Anythingyouwant (talk | contribs) |
Wasted Time R (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 143: | Line 143: | ||
::I didn't bother mentioning any of the Biden info in the main text of this article, as it was certain to be reverted. As for your remarks about age minimums, are you saying that we should shred the Constitution now, because three mistakes were made in the course of admitting how many Senators? A thousand? I would suggest that you deal with each article on its merits, and try to contain your emotions. You have no right to smear me merely because my derogatory characterization of Philip Berg or Leo Donofrio was not identical to your derogatory characterization.[[User:Ferrylodge|Ferrylodge]] ([[User talk:Ferrylodge|talk]]) 18:11, 3 January 2009 (UTC) |
::I didn't bother mentioning any of the Biden info in the main text of this article, as it was certain to be reverted. As for your remarks about age minimums, are you saying that we should shred the Constitution now, because three mistakes were made in the course of admitting how many Senators? A thousand? I would suggest that you deal with each article on its merits, and try to contain your emotions. You have no right to smear me merely because my derogatory characterization of Philip Berg or Leo Donofrio was not identical to your derogatory characterization.[[User:Ferrylodge|Ferrylodge]] ([[User talk:Ferrylodge|talk]]) 18:11, 3 January 2009 (UTC) |
||
:::Your. Humor. Detection. Broken. [[User:Wasted Time R|Wasted Time R]] ([[User talk:Wasted Time R|talk]]) 18:18, 3 January 2009 (UTC) |
Revision as of 18:18, 3 January 2009
Joe Biden has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Good article |
This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
Controversies
I'm curious as to why there is not a section on Controversies. I could provide some examples, one being how the Catholic bishops have heavily criticized his positions which oppose those articulated by the U.S. bishops and have stated that he should be denied communion. Why is there not a section which balances this article? I realize there are a few points that were made that articulate some opposition, but on the whole, it's a pretty "positive" read. Marliben (talk) 05:42, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
- We don't have "Controversies" sections or subarticles. All such material is included in the normal biographical sections they occur in, in this article and in the various subarticles if any. Having a separate "controversies" or "criticisms" article or section 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 Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States presidential elections#Status of "controversies" pages. That practice will move forward into officials coming out of that election.
- In point of fact, there are many "controversies" included in this article, including but not limited to:
- bad academic performance
- quasi-plagiarism in law school
- exaggerating academic accomplishments
- having to drop out very early in 1988 presidential campaign due to above
- handling of Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings
- being a windbag
- being gaffe-prone
- dumb remarks during 2008 presidential campaign
- connections with MBNA
- under fire from Catholic bishops etc. (which contrary to your assertion, gets a whole paragraph in the "2008 vice-presidential candidacy" section)
- I presume you would like these all grouped together in one convenient section, but that's not how we do things. They are each where they belong, in their proper context alongside his accomplishments and other biographical descriptions. Wasted Time R (talk) 05:13, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
- I just read the article and overwhelmingly appears to be POV. It seems to be more of a certificate of honor than bibliographical material. Joe Biden IS a controversial candidate!--96.232.55.223 (talk) 02:57, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
- You're got to give some specifics of what you think is missing. And it's "biographical material" and he's not a candidate. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:05, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Law review article
How would a 1L write a law review article?? Impossible. Wikipedia, edit, now. [05:00, December 2, 2008 71.245.87.5]
- I think you misunderstood our text. Biden wasn't writing a law review article, he was improperly referencing an existing law review article. Wasted Time R (talk) 05:06, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Why is Iraq War Resolution vote in the first paragraph?
Why is the Iraq War Resolution in the intro. paragraph? Biden voted for it but it was not something he was especially involved in like Bosnia or the judiciary battles. [22:07, December 2, 2008 PonileExpress]
- Because foreign policy is one of his two prime areas of expertise, and this was perhaps the most significant foreign policy vote during his time in the Senate. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:15, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- But how would you judge what was the most important foreign policy vote? Why not his vote against the first gulf war? Or any other vote he made in which he was not significantly involved in lobbying other senators?PonileExpress (talk) 22:58, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
- You're right, the vote against the Gulf War belongs in the lead too (but not with the detail you added about how many other Dem senators voted against, which belongs in the article body and which in fact you had wrong – it was 52-47, with the Dems splitting 10-45). Wasted Time R (talk) 01:58, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Biden's Senate successor, appointed by who?
Governor Minner plans to appoint Biden's successor? Minner will be out of office by the time Biden resigns from the Senate. The next Governor would be doing the appointing. GoodDay (talk) 22:33, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
- Joe Biden#2008 Senate candidacy says: "Biden plans to resign from the Senate after he is sworn in for his seventh term on January 3, 2009, and before his vice-presidential Inauguration Day on January 20."[1] Ruth Ann Minner#Almanac says her term ends January 20, 2009. Do you have evidence against these dates? PrimeHunter (talk) 22:44, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Oops, I didn't notice that Delaware's Gubernatorial terms weren't 4yrs to the date (Jan 3 to Jan 3). GoodDay (talk) 22:54, 8 December 2008 (UTC)- Just noticed, Minner served as Governor for 'bout 2-weeks (due to predecessor's resignation), before starting her 1st full term. GoodDay (talk) 22:58, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
- Ted Kaufman has already been chosen as Biden's successor.PonileExpress (talk) 22:59, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
- Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 23:10, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
- How much did Ted Kaufman have to pay for the appointment?--Appraiser (talk) 14:51, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
- Just because one Governor (mine, no less) that has to appoint a replacement is corrupt doesn't mean the others are.Saberwolf116 (talk) 22:03, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
- Well, you're from Illinois, and must be corrupt, like Obama, or Emanuel, et al. Grsz11 22:05, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
- Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 23:10, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
- Ted Kaufman has already been chosen as Biden's successor.PonileExpress (talk) 22:59, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Draft Avoidance
One major controversy omitted is Biden's Draft History. ALL the sources in print concerning Biden’s draft history are secondary and lead back to the same single source – a 1987 Washington Post candidate profile in which Biden himself was the source. There has never been any independent verification of how he dodged the draft and he has resisted releasing any of his draft records. Given Biden’s documented history of prevarication, the statement concerning his disqualification for asthma needs to be removed or at least footnoted as unverified.
What is documented is that he was subject to the draft for most of the Vietnam draft era but continued to avoid service by applying (and it did require applying) for five separate deferments. Although in his best-selling memoir, "Promises to Keep," Biden recounted his active childhood, working as a lifeguard and excelling at high school football, but never mentioned asthma. It has been reported in various other sources that during the Vietnam War when his numerous deferments expired, Biden received a draft notice but by that time he was already a lawyer so knew how to "manipulate the system." When no disqualifying features were noted during his official draft physical, Biden hired a "private physician" who was able to "discover" a disqualifying feature which kept him out of harm’s way.
What is also a fact is that draft quotas were assigned by draft board so when one man evaded, someone else, often less educated or advantaged and always less eligible, served in his place. Additionally, because many of the more capable natural leaders avoided service, we often had to settle for the LT Cally's of the world for leadership. Think of how many American lives could have been saved if leaders of Biden, Cheney or Clinton’s potential had only done their duty. [05:15, December 26, 2008 The-Expose-inator]
- I could say, 'This is not a forum', or I could say, Think of how many American lives could have been saved if leaders of Biden, Cheney, or Clinton's potential hadn't sent them into war defending a usurping anti-democratic buffoon like Ngo Diem. Then tell myself it isn't a forum. Anarchangel (talk) 06:20, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
A suitable "fix" would be to omit the reference to Asthma and just say "it is unverified how he avoided active military services." —Preceding unsigned comment added by The-Expose-inator (talk • contribs) 05:15, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
- Not necessary if the sources saying he manipulated the system are good. Not warranted if they aren't. Anarchangel (talk) 06:20, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
- Clarify: if they're good, then 'manipulate' goes in next to asthma, point - counterpoint. If they aren't worthy of inclusion however, then they don't exist as far as WP is concerned; there is no Taken Into Consideration here. Anarchangel (talk) 06:27, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
- We've had this discussion here before, see the Talk archives. Did he really have asthma? It's possible, and it's possible to be a good athlete with it, and it's possible the military rejected him nonetheless, and it's possible he didn't mention the asthma in his memoir because he was more focused on the role stuttering had in his life. And yes, it's also possible that the asthma was minor or non-existent and a friendly doctor or friendly draft board concocted it in order to keep him out of the draft. That sort of thing went on all the time during the Vietnam era. But there are no WP:RS that I know of that address this possibility; you (Exposinator) yourself just mention "various other sources" without saying what they are. If there are WP:RS, please bring them forward. Otherwise, WP:BLP considerations indicate that we accept the WP:RS that give the explanation that we currently use. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:43, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
I would only call your attention to Vice President Cheney's Wiki entry which has an entire unflattering section on his "Draft Dodging" activities so it appears that is part of the accepted template for VP articles. Like Biden, Cheney was also a 5-exemption "Draft Dodger" who beat the system but he at least he owns up to it. I would also call your attention to the unflattering Military Service section in President Bush's Wiki entry. Should we not be consistent? —Preceding unsigned comment added by The-Expose-inator (talk • contribs) 07:41, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
- Both Cheney and Biden get a paragraph on the subject. Cheney's is put in its own section, which I think is wrong and WP:Undue weight; I prefer the approach of Biden and Rudy Giuliani on this, just make it one paragraph in the appropriate 'Early life' (or whatever) section. Bush is a special case, because the details of his service have long been controversial and the whole Rathergate thing and so forth, and thus there is a George W. Bush military service controversy article. But things are different when you are a major party presidential nominee, witness John Kerry military service controversy. Or, in a different light, Early life and military career of John McCain. But if you want a wiki-outrage, check out Bill Clinton. As of right now, not one word about his whole draft controversy! Now that's not right. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:21, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Category:Stroke survivors
Hi. I recently added the category 'Stroke survivors' to this article, as I am currently populating this category. It was reverted. This article says that Joe Biden had an intracranial aneurysm that began leaking. I say that this represents a haemorrhagic stroke. An aneurysm is one potential cause of (haemorrhagic) stroke. So I'd like to add the category 'Stroke survivors'. To me, a survivor is someone who has had a stroke but who goes back to their old job, or is otherwise able to function at a high level afterwards. - Richard Cavell (talk) 21:45, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
- He had an intracranial berry aneurysm which was leaking. Per this NYT story, which we cite, he was at risk from suffering a stroke from either the leakage or the operation, but he did not. He then had further complications, from a pulmonary embolism and then another aneurysm (that wasn't leaking), but at no time did he have a stroke. Not from anything I've seen, at least. If the category was broader, such as Category:Cerebrovascular disease survivors, then I would definitely support including Biden, but not if the category is just for strokes. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:10, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
- It seems that the NYT story is written by a journalist who knows little about medicine. The article states that the aneurysm was leaking blood and then says that he had ongoing neurological symptoms but did not have a stroke. It's highly unlikely that the journalist would know the difference, but I suppose that you could argue that the blood ended up entirely within the subarachnoid space and therefore did not interrupt the blood supply to the brain itself. Mind you, the plain-English definition of stroke given on wikipedia is fulfilled by the NYT story.
- I guess if he had a subarachnoid haemorrhage that did not penetrate the pia mater and caused no neurological symptoms from damage to the brain (but rather irritation to the meninges), then he did not have a stroke. It would be desirable to get some first-hand medical info though. - Richard Cavell (talk) 23:07, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
- The NYT story is written by their M.D., actually. There's a later story by him here, which covers that episode and Biden's medical history since then. Again, no mention at all of stroke. I see you are a doctor also. But unless you can come up with a WP:RS that says Biden had a stroke, your argument is just WP:OR. That's the way Wikipedia works, for better or worse. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:24, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
- He might be dumbing down his copy for a lay audience. I've done that myself. Well, I don't think the NYT article definitely proves either that he had a stroke or that he did not. But a subarachnoid haemorrhage does not ipso facto result in a stroke, so I guess the burden of proof goes on me to say that he did. I don't have a reliable source to say that he had a stroke. So okay, we'll leave the category off. - Richard Cavell (talk) 23:40, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Knowledge of Constitution criticized
During the debate with Palin, Biden argued that the Vice-Presidency is solely an executive-branch office, with no significant legislative role. To prove the point, Biden pointed out that the Vice-Presidency is described in Article I of the Constitution, which Biden said is the article of the Constitution dealing with the executive branch of government, rather than the legislative branch. But actually Article I is about the legislative branch, and Article II is about the executive branch. There has been much media coverage of this, such as the following from this month:
Swarns, Rachel. “Cheney Defends Bush on President’s Role”, New York Times (2008-12-21): “Mr. Cheney challenged Mr. Biden’s knowledge of the Constitution, saying he could not ‘keep straight which article of the Constitution provides for the legislature, which provides for the executive.’ At the vice presidential debate, Mr. Biden said of Mr. Cheney, ‘The idea he doesn’t realize that Article I of the Constitution defines the role of the vice president of the United States, that’s the Executive Branch,’ then referred to the article’s provision for the vice president’s limited role in the Senate.”
Goldman, Julianna. “Biden Worries Global Expectations of Obama Too ‘High’”, Bloomberg (2008-12-22): “’Joe’s been chairman of the Judiciary Committee, a member of the Judiciary Committee in the Senate, for 36 years, teaches constitutional law back in Delaware, and can’t keep straight which article of the Constitution provides for the legislature and which provides for the executive,’ Cheney said. In an October debate with Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin, Biden said Cheney ‘doesn’t realize that Article I of the Constitution defines the role of the vice president.’ Article I deals with the legislative, not the executive, branch.”
Ferrylodge (talk) 06:11, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, he misspoke in the middle of a debate. It happens, but this mistake had no consequences in the campaign or election (unlike, say, Ford freeing Eastern Europe, which was much remarked upon and discussed at the time). Thus it doesn't belong in the main bio article (where we don't discuss anything that happened in the debate, other than the overall "result"), but feel free to add it to United States vice-presidential debate, 2008. But what you should really be concerned about is this cite in the article, which indicates that three of the senators to be younger than Biden when they joined the Senate were actually under the constitutional minimum age of 30 and thus ineligible to serve. Shock and horrors! Where's Keyes and Kreep when you need them? Every law passed by those Congresses should now be considered null and void! Including the states that they admitted! Maybe those were all blue states, and among the "constitutional states" McCain actually won the election! File your lawsuit now, there's only 17 days to go to save America! (See Talk:Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories for the bewildered.) Wasted Time R (talk) 14:19, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- I didn't bother mentioning any of the Biden info in the main text of this article, as it was certain to be reverted. As for your remarks about age minimums, are you saying that we should shred the Constitution now, because three mistakes were made in the course of admitting how many Senators? A thousand? I would suggest that you deal with each article on its merits, and try to contain your emotions. You have no right to smear me merely because my derogatory characterization of Philip Berg or Leo Donofrio was not identical to your derogatory characterization.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:11, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- Your. Humor. Detection. Broken. Wasted Time R (talk) 18:18, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- I didn't bother mentioning any of the Biden info in the main text of this article, as it was certain to be reverted. As for your remarks about age minimums, are you saying that we should shred the Constitution now, because three mistakes were made in the course of admitting how many Senators? A thousand? I would suggest that you deal with each article on its merits, and try to contain your emotions. You have no right to smear me merely because my derogatory characterization of Philip Berg or Leo Donofrio was not identical to your derogatory characterization.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:11, 3 January 2009 (UTC)