Talk:Joe Biden/Archive 4

Vandalism? I don't think so
Why is this article full protected "due to US presidential election to prevent vandalism"? Aside from two or three (non-vandalism) revisions yesterday, it hasn't been edited in days, and there hasn't been any blatant vandalism to the page for weeks. Protecting the article seems like a completely unnecessary precaution here. Thanks, ♪ Tempo Di  Valse ♪ 17:29, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I concur. I don't understand why they protected it.  It seems to me to go against the openness of Wikipedia. Illinois2011 (talk) 17:47, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Feel free to weigh in over at AN/I, where this was decided. Tarc (talk) 18:39, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Decided? There is no consensus for protecting these articles. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:22, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, after reading over there, I guess I agree that it is a necessary step. That doesn't change the fact that I really don't like it.  Wikipedia is supposed to be as open as possible. But with emotions running so high in this country over the next week, I guess we really don't have a choice. Illinois2011 (talk) 22:12, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that this page and any other candadates page should not be fully protected. A semi-protection is proper, but to keep out everyone invites too many problems and too many speculations. Anything properly cited should be allowed according to its weight. This was the worst possible time to protect the page--Jojhutton (talk) 23:26, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Page protection cannot be used as a preemptive measure. These articles are watched by many, many editors, and vandalism does not stand a chance. See WP:PROTECTION ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:21, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It can be if there is consensus. Wouldn't that fall under WP:IAR? Illinois2011 (talk) 18:03, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Campaign suspension
I believe it should be clarified that on October 5, Biden suspended campaiging because of the death of his FIRST wife's mother; the current sentence implies it was his current wife's mother. This is particularly relevant because Biden has suspended campaiging on November 1 and 2 to be near his current mother-in-law, who is in serious condition in a hospice.


 * No, it was his second wife Jill Biden's mother who died then. See our source.  He has not suspended anything November 1 and 2.  Wasted Time R (talk) 04:41, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Unprotected... for now
Hi again everyone. Something of a compromise has been worked out and for now, I have returned this page to semi-protection. Please watch it carefully to ensure that vandalism is reverted ASAP. The page will be re-protected on the morning of Nov 4 until [within reason] the election results are officially posted. Thanks for everyone's patience and have a wonderful halloween. ~  L'Aquatique   [  talk  ] 23:44, 31 October 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, thanks! Wasted Time R (talk) 23:46, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Age
If the Obama-Biden ticket is elected; we may wish to point out that Biden would become (upon assumption of office in January) one of the oldest Vice Presidents in US history. GoodDay (talk) 20:35, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


 * You have a source on where he would rank, i.e. how many veeps older, how many younger? Wasted Time R (talk) 00:24, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll have to wait first, on the election results. GoodDay (talk) 16:03, 4 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Per List of United States Vice President by age of ascension, he'll be the sixth oldest (checking birthdays, he'll be younger than the other two 66's). Wasted Time R (talk) 00:16, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Vice President elect
Obama now the winner, Biden with him. When will article be unlocked? Wasted Time R (talk) 04:06, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Preferably not until after January 20th. Post election edit wars are too common to unlock it early. Timrollpickering (talk) 04:37, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * And technically he won't be VP-elect until at least 15-Dec, and maybe not until 6-Jan. -- Zsero (talk) 04:43, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

There is a draft policy on this at Post-election edit war syndrome. Timrollpickering (talk) 05:28, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the "technically", I've seen some people wanting to use "presumptive [vice] president elect", but that's very unwieldy and none of the major media sources out there are doing it. They're just saying "[vice] president elect". And so should we. Wasted Time R (talk) 06:02, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

We need to change his infobox as he is not the 47th Vice President, elect or otherwise. He is only the Vice President-elect until he is sworn in as the 47th. --MichiganCharms (talk) 07:43, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, quite right, this was fixed by someone overnight. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:14, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Biden should be described as presumptive Vice President-elect (until December 15th). But, I doubt anybody want edit wars over that fact, for the next six-weeks. GoodDay (talk) 14:37, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * There was a discussion of that going on over at the Obama page. The technicalities of the Electoral College process aren't important enough in this case to not use the standard "[vice] president elect" form that every WP:RS is using.  Do this Google News search for "president elect obama" and you get 1,147 hits and growing by the minutes.  Do this search with "presumptive" added and you get 0 hits.  Wasted Time R (talk) 14:45, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * In agreement; it's not worth edit-warring over (for six weeks). GoodDay (talk) 15:04, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Wrong source and possible made up information
The following is cited as being from source 25, Levey, Noam M. (2008-08-24). "In his home state, Biden is a regular Joe", Los Angeles Times. Retrieved on 2008-09-07.

The accident left Biden filled with both anger and religious doubt: "I liked to [walk around seedy neighborhoods] at night when I thought there was a better chance of finding a fight ... I had not known I was capable of such rage ... I felt God had played a horrible trick on me."

This does not appear anywhere in the article. I think it is possibly made up as I can not find any other source containing this on the web. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.137.191.232 (talk) 09:15, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * It's not made up, I added it with this edit on Sep 7 and I remember reading it. But you're right, it's not in the LA Times article.  One possibility is that the LAT modified its story after I accessed it, but it had already been out for two weeks, so that seems unlikely.  Another is that I added it with the wrong cite.  As for not being on the web, maybe it was from his book; you can see the last part of the quote in this Time article giving bits from the book.  I'll keep checking, and thanks for spotting this.  Wasted Time R (talk) 13:30, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, I found it, it is indeed in Biden's memoir Promises to Keep, page 81 in the paperback edition. I've changed the cite in the article.  Thanks again for catching this.  Wasted Time R (talk) 02:35, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Not vice-president elect

 * The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

According to the president-elect wikipage bidden is not yet vice-president ellect:
 * In the United States, the members of the U.S. Electoral College are elected by the people in November once every four years; in December, they are in session and in turn elect the President of the United States; finally, the President of the United States assumes office in January. One is constitutionally the president-elect only after being chosen by the Electoral College; colloquially, the person chosen in the November general election is called the President-elect before the Electoral College meets; more accurately he is the president-designate until the body that elects the president, the Electoral College, meets and votes.

Therefor de facto vice-president-ellect is more accuret then the current vice-president-ellect Mach10 (talk) 13:07, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The sources say he is. Therefore, he is. P.S. You can't spell worth diddly. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 13:11, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * There have been reams of discussion about this at Talk:Barack Obama. We are simply following the practice of the vast, vast majority of news sites.  There are currently 5,253 Google News hits for "president elect obama", 0 for "de facto president elect obama", 0 for "presumptive president elect obama", and 1 for "president designate obama" (from a site in Singapore).  The same approach applies to vice president elect and Biden.  Wasted Time R (talk) 13:51, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The sources are wrong. Nevertheless, this is simply not worth edit-warring over.  In less than six weeks he will be VP-elect, and in less than eleven weeks he will be VP, and all our discussion will be moot.  Maybe that will be the time to discuss how we should handle the next transition, always bearing in mind that we can't actually bind the people who will be editing then.  -- Zsero (talk) 19:46, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * No, the sources are not wrong. They are the President-elect and VP-elect. The Electoral College is not going to change that fact, unless something happens to one or both of them, which would be a whole different story, but even if it does, they are still currently the President-elect and VP-elect. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 20:00, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Nobody has elected them. Therefore they are not anything-elect. That is a fact, and it doesn't matter how many "reliable" sources misuse the term.  WP:V requires that facts reported be reliably sourced as well as true, but it does not authorise the inclusion of false statements just because they're "reliably" sourced.  Still, it's not worth fighting over.  -- Zsero (talk) 20:41, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You've got it wrong. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 20:46, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * So who elected them? The people didn't; all the people did was elect some Electors.  The 20th amendment specifies that if the president elect isn't able to take over on 20-Jan, the vice president elect automatically takes his place; if something should happen to Obama between now and 15-Dec, do you think that clause would be triggered?  Of course not; the Electors would simply elect someone else (quite possibly Clinton).  Only after 15-Dec (or perhaps 6-Jan) will Obama and Biden be president and vice-president elect, and only then will the 20th amendment's clause apply. -- Zsero (talk) 21:03, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * They are the de facto President-elect and VP-elect unless something happens to them. Assuming nothing happens to them, they continue to be PE and VPE until 1/20/09. The electoral college members are not allowed to overturn the results of the popular election. Their activities on 12/15 and those of the Congress on 1/6 are a mere formality. The crystal-ball scenario is not relevant to the present situation, as anything can happen to anyone in the future. And by Clinton, I assume you mean Hillary, as Bill is ineligible. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 21:14, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * However, a footnote attached to vice-president elect, explaining the official situation, could be acceptable. This is already in lengthy discussion at the Obama page. Whatever is decided there, the same could be done here for consistency. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 21:17, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * First of all, the laws in some states binding electors to their pledges are probably unconstitutional. They'll keep their pledges because they're loyal party people, not because their states' laws compel them.  But that's not the point, which you keep missing.  If something should happen to Obama on 14-Dec, the electors would choose someone else; Biden would not automatically be entitled to succeed him, and I think it very likely that he would not.  And yes, of course I mean Hillary.  After 15-Dec, however, or at least after 6-Jan, Biden will be vice president elect, and the constitution explicitly provides that if the president elect is unable to take office the vice president elect takes it instead.  That's the point.  Once Biden is vice president elect he will be guaranteed to take over if Obama is unable to; until he's vice president elect he doesn't have that guarantee, because as far as the constitution is concerned neither he nor Obama have any special status yet.  As far as the constitution is concerned the real election hasn't happened yet. -- Zsero (talk) 21:35, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It's up to the states to determine the method for choosing electors, so there is not likely to be any constitutional issue. And I'm not missing the point. Obama is currently the de facto President-elect. If something happens to him, he is no longer the President-elect. Just as Bush is the President, and if something happens to him, he is no longer the President. There has never been anything happen to the President-elect between the general election and the meeting of the electors or the joint session. Hence it's unprecedented, and if the constitution's guidelines are insufficient, then the Supreme Court would probably be brought in to make a ruling. But those hypotheticals have nothing to do with the fact that Obama and Biden are RIGHT NOW the de facto PE and VPE. And the fact that they are not yet "officially" the PE and VPE can be explained in a footnote. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 21:44, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It's up to the states to determine the method for choosing electors, but once chosen the electors are free to make up their own minds, or change them, and there's nothing in the constitution authorising the states to restrict their choices. Before the 17th amendment the states appointed their senators, and regularly issued them voting instructions, but those instructions were advisory only; a senator was free to ignore his state's orders and exercise his own judgment.
 * But again you miss my point. If Biden were the VP elect, as he will be once he is elected on 15-Dec, then there would be no possibility of any doubt as to what happens if Obama is unable to take over on 20-Jan.  The constitution says that the "vice president elect" takes over.  Nobody else would have any claim to the post.  But in fact, if something were to happen before 15-Dec, that's not what would happen.  The electors would pick someone else, and that person would become president elect, and then president.  (And no, there wouldn't be any need for a court ruling, the constitution is quite sufficient, and it says the electors meet and elect someone.)  This proves that Biden is not yet VP-elect.  -- Zsero (talk) 22:04, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It proves nothing. The electors are NOT free to elect anybody they please in violation of the public election. And your hypothetical of what to do if something happens before 12/15 is strictly that. Until or if something happens to Obama, he's the de facto President-elect. If something does happen, I assure you that the electors would not just la-di-da vote for whoever they choose. They would get together nationally and figure it out - unless they want McCain elected. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 22:09, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Of course they'd work something out. The DNC would pick someone, and almost all D electors would go along with it.  Probably.  But they would not be legally bound to.  After 15-Dec, it doesn't matter what anyone things, Biden will be VP-elect, and the constitution says that he takes over.  If he were VP-elect now, then the same thing would be the case now; Biden would be Obama's automatic replacement, and nobody could do anything about it.  But you've just admitted that that's not the case; you said the electors would "figure it out", but if Biden were VP-elect they wouldn't be entitled to figure anything out, they'd have to give it to him.
 * And yes, they are in fact free to elect anyone they please: some states have laws purporting to bind them, but those laws are almost certainly unconstitutional; and many states don't even have such laws. They will keep their pledges, not because they have to, but because they're loyal party people; just as Congressmen don't usually leave their parties, even though they're certainly entitled to, and sometimes do. Even governors and mayors and even presidents can switch parties after an election; it just doesn't happen very often. -- Zsero (talk) 22:25, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

FYI, the U.S. Government considers Obama to be the President-elect. That's the trump card: Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 22:21, 6 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, the constitution trumps. -- Zsero (talk) 22:25, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Feel free to write a note to the government website and tell them they've got it wrong. And the constitution does NOT trump the state rules about how electors are required to vote. The constitution authorizes the states to set up those rules. And they do not elect anyone other than who the public voted for. It will not happen. It's a technicality, like the Queen of England signing legislation. It doesn't become law until she signs. But she has to sign, otherwise it would be a constitutional crisis. Similarly if the electoral college members rebelled. No, it will not happen. Obama is the President-elect, and dat's dat. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 22:30, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Please see the discussion on the Obama page. I think our suggested compromise (saying he's the president-elect because all the media does but adding a footnote saying that he technically isn't) is a good one.  For the record, we haven't implemented the compromise yet.LedRush (talk) 22:36, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Right, there's little point in continuing here, because it's really the same debate. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 22:45, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Look, I'm not going to edit-war about this, it's just not important enough. And I'm certainly not going to write a letter to the people at change.gov.  Let them be wrong.  I'm not responsible for their education.  But the constitution certainly does trump any laws the states make; it is the supreme law of the land.  The state legislatures can make rules for how electors are chosen, just as they used to be able to elect senators, but once those electors or senators are chosen they have the right to vote as they think fit, and no law purporting to bind them can be valid.  The Queen is constitutionally obligated to act on the advice of her ministers, so if they advise her to assent to a bill she has no choice but to do so; nevertheless, even with this level of formality, a bill cannot be described as an act until it has received the royal assent, which rather works against your position.  -- Zsero (talk) 22:48, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * If the electors did try to subvert the will of the people, I assure you it would be taken to the Supreme Court. Precedent for intervention in state procedures was set by the 2000 election. The constitution does not explicitly say that the electors can vote for whoever they want. Those rules are decided by the states. The general method that the electors and the joint session use to collect the elector ballots are all that the constitution prescribes. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 22:58, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * This 1963 law (available at http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=106_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ293.106.pdf ) has the following to say about the term: ‘President-elect’ and ‘Vice-President-elect’ as used in this Act shall mean such persons as are the apparent successful candidates for the office of President and Vice President, respectively, as ascertained by the Administrator following the general elections held to determine the electors of President and Vice President.LedRush (talk) 22:59, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

(od) I'm okay with adding a footnote explaining the technicalities of all this. Do we have agreed-upon wording for the footnote? Wasted Time R (talk) 23:18, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * There is growing concensus on the Obama page that no footnote is needed. The government (i.e. the law cited above) defines the term President-elect as being understood that it's the "apparent" winner of the election, i.e. not the "official" winner yet. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 23:23, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Opinion - Need for footnote==(Lipstick on a pig*Color of the bike shed) Sswonk (talk) 23:39, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I missed the law quote directly above. The law supports common sense, what a notion!  Wasted Time R (talk) 00:21, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Pst Baseball Bugs, you yourself keep saying de facto, while you say I am wrong calling him de facto, that is add And yes I can't spell for shit, I am Dutch Dyslextic and proud off it ( .) )
 * Yes, I was calling him de facto, but no more, because it has been demonstrated that the government uses simply "President elect" to mean "de facto President elect", so it's a non-issue now. And my Dutch is not so good either. :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 06:07, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Constitutionally, Obama & Biden are not President-elect & Vice President-elect. I'm sorry if people disagree with me, I didn't write up & ratify the US Constitution. As for Electors not be allowed to vote for whomever they wish? ever hear of faithless electors. Anyways, barring the death, refusal to accept election of Obama and/or Biden before December 15th; it's quite certain over 270 of the Electors will vote for Obama as President & Biden as Vice President. GoodDay (talk) 20:00, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You need to read the way the government is using the terms. Under their definition, which is written into the law, they ARE the PE and VPE. There is no actual definition of the term in the constitution. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 20:06, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The people don't elect the President & Vice President. They elect the presidential & vice presidential Electors. PS- Why are we arguing? nobody changed the titles at the Obama page & this page. GoodDay (talk) 20:12, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

(od) Given that 3 USC 102 states in plain language that the terms suffixed "-elect" are assumed by: "(c) The terms 'President-elect' and 'Vice-President-elect' as used in this Act shall mean such persons as are the apparent successful candidates for the office of President and Vice President, respectively, as ascertained by the Administrator following the general elections held to determine the electors of President and Vice President in accordance with title 3, United States Code, sections 1 and 2", I suggest this discussion be archived. Sswonk (talk) 20:30, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed. GoodDay (talk) 20:32, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Protection
I wonder if perhaps, this article should be semi-protected or protected. the Vice President of the USA succession box keeps being added. Biden hasn't taken office, yet. GoodDay (talk) 19:51, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


 * It already is semi-protected. No, it certainly doesn't need full protection, not if the worst sin is someone being overeager to add a succession box.    Wasted Time R (talk) 22:08, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 22:41, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

“Early life and education” section
Reference this entry under the “Early life and education” section: “Biden received five student draft deferments during this period, with the first coming in late 1963 and the last in early 1968, at the peak of the Vietnam War.[16] In April 1968, he was reclassified by the Selective Service System as not available for service due to having had asthma as a teenager.[16]”

I have read on various Internet sources that the reason Biden did not release his full medical records during the campaign was they would reveal the extent to which he went to avoid military induction once he received his draft notice. Although in his best-selling memoir, “Promises to Keep,” he recounted his active childhood, working as a lifeguard and excelling at high school football, he never mentions asthma. It is alleged that what actually happened was by the time Biden finally got his draft notice in ‘68, he was already a lawyer so knew how to “manipulate the system.” His asthma was not detected during his draft physical but rather Biden appealed his induction by submitting "documentation" from a “private physician” notorious for “discovering” disqualifying features for well connected patients after they were notified for induction.

Can anyone verify this allegation? If it is true, Biden makes Bush look like a war hero and it should definitely be included in his bio in the same manner in which their Vietnam-era conduct is discussed in the Bush and Cheney pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.169.199.18 (talk) 22:24, 9 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Things like this did indeed happen during the Vietnam era. On the other hand, many athletes have excelled despite asthma, and Biden may not have mentioned it in his memoir because his stuttering was a greater adversity that he had to overcome and he focused on that in his writing.  But as you realize, you would need WP:RS to go further on this; if you believe "various Internet sources", then anything under the sun is true.  Wasted Time R (talk) 22:29, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Vice Presidents of the United States Template
This Template should be removed, as Dick Cheney is the Vice President. Let's wait until January 20th, 2009 before adding the Template. GoodDay (talk) 01:37, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Or maybe just commented out, so no one has to re-invent the wheel. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 01:43, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It says Vice President elect, and that's correct. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 01:45, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't mean the Infobox, I mean the Template near the bottom of the article. GoodDay (talk) 01:47, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I see. Well, I don't think it's a big deal. It's not like predicting the outcome of the November 4th election on November 3rd. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 01:53, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The template used to say "Elect" after Biden's name. Now Biden's been removed from the template altogether. The template and this article are going to see-saw on this matter for the next two months. I'm not going to worry about it either way. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:55, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah come on, fellas; it should be removed. As for having Biden's name in? That can be shown anyways, with the Template on Cheney & his predessors' articles. GoodDay (talk) 02:00, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I removed it. Next time, someone else can.  Wasted Time R (talk) 03:04, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Robinette

 * Question from a non native English speaker : is Robinette a first name or a last name ? if it is a first name, is it common and what is its origin ? Hektor (talk) 22:33, 10 November 2008 (UTC)


 * It's a last name. If you look at the Wargs geneology, you'll see it was the last name of his paternal grandmother and goes back a bunch of generations.  [[User:Wasted Time R|Wasted Time R] (talk) 01:48, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Frequency, ranked #3,727th most common surname in the US, per http://names.mongabay.com/data/ri/ROBINETTE.html. Nationality, likely English per the Wargs above and other searches, meaning "son of Robert". Sswonk (talk) 03:20, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * more like "daughter of Robin". In French, the ending "et" would be male, and "ette" female. After all, it's his grandmother's name. "Robin" also is a small bird (known from "Batman and Robin", that is no joke, look it up on IMDB), therefore "Robinette" would be a very small bird, as the ending "ette" is also used in French to sign a diminutive (smaller form) of a subject. 79.193.56.62 (talk) 10:27, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

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.  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)

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)
 * Okay, maybe a bit over-sensitive after that travesty at the article to which you refer.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:20, 3 January 2009 (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 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." Ruth Ann Minner 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.  Grsz  11  22:05, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Article incorrectly states at beginning (on 1/14/09) that Biden is a former Senator and on right sidebar that his term in Senate ended today. I am unable to edit article directly due to protections. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.64.74.25 (talk) 19:49, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I've fixed it. We need to wait until it happens, and when it does, we are going to just delete away the committee information, but rather rephrase it. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:42, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Aneuryism
Here we say that he suffered a "intracranial berry aneurysm". On www.inauguration.dc.gov they say it was a "cranial aneurysm". As far as I understand, it is not the same. Which is right? The current source is the NY Times. Surely a government website should be trusted more? --80.63.213.182 (talk) 13:01, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The NYT article is more detailed and was written by their physician reporter-on-staff. The inauguration.dc.gov bio is a brief mention in a puff piece written by the Obama transition team.  The first is much better as a WP:RS.  Wasted Time R (talk) 13:23, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Tuesday edit
See. Talk:Barack_ObamaHereford 22:25, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

president biden
should we put that biden was president for 5 minutes because when bush's term expired only he had been sworn in and obama had not been sworn in yet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.166.86.114 (talk) 17:47, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

No. According to the constitution, Obama became president at noon. It doesn't matter that he didn't take the oath "in time", as there have been other inaugurations where this has happened. Vice Presidents are "acting Presidents" frequently while the President is away or for whatever other reason, and Biden was doing exactly that. Captain Alaric (talk) 17:56, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

dude i was just joking. the page would look very taky if we put that on there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.166.86.114 (talk) 18:11, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. However, please remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and all edits should strive to be entirely factual. Captain Alaric (talk) 19:25, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

msnbc was saying that biden was president for 5 minutes because of the 20th amendment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.166.86.114 (talk) 20:07, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I assume that you're referring to Section 3 of the 20th Amendment, stating: "...If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified..."

Surely this means he served as "acting President", something which the Vice President does on a regular basis when the President is off duty, etc. Therefore, Biden was no more of a President in those 5 minutes than Dick Cheney was during any time George W. Bush was on holiday. Captain Alaric (talk) 23:17, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

According to section 1 of the 20th ammendment, Obama became president at noon, oath or no oath. Biden was *not* acting president. Section 3 doesn't apply because Obama was chosen and had qualified. Section 1 states, "Section 1. The terms of the President and Vice President shall end at noon on the 20th day of January, and the terms of Senators and Representatives at noon on the 3d day of January, of the years in which such terms would have ended if this article had not been ratified; and the terms of their successors shall then begin." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.231.118.155 (talk) 00:12, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Google's current excerpt?
"Negative impressions of drinking alcohol in the Biden and Finnegan families and in the neighborhood led to Joe Biden becoming a teetotaler.[18][6] Biden suffered from stuttering through much of his childhood and into his twenties;[19] he overcame it via long hours spent reciting poetry in front of a mirror.[11]" Starks (talk) 21:25, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Forgive me if I'm being ignorant, but can we change this? If so, I recommend the first line of the article. "Joseph Robinette "Joe" Biden, Jr. (pronounced /'dʒoʊsəf rɒbɪ'nɛt 'baɪdən/; born November 20, 1942) is the forty-seventh and current Vice President of the United States." Captain Alaric (talk) 23:20, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * As far as I know, we have no control over the Google excerpt. And yes, I've often seen very unrepresentative or unimportant fragments of articles used as their excerpt.  You just have to hope that readers click through and read our articles from the top.  Wasted Time R (talk) 01:00, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * This is correct, I looked into it at the help desk. Since the Vice President is something of a hot topic around now, there's a lot of movement on this article and over at Google. It should go back to normal soon enough.The Sartorialist (talk) 01:04, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

46th or 47th?
Ok, is he the 46th or 47th Vice-President of the United States? As seen here, whitehouse.gov says he is the 46th, but I guess that could just be a typo. Does anyone know? Illinois2011 (talk) 00:50, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * See them counted off to 47 in List of Vice Presidents of the United States. Don't know why the discrepancy. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:01, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Biden as President
Biden is no longer the incumbent, it says that on the sidebar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.208.37.182 (talk) 00:55, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

According to the US constitution, Biden was officially the president for 5 minutes. Biden was sworn in before 12, and at 12:05 Obama was president. Someone should add that in. Andorhal (talk) 19:55, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

NO. According to the constitution, Barack Obama became president at noon, oath or no oath. The 20th Ammendment states:

"Section 1. The terms of the President and Vice President shall end at noon on the 20th day of January, and the terms of Senators and Representatives at noon on the 3d day of January, of the years in which such terms would have ended if this article had not been ratified; and the terms of their successors shall then begin."

So, terms of successors (in this case, Obama) begin at noon; there is no mention of the oath to make this official and no need for the oath for the presidential term to begin. 96.231.118.155 (talk) 00:08, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

He was not president! Bush and Cheney were still President and Vice President respectively when he was sworn in!

Irviding11 (talk) 06:04, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Bush & Cheney ceased to be President & Vice President, at Noon EST of January 20, 2009. GoodDay (talk) 20:17, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Exactly, therefore he was not acting president of the united states. The President was still George W Bush until 12 noon. Irviding11 (talk) 22:03, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I think we also need some mention ...
I think we also need some mention of his vanity -- the hair plugs and the botox. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.104.125.92 (talk) 21:11, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * No. Discussed before.  See Talk:Joe Biden/Archive 3.  Wasted Time R (talk) 12:30, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Vice-Presidential Portrait
Shouldn't Biden's official vice-presidential portrait be used as the main image? Jzcrandall (talk) 22:43, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * We don't have one yet. See  above.  Wasted Time R (talk) 22:48, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Barack Obama
Based on a suggestion on Talk:Barack Obama, a new baby Wikiproject has been formed:
 * WikiProject Barack Obama

Please check it out, watchlist it, join and sign up. Let's get some GAs and FAs going out of this! :) rootology ( C )( T ) 20:11, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Need a new photo
We need a new photo of Biden instead of that senate photo, there is one on change.gov but I am unable to upload it to Bidens page due to protections. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Irviding11 (talk • contribs) 00:14, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * We'll wait until the official photo of him as Vice President is made available; that is preferable to anything done during the transition. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:43, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

There's a photo up today at http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/vice_president_biden/, but it's the same small-sized image that was previously uploaded to File:Thumbnail-sized photo of Joe Biden.jpg. I presume it's too small for the infobox top image (we only use it now in the template at the bottom), so we'll have to keep on waiting. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:33, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * But someone put it in anyway. Looks kinda like I expected.  Wasted Time R (talk) 04:19, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I put it in. Why was it removed? It is his official vice presidential photograph. What we have now is his senate photograph. The main photo should be their official photo for the office they are holding.

Irviding11 (talk) 06:04, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I think it was the official transition photo ... but its resolution is too low. Hopefully an official vice presidential photo, with good resolution, is still in the offing.  Wasted Time R (talk) 13:02, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, i guess it is pretty crap resolution. Irviding11 (talk) 22:03, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Stop adding that transition photo, it doesn't have the resolution we have been over this, I reverted it back to his senate photo.

Irviding11 (talk) 02:00, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Biden and the draft, again
The paragraph beginning with During Vietnam Biden receivied five draft deferment needs to be replaced with the following: Biden was subject to the draft for most of the Vietnam draft era but continued to avoid service by applying for five separate deferments. 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.” He says he was disqualified for childhood asthma 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 he never mentioned asthma. 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 avoided service and he has resisted releasing any of his draft records. Hence, his statement he was disqualified for asthma is unverified.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by The-Expose-inator (talk • contribs) 19:09, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Previously discussed at Talk:Joe Biden/Archive 4. You haven't presented any new arguments or sources here.  Wasted Time R (talk) 22:38, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary, the citation for his having asthma (16) is non-existent and links to nowhere while you can Google the Asthma story all over the Internet and every source is secondary citing his own explanation to the Washington Post back in 1987. Given Biden’s history of prevarication, should this not be classified as “unverified” until he produces something more substantive than his “recollection.”

I would also point out that the Vice President entry for Dick Cheney has a separate section on his draft avoidance so it appears the VP entry template has been established or was that template only for Republicans? —Preceding unsigned comment added by The-Expose-inator (talk • contribs) 16:48, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * First, you haven't looked at Dick Cheney lately; since last month, the draft is no longer a separate section, but rather one paragraph in the "Early life and education" section, just like it's handled here. Second, you previously claimed that Biden's asthma is never mentioned in his memoir Promises to Keep.  That's not correct, it's mentioned on page 156, when he's about to talk about his 1988 aneurysm: "I'd never in my life had any real physical troubles beyond childhood asthma and a separated shoulder."  You should be able to see for yourself with a Google Books search.  Third, I'll try to find this 1987 WaPo article and use it as the cite here, if it's the best statement on it.  Wasted Time R (talk) 05:09, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

One fact I can personnally attest to unequivocally is that if he had not made a major issue of it, the childhood asthma would never have kept him out of the service. Having been Drafted and Inducted into the Army in June 1967 in Wilkes-Barre, the Armed Forces Entrance and Examination Station for Northeast Pennsylvania including his “hometown” of Scranton, I have a little first hand knowledge on how physicals were conducted. I had three disqualifying features detected during my Draft Physical including a “loose knee” from a wrestling injury that should have been surgically corrected. Instead of being disqualified, the doctor stamped my Physical “Waiver” but did warn me to “be careful with the knee in Vietnam so it didn’t dislocate again!” I was inducted later that afternoon and ended up serving an extended tour in Vietnam. Regardless, it never crossed my mind to do anything to avoid being drafted as I knew that when one man evaded, someone else, often less educated or advantaged and always less eligible, served in his place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The-Expose-inator (talk • contribs) 22:15, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * First, his draft board would have been somewhere in Delaware, not Scranton (which he moved away from at age 10). Second, draft boards may have been inconsistent in how they regarded various ailments.  Third, your personal experiences are WP:OR and are given no credence here.  That last rule is tough and frustrates many well-intentioned people, who indeed sometimes know better than the WP:RS we have to go by, but it's a hard-and-fast rule nonetheless.  Wasted Time R (talk) 00:57, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, I've gotten the 1987 WaPo story, "Joe Biden & the Politics of Belief", Lois Romano, Jun 9, 1987. It's a long profile, over 4600 words, but only mentions the draft briefly:
 * Biden says he received a draft notice after graduating from law school, but failed the physical because of an asthma condition. He had hoped to be a pilot.
 * "My feeling about it at the time was like a lot of things in my life have been: That there must have been a reason for it. I was prepared to go. I was not anxious to go, because I didn't think, `My God, I can hardly wait to go and join the military.'"

I've added it as a cite in the article. I've also found a different newspaper cite that's still online for the 2008 AP story. It says:
 * Democratic vice presidential nominee Joe Biden received five student draft deferments during the Vietnam War, the same number of deferments received by Vice President Dick Cheney, and later was disqualified from service because of asthma that he suffered as a teenager.
 * Officials with Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama's campaign released Biden's Selective Service records at the request of The Associated Press. Less detailed records were available from a National Archives facility in Philadelphia.
 * According to the documents, Biden, 65, received several deferments while he was an undergraduate at the University of Delaware and later as a law student at Syracuse University. A month after a physical exam in April 1968, Biden received a Selective Service classification of 1-Y, meaning he was available for service only in the event of national emergency.
 * "As a result of a physical exam on April 5, 1968, Joe Biden was classified 1-Y and disqualified from service because of asthma as a teenager," said David Wade, a campaign spokesman.

The story then incorrectly says Biden never mentioned asthma in his memoir (because the mention is located near the end of the book, rather than in the early chapters, it's easy to miss), at which point the spokesman points to media interviews in 1987.

So your statement above about his not releasing his draft records is incorrect. The AP lead states that he "was disqualified from service because of asthma that he suffered as a teenager", and that's what we state too in our article. Whether this condition was really severe enough to prevent him from doing military service or whether the doctor played up the condition or whether he got a break from a friendly draft board, we can't say as there are no WP:RS that speak to any of those questions. Wasted Time R (talk) 16:02, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, if you read that article closely, it was the Biden spokesman that gave the Asthma excuse and not his draft records. Regardless, someone less eligible and qualified took his place because he wimped out.  Childhood asthma would have never been caught if he had not whined about it and I suspect he even had to bring in something from his "personal physician" and a note from his mother.  And "5-Deferment" Joe is now President Obama's "military expert" on Afghanistan.  One thing you can say about him is he definitely knows how to avoid a military conflict!  He did everything short of maiming himself to dodge Vietnam!

"Baby of the United States Senate"
User:Darth Kalwejt has added an "Honorary titles" box called "Baby of the United States Senate". But, there is no such title in U.S. politics, honorary or otherwise. "Baby of the House" appears to be a real term that's used in the UK, but Biden's not in Parliament. This google search and this google search for the "baby" expression used in conjunction with Biden both result in zero hits, nada, nothing. This is succession-box-itis gone mad. I've removed it. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:47, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Biden for President, not?
It's likely too early to add, but I'm hearing that Biden has chosen to give up his Presidential ambitions. Is there sources for this? is it too trivial? GoodDay (talk) 19:00, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It's already in the article: "In accepting Obama's offer, Biden ruled out to him the possibility of running for president again in 2016.[127]" Wasted Time R (talk) 19:30, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah hah. Barring a change of plans, 2016 will be another open election. GoodDay (talk) 19:32, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, it used to be that the Secretary of State ran for president after two terms. Who is that again, at the moment? --KarlFrei (talk) 09:46, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * She'll be nearing 69, by then. Besides, Biden may choose to not seek re-election in 2012 (he'll be near 70), thus opening up the Veep nomination. GoodDay (talk) 15:10, 26 January 2009 (UTC)