Talk:Biden Rule

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Biden Rule redirect.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Politics

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles

United States

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.

United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedily deleted because... (this is not a "wholly negative, unsourced BLP". It is not about Joe Biden. There may be other reasons to delete this, but this is not G10.) --331dot (talk) 16:07, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This page should not be speedily deleted because... (your reason here) -- You cant just delete things because you dont like them 2607:FCC8:BCD5:3900:F102:8C5D:924F:4351 (talk) 16:09, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This page should not be speedily deleted because... the term is being used in high volume after the nomination of Merrick Garland, by Mitch McConnell. Also, do a search on Google News, and you get:

Joe Biden Argued for Delaying Supreme Court Picks in 1992 - New York Times-Feb 22, 2016
Grassley Holds Strong: 'Biden Rules' Support Blocking SCOTUS ... Daily Caller-Feb 22, 2016
GOP Senators Invoke the "Biden Rules" - RushLimbaugh.com-Feb 23, 2016
Biden in '92: No election-season Supreme Court nominees - In-Depth-Politico-Feb 22, 2016
Why Joe Biden's 1992 Supreme Court comments aren't a silver ... - Opinion-Washington Post-Feb 23, 2016
Senate GOP: No hearings for Supreme Court nominee - In-Depth-CNN-Feb 23, 2016
Many more..

This should be an obvious keep. --Fuzheado | Talk 16:17, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not denying that there is interest in the subject matter, but describing it as a "rule" gives it an emphasis and spin which it does not deserve and which is not justified by those references. Not "rule" of any sort. Feel free to move to better target and I'll be satisfied, but at the moment appears to endorse anti-Biden / anti-Obama sentiment. --AlisonW (talk) 16:22, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What would you propose calling it? This idea is being referred to with this term. 331dot (talk) 16:24, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@AlisonW: - I agree, that calling it a "rule" is part of a spin tactic of the Republicans, so let's write about it and describe it as such. But the key is, that term is being used and quoted widely in the news media, so Wikipedia can serve an important role in explaining the term, and also giving a neutral dissection of it. See the Thurmond_Rule for one that is not really a "rule" but is properly explained in Wikipedia. -- Fuzheado | Talk 16:30, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Fuzheado: Seeing the Thurmond page I'm wondering if the two could be merged, or are the uses of the two terms different enough? 331dot (talk) 16:32, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirected to Thurmond Rule; obviously the same idea and a partisan, invented term. --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • COI) 16:47, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it's partisan, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't have an article on it. It means that we should note that in the article. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 16:56, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c) I suspected my redirect would be reverted and am fine with that -- and agree, cf. Ed, it was probably too bold anyway. No intent to be rude, or to question Fuzheado's good faith in creating a stub for this article; it's just obviously the same idea as the Thurmond rule, is of questionable notability, and is evidently based solely on Grassley's remarks, with which Biden disagrees anyway. So... should we not redirect, and perhaps put the NYT source on which Fuzheado based this article in at Thurmond_Rule#2016_controversy? --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • COI) 17:03, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Middle 8 and The ed17: - I'm still trying to evaluate whether this merits a standalone article or whether a merge makes sense. The Thurmond Rule page is rather lengthy already, and it seems there is enough content around explaining the differences between Biden's comments in 1992 versus the situation today to merit a standalone article. But I'm happy to entertain other views. -- Fuzheado | Talk 18:03, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at it the other way, would we spin off Biden Rule from Thurmond Rule? Personally I doubt that, even with a few RS. Talk is talk; there was no opening to act on in '92, so there's no precedent. Politicans say all kinds of stuff and walk it back all the time, and even if multiple RS cover it, it's not necessarily article-worthy. I think a lot of this will boil down to whether Biden Rule(s) has really entered the lexicon (like e.g. "you didn't build that"), or whether it's mostly just Grassley & a few others. As is frequent with such things, notability may not become apparent right away. --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • COI) 19:00, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Probably worth waiting a week or two to see if it stays around, mostly because if we get it wrong, unmerging things sucks. It at minimum deserves mention in the Thurmond article IMHO. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:35, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Add quote

How about a section with more about the context of Biden's remarks, with a quotation of what he actually said? SlowJog (talk) 18:38, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

possible e.g. for this (gives an idea of quote at least, whether or not it's an RS): [1] --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • COI) 19:11, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Added two sources (CBS and Politico) that covered more context than NYT did, and included some quotes in the citations. [2]--Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • COI) 08:12, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Informal rule": POV tag

With regard to what I will call this contested version (23:15, 16 March 2016) of the article, which has prompted a silly edit war [3][4][5], I don't see how something Sen. Grassley said in Feb 2016 can be fairly portrayed as an "informal rule". Rather than make another bold edit and risk edit wars and rushing things, I've NPOV-tagged the page.

From said contested version:

The Biden Rule is an informal rule within the United States Senate with regards to filling vacancies in the United States Supreme Court during a presidential election year.

The term originates with Republican Senator Chuck Grassley who referenced remarks made in June of 1992 by, then Democratic Senator, Joe Biden that nominees for the Supreme Court submitted in a President's final year in office should not be confirmed.[1] Vice President Biden has disagreed with Senator Grassley's interpretation of his comments and believes that the President and the Senate should “work together to overcome partisan differences”.[1]

In its place I suggest something along these lines:

The Biden Rule is a principle elucidated by United States Senator Charles Grassley in February 2016 with regard to vacancies in the United States Supreme Court: that during a presidential election year, such vacancies should not be filled. Grassley named this principle the "Biden Rule" based on his reading of remarks made by then-Senator Joe Biden in 1992. Biden himself has stated that his remarks were misinterpreted and that he believes that the President and the Senate should “work together to overcome partisan differences”.

Thoughts? --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • COI) 00:01, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Those changes perfectly fine with me, I just have a few stylistic changes which you're free to pick apart.

The Biden Rule is a principle first coined by United States Senator Charles Grassley in February 2016 with regard to delaying nominations of new justices to the United States Supreme Court during an election year. Grassley named this principle the "Biden Rule" based on his reading of remarks made by then-Senator Joe Biden in 1992. Biden himself has stated that his remarks were misinterpreted and that he believes that the President and the Senate should “work together to overcome partisan differences”.

You're absolutely right about the edit war being silly though, I let my annoyance get the better of me but again this change is perfectly fine by me. FarnoldKruger (talk) 00:17, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually that first sentence was a bit of a monster. Here's a revision of my revision.

The Biden Rule is a principle first coined by United States Senator Charles Grassley in February 2016. The Biden Rule, as defined by Senator Grassley, states that nominations of new justices to the United States Supreme Court will not be accepted during election years. Senator Grassley named this principle the "Biden Rule" based on his reading of remarks made by then-Senator Joe Biden in 1992. Vice President Biden has stated that his remarks were misinterpreted and that he believes that the President and the Senate should “work together to overcome partisan differences”.

FarnoldKruger (talk) 00:28, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FarnoldKruger - That is clearer, but per WP:LEDE we should make the first sentence actually define it somehow. A lot of first sentences in articles are of necessity long but are considered fine as long as they're good prose. --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • COI) 01:09, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Am removing POV tag.[6] Several edits have been made by other editors since the last comment in this section, and between those edits and my own which added more coverage of Biden's 1992 remarks, I'm fine with the article as it stands (referring specifically to this version dated 8:06, 17 March). I'm sure it will keep changing of course.... --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • COI) 08:20, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why not merge this with the existing Thurmond Rule article?

Isn't this just another name for the Thurmond Rule? Maybe add a note or section on that page. Or if there is a substantial difference, add a section on this page that compares and contrasts between the two. -- Kime1R (talk) 05:56, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Some editors apparently feel it's distinct enough to stand on its own. IMO, it's obviously the exact same idea as Thurmond Rule... but it's equally obvious to me that that wasn't what Biden meant, because he qualified his remarks in more than one way. --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • COI) 08:32, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I support a merge/redirect. It seems patently obvious to me that this is just a spinoff of the Thurmond "rule" (it is, if anything, more fictional than the Thurmond "rule"). This is just a political neologism. Neutrality^talk 14:29, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also in favor of a merge/redirect. This just expands on the concept given with the Thurmond Rule. 331dot (talk) 19:39, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How to describe the term in the lede

There's been a bit of an edit war over the lede. Currently, the lede sentence describes the "Biden Rule" as "nonexistent". I don't think this is a fair summary under WP:NPOV. I think a lede starting "The term 'Biden Rule'..." most accurately summarizes the different points of view. I think the Death panel lead (describing the subject as a "discredited political term") is good to emulate, except for the fact that this article differs in that the subject of the "Biden rule" (whether Supreme Court nominees ought to be confirmed in an election year) does not lend itself to factual verification like the death panel claim did (about the contents of HR 3200). What are your thoughts? RJaguar3 | u | t 12:48, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Merrick Garland Supreme Court nomination

Closing this with a result of merge and redirect, given the unanimous consent here and the fact that no comments have been left in over a week. I have redirected the page to Merrick Garland Supreme Court nomination, but have not yet incorporated any of the content from this page there. I note that the Merrick Garland Supreme Court nomination already covers some of this material in its "ensuing political conflict" section. Any editor should feel free to add additional content from this page, keeping in mind proper weight. Thanks to all. Neutrality^talk 05:18, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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 page should not exist as an article, since this is not a rule. Biden proposed something in 1992 that never went anywhere, and in 2016 Republicans found the footage of him saying it, and started using it to support their position. They decided to call it the "Biden Rule", but it's only in the context of the Merrick Garland Supreme Court nomination, and does not exist in any other context. Sometimes the sky is blue (talk) 17:15, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious merge necessary -- its only relevant in context of Garland nomination. Split, if warranted, will be years down road if "Rule" keeps being cited.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:13, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect there's no such thing as a "Biden rule". It's a Republican Party talking point that they would not have followed had Scalia died in February 2008 rather than February 2016. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:28, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per Milowent and Muboshgu. --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • COI) 23:07, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect. Gamaliel (talk) 23:13, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect this article page about this made-up-concept, essentially per Middle 8, above. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 16:33, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect speedily - as others have said, this is a political neologism. Neutrality^talk 01:31, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect for the reasons explained above.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:40, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above 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.