This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 |
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.
This version I believe addresses all of our disagreements.
The purpose for this proposal can be seen through the edit summaries in my series of edits beginning here.It was reverted without comment on the content. Please comment below Kolya Butternut ( talk) 13:07, 10 May 2020 (UTC) Kolya Butternut ( talk) 18:40, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
Kolya Butternut ( talk) 12:42, 10 May 2020 (UTC)In April 2019, former Biden staffer Tara Reade said that she had felt uncomfortable on several occasions when Biden touched her on her shoulder and neck during her employment in his Senate office in 1993. [1] In March 2020, Reade accused Biden of pushing her against a wall and digitally penetrating her while on Capitol Hill in 1993. [2] On May 1, 2020, Biden said, "It's not true. I'm saying unequivocally it never, never happened, and it didn't. It never happened." [3]
While The New York Times was investigating the Reade allegation, no other allegation about sexual assault surfaced, and no pattern of sexual misconduct was found. [4]
Sources
|
---|
|
The beginning of the last sentence can be changed to "Over the course of". One important goal is to separate this from the Reade paragraph. Kolya Butternut ( talk) 17:58, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
In April 2019, former Biden staffer Tara Reade said that she had felt uncomfortable on several occasions when he touched her on her shoulder and neck during her employment in his Senate office in 1993. [1] In March 2020, Reade clarified her story, accusing Biden of pushing her against a wall and digitally penetrating her. [2] Biden said, "It's not true. I'm saying unequivocally it never, never happened, and it didn't." [3] While investigating the story, the New York Times found no other sexual assault allegations, and no pattern of sexual misconduct. [4]
Sources
|
---|
|
In March 2020, Reade changed her story dramatically, accusing Biden...instead? -- Scjessey ( talk) 13:22, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
While The New York Times was investigating the Reade allegation, no other allegation about sexual assault surfaced, and no pattern of sexual misconduct was found.is ambiguous so may cause the WP reader to incorrectly infer that 'after' the NYT investigation 'more' allegations of sexual assault were found, and that would be a false inference.
Since the original NYT investigation, more reporting has been done, and their latest piece includes the earlier work as well as the latest findings. Can we move forward with a proposal that includes the current state of the case, as well as Biden's responses? In their latest piece, the NYT wording doesn't use the Biden talking point about the "pattern", so this updated reporting is preferable for our use in that it is not outdated, and doesn't include COI. We could quote this verbatim and call it a day.
The New York Times interviewed dozens of workers in Mr. Biden’s office in the early 1990s and was unable to find anyone who remembered any kind of sexual misconduct against Ms. Reade or anyone else in the office. Five friends, former co-workers and family members have come forward to corroborate that Ms. Reade told them of an episode of either assault or harassment.petrarchan47 คุ ก 18:57, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
This is gone beyond the ridiculous. There are now umpteen versions, claims, counter claims and even arguments over text not even worked out on this talk page. It's become almost impossible to understand what is going on. Yet again, I find myself proposing what I first proposed:
In March 2020, former Biden staffer Tara Reade accused him of sexual assault in 1993. Both Biden and his campaign denied the allegation.
This is the only way we can introduce stability into the article. Let the main article about the allegation be the battleground, not this BLP. The POV-pushing, edit warring and false claims of "consensus" must stop. -- Scjessey ( talk) 19:29, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
* Support - the version posted by
Scjessey "In March 2020, former Biden staffer Tara Reade accused him of sexual assault in 1993. Both Biden and his campaign denied the allegation"
should be used. It seems to me that if we're going to put in-depth details of Reade's 2020 story, then for balance we'd naturally need to put in-depth detail of Reade's 2019 story. For example, we'd have to include the fact that on 4/6/2019 Reade wrote that her story about Biden, “is not a story about sexual misconduct.” Reade wrote that in her essay (published at The Union
[2]) as a follow-up to her 4/3 Union interview where she told the Union
[3] that Biden touched only her neck and shoulders. And, since there is no in-depth detail of Reade's 2019 story, there should not be in-depth details of Reade's 2020 story.
BetsyRMadison (
talk)
21:44, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
Support -
Scjessey version - "In March 2020, former Biden staffer Tara Reade accused him of sexual assault in 1993. Both Biden and his campaign denied the allegation"
. That's all that is needed at this point. Takes care of any POV and
WP:NOTNEWS issues.
CBS527
Talk
01:49, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
@ Scjessey: - Just returning to this after checking a different part of the article. It appears there was consensus for your minimalist text above. I suggest you do the honors and place it in the article. SPECIFICO talk 18:45, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Drmies closed the RfC with That text is in the article now, two weeks later, and at least that part seems stable enough, though I admit I only looked at a few samples from the article history. At any rate, it's pretty much split down the middle, on political lines it seems (I'm shocked!); there are acceptable arguments on both sides. I'm going with "close as no longer necessary", for practical reasons; if edit warring starts over this, a new RfC should be started.
"That text" refers to "Reade filed a criminal complaint over the alleged assault on April 9 with the Washington D.C. Police."
I don't see the text in the article, and am wondering whether its removal was done with community consensus (and what was used for justification?). petrarchan47 คุ ก 19:02, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
Why are we not mentioning the fact that Reade filed a police report? It seems to have been removed from the article and I’m asking why that is the case. petrarchan47 คุ ก 20:19, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
@ Petrarchan47: The outcome of the discussion above ( Talk:Joe Biden#Reset the reset) meant that all such things were shunted to the linked article per WP:WEIGHT. -- Scjessey ( talk) 00:14, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
@ Scjessey and Petrarchan47: - I've formally closed Talk:Joe_Biden#Compromise_proposal:_May_10. You can read my assessment. starship .paint ( talk) 05:51, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
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.
Biden's comments about black voters recently received a lot of coverage. Should we include something about this and the subsequent apology in the article? Some sources: [5], [6], [7], [8] (NBC News on Youtube), [9]. Mr Ernie ( talk) 07:33, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
POV resistance? – Muboshgu ( talk) 19:20, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
...but still—“white” kids versus “poor” ones. The reason even Biden’s fans are cringing at this remark is that it implies an equation between being poor and being a person of color, and perhaps also that all high-achieving students are white.
And it isn’t the first time Biden has let slip sociological assumptions of this kind. Who can forget Biden sunnily crowing that Barack Obama, when first running for president, was a godsend in being a “mainstream” African American who combined the traits of being “articulate and bright and clean.”*
Yes Per above. 2A00:1370:812C:1186:613B:2D52:478A:8631 ( talk) 16:09, 28 May 2020 (UTC)— 2A00:1370:812C:1186:613B:2D52:478A:8631 ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
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.
This edit reverted a main article link. The editor that reverted says the article is linked below and the consensus is against the main link. Is there a consensus against a main link form this section to its main article? Also i do not find the link “below”. —¿philoserf? ( talk) 18:10, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
In March 2020, Reade accused him of sexual assault in 1993. Biden and his campaign denied the allegation.As far as consensus is concerned, the "main" link is just another version of the "see also" link discussed in #Apparent consensus above. -- Scjessey ( talk) 20:48, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
I am not interested in rehashing this again. It's all been discussed before, and it is in the archives. -- Scjessey ( talk) 14:39, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
@ UserDude: Please, point out the apparent consensus for the "See also" link because it is not apparent to me. Also, you moved the section back into Post vice presidency without mentioning it in your edit summary and without stating a reason. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 12:59, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Let the main article about the allegation be the battleground, not this BLP.Okay and leave the details to the other article then we can't bury the link the that main article about the allegation. I thought the entire point of keeping it short was to direct people to the other article, but no one said let's remove the link at the top of the section which was already in existence at that time.-- Rusf10 ( talk) 01:23, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment.
"the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims"by elevating the prominence of this dubious claim. Even WP:PUBLICFIGURE says
"BLPs should simply document,"adding
"denial(s) should also be reported."That is exactly what we have done here. We have covered the claim in the prominence it deserves, in language painstakingly worked out in multiple discussions and an RfC. What you are proposing is basically an abuse of a hatnote. -- Scjessey ( talk) 13:42, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
Though he's now got a majority of the pledged delegates for his party's presidential nomination. He's still the presumptive nominee, until the majority of delegates 'actually' vote for (i.e. nominate) him in August (at the convention). GoodDay ( talk) 13:41, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
Presidential Candidate Joe Biden Calls on Facebook to Stop Allowing Lies in Political Ads Cycent ( talk) 18:07, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
These specific lines, I believe, should be deleted:
This is no plagiarism or ethics violation. Ideas are not copyrightable; exact wording is. But I have no objection to documenting any falsehoods uttered about his education & the Sam Donaldson expose. ( PeacePeace ( talk) 23:01, 13 June 2020 (UTC))
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZfOYYbS5hc, english https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ei6O14Td89g Even more disturbing than the first part so far (I watch it right now). So the 6 million $USD Burisma was fake news! It was actually 50 million $USD! 2A00:1FA0:4486:F040:C5A6:86D2:DC14:CAF3 ( talk) 01:01, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
compliance with the Manual of Style […is] not covered by the GA criteria and therefore not grounds for delisting.
You don't see any ongoing content dispute or edit war, which was not the case. I believe a community reassessment is more appropriate. userdude 19:35, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
The stability criteria is more a practical criteria for reviewers, thus WP:GAFAIL#4 should not be applied to GARs. As I said, the edit warring was due to an unusual circumstance that has since been resolved by an RFC. I would find it wholly inappropriate if this GAR were to be closed now as delist — it should not be an individual reassessment for the reason stated above. userdude 21:21, 21 April 2020 (UTC); edited 21:23, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
do not align with GA's core set of editorial standards, but you have ignored the content of the arguments. Numerous users have asked for specific examples of neutrality failure, but none have been provided. The arguments that the article fails neutrality have not been arguments — they've been assertions. You've asserted that GA2 was
dubious, but have not stated why. I and Wasted Time R challenged this assertion, but you did not respond. You used the recent edit war as evidence of failing the stability criterion, but you have not responded to my statement that the edit war was caused by an unusual circumstance and has since been resolved by RFC. You used the page's protection status as evidence of instability despite the fact that the page for a major party's presidential nominee would be protected under any circumstance, regardless of the article's quality.
Remember, the aim is not to delist the article, but to fix it). So I'm not entirely shocked that Atsme came to this decision to delist... a week after she nominated the article for a GAR to delist. — MelbourneStar☆ talk 05:41, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
Tag serious problems that you cannot fix with appropriate template messages, if the templates will help other editors find the problems. Do not tag bomb the article.So if it were tagged prior to the GAR, and nothing was done to fix it -- you'd have a point. Now that it's been delisted? not so much of a point. Secondly, there are a few reverts here and there, which does not constitute to edit warring. Yes, changes occur to this article... you'll find that actually happens a lot on Wikipedia (GA, Featured articles too). But that hardly makes it unstable. — MelbourneStar☆ talk 15:40, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
Sure I agree, proper functioning encyclopedia. That is not the same as a stable article. Also yes the RFC closed, now the contentious matter of what to say exactly and how. I guess me and the majority of people that agree it is not stable are all wrong? PackMecEng ( talk) 15:54, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
{{
subst:GAR/result|result=outcome}} ~~~~
. Replace outcome with the outcome of the discussion (whether there was consensus and what action was taken) and explain how the consensus and action was determined from the comments. A bot will remove the assessment from the GA reassessment page and will add it to the current archive.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.
My conclusion after carefully evaluating all of the arguments and discussion is that consensus weighed heavily to delist. The article has been delisted for the reasons I stated below:
The sentence before last in the first paragraph of WP:GAR, clearly states: The outcome of a reassessment should only depend on whether the article being reassessed meets the good article criteria or not. When we examine GA criteria, we can see that it clearly fails the criteria. Following are 4 reasons to immediately fail a GA:
Joe Biden fails 2 of the 4 immediate fail criteria:
I have disagreed with Atsmes interpretation of the reassessment process here and since the delisting have opened it for reevaluation by the community at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Joe Biden/1 AIRcorn (talk) 01:41, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
One of my main focuses here is the reassessment process, and I am the main contributor in this area. My attention was drawn to this article following a post on the Good Article Reassessment talk page. I am not happy with how that individual reassessment process was conducted and feel that it needs to be reexamined through a community one. My main concerns are.
I don't know, or really care, if this article is kept or delisted. What I do care about is that it is given a chance. I do not feel that was the case in the recently conducted reassessment. I know there was a lot of delist !votes there, but this is not decided by a show of hands. What is needed is a break down of the failings which allows any interested editors the chance to resolve them. Also since this is likely to attract editors not that familiar with Good Articles it probably bears mentioning that the requirements are not as strict as many think (see Wikipedia:What the Good article criteria are not). AIRcorn (talk) 23:22, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. Joe Biden is an active politician and a presumptive nominee for perhaps the most contentious political contest in the United States—as more information about his candidacy becomes known, so too must the article change, and since more information is coming out day-by-day, so too is his article changing day-by-day, with more than 50 edits in the last week alone. New content disputes are being contended every day on the article's talk page, many of which involve neutrality and quality of sources, which are also central aspects of a good article. I would reject the argument that because the article was fully protected at the time of reassessment, the article "technically" met the stability criterion—the article so poorly failed to meet the stability criterion that an administrator had to forcibly cause it to do so. I agree that if the content dispute was just a one-off thing that resolved itself in a month or so, there is no need to start a good article reassessment, and I sympathize with the complaint about good article reassessments being used as tools during content disputes. However, when the content of an article is subject to dispute after dispute, lasting several months, I think that should raise doubt as to whether the article is truly stable. We do not necessarily need to wait until the article is stable before reassessing whether it is in fact stable. Respectfully, Mz7 ( talk) 00:02, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Historical perspective: Barack Obama was FA through both his 2008 and 2012 presidential elections and throughout his presidency; John McCain was GA and then FA throughout his presidential campaign in 2008; Mitt Romney was GA and then FA throughout his presidential campaign in 2012; and Hillary Rodham Clinton was GA throughout her presidential campaign in 2008 and then FA throughout her presidential campaign in 2016. The same kinds of things that you have seen, and will see, with the Biden article this year – edit-warring, RfCs, claims of NPOV violations, momentary lacks of stability – are the same kinds of things that all these articles saw back then. But it did not prevent those articles from gaining and keeping their reviewed status, nor should it automatically cause this article to lose its reviewed status. This GAR should be about specific, detailed, concrete issues identified with this article – this fact here is wrong; that source there is weak; the prose in such-and-such section has inappropriate tone; this important topic has insufficient coverage; that not-so-important topic has too much coverage; etc. – and whether they can be remedied. Wasted Time R ( talk) 02:36, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Historical perspective II. Here is an example of a GAR being done for an article about a candidate in a presidential race, in this case Martin O'Malley during the early stages of the 2016 presidential campaign – Talk:Martin O'Malley/GA2. (It's one I remember because I'm the one who did it.) The GAR does not rely on general claims of edit-warring or instability or NPOV or article growth over time. Instead it lists a number of very specific faults, omissions, and other issues with the article. When there were no responses after a couple of weeks, the GA was removed. Had somebody done work to remedy the listed problems, the GA could have been retained. This is the approach that makes sense to me. Wasted Time R ( talk) 12:35, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Further clarity for the reasons given to delist per GAR procedure: Also see Talk:Joe Biden/GA3 for the initial delist discussion.
The article is currently under PP, DS with a 1RR restriction" — the article falls under the scope of WP:ARBAPDS. That includes FA article Hillary Clinton — which has the same restrictions. — MelbourneStar☆ talk 03:35, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
plagued by edit warring". I would be curious to see if they are in relation to the BLP matters which resulted in full-PP. — MelbourneStar☆ talk 03:35, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
It took some time for the cautious Obama and the blunt, rambling Biden to work out ways of dealing with each other.[204]This is placed right after a maintenance tag. Username 6892 03:37, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
I would say that the above did provide clarity, though perhaps not in the way
Atsme intended. Much as I dislike bolding in this manner—it's effectively shouting—I think it's important to point out a basic fact of GAR that is being overlooked: there is no such thing as an immediate fail at GAR. There just isn't. At GAN, there is (the
WP:GAFAIL, cited by many people, though in context it's clear the "immediate" part only applies to new GA nominations when article issues are so severe that there is no point in embarking on a full review), but as is evident throughout the description of how GAR works at
WP:GAR, the goal of a GAR is to attempt to deal with the article's shortcomings in terms of the GA criteria: Remember, the aim is not to delist the article, but to fix it.
GAR is a deliberative process, and reading the individual GAR ( Talk:Joe Biden/GA3), it's clear that the guidelines were not followed. There was no attempt to note any issues with the GA criteria aside from instability, and requests that this be done were ignored. The end result seems to have been decided from the moment it was opened: there had been edit warring, therefore GA status had to be removed, regardless of what anyone said. Never mind that the edit warring had subsided, according to more than one editor. It is a weakness of the individual GAR—as indeed with individual GAN reviews—that the opening editor has the final say, because sometimes the reassessor or reviewer gets it wrong, and that's why the community GAR is available, so that the community at large can have its say.
Going over the five points above:
under PP, DS with a 1RR restrictionare imposed to bring stability to an article that has suffered edit warring and other problems. If they have succeeded in bringing a reasonable degree of stability to the article, then the GA criteria are met.
it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style)), those should be enumerated so they can be addressed.
My hope is that this community GAR can proceed per the guidelines at WP:GAR, particularly that the article be fully assessed against the GA criteria in terms of where it falls short today, and that those who are interested in doing so work at editing the article so that it no longer falls short of the criteria in those areas.
If the article does come to meet the criteria in a reasonable timeframe, then I trust that the consensus will reflect that fact and the article will qualify for listing. If it doesn't meet the criteria at that point, then consensus will reflect that. Either way, the reassessment can at that point be closed, and the result reflected on the article's talk page. BlueMoonset ( talk) 15:43, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
cheat the system,
make a mockery of the GA process, and even
Imposing false stability on an unstable, challenged article is not how the GA process worksdon't reflect how the GAN and GAR processes do work. Even now, the
challenged neutralityissues have not been identified with any specifics—flouting the very process supposedly being cheated. I just hope that when an independent closer appears for this page, they will look at the actions and arguments and actual GAR guidelines and GA criteria, and if the article meets the criteria on that date, close this GAR as relisted. BlueMoonset ( talk) 19:23, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
GAR is not the same thing as FARC, where an article is reexamined by numerous folks and time is allowed for appropriate changes to perhaps keep it listed as FA.. As it says at the top of the reassessment page
Remember, the aim is not to delist the article, but to fix it..
I left a note at WT:GA when I opened this– you opened this at 23:22, 22 April 2020; the last edit at Wikipedia talk:Good articles was on April 14 (a week earlier). The only note I'm finding is at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations#Joe Biden: "
make sure the comments align with the GA criteria. it also begs a deeper question on how the stability criteria applies to delisting articles that we should probably address a bit more formally at some point." It's hard for me to see how we can avoid addressing the issue now, as this strikes me as the crux of the matter. Do you mean that you want to make sure the comments align with the GA criteria, or the GA review criteria? At Wikipedia:Good article criteria#Criteria I see six good article criteria, including "it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute", but Wikipedia:Good article reassessment says, paraphrasing, "don't use this process if you see any ongoing content dispute or edit war". Despite this advice not to use this process, this process has been used twice (both individual and community) for the Biden article where there have been recent content disputes. If the GA criteria, including the "immediate failure" criteria, does not apply to GA reviews, then what are the reassessment criteria? WP:GAR doesn't clearly say what the GAR criteria are, and how they differ from the GA criteria. – wbm1058 ( talk) 14:29, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
Major copy edit. Tried to bring consistency to the instructions for both types of reassessment. Did not change any guidelines, only improved formatting and clarity in the wording of the existing guidelines.is not truthful. Removal of the longstanding advice that after waiting two weeks, reassessment on the grounds of instability could be considered, was an (apparently bold and undiscussed) change in this guideline that put it in conflict with the "GA six". This change should have been, and still should be, reverted. – wbm1058 ( talk) 16:21, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
The outcome of a reassessment should only depend on whether the article being reassessed meets the good article criteria or not.That pretty unambiguously says that there are no separate reassessment criteria. – wbm1058 ( talk) 19:57, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
elaborated by providing examples of material that was not presented in a dispassionate tone, I kindly request that you direct me to where you provided such examples. I have tried to stay up-to-date on this discussion but I missed your examples.
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 is a perfectly valid community reassessment of an earlier individual reassessment. BlueMoonset ( talk) 01:00, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
I was reading through the
WP:GAR page, and came across the following in both the Individual and Community "When to use this process" sections: You don't see any ongoing content dispute or edit war
. If it's true that GARs should only be used when there aren't ongoing disputes/wars, why are we even here, and how was the original reassessment allowed to proceed at all?
It turns out that the basic idea comes down from a May/June 2009 RfC on the subject of stability reassessments. The discussion can be seen at
Wikipedia talk:Good article reassessment/archive4#RfC: Reassessment of an "Unstable" Article. Consensus that something should be added to the GAR guidelines on their advisability resulted in
this addition to the Community section (the feeling I get from the RfC is that individual assessments weren't appropriate, but it wasn't discussed enough for consensus): Requesting reassessment during a content dispute or edit war is usually inappropriate: reviewers are rarely content experts, nor can they reassess a moving target. Wait until the article stabilizes and then consider reassessment; if significant instability persists for more than a couple of weeks, then reassessment on the grounds of instability may be considered.
The reviewers are rarely content experts, nor can they reassess a moving target
phrase was removed by Aircorn in October 2012, and the current wording and expansion to all reassessments dates from
March 2016. These last edits strike me as overreach, but it's interesting how many GAR nominators ignore this and many other portions of the GAR guidelines.
To answer my own question, and absent a new consensus, I'd say generally not, and delisting for stability reasons is a controversial enough practice that it should be only done as a community reassessment. Otherwise, you have editors who, as in this case, have decided the article needs to be delisted immediately, and GAR is the tailor-made process to do so. BlueMoonset ( talk) 19:23, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
there is edit warring and controversy surrounding it. If it ever settles down, it can be renominated., and on this page, your second reason for delisting the article is, in bold,
This article is plagued by edit warring. Your argument in this thread is that
When I delisted that article, there was not an ongoing content dispute or edit war, but it seems like that is directly contradicted by your previous comment here and elsewhere. Not only are these arguments internally inconsistent, they provide no direction for how to improve an article. We have tools to resolve stability concerns, but when we use those tools that is also brought up as a reason to delist the article (argument 1:
The article is currently under PP, DS with a 1RR restriction which is a clear indication that it is a locus of chaos). Stability concerns are set up like a catch-22; if the article is unstable, delist it, if administrators try to stabilize an article, that's evidence of instability and we should delist it. How is the GAR process supposed to work when the discussion is structured to force a particular outcome? I don't really care whether Joe Biden, or any article, has a green circle; I do care that the GAR process is used to build an encyclopedia and that our policies and standards reflect that goal. — Wug· a·po·des 07:46, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
Remember, the aim is not to delist the article, but to fix itby saying
don't attempt to improve the article here? People have asked you for specifics; you provided a list of points; other editors responded to those points; in 5 days you haven't responded to any of those comments. Your only comments since then have been to argue with people who question whether this is a good use of our time or within the spirit of the process. You're free to not participate in the community reassessment, but as the one who undertook the individual reassessment, you are not immune from having your decision and reasoning scrutinized. — Wug· a·po·des 20:33, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
"You do not get to ignore it though"said with such confidence! I must say that is quite funny considering how those arguing to delist have "ignored" simple questions asking for specifics. Like examples of the supposed NPOV breaches. — MelbourneStar☆ talk 04:37, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
The outcome of a reassessment should only depend on whether the article being reassessed meets the good article criteria or not. PackMecEng ( talk) 14:33, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
As a formality - upon the thoughtful suggestion of Vanamonde93 yesterday, I concluded the independent reassessment Talk:Joe Biden/GA3 by providing a more formal close. It appears a few editors were confused or lacked a clear understanding of the reason behind the independent reassessment; therefore, the formal close brings further clarity without anyone having to spend a great deal of time actually reading the more detailed explanations in the lengthy discussions. I am dismayed by some of the allegations in the GAR and in this community reassessment that were used as part of the basis for challenging the first GAR, such as political motivation and a bit of back and forth regarding a lack of experience with the GA process by some of the participants. Of the 6 editors who have supported the delist (MONGO, Mz7, CaptainEek, DGG, PackMecEng, and myself), all but PME are experienced reviewers in either the GA or FA process and/or as qualified reviewers per WP:GOOD, including a few with experience in the reassessment process, so I'm not quite sure what the OP is referring to when he calls out inexperience. Furthermore, the allegation that the delist action was politically motivated is absurd, the absurdity of which is evidenced in some of the oppose statements, not to mention that the primary purpose of a reassessment is to improve an article. I see no correlation with politics unless there is a motive to use GA status as a means of assuring readers that everything in the article is factually accurate and represents a NPOV which is what an article's stability represents and why we attach a GA symbol. Granted, the AP topic area can be rather toxic which helps explain why so few editors want to spend any time there, and why I don't edit those articles. My main focus on WP has always been to promote/review and participate in article improvement and to help build the encyclopedia by attending WikiConferences, and becoming a member of several WikiProjects, including the Lead Improvement Team. I am also a qualified reviewer at NPP/AfC, and have 17 GAs and 8 FAs to my credit as either a nom or reviewer. The one editor of the 6 who supported delisting qualifies as a GA reviewer but I am not aware if their qualifications have yet been put to use, except for this reassessment. Happy editing. Atsme Talk 📧 15:29, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Experienced GA reviewers have already provided the information. I was pointing out the relative experiences of the reviewers as it seemed to be being used as a reason to delist the article without actually providing any substance. The lack of experience is not really the issue anyway, it is the lack of listening to editors with the experience. You have been involved in three community reassessments including this one. In the other two you display the same battleground behaviour you are displaying here. When editors that have been involved in many times more try and explain how Good Article reassessments should be conducted it is generally a good idea to listen to them instead of doubling down that you are right. Myself and BlueMoonset are probably the two most active editors here and we have both tried to explain how things work. Vandemonde and Wugapodes (each with over 50 reviews to their name) have also questioned the way the process was used to conduct your reassessment. By contrast the six you mention as being experienced reviewers have 0,8,3,0,0, and 10 reviews to there names respectively (as recorded by User:GA bot/Stats, which while not perfect is the best we have at keeping track of such things). Their input is more than welcome and can be valuable, but lets keep it in context. AIRcorn (talk) 00:25, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
@ Aircorn:, I just came across this. You say you have much experience with GA, is it normal for an editor who initiates a review saying this fails GA is also the same editor to perform an Independent close of the review? I'm quite shocked. starship .paint ( talk) 06:05, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
@ Aircorn and Atsme: It's been 3 weeks since the last comment here. Should this discussion be closed? Username 6892 20:14, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1538 days ago on 25 April 2020) Formal close needed. Thanks. --- C& C ( Coffeeandcrumbs) 19:09, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
- Done.— S Marshall T/ C 15:29, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1531 days ago on 1 May 2020) Non-involved admin close requested; controversial topic. Archived RfC. petrarchan47 คุ ก 23:11, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1524 days ago on 8 May 2020)
Non-involved admin close requested; controversial topic. Archived RfC. petrarchan47 คุ ก 23:11, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
I have read through this discussion and have formulated a rough closure in my head. I'm working on getting the close keyboarded and expect to post my close later today. This will be my first-ever close of a Good article (re-)assessment. Normally I would defer to a more experienced closer for such a high-profile case as this, but I see that the most active GAR participants are involved in the discussion and this project doesn't have that many active administrators closing discussions – hence I am stepping up. I have posted three comments to this discussion, but this can be closed by any uninvolved registered user. (Significant contributors to the article are "involved", as are reassessment nominators; editors are not usually considered to be "involved" unless they have contributed significantly to GA disagreements about the article prior to the community reassessment.)
I did not contribute to
Talk:Joe Biden/GA3 except in the
post-close comments. More than four weeks have passed since the reassessment was opened on 22 April 2020.
First things to look for: "Before conducting an extensive review, and after ensuring you are viewing an unvandalized version, check that the article does not have cleanup banners that are obviously still valid, including {{ cleanup}}, {{ POV}}, {{ unreferenced}} or large numbers of {{ citation needed}}, {{ clarify}}, or similar inline tags." Given this, after two (individual and community) reviews, I was surprised to find some of these unaddressed issues:
Remaining are a few dated statement categorizations, as old as "Articles containing potentially dated statements from September 2015". I'll assume it isn't expected to try to update these for GA status to be maintained. – wbm1058 ( talk) 18:25, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Good article reassessment (GAR) is a process primarily used to determine whether an article that is listed as good article (GA) still merits its good article status according to the good article criteria. Most GARs don't include this ({{ subst:GATable}}), but, as a first-time reviewer/closer I thought it would be a useful exercise:
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | I've just finished reading the article and have clarified the prose and corrected grammar in a few places. Apparently this was not done by earlier reviewers in this community review. wbm1058 ( talk) 18:01, 20 June 2020 (UTC) | |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | The lead section was reviewed for compliance in this discussion. As a general rule of thumb, a lead section should contain no more than four well-composed paragraphs; the lead now has five, so it's pushing the length limits, but not yet so far as to cause a fail here (this issue wasn't raised in the discussion). While assertions were made about trivia in the body, I didn't see any suggestions for removal of specific text from the lead. The lead should summarize any prominent controversies. wbm1058 ( talk) 15:10, 21 June 2020 (UTC) | |
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | The article appears to be well referenced. I have not done a thorough review for this. wbm1058 ( talk) 21:06, 20 June 2020 (UTC) | |
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). | The sources appear to be reliable. I have not done a thorough review for this. wbm1058 ( talk) 21:06, 20 June 2020 (UTC) | |
2c. it contains no original research. | No evidence of OR has been presented. I have not done a thorough review for this. wbm1058 ( talk) 21:06, 20 June 2020 (UTC) | |
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | No evidence has been presented. I have not done a thorough review for this. wbm1058 ( talk) 21:06, 20 June 2020 (UTC) | |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | The Wikipedia:Out of scope essay says "Use the most general scope for each article you can. Since Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia, it's supposed to summarise essentially all knowledge. Hence accidental or deliberate choice of a limited scope for an article can make notable information disappear from the encyclopedia entirely, or make it highly inaccessible.", which appears to discourage exclusion of "trivia", which seems counter to the advice of the next requirement (3b) to not go into unnecessary detail. wbm1058 ( talk) 22:24, 20 June 2020 (UTC) | |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | Hey! "focused on the topic" links to Wikipedia:Article size – and Wikipedia:Summary style is all about splitting to subtopics. So, not so fast about that stuff being out-of-scope for GA reviews. A split was proposed on 24 April 2020 which quickly gained consensus in support. Vice presidency of Joe Biden was created on 30 April 2020 and United States Senate career of Joe Biden was created on 1 May 2020, but as discussed on 18 May this work has yet to be finished. In contrast with the longish lead of this article (1b above) the leads of Vice presidency of Joe Biden and United States Senate career of Joe Biden are each just one short paragraph, making it difficult to summarize those sections here. This article cannot be recertified as a Good Article until after this work is done. wbm1058 ( talk) 17:00, 27 June 2020 (UTC) | |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | This is such a subjective criterion that I feel that it can only be determined by consensus in a community discussion. What I mostly see in this discussion is an assertion that the article is not neutral responded to by mostly unanswered requests for specifics, and some acknowledgement(s) of "good faith claims that the article lacks neutrality". This criterion feels somewhat redundant to me. I think an article that passes all other criteria, particularly stability, is unlikely to fail on just this one. In any event the discussion hasn't sufficiently specifically addressed this criterion for me to make a call. wbm1058 ( talk) 22:50, 27 June 2020 (UTC) | |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | As indicated above 9 !voters were leaning to delist based on instability. This was a borderline "no consensus" discussion, but regardless the outcome is the same. See additional comments below. | |
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | All 39 images in the article are tagged; most as public domain or creative commons. wbm1058 ( talk) 21:58, 20 June 2020 (UTC) | |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | All 39 images in the article are relevant and captioned. wbm1058 ( talk) 21:58, 20 June 2020 (UTC) | |
7. Overall assessment. |
Items 4 and 5 are the "elephant in the room" around which this GAR revolves. I view these criteria as very much connected because the crux of the stability issues revolve around disputes over neutrality. Indeed § Are stability-based GARs appropriate? discusses this.
I noticed a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations, " List of Wikipedians by number of Good articles?" and volunteered to work on producing such a list (after I finish closing this). I think such a list for the "content creators" would nicely balance out the " gnomes list". Based on the algorithm for producing that list, I see that Wasted Time R would get credit for this GA. Indeed this seems to be a good measure based on the XTools report which gives them a significant margin over other editors in authorship, number of edits, and added text.
A point of contention in this GAR is whether an article can be delisted based on the Immediate failures criteria. It was asserted that "there is no such thing as an immediate fail at GAR" and the "immediate" part only applies to new GA nominations. But GAR determines whether an article that is listed as good article still merits its GA status according to the good article criteria. There are no separate "review criteria", so I find that the "immediate" part does apply. However, the Wikipedia:Good article reassessment "When to use this process" guideline says "Use the individual reassessment process if You don't see any ongoing content dispute or edit war and "Requesting (community) reassessment during a content dispute or edit war is usually inappropriate, wait until the article stabilizes and then consider reassessment. If significant instability persists for more than a couple of weeks, then reassessment on the grounds of instability may be considered." So, following the guideline, a GAR may only fail based on the "immediate" part after waiting at least two weeks to confirm persistent instability and obtaining a very clear consensus for an immediate fail from at least five editors in a community discussion. In fairness to Atsme, until I made this uncontested reversion, the guidelines were contradictory on stability-based reviews, so I can't fault her for starting an individual GAR. Editors are advised that in the future stability-based reassessments should only be done by the community process. This is to ensure fairness to editors like Wasted Time R who've put in a lot of work to get the article up to the GA standard. In any event, this review has gone on long enough that it is way past being able to be called an "immediate" review. - wbm1058 ( talk) 21:48, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
Precedents. Criterion 5 is open to interpretation: "it does not change significantly from day to day". The footnote to that provides some clarification: "Reverted vandalism, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply to the "stable" criterion. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of disruptive editing may be failed or placed on hold." The key word open to interpretation is " significant". This word may be ambiguous in some situations. "Having a noticeable or major effect." "Reasonably large in number or amount." An article "undergoing rapid expansion or being rewritten" is undergoing significant change, but what about the addition of a single sentence to an already lengthy article? If that single sentence mentions allegations of sexual misconduct not previously mentioned in the article, that single sentence arguably has a noticeable or major effect. Edit-warring over the addition of that sentence may reasonably be interpreted as evidence that the addition had a noticeable effect; if it didn't, in my view an edit war is much less likely to develop.
I have heard the appeals to precedents. Wikipedia doesn't have any policies or guidelines on this. Although precedents are not required to be followed, I am sympathetic with the Wikipedia:Precedents essay. With that in mind, I searched the archives and found a nearly 14-year old discussion titled " Dealing with Bad Faith objections on controversial topics". While the debate that led to this was over religion, it seems relevant given the separation of church and state, but can religion and politics really be separated?
The dispute was over the Creation-evolution controversy article, which has since moved to Rejection of evolution by religious groups. The article was delisted per this GAR as explained by the reviewer HERE and on the revewer's talk. The {{ Article history}} on Talk:Rejection of evolution by religious groups shows that the article was listed on January 22, 2006, delisted on October 4, 2006, and apparently no attempts have been made to relist it after that.
I noticed that Result: 6 delist to 4 keep, no consensus was added by another editor (not the reviewer) when they archived the discussion. I'm not sure whether the reviewer counted votes, but this edit demonstrates the view that no consensus in a GAR results in delisting rather than maintaining the status quo, which is counter to the view expressed by some in this GAR. I think that's right; Good Article Reviews simply confirm that an article still passes the criteria. If a first time assessment would fail criterion 5 if there was no consensus, then I don't see how a reassessment should have a different outcome with no consensus. I haven't seen anything in the instructions supporting that view.
I'll make a quick search now for more, confirming precedents. – wbm1058 ( talk) 16:56, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
I just confirmed that the stability criterion hasn't substantially changed since March 2006 so the above precedent still seems relevant.
Another point of contention in the discussion revolves around the Wikipedia:Stable version supplement to the page protection policy. An argument was made that you can not get more stable than a fully protected article, which was rejected by another participant with the rationale that if an article so poorly failed to meet the stability criterion that an administrator had to forcibly cause it to be stable, then it isn't truly stable. I concur with this latter view. If one should wait at least two weeks to confirm an article's instability, arguably most high-profile articles will always pass the criterion because administrators will not allow instability to persist for that long before protecting the article. It makes no sense to have a criterion that can never fail. The rationale for protection should be examined. If it's protected due to vandalism, then it's still stable for GAR purposes. But if it's protected due to edit warring, then it's not. Per Wikipedia:Stable version § Inappropriate usage it is inappropriate usage to invoke this argument to avoid a delisting for instability. An open request for comment over a proposed "significant" change in content, i.e. a change that will have a "noticeable or major effect" on the article, should be viewed as a sign of instability for as long as the RfC remains open.
I realize this is problematic for articles of this type. A possible solution might be to introduce the concept of a "last good version" or a new indicator showing that the good article "may be outdated and is currently undergoing review of possible content changes". wbm1058 ( talk) 20:32, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
I suppose the sections below may be considered as equivalent to the workshop page of an Arbitration Committee case. LOL wbm1058 ( talk) 15:10, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
For 3b, I'd like to point out that I did propose a split which ended up happening, but discussion about the prose to keep in the article went nowhere. It's been brought up again, but that discussion also went nowhere. As much as I want to help, I realize that I have almost no splitting/summarizing experience and I'm terrible at summarizing things. Username 6892 02:41, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
The lead now has five paragraphs; the manual of style suggests reducing this to four. What would you remove? Feel free to either strike through words to omit using <s>...</s> tags or rewrite it below. wbm1058 ( talk) 15:10, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
Username6892's opinion for removals, Removals Username6892 is less sure about, Username6892's opinion for additions
Joseph Robinette Biden Jr. ( /ˌrɒbɪˈnɛt ˈbaɪdən/; [1] born November 20, 1942) is an American politician who served as the 47th vice president of the United States from 2009 to 2017 and represented Delaware in the U.S. Senate from 1973 to 2009. A member of the Democratic Party, Biden is the presumptive Democratic nominee [nb 1] for president of the United States in the 2020 election. [2] This is Biden’s third run for president after he unsuccessfully sought the Democratic nomination in 1988 and 2008.
Biden was raised in Scranton, Pennsylvania, and New Castle County, Delaware. He studied at the University of Delaware before receiving his law degree from Syracuse University. [3] He became a lawyer in 1969 and was elected to the New Castle County Council in 1970. He was elected to the U.S. Senate from Delaware in 1972 when he became the sixth-youngest senator in American history. Biden was reelected six times and was the fourth-most senior senator when he resigned to assume the vice presidency in 2009. [4]
As a senator, Biden was a longtime member and eventually chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee. He opposed the Gulf War in 1991 but advocated for U.S. and NATO intervention in the Bosnian War in 1994 and 1995, expanding NATO in the 1990s, and the 1999 bombing of Serbia during the Kosovo War. He argued and voted for the resolution authorizing the Iraq War in 2002 but opposed the surge of U.S. troops in 2007. He has also served as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, dealing with issues related to drug policy, crime prevention, and civil liberties, as well as the contentious U.S. Supreme Court nominations of Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas. Biden led the efforts to pass the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act and the Violence Against Women Act.
In 2008, Biden was the running mate of Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama. As vice president, he oversaw infrastructure spending to counteract the Great Recession and helped formulate U.S. policy toward Iraq through the withdrawal of U.S. troops in 2011. His negotiations with congressional Republicans helped the Obama administration pass legislation including the Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010, which resolved a taxation deadlock; the Budget Control Act of 2011, which resolved that year's debt ceiling crisis; and the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012, which addressed the impending fiscal cliff [6892 1]. In the aftermath of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, Biden led the Gun Violence Task Force, created to address the causes of gun violence in the United States. [5] Obama and Biden were reelected in 2012.
In October 2015, after months of speculation, Biden announced he would not seek the presidency in the 2016 election. In January 2017, Obama awarded Biden the Presidential Medal of Freedom with distinction. [6] After completing his second term as vice president, Biden joined the faculty of the University of Pennsylvania, where he was named the Benjamin Franklin Professor of Presidential Practice. [7] He announced his 2020 candidacy for president on April 25, 2019, joining a large field of Democratic candidates pursuing the party nomination. [8] Throughout 2019, he was widely regarded as the party's frontrunner. After briefly falling behind Bernie Sanders after poor showings in the first three state contests, Biden won the South Carolina primary decisively, and, several center-left moderate candidates dropped out of the race and endorsed him before Super Tuesday. Biden went on to win 18 of the next 26 contests. With the suspension of Sanders's campaign on April 8, 2020, Biden became the Democratic Party's presumptive nominee for the presidential election. [9] On June 9, 2020, Biden met the 1,991-delegate threshold needed in order to secure the party's nomination. [10]
References
References
References
What specific controversies should be mentioned in the lead? These should be controversies that are already covered in the article body.
There is no consensus for including a specific statement in the lead of Joe Biden sexual assault allegation. If attempts to add controversies to the lead of this article have been reverted, a similar discussion should be initiated to get a consensus to include them. wbm1058 ( talk) 15:10, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
Top 10 Joe Biden Gaffes - Throughout his decades of public service, the former Senator and current Vice President has earned a reputation for often saying the wrong thing at the wrong time;
Muboshgu, you just reverted 2 hours of diligent research and editing to include material the lead and body that clearly belongs, and you used a misleading edit summary of RECENTISM to justify removal when the cited NYTimes is dated 2019, a year ago: (this wording needs to be discussed, too much WP:RECENTISM here) which doesn't even apply to the material. Your other revert also included a misleading edit summary (no consensus to include Reade in the lead); i.e., if you are referring to the RfC close I recently challenged because there was not a consensus to censor the Reade allegation in its entirety from the lead - only specific language was at issue - and if you review the actual RfC statement, it will confirm what I just said about specific wording (which I was careful to avoid). There was not an RfC or decision to censor Reade's allegation in its entirety. See the discussion at User talk:S Marshall#Joe Biden close. S Marshall was very thoughtful, polite and quite willing to help by asking for further input at WP:AN. I have been working on the Biden GAR reassessment with Wbm1058, and Username6892 among others, but your instantaneous removal of content for no valid reason is why the article was demoted, and it looks like it will stay that way. Attempts to whitewash and protect the lead from all controversy is noncompliant with NPOV, a core content policy. I do wish you would self-revert because it does take on the appearance of WP:OWN when the same few editors keep removing notable, well-sourced criticism from the lead. Atsme Talk 📧 19:57, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
Then Senator Biden presided over the senate confirmation hearings for Clarence Thomas when Anita Hill came forward with sexual harassment allegations against the SCOTUS nominee. In April 2019, the New York Times said Biden “knew Anita Hill was going to be an issue for him” in his 2020 presidential campaign. [1] Biden attempted to reach out to Hill with deep regret and an apology for what happened to her. In response, Hill told The Times that his call left her "feeling deeply unsatisfied", and she was not convinced that he has taken “full responsibility for his conduct at the hearings — or for the harm he caused other victims of sexual harassment and gender violence.” [1] [2]This is fine detail for the body but much too much for the lead that you said you're trying to cut down to size. The commentary on Hill being relevant to the 2020 campaign is conjecture and totally irrelevant. We should mention Hill in the lead, but in one sentence. – Muboshgu ( talk) 20:13, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
References
2 hours of diligent research and editingare not helpful to make a case for inclusion, as we are all volunteers and are free to spend our time however we wish. -- K.e.coffman ( talk) 00:57, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
I suggest adding the following sentence to the end of the "Family deaths" section: "He later apologized for these claims." And add the following reference: https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/01/25/joe-biden-2019-profile-grief-beau-car-accident-224178 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.213.144.235 ( talk) 10:01, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
What about: "Biden later apologized for these claims.", referenced by the previous mentioned reference. I think the current text is misleading, because there's a difference between someone accusing someone else without basis, versus someone first accusing someone else without basis, but later apologizing for it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.213.150.153 ( talk) 07:32, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
Actually, that whole sentence about the drunk driver thing isn't biographically significant at all. -- Scjessey ( talk) 12:59, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
I would like to comment that the "Family deaths" section also appears on the article for the United States Senate career of Joe Biden. I see two options:
FunnyMath ( talk) 17:00, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
The Gaffes and dicey remarks made by vice president Biden during this campaign have been news worthy and would appear to merit mention on the wiki page. For instance the " you aint black" statement by him was met with wide criticism. Bgrus22 ( talk) 00:53, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
Bgrus22 - I will comment that attempts to discuss Donald Trump's mental health have thus far failed to gain consensus for inclusion. I believe that was so due to a lack of diagnosis by professionals who have actually examined him, in spite of the many comments by professionals who have not personally examined him. The same may very well occur here for "cognitive decline". starship .paint ( talk) 12:04, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
Mr. Trump’s campaign took comfort in the expectation that Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s penchant for gaffes would at least offer them dependable fodder for attack. The pandemic, and Mr. Biden’s play-it-safe campaign, however, have starved them of even that ... Mr. Biden’s “ain’t black” gaffe, just days old, was out of the news.As for (1) the New York Post is a publication of questionable reality. For (2) to (8), your descriptions highlight that this gaffe was related to racial relations, instead of a history of making gaffes. It seems that if this is to be included, it should be in somewhere which discusses racial issues. (9) is irrelevant to this current gaffe. starship .paint ( talk) 04:28, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
During Biden's campaign, he made several gaffes which were given attention by the media and his opponents. Most prominent of these was a statement he made during an interview on
The Breakfast Club radio show in May 2020 where he stated, "If you have a problem figuring out whether you're for me or Trump, then you ain't black." He later apologized for his "cavalier" remarks, but several figures ranging from
Kanye West to
Robert L. Johnson, the co-founder of
BET, used this an example of racial insensitivity towards African American voters.
could I simply state that the above sources I gave are the ones I would use- sure. It's just my opinion that to persuasively make your case, it would be better for you to go through the extra effort of re-compiling the sources. Would you really want everyone to go find the sources themselves above? You think that would be persuasive? starship .paint ( talk) 08:09, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Joe Biden has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please put "under Barack Obama" after "47th vice president of the United States from 2009 to 2017" so we don't have to scratch our heads America's Next President ( talk) 22:46, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Racial views of Joe Biden. - MrX 🖋 00:21, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
I'm adding in the "ain't black" comment under the Donald Trump section, with a source to Politico. I understand that the inclusion of the comment may be seen as contentious, which is why I made this discussion page, but the comment got a lot of attention so I think it at least deserves a mention. If people oppose we can have a discussion to gain consensus. AlessandroTiandelli333 ( talk) 02:57, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
It should be clear to all that the "Results of the 1972 U.S. Senate election in Delaware" image in the Early political career and family life (1966–1972) > 1972 U.S. Senate campaign section is a weak choice for an image for this article. There is no legend for the map to contextualize the colours of each county and the text in the 1972 U.S. Senate campaign provides enough of a description of the election. In any case, the link to see the breakdown of the election is one click away. I suggest this image be removed to make way for an image of the incumbent of that election, J. Caleb Boggs, whom Joseph Biden defeated. I am open to other suggestions. Ysfkdr ( talk) 06:14, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
Following this , where do you think it is best to include racial views? -- Emir of Wikipedia ( talk) 12:53, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
https://www.politico.com/story/2014/09/joe-biden-shylocks-reaction-111053 or https://www.cbsnews.com/news/bidens-comments-ruffle-feathers/ or https://www.factcheck.org/2008/09/biden-fdr-and-the-invention-of-television/ or https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/09/us/politics/joe-biden-poor-kids.html
is undue weight, but "He has been a strong speaker and debater and a frequent and effective guest on Sunday morning talk shows." is considered neutral, when articles like http://content.time.com/time/specials/packages/completelist/0,29569,1895156,00.html were probably the most frequent kind of article about him for a decent portion of his entire career. It is telling where the biases of this community lie that the "ain't black" comment was referred toward as "fake outrage" and people are quick to dismiss people's concerns as disingenuous so easily. 2601:482:8000:C470:E805:A0E0:6ECC:E282 ( talk) 15:41, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
"even minor points can form a picture of a greater whole"makes it appear that you want to violate WP:SYNTH by creating a narrative that Biden is somehow anti-black. – Muboshgu ( talk) 18:39, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
just to score bias pointsreads to me like you projecting upon your insistence that Joe Biden's gaffes speak to some sort of "racial views'. I strive to prevent AP2 articles from having bias, and saying that Trump inspired the Charlottesville rally is clearly not SYNTH. – Muboshgu ( talk) 16:56, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
Some sources below. -- Emir of Wikipedia ( talk) 20:49, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Democrats who oppose the 2020 Joe Biden presidential campaign. - MrX 🖋 23:27, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Joe Biden has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In "...he met the 1,991-delegate threshold needed to secure the party's nomination." I would suggest adding "Democratic" under party just for extra clarification, as it is not mentioned anywhere in that paragraph and it's good form. CamSox ( talk) 20:03, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
Hi, wise editors, I am expecting the page be updated with information related to Biden's DNC nomination (to be confirmed tonight), but didn't see much, was it because such information are not notable enough to have a section / mention on this article?
xinbenlv Talk, Remember to "ping" me 01:21, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
Also, maybe in relation to this topic, the fact that Biden has lost the presidential nomination for the Democratic Party previously should not be placed this high on the page. That is of course relevant information, but to give a clear, fast overview of the page, it should be put lower in his (political) biography. Frederik Glerup Christensen ( talk) 17:16, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 |
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.
This version I believe addresses all of our disagreements.
The purpose for this proposal can be seen through the edit summaries in my series of edits beginning here.It was reverted without comment on the content. Please comment below Kolya Butternut ( talk) 13:07, 10 May 2020 (UTC) Kolya Butternut ( talk) 18:40, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
Kolya Butternut ( talk) 12:42, 10 May 2020 (UTC)In April 2019, former Biden staffer Tara Reade said that she had felt uncomfortable on several occasions when Biden touched her on her shoulder and neck during her employment in his Senate office in 1993. [1] In March 2020, Reade accused Biden of pushing her against a wall and digitally penetrating her while on Capitol Hill in 1993. [2] On May 1, 2020, Biden said, "It's not true. I'm saying unequivocally it never, never happened, and it didn't. It never happened." [3]
While The New York Times was investigating the Reade allegation, no other allegation about sexual assault surfaced, and no pattern of sexual misconduct was found. [4]
Sources
|
---|
|
The beginning of the last sentence can be changed to "Over the course of". One important goal is to separate this from the Reade paragraph. Kolya Butternut ( talk) 17:58, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
In April 2019, former Biden staffer Tara Reade said that she had felt uncomfortable on several occasions when he touched her on her shoulder and neck during her employment in his Senate office in 1993. [1] In March 2020, Reade clarified her story, accusing Biden of pushing her against a wall and digitally penetrating her. [2] Biden said, "It's not true. I'm saying unequivocally it never, never happened, and it didn't." [3] While investigating the story, the New York Times found no other sexual assault allegations, and no pattern of sexual misconduct. [4]
Sources
|
---|
|
In March 2020, Reade changed her story dramatically, accusing Biden...instead? -- Scjessey ( talk) 13:22, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
While The New York Times was investigating the Reade allegation, no other allegation about sexual assault surfaced, and no pattern of sexual misconduct was found.is ambiguous so may cause the WP reader to incorrectly infer that 'after' the NYT investigation 'more' allegations of sexual assault were found, and that would be a false inference.
Since the original NYT investigation, more reporting has been done, and their latest piece includes the earlier work as well as the latest findings. Can we move forward with a proposal that includes the current state of the case, as well as Biden's responses? In their latest piece, the NYT wording doesn't use the Biden talking point about the "pattern", so this updated reporting is preferable for our use in that it is not outdated, and doesn't include COI. We could quote this verbatim and call it a day.
The New York Times interviewed dozens of workers in Mr. Biden’s office in the early 1990s and was unable to find anyone who remembered any kind of sexual misconduct against Ms. Reade or anyone else in the office. Five friends, former co-workers and family members have come forward to corroborate that Ms. Reade told them of an episode of either assault or harassment.petrarchan47 คุ ก 18:57, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
This is gone beyond the ridiculous. There are now umpteen versions, claims, counter claims and even arguments over text not even worked out on this talk page. It's become almost impossible to understand what is going on. Yet again, I find myself proposing what I first proposed:
In March 2020, former Biden staffer Tara Reade accused him of sexual assault in 1993. Both Biden and his campaign denied the allegation.
This is the only way we can introduce stability into the article. Let the main article about the allegation be the battleground, not this BLP. The POV-pushing, edit warring and false claims of "consensus" must stop. -- Scjessey ( talk) 19:29, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
* Support - the version posted by
Scjessey "In March 2020, former Biden staffer Tara Reade accused him of sexual assault in 1993. Both Biden and his campaign denied the allegation"
should be used. It seems to me that if we're going to put in-depth details of Reade's 2020 story, then for balance we'd naturally need to put in-depth detail of Reade's 2019 story. For example, we'd have to include the fact that on 4/6/2019 Reade wrote that her story about Biden, “is not a story about sexual misconduct.” Reade wrote that in her essay (published at The Union
[2]) as a follow-up to her 4/3 Union interview where she told the Union
[3] that Biden touched only her neck and shoulders. And, since there is no in-depth detail of Reade's 2019 story, there should not be in-depth details of Reade's 2020 story.
BetsyRMadison (
talk)
21:44, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
Support -
Scjessey version - "In March 2020, former Biden staffer Tara Reade accused him of sexual assault in 1993. Both Biden and his campaign denied the allegation"
. That's all that is needed at this point. Takes care of any POV and
WP:NOTNEWS issues.
CBS527
Talk
01:49, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
@ Scjessey: - Just returning to this after checking a different part of the article. It appears there was consensus for your minimalist text above. I suggest you do the honors and place it in the article. SPECIFICO talk 18:45, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Drmies closed the RfC with That text is in the article now, two weeks later, and at least that part seems stable enough, though I admit I only looked at a few samples from the article history. At any rate, it's pretty much split down the middle, on political lines it seems (I'm shocked!); there are acceptable arguments on both sides. I'm going with "close as no longer necessary", for practical reasons; if edit warring starts over this, a new RfC should be started.
"That text" refers to "Reade filed a criminal complaint over the alleged assault on April 9 with the Washington D.C. Police."
I don't see the text in the article, and am wondering whether its removal was done with community consensus (and what was used for justification?). petrarchan47 คุ ก 19:02, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
Why are we not mentioning the fact that Reade filed a police report? It seems to have been removed from the article and I’m asking why that is the case. petrarchan47 คุ ก 20:19, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
@ Petrarchan47: The outcome of the discussion above ( Talk:Joe Biden#Reset the reset) meant that all such things were shunted to the linked article per WP:WEIGHT. -- Scjessey ( talk) 00:14, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
@ Scjessey and Petrarchan47: - I've formally closed Talk:Joe_Biden#Compromise_proposal:_May_10. You can read my assessment. starship .paint ( talk) 05:51, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
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.
Biden's comments about black voters recently received a lot of coverage. Should we include something about this and the subsequent apology in the article? Some sources: [5], [6], [7], [8] (NBC News on Youtube), [9]. Mr Ernie ( talk) 07:33, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
POV resistance? – Muboshgu ( talk) 19:20, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
...but still—“white” kids versus “poor” ones. The reason even Biden’s fans are cringing at this remark is that it implies an equation between being poor and being a person of color, and perhaps also that all high-achieving students are white.
And it isn’t the first time Biden has let slip sociological assumptions of this kind. Who can forget Biden sunnily crowing that Barack Obama, when first running for president, was a godsend in being a “mainstream” African American who combined the traits of being “articulate and bright and clean.”*
Yes Per above. 2A00:1370:812C:1186:613B:2D52:478A:8631 ( talk) 16:09, 28 May 2020 (UTC)— 2A00:1370:812C:1186:613B:2D52:478A:8631 ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
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.
This edit reverted a main article link. The editor that reverted says the article is linked below and the consensus is against the main link. Is there a consensus against a main link form this section to its main article? Also i do not find the link “below”. —¿philoserf? ( talk) 18:10, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
In March 2020, Reade accused him of sexual assault in 1993. Biden and his campaign denied the allegation.As far as consensus is concerned, the "main" link is just another version of the "see also" link discussed in #Apparent consensus above. -- Scjessey ( talk) 20:48, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
I am not interested in rehashing this again. It's all been discussed before, and it is in the archives. -- Scjessey ( talk) 14:39, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
@ UserDude: Please, point out the apparent consensus for the "See also" link because it is not apparent to me. Also, you moved the section back into Post vice presidency without mentioning it in your edit summary and without stating a reason. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 12:59, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Let the main article about the allegation be the battleground, not this BLP.Okay and leave the details to the other article then we can't bury the link the that main article about the allegation. I thought the entire point of keeping it short was to direct people to the other article, but no one said let's remove the link at the top of the section which was already in existence at that time.-- Rusf10 ( talk) 01:23, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment.
"the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims"by elevating the prominence of this dubious claim. Even WP:PUBLICFIGURE says
"BLPs should simply document,"adding
"denial(s) should also be reported."That is exactly what we have done here. We have covered the claim in the prominence it deserves, in language painstakingly worked out in multiple discussions and an RfC. What you are proposing is basically an abuse of a hatnote. -- Scjessey ( talk) 13:42, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
Though he's now got a majority of the pledged delegates for his party's presidential nomination. He's still the presumptive nominee, until the majority of delegates 'actually' vote for (i.e. nominate) him in August (at the convention). GoodDay ( talk) 13:41, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
Presidential Candidate Joe Biden Calls on Facebook to Stop Allowing Lies in Political Ads Cycent ( talk) 18:07, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
These specific lines, I believe, should be deleted:
This is no plagiarism or ethics violation. Ideas are not copyrightable; exact wording is. But I have no objection to documenting any falsehoods uttered about his education & the Sam Donaldson expose. ( PeacePeace ( talk) 23:01, 13 June 2020 (UTC))
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZfOYYbS5hc, english https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ei6O14Td89g Even more disturbing than the first part so far (I watch it right now). So the 6 million $USD Burisma was fake news! It was actually 50 million $USD! 2A00:1FA0:4486:F040:C5A6:86D2:DC14:CAF3 ( talk) 01:01, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
compliance with the Manual of Style […is] not covered by the GA criteria and therefore not grounds for delisting.
You don't see any ongoing content dispute or edit war, which was not the case. I believe a community reassessment is more appropriate. userdude 19:35, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
The stability criteria is more a practical criteria for reviewers, thus WP:GAFAIL#4 should not be applied to GARs. As I said, the edit warring was due to an unusual circumstance that has since been resolved by an RFC. I would find it wholly inappropriate if this GAR were to be closed now as delist — it should not be an individual reassessment for the reason stated above. userdude 21:21, 21 April 2020 (UTC); edited 21:23, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
do not align with GA's core set of editorial standards, but you have ignored the content of the arguments. Numerous users have asked for specific examples of neutrality failure, but none have been provided. The arguments that the article fails neutrality have not been arguments — they've been assertions. You've asserted that GA2 was
dubious, but have not stated why. I and Wasted Time R challenged this assertion, but you did not respond. You used the recent edit war as evidence of failing the stability criterion, but you have not responded to my statement that the edit war was caused by an unusual circumstance and has since been resolved by RFC. You used the page's protection status as evidence of instability despite the fact that the page for a major party's presidential nominee would be protected under any circumstance, regardless of the article's quality.
Remember, the aim is not to delist the article, but to fix it). So I'm not entirely shocked that Atsme came to this decision to delist... a week after she nominated the article for a GAR to delist. — MelbourneStar☆ talk 05:41, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
Tag serious problems that you cannot fix with appropriate template messages, if the templates will help other editors find the problems. Do not tag bomb the article.So if it were tagged prior to the GAR, and nothing was done to fix it -- you'd have a point. Now that it's been delisted? not so much of a point. Secondly, there are a few reverts here and there, which does not constitute to edit warring. Yes, changes occur to this article... you'll find that actually happens a lot on Wikipedia (GA, Featured articles too). But that hardly makes it unstable. — MelbourneStar☆ talk 15:40, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
Sure I agree, proper functioning encyclopedia. That is not the same as a stable article. Also yes the RFC closed, now the contentious matter of what to say exactly and how. I guess me and the majority of people that agree it is not stable are all wrong? PackMecEng ( talk) 15:54, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
{{
subst:GAR/result|result=outcome}} ~~~~
. Replace outcome with the outcome of the discussion (whether there was consensus and what action was taken) and explain how the consensus and action was determined from the comments. A bot will remove the assessment from the GA reassessment page and will add it to the current archive.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.
My conclusion after carefully evaluating all of the arguments and discussion is that consensus weighed heavily to delist. The article has been delisted for the reasons I stated below:
The sentence before last in the first paragraph of WP:GAR, clearly states: The outcome of a reassessment should only depend on whether the article being reassessed meets the good article criteria or not. When we examine GA criteria, we can see that it clearly fails the criteria. Following are 4 reasons to immediately fail a GA:
Joe Biden fails 2 of the 4 immediate fail criteria:
I have disagreed with Atsmes interpretation of the reassessment process here and since the delisting have opened it for reevaluation by the community at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Joe Biden/1 AIRcorn (talk) 01:41, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
One of my main focuses here is the reassessment process, and I am the main contributor in this area. My attention was drawn to this article following a post on the Good Article Reassessment talk page. I am not happy with how that individual reassessment process was conducted and feel that it needs to be reexamined through a community one. My main concerns are.
I don't know, or really care, if this article is kept or delisted. What I do care about is that it is given a chance. I do not feel that was the case in the recently conducted reassessment. I know there was a lot of delist !votes there, but this is not decided by a show of hands. What is needed is a break down of the failings which allows any interested editors the chance to resolve them. Also since this is likely to attract editors not that familiar with Good Articles it probably bears mentioning that the requirements are not as strict as many think (see Wikipedia:What the Good article criteria are not). AIRcorn (talk) 23:22, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. Joe Biden is an active politician and a presumptive nominee for perhaps the most contentious political contest in the United States—as more information about his candidacy becomes known, so too must the article change, and since more information is coming out day-by-day, so too is his article changing day-by-day, with more than 50 edits in the last week alone. New content disputes are being contended every day on the article's talk page, many of which involve neutrality and quality of sources, which are also central aspects of a good article. I would reject the argument that because the article was fully protected at the time of reassessment, the article "technically" met the stability criterion—the article so poorly failed to meet the stability criterion that an administrator had to forcibly cause it to do so. I agree that if the content dispute was just a one-off thing that resolved itself in a month or so, there is no need to start a good article reassessment, and I sympathize with the complaint about good article reassessments being used as tools during content disputes. However, when the content of an article is subject to dispute after dispute, lasting several months, I think that should raise doubt as to whether the article is truly stable. We do not necessarily need to wait until the article is stable before reassessing whether it is in fact stable. Respectfully, Mz7 ( talk) 00:02, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Historical perspective: Barack Obama was FA through both his 2008 and 2012 presidential elections and throughout his presidency; John McCain was GA and then FA throughout his presidential campaign in 2008; Mitt Romney was GA and then FA throughout his presidential campaign in 2012; and Hillary Rodham Clinton was GA throughout her presidential campaign in 2008 and then FA throughout her presidential campaign in 2016. The same kinds of things that you have seen, and will see, with the Biden article this year – edit-warring, RfCs, claims of NPOV violations, momentary lacks of stability – are the same kinds of things that all these articles saw back then. But it did not prevent those articles from gaining and keeping their reviewed status, nor should it automatically cause this article to lose its reviewed status. This GAR should be about specific, detailed, concrete issues identified with this article – this fact here is wrong; that source there is weak; the prose in such-and-such section has inappropriate tone; this important topic has insufficient coverage; that not-so-important topic has too much coverage; etc. – and whether they can be remedied. Wasted Time R ( talk) 02:36, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Historical perspective II. Here is an example of a GAR being done for an article about a candidate in a presidential race, in this case Martin O'Malley during the early stages of the 2016 presidential campaign – Talk:Martin O'Malley/GA2. (It's one I remember because I'm the one who did it.) The GAR does not rely on general claims of edit-warring or instability or NPOV or article growth over time. Instead it lists a number of very specific faults, omissions, and other issues with the article. When there were no responses after a couple of weeks, the GA was removed. Had somebody done work to remedy the listed problems, the GA could have been retained. This is the approach that makes sense to me. Wasted Time R ( talk) 12:35, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Further clarity for the reasons given to delist per GAR procedure: Also see Talk:Joe Biden/GA3 for the initial delist discussion.
The article is currently under PP, DS with a 1RR restriction" — the article falls under the scope of WP:ARBAPDS. That includes FA article Hillary Clinton — which has the same restrictions. — MelbourneStar☆ talk 03:35, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
plagued by edit warring". I would be curious to see if they are in relation to the BLP matters which resulted in full-PP. — MelbourneStar☆ talk 03:35, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
It took some time for the cautious Obama and the blunt, rambling Biden to work out ways of dealing with each other.[204]This is placed right after a maintenance tag. Username 6892 03:37, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
I would say that the above did provide clarity, though perhaps not in the way
Atsme intended. Much as I dislike bolding in this manner—it's effectively shouting—I think it's important to point out a basic fact of GAR that is being overlooked: there is no such thing as an immediate fail at GAR. There just isn't. At GAN, there is (the
WP:GAFAIL, cited by many people, though in context it's clear the "immediate" part only applies to new GA nominations when article issues are so severe that there is no point in embarking on a full review), but as is evident throughout the description of how GAR works at
WP:GAR, the goal of a GAR is to attempt to deal with the article's shortcomings in terms of the GA criteria: Remember, the aim is not to delist the article, but to fix it.
GAR is a deliberative process, and reading the individual GAR ( Talk:Joe Biden/GA3), it's clear that the guidelines were not followed. There was no attempt to note any issues with the GA criteria aside from instability, and requests that this be done were ignored. The end result seems to have been decided from the moment it was opened: there had been edit warring, therefore GA status had to be removed, regardless of what anyone said. Never mind that the edit warring had subsided, according to more than one editor. It is a weakness of the individual GAR—as indeed with individual GAN reviews—that the opening editor has the final say, because sometimes the reassessor or reviewer gets it wrong, and that's why the community GAR is available, so that the community at large can have its say.
Going over the five points above:
under PP, DS with a 1RR restrictionare imposed to bring stability to an article that has suffered edit warring and other problems. If they have succeeded in bringing a reasonable degree of stability to the article, then the GA criteria are met.
it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style)), those should be enumerated so they can be addressed.
My hope is that this community GAR can proceed per the guidelines at WP:GAR, particularly that the article be fully assessed against the GA criteria in terms of where it falls short today, and that those who are interested in doing so work at editing the article so that it no longer falls short of the criteria in those areas.
If the article does come to meet the criteria in a reasonable timeframe, then I trust that the consensus will reflect that fact and the article will qualify for listing. If it doesn't meet the criteria at that point, then consensus will reflect that. Either way, the reassessment can at that point be closed, and the result reflected on the article's talk page. BlueMoonset ( talk) 15:43, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
cheat the system,
make a mockery of the GA process, and even
Imposing false stability on an unstable, challenged article is not how the GA process worksdon't reflect how the GAN and GAR processes do work. Even now, the
challenged neutralityissues have not been identified with any specifics—flouting the very process supposedly being cheated. I just hope that when an independent closer appears for this page, they will look at the actions and arguments and actual GAR guidelines and GA criteria, and if the article meets the criteria on that date, close this GAR as relisted. BlueMoonset ( talk) 19:23, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
GAR is not the same thing as FARC, where an article is reexamined by numerous folks and time is allowed for appropriate changes to perhaps keep it listed as FA.. As it says at the top of the reassessment page
Remember, the aim is not to delist the article, but to fix it..
I left a note at WT:GA when I opened this– you opened this at 23:22, 22 April 2020; the last edit at Wikipedia talk:Good articles was on April 14 (a week earlier). The only note I'm finding is at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations#Joe Biden: "
make sure the comments align with the GA criteria. it also begs a deeper question on how the stability criteria applies to delisting articles that we should probably address a bit more formally at some point." It's hard for me to see how we can avoid addressing the issue now, as this strikes me as the crux of the matter. Do you mean that you want to make sure the comments align with the GA criteria, or the GA review criteria? At Wikipedia:Good article criteria#Criteria I see six good article criteria, including "it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute", but Wikipedia:Good article reassessment says, paraphrasing, "don't use this process if you see any ongoing content dispute or edit war". Despite this advice not to use this process, this process has been used twice (both individual and community) for the Biden article where there have been recent content disputes. If the GA criteria, including the "immediate failure" criteria, does not apply to GA reviews, then what are the reassessment criteria? WP:GAR doesn't clearly say what the GAR criteria are, and how they differ from the GA criteria. – wbm1058 ( talk) 14:29, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
Major copy edit. Tried to bring consistency to the instructions for both types of reassessment. Did not change any guidelines, only improved formatting and clarity in the wording of the existing guidelines.is not truthful. Removal of the longstanding advice that after waiting two weeks, reassessment on the grounds of instability could be considered, was an (apparently bold and undiscussed) change in this guideline that put it in conflict with the "GA six". This change should have been, and still should be, reverted. – wbm1058 ( talk) 16:21, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
The outcome of a reassessment should only depend on whether the article being reassessed meets the good article criteria or not.That pretty unambiguously says that there are no separate reassessment criteria. – wbm1058 ( talk) 19:57, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
elaborated by providing examples of material that was not presented in a dispassionate tone, I kindly request that you direct me to where you provided such examples. I have tried to stay up-to-date on this discussion but I missed your examples.
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 is a perfectly valid community reassessment of an earlier individual reassessment. BlueMoonset ( talk) 01:00, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
I was reading through the
WP:GAR page, and came across the following in both the Individual and Community "When to use this process" sections: You don't see any ongoing content dispute or edit war
. If it's true that GARs should only be used when there aren't ongoing disputes/wars, why are we even here, and how was the original reassessment allowed to proceed at all?
It turns out that the basic idea comes down from a May/June 2009 RfC on the subject of stability reassessments. The discussion can be seen at
Wikipedia talk:Good article reassessment/archive4#RfC: Reassessment of an "Unstable" Article. Consensus that something should be added to the GAR guidelines on their advisability resulted in
this addition to the Community section (the feeling I get from the RfC is that individual assessments weren't appropriate, but it wasn't discussed enough for consensus): Requesting reassessment during a content dispute or edit war is usually inappropriate: reviewers are rarely content experts, nor can they reassess a moving target. Wait until the article stabilizes and then consider reassessment; if significant instability persists for more than a couple of weeks, then reassessment on the grounds of instability may be considered.
The reviewers are rarely content experts, nor can they reassess a moving target
phrase was removed by Aircorn in October 2012, and the current wording and expansion to all reassessments dates from
March 2016. These last edits strike me as overreach, but it's interesting how many GAR nominators ignore this and many other portions of the GAR guidelines.
To answer my own question, and absent a new consensus, I'd say generally not, and delisting for stability reasons is a controversial enough practice that it should be only done as a community reassessment. Otherwise, you have editors who, as in this case, have decided the article needs to be delisted immediately, and GAR is the tailor-made process to do so. BlueMoonset ( talk) 19:23, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
there is edit warring and controversy surrounding it. If it ever settles down, it can be renominated., and on this page, your second reason for delisting the article is, in bold,
This article is plagued by edit warring. Your argument in this thread is that
When I delisted that article, there was not an ongoing content dispute or edit war, but it seems like that is directly contradicted by your previous comment here and elsewhere. Not only are these arguments internally inconsistent, they provide no direction for how to improve an article. We have tools to resolve stability concerns, but when we use those tools that is also brought up as a reason to delist the article (argument 1:
The article is currently under PP, DS with a 1RR restriction which is a clear indication that it is a locus of chaos). Stability concerns are set up like a catch-22; if the article is unstable, delist it, if administrators try to stabilize an article, that's evidence of instability and we should delist it. How is the GAR process supposed to work when the discussion is structured to force a particular outcome? I don't really care whether Joe Biden, or any article, has a green circle; I do care that the GAR process is used to build an encyclopedia and that our policies and standards reflect that goal. — Wug· a·po·des 07:46, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
Remember, the aim is not to delist the article, but to fix itby saying
don't attempt to improve the article here? People have asked you for specifics; you provided a list of points; other editors responded to those points; in 5 days you haven't responded to any of those comments. Your only comments since then have been to argue with people who question whether this is a good use of our time or within the spirit of the process. You're free to not participate in the community reassessment, but as the one who undertook the individual reassessment, you are not immune from having your decision and reasoning scrutinized. — Wug· a·po·des 20:33, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
"You do not get to ignore it though"said with such confidence! I must say that is quite funny considering how those arguing to delist have "ignored" simple questions asking for specifics. Like examples of the supposed NPOV breaches. — MelbourneStar☆ talk 04:37, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
The outcome of a reassessment should only depend on whether the article being reassessed meets the good article criteria or not. PackMecEng ( talk) 14:33, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
As a formality - upon the thoughtful suggestion of Vanamonde93 yesterday, I concluded the independent reassessment Talk:Joe Biden/GA3 by providing a more formal close. It appears a few editors were confused or lacked a clear understanding of the reason behind the independent reassessment; therefore, the formal close brings further clarity without anyone having to spend a great deal of time actually reading the more detailed explanations in the lengthy discussions. I am dismayed by some of the allegations in the GAR and in this community reassessment that were used as part of the basis for challenging the first GAR, such as political motivation and a bit of back and forth regarding a lack of experience with the GA process by some of the participants. Of the 6 editors who have supported the delist (MONGO, Mz7, CaptainEek, DGG, PackMecEng, and myself), all but PME are experienced reviewers in either the GA or FA process and/or as qualified reviewers per WP:GOOD, including a few with experience in the reassessment process, so I'm not quite sure what the OP is referring to when he calls out inexperience. Furthermore, the allegation that the delist action was politically motivated is absurd, the absurdity of which is evidenced in some of the oppose statements, not to mention that the primary purpose of a reassessment is to improve an article. I see no correlation with politics unless there is a motive to use GA status as a means of assuring readers that everything in the article is factually accurate and represents a NPOV which is what an article's stability represents and why we attach a GA symbol. Granted, the AP topic area can be rather toxic which helps explain why so few editors want to spend any time there, and why I don't edit those articles. My main focus on WP has always been to promote/review and participate in article improvement and to help build the encyclopedia by attending WikiConferences, and becoming a member of several WikiProjects, including the Lead Improvement Team. I am also a qualified reviewer at NPP/AfC, and have 17 GAs and 8 FAs to my credit as either a nom or reviewer. The one editor of the 6 who supported delisting qualifies as a GA reviewer but I am not aware if their qualifications have yet been put to use, except for this reassessment. Happy editing. Atsme Talk 📧 15:29, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Experienced GA reviewers have already provided the information. I was pointing out the relative experiences of the reviewers as it seemed to be being used as a reason to delist the article without actually providing any substance. The lack of experience is not really the issue anyway, it is the lack of listening to editors with the experience. You have been involved in three community reassessments including this one. In the other two you display the same battleground behaviour you are displaying here. When editors that have been involved in many times more try and explain how Good Article reassessments should be conducted it is generally a good idea to listen to them instead of doubling down that you are right. Myself and BlueMoonset are probably the two most active editors here and we have both tried to explain how things work. Vandemonde and Wugapodes (each with over 50 reviews to their name) have also questioned the way the process was used to conduct your reassessment. By contrast the six you mention as being experienced reviewers have 0,8,3,0,0, and 10 reviews to there names respectively (as recorded by User:GA bot/Stats, which while not perfect is the best we have at keeping track of such things). Their input is more than welcome and can be valuable, but lets keep it in context. AIRcorn (talk) 00:25, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
@ Aircorn:, I just came across this. You say you have much experience with GA, is it normal for an editor who initiates a review saying this fails GA is also the same editor to perform an Independent close of the review? I'm quite shocked. starship .paint ( talk) 06:05, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
@ Aircorn and Atsme: It's been 3 weeks since the last comment here. Should this discussion be closed? Username 6892 20:14, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1538 days ago on 25 April 2020) Formal close needed. Thanks. --- C& C ( Coffeeandcrumbs) 19:09, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
- Done.— S Marshall T/ C 15:29, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1531 days ago on 1 May 2020) Non-involved admin close requested; controversial topic. Archived RfC. petrarchan47 คุ ก 23:11, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1524 days ago on 8 May 2020)
Non-involved admin close requested; controversial topic. Archived RfC. petrarchan47 คุ ก 23:11, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
I have read through this discussion and have formulated a rough closure in my head. I'm working on getting the close keyboarded and expect to post my close later today. This will be my first-ever close of a Good article (re-)assessment. Normally I would defer to a more experienced closer for such a high-profile case as this, but I see that the most active GAR participants are involved in the discussion and this project doesn't have that many active administrators closing discussions – hence I am stepping up. I have posted three comments to this discussion, but this can be closed by any uninvolved registered user. (Significant contributors to the article are "involved", as are reassessment nominators; editors are not usually considered to be "involved" unless they have contributed significantly to GA disagreements about the article prior to the community reassessment.)
I did not contribute to
Talk:Joe Biden/GA3 except in the
post-close comments. More than four weeks have passed since the reassessment was opened on 22 April 2020.
First things to look for: "Before conducting an extensive review, and after ensuring you are viewing an unvandalized version, check that the article does not have cleanup banners that are obviously still valid, including {{ cleanup}}, {{ POV}}, {{ unreferenced}} or large numbers of {{ citation needed}}, {{ clarify}}, or similar inline tags." Given this, after two (individual and community) reviews, I was surprised to find some of these unaddressed issues:
Remaining are a few dated statement categorizations, as old as "Articles containing potentially dated statements from September 2015". I'll assume it isn't expected to try to update these for GA status to be maintained. – wbm1058 ( talk) 18:25, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Good article reassessment (GAR) is a process primarily used to determine whether an article that is listed as good article (GA) still merits its good article status according to the good article criteria. Most GARs don't include this ({{ subst:GATable}}), but, as a first-time reviewer/closer I thought it would be a useful exercise:
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | I've just finished reading the article and have clarified the prose and corrected grammar in a few places. Apparently this was not done by earlier reviewers in this community review. wbm1058 ( talk) 18:01, 20 June 2020 (UTC) | |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | The lead section was reviewed for compliance in this discussion. As a general rule of thumb, a lead section should contain no more than four well-composed paragraphs; the lead now has five, so it's pushing the length limits, but not yet so far as to cause a fail here (this issue wasn't raised in the discussion). While assertions were made about trivia in the body, I didn't see any suggestions for removal of specific text from the lead. The lead should summarize any prominent controversies. wbm1058 ( talk) 15:10, 21 June 2020 (UTC) | |
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | The article appears to be well referenced. I have not done a thorough review for this. wbm1058 ( talk) 21:06, 20 June 2020 (UTC) | |
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). | The sources appear to be reliable. I have not done a thorough review for this. wbm1058 ( talk) 21:06, 20 June 2020 (UTC) | |
2c. it contains no original research. | No evidence of OR has been presented. I have not done a thorough review for this. wbm1058 ( talk) 21:06, 20 June 2020 (UTC) | |
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | No evidence has been presented. I have not done a thorough review for this. wbm1058 ( talk) 21:06, 20 June 2020 (UTC) | |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | The Wikipedia:Out of scope essay says "Use the most general scope for each article you can. Since Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia, it's supposed to summarise essentially all knowledge. Hence accidental or deliberate choice of a limited scope for an article can make notable information disappear from the encyclopedia entirely, or make it highly inaccessible.", which appears to discourage exclusion of "trivia", which seems counter to the advice of the next requirement (3b) to not go into unnecessary detail. wbm1058 ( talk) 22:24, 20 June 2020 (UTC) | |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | Hey! "focused on the topic" links to Wikipedia:Article size – and Wikipedia:Summary style is all about splitting to subtopics. So, not so fast about that stuff being out-of-scope for GA reviews. A split was proposed on 24 April 2020 which quickly gained consensus in support. Vice presidency of Joe Biden was created on 30 April 2020 and United States Senate career of Joe Biden was created on 1 May 2020, but as discussed on 18 May this work has yet to be finished. In contrast with the longish lead of this article (1b above) the leads of Vice presidency of Joe Biden and United States Senate career of Joe Biden are each just one short paragraph, making it difficult to summarize those sections here. This article cannot be recertified as a Good Article until after this work is done. wbm1058 ( talk) 17:00, 27 June 2020 (UTC) | |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | This is such a subjective criterion that I feel that it can only be determined by consensus in a community discussion. What I mostly see in this discussion is an assertion that the article is not neutral responded to by mostly unanswered requests for specifics, and some acknowledgement(s) of "good faith claims that the article lacks neutrality". This criterion feels somewhat redundant to me. I think an article that passes all other criteria, particularly stability, is unlikely to fail on just this one. In any event the discussion hasn't sufficiently specifically addressed this criterion for me to make a call. wbm1058 ( talk) 22:50, 27 June 2020 (UTC) | |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | As indicated above 9 !voters were leaning to delist based on instability. This was a borderline "no consensus" discussion, but regardless the outcome is the same. See additional comments below. | |
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | All 39 images in the article are tagged; most as public domain or creative commons. wbm1058 ( talk) 21:58, 20 June 2020 (UTC) | |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | All 39 images in the article are relevant and captioned. wbm1058 ( talk) 21:58, 20 June 2020 (UTC) | |
7. Overall assessment. |
Items 4 and 5 are the "elephant in the room" around which this GAR revolves. I view these criteria as very much connected because the crux of the stability issues revolve around disputes over neutrality. Indeed § Are stability-based GARs appropriate? discusses this.
I noticed a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations, " List of Wikipedians by number of Good articles?" and volunteered to work on producing such a list (after I finish closing this). I think such a list for the "content creators" would nicely balance out the " gnomes list". Based on the algorithm for producing that list, I see that Wasted Time R would get credit for this GA. Indeed this seems to be a good measure based on the XTools report which gives them a significant margin over other editors in authorship, number of edits, and added text.
A point of contention in this GAR is whether an article can be delisted based on the Immediate failures criteria. It was asserted that "there is no such thing as an immediate fail at GAR" and the "immediate" part only applies to new GA nominations. But GAR determines whether an article that is listed as good article still merits its GA status according to the good article criteria. There are no separate "review criteria", so I find that the "immediate" part does apply. However, the Wikipedia:Good article reassessment "When to use this process" guideline says "Use the individual reassessment process if You don't see any ongoing content dispute or edit war and "Requesting (community) reassessment during a content dispute or edit war is usually inappropriate, wait until the article stabilizes and then consider reassessment. If significant instability persists for more than a couple of weeks, then reassessment on the grounds of instability may be considered." So, following the guideline, a GAR may only fail based on the "immediate" part after waiting at least two weeks to confirm persistent instability and obtaining a very clear consensus for an immediate fail from at least five editors in a community discussion. In fairness to Atsme, until I made this uncontested reversion, the guidelines were contradictory on stability-based reviews, so I can't fault her for starting an individual GAR. Editors are advised that in the future stability-based reassessments should only be done by the community process. This is to ensure fairness to editors like Wasted Time R who've put in a lot of work to get the article up to the GA standard. In any event, this review has gone on long enough that it is way past being able to be called an "immediate" review. - wbm1058 ( talk) 21:48, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
Precedents. Criterion 5 is open to interpretation: "it does not change significantly from day to day". The footnote to that provides some clarification: "Reverted vandalism, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply to the "stable" criterion. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of disruptive editing may be failed or placed on hold." The key word open to interpretation is " significant". This word may be ambiguous in some situations. "Having a noticeable or major effect." "Reasonably large in number or amount." An article "undergoing rapid expansion or being rewritten" is undergoing significant change, but what about the addition of a single sentence to an already lengthy article? If that single sentence mentions allegations of sexual misconduct not previously mentioned in the article, that single sentence arguably has a noticeable or major effect. Edit-warring over the addition of that sentence may reasonably be interpreted as evidence that the addition had a noticeable effect; if it didn't, in my view an edit war is much less likely to develop.
I have heard the appeals to precedents. Wikipedia doesn't have any policies or guidelines on this. Although precedents are not required to be followed, I am sympathetic with the Wikipedia:Precedents essay. With that in mind, I searched the archives and found a nearly 14-year old discussion titled " Dealing with Bad Faith objections on controversial topics". While the debate that led to this was over religion, it seems relevant given the separation of church and state, but can religion and politics really be separated?
The dispute was over the Creation-evolution controversy article, which has since moved to Rejection of evolution by religious groups. The article was delisted per this GAR as explained by the reviewer HERE and on the revewer's talk. The {{ Article history}} on Talk:Rejection of evolution by religious groups shows that the article was listed on January 22, 2006, delisted on October 4, 2006, and apparently no attempts have been made to relist it after that.
I noticed that Result: 6 delist to 4 keep, no consensus was added by another editor (not the reviewer) when they archived the discussion. I'm not sure whether the reviewer counted votes, but this edit demonstrates the view that no consensus in a GAR results in delisting rather than maintaining the status quo, which is counter to the view expressed by some in this GAR. I think that's right; Good Article Reviews simply confirm that an article still passes the criteria. If a first time assessment would fail criterion 5 if there was no consensus, then I don't see how a reassessment should have a different outcome with no consensus. I haven't seen anything in the instructions supporting that view.
I'll make a quick search now for more, confirming precedents. – wbm1058 ( talk) 16:56, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
I just confirmed that the stability criterion hasn't substantially changed since March 2006 so the above precedent still seems relevant.
Another point of contention in the discussion revolves around the Wikipedia:Stable version supplement to the page protection policy. An argument was made that you can not get more stable than a fully protected article, which was rejected by another participant with the rationale that if an article so poorly failed to meet the stability criterion that an administrator had to forcibly cause it to be stable, then it isn't truly stable. I concur with this latter view. If one should wait at least two weeks to confirm an article's instability, arguably most high-profile articles will always pass the criterion because administrators will not allow instability to persist for that long before protecting the article. It makes no sense to have a criterion that can never fail. The rationale for protection should be examined. If it's protected due to vandalism, then it's still stable for GAR purposes. But if it's protected due to edit warring, then it's not. Per Wikipedia:Stable version § Inappropriate usage it is inappropriate usage to invoke this argument to avoid a delisting for instability. An open request for comment over a proposed "significant" change in content, i.e. a change that will have a "noticeable or major effect" on the article, should be viewed as a sign of instability for as long as the RfC remains open.
I realize this is problematic for articles of this type. A possible solution might be to introduce the concept of a "last good version" or a new indicator showing that the good article "may be outdated and is currently undergoing review of possible content changes". wbm1058 ( talk) 20:32, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
I suppose the sections below may be considered as equivalent to the workshop page of an Arbitration Committee case. LOL wbm1058 ( talk) 15:10, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
For 3b, I'd like to point out that I did propose a split which ended up happening, but discussion about the prose to keep in the article went nowhere. It's been brought up again, but that discussion also went nowhere. As much as I want to help, I realize that I have almost no splitting/summarizing experience and I'm terrible at summarizing things. Username 6892 02:41, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
The lead now has five paragraphs; the manual of style suggests reducing this to four. What would you remove? Feel free to either strike through words to omit using <s>...</s> tags or rewrite it below. wbm1058 ( talk) 15:10, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
Username6892's opinion for removals, Removals Username6892 is less sure about, Username6892's opinion for additions
Joseph Robinette Biden Jr. ( /ˌrɒbɪˈnɛt ˈbaɪdən/; [1] born November 20, 1942) is an American politician who served as the 47th vice president of the United States from 2009 to 2017 and represented Delaware in the U.S. Senate from 1973 to 2009. A member of the Democratic Party, Biden is the presumptive Democratic nominee [nb 1] for president of the United States in the 2020 election. [2] This is Biden’s third run for president after he unsuccessfully sought the Democratic nomination in 1988 and 2008.
Biden was raised in Scranton, Pennsylvania, and New Castle County, Delaware. He studied at the University of Delaware before receiving his law degree from Syracuse University. [3] He became a lawyer in 1969 and was elected to the New Castle County Council in 1970. He was elected to the U.S. Senate from Delaware in 1972 when he became the sixth-youngest senator in American history. Biden was reelected six times and was the fourth-most senior senator when he resigned to assume the vice presidency in 2009. [4]
As a senator, Biden was a longtime member and eventually chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee. He opposed the Gulf War in 1991 but advocated for U.S. and NATO intervention in the Bosnian War in 1994 and 1995, expanding NATO in the 1990s, and the 1999 bombing of Serbia during the Kosovo War. He argued and voted for the resolution authorizing the Iraq War in 2002 but opposed the surge of U.S. troops in 2007. He has also served as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, dealing with issues related to drug policy, crime prevention, and civil liberties, as well as the contentious U.S. Supreme Court nominations of Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas. Biden led the efforts to pass the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act and the Violence Against Women Act.
In 2008, Biden was the running mate of Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama. As vice president, he oversaw infrastructure spending to counteract the Great Recession and helped formulate U.S. policy toward Iraq through the withdrawal of U.S. troops in 2011. His negotiations with congressional Republicans helped the Obama administration pass legislation including the Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010, which resolved a taxation deadlock; the Budget Control Act of 2011, which resolved that year's debt ceiling crisis; and the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012, which addressed the impending fiscal cliff [6892 1]. In the aftermath of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, Biden led the Gun Violence Task Force, created to address the causes of gun violence in the United States. [5] Obama and Biden were reelected in 2012.
In October 2015, after months of speculation, Biden announced he would not seek the presidency in the 2016 election. In January 2017, Obama awarded Biden the Presidential Medal of Freedom with distinction. [6] After completing his second term as vice president, Biden joined the faculty of the University of Pennsylvania, where he was named the Benjamin Franklin Professor of Presidential Practice. [7] He announced his 2020 candidacy for president on April 25, 2019, joining a large field of Democratic candidates pursuing the party nomination. [8] Throughout 2019, he was widely regarded as the party's frontrunner. After briefly falling behind Bernie Sanders after poor showings in the first three state contests, Biden won the South Carolina primary decisively, and, several center-left moderate candidates dropped out of the race and endorsed him before Super Tuesday. Biden went on to win 18 of the next 26 contests. With the suspension of Sanders's campaign on April 8, 2020, Biden became the Democratic Party's presumptive nominee for the presidential election. [9] On June 9, 2020, Biden met the 1,991-delegate threshold needed in order to secure the party's nomination. [10]
References
References
References
What specific controversies should be mentioned in the lead? These should be controversies that are already covered in the article body.
There is no consensus for including a specific statement in the lead of Joe Biden sexual assault allegation. If attempts to add controversies to the lead of this article have been reverted, a similar discussion should be initiated to get a consensus to include them. wbm1058 ( talk) 15:10, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
Top 10 Joe Biden Gaffes - Throughout his decades of public service, the former Senator and current Vice President has earned a reputation for often saying the wrong thing at the wrong time;
Muboshgu, you just reverted 2 hours of diligent research and editing to include material the lead and body that clearly belongs, and you used a misleading edit summary of RECENTISM to justify removal when the cited NYTimes is dated 2019, a year ago: (this wording needs to be discussed, too much WP:RECENTISM here) which doesn't even apply to the material. Your other revert also included a misleading edit summary (no consensus to include Reade in the lead); i.e., if you are referring to the RfC close I recently challenged because there was not a consensus to censor the Reade allegation in its entirety from the lead - only specific language was at issue - and if you review the actual RfC statement, it will confirm what I just said about specific wording (which I was careful to avoid). There was not an RfC or decision to censor Reade's allegation in its entirety. See the discussion at User talk:S Marshall#Joe Biden close. S Marshall was very thoughtful, polite and quite willing to help by asking for further input at WP:AN. I have been working on the Biden GAR reassessment with Wbm1058, and Username6892 among others, but your instantaneous removal of content for no valid reason is why the article was demoted, and it looks like it will stay that way. Attempts to whitewash and protect the lead from all controversy is noncompliant with NPOV, a core content policy. I do wish you would self-revert because it does take on the appearance of WP:OWN when the same few editors keep removing notable, well-sourced criticism from the lead. Atsme Talk 📧 19:57, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
Then Senator Biden presided over the senate confirmation hearings for Clarence Thomas when Anita Hill came forward with sexual harassment allegations against the SCOTUS nominee. In April 2019, the New York Times said Biden “knew Anita Hill was going to be an issue for him” in his 2020 presidential campaign. [1] Biden attempted to reach out to Hill with deep regret and an apology for what happened to her. In response, Hill told The Times that his call left her "feeling deeply unsatisfied", and she was not convinced that he has taken “full responsibility for his conduct at the hearings — or for the harm he caused other victims of sexual harassment and gender violence.” [1] [2]This is fine detail for the body but much too much for the lead that you said you're trying to cut down to size. The commentary on Hill being relevant to the 2020 campaign is conjecture and totally irrelevant. We should mention Hill in the lead, but in one sentence. – Muboshgu ( talk) 20:13, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
References
2 hours of diligent research and editingare not helpful to make a case for inclusion, as we are all volunteers and are free to spend our time however we wish. -- K.e.coffman ( talk) 00:57, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
I suggest adding the following sentence to the end of the "Family deaths" section: "He later apologized for these claims." And add the following reference: https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/01/25/joe-biden-2019-profile-grief-beau-car-accident-224178 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.213.144.235 ( talk) 10:01, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
What about: "Biden later apologized for these claims.", referenced by the previous mentioned reference. I think the current text is misleading, because there's a difference between someone accusing someone else without basis, versus someone first accusing someone else without basis, but later apologizing for it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.213.150.153 ( talk) 07:32, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
Actually, that whole sentence about the drunk driver thing isn't biographically significant at all. -- Scjessey ( talk) 12:59, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
I would like to comment that the "Family deaths" section also appears on the article for the United States Senate career of Joe Biden. I see two options:
FunnyMath ( talk) 17:00, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
The Gaffes and dicey remarks made by vice president Biden during this campaign have been news worthy and would appear to merit mention on the wiki page. For instance the " you aint black" statement by him was met with wide criticism. Bgrus22 ( talk) 00:53, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
Bgrus22 - I will comment that attempts to discuss Donald Trump's mental health have thus far failed to gain consensus for inclusion. I believe that was so due to a lack of diagnosis by professionals who have actually examined him, in spite of the many comments by professionals who have not personally examined him. The same may very well occur here for "cognitive decline". starship .paint ( talk) 12:04, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
Mr. Trump’s campaign took comfort in the expectation that Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s penchant for gaffes would at least offer them dependable fodder for attack. The pandemic, and Mr. Biden’s play-it-safe campaign, however, have starved them of even that ... Mr. Biden’s “ain’t black” gaffe, just days old, was out of the news.As for (1) the New York Post is a publication of questionable reality. For (2) to (8), your descriptions highlight that this gaffe was related to racial relations, instead of a history of making gaffes. It seems that if this is to be included, it should be in somewhere which discusses racial issues. (9) is irrelevant to this current gaffe. starship .paint ( talk) 04:28, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
During Biden's campaign, he made several gaffes which were given attention by the media and his opponents. Most prominent of these was a statement he made during an interview on
The Breakfast Club radio show in May 2020 where he stated, "If you have a problem figuring out whether you're for me or Trump, then you ain't black." He later apologized for his "cavalier" remarks, but several figures ranging from
Kanye West to
Robert L. Johnson, the co-founder of
BET, used this an example of racial insensitivity towards African American voters.
could I simply state that the above sources I gave are the ones I would use- sure. It's just my opinion that to persuasively make your case, it would be better for you to go through the extra effort of re-compiling the sources. Would you really want everyone to go find the sources themselves above? You think that would be persuasive? starship .paint ( talk) 08:09, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Joe Biden has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please put "under Barack Obama" after "47th vice president of the United States from 2009 to 2017" so we don't have to scratch our heads America's Next President ( talk) 22:46, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Racial views of Joe Biden. - MrX 🖋 00:21, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
I'm adding in the "ain't black" comment under the Donald Trump section, with a source to Politico. I understand that the inclusion of the comment may be seen as contentious, which is why I made this discussion page, but the comment got a lot of attention so I think it at least deserves a mention. If people oppose we can have a discussion to gain consensus. AlessandroTiandelli333 ( talk) 02:57, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
It should be clear to all that the "Results of the 1972 U.S. Senate election in Delaware" image in the Early political career and family life (1966–1972) > 1972 U.S. Senate campaign section is a weak choice for an image for this article. There is no legend for the map to contextualize the colours of each county and the text in the 1972 U.S. Senate campaign provides enough of a description of the election. In any case, the link to see the breakdown of the election is one click away. I suggest this image be removed to make way for an image of the incumbent of that election, J. Caleb Boggs, whom Joseph Biden defeated. I am open to other suggestions. Ysfkdr ( talk) 06:14, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
Following this , where do you think it is best to include racial views? -- Emir of Wikipedia ( talk) 12:53, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
https://www.politico.com/story/2014/09/joe-biden-shylocks-reaction-111053 or https://www.cbsnews.com/news/bidens-comments-ruffle-feathers/ or https://www.factcheck.org/2008/09/biden-fdr-and-the-invention-of-television/ or https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/09/us/politics/joe-biden-poor-kids.html
is undue weight, but "He has been a strong speaker and debater and a frequent and effective guest on Sunday morning talk shows." is considered neutral, when articles like http://content.time.com/time/specials/packages/completelist/0,29569,1895156,00.html were probably the most frequent kind of article about him for a decent portion of his entire career. It is telling where the biases of this community lie that the "ain't black" comment was referred toward as "fake outrage" and people are quick to dismiss people's concerns as disingenuous so easily. 2601:482:8000:C470:E805:A0E0:6ECC:E282 ( talk) 15:41, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
"even minor points can form a picture of a greater whole"makes it appear that you want to violate WP:SYNTH by creating a narrative that Biden is somehow anti-black. – Muboshgu ( talk) 18:39, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
just to score bias pointsreads to me like you projecting upon your insistence that Joe Biden's gaffes speak to some sort of "racial views'. I strive to prevent AP2 articles from having bias, and saying that Trump inspired the Charlottesville rally is clearly not SYNTH. – Muboshgu ( talk) 16:56, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
Some sources below. -- Emir of Wikipedia ( talk) 20:49, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Democrats who oppose the 2020 Joe Biden presidential campaign. - MrX 🖋 23:27, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Joe Biden has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In "...he met the 1,991-delegate threshold needed to secure the party's nomination." I would suggest adding "Democratic" under party just for extra clarification, as it is not mentioned anywhere in that paragraph and it's good form. CamSox ( talk) 20:03, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
Hi, wise editors, I am expecting the page be updated with information related to Biden's DNC nomination (to be confirmed tonight), but didn't see much, was it because such information are not notable enough to have a section / mention on this article?
xinbenlv Talk, Remember to "ping" me 01:21, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
Also, maybe in relation to this topic, the fact that Biden has lost the presidential nomination for the Democratic Party previously should not be placed this high on the page. That is of course relevant information, but to give a clear, fast overview of the page, it should be put lower in his (political) biography. Frederik Glerup Christensen ( talk) 17:16, 30 August 2020 (UTC)