Jump to content

Talk:Political positions of Joe Biden/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Same-sex marriage

On Meet the Press at MSNBC, Biden said today that he is in favor of same-sex marriage. It can be confirmed here: http://video.msnbc.msn.com/meet-the-press/47312632#47312632. Someone should update his views on LGBT-rights. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.249.163.71 (talk) 15:59, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, and that someone should be you. That's how it works around here. Wasted Time R (talk) 16:11, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Current political positions workshop

This was a working section for when I was looking for current positions on issues which Pew Research Center say are current issues: (VoteSmart.org, OnTheIssues.org)

  • big bank divestiture ("too big to fail"): inconclusive[1][2] — I spent more than an hour looking for this without any luck
  • campaign finance reform: supports[3]
  • capital punishment: supported in 1994[4] almost completely inconclusive since — but it's widely reported that he is still in favor, and with ample opportunity for him and his office to correct such statements without doing so, the date doesn't bother me.
  • deficit stimulus spending: supports in 2008-11[5][6]
  • the Earned Income Tax Credit: supports[7]
  • fossil fuel subsidies: preferred carbon cap and trade in 2007[8]-2011[9]
  • infrastructure spending: supported in 2011[10]
  • marijuana legalization: opposed in 2010[11]
  • mass transit: supports[12] long term signature issue
  • military spending: preferred reductions in 2011[13]
  • renewable energy subsidies: supports[14]
  • same-sex marriage: supports 2007[15]-2012[16]
  • student loan forgiveness: supports[17]
  • taxation of the wealthy: supports: 2011[18]-2012[19]
  • universal health care: supported in 2007[20] and has been on the Obamacare bandwagon ever since; he is widely reported to support the public option although I can't find a source referring to a specific statement on this, but again there are enough that a correction would have been expected if he changed his 2007 position.

EllenCT (talk) 23:30, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Your addition of a paragraph in the lead giving very short and vague summaries of positions is antithetical to the reason these "Political positions of X" articles exist in the first place! The idea of these articles is to give space so that positions can be laid out in depth, with nuance, historical context, contradictions over time, and other factors all incorporated. If would be better if you spent your efforts here researching and updating individual position sections, some of which haven't been touched since 2007. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:46, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
I've replied with some thoughts on this topic at Talk:Joe Biden#Political positions selections. EllenCT (talk) 19:04, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Bogus Menachem Begin quote

The Israel section opens with an alleged Menachem Begin quote that is already marked with [citation needed].

Google returns but ~ 250 results, none of which appear to reference an actual source.

Google Books returns nothing.

The quote is thus most likely bogus. If nobody provides a genuine source within a week, I will delete it. -- 188.193.78.23 (talk) 16:07, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Political positions of Joe Biden. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:53, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Political positions of Joe Biden. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:57, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

RS?

Anyone have any opinion on using this link to source part of the Internet privacy and file sharing section (reproduced below)? The original source was this, which doesn't link anywhere and seems to be a primary source anyway.

CNET.com gave Biden a 37.5% in its Technology Issues Voter's Guide.[1] They described him as "Pro-RIAA" and "Pro-FBI" in his file sharing and privacy stances. Biden sponsored a bill that would prohibit recording songs off of Satellite and Internet radio,[2] and signed a letter urging the Justice Department to prosecute file sharers.[citation needed]

Hydromania (talk) 01:58, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Technology voter guide 2006 – Mapping Congress' voting records". CNET News.com.
  2. ^ "Senators aim to restrict Net, satellite radio recording - CNET News.com".

NYT: "Biden on the Issues"

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/25/us/politics/joe-biden-on-the-issues.html
Biden on the Issues: Where He Stands and How He’s Changed
By Maggie Astor
New York Times
April 25, 2019
--Nbauman (talk) 13:54, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Vox on Biden

https://www.vox.com/2019/1/10/18173132/joe-biden-hillary-clinton-2020
Joe Biden is the Hillary Clinton of 2020
Americans want outsiders, reformers, and fresh faces, not politicians with decades of baggage.
By Matthew Yglesias
Apr 25, 2019
More critical overview of Biden's positions.
"There’s something unfair about it. Biden is a very normal senator whose worst mistakes involved getting caught up in the political norms or fads of the moment. But that’s life."
--Nbauman (talk) 15:36, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Defending Biden's Iraq vote from the left

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2019/04/joe-biden-and-the-iraq-war-its-complicated/
Joe Biden and the Iraq War: It’s Complicated
He tried to slow Bush’s rush to war before he voted for it.
David Corn
Mother Jones
APRIL 26, 2019
Corn co-authored a book, "Hubris: The Inside Story of Spin, Scandal, and the Selling of the Iraq War." According to Corn, Biden forced CIA Director George Tenet to admit that the CIA had no evidence for the WMDs. With two Republicans, Biden proposed a resolution "that would only allow Bush to attack Iraq for the purpose of destroying WMD, and only after getting either UN or Congressional approval. But Bush got Democratic House leader Dick Gephardt to sabotage the bill.
--Nbauman (talk) 15:50, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Politico: Biden vague on policies

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/05/01/joe-biden-2020-1296862
Biden goes light on policy, heavy on emotion
The former veep shows signs of rust in Iowa, but his supporters don’t mind.
By MARC CAPUTO
Politico.com
05/02/2019

IOWA CITY, Iowa — Joe Biden has a healthcare plan, but doesn’t “have the time to completely lay out all the details.”

He also has a proposal for college debt, but no specifics on that either because “I don’t have time; I don’t want to keep you standing any longer.”

The former vice president’s ideas on climate change and foreign policy? Also works in progress.

Yet there’s time for relatively lengthy anecdotes about how his dad long ago was unable to secure a loan to help send him to a school he wanted to attend.

--Nbauman (talk) 05:06, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Biden on Foreign Policy, sources

I am gathering some reputable sources on Biden's opinions on America's foreign policy. I highly suggest every editor to read them before making any changes to the foreign policy section to avoid misconstruing Biden's positions.

Munich Security Conference 2019

Joe Biden: The Western Hemisphere Needs U.S. Leadership, 2018

Foreign Dark Money Is Threatening American Democracy, 2018

How to Stand Up to the Kremlin, 2018

The 2020 Presidential Candidates: In Their Own Words

The Future of U.S. Foreign Policy: A Conversation With Vice President Joe Biden, 2016

Joe Biden: A Plan for Central America — Preceding unsigned comment added by Partytemple (talk • contribs) 19:29, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Iraq: The Way Forward: A Conversation with Senator Joseph Biden, 2006


—Partytemple (talk) 20:31, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Drug prices, health care

https://www.statnews.com/2017/11/30/joe-biden-drug-pricing/
President Joe Biden? First, he’d need to answer for his record on drug prices
By JAMES LOVE
Stat
NOVEMBER 30, 2017

Biden opposed compulsory licensing on drug prices, which would have enabled India and Columbia to have manufactured their own cancer drugs cheaply. He opposed having the National Institutes of Health require drug companies to lower prices on drugs produced with government-funded research. Drug companies contributed money to his cancer charities, and his son Hunter was a drug company lobbyist.

https://theintercept.com/2019/05/06/joe-biden-pac-coporate-special-interest-money-pledge/
JOE BIDEN’S PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN PLEDGED NOT TO TAKE SPECIAL-INTEREST MONEY — BUT NOT HIS PAC
Lee Fang, Andrew Perez
The Intercept
May 6 2019

https://www.vox.com/2019/4/26/18515699/joe-biden-2020-presidential-campaign-medicare-for-all
The health care industry is betting on Joe Biden in its war against Medicare-for-all
By Dylan Scott
vox.com
Apr 26, 2019
"he seems likely to present a center-left alternative to single-payer."

--Nbauman (talk) 16:12, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

NPOV tag

User:Benjaminikuta added an NPOV flag, but did not say what the NPOV problem was, and didn't leave any comments in Talk.

Why is this NPOV? --Nbauman (talk) 17:51, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Let's go with WP:BRD. Hydromania (talk) 18:59, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

@Xentity1x: 1) Please note the Wikipedia uses reliable secondary sources not primary ones. 2) You restored a NPOV tag that an editor just reverted. An NPOV tag should be left together with an explanation, such as on the talk page. All the more so since an editor (myself) already objected and removed it. Hydromania (talk) 03:10, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

@Hydromania: A secondary source may be acceptable, but it should actually quote him voicing opposition to Medicare For All, not speculate on it. I actually disagree with including it entirely, since this page is about Biden's positions. I don't think it's appropriate to frame them in relation to those of Sanders. There's plenty of material out there to enable us to write about his positions on their own. There are numerous instances like this in the article that make me question its neutrality. Until their cleared up I agree User:Benjaminikuta adding the NPOV flag. I think its appropriate. - Xentity1

Thanks for responding. Framing his positions in relation to the other front runner in his current race makes sense, which is why that secondary source does so. Regardless of that specific sentence, you haven't explained how the article is biased for or against him or any position he holds. At least remove the tag and place it on the specific sections you find objectional. (welcome back from a two year wikibreak btw) Hydromania (talk) 04:35, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
@Hydromania: Can you cite the specific text of any Wikipedia policies or guidelines to support your claim that the text you deleted violates WP:NPOV?--Nbauman (talk) 17:03, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
@Nbauman: I think you have it mixed up. I haven't deleted any text. I removed the NPOV tag and @Xentity1x: added it back. I didn't want to remove it again so as not to violate 1rr should someone decide to apply it to this post 1932 politics page. Please go ahead and remove it, Xentity1x (a user with less than 20 edits who popped back up after a two year absence) hasn't explained why he wants it there. Hydromania (talk) 21:38, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
Hydromania, yes, apologies, I mixed you up. Let's try it again. I'm not sure about the reversion rules in cases like this, but Xentity1x seems to have violated the 3R rule as well. --Nbauman (talk) 22:06, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
@Xentity1x: Can you cite the specific text of any Wikipedia policies or guidelines to support your claim that the text you deleted violates WP:NPOV?--Nbauman (talk) 22:06, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Biden opposes single payer

According to many WP:RS, Biden opposes single payer. It's weakening his position and misquoting the sources to say that he "has not endorsed" single payer:

https://www.advisory.com/daily-briefing/2019/04/30/biden-public-option
Biden just weighed in on 'Medicare for All'
April 30, 2019
Former Vice President Joe Biden, who is seeking the 2020 Democratic nomination for president, during a campaign event on Monday called for allowing all U.S. residents to have the option to buy into Medicare—but he did not call for moving the United States to a single-payer health system.
According to the Post, Biden's policy adviser said Biden shares the goal of "achiev[ing] universal health care," but thinks policymakers should build on the ACA and implement more incremental approaches instead of replacing the United States' current health care system with a single-payer system (Sullivan, The Hill, 4/29; Larsen, Washington Examiner, 4/29; Stein, Washington Post, 4/29; Owens, "Vitals," Axios, 4/30).

--Nbauman (talk) 02:53, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Those quotes do not make such a strong statement as you are making. "did not call for" is much more like "does not endorse" than "opposes". Benjamin (talk) 03:07, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, it sounds more like he doesn't endorse it rather than oppose it. Oppose would mean he made explicit comments against it. Either way, why even include whether he endorses Medicare For All or not, anyway. Biden has made clear statements about what he actually supports (opt-in government healthcare, approaching universal healthcare). There are a variety of positions to take on healthcare. Bernie isn't the only comparison. We can describe Biden's position without comparing it to Bernie, who is just one of the many candidates of the election. —Partytemple (talk) 03:22, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
The reason for comparing Biden's position to Bernie's position is WP:WEIGHT. "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources."
If you read the WP:RS about Biden's position on health care, you will see that they frequently (if not usually) compare Biden's position to Bernie Sanders' position, which they describe as "single payer" or "Medicare for all". They make it clear that Biden supports an incremental system instead of single payer, as the WP:RS Advisory.com above specifically states.
The Newsweek story we originally quoted said "Unlike Biden's, Sanders' proposed plan would institute a single-payer health care system throughout the U.S."
CNBC “Unlike Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren or Kamala Harris, Biden’s against ‘Medicare for All,’” CNBC’s Jim Cramer says.
Here's a direct quote from Breitbart: Asked by one reporter where he stands on Medicare for All, Biden responded that he does not support the single-payer health care system because “the vast majority of people are satisfied with their own healthcare system today.”
All of those quotes, from WP:RS and Biden himself, say in many different ways that Biden is against Bernie Sanders' single-payer Medicare for all. Do you disagree? --Nbauman (talk) 05:06, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
Oh geez, Breitbart? Benjamin (talk) 05:13, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
Breitbart isn't a reliable source. And not including his opinions on Medicare For All wouldn't violate WP:WEIGHT because other candidates' opinions are irrelevant to Biden's. WP:WEIGHT is used for a broad topic that has opposing views/theories (for example, reasons for climate change or how dinosaurs went extinct). Our topic here is simply Biden's views on healthcare, and Biden is the only person holding that opinion. We know what he thinks of healthcare, regardless of whether he supports Medicare For All or not. It is a different topic. And besides, he hasn't criticized Medicare For All explicitly but simply not endorsing it. It's possible that his views are closer to neutral. —Partytemple (talk) 05:21, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
Suppose every WP:RS that gave Biden's position on health care also contrasted it to Bernie Sanders' position, and noted that he opposed single payer or Medicare for all. Would you then agree that Biden's opposition to single payer had WP:WEIGHT? --Nbauman (talk) 18:44, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
That's a good question. I don't think it violates WP:WEIGHT to not include the comparison, because political news tend to compare the candidates so readers can have some context around the election. But this Wikipedia article is focusing on Biden only, and not the broader issues. For example, if this was an article about political positions on healthcare, regardless of candidate, then it would be WP:WEIGHT to include both Biden and Bernie, and all the other candidate's views. —Partytemple (talk) 19:27, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
It's pretty clear that 1) Biden has not endorsed single payer/medicare for all, but hasn't explicitly opposed it. 2) Every RS contrasts it Bernie's opinion (probably because these two options are what democratic primary voters seem to care about). So.... "Hasn't endorsed Medicare For All" is sourced, verified, notable, not undue, etc. etc.Hydromania (talk) 04:52, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
Current version looks fine to me. —Partytemple (talk) 05:54, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
I guess we can leave it out of the lead. Hydromania (talk) 06:52, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
User:Hydromania, "hasn't explicitly opposed it" is not true. See CNBC “Unlike Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren or Kamala Harris, Biden’s against ‘Medicare for All,’” CNBC’s Jim Cramer says. There are many WP:RS secondary sources which say that. When pressed, for example in video interviews, he has explicitly opposed it, but WP:RS prefers secondary sources.--Nbauman (talk) 13:12, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
It currently says

has not endorsed Medicare for All

I personally haven't found any sources which show he came out against it, the one you posted is a broad summary of his position. would

does not support medicare for all

work better? Hydromania (talk) 18:28, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

I changed his supposed support for universal healthcare to 'expanding upon the ACA' because the former is misleading. his own plan for 2020 eventually still leaves 3% of the population uninsured and he has continually spoken about building onto the ACA instead of moving towards M4A. Sorry if this hasn't how you contribute to the talk page but I'm new to this.

Joe Biden’s belief on White privilege and whether or not African Americans should get assistance in our society.

Other than being Obama’s Vice President, I don’t understand why Joe Biden’s African American support is so strong considering the strong stances he has had against helping African Americans succeed in the past.

Here is a direct quote from Biden to a Delaware-based weekly newspaper, and once shared the Washington Post:

“I do not buy the concept popular in the 60’s, which said,’ We have suppressed the Black man for 300 years and the White man is now far ahead in the race for everything our society offers. In order to even the score, we must now give the Black man a head start, or even hold the White man back, to even the race...I don’t buy that.” TheAmericanLegend (talk) 16:05, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM. But I guess I'll give a brief answer. Black Democrat leaders trust Biden. Those who know him personally think he's a good man, and besides, he was Obama's second-in-command. Biden is a familiar candidate; southern voters tend to have conservative habits when it comes to voting. They won't vote Republican, because they don't trust the Republican Party to be pro-AA. No other candidate will have Biden's reputation among southern democrats. All the other moderates were encouraged to drop to unite the party, and that's what the Democrats did. Owynhart 21:01, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Lots of primary sources and original research here

There are lots of usage of primary sources which leads to creating original research in the lead section.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 15:41, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Anti-LGBTQ history

Neutrality, you removed the part that he has supported multiple Anti-LGBTQ legislations from the lead. Sources until today are still discussing that.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 18:26, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

SharabSalam: The text was far too detailed for the lead section — more space was devoted to that than any other issue — and not a complete summary of Biden's stance on the issues. His career is very long, making it admittedly hard to summarize, but that was not a good summary of the issues. (It also misrepresented his stance on DADT; Biden in fact voted for an amendment to remove the DADT provision back in 1993.) Neutralitytalk 18:31, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
Neutrality, it wasn't detailed at all. The issue has been a controversy since the 1990s then until now. You removed the negative part and only let the positive short period support to LGBT which is since 2012?--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 18:33, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
Even the source (Buzzfeed) that is used there mentions that it was a reversal comment by Biden. "In 2012, as Obama and Biden ran for a second term, Biden went public with his surprise reversal" yet our article is gonna whitewash that long term history of opposing same-sex marriage?--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 18:37, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
The source also says In 1992, for example, Biden voted to block an amendment that would have denied benefits to same-sex partners in the District of Columbia. When Obama chose Biden as his running mate in 2008, the Advocate, a leading LGBTQ publication, emphasized Biden's support from gay leaders in Delaware and his “84% average on nine congressional scorecards issued by the Human Rights Campaign since 1989.” Biden supporters also note his work to advance a hate crimes prevention bill — named after Matthew Shepard, the gay Wyoming man beat to death in 1998 — signed by Obama 10 years ago this month. It is absolutely unreasonable to remove that part.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 18:41, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
I don't think it's accurate to say that he was "anti-LGBT" before 2012. His position, like that of virtually all elected officials, changed with time. I think we could include something in the lead section along the following lines:

"In 2012, as vice president, Biden announced that he supported the same-sex marriage, becoming the highest-ranking U.S. official to do so; the announcement reversed his previous position that same-sex marriage should be decided at the state level."[1]

References

  1. ^ Michael Barbaro, A Scramble as Biden Backs Same-Sex Marriage, New York Times (May 6, 2012).
Neutralitytalk 18:43, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
Neutrality, no, that is unacceptable. He opposed same marriage and supported anti-lgbt laws that didnt alow LGBT in military.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 18:45, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
Your wording doesnt mention that. It would look like whitewashing.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 18:46, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
In 1993, Biden voted for a broad defense bill that contained DADT (which at the time was viewed as a compromise), but (as the sources reflect) he also "voted for an amendment to remove the measure" from the broader bill, and that amendment failed (see NYT). So it is much more complicated than you suggest. Those nuances are not well suited to be hashed out in the lead section. Neutralitytalk 18:48, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
Neutrality, it is not, the source says Biden supported the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy that prohibited openly gay individuals from serving in the U.S. military and a law defining marriage as between a man and a woman.[21]. Removing that part and only allowing the short period support to LGBT is unreasonable and would create unneutral and unbalanced lead section.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 19:00, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
The Reuters piece says: "Biden backed 'don't ask, don't tell' as part of a larger defense bill after voting to remove the amendment. As vice president, he supported its 2010 repeal." That's exactly what's reflected in the body of the article. Do you think it also belongs in the lead section? Neutralitytalk 19:03, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
Neutrality, When he became the VP he backed the repeal. Currently, the lead section make sounds as if Biden has never opposed same-sex marriage.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 19:09, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
?? The lead section very explicitly now says: "Biden has been publicly in favor of legalizing same-sex marriage since 2012." Neutralitytalk 19:12, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
You know that's not what I meant, Neutrality. I meant it doesn't mention that he supported anti-LGBT laws in the past.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 19:23, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
I am having a very hard time understanding your actual argument or what you really want. My position is clear: the lead section gives a high-level overview, and the body of the article gives details, including details of policy changes over time. I also don't think its accurate, or helpful, or supported by the sources, to say that Biden has "supported anti-LGBT laws." Neutralitytalk 19:34, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

RAVE Act

In regards to this edit by Neutrality to "trim some excessive weight as to op-eds and advocacy groups on minor legislation", I am wondering how the RAVE Act is minor legislation considering there are many articles that have been written about it and there is even a wikipedia article for it. Do a "joe biden rave act" google search to see for yourself and also consider that the legislation is almost 20 years old so there are probably many others that have since disappeared from the internet. I don't think it is excessive to devote two sentences to it plus a quote from Biden which was the subject of several recent articles. I intend to restore the original material unless it can be better justified that this is excessive.--Jamesy0627144 (talk) 22:16, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

  • I have highlighted your sentences in blue and responded below.
This was sourced to op-eds and advocacy groups, which are typically not good sources to rely upon.
The two op-eds and ACLU ref were only used in the first sentence to note the main controversy surrounding the legislation, not used as statements of fact.
I think a single sentence on this is fine, given that this was not one of the more important aspects of his career.
I'm not sure what should be considered the most important aspects of his career, but does it need to be one of the most important things he has done to have more than once sentence written about it? The answer is no, especially considering this is a political positions page where much more detail is appropriate than the main Joe Biden article. The Biden political positions page isn't even that long compared to Bernie's and Warren's for example, so I'm perplexed by the need to limit material on the RAVE Act to just one sentence, especially when Biden is the presumed nominee.
Notably, even drug policy advocacy groups have noted that the civil and criminal liability provisions of the bill are "almost never ... enforced."
Yes, but the bill significantly affected the behavior of people. It inhibited the actions of rave organizers and property owners who feared the act could be used against them if people used drugs at their events, which had the effect of preventing raves from taking place and driving them more underground. It also prevented harm reduction efforts from taking place (such as pill testing, "cool off" rooms for people that overdose, handing out of education materials, etc.) because event organizers feared allowing such activities would be used against them in court.
Details on the legislation and controversy surrounding it can go in the Reducing Americans' Vulnerability to Ecstasy Act and Illicit Drug Anti-Proliferation Act article.
A few sentences can go here as well. Remember – he didn't just vote for the bill; he wrote the bill and was its main sponsor. It was heavily opposed by civil liberty groups and others which led to it eventually be shelved. He then reintroduced it in 2003 under a different name and attached it to the Amber Alert bill in order to prevent any public hearing or debate from taking place. The act has a well-covered history for which he was the driving force behind... so no, I do not think one sentence is sufficient. He also hid it from the public, so I disagree that it serves wikipedia readers to hide the fact that he hid it when this information is properly sourced.--Jamesy0627144 (talk) 03:09, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
If this was really a big controversy, I think that more independent, secondary sources would have covered it. I don’t think “hid it from the public” is supported by high-quality sources. In any event, this is a niche issue in the context of a 40-year Senate career. I'm theoretically open to more than 1 sentence but I would like to see reliance on higher-quality sourcing here. Neutralitytalk 03:11, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
More responses below, your statements in blue.
If this was really a big controversy, I think that more independent, secondary sources would have covered it.
Mainstream establishment news organizations have covered it too. I really had to do some detective work since since these articles are old and don't show up well on search engines, and others have since disappeared from the internet, but here you go:
Washington Post: Ravers Against the Machine (7/18/2002)
ABC News: Can Congress Kill the Rave? (8/16/2002)
Los Angeles Times: Rave Crackdown Targets Drugs, Not Music, Biden Says (4/17/2003)
Associated Press: Anti-Drug Provision in Amber Alert Concerns Some Businesses (4/30/2003)
I don’t think “hid it from the public” is supported by high-quality sources.
I definitely wouldn't put that language in the article, was speaking more informally there.
In any event, this is a niche issue in the context of a 40-year Senate career.
You could say the same about a lot of issues covered on this page. Like mentioned before though, this is a political positions page where more detail on his positions is warranted, and the page isn't even long compared to other candidates that are not the presumed nominee. It's not overreach to devote two sentences, plus a quote that was covered extensively in the media, to a bill he authored and that became law and that received a large amount of media coverage.--Jamesy0627144 (talk) 06:25, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
These sources are much better, thank you. I would be fine with text along the lines of the following:

In the early 2000s, Biden was critical of raves, describing most of them as "havens" for use of ecstasy and other illegal drugs.[1] He was the sponsor of the bipartisan Reducing Americans' Vulnerability to Ecstasy (RAVE) Act in 2002; the bill's successor, the Illicit Drug Anti-Proliferation Act, was later enacted as part of a broader 2003 crime bill that became law.[1][2] The legislation, an expansion of the existing 1986 federal anti-"crack house" statute, provided for civil and criminal penalties for event promoters and property owners/managers who knowingly allow their property to be used for manufacturing or deal drugs.[2] The legislation was opposed by the ACLU and electronic dance music enthusiasts, who viewed it as overly broad.[2][3] Responding to criticism, Biden said that the statute would not target law-abiding promoters, saying on the Senate floor: "The reason I introduced this bill was not to ban dancing, kill 'the rave scene' or silence electronic music—all things of which I have been accused. In no way is this bill aimed at stifling any type of music or expression. It is only trying to deter illicit drug use and protect kids."[2] Although the law has been rarely used, advocates such as the Drug Policy Alliance and DanceSafe argue that it discourages event producers from offering harm reduction information, and have sought to clarify the law.[4]

References

  1. ^ a b David Montgomery, Ravers Against the Machine, Washington Post (July 18, 2002).
  2. ^ a b c d Nick Anderson, Rave Crackdown Targets Drugs, Not Music, Biden Says, Los Angeles Times (April 17, 2003).
  3. ^ Associated Press: Anti-Drug Provision in Amber Alert Concerns Some Businesses, Associated Press (April 30, 2003).
  4. ^ Vice President Biden: Fix Your RAVE Act Law and Save Lives, Drug Policy Alliance (June 14, 2016).
--Neutralitytalk 14:30, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
  • I'd be OK with it the following tweaks were made:

In the early 2000s, Biden was critical of raves, describing most of them as "havens" for use of ecstasy and other illegal drugs.[1] He was the sponsor of the bipartisan Reducing Americans' Vulnerability to Ecstasy (RAVE) Act in 2002; the bill's successor, the Illicit Drug Anti-Proliferation Act, was later enacted as part of a 2003 child protection bill without public hearing or debate.[2][3] The legislation, an expansion of the existing 1986 federal anti-"crack house" statute, provided for civil and criminal penalties for event promoters and property owners/managers who knowingly allow their property to be used for manufacturing or deal drugs.[4] The legislation was opposed by the ACLU and electronic dance music enthusiasts who viewed it as overly broad, leading to its defeat the first time it was introduced.[4][5] Responding to criticism, Biden said that the statute would not target law-abiding promoters, saying on the Senate floor: "The reason I introduced this bill was not to ban dancing, kill 'the rave scene' or silence electronic music—all things of which I have been accused. In no way is this bill aimed at stifling any type of music or expression. It is only trying to deter illicit drug use and protect kids."[4] Although the law has been rarely used, advocates such as the Drug Policy Alliance and DanceSafe argue that it discourages event producers from offering harm reduction information, and have sought to clarify the law.[6]

References

  1. ^ David Montgomery, Ravers Against the Machine, Washington Post (July 18, 2002).
  2. ^ Brown, Janelle (April 16, 2003). "Your glow stick could land you in jail". Salon. Retrieved April 6, 2020.
  3. ^ Rimensnyder, Sara (July 2003). "Rave On | How a bad bill becomes a law". Reason. Retrieved April 6, 2020.
  4. ^ a b c Nick Anderson, Rave Crackdown Targets Drugs, Not Music, Biden Says, Los Angeles Times (April 17, 2003).
  5. ^ Associated Press: Anti-Drug Provision in Amber Alert Concerns Some Businesses, Associated Press (April 30, 2003).
  6. ^ Vice President Biden: Fix Your RAVE Act Law and Save Lives, Drug Policy Alliance (June 14, 2016).
Apart from the changes I highlighted in red, I also added back in the Salon and Reason refs because those best describe how there was no hearing or debate when the second version of the bill was attached to the PROTECT Act.--Jamesy0627144 (talk) 19:57, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, but I don't think I can accept that. Those are again op-ed/commentary blog-style sources which can't be used for statements in Wiki-voice. Even if given in-text attribution, I have due weight concerns - The substantive basis for the opposition is already explained, and I don't think its proportionate to include the procedural complaints here. This goes into a level of detail that might be appropriate in a "Reception and commentary" section at the main articles on the bills, but goes too far here. Seven sentences is already very generous to devote to what is mostly a legislative footnote. Neutralitytalk 20:08, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
  • How about this Neutrality?

In the early 2000s, Biden was critical of raves, describing most of them as "havens" for use of ecstasy and other illegal drugs.[1] He was the sponsor of the bipartisan Reducing Americans' Vulnerability to Ecstasy (RAVE) Act in 2002; the bill's successor, the Illicit Drug Anti-Proliferation Act, was later incorporated (without vote) into a 2003 child protection bill that became law.[1][2] The legislation, an expansion of the existing 1986 federal anti-"crack house" statute, imposed civil and criminal penalties for event promoters and property owners/managers who knowingly allow drugs to be consumed on premises.[2] It was opposed by the ACLU and electronic dance music enthusiasts who viewed it as overly broad, leading to its initial defeat.[2][3] Responding to criticism, Biden said that the statute would not target law-abiding promoters, saying on the Senate floor: "The reason I introduced this bill was not to ban dancing, kill 'the rave scene' or silence electronic music—all things of which I have been accused. In no way is this bill aimed at stifling any type of music or expression. It is only trying to deter illicit drug use and protect kids."[2] Although the law has been rarely used, advocates such as the Drug Policy Alliance and DanceSafe argue that it discourages event producers from engaging in harm reduction efforts, and have sought to clarify the law.[4]

References

  1. ^ a b David Montgomery, Ravers Against the Machine, Washington Post (July 18, 2002).
  2. ^ a b c d Nick Anderson, Rave Crackdown Targets Drugs, Not Music, Biden Says, Los Angeles Times (April 17, 2003).
  3. ^ Associated Press: Anti-Drug Provision in Amber Alert Concerns Some Businesses, Associated Press (April 30, 2003).
  4. ^ Vice President Biden: Fix Your RAVE Act Law and Save Lives, Drug Policy Alliance (June 14, 2016).
Addresses my concerns satisfactorily enough and is actually 10 less words than you initially suggested.--Jamesy0627144 (talk) 01:34, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

I don’t see the support for “without vote” in the sources. Biden clearly did not unilaterally attach the legislation. Neutralitytalk 02:14, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

From the LA Times article:
But some lawmakers, including members of Biden’s own party, were upset at the impending enactment of a measure that had never been voted on on its own in either the House or the Senate.
--Jamesy0627144 (talk) 02:39, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
It didn't get a separate vote, but it certainly was voted on as part of the broader package, so "without vote" would not be accurate. In any case, I think this gets too far down into the procedural weeds. This can easily go in the bill-specific articles, if desired. Neutralitytalk 02:45, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
It was attached to the bill without there being a vote on whether to attach it to the bill. What I wrote is very clear. And it's not getting into weeds to add two measly words to reflect the manner in which the act became law, which was a major point of contention among opponents.--Jamesy0627144 (talk) 03:58, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
I don't think it's clear at all. Moreover, these kind of rider-type things seem fairly common. To highlight it here carries an undue implication of nefariousness. Perhaps others can weigh in. Neutralitytalk 04:10, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
Why did the LA Times article highlight it then?
But some lawmakers, including members of Biden’s own party, were upset at the impending enactment of a measure that had never been voted on on its own in either the House or the Senate.
If it was a routine inconsequential thing, why did the article note it and why were other members of the Senate, including members of Biden's own party, upset by it?--Jamesy0627144 (talk) 05:41, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
I don't think they "highlighted it" - it was briefly mentioned. In any case, since it's been just the two of us discussing, I think others should weigh in. Neutralitytalk 13:19, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
I was using the word you used. In your previous post, you used the word "highlight" to refer to the insertion of two words into the article. But now you have used "highlight" to refer to going into detail about something. It really seems like you are playing games with me when you change the meaning of words from one post to the next. Can you see why I might think that?--Jamesy0627144 (talk) 15:27, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
Again, I don't think the LA Times put great emphasis on this procedural point, which is one of the the reasons why including it here would be undue. You seem to think that if it's just "two words" it per se cannot be "highlighted" or undue. But that's not the case - a short reference can be undue weight, just as a long reference can be. (And, in any case, "without vote" is misleading when what is really meant is "without a standalone vote on the amendment") I think I've made my point clear, and I've extensively accommodated your concerns with a greatly expanded paragraph specifically about the rave issue — which, as I've said above, is more than generous given the niche nature of the issue. Neutralitytalk 15:53, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
I should have replied more sustantively to the content of your post, which was that the article only briefly mentions Biden sneaking his act into the bill. To that point, here's some more quotes from LA Times:
But this year, he renamed it the Illicit Drug Non-Proliferation Act and slipped it into a larger crime bill during a House-Senate conference.
...
Biden’s maneuver was little noticed when Congress overwhelmingly approved the crime bill.
...
The measure should have been given “a fuller hearing,” Leahy added.
Add that to the previous quote about members of Biden's own party being upset about the act not getting a vote and I would say the article did give more than a brief mention to it. Why did the article devote multiple sentences to the subject, and why were members of Biden's party upset the act didn't get a direct vote, if this was a routine inconsequential procedural maneuver?
Also, the fact that the Salon and Reason refs gave even more coverage to the topic should not be completely discounted..--Jamesy0627144 (talk) 16:42, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
What if we change
was later enacted as part of a broader 2003 crime bill that became law to something like.
was later added in conference committee to a broader 2003 crime bill that was enacted.
I still think that is too much procedural detail, but if you really want to get the point that this was added in at the last minute, I could live with this language. Neutralitytalk 16:51, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
No, that still gives no hint of the un-transparent nature in which the act was enacted which caused other members of the Senate and many civil liberty advocates to be upset. "Without vote" or "without standalone vote" is much clearer language that at least hints at the un-transparent nature to some degree. But it's still very mild language, especially if the article is not even going to mention that Biden was the person who snuck the act in. Ideally, the article should mention that Biden did it but I didn't want to mess around with rearranging what you wrote, just wanted to add/change a few words.--Jamesy0627144 (talk) 18:22, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
Then I think we are at impasse. That just seems undue to me. We outline the substantive objections to the bill, including opponents' reactions, and I fundamentally do not think it is due weight, in this context, to add more content on procedural griping without any indications of long-term significance. That kind of stuff properly belongs on the articles about the bills themselves. Neutralitytalk 18:50, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
Long-term significance? How about the fact that there's a very good chance the act would not have passed if it had been voted on directly? The first time Biden introduced it, there was such heavy pushback to it that it never made it out of committee. What he did is very significant, it was the difference between the act becoming law or not becoming law, or at least the difference between it becoming law in its enacted form or a different form that was more palatable to other lawmakers. Transparency is a very significant thing because it affects how lawmakers behave.--Jamesy0627144 (talk) 20:01, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Need for disambiguation, with apologies as this is sloppy and I'm sure I'm doing it wrong.

In the time I presently have available I have not been able to rectify this. Under the "Lifetime" header Biden is stated to have an 86% ACLU approval, while in the "Homeland" section his ACLU approval is quoted as 60%. I am sure my confusion is a product of a something simple that I am failing to understand (e.g. 60% is a rating based only on issues related to the "homeland" topic), but since I found a discrepancy that I was unable to clear up, I couldn't let it go without leaving some marker. Let's hear it for Wikipedia and all the people who's sweat makes it one of the best resources available today! (That's my way of apologizing again leaving a note rather than straightening this out myself / thanking whoever does fix or clarify it.) NoneYet (talk) 09:05, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

As Biden's stances on some issues has evolved over time, so has his ratings by various organizations. If you go to his entry at votespart.org, scroll down and expand the "Civil Liberties and Civil Rights" section, Biden has been as low as 33% in 1997 and 92% 2005-2006. ValarianB (talk) 13:11, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 August 2020

I've two edit requests.

Request 1: Please rename the heading of section called "Afghanistan and Pakistan" to just "Afghanistan" in "Foreign and military policy->South Asia". This section currently details policy decisions related to Afghanistan alone.

Request 2: Please add a new section called "Pakistan" after Afghanistan with the below text:

Pakistan

Pakistan in 2008 had awarded Hilal-e-Pakistan (Crescent of Pakistan) to Joe Biden and Sen. Lugar “in recognition of their consistent support for Pakistan”.[1] This was after Biden as chairman of Senate Foreign Relations Committee passed a bill authorizing $7.5 billion in non-military aid to Pakistan.[2] Athosindia (talk) 18:16, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Pakistan gives awards to Biden, Lugar for support". Reuters. October 28, 2008.
  2. ^ "Biden assures Pakistan of support against terrorism". CNN. January 9, 2009.
 Partly done. The paragraph talks about AfPak as a whole, so I didn't split the section. I've added your sentences to the top of the section instead. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 09:40, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Euthanasia and Abortion

While not a very hot topic in this election, Biden in 2007 supported Assisted Suicide and the Pain Relief Promotion Act and explained his views on Assisted Suicide. http://www.euthanasia.com/biden.html

Also I don't think abortion should be a subsection under woman's right. It is too much of its own thing to be regulated to that. Thoughts? User: 108.45.91.166

If you can find more sources that show euthanasia is a notable position, that would be best. One website that looks straight out of Angelfire circa 1998 isn't going to cut it.
Reproductive rights are a subsection of women's rights. ValarianB (talk) 19:06, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
Yeah I get that, but it looks like its just about only the source on it. Most pages I see include abortion as different, with women's rights being used to include equal pay, sex discrimination, and the violence against women act.user:108.45.91.166

Is Mark Durie as a source for Criticism of Joe Biden okay?

I came across following write up about Mark Durie. Would that be considered reliable source for Criticism of Joe Biden article (I am contemplating for).

https://www.jns.org/opinion/joe-biden-courts-islam-not-muslims/

Bookku (talk) 12:42, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Fix reference 116

Wizebin (talk) 16:07, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Wizebin, done Idan (talk) 21:58, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

reference 116 Is dead, here's the correct link: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-campaign-biden-romney/biden-defends-romneys-mormon-faith-idUSTRE7A371Q20111104

Institutional Matters

I notice this page does not discuss Biden's views on many of the most significant institutional changes currently floating around Democratic circles. Namely: abolishing the filibuster, abolishing the Electoral College, DC/PR statehood, and court-packing. Surely, given the magnitude of these issues, it is worth including Biden's views on them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LordofChaos55 (talk • contribs) 20:43, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

He doesn't favor reversing all "Republican tax cuts"

The editor 'Gabrielthursday' has edit-warred changes into the lead claiming that Biden intends to reverse all Republican tax cuts.[22] This is wrong: his policy is only to reverse Republican tax cuts on corporations and the wealthy. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:37, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Concur. ValarianB (talk) 19:09, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
It is not edit warring to try to remove NPOV problems. The lede, as it stands, suggests that the Republican tax cuts were *only* for the wealthy. That's not NPOV. If you think the language I introduced was ambiguous, by all means change it to make it more precise. Reversion merely restores the existing problems, rather than trying to address them. Perhaps something like "[supports] increases in taxes for high-earners and corporations". I note that no objection was given to my move of the abortion section, but it was twice reverted. That change, at least, should be uncontroversial. Gabrielthursday (talk) 21:24, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
"The lede, as it stands, suggests that the Republican tax cuts were *only* for the wealthy." No, it doesn't. It says that Biden wants to remove the Republican tax cuts for the wealthy. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:49, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
There is an irony that you reverted my edit for resulting in an ambiguity (which, tbf, there was), but you can't see the ambiguity in the existing text. To be clear, "for the wealthy" can be read as qualifying or describing the "Republican tax cuts" (they were for the wealthy) or qualifying what Biden intends to reverse: he intends to reverse those parts of the "Republican tax cuts" that were for the wealthy. The first (and apparently unintended) interpretation is more natural for the reader, since the modifier "for the wealthy" directly follows the phrase "Republican tax cuts". In any event, something like my proposed language would both avoid the ambiguity and is more precise. Gabrielthursday (talk) 22:08, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Opposition to busing

How is it that his opposition to desegregation busing is not mentioned given the significant media attention it has received. Seems like a notable omission.31.187.2.122 (talk) 16:56, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! I've added this, with content copied from the main Joe Biden article (see there for attribution). --Bangalamania (talk) 23:45, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Weird line in the "China" section.

In 2018, Biden said he had spent more time in private meetings with Chinese leader Xi Jinping than any other world leader.[231] He has criticized Xi as "a guy who doesn’t have a democratic — with a small d — bone is his body. This is a guy who is a thug."[246][247] Biden pledged, if elected, to sanction and commercially restrict Chinese government officials and entities who carry out repression.[244]

The "with a small d" part seems kind of weird and I'd like a source on that one? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tyneic (talk • contribs) 12:02, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

@Tyneic: Hey, I know this is late but I just checked both the sources and they both have that line in them. I'm not sure what you think is weird about it; he's meaning making the distinction between democratic (i.e. a believer in democracy) and the Democratic Party, just like small-c conservatism in the UK. Hope that makes sense. --Bangalamania (talk) 23:48, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Grammatical Ambiguity

The first in the list of policies Biden supports from the second paragraph says

campaign finance reform including the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act and overturning Citizens United;[13][14]

When I first read it, I thought word "overturning" applied to the list of the rest of the policies he supports, which effectively makes the sentence say the opposite of what it really means. I could be valuable to rearrange the list of policies to put that at the end so that people dont mistakenly assume Biden is actually against all of the policies in the rest of the list by having the word "overturning" at the very end.

Another solution to this ambiguity could be to put "including the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act and overturning Citizens United" in parentheses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caleb Crowther (talk • contribs) 16:58, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

"Religious Faith" in Social Issues Section

Hi all. Reading through this, I saw that "religious faith" appears under the "Social Issues" section of this article. The content appears to be made of two items: the first item is that Biden is Catholic and is inspired by CST, while the second item refers to his 2011 statement on Romney's faith. The first item doesn't appear to actually be about his policies on religious faith, but more about the fact that Biden has a faith and draws from CST, so I'm not sure it's appropriate to include in this sort of organizational structure. The second might be a political position (he doesn't believe that religious faith should be a qualifier for office), though if the relevant subsection was about religious liberty/tolerance/pluralism, then I would think that the subsection probably should be re-titled along those lines. I wanted to put this down here first to check before making substantial edits to see if there is a longstanding reason as to the current organizational structure that I am missing. Does anybody else have any thoughts on this? — Mikehawk10 (talk) 06:30, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Political_positions_of_Joe_Biden/Archive_2&oldid=1235967932"