Joe Biden was one of the Social sciences and society good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jacobmolga (article contribs).
Deaths of family
Do we care that he lied about it for years ? Said the trucker was drunk. That It was his wife’s fault wasn’t as good of a story on the campaign trail. https://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/oct/18/joe-bidens-false-claim-about-drunken-driver-draws-/
So, should it be included in the section regarding the accident that he falsely and publicly claimed the trucker was drunk but those claims have been refuted ? F. L. (talk) 12:46, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- You will need a reliable source for something like this. The Washington Times isn't a reliable source. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:40, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/driver-in-biden-crash-wanted-name-cleared/ F. L. (talk) 16:02, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- It doesn't matter whether we care. Rightly or wrongly, the story has received little attention in mainstream media and hence fails weight for inclusion. TFD (talk) 04:39, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
- It should be included. Here are more sources:
- There is clear coverage from the mainstream media. Include it.Editing Scapegoat (talk) 01:04, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
- None of these articles are about these alleged lies, except for the hit pieces by the two ultra conservative writers. There's no "lying" narrative in reliable sources. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:21, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
- Did you even bother to actually check the sources? The Atlantic says "The family of the truck driver has labored to correct the record, but Biden made the reference to drunkenness as recently as 2007, needlessly resurrecting a false and painful accusation." Politico says "The problem was it wasn’t true. The driver of the truck, Curtis C. Dunn of Pennsylvania, was not charged with drunk driving." Yahoo finance says that Biden has been "falsely claiming for years that his first wife and daughter were killed by a drunk driver." I can go on. I can rely on left or centre-left sources if you would like me to. Let's rely on what the sources say, not what you believe.Editing Scapegoat (talk) 22:42, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
- You don't seem to be understanding the issue here. There's very little coverage in mainstream sources, and in none of them is this the main story (except in the ultra conservative hit pieces). This article is meant to cover things significant to the subject and, whether or not the facts as you present them are true, it does not appear to be significant. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:16, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
- Did you even bother to actually check the sources? The Atlantic says "The family of the truck driver has labored to correct the record, but Biden made the reference to drunkenness as recently as 2007, needlessly resurrecting a false and painful accusation." Politico says "The problem was it wasn’t true. The driver of the truck, Curtis C. Dunn of Pennsylvania, was not charged with drunk driving." Yahoo finance says that Biden has been "falsely claiming for years that his first wife and daughter were killed by a drunk driver." I can go on. I can rely on left or centre-left sources if you would like me to. Let's rely on what the sources say, not what you believe.Editing Scapegoat (talk) 22:42, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
- None of these articles are about these alleged lies, except for the hit pieces by the two ultra conservative writers. There's no "lying" narrative in reliable sources. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:21, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
- There is no evidence from reliable sources that Biden "lied". Reports show that he repeated an erroneous claim, but there is no evidence of deliberate deceit; claims of lying appear to be politically motivated, almost certainly in an attempt to draw false equivalency between an error last repeated 13 years ago and the relentless untruthfulness of Biden's current opponent. In the absence of substantive mainstream reports of the discrepancy, this is WP:UNDUE. Guy (help! - typo?) 12:05, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
- Hmm. Then I guess that The Atlantic and Politico aren't reliable sources. Should we move to deprecate them? And what word would you use to describe a "false accusation", something that isn't true, or a "false claim". Is it an untruth? And thanks for linking to Veracity of statements by Donald Trump. There you'll find equally false claims that the President made a single time much longer ago than 2007. I assume I'll see you removing the reliably sourced bits of that article that don't confirm to your very high standards. Simply put, falsely claiming that someone killed your family is notable, and as it is reliable sourced, there is no valid reason to not include it. Scapegoat (talk) 23:31, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Editing Scapegoat: I'm going to explain it for you one last time. This will be my THIRD time in this thread. There will not be another. When adding something controversial, the usual standard is to seek reliable sources where the thing you are adding is the primary focus of the source. This, coupled with its appearance in a preponderance of reliable sources is usually a good indicator of whether or not something is significant enough for inclusion. This does not meet that standard. Ergo, we exclude it. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:14, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
- Who is this "ergo" you're talking to? EEng 05:26, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
- I think she's Cogito's cousin. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:28, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
- Mea culpa! Forgive my impromptu use of the Latin I like to sprinkle, inter alia, on an ad hoc basis, rather than the pro forma examples more compos mentis editors might employ. I hope this doesn't make me persona non grata on this talk page? -- Scjessey (talk) 01:35, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
- Power~enwiki, sum say so, yes Guy (help! - typo?) 19:09, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
- I think she's Cogito's cousin. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:28, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
- Who is this "ergo" you're talking to? EEng 05:26, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Editing Scapegoat: I'm going to explain it for you one last time. This will be my THIRD time in this thread. There will not be another. When adding something controversial, the usual standard is to seek reliable sources where the thing you are adding is the primary focus of the source. This, coupled with its appearance in a preponderance of reliable sources is usually a good indicator of whether or not something is significant enough for inclusion. This does not meet that standard. Ergo, we exclude it. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:14, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
- Hmm. Then I guess that The Atlantic and Politico aren't reliable sources. Should we move to deprecate them? And what word would you use to describe a "false accusation", something that isn't true, or a "false claim". Is it an untruth? And thanks for linking to Veracity of statements by Donald Trump. There you'll find equally false claims that the President made a single time much longer ago than 2007. I assume I'll see you removing the reliably sourced bits of that article that don't confirm to your very high standards. Simply put, falsely claiming that someone killed your family is notable, and as it is reliable sourced, there is no valid reason to not include it. Scapegoat (talk) 23:31, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
Some things that are wrong in the article
" Biden attended the Archmere Academy in Claymont,[9]:27, 32 where he was a standout halfback and wide receiver on the high school football team; he helped lead a perennially losing team to an undefeated season in his senior year.[18][21] He played on the baseball team as well.[18] Academically, he was a poor student but was considered a natural leader among the students and elected class president during his junior and senior years,[9]:40–41[22]:99 and graduated in 1961.[9]:40–41
He earned his Bachelor of Arts degree in 1965 from the University of Delaware in Newark, with a double major in history and political science and a minor in English.[23][22]:98 He graduated with a "C" average, ranked 506th of 688 in his graduating class.[24][25] Biden played halfback for the Fightin' Blue Hens freshman football team, and defensive back for the varsity.[21][26] While on spring break in the Bahamas in 1964, he met his future wife Neilia Hunter, a student at Syracuse University.[18][27] "
OK. Biden did NOT play varsity football at U of Delaware. Biden did NOT graduate with a double major. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.179.254.161 (talk) 10:46, 15 October 2020 (UTC) — 71.179.254.161 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at UTC 10:46, 15 October 2020 (UTC).
- @71.179.254.161: You're going to need sources to back those claims up, and even then, those are sourced parts and are unlikely to be removed. NonsensicalSystem(err0r?)(.log) 10:50, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- I love the part where you included no sources. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 20:15, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
Edit request--Emails about Joe Biden and Ukrainian Government
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hello, I read several reports about how Joe Biden is involved in Ukrainian government and business[1][2]. It is pretty interesting and important because of Biden's position in US government. Sky-Dream (talk) 03:24, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
- And here is "But his emails" moment. Haha. History repeats itself. BTW, why still no info about Shokin rearresting Burisma, etc? We need to vote on inclusion, IMHO. https://twitter.com/ClimateAudit/status/1176290653883514882?s=19 2A00:1370:812D:EDFE:4C7C:E145:78E0:CEB0 (talk) 03:41, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
- We do not include conspiracy theories of the far-right into Wikipedia articles, sourced to social media and tabloids. ValarianB (talk) 11:42, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
References
- ^ Fox, Chris. "Twitter and Facebook's action over Joe Biden article reignites bias claims". BBC. Retrieved 16 October 2020.
- ^ Morris, Emma-Jo. "Smoking-gun email reveals how Hunter Biden introduced Ukrainian businessman to VP dad". New York Post. Retrieved 16 October 2020.
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 October 2020
Joe Biden said at a 10/15/2020 town hall he vowed to end anti transgender law https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tlZOXtv5Sm8 source ABC news TheRealJavon (talk) 14:52, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
- Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:43, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
Honorary professor
Could someone please expand the line "In 2017, Biden was named the Benjamin Franklin Presidential Practice professor at the University of Pennsylvania, where he intended to focus on foreign policy, diplomacy, and national security while leading the Penn Biden Center for Diplomacy and Global Engagement." with information from https://heavy.com/news/2020/09/biden-professor/ clarifying the nature of this position? Currently this sentence does not even have a citation. 2601:482:8000:C470:0:0:0:DF96 (talk) 16:44, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 October 2020
In section 3.2, please add the below somewhere in the paragraph that begins "Biden became ranking minority member..."
On March 24, 1983, Biden introduced the Comprehensive Forfeiture Act, later included in the CCCA introduced by Strom Thurmond on August 4, 1983.[1][2] Biden's bill established the Equitable Sharing Program, which allows state and local law enforcement to retain up to 80% of the proceeds from seizures made in collaboration with federal agencies and from assets turned over to the federal government that the federal government chooses to adopt because the activity that prompted the seizure was against federal law. This program allows state and local law enforcement to circumvent state forfeiture laws, allowing law enforcement in some states to retain more seized assets than they otherwise could.[3] In 2014, a report by The Washington Post found that $2.5 billion had been seized through the Equitable Sharing Program since 2001 without search warrants or indictments.[4] GiraffeRustler (talk) 23:09, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
- Not done: Per WP:UNDUE and WP:COATRACK Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 03:35, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
References
- ^ https://www.congress.gov/bill/98th-congress/senate-bill/1762.
{{cite web}}
: Missing or empty|title=
(help) - ^ https://www.congress.gov/bill/98th-congress/senate-bill/948.
{{cite web}}
: Missing or empty|title=
(help) - ^ https://ij.org/report/policing-for-profit/federal-equitable-sharing/.
{{cite web}}
: Missing or empty|title=
(help) - ^ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/03/28/the-feds-have-resumed-a-controversial-program-that-lets-cops-take-stuff-and-keep-it/.
{{cite web}}
: Missing or empty|title=
(help)
Beginning in 2019, President Trump and his allies falsely accused Biden of getting the Ukrainian prosecutor general Viktor Shokin fired...
Falsely accused? How is it false? Biden admitted that he pressured to have Shokin fired - and Shokin was investigating Burisma!!! 158.123.57.220 (talk) 14:55, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
- Please provide reliable sources supporting this. Asartea Trick | Treat 14:57, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
- This reliable enough for you? https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/463307-solomon-these-once-secret-memos-cast-doubt-on-joe-bidens-ukraine-story 158.123.57.220 (talk) 15:04, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
- Then what about this: https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/download/hsgac-finance-report 158.123.57.220 (talk) 15:36, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
- This may also be relevant: https://tennesseestar.com/2019/10/08/commentary-it-was-the-ukraine-that-reopened-the-burisma-biden-probe-in-2018-and-asked-the-united-states-for-mutual-legal-assistance/ 158.123.57.220 (talk) 15:47, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
- You left out the second half of the sentence: "...because he was ostensibly pursuing an investigation into Burisma Holdings, which employed Hunter Biden." Yes Biden threatened to withhold military aid to Ukraine unless the prosecutor was fired but no, according to reliable sources, it was not because he was investigating Burisma. TFD (talk) 17:35, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
"Son of a bitch got fired!"
YOU LOVELY PEOPLE will have to work out what it means:
"..and so I got Ukraine and I remember going over convincing our team our others to convincing us that we should be providing for loan guarantees and I went over I guess the 12th 13th time to Kiev and and I was going supposed to announce that there was another billion dollar loan guarantee and I had gotten a commitment from poroshenko and from yachts and hook that they would take action against the state prosecutor and they didn't so they said they had it they were walking out to Prescott said no I said I'm not gonna or we're not going to give you the billion dollars they said you have no authority you're not the president the president said I said call him I said I'm telling you're not getting a billion dollars I said you're not getting a billion I'm gonna be leaving here I think it was about six hours I look at him leaving in six hours if the prosecutors not fired you're not getting the money Oh son of a bitch got fired!"
[Joe Biden, Council on Foreign Relations, 2018] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.93.22.83 (talk) 14:35, October 21, 2020 (UTC)
- Us "lovely people" already know what this quote means. He got Poroshenko to fire Shokin because Shokin was corrupt and not investigating Bursima as he was supposed to. Biden had the backing of the developed world in doing this. Firing Shokin put Burisma, and therefore Hunter Biden, at greater danger. We went over this when Trump was impeached. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:24, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
"Trump and his allies falsely accused"
Present para:
- Beginning in 2019, President Trump and his allies falsely accused Biden of getting the Ukrainian prosecutor general Viktor Shokin fired because he was ostensibly pursuing an investigation into Burisma Holdings, which employed Hunter Biden. Biden was accused of withholding $1 billion in aid from Ukraine in this effort. In 2015, then-Vice President Biden pressured the Ukrainian parliament to remove Shokin because the United States, the European Union and other international organizations considered Shokin corrupt and ineffective, and in particular Shokin was not assertively investigating Burisma. The withholding of the $1 billion in aid was part of this official policy.[1][2][3][4]
References
- ^ "PolitiFact—Donald Trump ad misleads about Joe Biden, Ukraine and the prosecutor". @politifact.
- ^ Kessler, Glenn (September 27, 2019). "Analysis | A quick guide to President Trump's false claims about Ukraine and the Bidens". Washington Post.
- ^ Dale, Daniel. "Fact check: What Trump has been getting wrong on Biden and Ukraine". CNN.
- ^ In March 2016 testimony to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, former ambassador to Ukraine John E. Herbst said, "By late fall of 2015, the EU and the United States joined the chorus of those seeking Mr. Shokin's removal" and that Joe Biden "spoke publicly about this before and during his December visit to Kyiv." During the same hearing, assistant secretary of state Victoria Nuland said, "We have pegged our next $1 billion loan guarantee, first and foremost, to having a rebooting of the reform coalition so that we know who we are working with, but secondarily, to ensuring that the prosecutor general's office gets cleaned up.""Ukrainian Reforms Two Years After the Maidan Revolution and the Russian Invasion" (PDF). senate.gov. March 15, 2016.
This is a magnet for indignant Fox viewers, largely because it lacks nuance. It also really doesn't belong in the campaign section. I suggest a subsection on "Burisma" along these lines:
- Some conservatives have promoted a series of narratives centred on the discredited idea that 2020 presidential candidate Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden engaged in corrupt activities while the former was Vice President of the United States and the latter worked for the Ukrainian gas company Burisma. These claims specifically relate to the firing of the corrupt former Chief Prosecutor of Ukraine, Viktor Shokin. Reporting since at least 2019 has noted that US demands for Shokin's firing were bipartisan, and were also supported by the European Union, the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. Shokin was removed from office by the Ukrainian Parliament in March 2016.
Sources that back this include:
- Politi, James; Sevastopulo, Demetri; Peels, Michael; Olearchyk, Roman (October 4, 2019). "Envoys pushed to oust Ukraine prosecutor before Biden". Financial Times. Retrieved October 15, 2020.
{{cite news}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (link) - Blake, Aaron (January 27, 2020). "The Bidens, Burisma and impeachment, explained". The Washington Post. Retrieved October 18, 2020.
{{cite news}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (link) - Olearchyk, Roman; Chaffin, Joshua (2020-03-18). "Ukrainegate: Rudy Giuliani's new campaign against Joe Biden". Financial Times. Retrieved 2020-10-19.
- McLaughlin, Daniel (March 29, 2016). "EU hails sacking of Ukraine's prosecutor Viktor Shokin". The Irish Times. Retrieved October 15, 2020.
{{cite news}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
Using the Financial Times escapes the endless debate about the "liberal media" - the FT is owned by Nikkei and is as small-c conservative as you get. It's also a secondary source where some of the above are primary. Finally it moves away from the relentless Trump focus. While Trump may well be the most prominent promoter of this nonsense, there's pretty solid evidence it originates with Russia.
What do people think about this? Guy (help! - typo?) 18:48, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
- Mostly fine with me. "Some conservatives" sounds like WP:WEASEL wording, so it'd probably better to keep the "Trump and his allies" part. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:56, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
- Muboshgu, maybe. It's unfortunate that some readers will see "Trump" and immediately think it's bullshit just because he said it, and others will think it true just because he said it. Guy (help! - typo?) 19:11, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
- Such is the difficulty of American politics in 2020. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:21, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
- The sadder thing is this crap is apparently an effective electoral strategy. Re "Some conservatives", who is mainly peddling, or started, the story? The campaign, particular hosts, etc? Name them ideally, or a specific group. The rhetoric these days makes me question any ambiguously-attributed claims I read, personally, so anything vague reads less credibly in my eyes. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:15, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
- "This is a magnet for indignant Fox viewers, largely because" they are Fox viewers. I submit that it doesn't matter WHAT the Wikipedia page says, if it's not the Trump party line they'll accuse Wikipedia of being "bought by Biden" or some other phrase along that line https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Biden%E2%80%93Ukraine_conspiracy_theory&diff=prev&oldid=984077757. Making writing decisions by trying to prognosticate what Fox viewers will scream about 24-48 hours from now is heckler's veto territory and an exercise in futility, because the moment a change is made to appease them the goalposts will be moved. 2601:2C0:C300:B7:B5C1:27E9:546F:9D78 (talk) 03:50, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
- The sadder thing is this crap is apparently an effective electoral strategy. Re "Some conservatives", who is mainly peddling, or started, the story? The campaign, particular hosts, etc? Name them ideally, or a specific group. The rhetoric these days makes me question any ambiguously-attributed claims I read, personally, so anything vague reads less credibly in my eyes. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:15, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
- Such is the difficulty of American politics in 2020. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:21, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
- Muboshgu, maybe. It's unfortunate that some readers will see "Trump" and immediately think it's bullshit just because he said it, and others will think it true just because he said it. Guy (help! - typo?) 19:11, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Are discussions of the Biden family's business dealings allowed on this "talk" page? If so, is it okay to post a headline from the Wall Street Journal on this topic? Michael-Ridgway (talk) 02:15, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- It seems that you are just going to different articles, trying to find a place to post the same information rather than seeking to improve articles that have nothing at all to do with Hunter Biden. Liz Read! Talk! 02:19, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- So you're assuming that I'm acting in bad faith? I have never been successful in getting my edits on to article pages for anything but the most mundane of facts. I post my links in hopes that perhaps just one of them will be of use to someone with more editing clout than myself. I hardly think that that's bad faith.Michael-Ridgway (talk) 22:48, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
- And why?
Despite legitimate concerns about the origin and credibility of this information, President Trump and Republican Members of Congress have seized on the story and are pressuring law enforcement to publicly act to advance their partisan interests. President Trump himself stated that “[w]e’ve got to get the Attorney General to act and to act fast,” pushing for a public investigation of the former Vice President and his son just two weeks before the election. [6]
- BTW, WSJ op-eds don't count for nuthin'. soibangla (talk) 22:58, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Michael-Ridgway:
"I post my links in hopes that perhaps just one of them will be of use to someone with more editing clout than myself."
This is an admission that your purpose is to get coverage of what's behind the links into Wikipedia. That's basically agenda-driven editing, which is antithetical to the Wikipedia project. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:07, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
I hardly think so.
It seems to me that he is in good faith providing resources of some sort.
No matter how misguided, if he feels he does not have the personal capacity, it is commendable. SkynetPR (talk) 00:18, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you for your support. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 03:39, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
I removed the sources that were deemed insufficiently reliable. I think this one is unassailable. It's from the Wall Street Journal and it's not an opinion piece. It's about Joe Biden. Can we run with it? If not, why not? Hunter Biden’s Ex-Business Partner Alleges Father Knew About Venture Michael-Ridgway (talk) 03:39, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
- The article you link to say, right at the very top, "corporate records reviewed by The Wall Street Journal show no role for Joe Biden." -- Scjessey (talk) 11:46, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
Also, might it be appropriate to create an article on Tony Bobulinski, the ex-business partner who is the subject of the article? Not only is he offering his personal testimony regarding his experiences with Joe and Hunter Biden but he is turning over cell phones which contain text messages and emails that he claims corroborate some of the information that is alleged to come from the laptop acquired by Rudy Giuliani. A search in Wikipedia seems to indicate that there is no mention of him anywhere on the site. Further, Bevan Cooney has made a trove of 26,000 emails available to investigators, many of which he claims are the very emails sent out by Hunter Biden. I'm heavily biased in the Republican direction but I'm trying to be objective here. Even giving every possible benefit of the doubt to the Bidens, it seems like the claim that the information is fabricated or was collected via hacking is getting less and less plausible with each passing day. At some point, it would seem that Wikipedia would have to drop what one writer called the "Silicon Curtain" and admit that there is at least smoke, whether fire can be proven or not. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 03:49, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
- You can certainly create an article for this random dude if it passes WP:GNG, although I very much doubt it makes the cut. That is not a matter for this talk page though. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:46, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
JOBTITLES
This reversion by Woko Sapien (talk · contribs) misinterprets MOS:JOBTITLES. Because "senator" is preceded by "U.S." I would contend that "senator" should be lowercase. "Senator Kamala Harris" would be correct, but it should be "U.S. senator Kamala Harris" in this particular instance. Also, this word's capitalization has now been changed several times in a 24-hour period, which is why I am bringing it up here. Suggest Woko Sapien self reverts to avoid ArbCom's discretionary sanctions. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:42, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
- Invoking discretionary sanctions over uppercase letters seems a tad harsh. Anyway, I've modified the sentence so the "U.S." is removed while still conveying the right information. Fun fact: the sentence now matches how Biden's announcement as running mate is written on Barack Obama 2008 presidential campaign. --Woko Sapien (talk) 14:49, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
- I think that "announced U.S. Senator Kamala Harris as his running mate" is correct. Note that "U.S." is used to distinguish her from state senators, rather than senators from other countries, and hence is used like a title. To be lower case, it would be need a comma: "announced the U.S. senator, Kamala Harris, as his running mate." TFD (talk) 00:05, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
- I don't know about
correct
, but that's directly contrary to JOBTITLES. This case is exactly equivalent to the guideline's example: "Mao met with US president Richard Nixon in 1972." which derives from bullet 3's "preceded by a modifier", U.S. being a modifier. This is notwithstanding the large number of existing cases that are contrary to the guideline because editors were unaware of it or disagreed with it. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:42, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
- I don't know about
While we are on the subject, this edit by Vaze50 (talk · contribs) doesn't seem right either. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:18, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
- Of course it shouldn't be "U.S. senator (name)" rather than "U.S. Senator (name)". What planet are you people living on? There is no justification for that within MOS:JOBTITLES or - far more importantly - the English language. What is wrong with you?! Vaze50 (talk) 20:40, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
- It sounds like translated Russian, where the articles are dropped. One doesn't say, "I like American actor Tom Cruise," "I met American lawyer Jeffrey Toobin." One would insert "the." According to Your Dictionary, "you capitalize the job title when it comes immediately before the name, in a formal context or in direct address. It is not generally capitalized if it comes after the person's name, or if there is a "the" before it."[7] (I don't know if it meets rs.) TFD (talk) 12:05, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
- Um, some people would insert the; some wouldn't. See false title. It's a stylistic choice. EEng 13:49, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
- See WP:WEASEL. It doesn't matter what some people might do, but what would be accepted in reliable sources written in standard English. If you can show me an example of the usage in a newspaper, academic journal or book, then I'll accept that. But it's usage with which I am unfamiliar, except with some Russian speakers who often omit articles. People say um too, but one does not find it often in formal text. TFD (talk) 15:13, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
- Um, some people would insert the; some wouldn't. See false title. It's a stylistic choice. EEng 13:49, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
why is the 1994 crime bill not in this article
One of Biden's biggest accomplishments was the 1994 Crime Bill, but it is stated as one of his legislative accomplishments in the infobox and in the footnotes. Can it be added? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SailedtheSeas (talk • contribs) 02:13, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
- SailedtheSeas, it is in the article. It's not called the "1994 Crime Bill", it's the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:28, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
- That articles says, "commonly referred to as the 1994 Crime Bill." We should add that to this article because it is better known by that name. 02:37, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
- Muboshgu, thank you. i did a search after scanning the article (unfort lots of stuff in 47 years) and only found the two hits i mentioned above. after watching the debate it made me want to read more about the bill. thx. SailedtheSeas (talk) 05:15, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
- That articles says, "commonly referred to as the 1994 Crime Bill." We should add that to this article because it is better known by that name. 02:37, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
Omnibus Counterterrorism Act of 1995
Please could someone with privileges add, in the States Senate (1973–2009), Senate Judiciary Committee section, Biden's role in creating the Omnibus Counterterrorism Act of 1995[1], which Biden took credit for as the precursor to the PATRIOT Act.[2][3]
References
- Not done: Per WP:COATRACK Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:24, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 October 2020
change "[[[RAVE Act|Reducing Americans' Vulnerability to Ecstasy Act]]" to "Reducing Americans' Vulnerability to Ecstasy Act" (fix link by removing first left bracket) Futurechromex3x (talk) 23:38, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 October 2020
Per consistency with other major party Presidential, Vice Presidential, and Senate candidates, please add the following political party succession boxes:
73.110.217.186 (talk) 04:12, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
- After reviewing other articles such as Kamala Harris, Tim Kaine, and Hillary Clinton, this does not appear to be correct procedure. I am not sure where you got the idea that these boxes are standard. IHateAccounts (talk) 06:37, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
- Tim Kaine and Kamala Harris do in fact have political party succession boxes. Other such as Barack Obama, John Kerry, Al Gore, Joe Lieberman, John Edwards, Mitt Romney, John McCain, Bob Dole, Mike Pence, Paul Ryan, Sarah Palin, George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Bill Clinton, George H. W. Bush, Jack Kemp, and Dan Quayle, to name a few, all have such inboxes, which indicates that this is common procedure. Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton seem to be exceptions and they should also have their political party inboxes added.