bad this article is and it needs serious improvement and expansion and to start with there should be a Joe Biden presidential campaign, 2008 sub-article. Also, if previous presidential elections are going to be mentioned then they should also receive an sub-article. More detail is needed in the Senate section. I would do so myself but I have chosen not to edit for content any of the presidential candidate articles because I am a supporter of Barack Obama (whose article I will not edit either) but I would really like to see this article improved. The focus on the Senate staffer editing this article concerns me as this article is already biased against Biden so I see no problem with his staff at least trying to correct the inappropriate edits of other editors. Edward Lalone | (Talk) 22:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


As of 12:45, major news sources are saying that he is officially the vice-president choice for Senator Obama. This has been confirmed by multiple sources throughout CNN from senior Obama officialsW jossey but not Obama himself - and the text message project DID not happen yet (per Obama's website) - so Biden is not an official VP choice as of yet. (talk) 04:54, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Senator Biden a member of the Catholic church?

i have removed this claim. i would like to see a citation before anyone re-includes it. 202.0.106.130 04:31, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just said on CNN.Blaylockjam10 (talk) 06:33, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

content removed

i have removed the content below. i would like to see a citation if this is to be included. reference to The chicken processing industry should also include something more specific about Biden's contribution. 202.0.106.130 04:39, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The 1972 U.S. Senate election presented Biden with an unusual opportunity that only he seemed to recognize. Popular Republican incumbent Senator J. Caleb Boggs was considering retirement, which would likely have left U.S. Representative Pete du Pont and Wilmington Mayor Harry G. Haskell, Jr. in a divisive primary fight. To avoid that, U.S. President Richard M. Nixon was invited to a meeting to convince Boggs to run again with full Republican support. Boggs ran, but without much enthusiasm, which combined with the new 18-year old voters, and a serious underestimation of Biden's campaign abilities, resulted in the very surprising Biden victory.

In this capacity, he has become one of the most respected Senate voices on drug policy, crime prevention, and civil liberties.

His efforts to combat hostilities in the Balkans in the 1990s brought national attention and influenced presidential policy: traveling repeatedly to the region, he made one meeting famous by calling Serbian leader Slobodan Milosevic a "war criminal." He consistently argued for lifting the arms embargo, training Bosnian Muslims, investigating war crimes and administering NATO air strikes. Biden's subsequent "lift and strike" resolution was instrumental in convincing President Bill Clinton to use military force in the face of systematic human rights violations.

He also authored the landmark Violence Against Women Act of 1994 (VAWA), which contains a broad array of ground breaking measures to combat domestic violence and provides billions of dollars in federal funds to address gender-based crimes. Although part of this legislation later was struck down as unconstitutional, it was reauthorized in 2000 and 2005. In March 2004 Biden enlisted major American technology companies in diagnosing the problems of the National Domestic Violence Hotline (based in Austin, Texas) and to donate equipment and expertise to it. [1] [2] [3]

i would appreciate some discussion on talk rather than reverting my edits without explanation. 202.0.106.130 05:43, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would actually argue the opposite. I think there should be some discussion on the talk page before portions of the article, especially large portions, are deleted. My suggesiton would be that you use the "citation need" tag ([citation needed] simply type "{{fact}}" instead of deleting. The "citation needed" tag would have been a far more appropriate way to handle your doubts that Biden was a Catholic (which he is), as opposed to deleting the statement and asking for a reference before it was added again. Jim Campbell 18:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the BLP guidelines call for eschewing fact tags, although I think they should be used for very believable material that is not even potentially libelous. On something like Biden's Catholicism the cite is so readily available that 202.0.106.130 had no business deleting rather than simply providing it. Add an inline cite and leave Wikifying it to a ref to someone else, if you're in a hurry... Lacking a bot, I usually do. Andyvphil 00:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not to argue with someone who seems, in principle, to agree with me, but I thought the fact tag was inappropriate for BLPs only if the information “appears doubtful or false.” The fact tag info page states that only material that is considered “very doubtful and very harmful” should be removed without discussion first. Neither the segment stated above nor Biden being Roman Catholic seems neither doubtful nor harmful to me. In either case, I think ripping out chunks of the article should be preceded by discussions.Jim Campbell 21:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The actual text of the policy is "Editors should remove any controversial material about living persons that is either unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Reliable sources, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source."[4] The test is "controversial", not "very doubtful and very harmful", and I'm having all sorts of problems elsewhere with editors who are applying "Editors should remove any controversial material about living persons that .... relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Reliable sources..." to cull cites unfriendly to their POV. If they actually applied this evenly and widely they would gut this whole subject area of its useful detail, but even if it's not applied it's difficult to argue that that's not what the policy reads. Andyvphil 00:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

chicken processing industry

In the small state of Delaware, Biden is highly regarded, mostly because of his frequent presence and attention to local needs. Because of his daily commute, he is a strong and knowledgeable advocate for Amtrak. He also watches closely the interests of the Dover U.S. Air Force Base and the downstate chicken processing industry.


Time magazine reports the U.S. chicken processing industry is entirely reliant on illegal imigrants - "Joe Biden is just the latest public figure to grovel for forgiveness." Who Left the Door Open? -- Thursday, Mar. 30, 2006 202.0.106.130 05:45, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reversion Edit

In reference to 202.0.106.130 asking why I reverted their edits - I spend a lot of time recently doing reversion edits on vandalism, filtering the Recent changes pages to see edits made by unregistered users. When I see huge chunks of referenced information being removed by an unregistered member without giving any explanation in the Edit Summary as to why they are blanking reference information, I am left to assume it is vandalism, hence why I reverted your edits. I would encourage you to register for the site so you can continue to make helpful edits. My apologies for reversing your edits. --Ozgod 05:58, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thats quite alright, no need to apoligise, i will take greater care to communicate that my well intentioned edits are just that and not intended to be vandalism .... my understanding of Wiki-policy is that you don't have to register for the site unless you specifically want to - is that not correct? 202.0.106.130 02:39, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

February 10th edits

The domestic violence information seems to me to belong best in the section under Biden's Judiciary committee work, rather than in a section of its own. The edits by Andyvphil seem to get it right and much improve my intial attempt.

Domestic Violence Initiatives is meant to be a sub-heading under Judiciary committee however this is not clear in the article - it would be clearer if all the headings were moved up a level. 202.0.106.130 03:09, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The information about Biden's first election comes from a source listed in the references. I will footnote it when I reinsert it. Would that I had the time and talent to accomplish what Benjiwolf above requests, but regretably do not and can only add some things and try to edit the rest. The time it takes to keep this article under control is significant and growing, naturally... and the good work of Andyvphil and 202.0.106.130 is appreciated. stilltim 17:06, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for saying my good work is appreciated - you saying so is very much appreciated. I would like to fully document Biden's contribution to Violence Against Woman without understating its significance in any way and also document Microsoft's public endorsement of Biden's policies on their corporate www site. I do not see the need to document Biden's contribution to Delaware's chicken processing industry, at this time, unless you or other wiki-editors specifically request i do so. Thank you again for your efforts. 202.0.106.130 02:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

gender-based crimes

i have added (what may be a partial) definition of gender-based crimes. if this definition is incomplete than please expand with appropriate citations. 137.154.16.31 06:15, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Links

  1. Biden Criticizes Princeton [5]
  2. Biden In; Gore Out [6]
  3. Biden says filibuster on Alito unlikely [7]
  4. Biden to Seek Presidential nomination [8].
  5. Biden Claimed He Was In Top Half Of Law Class [9]
  6. Biden's Gift Of Gab A Distraction, Critics Say [10]
  7. Biden's Leadership Is Lost In All His Talk [11]
  8. Biden proves he's a man of his word [12]
  9. Credit Bush's rhetoric not his actions [13]
  10. Debate over Sen. Biden's remarks on desi stereotypes continues [14]
  11. Indian Americans enriching American life: Biden [15]
  12. Joe Biden can't shut up [16]
  13. Joseph Biden's Plagiarism; Michael Dukakis's 'Attack Video' – 1988 [17]
  14. Leading the Mideast [18].
  15. Senator Biden's Biggest Lie [19].
  16. USC Center on Public Diplomacy [20]
  17. Wikinews investigates Wikipedia usage by United States Senate staff members [21]
  18. Wise investment in war on terror [22]

These articles seem to be arbitraily chosen. Either they are includes as footnotes to the article, or they aren't included at all. Wikipedia is not a news link directory. -- Zanimum 20:19, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I recognized #5 as an inline cite that directly supports the preceeding sentence. There's a guideline (not a policy) preferring refs...which I don't necessarily agree with (as currently implemented it makes getting to the referenced material a two-step prtocess, and it's less transparent in the section-editing process) ...so I won't argue if you if you convert them to refs. But don't go around massively deleting cites! Andyvphil 22:34, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Section Removed

I removed a section on the 1988 campaign that had been added to the 2008 campaign section. I don't think it belonged there - it was about previous allegations, and belonged properly in the 1988 section, with which it was largely redundant. fyi, I am a Biden supporter. Willniebling 21:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)willniebling[reply]

Removing the section was the right thing to do as it is already covered in the article and Wikipedia biographies are intended to be chronological and not topical. It seems the anoynomous editor who added the information was pushing a POV and was seeking to give greater weight to an allegation made in the 1988 election by promoting it to the 2008 election section. Edward Lalone | (Talk) 21:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. The only new material was the allegation about Biden misrepresenting the nature of his scholarship, but even that couldn't be xferred to '88 without a cite. Andyvphil 22:41, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Questions? Ask them through Wikinews

Hello,

I'm Nick Moreau, an accredited reporter for Wikinews. I'm co-ordinating our 2008 US Presidential election interviews. We will be interviewing as many candidates as possible, from the Democrats, Republicans, and other parties/independents.

I'll be sending out requests for interviews to the major candidates very soon, but I want your input, as people interested in American politics: what should I ask them?

Please go to any of these three pages, and add a question.

Questions? Don't ask them here, I'll never see them. Either ask them on the talk page of any of these three pages, or e-mail me.

Thanks, Nick -- Zanimum 19:40, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Minor Editing

I wasn't signed in for the first edit i did but i did add that the 2 million dollars he obtained was from his senate re-election fund, the second thing i edited was under the controversial statements that talked about him attacking Gov. Bill Richardson. I felt it wasn't really a controversial statement and wasn't very relevent to the Joe Biden Wikipedia article.Dflav1138 (talk) 21:06, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Controversial Edits

I have made two edits in the page, one signed in and the other not signed in. The first adding the fact that the 2 million dollars being raised for his presidency was added from his Senate re-election fund. The second is under the Controversial comments about him Attacking Gov. Bill Richardson. I felt that what he said was not very controversial nor significant to be in his wikipedia article.Dflav1138 (talk) 21:14, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal

It seems the article on Electoral history of Joe Biden would fit nicely into a section within this article. Thoughts?Plhofmei (talk) 23:27, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of these have been created, with the intention that they live outside the main article (thus allowing them to go into more depth and length of results, third party also-rans, etc). Wasted Time R (talk) 23:31, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It should stay split to avoid bloating the parent article. --Falcorian (talk) 21:34, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Plagiarism Mention in 1988 Campaign Section

Recently, this text was added to the article:

This however was hardly Biden's only problem. It was also revealed that he had plagiarized an article when he was in law school. As the New York Times pointed out: "The faculty ruled that Mr. Biden would get an F in the course but would have the grade stricken when he retook it the next year. Mr. Biden eventually received a grade of 80 in the course, which, he joked today, prevented him from falling even further in his class rank. Mr. Biden, who graduated from the law school in 1968, was 76th in a class of 85. The file also included Mr. Biden's transcript from his days as an undergraduate at the University of Delaware. In his first three semesters, his grades were C's or D's, with three exceptions: two A's in physical education courses, a B in a course on Great English Writers and an F in R.O.T.C. The grades improved somewhat later but were never exceptional." When questioned by a New Hampshire resident about his grades in law school Biden claimed falsely to have graduated in the "top half" of his class.

I'm unsure if the amount of text spent on it and the placement of the information is appropriate, and wanted to get other opinions before making any substantial changes to it.-Polotet 04:32, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's undue weight and needs to be reduced. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:55, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Which I later did (at the time, before the veep naming), to follow up. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:09, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vague "struck down" reference

The article reads: He also authored the landmark Violence Against Women Act of 1994 (VAWA), which contains a broad array of measures to combat domestic violence and provides billions of dollars in federal funds to address gender-based crimes. Although part of this legislation later was struck down as unconstitutional, it was reauthorized in 2000 and 2005. Struck down by who? This sounds vague and awkward. --68.56.17.70 (talk) 21:15, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Amtrak, the Dover Air Force Base

When the article states "He is an advocate for Amtrak, the Dover Air Force Base" I'm assuming this means "He is an advocate for Amtrak, and the Dover Air Force Base." I made the change. If anybody knows if something else was intended, please correct it. --75.4.233.205 (talk) 00:37, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rapid removal of unsourced statement

The statement "The Borgen Project has ranked Biden as one of the top five Senate leaders of all time" was added to the lead paragraph 12 hours ago by an anonymous editor. No other mention of this appears anywhere else in the article. I tagged it as unsourced an hour and a half ago. After searching extensively myself for a source, I decided to immediately remove the statement. This is very quick, of course, but I felt that given the extreme political significance of the article at this time, that stuff may be added to an article to manipulate public opinion, for or against a person, and had to be dealt with right away. I justify it with WP:IAR. If anyone readds it back, can you please source it? Comments? Diderot's dreams (talk) 14:43, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Personal Websites

I am frankly a bit surprised at the number of personal websites cited in this article. I believe our policy still is, that "experts" can only be cited via their website if they have been previously published in that field-of-expertise, by a third-party. Several of the websites cited here, are actually personal websites, no matter what they call themselves, and they are not by neutrally-acknowledged published experts. I'll wait for comments here, before I start trimming. Wjhonson (talk) 01:08, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Androstenedione is not a steriod

"steriods like androstenedione"? Technically, androstenedione is not a steriod. This should be corrected in all fairness. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.197.174.249 (talk) 03:20, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed: VP

[23] rootology (T) 05:38, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unlock the article and include mention of it. Doubtless WP:NOTABLE— Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])
It's already mentioned, I just noticed after posting this. rootology (T) 06:08, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've unprotected it. There'll doubtless be developments in the next day or two that will require updates. So long as the article doesn't get excess vandalism we should leave it unlocked. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hold it.. In no way, shape, or form does the source provided confirm that the selection has been made. Yes, it is an "official" from the party making the statement, but until the Obama campaign releases an official statement to the effect, that's still an unconfirmed rumor. Is it probably true? Yes, but "probably" is not enough for it to be in the article, at this point. --Winger84 (talk) 06:25, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For example... the announcement that the Obama campaign was offering text-message notification of the official selection to those who chose to sign up for it... I'm one of those people and I have yet to see that text from the campaign. Based on that, plus a lack of a confirming statement from Senator Obama or his campaign manager, we can not assume that the story coming out over the past couple hours is accurate. --Winger84 (talk) 06:31, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) It's good enough for the AP, CNN, BBC, and Fox, but not for us? Seems easy enough to update if it turns out to be false, but in the meantime seems to be useful information. On the other hand, it's only a day, either way, no? – Luna Santin (talk) 06:32, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In fairness, they're all trying to scoop each other on the story. We are trying to build an encyclopedia. Your point to the effect of "it's only a day" is accurate, since Senator Obama's official announcement is scheduled for later today in Springfield, Illinois, but I still strongly feel that we can not include the information without an official statement from the campaign. --Winger84 (talk) 06:36, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd just as soon include it, pending better information, since I imagine people may be incoming to check; however, I realize the impossibility of either of us convincing the other, so will accede the point, absent consensus to the contrary. :) – Luna Santin (talk) 06:42, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I will grant you that this may possibly be an IAR situation, but I think that may set a dangerous precedent. There's not any money on the line for the project or anything like that by being "first," so I'm really hoping that we hold true to established policies and wait for an authoritative source on this one. However, if we have more editors weigh in toward a consensus discussion and I'm outvoted (for lack of a better phrase at 2AM), then I will support whatever decision is made. --Winger84 (talk) 06:46, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would just say that ABC,NBC,BBC etc were reporting that he has was asked to be Obama's running mate and that he accepted. Edkollin (talk) 06:47, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can live with that and have noticed that another editor has inserted a line to that effect in the opening section. I caution against making any statement about "it has been confirmed" yet, because it has not been... although it will be, one way or another, within the next ten hours or so. --Winger84 (talk) 06:50, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's now up on Obama's presidential website, so it is pretty much official. 76.171.247.84 (talk) 06:55, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, now that's the source that I was looking for. Run with it, my friends! --Winger84 (talk) 06:56, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What makes you think he will accept? He is Obama's strongest critics. --70.121.198.67 (talk) 06:57, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I hardly believe that it would be on the Senator's official website as it currently appears without an acceptance. Also, and I sadly have no way of proving this, but I've just spoken to someone that I know back home in the Springfield, Illinois area who confirmed to me that Mr. Biden is in town... why else would he be there, on the day of Senator Obama's scheduled announcement on the steps of the Old State Capitol? --Winger84 (talk) 07:00, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you're not suggesting we take your friend's word for it after you refused CNN, NYT, ABC, NBC, ABC, Fox, etc.--chaser - t 07:03, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I most certainly am not saying that. Senator Obama's official website is the authoritative source on this matter, save for an actual verbal statement from Mr. Obama himself (which is expected to take place later today in Illinois). The individual that I spoke to is involved with law enforcement in the area and is in a position of knowledge on this particular subject. --Winger84 (talk) 07:09, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That should be it. If not this will gown down in media infamy with 1948 and 2000. If true it might go down in campaign infamy with McGovern's 3AM acceptance speechEdkollin (talk) 07:07, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Who spilled the beans on this one? --70.121.198.67 (talk) 07:14, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I overstepped on this one, but I got the text message and I saw it on the website, so I updated the article to reflect that.minidoxigirli-talk--contribs 11:36, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Artice locking

I recommend locking this article for a while. Illuminatiscott (talk) 05:34, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please put new discussion at the bottom of the talk page. Second, leaving a message here won't do any good. Go to the Wikipedia:Requests for page protection for article locking. --Soetermans | is listening | what he'd do now? 06:19, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Name pronounciation

I just read the news online, so I thought I'd check Biden out. Now this might sound stupid, but English is not my mother tongue. Is it Biden as in Buy-den or Biden as in Bee-den? --Soetermans | is listening | what he'd do now? 06:19, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The former. —  X  S  G  06:29, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's Buy-Den. --70.121.198.67 (talk) 07:16, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia expands its reach into the future

I am pretty sure reading this this morning, that the announcement has not happened yet. That you are sure it is going to happen, even if Obama himself told you it was going to happen, is not the same thing as it having happened. Things predicted for the future should not be down here in the PAST TENSE FOR CHRIST'S SAKES. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.15.65.12 (talk) 08:23, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe he has a special time machine. But yeah, seriously. -76.172.41.63 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 08:48, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it's just grammatical confusion in these tense issues, but an overenthusiastic edit says "if elected" he "will" be... I would prefer "would," even if the ticket's destiny seems certain.

VP Announcement

I think it should be stated that Obama first announced Biden as his VP running mate over text messaging.

Be bold! --Soetermans | is listening | what he'd do now? 11:32, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE: VP Announcement

I don't think we should state anything but the truth(unless it has anything to do with Bush). That is what Wikipedia is all about. Having said that, clearly it was Barack's intention to break the news to his supporters first. One should not blame him for the press stalking Joe Biden at his home in the middle of the night like annoying paparazzi.

By the way I corrected the past tense reference to the Springfield, Illinois rally on August 23, 2008 which as of 2:45 AM PST has not yet occurred. When the announcement does happen, could someone please revert this appropriately back to past tense? Thanks!

-Falconwings1982 August 23, 2008 2:45 AM

Be bold! --Soetermans | is listening | what he'd do now? 11:32, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Grammar correction needed

Under the heading "Presidential campaigns," the following sentence needs to be emended:

"Biden has twice ran for the Democratic nomination for President, he first ran in 1988, and again in 2008."

This sentence should read this way: "Biden has twice RUN for the Democratic nomination for President; [added semicolon] he first ran in 1988, and again in 2008.

Be bold! --Soetermans | is listening | what he'd do now? 11:32, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reworded and fixed. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:53, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV

There is not a single listed controversy or negative aspect about Joe Biden whatsoever in this article? The man has never once been involved in anything controversial in all his time in the Senate? In his prior life? No wonder Obama picked him. Or wait... maybe this article is a joke. I submit that if there is not one single controversy about Biden, as reflected by the fact that no part of his page discusses one, then that itself is noteworthy for one of the longest-server senators and it needs to be put in the article, and I will do just that, again.

What controversy would you suggest? If there is something controversial or interesting, let's put it in, if we can get it from factual sources. Otherwise stop yer complaining! -- Yekrats (talk) 11:46, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, I agree with you that Biden has never been involved in any controversy or scandal, especially nothing involving editing Wikipedia or plagiarism. THIS IS NOTABLE. This can be said of almost no one who has served several congressional terms, and it needs to be added to the article. Joe Biden has never been involved in any controversy. Ikilled007 (talk) 11:48, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Um, you're not making sense. We should write that he was NOT involved in any scandal? I don't think a person NOT doing something is notable. If we did that, Wikipedia would be full of things non-facts that people never did! -- Yekrats (talk) 12:15, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is notable that he has never been involved in any scandal or controversy because he is a career politician and such a claim is practically unheard of. In fact, the only other politician who appears to be this squeaky-clean is Obama (go figure), at least if you get your information from Wikipedia. Look, it's obvious that this article, like the Obama article are POV. Why even pretend? So just put on the page that Biden has never been involved in any scandal or controversy so people who are looking for information about the plagiarism issue or Biden's staff editing wikipedia scandal won't have to scour for information that's not there. They can simply go to the controversies section and see that they imagined it. Doesn't it get old being a partisan hack, Yekrats? Ikilled007 (talk) 12:50, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Section re-edit

The "Controversies" section of this article is in dire need of an enema. 65.189.146.128 (talk) 11:50, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

some 'vandal left a 'funny' message there. I know nothing about Biden but know uninformative snark doesn't have a place here.Numskll (talk) 11:55, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was IKILLED007 apparently has some private bee in his bonnet over Biden as evidenced by some of his discussions above. Numskll (talk) 11:55, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Am I the only one who thinks it's NOTABLE that one of the longest-serving Congressmen has never been touched by any controversy or scandal? Even Mother Teresa's page has controversy in it. But Joe Biden has never been involved -- nay, never even been accused of anything untoward. Unheard of in politics and definitely NOTABLE given his tenure. But we all know the truth: there is a plagiarism scandal and a wikipedia editing scandal by his staff, but pro-Biden editors refuse to let the sourced information appear in the article. Ok, but if you're going to be POV, then it is definitely NOTABLE that he is scandal/controversy free. And it needs to be put on the page. Ikilled007 (talk) 12:02, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
including a section that says "isn't it remarkable this section is empty" is ridiculous (and suggestive of hidden controversies) and you should know it. If there is something you want to include and can source it appropriately do so. If you want to say Biden is controversy free and have a source that makes such a generalization, do that. But please don't add any more of your pissy editorializing to the article. Thanks Numskll (talk) 13:07, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Editors keep adding the sourced controversy information and partisan hacks like yourself keep deleting it. Who do you think you're fooling? I've added the SOURCED material AGAIN. Let's see if you leave it up. If not, I will add the fact that Wikipedia acknowledges no controversies for this person again. You don't get to have it both ways. Either leave the controversies in or acknowledge that you are white-washing the article, just like the Obama one. Ikilled007 (talk) 13:09, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I've just done some Googling and some reading sbout Biden. The plagiarism issue is handled in the section of the article dealing with 1988 campaign. If you want to make changes to that do so. It seems to encapsulate the events as I understand them from by brief reading. In passing, I'd like to note that your caps lock seems to have an intermittent problem and, in addition that you should probably avoid calling other people names here. Thanks. Numskll (talk)

(od) We don't have separate "Controversies" sections in any of the 2008 presidential or vice presidential candidate articles. Doing so is considered a violation of WP:NPOV, WP:Content forking, and WP:Criticism. A special effort was undertaken to rid all 2008 presidential candidates' articles of such treatment — see here. So they don't exist for Obama, McCain, Hillary, Giuliani, Romney, or any of the others. In Biden's case, the plagiarism material is dealt with in the biographical context it occurred – his 1988 presidential campaign. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:24, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, your special effort missed Joe Lieberman: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Lieberman -- there is a section on controversies and criticisms, and he is a former candidate for VP and very possibly McCain's this year. I'm sure this is purely accidental though, and not bias on the part of editors. Ikilled007 (talk) 14:15, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the work was only done for all 16 or so 2008 presidential candidates (which Biden was at that point). Lieberman was not one of these, so he was missed, as was GWB, Bill Clinton, and no doubt a bunch of others. But the work done should clearly be extended to 2008 vice presidential candidates, including Lieberman if McCain picks him. Ideally it should be extended to everyone, but the 2008 campaign keeps us editors totally busy as it is. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:20, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Jehochman Talk 13:42, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Current Template

Could someone with the appropriate authority put back the "Current" template? I think 100+ edits in less than 12 hours qualifies as "may change rapidly"

Look at the McCain and Obama main articles – the current election tag is only on the campaign section, not the entire biographical article. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:51, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Biden is the democrat's 08 VP candidate

Please change this page to reflect that Biden is the democrat's VP candidate and Obama is the presidential candidate (remove words like presumptive). Source http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/08/23/biden.democrat.vp.candidate/index.html

"Presumptive" is the correct word to use until the convention, when Obama and Biden are officially selected by the delegate roll calls. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:50, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ History of the Violence Against Women Act [24]
  2. ^ Making connections to end Domestic Violence [25]
  3. ^ Barone, Michael & Richard E. Cohen. The Almanac of American Politics. pp. p. 377. {{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Joe_Biden&oldid=233739533"