Talk:Ashley Biden/Archive 1

Archive 1

Redirect

Redirect to Joe Biden#Family and early political career. Please gain consensus here on this page before changing this to create an actual article for Ashley. Notability must be shown, and it has not been. This article cannot be created as a POV fork. TharsHammar (talk) 19:10, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed that consensus is needed. As I tried to indicate with my previous edits here, this article is pretty much a one-liner even if it did exist. Wasted Time R (talk) 20:02, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Normally I would not want to delve into matters like this young lady's alleged cocaine usage; however, this story is different. Here is why: Joe Biden has been THE leading proponent of drug criminalization on the planet, and he is THE leading force behind the billions of taxpayer dollars spent on the ill-conceived Plan Colombia. Meanwhile, his own daughter is alleged to be buying coke that is likely from the Colombia region. Perhaps some good can come of this story if Biden and Co. start to think critically about their drug strategy.Yankees2009abaa (talk) 20:14, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

You're making many leaps here. So far, all we have is a tabloid paper reporting that scuzzball lawyers are trying to drum up a payday for a so-called 'friend' of an alleged person. That's nothing to go on. Wasted Time R (talk) 20:39, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Yankees, Normally you wouldn't because you don't have any edits beyond this one talk page comment. I stated this is a POV fork, and you have shown that to be the case by forking the discussion away from Ashley and towards her dads drug policies. TharsHammar (talk) 20:45, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps an Ashley Biden Cocaine Allegations article might be created, outlining the course of the clearly notable media event. 69.242.136.124 (talk) 14:18, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Countering my own suggestion, there are no articles for the media events around the children of other politicians, for example Bush or Palin's children. 69.242.136.124 (talk) 15:35, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I have rewritten the article, moving it back from a redirect, due to a plethora of reliable sources on Biden as of 2020. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 04:13, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Add the honorary title "Dr" to Jill Biden

Add the honorary title "Dr" to Jill Biden in the top paragraph, similar to the "President-elect" for Joe Biden — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A03F:688D:8800:A070:E56B:91F7:D79F (talk) 12:43, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 November 2021

"She has no children and has no intention too"

that's not "too", it's "to" or "either" 2600:8800:2C0A:5700:9099:1CC6:6446:8D40 (talk) 20:01, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

 Done DigitalChutney (talk) 21:36, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Ashley Biden diary

Since this article is protected and this is all over mainstream media, it seems proper to include a sentence or two.

Proper, respected sources: and — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.12.194.196 (talk) 23:01, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Mention of addiction

XavierItzm, you have now twice used a trivial mention of addiction and rehab in an unrelated news story to justify adding clearly undue content to a BLP. You should know that verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. The onus is on you to achieve consensus for adding this twice-disputed content. Please also see WP:BRD for commonly cited advice for how to handle this exact manner of content dispute. Could you please start by explaining your reasoning? CC: ValarianB. AlexEng^(TALK) 12:50, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

The source is The New York Times in 2021. The text added is a 2019 update to a previous situation described in the article and it was deleted under false pretences by ValarianB who wrote: "a minor incident a decade ago. we're not a tabloid." This 2019 update consists of six words in a 29,381 byte article. Here is the text deleted under false pretences:

In 2019, Biden underwent addiction treatment.

These six words are a valuable biographical update to the subject matter and I cannot speculate as to why people want to censor The New York Times. XavierItzm (talk) 23:57, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

@XavierItzm: The New York Times wrote a ~2,500 word article about how the subject's diary ended up in the hands of Project Veritas. Your takeaway, naturally, was to zero in on half a sentence (several words) mentioning addiction and insert that into the subject's article? Did I get that about right? ValarianB correctly deleted your addition, and I have now also deleted the poorly sourced WP:BLPVIO content that you were kind enough to mention in your response. The former had placed undue weight on a minor aspect of the subject by referencing a trivial mention of an alleged factoid in an otherwise unrelated article. The latter was inadequately sourced to tabloids such as WP:NYPOST, and its various mirrors. None of this is appropriate for a BLP, for which the standards of verifiability are particularly strict. I suggest you re-read the policy before making any more such changes. AlexEng^(TALK) 09:44, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

If somebody wanted to cover, in any way that were not tendentious and violating the intent of our BLP policy, the contents of that NYT article they wouldnt take the one single mention of Biden's addiction treatment that it makes, but what they might do is cover what the actual NYT is covering. The involvement of Trump supporters, acolytes, and political appointees in the effort to use this woman's stolen diary as a political cudgel. They would cover the attempted extortion, the FBI investigation, the connections to Trump and his inner circle. That is if they were not attempting to turn this BLP into a proxy in a larger fight and editing in bad faith. nableezy - 00:34, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

References

Deletion of material for reasons including false pretenses

The following material was deleted with the following rationale: "poorly sourced WP:BLPVIO. See also WP:NYPOST". But the NY Post was not a source of the deleted material. The NY post was not referenced. The NY Post was not cited. Citing WP:NYPOST as a rationale for deletion is a false pretense.

Among the deleted sources are the Los Angeles Times and Vanity Fair. Why would anyone delete material from such reliable sources is anyone's guess. Here is the long-standing material that was blanked out:

"In 2009, a friend of Biden attempted to sell a video, reportedly of Biden using cocaine at a party, to the New York Post for $2 million. Negotiations brought the price down to $400,000 but the newspaper declined the offer, choosing instead to publish a story about the alleged video. After the New York Post published the story, it was revealed that Biden had previously been arrested in 1999 in New Orleans for possession of marijuana, but the charges were dropped and she was released."

XavierItzm (talk) 05:35, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

There are no false pretenses. If you had read any of these sources, then the reasons for why they were deleted would be obvious to you: they all point to the New York Post. WP:NYPOST is a tabloid newspaper. From WP:RSP: There is consensus that the New York Post is generally unreliable for factual reporting especially with regard to politics, particularly New York City politics. A tabloid newspaper, editors criticise its lack of concern for fact-checking or corrections, including a number of examples of outright fabrication. This alleged video sale event was reported exclusively in the New York Post, and then that report was itself reported on by Hindustan Times, which a) is not a generally recognized reliable source; and b) did not claim that the event actually happened anyway, instead reporting on what NY Post is claiming. That's not good enough for a WP:BLP. Then, we have a Vanity Fair piece again commenting on and restating NY Post's claim, which also doesn't meet the bar. In both cases, they reference the same NY Post article. These sources might theoretically be used to verify an assertion that the NY Post claims this happened, but not an assertion that it actually happened, which is what the article prose said prior to deletion. That is, they might be used that way, if not for four things:

1. We are not a tabloid newspaper, per WP:NOTGOSSIP
2. Ashley Biden is not herself a public figure, but rather just related to one, making her a low profile individual, for which WP:NPF applies.
3. In any case, poorly sourced WP:BLPGOSSIP is grounds for removal on its own merits.
4. Lastly, even if any of this somehow did meet the bar for inclusion in a BLP, it would still be fundamentally WP:UNDUE and require consensus to include in the article – based on some unfathomable exception, I would guess?

I therefore properly removed the above per WP:BLPSOURCE: contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion. The LA Times piece is a five sentence "Times Wire" alert about Biden getting arrested in some kind of altercation, and it has nothing to do with the video, or drug use for that matter; it should have been removed immediately, and the fact that you're now trying to use it to justify the above can only mean that you didn't even read the LA Times text prior to penning the above nonsense. Finally, let's move on to the second sentence about an alleged 1999 marijuana arrest, without me having to repeat myself on the above points. Vanity Fair and whatever Law Enforcement Today might be both point to the same NY Post article, once again, as a source. That's still tabloid journalism and doesn't belong in a BLP. AlexEng^(TALK) 10:02, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Has barely anything to do with Ashley Biden, and per WP:BLPCRIME we do not need to include an arrest, especially with such flimsy sourcing. The misuse of a BLP to wage proxy battles about political topics is prohibited by policy, and if it should continue I would be comfortable asking for a NOTHERE site ban at this point. nableezy - 16:29, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

References