Talk:Beau Biden/Archive 1

Archive 1

Bar Exam

Part of the following was 1st put in by an anon (IP in Deleware, interestingly) without sources, removed by me, then restored by me with a source and exam difficulty information, then I chose to move it here...

It took Beau Biden four times to pass the Deleware Bar Exam, one of the toughest bar exams in the United States.

Barrish, Cris (October 2, 2006). "Del. bar exam trips many, including Beau Biden (free article preview)". Delaware News-Journal,.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link)

I really don't know if its relevant and important information and might have been inserted into this stub in a POV effort. I don't know. But I moved it here for in case anyone wants to weigh in on it. --Oakshade 00:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I do not believe this is relevant to the article. It seems more of an attack and a POV attempt than information that is important to the article. I say leave it out. Jhawk1024 09:32, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with Jhawk1024. The above is a fact about Biden's life, so it is relevant, especially considering his current occupation. There are many facts about his life that are not particularly relevant like his best friend in elementary school, the first car he drove, etc. A state's Attorney General's performance in the law and legal matters seems highly relevant. Further, inclusion of a properly sourced fact complies with the NPOV requirement. This information should be included, and I am adding it.

If anything, omitting this fact because it may be interpreted as negative biases the article. Writers and editors of Wikipedia articles—a biography in this instance—are not to act to present or preserve a positive view of their subject. Rather, all relevant information should be included. Please refer to the NPOV tutorial for a more detailed explanation on this point and on achieving NPOV generally.

As is, this article is further biased for the following reasons:

• Biden's time as a federal prosecutor is mentioned, but there's no mention that he held that position in Philadelphia. That's an omission of a relevant fact. I will search for a reliable source that verifies this fact before adding the statement and the source.

• The discussion of the Attorney General election states, "Wharton claimed to be the more experienced of the two candidates." The use of the word "claim" is suspect, because "believed," "stated," or even "argued" are more appropriate. As well, even when "claimed" is changed, this statement omits facts relevant to the statement, such as how many years each man has been a lawyer. I find these combined issues especially troublesome because Wharton did have more years practicing as a lawyer. That is simply a fact. The quality of each man's experience is another issue, but the quantity is easily measured. I am changing the word "claimed" to "argued." I will then search for a reliable source that states the years each man has practiced law and add a statement of those facts and the source.

• The paragraph that mentions Biden's two "noteworthy" acts since being elected is also dubious. I personally agree that the appointments were notable and positive, but the facts should speak for themselves. Also, there is no mention of important but negative or controversial acts or issues of Biden's tenure. If there are none, fine. But if something negative or controversial has happened during his tenure, it needs to be included. I am removing the word "noteworthy" and will research whether there are any negative or controversial occurrences during Biden's tenure. If I find any, I will include them with proper sourcing.

Finally, the sentence regarding who ran his campaign is irrelevant and uninteresting. I am removing it. @grog_beta (talk) 20:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• Response - I still have very serious doubts about the validity of such content. Failing bar exams early in careers is very common, even amongst very successful lawyers. Wikipedia biographies generally include major details of the topics lives with an emphasis on their major accomplishments. I just don't think earlier exam struggles is a major part of anyone's life. It's like putting previous chemistry failings into the article of insulin co-discoverer Frederick Banting. I'm also I little bothered that the user attempting to keep this bar exam info had, at the time of posting the above comments, only made edits on two other topics outside this one for a total of 10 edits, yet demonstrates an acute knowledge of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I'm not saying they're a sock of somebody who might have already demonstrated POV motivations, but it does raise an eyebrow. As of now, I won't remove the content from the article (someone else might), but the article might warrant a possible bias tag. --Oakshade (talk) 00:56, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Oakshade: I fully appreciate your concern, but this guy isn't just a lawyer, he's now a state Attorney General. I think it's relevant. It's widely known that Einstein once failed a math course and that Michael Jordan was once cut in tryouts for high school basketball. Both example are noteworthy for the contrast and interest they provide.

Further, Wikipedia biographies do not place "emphasis on [the subject's] major accomplishments," they necessarily also include failures, embroilments, controversies, etc. In short, they attempt to capture a well-rounded snapshot of a human. Any biography with no blemish is either bogus and biased or isn't well known enough to warrant inclusion in Wikipedia.

Finally, I resent your insinuation that I may be a sock puppet simply because I'm informed. I think that's rather rude of you. Instead of diving in and editing, I've used my time to learn how to edit properly. Even still, it took me several hours to post the above in order to fully research the issues involved. In fact, I started out with only one or two issues with the article, but uncovered more in my research. Prior to my recent edits, this article read like campaign literature. I expect to be judged on the quality of my edits, not on volume. @grog_beta (talk) 05:37, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Response - @grog_beta, No need to feel resentful. We're just not used to a new user being so quickly accustomed to Wikipedia standards and guidelines. Like I said, I'm not saying you are a sock, but I think any regular user would have the same concerns. If you truly are a new user, nice going on your quick learn of Wikipedia:Manual of Style and other standards.

I'm glad you mentioned Einstein and Jordan. The Albert Einstein article makes no mention of the failing of the math test and the Micheal Jordan article only mentions not making his high school basketball team in his freshman year because he was too short to qualify, not because of his ability. Both those article though do emphasize their major accomplishments and go into detail with them.

But the problem with including this failing bar exam info is it's currently too dominant in this article. As you say, he's State Attorney General. Certainly there is much more to his professional life than passing the bar exam on his 4th try. How about his positions on criminal matters? What initiatives has he started since taking office? Any new law proposals? Are there particular aspects of government law and law enforcement that he's put particular attention to? I truly believe there are much more encyclopedic topics than failing the bar exam 3 times. As I say in many politicians articles, there seems to be too much emphasis on elections and political posturing... and frequently mud-slinging... and not enough on what they actually do while in office. Sure we need sources for anything controversial or that can be interpreted as bias, but as he's a statewide elected official, I'm sure they're easy to come by. --Oakshade (talk) 06:36, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Oakshade, I agree that the bar exam issue is too prominent in the article right now, but that doesn't mean it should be removed. The problem is he was only recently elected, so there isn't much more to write yet. As far as I know, that is; like I said in my first comment, I'm going to research his activities further to do a more complete and balanced job on this article. I can't say I follow him. From what I understand, he may not even be around much—he is on the campaign trail with his father.

The Einstein and Jordan articles are necessarily filled with accomplishments, but Beau Biden is no Einstein or Jordan, at least not yet. He's only just begun his political career, so there isn't much else yet to write about. The article on Stalin emphasizes his major 'accomplishments,' infamous though they may be. That's not at all to suggest Biden is similar to Stalin; my point is that biographies aren't always dominated by positive facts. They should be comprised of facts, and whether those facts are predominantly positive or negative is not related to editing or composition. The facts are what they are, and the messengers shouldn't be blamed.

I still think the number of attempts is a relevant, interesting, and informative fact. Even if (or maybe especially if) he goes on to be President, this fact should remain. I know not all lawyers—even very good ones—pass the bar the first time, but four attempts is a lot, especially for the Attorney General. In fact, it wasn't long ago that Delaware only allowed three attempts, and if you didn't pass after three tries you were out of luck. @grog_beta (talk) 07:42, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• My goodness...I've tried to strike the right encyclopediac tone with this revision. I've probably missed a few points and would welcome other improvements. Not too many changes, and virtually all facts are coming from the AG's web site. stilltim (talk) 23:39, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I haven't checked in for almost a year. I see this info was removed by someone "fixing the POV problem" without any discussion. I'm not adding the information back in just yet, but there' s still a very compelling case for it's inclusion. I'm glad whoever removed it was so sure of themselves, and of the information's "POV problem," but some explanation for the removal would have been helpful.

I have two other issues with this article. The first is the banner at the top of the talk page:

"This page is about an active politician who is running for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some current political conflict or controversy. Because of this, this article is at increased risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism."

That's not true: he's not 'running for office, in office and campaigning for re-election, or involved in some current political conflict or controversy.' The banner should be removed.

Also, I have serious misgivings about the following paragraph's relevance:

"Joe Biden's victory in the 2008 presidential election left a vacancy in the U.S. Senate upon the time he would resign his seat. Beau Biden was once believed to be a frontrunner for the position, but, while deployed in Iraq, stated that he would not seek and would not accept an appointment to the Senate. On November 24, 2008, Ruth Ann Minner named Joe Biden's former chief of staff, Ted Kaufman, to the seat. Kaufman indicated he would not be a candidate in the 2010 special election to complete the term, fueling speculation Beau will run at that time. Joe Biden stated after the announcement of Kaufman's appointment, 'It is no secret that I believe my son, Attorney General Beau Biden, would make a great United States Senator just as I believe he has been a great attorney general. But Beau has made it clear from the moment he entered public life that any office he sought he would earn on his own....If he chooses to run for the Senate in the future, he will have to run and win on his own. He wouldn't have it any other way.'"

I do think editors of this page need to be cognizant of the probability that Mr. Biden's political team likely monitors this entry, and at least one of the article's editors is a member of that team. This article certainly seems unusually one-sided: no one is without blemish, but you wouldn't know it by reading this. I've tried to include a factual blemish and was met with immediate resistance. Curious. @grog_beta (talk) 06:36, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Image

There is an image of Beau Biden on the Delaware Attorney General's web site that may be acceptable: [1]. Not high quality though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dcarnese (talk • contribs) 13:57, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

There's also a different one here, a little better quality. http://attorneygeneral.delaware.gov/ I've found the hoops I have to jump through to upload a photo - both technical and copyright - way too time-consuming, which I guess suits the Wiki PTB fine but inhibits responsible contributors, so I leave it to someone else. It's ridiculous that there isn't a photo of him, given his public function, and that Wiki in my opinion has gone overboard in deleting photos while not replacing them. I completely understand the issue and concern, and admire Wiki and its premier contributors. I just think this photo problem could be solved by someone able and willing to take the time and has the expertise. I actually do have some time, but my expertise sucks. This Flickr photo says it's not copyrighted, "Anyone can see this photo" so maybe it might work. http://www.flickr.com/photos/21566463@N08/2414586843 Wlegro (talk) 14:24, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Unless the photo is free to use by anyone, for any reason, and at any time, it will be deleted. Any restricted-use photos fail the first criterion of the fair use policy because a free alternative could be found or created. --Tom (talk - email) 18:00, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

The photo clearly says "all rights reserved". Note that even if we didn't require all our content be free, that photo would clearly not be usable under anything but US fair use law or similar exemptions to copyright in other countries. The conditions imposed by the copyright holder don't allow us (or anyone) to upload the photo in themselves, they simply allow you to see the photo on the website the copyright holder choose to upload them to (they are of course probably more likely to change their minds and allow us to use it if we didn't require they release it under a free license, but that's a different issue) Nil Einne (talk) 04:38, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Use of rank preceding name

I plan on removing the "Captain" preceding Biden's name in the first line of the bio. It is listed as a title in the wiki article of the same name here: Title and according to this it states: "Academic and professional titles (such as "Doctor" or "Professor") should not be used before the name in the initial sentence or in other uses of the person's name. Verifiable facts about how the person attained such titles should be included in the article text instead." Atlantabravz (talk) 22:27, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

It is Wikipedia convention that serving military officials include their rank in the title, ie General David Howell Petraeus The "this" you're referring to refers to academic titles (bold not mine), not serving military personnel. --Oakshade (talk) 23:25, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree that WP:CREDENTIAL doesn't apply. I've been trying to find a guideline that does apply, but WP:MILMOS doesn't mention this. Common sense tells me that cases like Petraeus – career military officers at a high rank whose notability is their military achievements – are different from cases like Beau Biden – a reserve officer of a middle rank whose main notability comes not from military activity but from being Delaware AG and a potential U.S. Senate candidate and the son of someone very well-known. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:23, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

It also mentions professional titles in the academic section, and the military is indeed a profession as there are oaths involved. It does seem odd that the first sentence says "Captain Beau Biden is an American politician..." If anything, the more appropriate lede, if allowed by Wiki policy, would say "Attorney General Beau Biden is an American politician..." So are we going to say that even in General Petraeus's bio it will say the title before his name until he retires and it reads more like Eric Shinseki's? In addition, Petraeus has reached the ultimate rank he can achieve, so once Biden is promoted to Major his title changes. It just doesn't seem encyclopedic and I think it goes against the spirit of the Wiki policy about titles although military rank isn't specifically mentioned in the MOS. Atlantabravz (talk) 02:52, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

As there's no iron-clad guideline on the titles of serving military officers, all we really have to go by at this point is consistency to match other articles about similar personnel. If there isn't consistency, there should be specific guidelines as to what criteria constitutes a rank/military title and what doesn't.--Oakshade (talk) 15:38, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

My argument is that General Petraeus and Beau Biden are not "similar personnel" in any real sense. Wasted Time R (talk) 15:43, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

The main purpose in putting in a military ranks would be to keep consistency with articles about similar people. See George Marshall, Donald Rumsfeld, Robert Gates. It seems military ranks should be omitted from the lead section before the subject's name. Timmeh! 01:43, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

That's kind of comparing apples to oranges. Those examples are either retired or deceased personnel, not currently serving military. Lieutenant General Scott C. Black, a serving military Judge's Advocate as this article's subject is, would be a better comparison.--Oakshade (talk) 04:22, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

That is a good point. Did you find any others that have the military rank before the name? Timmeh! 15:17, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I would compromise and say that active duty personnel who are Wiki-notable could have the rank preceding the name in the lede as that is their one and only profession, but Biden is not active duty and is primarily known for being the Attorney General of Delaware. Atlantabravz (talk) 20:33, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

That makes sense to me. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:11, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

If he's not active duty, then I would have no objection to this compromise. But at least as of April 17, he's still on active duty in Iraq. [2] I think as a serving active military person he would have the rand preceding his name under this compromise. --Oakshade (talk) 22:44, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I think you are missing the point. There are Regular Army, Army Reserve, and Army National Guard. He is an Army National Guard soldier who is currently mobilized. He is not a a regular Title 10 soldier. The intent of my compromise is not to only add the rank during mobilizations for non-Regular Army personnel. Atlantabravz (talk) 11:05, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I see what you're saying. As long as this standard is consistent with other biographies of similar personnel, I won't object to it.--Oakshade (talk) 17:19, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Removed, and after scanning a few bios it does appear to be consistent unless Wiki comes up with a more specific policy. Atlantabravz (talk) 17:54, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Year long deployment was actually 8 months.

If Biden's unit was activated and sent to Fort Bliss for Training in Oct and arrived in iraq in late Dec right after Christmas, then returned to the States on 3 Sep, the most that deployment was is 8 months and a week. I agree he was activated for 11 months rounded up to a year but to "advertise" he was in Iraq a year when he returned for the month of January is a stretch. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.169.199.18 (talk) 21:20, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Makes sense to me, lets change the Iraq deployment to 8 months. - Schrandit (talk) 23:48, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I deployed with him and we left Fort Bliss in mid-November, arriving in Kuwait around 20-Nov. We left Iraq around Sept 20. Complete Activation however, was a year and a few days. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Signal101 (talk • contribs) 12:28, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Major

Under "military service" section, the article says "recently promoted to the rank of Major". How about putting a year on this, since people are likely to be reading this years from now. The first reference link doesn't say when he was promoted to major and the second one is dead. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 17:20, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

August 2013 health concern

We notice that Beau Biden had a mild stroke earlier, and it's in the news now that he had a procedure done at a CANCER center in Texas. While not questioning this further (trying to respect confidentiality), I have still been reminded (i.e., recalled as a result of reading the news on Beau Biden) that Ted Kennedy was hospitalized in 2008 with stroke-like symptoms and this eventually led to the diagnosis of his brain tumor.

Diagnosis

It is said that he died from Brain tumor. But which type? May be Glioblastoma multiforme? Is there any source about that? --Voroninv (talk) 17:00, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Beau Biden. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150602210427/http://delaware.newszap.com:80/centraldelaware/137604-70/delaware-law-firm-hires-beau-biden to http://delaware.newszap.com/centraldelaware/137604-70/delaware-law-firm-hires-beau-biden

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:18, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Beau Biden. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=%2Fn%2Fa%2F2008%2F08%2F22%2Fpolitics%2Fp222636D16.DTL
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://delaware.newszap.com/centraldelaware/137604-70/delaware-law-firm-hires-beau-biden
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120517235032/http://www.wgmd.com/?p=39320 to http://www.wgmd.com/?p=39320
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080919024008/http://www.delawarenationalguard.com/home/new/content/aboutus/jag.cfm to http://www.delawarenationalguard.com/home/new/content/aboutus/jag.cfm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140419025318/http://www.beaubiden.com/splash/ to http://www.beaubiden.com/splash/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:22, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Beau Biden. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090429204650/http://www.attorneygeneral.delaware.gov/media/releases/2008/openletter.pdf to http://www.attorneygeneral.delaware.gov/media/releases/2008/openletter.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091025204518/http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/10/23/politics/washingtonpost/main5414082.shtml to http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/10/23/politics/washingtonpost/main5414082.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:50, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 November 2020

Requesting to add Promise Me, Dad: A Year of Hope, Hardship, and Purpose on see also section. 45.125.220.162 (talk) 04:41, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

 Done, added to "Posthumous awards and legacy" section. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 12:43, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

What was his job/activity in Iraq?

Please sign your talk posts. QoopyQoopy (talk) 03:32, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

The Biden Cancer Initiative

Under perhaps the "Legacy" portion, looking to add information about The Biden Cancer Initiative:

Described in this article (https://www.cancerhealth.com/article/joe-bidens-cancer-foundation-shuts), "The Biden Cancer Initiative, a nonprofit cancer foundation [...] it was founded in 2017 by Joe Biden and his wife, Jill, as an extension of the White House Cancer Moonshot program, which Biden led during his tenure as vice president in an effort to accelerate a cure for cancer."

Then perhaps a blub about current events concerning the Initiative:

(https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/bidens-cancer-charity-spent-more-than-dollar37million-on-staff-salaries/ar-BB1b1w2W) "President-elect Joe Biden's cancer charity spent the majority of its money on staff payroll and gave none to research, it has been revealed. [...] The Biden Cancer Initiative did not distribute any money towards research or provide grants during its first two years, tax filings revealed"

Maybe:

The Biden Cancer Initiative, a nonprofit cancer foundation started in Beau's name, was founded in 2017 by Joe Biden and his wife, Jill, as an extension of the White House Cancer Moonshot program, which Biden led during his tenure as Vice President in an effort to accelerate a cure for cancer. In November of 2020 it was revealed that the cancer charity spent the majority of its money on staff payroll and gave none to research nor toward providing grants during its first two years, tax filings revealed.

To add to article

To add to this article: the fact that Joe Biden believes Beau Biden's brain cancer may have been caused by his exposure to particulates from U.S. Military burn pits in Iraq. 173.88.246.138 (talk) 17:30, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

In the election results section, should He be referred to as "Beau Biden" or "Joseph R. Biden III"?

I support Beau, as the rest of the article refers to him as that. What are your thoughts on that? Thanks, Thanoscar21^talk_contribs 00:51, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanoscar21, I would stick with the WP:COMMONNAME. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:46, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Make wiki page private

I noticed when i was reading through the wiki edits, i noticed that there were wiki vandalisms, made my possible trump supporters, so to prevent anymore from happening, i think beau’s wiki should be made private to prevent more vandalisms, who agrees with me? Ulepickid60 (talk) 07:09, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

How do you know if was Trump supporters and not the other millions of wiki vandals?

It does not matter who the vandals are. Wikipedia pages are not "private". What we have done is apply protection according to Wikipedia:Protection policy. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:55, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Parents (Stepmother)

In the sidebar, it lists "Joe Biden" and "Neilia Hunter Biden" as his parents.

In the sidebar for Jill Biden, it lists Beau Biden as her stepson.

Wouldn't it make sense for Jill Biden to be listed as Beau Biden's stepmother in this article?