Difference between revisions of "Talk:Joe Biden"

Revision as of 18:44, August 26, 2008

Banning?

I'm a little upset about all this banning on conservapedia articles. I started and wrote this entire article and am now not allowed to extend it and make it more informative because of all this banning. Chippeterson

No banning has taken place. Rather, the senior sysops have protected all pages for Presidential candidates, so that only sysops may edit them. We have done this for reasons of security. The Talk pages (like this one) remain unprotected--so that if you have a suggestion for extension of this or any article, use the corresponding Talk page.--TerryH^Talk 20:21, 25 August 2007 (EDT)

We need to change the word "proponent" to something like "strongly against." In the part of the article were it talks about Joe Biden's position on gun control. Chippeterson

Why would we need to do that?Samwell 21:23, 25 August 2007 (EDT)

Because it says "Biden is a strong proponent of 2nd-amendment rights. He was rated F by the National Rifle Association." "proponent" means that you support something. Joe Biden is against the right to bear arms. Chippeterson

Opponent should work then. Samwell 21:36, 25 August 2007 (EDT)

Thats a pretty big difference! Thanks for catching it, it has been corrected. Bohdan 00:29, 26 August 2007 (EDT)

Jill Biden not a professor

http://www.dtcc.edu/catalog/pdf/personnel.pdf

Is Biden REALLY an adjunct professor?

Not sure if he really is a professor. This may be just like Obama claiming to be a "professor." In any case, we should probably expand that section to clarify that the current title he uses, adjunct professor, is little more than a "Monopoly money" title given to non-tenure track hired guns who don't even have to have valid academic credentials or degrees to teach a class. Most adjunct professors that I know, except in technical and scientific fields where they actually have to know something concrete, are pretty awful. Those in education, the social sciences, humanities, criminal justice, and social work are particularly bad. Those teaching math, computer science, biology, chemistry, etc. tend to be pretty good. You can't fake chemistry, but you can fake "social work" and those other fields. --AdmiralNelson 13:58, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

I want to point out that most adjuncts are hired primarily to save money (they are cheaper than full-time faculty), rather than as good instructors. Some are good instructors, but the focus is, first and foremost, cheap labor. Nothing wrong with cheap labor, but it should be pointed out ESPECIALLY here. Yet another reason to be suspicious of Government funded education and educators. --AdmiralNelson 14:01, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

Fun With Names

Obama & Biden or is it Osama Bin Laden?-- jp 16:04, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

That's funny. Thanks for the humor.--Aschlafly 16:24, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

Are you kidding me..? It was juvenile and contrived at best. Jros83 13:18, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

Plagiarist

He's a plagiarist because he plagiarised - inter alia - the speech of Neil Kinnock (re. his being the first Biden in X generations to attend university, etc etc). This is very well established (and documented on Conservapedia), and an equally well established blot on Biden's escutcheon. Why therefore are you deleting it? The man lied, full stop. Bugler 17:35, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

I agree with Bugler. I don't think there is any doubt about Biden's plagiarism.--Aschlafly 17:37, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

Section Shuffle Suggestion

I would move the "Controversial comments" section down (or up, if there is major resistance). In its current place (between the Senate section and the Campaign sections), it looks very out of place. --DirkB 17:35, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

wikipedia controversey?

i just wanted to point out that the section on Joseph Biden was never removed, just relocated http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joe_Biden&diff=233713896&oldid=233713863 is the edit where it was moved... i didn't want to try editing the main page because I'm a new user and i didn't feel it was my place, but it's clear to see that since Biden never ran in 2004 they wouldn't place information like that in a 2004 section, but a general section relating to information such as his suggestion for Kerry to take on McCain as a running mate. oh, also i didn't know where else to post this, that's why i entered it in his talk page. if it's in the wrong place please let me know and i can move it --Qprime

See here for discussion concerning the "controversy" (and its headline on the main page.) --Jareddr 17:56, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

I agree with Qprime, it doesn't make a lot of sense to have section for Joe Biden entitled "2004 Presidential Campaign" when he didn't have a 2004 Presidential campaign. Chippeterson 25 August 2008

Sorry, but I have to side with Tom Blumer of NewsBusters. The section describes Biden's involvement in the general 2004 Presidential campaign and the fact that he definitely considered running (but changed his mind due to timing issues). He was notable enough for CNN to list him on the page I cited, so I think the section is justified. There is no reason to hide Biden's endorsement of McCain as Kerry's running mate at the end of the Senate section. --DirkB 18:49, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

i'm just saying 'presidential campaign' implies his own campaign, on the wikipedia page they moved it to a 'general presidential campaign' section, i found it 5 seconds after i went there by looking with Ctrl-F it's not really hidden. now i'm as much against wiki bias as anyone else here, but in this situation it looks like more of a misunderstanding than anything else.--Qprime

Controversial?

What is controversial about the comment regarding offshore drilling? Why is the word rape bolded? That is a completely appropriate use of the word as in "rape and pillage". ClarkeD 21:01, 25 August 2008 (EDT)