Talk:Joe Biden

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jacobmolga (article contribs).

RfC: Infobox picture

Considering a noticeable age difference between the current infobox picture and now, I think it might be time for an image change. I have a few proposals below. Thoughts? (Originally started by User:Cliffmore but without RfC template. At that time the lead image was his 2013 official portraint.[1] ) Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:19, 8 April 2020 (UTC)Kolya Butternut (talk) 04:04, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

--Cliffmore (talk) 01:02, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

I've placed this fourth photo here after adding the RfC template. Other crops can be made from the larger original photo. Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:28, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

I would support changing it to the second image.  Nixinova  T  C  07:37, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree. However, over at Hillary Clinton, editors opposed updating her 2009 picture until long after the 2016 election was over on the grounds that Secretary of State was the position for which she was most notable. It reminds me of official pictures of Kim Il Sung, which continued to show him as a young revolutionary until he finally died of old age. TFD (talk) 23:11, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Hard to say, I don't know what's more significant, his current run or his Vice Presidency. At some point his Vice Presidency may become less important than his current run but I don't know when that would switch over or if it already has. Geographyinitiative (talk) 05:36, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

I would say that if he wins a few primaries, then a change is definitely needed. There may be a need to change before that, but I'm not familiar with picture-switching policies.Geographyinitiative (talk) 06:04, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

our current pic ~is~ five or six years old. surely someone has something more up-to-date from so famous a person. Cramyourspam (talk) 23:43, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

• I oppose any change. The official picture is the proper one to use for a former vice-president of the United States.--Rusf10 (talk) 00:09, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose He is the former VP and his official portrait is the proper one to use. What's next? Are we gonna replace Bush or Clinton's official presidential picture as they age? Plot twist, we all age but that doesn't mean we have to change a distinguished politicians official portrait to a more recent pic. By that logic should we change Jimmy Carter infobox image? --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 05:45, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support 2nd one we have changed Bernie Sanders' "official" image. This is not a state department website, we don't need to use so-called "official images". We should use the more accurate (recent) one.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 06:22, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support I would support changing it to the second image. Telluride (talk) 21:26, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support second photograph as best depicting the subject. While VP is the highest office that he's held, I would argue that he is roughly equally notable for his senatorial career, his vice presidency, and his candidacy for president. - MrX 🖋 16:21, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
  • MrX, do you know how to reopen this RfC?  I added a new photo too.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 16:51, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Kolya Butternut The RfC was never closed. - MrX 🖋 16:57, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose #2, Support #3 His face now takes up way too much space in the infobox, it's kind of terrifying. — Goszei (talk) 00:40, 10 February 2020 (UTC).
• Support any of them, He is relevant now in the political realm and to oppose the change gives anybody ignorant of his current age a wrongful impression. There should be a picture of him when he served as Vice President somewhere in the article to associate with that time period. But arguing that it shouldn't be changed. because he was Vice President makes it sound like his relevancy now is moot. -- EliteArcher88 (talk) 22:52, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support The third image. Also, he is at a healthier distance. This is a really trivial issue. The other two too obviously reveal his beautiful veneers. No sense in provoking an ageist debate on here. -Random person at the City of Camarillo Public Library — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.79.113.210 (talk) 00:09, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support Image 3. As his official portrait is unlikely to be reintroduced to the infobox, I would support the third image as his face does not take up much space there. Lochglasgowstrathyre (talk) 20:24, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support 3 It's the best picture; it demonstrates him in action. ~ HAL333 22:14, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support updated photo. I don't think his VP photo should be used because he is famous at his current age and known now for running for president. I think if he loses and falls out of the spotlight it could go back to his VP photo because that's how he'll be remembered. Like after movie star dies we can go back to a younger photo from when they were most famous, like an obituary photo. That being said, I think the three choices aren't very good. I've found a better one (which is still less than ideal because he's facing to the right and not wearing a suit). Other crops can be made if it's too close.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:19, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

  

While my first choice is the fourth photo, my second choice is his official VP photo because the others are so poor.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:04, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

• Comment Why not use one of his offical portraits [2] or [3]. I mean he was the vice president for 8 years and most other articles on those who have held high political postions use the offical portraits. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk?

This RfC is precisely discussing whether to change the lead image from his official photo as vice president to something more recent. When this RfC began the lead image was the official portrait from 2013.[4] Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:58, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

We have an official portrait from when he was an officeholder. There is no need to resort to lower-quality images. This is not a difficult choice. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 14:25, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

• Note I have added his official portrait since there hasn't been an actual consensus in which "recent" photo would be best to replace the official portrait. Seeing that within this week there has been constant changing of the lead image I have placed the official portrait back on the infobox with a note saying that it should not be change until a final consensus on which picture would be best to replace it and hopefully it will stop the constant back and forth. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 09:42, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

TDKR Chicago 101, please revert.  The consensus was clearly against the seven year old photo.[5] I mistakenly reopened this RfC because I had thought an official close was necessary.  Only one editor reverted the recent change.[6] (Also, you did not use his official portrait, you used a crop.) This is a mostly dormant account[7] has preferre Kolya Butternut (talk) 10:51, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

• Support #4 (File:Joe Biden (48554137807) (cropped).jpg; presumably added by Kolya Butternut). Biden is now more notable as the presumptive 2020 Democratic nominee than as former VP, so the recent images are preferable to the "official" portraits. Of the three images offered by Cliffmore: in the first, he is looking down; in the second, the crop is too tight and his teeth are distractingly prominent; in the third, his face and eyes are in shadow. userdude 14:42, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
• Support Offical Portrait 2013. Where we have a fairly recent official portrait, that is prefereble. He is running for president and the candids, aside from lower visual quality, are inappropriate where the high quality professional alternative is avaliable. SPECIFICO talk 18:16, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

As I stated in my edit summary, consensus was already acheived against the official portrait.  I opened this RfC back up with a new photo.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:36, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

So you're claiming you opened it and then you closed it? Go to WP:AN. Or leave well enough alone and drop it. SPECIFICO talk 18:41, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Please refrain from incivil personal comments.  I did open reopen it, it's easy enough to see that it was at the time of my first edit to the RfC.  I have not closed it.  Please revert and discuss before escalating.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:49, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Nobody is going to "escalate" - AN is where you can request closure by an uninvolved Admin. But if the 2019 RfC was indeed closed, you should have started a new one with new information or alternatives. Closed is closed, unless there's a valid closure review. I haven't been following this, I just saw that a good photo was replaced by the worst alternative of the whole lot, a close-up candid-looking crop that's out of character with the subject. SPECIFICO talk 19:23, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

We've had consensus for two months against the 2013 photo. Affirmed by SharabSalam.[8].  Please revert to the consensus until this reopened RfC is closed. Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:08, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

You characterized the fourth photo, in this version[9] as the "worst alternative of the whole lot, a close-up candid-looking crop".  This comes off as disingenuous.  The other new photos are all candid crops (and you could edit them for a zoomed out crop).  I feel like you may be personalizing past disagreements.  Please don't escalate tensions.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:20, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

• I'd support the 2013 VP photo as the photo. There is no need to change it. Corky 18:56, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
• Support official portrait - Yes it is from 2013 but I think it is best to use last official portrait. Similar to Barack Obama. PackMecEng (talk) 18:58, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

PackMecEng, Corkythehornetfan, did SPECIFICO communicate something to you about this RfC? Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:43, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

@Kolya Butternut: Ummmm... no. It’s called I saw the change on my watchlist and came to see the discussion. I’ve never liked the idea of removing an official image, especially of a VP or POTUS or top government official. Corky 20:25, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

@Kolya Butternut: No, and I am just as confused as you that I would be agreeing with her. Right SPECIFICO? PackMecEng (talk) 21:38, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

• Support #3 - Since it is more recent, he looks to be making a speech, and his head doesn't take up the whole photo like the other two. Meatsgains^(talk) 15:59, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
• Support official portrait, which is the convention we normally apply to all politicians. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:02, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
• Support official portrait, the argument he has aged between 2013 and 2020 is simply not true. He looks exactly the same. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 06:13, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
• Support official portrait, which is the convention. More recent photos could be included in the body for more recent events. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:40, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
• Support official portrait - I don't see anything wrong with it. While one can argue that he looks different now, I honestly don't see that myself. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 03:43, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
• Support changing to 2nd one - He's not in office currently so a current picture is appropriate. Showing an older "official" picture when he's running for a new office is misleading. ToeFungii (talk) 02:41, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Its really not, Biden was in-office for 8 years as vice present and in-office for 36 years before that, its more misleading to attempt to portray Biden as an average "joe" when he's been politics for the majority of his life. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 09:20, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

• Support official portrait - as the current portrait seems to be from his time serving as vp, i believe that is the one we should use and continue to use if for example he loses the upcoming election. the images use in perpetuity would help to reflect the highest office he achieve during his career. that being said, if he is election in november, i believe we should change it once he officially becomes president. also don't think he's aged that much between the photos (at least in appearence, lol) Epluribusunumyall (talk) 03:44, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
• Support official portrait. It's the best quality picture that we currently have of him. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:43, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Tara Reade alleged Biden "penetrated [her] with his fingers" without her consent

Liz, why did you want to remove the specific allegation in favor of the vague language "sexual assault"?[10]  Brett Kavannaugh's article, for example, includes the allegation.[11]. Kolya Butternut (talk) 15:25, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

I am not Liz, but in my opinion the details of the assault are over the top until we have much wider coverage. It would also help if the allegation was made under penalty of perjury. The Kavannaugh allegation was made under oath in the senate hearings and thus has more weight--Davemoth (talk) 16:46, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

But why is "sexual assault" preferable to the actual allegation? She was not under oath for any part of her statement. I don't understand what is "over the top" about it; it simply is the uncensored allegation. Is there a wikipolicy you can direct me to? Kolya Butternut (talk) 16:51, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, leave that out. It's sensationalistic and adds no encyclopedic value whatsoever. - MrX 🖋 16:52, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Please cite policy.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:37, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

WP:NPOV, WP:NOTSCANDAL, WP:BLP. Now you cite a policy that says we must use salacious detail in our articles. - MrX 🖋 20:48, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

It seems that the more appropriate Kavannaugh analog at this point is the Ramirez allegation surfaced by the New Yorker. There, rather than describing a non-descriptive "assault", we see an explicit description of Kavanaugh having "thrust his penis against [Ramirez's] face" [12]. This statement was not made was made under penalty of perjury. Seems like the consistent thing to do would be to include the actual description. Mienkoja (talk) 17:54, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Mienkoja made a good point. I think it should be included if it was included in Kavanaugh's article.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 19:00, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

My view is that we don't need the graphic details of who did what to whom where. And I feel this way no matter whose article we were talking about, it could be about Kavanaugh or Harvey Weinstein, I haven't looked at those articles. What is important is that allegations of sexual assault were made which can be supported with reliable sources and then state what the Biden's campaign's response was, the article doesn't need details about where on her body she was molested. I think providing a narrative of an assault is gratuitous and doesn't add any value. This is a large article and multiple allegations have been made about Biden in the past, we don't have to detail every one of them. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:13, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Well, I agree. I think this is unnecessary graphics. The problem is that it was also unnecessary in Kavanaugh's article but it was added anyway. Wouldn't Wikipedia be accused of biased and politicization of sexual allegations?. Especially that one is republican and the other is democrat.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 19:28, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

The level of detail will depend on the degree of coverage of the story compared to coverage of Biden in general. In the cases of Weinstein and Kavanaugh, the sexual allegations propelled their names into public discussion. Their name recognition would be far lower without them. TFD (talk) 19:26, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

[edit conflict] My view is that we need to stay consistent, otherwise it can be easily claimed that WP editors are biased. Here is the detail from Blasey Ford in the Kavanaugh article:

"According to Ford, Kavanaugh pinned her to the bed, groped her, ground against her, tried to pull off her clothes, and covered her mouth with his hand when she tried to scream. Ford said she was afraid that Kavanaugh might inadvertently kill her during the attack, and believed he was going to rape her."

It also cannot be argued that we must not go into more detail "until this receives wider coverage" while simultaneously removing the fact that the lack of coverage is actually being called out as strange, as become part of the story, and is the focus of yet another article today. I think this information is relevant given the coverage and plan to reinsert it, hopefully without needing to resort to RfC.

It is glaringly obvious that media has become partisan, and that is troubling for editors since we seek to write NPOV article using politicized sources, but it's all we have.

This isn't just another complaint of groping, this is a claim of rape. Forgive me for stating the obvious, but we must cover it exactly as we would similar claims against a Republican. petrarchan47คุก 19:34, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

The level of coverage for the Biden inclusion is there. Either we remove all graphic sexual allegations from all political articles or we include them - the former being at the risk of WP:NOTCENSORED. Perhaps a community-wide RfC is in order to address that very point. In the interim, we add what RS say and use inline attribution for anything likely to be challenged. See the list of RS below and feel free to add more. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 19:36, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes. Removing the detail is a violation of WP:NOTCENSORED. And writing that he allegedly "penetrated her with his fingers" is giving no more weight to the story than writing that he allegedly "sexually assaulted her". When information is controversial we should include direct quotes from the primary source as reported by the secondary sources. We may also report the analysis and characterization of the secondary sources. I don't think we're ready for a month-long RfC though. This story is still unfolding. Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:18, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Feel free to take that to the not censored noticeboard. Meanwhile, the WP:BLP policy is clear: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. - MrX 🖋 20:54, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Editorial decisions at the Kavanaugh article have no bearing on this article. This discussion needs to stay focused on improving Biden's bio. - MrX 🖋 20:44, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Descriptions of sexual assault are not pornographic, i.e., titillating.  Please further explain your understanding of the policy and the editorial decisions at the Kavanaugh page.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 21:10, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Leave out the graphic stuff. Our job is to soberly relate what has been widely reported, WITHOUT sensationalism. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:46, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

RE Either we remove all graphic sexual allegations from all political articles or we include them - That is completely wrong, and counter to everything we do here. Not all "graphic material" is treated equally, not all allegations are alike; as with everything else, we reflect the coverage. We include graphic details only if the story was major - reported everywhere for multiple days - including that the details themselves were very widely reported. One allegation is NOT like another. We include graphic details about Bill Clinton and Lewinski, because the allegations were described in minute detail in a special counsel investigation and discussed at length in an impeachment trial for heavens sake. We include some graphic details in the Kavanaugh case because they were a front-page story for days and were part of a Senate public hearing. In this case, the specific allegation is reported in a few sources, and the generic (non-specific) allegation in a few others. If becomes front page news we could consider it. It's not at that level now. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:59, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

MelanieN, is there a past policy discussion that would help me understand this?     I see that the definition of sensationalism is "(especially in journalism) the use of exciting or shocking stories or language at the expense of accuracy, in order to provoke public interest or excitement." The intention here is precision and accuracy. Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:56, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Relevant policy has already been quoted to you, several times. To recap, at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (which is POLICY) we find Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page.[a] Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity Also Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. See also the examples at WP:PUBLICFIGURE. And please see my explanation directly above, about why the fact that we SOMETIMES report the graphic details does not mean that we must ALWAYS report the graphic details. At Wikipedia, how much coverage we give something is based on how big a story it is - how much and how detailed the reporting on it was. With Kavanaugh and Clinton we reported all the details because they were thoroughly hashed out in very public forums. That does not mean that every such allegation needs the same amount of detail. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:38, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I have read this; I was hoping for more of an analysis. Based on the definitions I have described I do not believe that stating the allegation precisely is sensationalist or salacious. Some may find a dispassionate description of a sex act to be titillating, but that is not the intention and removing sexual language to avoid potential titillation would be censorship. We have already agreed to include this story, so the privacy policy does not seem to apply You stated that "We include graphic details only if the story was major." What policy is this based on? Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:40, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

We have already agreed to include this story. That is not, in fact, the case. There is currently no consensus for inclusion; moreover, there is insufficient coverage in a preponderance of reliable sources to really consider it. That may change if the story gains traction beyond the anti-Biden press, but we are not there yet. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:26, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm of the mind that we simply adhere to our PAGs and write what the sources say by applying WP:INTEXT. There is also WP:NOTCENSORED to consider; therefore, arguments that align with WP:DONTLIKEIT along with concerns about quoting graphic language are not viable arguments for exclusion. We haven't yet reached any semblance of consensus about what we should or shouldn't include. Now that we have an RfC in progress below, let's see where the chips fall. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 20:55, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

This isn't a matter of WP:DONTLIKEIT, which is an essay, not policy.

• According to WP:BLP, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment.
• and Wikipedia:Offensive material, which says Material that could be considered vulgar, obscene or offensive should not be included unless it is treated in an encyclopedic manner. Offensive material should be used only if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:10, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Liz but I actually did know that DONTLIKEIT is an essay. I respect and understand the opinions you and MelanieN have expressed, and if it turns out that consensus agrees with you, I will certainly abide by it. Having said that, I will probably try to recruit you for a bit of collaboration and help in cleaning-up the vulgar, obscene and offensive material at Brett Kavanaugh sexual assault allegations and Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations. As editors we just need to know where the line is drawn in order to maintain consistency throughout our articles. There actually are multiple RS that have published Reade's allegation, including Vox, wherein it was reported that during an interview with Katie Halper, Reade said Biden sexually assaulted her, "pushing her against the wall and penetrating her with his fingers." I quoted with intext attribution in a manner that is encyclopedic. It is the unwanted act that is vulgar, not the description of it. Yahoo reported it a little differently..."pressed her up against a wall and digitally penetrated her" which may be better suited for the pedia. It isn't sensationalism to quote a victim of sexual assault. Our job is to provide our readers with the information that was published and supported by the cited RS. This particular allegation has gained traction in the media, which makes it highly relevant and notable because this particular BLP is a former VP and the Democratic front runner in the 2020 presidential election. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 04:05, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Liz, not writing the specific accusation is "less informative...or accurate", so WP:OM does not apply. As for the "sensationalist" concern, I still have questions about that for MelanieN which I have written above. Kolya Butternut (talk) 04:26, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Include The allegations may be included, per WP:PUBLICFIGURE, now that the NYT has covered it. Before then, I would have voted no. They can also be described exactly as they are in the sources. If that description is somewhat graphic, so be it. There is no WP:CENSORSHIP here, so long as the description is factual and reliably sourced. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 21:06, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you meant for this to be a formal !Vote, but there is an RfC over this matter a few sections further down the page... ping petrarchan47คุก 23:20, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Well, another allegation from a different accuser will likely have to be addressed. This one is not a complaint of physical assault and not graphic https://www.foxnews.com/politics/eva-murry-biden-tara-reade F. L. (talk) 16:33, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

RS and Biden's inappropriate touching & sexual misconduct allegations

This issue is obviously well-sourced and should be handled the same way we have handled other highly notable politicians per WP:BLPPUBLIC, & WP:BLPRS. The removed material should be restored. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 16:32, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

• The Guardian
• Daily Dot
• The Intercept
• The Hill
• KCTV-5 News
• Newsweek
• Vox
• NPR
• Time
• WaPo
• Fox News

^Atsme _Talk 📧 16:32, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

• The Times (See quote above.)
• Current Affairs
• The Week (Opinion piece is RS for the fact that there is an allegation)
• Salon (Investigates Reade and discusses media controversy)
  • The Hill's critique of the Salon story.[13].
• Current Affairs attempts to debunk Tara's story
• Current Affairs references: "Prof. Anthony Zenkus, an expert on sexual violence at the Columbia School of Social Work, shocked by [Salon's] Marcotte’s doubting of Reade’s sexual assault claim because she 'changed' her story over time, explains in an op-ed why the apparent contradiction is no contradiction at all"[14]

Kolya Butternut (talk) 16:44, 29 March 2020 (UTC)Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:41, 31 March 2020 (UTC)Kolya Butternut (talk) 10:53, 31 March 2020 (UTC)Kolya Butternut (talk) 16:22, 31 March 2020 (UTC)Kolya Butternut (talk) 16:48, 1 April 2020 (UTC)Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:38, 12 April 2020 (UTC)Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:33, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Please consult the talk page before creating a new section with the same information already being discussed in previous sections. - MrX 🖋 16:54, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

I did review the TP, and saw no organized list of diffs like this one. Please AGF before making accusations like you did above. If there is such an organized list, then provide the diff that points to it. List form makes it much easier for editors to see there are multiple RS available to support inclusion without further concerns of DUE and BALANCE, as what some of the arguments above have alluded to as reason to exclude. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 18:14, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

All of these sources were listed above. You should have commented there rather than opening a new section. I'm all out of good faith today, but I do have some bubblegum. - MrX 🖋 20:58, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Atsme, what was removed? petrarchan47คุก 00:16, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

As of today, all of it. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 15:13, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

It looks like it was removed because the citations didn't include these reliable sources.  Maybe it can be restored.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 15:16, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

The reliability of many of the above sources is questionable in regard to the Reade allegations:

• The Guardian - n/a - piece appears to be an Opinion piece about the media coverage and little about the allegations directly.
• The Daily Dot - poor - rehashing Biden's past statements and repeating the Halper podcast info with no new reporting on the allegations.
• The Intercept - ok - first reporting by a generally RS publcation. 3/24: mostly about Times Up. 3/26: added reference to Halper interview.
• The Hill - good - RS - conducted their own brief interview reporting on allegations.
• KCTV-5 - poor - rehashing quotes from other sources
• Newsweek - good - no consensus as RS - conducted their own interview reporting on allegations.
• Vox - good - RS - conducted their own interview reporting on allegations.
• NPR - bad - from April 2019
• Time - bad - from April 2019
• WaPo - bad - from Sept 2018
• Fox - ok - direct reporting on Biden campaign denials. rehash of allegations from Reade. Troubling partisan angle on reporting.
• The Times - unknown - this is behind a pay wall and I could not determine if it was a rehash or independent reporting

I see only 2 good sources and 2 ok sources in your list. In my opinion this is enough for a simple statement. It is difficult to see if there is consensus about including it at all and there is now an RfC.--Davemoth (talk) 16:22, 30 March 2020 (UTC)--Davemoth (talk) 16:22, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

The Times piece is only partially about the allegation and it is just reporting what other sources have said.  What about Columbia Journalism Review?[15]. Kolya Butternut (talk) 21:30, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

You can check sources that have already been discussed yourself at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources. CJR does not appear at that list so there is no established consensus. In any case the article you point to only rehashes and references other articles and does no independent reportings, so I would list that as a poor source.--Davemoth (talk) 01:41, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

It's a professional media analysis magazine published by Columbia, so I wouldn't dismiss it just because it hasn't been discussed there. They're not reporting the Reade story, they're reporting on the reporting of the story. They describe it as a "notable story". Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:51, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

CJR regularly runs opinion pieces about under-reported stories (and used to do so through a regular feature, authored by Steven Brill). It's a fair question to ask, why this story has not gained the attention of mainstream, reliable media sources, although beyond directing readers to an editorial that speculates about possible reasons that's not a question that CJR attempts to answer. Arllaw (talk) 23:11, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Mainstream RS: Tara Reade

The Economist, "How to weigh an allegation of assault against Joe Biden"
Kolya Butternut (talk) 16:19, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

So here is another opinion piece in a conservative publication complaining that major news media are ignoring this story. The problem is that Wikipedia's policy means that if stories are ignored in major news media they lack weight for inclusion in articles about people who are extensively covered in the news. There are many known facts about Biden - books have been written about him. Editors of any encyclopedia, whether Wikipedia, Encyclopedia Britannica, Conservapedia or any other must determine which of these many facts must be included. That is determined by editorial policy. That policy could be that what editors consider important should be included. However, the policy we are obliged to follow until it is changed is Balancing aspects: "strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject."

Can you explain why - citing policy or guidelines - this article should contain information that major news media ignore? If you think policy is wrong, then you are welcome to get it changed.

TFD (talk) 16:36, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

This is a mainstream source and you're mischaracterizing it.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 16:44, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

The "perennial sources" guide says nothing about The Economist being partisan. It has: "Most editors consider The Economist generally reliable. The Economist publishes magazine blogs and opinion pieces, which should be handled with the respective guidelines."

The story was not "ignored by major media", but it was ignored by some. Editors suggest this means the material fails WP:V, while many journalists writing for mainstream outlets say this lack of coverage says nothing about the allegation but rather, highlights questionable journalism, and probable partisanship. The Salon piece is the only one defending media silence as journalistic integrity, however that source is not RS. petrarchan47คุก 17:29, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

I can explain why using your own Balancing aspects. The balance/weight of the treatment in the body of "reliable, published material on the subject" of the allegation is heavily (100% except for Biden staff denial I think) in favor of the allegation. Other than the semi-official denial, I could find no published sources outside of social media (RS or not) that is disputing the allegation. I think the policy is correct and that it argues in favor of inclusion.

Opinion: Using single policies can be manipulated to say what any editor wants them to say. I believe that looking at the whole of all WP policies and exactly what they say and don't say that the allegation should be included.

Can you explain (citing policy or guidelines) that Fox, Vox, The Hill, and The Intercept are not "major" or "mainstream" RS? --Davemoth (talk) 16:59, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Since you asked: There’s a Medium post which argues against the allegation (that’s light red over at WP:RS/P), and, as mentioned above, that Salon article which explains why this hasn’t gotten mainstream media attention (which is yellow over at WP:RS/P). This Economist article is using the same thought process used in other conservative opinion pieces about this allegation (e.g., one at Reason.com): If we gave the Brett Kavanaugh accusations mainstream media attention, why are we ignoring this Biden accusation. Point being, everyone agrees this accusation isn’t getting mainstream media attention, and I say we should not include it in the Joe Biden article until when and if it does get mainstream attention. The mainstream media has no problem reporting on sexual abuse or sexual harassment accusations again notable people, no matter who is getting the accusation, as long as they feel the accusation is credible. Samboy (talk) 17:26, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

No, the only reason it is not being given the Kavanaugh treatment is because WE KNOW WHY. The bias of Wikipedia editors who are higher up and can disappear editors and source material they are biased against. Has happened to me. POINT IN CASE Just because the LIBERAL "Reliable Source" news media that the "Editors" accept do not cover a story, does not mean it is not true. It took over 5 months for the liberal "Main Stream" sources that Wiki editors will accept (even though they are constantly having to correct their biased stories) to actually acknowledge the love child of Senator John Edwards, with many of them poo pooing the story as being a right wing conspiracy. Yet the same "Reliable Sources" will immediately accept any accusation against a Republican, not vet that story for 5 months, and they certainly won't hold off if the Republican denies it or wait for 5 months for them to admit it. https://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/08/10/edwards.coverage/index.html And wikipedia's editorial POV gets thrown right out the window against Republicans. 173.172.158.168 (talk) 19:46, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

"Medium is a blog hosting service. As a self-published source, it is considered generally unreliable and should be avoided unless the author is a subject-matter expert or the blog is used for uncontroversial self-descriptions. Medium should never be used as a secondary source for living persons."* petrarchan47คุก 17:36, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Samboy I asked if you can cite WP policy or guidelines about the 4 sources I list. Instead you non constructively list other sources where is no consensus as a RS. I will give you the benefit of doubt and ask again in a reworded way: Is there any WikiPedia Policy or Guideline that would exclude The Hill, Fox, Vox, or Intercept as either mainstream or major Reliable Source?--Davemoth (talk) 18:07, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

I think it was very constructive to reply to your request: “I could find no published sources outside of social media (RS or not) that is disputing the allegation”. In response to a request for non-reliable sources disputing the allegation, I gave one non-RS and one questionable-RS published source disputing the allegation, and I made it clear the sources were not reliable when giving those links. To accuse me of being non-constructive for directly addressing a request for non-reliable sources stretches the assumption of good faith we need to have, and it converts a discussion which should not be personal into a personal one. To answer your question: WP:REDFLAG means that an extraordinary claim has a higher bar of evidence than an ordinary claim, which means it has to be in “multiple high-quality sources”, i.e. mainstream media. Would it be helpful for me to list reliable sources (green at WP:RS/P) which make a point that this story has not been discussed by mainstream media? Samboy (talk) 20:14, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

I apologize for the aspersion above and should not have addressed it in that manner. I was frustrated as I had only asked for discussion on WP policy and guidelines and was mainly referring to the lack of an answer to what I asked. I had found your counterpoints to my arguments to be thoughtful.

As for the content: I find that Medium piece to be a hit piece talking many of Reade's tweets out of context. I could take most of those tweets with a sarcastic angle and see that Reade could have been condemning Biden and not praising him. Even the conclusion weasels out of an accusation and they say they want to "ensure that the public has as much information as possible to make an informed decision." I should have left out that "RS or not" phrase. As for the Salon piece, I agree with it: Media bias and Times up have no place in the Biden article (points 1 and 2) and the crazy conspiracy stuff about Reade is unlikely (points 3 and 4). The conclusion (point 5) is all really opinion, but is calling out that politicizing things like this have made the problem worse and the story should have been vetted better while acknowledging that Reade allegation is credible while Reade herself has troubling background. As for your final question, we already have that list at WP:RS/P and I have reviewed it many times.

This brings me back to my original question and your answer regarding WP:REDFLAG, regarding “multiple high-quality sources” - we have multiple (at least 4) such sources (The Hill, Vox, Fox, and the Intercept.) I don't want to put words into your mouth, but I assume either these aren't good enough or there aren't enough of them. Can you list a WP policy or guideline that those 4 are not good enough? Can you list the same for what "multiple" means in this context?--Davemoth (talk) 21:52, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Kolya Butternut Starting additional sections on a topic that is undergoing an RfC AND covered in discussion if multiple sections already is probably not the best way to handle this. I would have suggested a new subsection under the oldest section.--Davemoth (talk) 17:05, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. In fact, I think starting yet another top level section is highly disruptive. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:24, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Highest profile mainstream RS

• New York Times: "Examining Tara Reade’s Sexual Assault Allegation Against Joe Biden"
• NBC News: "Woman broadens claims against Biden to include sexual assault"
• Washington Post: "Sexual assault allegation by former Biden Senate aide emerges in campaign, draws denial"
• Chicago Tribune via NYTs: "Examining Tara Reade’s Sexual Assault Allegation Against Joe Biden"
• Associated Press: "Former Senate staffer accuses Joe Biden of sexual assault"
• ABC News via AP: "Former Senate staffer accuses Joe Biden of sexual assault"
• MSNBC, Kasie DC via NBC News: "New reporting about a sexual assault claim against former Vice President Joe Biden when he served in the U.S. Senate in the 90's"
• San Francisco Chronicle via AP: "Former Senate staffer accuses Joe Biden of sexual assault"
• Boston Globe via AP "Former Senate staffer accuses Joe Biden of sexual assault"
• Die Welt: "Belästigungsvorwurf gegen Joe Biden sorgt für Streit in Me-Too-Bewegung" ("Allegation of harassment against Joe Biden causes dispute in me-too movement")
• Le Parisien: "Présidentielle américaine : le démocrate Joe Biden accusé d’agression sexuelle" ("US Presidential: Democrat Joe Biden Charged With Sexual Assault"
• The USA Today via AP: "Former Senate staffer accuses Joe Biden of sexual assault"
• Los Angeles Times: "Former senate staffer accuses Joe Biden of sexual assault. His campaign says 'it did not happen'"

Kolya Butternut (talk) 10:30, 12 April 2020 (UTC)Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:40, 13 April 2020 (UTC)Kolya Butternut (talk) 16:05, 13 April 2020 (UTC)Kolya Butternut (talk) 16:23, 13 April 2020 (UTC)Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:25, 13 April 2020 (UTC)Kolya Butternut (talk) 21:01, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

This is not helpful for article improvement. "High profile source" is not found in our policies. SPECIFICO talk 16:32, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

And yet that is the standard that has been set in the RfC. Kolya Butternut (talk) 16:35, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

That's not correct, and at any rate it's a complaint, not an argument. SPECIFICO talk 16:38, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

I have changed it again, now to "Highest profile mainstream RS", per WP:REDFLAG: "Red flags that should prompt extra caution include: Surprising or apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources" (Personally I think "mainstream" here refers to scientific opinion, not mere news reporting.) Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:37, 13 April 2020 (UTC)Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:39, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Full protection

Full protection has been removed. Article is now semiprotected. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:33, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I have requested temporary full page protection with the contentious material excluded until the RfC is concluded. We cannot have an edit war over an alleged sexual assault allegation. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:38, 30 March 2020 (UTC) I have fully protected the page until this matter is resolved in order to enforce the policy on biographies of living people. Because the page was semi-protected indefinitely, I didn't want the 30 days to expire and then the page have no protection which is why the full protection is indefinite. Please ping me when this RfC is over and I will lower protection back to semi protection. Editors who wish to continue making changes unrelated to this RfC may make an edit request using {{FPER}} and an administrator will review it. — Wug·a·po·des​ 01:26, 31 March 2020 (UTC) I do not see evidence this was warranted. I see no edit war. The talk page is peaceful. When sections were removed recently without consensus, we discussed it. No one tried to add them back. The version presently locked in place is not the consensed version. It was never discussed at all, and ignores the work of the community. Why should editors spend hours working on this talk page only to have all their work erased in a drive-by edit, and then locked for no reason? Please restore the previous version, and kindly explain why it is locked. petrarchan47คุก 10:55, 31 March 2020 (UTC) Wugapodes, I agree full protection is overkill. The allegation has proper sources, so it isn’t really a BLP concern at this point, but more of DUE. Mr Ernie (talk) 11:58, 31 March 2020 (UTC) There is no hurry to include the content here. There are real issues with the allegations, and they have not been thoroughly investigated at this time. We can with 30 days—or longer—for there to be more coverage of this allegation before making edits can can potentially violate BLP. Samboy (talk) 12:14, 31 March 2020 (UTC) Full protection was needed because editors were appearing out of nowhere to revert the material back into the article, without regard to the RfC and related talk page discussions in which multiple editors pointed out that the material is mostly being carried by low quality sources. When protecting a page because of a content dispute, administrators have a duty to avoid protecting a version that contains policy-violating content, such as vandalism, copyright violations, defamation, or poor-quality coverage of living people. - MrX 🖋 12:19, 31 March 2020 (UTC) It's not that much damage if a sourced allegation is inserted and reverted a few times before a stable consensus emerges. That type of stuff happens all the time as part of the normal editing process. Biden's running for president and editors ought to be able to freely update this page as we get closer to the election. Mr Ernie (talk) 12:57, 31 March 2020 (UTC) Nonsense. We had a legitimate edit warring concern, where the same VIOLATING material was being added and removed multiple times per day. This was the best solution, and editing in other areas can continue via WP:EREQ with little difficulty. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:11, 31 March 2020 (UTC) I endorse the adding of full protection. Because the material was being edit warred in and out, this is a classic case of an article that needed it. I also endorse keeping the full protection in place until the RfC is resolved, since edit warring was going on despite the presence of an active RfC -- MelanieN (talk) 19:02, 31 March 2020 (UTC) An edit war is more than a series of reverts in quick succession, and I protected because this page has been undergoing a slow-moving edit war for multiple days prior to and during this RFC. Starting at an arbitrary point in the history: Petrarchan47 adds content related to allegations 26 March c. 22:30 MrX reverts those additions 26 March 00:55 Maccaheartney adds content related to allegations 28 March c. 01:07 YouCanDoBetter adds additional content 28 March 01:09 SPECIFICO reverts the previous two additions 28 March 01:40 Bobtinin adds content related to allegations 28 March 19:09 The content is reworked for about 12 hours in what looks to me like normal editorial processes Mr Ernie and Scjessey remove a chunk of that content 29 March c. 13:00 Volunteer Marek removes the remaining content 30 March 05:15 This RfC is started on 30 March at 13:36 Quidster4040 restores content removed by Marek 30 March 17:09 Scjessey reverts the addition 30 March 17:33 Wugapodes fully protects the page 31 March 01:22 Because this article is a BLP, it is subject to discretionary sanctions which allow any uninvolved administrator to "impose on any page or set of pages relating to the area of conflict page protection, [...] prohibitions on the addition or removal of certain content (except when consensus for the edit exists), or any other reasonable measure that the enforcing administrator believes is necessary and proportionate for the smooth running of the project." While I considered simply prohibiting addition of the content without consensus, I'm not interested in playing whack-a-mole on a highly viewed BLP of a US presidential candidate (see principle 1 of the BLP arbitration case). The alternative is page protection, and since the page was already semi protected and multiple editors engaged in the dispute are extended confirmed, full protection is the only effective protection level. Immediately after this page was protected, I logged it as an arbitration enforcement action. It can be appealed as such at arbitration enforcement or the administrator's noticeboard. (edit conflict) — Wug·a·po·des​ 19:50, 31 March 2020 (UTC) Thank you for explaining that. It was the correct thing to do. TFD (talk) 21:13, 31 March 2020 (UTC) I'm afraid I just don't see an edit war. It looks like normal editing, with the exception of the removal of the entire section we had worked and agreed on through good faith efforts on the TP. The removal of consensed material without so much as a note on TP was improper, starting an RfC that locks the section for 30 days without discussing the idea first on the TP was also improper. Locking a non-consensed (or even discussed) version is akin to telling editors that gaining consensus and presenting arguments on the TP to determine content, as we are asked to do, is not actually how things work around here. "We had a legitimate edit warring concern" means that we didn't actually have any war, only a concern, which is not an emergency. petrarchan47คุก 01:14, 1 April 2020 (UTC) Let it go, Petrarchan. Maybe you "don't see an edit war" but that call is not up to you. It is up to an administrator, someone who knows an edit war when they see one and has been entrusted with the power to act on it. I am also an administrator, although I usually function at this page as a regular editor, and I also know an edit war when I see one. Wugapodes did the right thing. If you want to challenge it, there are other boards designed for that kind of thing, but arguing about the full protection at this page is a waste of bytes. -- MelanieN (talk) 03:24, 1 April 2020 (UTC) It's a dozen or so edits across 5 days. That's hardly disruptive - now the page is entirely locked. That is not normal. Mr Ernie (talk) 07:46, 1 April 2020 (UTC) Mr. Ernie, That is not normal. Ernie, you are not in the Twilight Zone. It's been explained in detail above. BTW, do you think page restrictions do not apply to the article talk page? If they do, you just violated both page restrictions, 1RR and the 24-hour BRD sanction, with your recent edits. SPECIFICO talk 17:48, 1 April 2020 (UTC) The votes are 33 Yes and 16 No. Has consensus been reached yet? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1012:B113:AB8A:7C0B:CE86:6AB4:157 (talk) 18:27, 7 April 2020 (UTC) Consensus is based on more than simply tallying votes. It requires a thorough assessment of the arguments on both sides. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:32, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

If it looks like stonewalling

The RfC above re: Tara Reade allegations includes citations/links to multiple independent RS that satisfy DUE, and it has been going on for 2+ weeks now with more RS being added - all of which clearly warrants inclusion, and perhaps even a separate article like those created for other high ranking politicians. It may turn out that if an article is created, it will end-up as a redirect like what happened with Bob Filner (noting that I was unable to find any trace of a discussion/RfC for that redirect). Regardless, my concern now is that the apparent weaknesses of the "no" arguments in opposition to inclusion based on DUE and adequate RS makes it appear that there may be some stonewalling involved. It appears even worse when coupled with the current level of PP - one wherein a single admin determines what can or cannot be added - and while there is nothing apparently wrong with the process, well...it just doesn't look good and adds to the level of concern when it should be having an opposite effect. I am certainly open to considering all legitimate reasons for censoring the material and keeping it out of the article despite WP:PAG. Perhaps a request to close at WP:AN is the way to go considering the controversial nature of this BLP? ^Atsme _Talk 📧 17:56, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Agree completely. The full protection is unnecessary and even at the time was uncalled for. With the story from the NYT today many "No" editor concerns are satisfied. Close the RFC and end the page protection, inclusion is clearly warranted. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:01, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Mr Ernie, you're free to request a close at AN at any time. I'd be surprised if it happens anytime soon, but there's one way to find out. Meanwhile, the need for page protection is not affected by the Times coverage. In fact, we are going to have another extended discussion about the article text -- if any -- given the fact that the Times coverage, when it came, was not exactly the narrative some editors here anticipated. SPECIFICO talk 19:10, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Assuming that we are all here to write a credible encyclopedia, we should not be in a rush to insert potentially harmful material into a BLP. It is important to get it right. This is not a place for breaking news. Given the canvassing and other concerns, I would like to see a team of admin evaluate and close the RfC after participation was sufficiently declined. - MrX 🖋 19:38, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

• Thryduulf, it might be time to check back in here. Most of the opposes rested on arguments akin to "Unless it's reported by the NYT, we can't report it here". The NYT published their article today, so many editors are suggesting a snow close. Atsme above raises further related issues I thought you might consider. petrarchan47คุก 18:08, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

That’s now how I see the discussion. I changed my vote because of the The New York Times coverage. I probably would had done the same if Washington Post or CNN published a front page story on it. I haven’t seen anyone else change their vote I have only seen one other editor, Guy Macon, change their vote. I’m flexible enough to change my opinion when facts change, and I think the Wikipedia does better when we wait for prominent coverage from a source which carefully fact checks an allegation instead of engaging in scandal mongering. Samboy (talk) 18:36, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

• As has been explained above, there is disagreement whether a story can be considered DUE when it has been ignored by almost all major media since due requires "a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject." There is nothing stopping you from creating an article about the incident, since its coverage establishes notability. The issue is whether or not it is a significant story for this article. The degree of coverage in both conservative and progressive alternative media will no doubt cause mainline media to pay some attention to it. I noticed that today the New York Times published an article about the case.[16] It may reach critical mass that justifies inclusion in this article, particularly if the Trump campaign makes it an election issue. But that hasn't happened yet and there is no reason why this article should give the story greater prominence than it has received in mainstream media. The purpose of articles is to summarize what mainstream sources consider important not to reveal information that they find unimportant. TFD (talk) 18:22, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

The Four Deuces, what are your precise standards for inclusion? Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:03, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

For well known people, I would expect to see ongoing news coverage in all major publications. We got the with the unwanted touching, Trump's E Hollywood tape, Warren's claims of Indian ancestry, the Dean scream and Gary Hart's affair. TFD (talk) 04:27, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

So you will not support any mention of Tara Reade in the article if anything less than precisely ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS, NPR, CNN, MSNBC, FOX, BBC, The New York Times, USA Today, The Washington Post, The LA Times, The WSJ, The Boston Globe, The Chicago Tribune, The San Fransisco Chronicle, Reuters, AP News, The New Yorker, Time, The Atlantic, The Economist, each report two stories? Three stories?  Kolya Butternut (talk) 09:08, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

I would expect ongoing reporting in those sources for the main article. Bear in mind that Biden has been a senator for 36 years, VP for 8 years and a presidential candidate three times. He is now in the news every day. "[D]iscussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news." When that happens we will see her accusations included when the media does summaries of the unwanted touching allegations against Biden. In the Trump article for example, the accusations of rape of a 13 year old were virtually never included in reporting of alleged victims of sexual assault. Regardless of the credibility of the claims, they could become significant if Trump chooses to talk about them. As edit we need to ask ourselves how significant is the coverage paid to this accusation relative to overall coverage of the subject. Per WP:CRYSTALBALL, we cannot anticipate how the media will cover any story. TFD (talk) 17:21, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

That doesn't answer my question. We need a precise answer to know whether your criteria has been met, because it appears to be evolving. We could place the Tara Reade story under #2020_presidential_campaign, as it's now one of the biggest stories of his campaign. Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:54, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

• I see a discussion above proposing an early close that does not have a consensus in favour of that (actually slightly opposed if anything). Accordingly I will not be early closing this. Thryduulf (talk) 18:53, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

We’ll probably get more coverage by the time this discussion is closed and the article is unprotected. Samboy (talk) 19:09, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Thryduulf, please look again. Since The New York Times reported on Tara Reade, the !votes have been 100% for an early close. I myself opposed an early close then changed my !vote. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:11, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

• Washington Post, April 12, 2020 - Sexual Assault Allegation By Former Biden Senate Aide Emerges In Campaign, Draws Denial. That adds to the numerous other sources along with the recent addition of The New York Times. I refer to this section title. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 04:36, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

  This thread has been created in BAD FAITH. The accusation of "stonewalling" is unacceptable. Please retract your statement and close this thread. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:55, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

  I disagree per SPADE. This article has been fully locked for days and days, for the sole purpose of keeping out reliably sourced information that’s got a clear consensus on the above RFC. We ought to be able to speak freely and openly about what appears to be going on. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:00, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

  There's no excuse for bad faith, and there's especially no excuse for creating a whole thread based on the premise fellow editors aren't editing in bad faith. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:05, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it is insulting to be told that I'm stonewalling. I can accept that editors that feel that this information is long overdue to be included, that it should have been in the article weeks ago, are giving their best estimate of what needs to be done here. But I see the situation quite differently and I should not be told that that I am being politically dishonest or disruptive. I've arrived at my opinion by constantly reminding myself of the power that we hold over the people in our bios and our responsibility to guard against doing any harm by the words that we add here. Reade says that it took her almost 30 years to report that Biden sexually assaulted her so a few more days to decide how to use this information will cause no great harm to her. On the other hand, Biden's reputation is at stake here and we need to take the time to make every effort to abide by WP's high standards for what we include in our bios. Gandydancer (talk) 16:08, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

The length of time it took Reade to report her allegation is immaterial to our decision; our decision is not based on how this affects her. Biden's reputation will not be effected by our edit, because this has already been widely reported. Wikipedia is not a news cite, but we do need to keep up. This information is extremely relevant to the 2020 election, which means it is extremely relevant to Biden's bio at this present moment. Kolya Butternut (talk) 16:20, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

We don't know if the information is extremely relevant to the 2020 election, because we don't have a WP:CRYSTALBALL. So far it hasn't been. It is not our role to tell readers what is or is not important. The seriousness or credibility of the accusations are not the criteria for inclusion, but the degree of coverage in reliable sources. Their writers decide what is or is not important, not us. TFD (talk) 17:43, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

The sources certainly describe it as extremely relevant to the 2020 election. Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:56, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

I think you may be surprised at how many people actually do take our articles as accurate. As editors we know that in many cases that is not true and as Petra has already pointed out, the NYT does not really always print the truth either. Nor does WashPo or any of the major news sources who no longer do much of any fact checking. For my part I refuse to accept anything but very high standards about what we print here and refuse to print anything until I feel we have vetted it to the best degree that we can. Until the NYT did an investigation I was not ready to discuss inclusion of this sexual assault charge. I am now open to discussing what we should/should not include. Gandydancer (talk) 01:10, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

New pages: Tara Reade and Joe Biden assault allegation

FYI, the following pages were recently created:

• Redirect: Tara Reade
• Article: Joe Biden assault allegation

--Guy Macon (talk) 18:18, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Joe Biden - Covid19 Plan To Safely Reopen America?

Possible addition? => On April 12, 2020, former vice-president Joe Biden proposed a plan, published in The New York Times, to safely reopen America. - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! Drbogdan (talk) 19:38, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

References

Edit request

Add

In April 2020, news organizations published articles about allegations by Tara Reade that Biden had sexually assaulted her when she was a Senate aide in 1993. A Biden spokesperson said the allegation was false. On April 11, Reade reported the alleged 1993 incident to the Metropolitan Police Department of the District of Columbia. After Reade's allegations surfaced, additional reported incidents of inappropriate touching with Biden were reexamined, including from former member of the Nevada Assembly, Lucy Flores and former staffers.

--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 20:08, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Sources

Not now... You will need to wait for consensus to be determined in the RfC above. - MrX 🖋 21:12, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

This is clearly a case of moving goal posts. People said, don't include until it's in the NY Times. Now that it's in the NY Times, they're looking for other excuses. A few editors motivated by bias to abuse their power and keep important content out of the article, undermining Wikipedia's credibility. Velva.kilb1983 (talk) 16:15, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

You're not off to good start here. - MrX 🖋 16:47, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

The New York Times article certainly gives the complaint the coverage it needs to put it in the article, but the NYT article also suggests the complaint is likely without merit. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:52, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

It was evident from the outset that this would happen at some point. A persistent elevation of the complaint via social media and various internet sites ensured that at some point the mainstream media would report on their investigations into the complaint and those who are promoting it. Because it has not been covered as a credible claim, the article text that may ultimately be agreed is not going to look like the first edits that put it in the article before the page protection. SPECIFICO talk 17:03, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree 100%. This is the world we live in now. It's depressing that garbage media, social media and Russian bots have so much power over the agenda. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:14, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Actions set precedent. And unfortunately the precedent that was set during the Kavanaugh hearings was that facts aren’t needed to establish a credible claim. There’s more corroboration to Reade’s allegation than any of the Kavanaugh allegations, as those she told at the time confirmed she reported it, despite all of the named Kavanaugh witnesses denying the event. It’s an unfortunate circumstance we find ourselves in, but nonetheless once allegations are reported by mainstream RS they are suitable for inclusion into Wikipedia BLP’s. The difference in coverage between the two situations, despite their unverifiable similarities, is striking. I can’t understand why that is the case. Mr Ernie (talk) 17:40, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

That is a BLP violation to misrepresent the others as having "denied the event". Please remove it and be more careful in the future. SPECIFICO talk 18:19, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

It's a BLP violation against Tara Reade to say it has not been reported as a credible claim. Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:23, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Please remove that remark. I was not addressing you and you have no right to suggest that I have impugned Ms. Reade or anyone else. SPECIFICO talk

Nonsense. It’s a BLP violation to say any witness corroborated the Kavanaugh claims. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:28, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

You know I didn't say that any witness corroborated the claim, so I'll ignore that. Nobody "denied" the alleged evant in the Kavanaugh case. They said they had no memory about it. Frankly, if you don't understand the difference between those, you should not make such statements. If you do understand the difference -- now -- I think you should redact the smear against the witness. SPECIFICO talk 18:50, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

No one said don't include until the New York Times had reported it, they said that if the mainstream media had not reported the case it failed weight. It's like saying, "You can't say he's rich, he doesn't even have enough money to pay the rent." That doesn't mean if he raises the money to pay the rent, he is ipso facto rich. TFD (talk) 19:26, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Anyone who has suggested that Ms. Reade's claims are not credible or have been reported as not credible, please strike your comments; they are a WP:BLP violation.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:19, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree. It's also irrelevant. TFD (talk) 21:07, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

The same goes for the smears against Christine Blasey Ford.@Mr Ernie: SPECIFICO talk 21:12, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

According to the New York Times the claims by Reade don't appear to be credible [17]. I quote:

"The Times interviewed Ms. Reade on multiple days over hours, as well as those she told about Mr. Biden’s behavior and other friends. The Times has also interviewed lawyers who spoke to Ms. Reade about her allegation; nearly two dozen people who worked with Mr. Biden during the early 1990s, including many who worked with Ms. Reade; and the other seven women who criticized Mr. Biden last year, to discuss their experiences with him. No other allegation about sexual assault surfaced in the course of reporting, nor did any former Biden staff members corroborate any details of Ms. Reade’s allegation. The Times found no pattern of sexual misconduct by Mr. Biden."

Underline is mine. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 02:39, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

That is the implication, but the article doesn't actually say that. So it's moot. We cannot say she was not credible, only say what the NYT says. And they don't say she lacked credibility either. Besides, the amount of attention we pay to a claim has nothing to do with credibility, only the degree of coverage it gets. TFD (talk) 03:58, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

We cannot say it in the article, but yes, we can say it on the talk page if it comes up and is pertinent to the discussion. It's not a BLP violation by any stretch. Volunteer Marek 06:46, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

• There's an interesting NY Times article in which they analyze their own reporting on this story. -- RoySmith (talk) 04:08, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

I would suggest we use a more impartial source which also discusses The Times' own self-analysis, if we end up discussing the reporting. Kolya Butternut (talk) 04:32, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

It really doesn't matter whether NYT thinks the allegations are credible or not. BeŻet (talk) 22:06, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

• There was no pattern of sexual misconduct by Kavanaugh, either, and no proof regarding the allegations against Trump in the Steele dossier but that information was included and became a separate article, even after the Mueller Report. In this case, we have a single news source claiming "no pattern" and that opinion can be cited with in-text attribution. It isn't a statement or conclusion drawn by professional law enforcement investigators but even it was, not seeing a pattern proves nothing. We don't know how many women are afraid or embarrassed to come forward, if there are any. During the many discussions about the Steele dossier memos, it was determined by consensus that if something cannot be disproven, it belongs in the article. I see no difference in the allegation that is being proposed for inclusion now. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 14:14, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
• Reminder: This is not the place to discuss other articles, or right great wrongs, or even the score. Please let's stick to discussing edits to this article based on reliable sources and established Wikipedia policy. This is not a discussion forum. - MrX 🖋 14:24, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Reminder noted - I was not aware that attempts to reach consensus during a consensus building discussion was an inappropriate place to discuss prior RfC/keep-delete discussions in similar articles with similar circumstances - my apologies, if that truly is the case. Please provide a link to the policy or guideline that supports "This is not the place to discuss other articles..." I find it interesting that WP:AADD uses arguments from prior cases as examples to demonstrate what has or hasn't worked in the consensus building process. I wouldn't think it mattered what type of keep or delete discussion is involved, be it AfD or any RfC - results from prior cases establish precedent, which makes them good guides to follow. I was also not aware that any editor here was trying to RGW or "even the score", as you put it. That is a pretty hefty allegation, MrX. Please provide a diff that supports it. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 22:37, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

WP:TALKOFFTOPIC, WP:REHASH, WP:OTHERCONTENT, [18], [19]. - MrX 🖋 12:43, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Sanders endorsed Biden

I added the following to the article, through full protection and without asking for consensus first.

On April 13 Sanders endorsed Biden in a live-streamed discussion on split screens from both of their homes.

Sources

I thought this was such obviously important news that it wouldn't be necessary to get consensus here first. But my edit has been criticized at WP:AN#Please correct me if I'm wrong but the goal is prevention so I will revert it and ask permission here before re-adding it. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:21, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

• Seems entirely fine. I cannot conceive of any genuine objection to this. Neutrality^talk 23:25, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

You'd be surprised. :-( -- MelanieN (talk) 23:37, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

MelanieN, I think there's a distinction between the contents of the edit and how the edit was done. An administrator has no special powers to edit, yet an administrator has more tools to edit. You violated the first part when you edited the fully protected article without seeking consensus, especially as an admin who edits in the American Political area as an editor.

That being said, I don't think there is anything wrong with this edit being in the article. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 23:59, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Your addition was incomplete. When someone is accused of sexual assaults and is reported in all major news outlets, he becomes radioactive, we should be cautious about how to write that endorsement. 1) The NYT article you cited and Bernie Sanders himself have said that Sanders supports "Joe Biden" candidacy. 2) The source says that Bernie move was to unite the party. This should be mentioned.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 00:05, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

I would shorten it to "On April 13 Sanders endorsed Biden." That's all the information that is necessary for the main Joe Biden article. TFD (talk) 00:08, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

See my comment above. That would be BLP violation and not accurate. The relevant source mentions at the top that Bernie supported Biden "candidacy" and Bernie didn't say he endorse Joe Biden, he said "I support your [Joe Biden's] candidacy"--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 00:12, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

That's an endorsement of his candidacy. The rest of your objection is projecting your personal opinion of the situation onto the individuals in question, and does not in any conceivable way rise to a WP:BLP violation. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:12, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

I am opposed to virtually any edits to the article until the RfC is closed, but especially edits that add current news. Adding Bernie's endorsement to the article would be prioritizing favorable news over unfavorable news. Both stories are facts, both stories should be included. Wait until the RfC closes before adding any new news please. Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:18, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree with TFD - all that is needed is "On April 13 Sanders endorsed Biden." That is a fine example of a neutral, obvious, and uncontroversial edit. Of course adding "split screen" from homes is also uncontroversial and a sign of the times (perhaps useful for posterity). However, I don't think it is wholly necessary to attribute a motive such as "uniting the party". That might not be the only motive. Another possible motive is that it is important for a segment of the population to simply defeat Trump - whether it is a ham sandwich or Joe Biden. So, let's not worry about motives because there might be a dozen of them. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 02:13, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Although the edit struck me as being uncontroversial when I saw it, Steve Quinn's comments above have me thinking that maybe it isn't such a good idea for an admin to edit a protected page as opposed to putting in an edit request like the rest of us have to do. If this had been an unprotected page, Steve could have simply edited it as he suggest above, which I believe is an improvement. So my conclusion on this one is: "Sorry, this edit was not uncontroversial enough. It should have been discussed in an edit request" while still allowing completely uncontroversial edits to protected pages by admins. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:47, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose including mention of support by Sanders because it is purely promotional, and not encyclopedic in the sense that it will have any long lasting encyclopedic significance. Under the current circumstances, inclusion would be noncompliant with NPOV because it appears to be an attempt to boost the Biden candidacy in an election year. Matter-of-factly Sanders is going to fade away as an unsuccessful two-time presidential candidate, and his only historic/encyclopedic significance as a political figure will be his accomplishments as a US Senator, not as a twice failed presidential candidate, much less his endorsement of Joe Biden, who is facing several sexual assault allegations. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 04:02, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
• Support Neutral, factual, non-controversial, and reported by The New York Times, Reuters, Washington Post, CNN, Politico, etc. Samboy (talk) 04:42, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Now that the article is no longer fully protected (which seems to have been the main objection), I've BOLDLY gone ahead and re-added the sentence (with slightly tightened language). Gaelan 💬✏️ 06:53, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

• Yes, of course this should be included, along with Obama's endorsement. MelanieN's edit was uncontroversial, but since this is Wikipedia, controversy ensued anyway. - MrX 🖋 20:17, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose, but support including in the Campaign article this is an obvious case of WP:RECENT, try the ten years test and see if it would be relevant in this biographical article. I would support including in the Campaign article, if you try the 10 years test there it would make sense.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 20:24, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

  SharabSalam, the campaign discusses his primary battle with Sanders over several paragraphs. The Sanders endorsement seems like the obvious "end" to that story, and IMO leaving it off makes our discussion of the primary incomplete. Gaelan 💬✏️ 22:01, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

  I have a different opinion, the campaign story ends by stating that Biden won and that Sanders left the race. The endorsement addition would be off-topic/coatrack and recent (see WP:TOPIC).--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 22:23, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

  SharabSalam, 12 years later, Hillary's endorsement of Obama is still relevant. The candidate endorsing their rival is not off topic at all. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:28, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

  Obama was the current president during Hillary's Campaign. "The candidate endorsing their rival is not off topic at all", that's not aan accurate way to represent what I said, I said it is off-topic in this article, you should have said, "The candidate endorsing their rival is not off topic at all in the candidate biographical article", I disagree, its off-topic.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 22:35, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

  Obama was the current president during Hillary's Campaign - no. SPECIFICO talk 22:49, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

• Support More than enough coverage to justify a short sentence. --RaiderAspect (talk) 03:50, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
• Support — Incredibly silly in my opinion that something so uncontroversial (but factual, clearly notable, and obviously appropriate to end a primary-season section on) be omitted from this article. Atsme's rationale "Under the current circumstances, inclusion would be noncompliant with NPOV because it appears to be an attempt to boost the Biden candidacy in an election year" — respectfully, I think you're reading way too much into it. Not only is endorsing the successful candidate common practice, but surprise, surprise, it typically occurs during an election campaign and to boost the other candidacy. With that said, if you're accusing editors of not adhering to NPOV, perhaps find a better example than editors highlighting a rather innocuous practice. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 10:34, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Since you pinged me and for the sake of clarity, my response is simply because this article was recently under full PP resulting from edit warring to keep Reade's unflattering RS material in/out of the article, yet flattering material was important enough to add it unconventionally over PP - the timing, rush to add it and how it was initially included made it seem more promotional in nature than encyclopedic. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 18:24, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

@Atsme: Okay, so we're clear: you're drawing a comparison between adding something obviously controversial and (at the time) possibly in violation of BLP to adding something that is so mundane, part of a process, and uncontroversial that if circumstances were different –Biden losing to Sanders/Biden endorsing Sanders– we'd probably mention that here too. Apples and oranges. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 03:51, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

You are entitled to believe whatever suits you. I'm done here so stop pinging me. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 09:53, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

If you're unable to back your comments, especially regarding other editors and NPOV – that's not my problem. Thanks, —MelbourneStar☆^talk 11:18, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

• Obvious support. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:46, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
• Support No-brainer. KidAd (talk) 23:47, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
• Support, but... - It could be expanded to say Biden has been endorsed by all his Democratic primary opponents, including Sanders. But I'm happy as it is too. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:31, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
• Obvious Support - this is truly one of the most ludicrous arguments that I've seen on Wikipedia to date. The edit itself is short, well-written, neutral, and backed by sources, and shouldn't have been controversial in any way. If this page wasn't fully protected, I sincerely doubt that most editors would've given it a second thought. Including it would be a net positive for the article, so I don't see what the problem is. OhKayeSierra (talk) 02:58, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

• the problem is that it is not providing context. Bernie has said that he had to choose between Trump and Biden and he choose Biden [20] implying that the endorsement is only to defeat Trump. It is currently without a huge context.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 03:05, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

• Wikipedia isn't in the business of determining what people are implying, and that is especially true for a BLP. Either way, that interview would be a primary source and wouldn't warrant inclusion in the article, anyway. OhKayeSierra (talk) 03:23, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

• Support - I also can't believe this is controversial. --WMSR (talk) 04:02, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - I can, I concur with Atsme. Just promotional fluff, like saying Trump was endorsed by Cruz if this was 2016. Utterly nonsensical but only there to make Biden look good. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 09:15, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Tara Reade sexual assault allegation: specific text.

Geographyinitiative, I created a new section which appears to have created an edit conflict.[21] We may not have consensus on the text detailing the assault. Kolya Butternut (talk) 04:48, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

I hereby plan not to make any further edits on this page. I want to protect myself and my account as much as I can. I tried to write this edit as objectively as I could. If you all remove the new material I added, that's fine with me, but I think that I have made a valid Wikipedia edit. I will not respond to any further inquiries here. Geographyinitiative (talk) 04:53, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Samboy, I think the text before your edit was better.[22]. When you say she had "previously alleged", it could be interpreted to mean she changed her story. My text simply states that she had alleged inappropriate touching the year before, and gives the context that she had come forward among other women. Kolya Butternut (talk) 05:57, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Koyla Butternut (and others) How about “one of the women who in 2019 alleged Biden inappropriately touched her”. It’s more awkward, but I feel more neutral while describing the facts. Samboy (talk) 06:27, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

I liked Samboy's edit which has now been changed[23] to remove the context that Reade was known as one of the women who came forward with Flores in the spring of 2019. Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:36, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. I have updated the article to have the older version of the wording, because we have some rough consensus that this is acceptable wording. I have no issue with including the criminal complaint police report, since the complaint report is reliably sourced. Samboy (talk) 23:56, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Where is it reliably sourced? "Criminal complaint" has a specific meaning: A criminal complaint is a document that charges a defendant with a crime. A police report is not a criminal complaint. A complaint to the local police is not a criminal complaint. Criminal complaints are almost always filed by the government. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:02, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Here is the current wording in the article: “On April 9, 2020, Tara Reade, a former aide in Biden's U.S. Senate office and one of the women who in 2019 alleged Biden inappropriately touched her, filed a police report alleging that she was sexually assaulted in 1993; Reade later stated that the report was about Joe Biden. The Biden 2020 presidential campaign has denied the allegation.” (emphasis added) The wording “police report” comes from the AP so is reliably sourced with a top-level media organization which is a “green” source at WP:RS/P. Samboy (talk) 00:10, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Why the police report?

Currently, our Tara Reade section has to be phrased rather awkwardly because the police report doesn't actually mention Biden by name. I edited it to be as clear as possible without being technically inaccurate, but really, I'm not sure why we focus on the police report in the first place. She first came forward with the accusation in a podcast on March 25—surely that should be the key event, and not the police report? Gaelan 💬✏️ 09:25, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree that the police report isn't necessary. If we are going to add that Reade says she filed an incident report it should be balanced with the sources are also reporting that Biden is not specifically named in the public available copy. CBS527^Talk 10:21, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

The criminal complaint is what was filed. The public incident report is the name of the form used to convey information to media, but keep private information private. From the original report by Rich McHugh*,

"Tara Reade, who worked for Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden's Senate office in the early 1990s, has filed a formal criminal complaint against the former Vice President in Washington, DC.....While the incident report obtained by Business Insider was anonymized for public release, it states that a subject "disclosed that she was the victim of a sexual assault which was committed by Subject-2 in 1993." Reade confirmed that she was the complainant and that "Subject-2" is Biden. The penalty for filing a false or fictitious police report in Washington DC is a fine and up to 30 days in jail.

In other words, she risked spending time in jail if what she claimed in the report was found to be a lie. McHugh is a reliable source, and his reporting on this criminal complaint was cited by Vanity Fair as providing the basis for the legacy media reporting that followed*. The criminal complaint is seen by VF as prompting the onslaught of recent reports. As for why, the article states:

"Reade said she filed the complaint against Biden for "safety reasons," to establish a paper trail of the incident in case anything happened to her. The statute of limitations for the alleged incident has passed..."I also wanted to make it clear that I would be willing to go under oath or cooperate with any law enforcement regarding it"" petrarchan47คุก 20:57, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

she risked spending time in jail if what she claimed in the report was found to be a lie That's getting into OR and asking for conclusions from unknown premises. Not an effective argument for your position on the matter. SPECIFICO talk 21:21, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

I disagree with this edit.[24] She came forward to the media months ago, but everyone was ignoring her. The March 25 Katie Halper interview may just have been the first publicly reported interview. The Intercept reported the story earlier. I think the April 9th date is the most important to lead with. Kolya Butternut (talk) 21:14, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

For example, NBC news says Thursday evening, Reade filed an official complaint with the Washington, D.C., police. The public incident report — which is one page long and doesn't name Biden — was obtained by NBC News and recounts an assault sometime from March 1 to May 31, 1993. Reade confirmed that she is "Subject-1" in the report and that "Subject-2" is Biden. It is illegal to falsify police reports, and the statute of limitations for prosecuting the allegations has passed. I don't understand why you removed the police complaint.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 21:26, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

That was a good edit. The complaint has not been processed. We will soon know the upshot. Meanwhile, the allegation stands, but the complaint adds no information about Biden. A good edit that was not obvious to the rest of us at the time. SPECIFICO talk 21:39, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

What you just said does not make sense to me, the police complaint adds "no information"? The policy complaint is a the most notable thing here. Since she filled the police complaint, the news started to extensively cover this controversy, before that there only few news outlets reporting this.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 21:47, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Correlation does not prove causation. I could just as easily say that "since Reason Magazine started running stories on this[25][26][27][28][29] the news started to extensively cover the allegation, before that there only few news outlets reporting it." Just because two things happen at around the same time, that does not mean that one caused the other. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:05, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Please don't present your speculation about the timing of the NY Times article. It was apparently in research for weeks and the timing of the police report doesn't confirm any of your insinuation. SPECIFICO talk 22:04, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

SharabSalam, AP, NYT, and WaPO all state that the claim originated from the podcast, and have all stated that they've been examining the claim since the podcast. (NYT and WaPO mention the podcast first, while AP mentions the police report first.) Gaelan 💬✏️ 22:02, 14 April 2020 (UTC) Second ping because I forgot to sign: SharabSalam

• At Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Rich McHugh petrarchan47 argues for using the "criminal complaint" wording used in marginally reliable source Business Insider alongside "incident report". I argue for the "incident report" wording used in generally reliable sources. See Criminal complaint.

This is [A] a BLP, [B] a person in the middle of trying to win an election, and [C] a serious accusation that has ruined many careers (many rightly and a few wrongly). We need to be super careful about the sourcing for even small details. I say we should only use the highest quality sources. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:50, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

WP:BLPPRIMARY is clear on this point Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person...Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source, subject to the restrictions of this policy, no original research, and the other sourcing policies. Please note that exceptional claims require exceptional sources. (emphasis original). Information about living people must be sourced to high quality, secondary, reliable sources. — Wug·a·po·des​ 21:56, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

I've preveously pointed this out and removed a link to our article on criminal compliants, AKA indictments. This was a police report and should be described, if at all, as such. SPECIFICO talk 22:06, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

• The complaint is significantly reported in high-quality reliable sources. NBC news Thursday evening, Reade filed an official complaint with the Washington, D.C., police. CNBC: She recently made an official complaint to police in Washington, D.C. Washington Post She filed a police report in Washington on Thursday saying she was the victim of a sexual assault--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 22:16, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

"Criminal complaint" has a specific meaning:

• "A criminal complaint is a document that charges a defendant with a crime. Complaints serve at least a couple purposes: [1] providing some kind of showing that the government has a legitimate reason to prosecute the defendant and [2] clearly informing defendants of the allegations against them."[ www.lawyers.com/legal-info/criminal/criminal-law-basics/criminal-complaints.html ]
• "An arrest, by itself, doesn’t begin formal criminal proceedings. Rather, the filing of a document in court is required. In most instances in state court, the document is a 'complaint.' Complaints can be either civil or criminal. Civil complaints initiate lawsuits, typically between private parties or a private party and the government. Criminal complaints, on the other hand, are almost always filed by the government. (Some states allow citizens to file criminal complaints or applications for them.)"[ www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/what-criminal-complaint.html ]
• "The complaint is a written statement of the essential facts constituting the offense charged. Except as provided in Rule 4.1, it must be made under oath before a magistrate judge or, if none is reasonably available, before a state or local judicial officer."[30]
• "What will happen after I file a Criminal Complaint? There is a person at the court called the "clerk-magistrate." The clerk-magistrate will schedule a hearing. The hearing is called a "show cause" hearing. The show cause hearing is to see if there are enough facts to show that what happened was a crime."[31]
• "an 'indictment,' an 'information,' and a 'complaint' all serve the same function – they initiate a criminal case and inform the defendant of the charges against him. They also ensure that a prosecutor has sufficient evidence to establish probable cause that a crime has been committed."[32]

Biden has not been charged with a crime. There was no show cause hearing. It is unlikely that a magistrate judge or clerk-magistrate was involved. It is likely that the report was made to a cop manning the front desk at the police station. It appears that Reade simply reported what happened to the local police. You can report anything to the local police and they will file a police report on it. (Even a report that a dead squirrel told me that John Smith is an evil space alien might be good to know if John Smith gets murdered later). --Guy Macon (talk) 23:53, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

The reason why the wording “police report” is OK is because the AP states that “She filed a police report in Washington on Thursday” and makes it clear it is a police report against Biden. Since this is reliably sourced, I think it’s best we use the same wording as the AP. Samboy (talk) 00:00, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:46, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek, I don't think this is accurate.[33] The AP states that the police report alleged an "unnamed person" sexually assaulted her. This is inconsistent with Rich McHugh's reporting.[34] Tara Reade told him that she did name Biden in the police report. It was the "incident report"[35] which was anonymized. Kolya Butternut (talk) 06:42, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

It's accurate. I don't know what Rich McHugh was told or what Business Insider says but more reliable sources explicitly state she did not name Biden in the police report [36] [37]. The assumption that it was the incident report and not the police report is WP:OR. Volunteer Marek 13:46, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek None of the sources say that "she did not name Biden". Both sources say that the report doesn't name Biden. Also, the first source clearly say it's a public incident report. You accidentally used two sources that contradict your assertion.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 14:01, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Are you trying to split hairs between "she did not name Biden in the police report" and "the police report doesn't name Biden"? Volunteer Marek 15:44, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

More generally, are there TWO reports - an "incident report" and some other "police report"? Because it looks to me like all the sources are reporting the same thing, which is the incident report which DOES NOT name Biden. What Reade told reporters is a different story. If there are two reports... source please. Volunteer Marek 15:49, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

WaPo article on Reade's police report: "She told The Post she did so because she is being harassed online and wanted law enforcement to be aware of her claim. A public record of the complaint does not name Biden but says Reade “disclosed that she was the victim of a sexual assault” in 1993." It goes on to say: "Reade told The Post she gave police a long interview describing the alleged assault by Biden. The portion of the police report detailing her allegation is not public." The NYTimes article is similar: ...Ms. Reade filed a report with the Washington, D.C., police, saying she was the victim of a sexual assault in 1993; the public incident report, provided to The Times by Ms. Reade and the police, does not mention Mr. Biden by name, but she said the complaint was about him." She said the reason she filed the report was for additional safety against threats. Imagine the reception news media would have received if they had said a fraction of the things about Christine Blasey Ford that they're implying/saying/publishing about Reade. What happened to believe what the women are saying? ^Atsme _Talk 📧 16:19, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Ok, that clears it up a bit but it still seems she did not name Biden in the report, maybe in the interview and then told the press it was about Biden. And please don't try to compare this to the Ford case which was substantially different and is irrelevant to how we describe this case. Volunteer Marek 16:57, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Most of the sources, NYT, WaPo, AP,etc are reporting the police report or Public Incident Report does not mention Biden by name, but Reade said the complaint was about him. Crime reports and investigations are not covered by FOIA request in the District of Columbia. The MPD  releases a PIR upon request. The term "police report" is a generic term and can refer to a number of documents. "Here's a copy of the most recent PIR" (PDF). CBS527^Talk 17:10, 15 April 2020 (UTC) Reminder: Per WP:BLPPRIMARY "Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person." CBS527^Talk 17:23, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

At this point it seems to me we have conflicting sources, more purported detail from a weaker source, and lots of OR and speculation among Wikipedia editors. This clearly suggests we should omit this. The report does not of itself add anything to the narrative of her allegation, the failure of media to corroborate it, and the Biden campaign's denial. Those are the core facts we can verify now. SPECIFICO talk 16:50, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

At issue is whether we state that she didn't name Biden in the report. Volunteer Marek 16:57, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

I do not think it's verified that she named Biden in the report. I also think it's not important to mention the report in the article. It insinuate that there's an active crime scene. Particularly with the wording that was initially being used here. SPECIFICO talk 17:16, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

The police report is noteworthy. The AP is the only source which is inconsistent with the others. The Times and WaPo are clear that she reported to police that Biden assaulted her, and they are clear that the information in the police report is not public, unlike the incident report. The AP is generally reliable, not always reliable. Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:14, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

This is not true. All credible sources say she filed a report but DID NOT name Biden specifically in it. She told reporters that it was about Biden (and maybe she said that to the police but didnt put it in the report). Sources, including AP are consistent on this. The only inconsistent source is the Business Insider. Neither Times nor WaPo say she put Biden's name in the report. AP is more reliable than BI. Volunteer Marek 18:37, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

That's not true.  The AP is the only source which we have discussed which states her police report did not name Biden.  WaPo and NYTimes report that Biden's name was not in the public report.  WaPo states "Reade told The Post she gave police a long interview describing the alleged assault by Biden", not an unnamed man.  The NYTimes is less explicit.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:16, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

I am not hearing why her filing a report -- of which any precinct gets dozens a day -- is a noteworthy fact about Biden. Particularly when she stipulates that the report is moot and only for her own sake. SPECIFICO talk 17:18, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Please cite sources.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:57, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Simple resolution - quote the NYTimes, add WaPo as a 2nd source and be done with it. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 19:10, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

I think the simple solution would be to paraphrase: "Tara Reade stated that she filed a police report with the Washington, D.C. police alleging that Biden sexually assaulted her in 1993". If the AP corrects their article we may remove "stated that she". This works? Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:31, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, please self-revert this edit.[38] There is no consensus to state that Biden was not named in the police report. My edit,[39] "On April 9, 2020, she filed a police report with the Washington Metropolitan Police alleging she was sexually assaulted in spring 1993.[382] Reade stated that the report was about Biden." directly paraphrases The Times, "On Thursday, Ms. Reade filed a report with the Washington, D.C., police, saying she was the victim of a sexual assault in 1993; the public incident report, provided to The Times by Ms. Reade and the police, does not mention Mr. Biden by name, but she said the complaint was about him." The "public incident report" does not of itself add anything to the story of her allegation, and it is not noteworthy. Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:32, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

I edited it to conform to the cited AP reference. Let's just be very straightforward and pretend we don't know anything except what's in the sources. SPECIFICO talk 01:48, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

You haven't addressed my comment. 1. Obviously my intention is to cite The Times (but regardless, my edit is consistent with the AP source). 2. There is no consensus for your text. 3. The "public incident report" which does not name Biden is not noteworthy.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:18, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Or to put it simply, we all agree she filed a police report, and we all agree she stated that the report was about Biden. Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:53, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

It might be a good idea to stop edit warring over this. There is no consensus to include the "police report" either. All of the high quality reliable sources are reporting, in one way or the other, that Reade filed a complaint, the "police report" does not name Biden, and Reade says it is about Biden. We don't cherry pick sources, NPOV requires we present the police report fairly and proportionately as reported by the sources.  CBS527^Talk 07:17, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

The AP is the only source which states Biden was not named in the "filed" "police report". There are clearly errors in the reporting because some sources say that she "filed" a "public incident report". My proposed text, "she filed a police report with the Washington, D.C. police alleging she was sexually assaulted in spring 1993. Reade stated that the report was about Biden." is consistent with all the sources. Would could say she "filed a report with the Washington D.C. police". Kolya Butternut (talk) 11:06, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Rich McHugh (investigative reporter, more information at the RS/N) And it’s important to note, it is not accurate to say that Reade did not name Biden in the police report she filed. Neither Reade or Biden were named on the public version of the complaint she filed, for obvious reasons.* There are two reports in question: one that is private, the "criminal complaint", and one that was released to the public. Journalists haven't done a great job at elucidating this, so it gets confusing. petrarchan47คุก 21:46, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Can we get more confirmation of this? It makes sense to me that in their public release, the police may choose to hide the names of the people involved and so when I read someone say this was what happened yesterday I assumed that was what happened and Biden's name was in the police's records. But then today I read our article suggesting that Biden was not named in her report point blank. As I understand it, the public release doesn't even name the complainant and instead talks about subject-1 and subject-2, and I find it unlikely the police don't at least have a record of who subject-1/the complainant is. OTOH, it occurs to me that it may not be clear whether or not Biden was named. Has the complainant clearly said he was? Have the police? I'm guessing the public release probably doesn't say subject-1 and subject-2's name are in the police record. It looks like there is a Washington Post article which may provide some details but I'm lazy to get access. IMO we need to clear this up, as our current wording is potentially misleading. Nil Einne (talk) 23:11, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

This is the public incident report[40] provided by NBC News. The public doesn't know what the confidential police report says, but the sources all say that Reade said the report was about Biden. The AP, however, gets it wrong. Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:00, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Nil Einne NPR obtained confirmation of the police report from a law enforcement source. A record of the report names Biden. NPR has filed a Freedom of Information Act request for the full report. NPR petrarchan47คุก 02:29, 20 April 2020 (UTC)In response to the idea that "criminal complaint" language comes only from court documents, that is not so.

• Fox The tides began to shift following Rich McHugh's report in Business Insider on Friday that Reade had filed a criminal complaint against Biden. The New York Times ran its first report about the allegation on Sunday morning as millions of Americans were observing Easter. The Washington Post and NBC News issued their own reports later that day.
• Newsweek Tara Reade filed a criminal complaint with the Washington Metropolitan Police Department...according to Business Insider
• BBC Ms Reade filed a criminal complaint on 9 April with police
• Vox A woman who worked in Joe Biden’s Senate office filed a criminal complaint

We are not obligated to follow other media who chose for unknown reasons to shorten this to "a report". We have proof that the first outlet to diverge from the "criminal complaint" language, the NYT, has edited their article on behalf of the Biden campaign. Such partisan sources or editing choices aren't very useful to an encyclopedia. petrarchan47คุก 21:59, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

• The Times explained its edit of a sentence. That is not uncommon. "on behalf of the Biden campaign" is a misrepresentation. Please don't do that again. SPECIFICO talk 22:37, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

• ...the edit was made because the Biden campaign argued...*. I fail to see the problem with my paraphrase "on behalf of the Biden campaign". petrarchan47คุก 18:28, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, Petrarchan47. The NYT isn't a reliable source for Biden's sexual misconduct accusers, as they have admitted to tailoring their coverage to please the Biden campaign. Not that the other usual partisan sources are any more reliable, but so far the NYT is the only source that has openly admitted that they are allowing the Biden campaign to tell them how to cover the Biden campaign.[41][42][43][44] SeriousIndividuals (talk) 00:11, 17 April 2020 (UTC) — SeriousIndividuals (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Block sockpuppet. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:47, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

It's one thing for editors to corroborate a story by finding other independent sources - I've done that with the NYTimes and WaPo above, stating that we should simply quote the corrobated RS and use in-text attribution. It is something entirely different when we dig so deep we're conducting OR in an attempt to satisfy our own expectations, which leads to POV creep. That is not our job - we simply publish what RS say, and when it's an allegation such as this one, we simply use in-text attribution. This is a no-brainer...just follow WP:PAG and we're good to go. If more info develops, we update the article. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 00:27, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Can we all agree on this language: "On April 9, 2020, she filed a police report with the Washington Metropolitan Police alleging she was sexually assaulted in spring 1993. Reade stated that the report was about Biden."? This is consistent with EVERY source. "Police report" is consistent with what some of the journalists mean by "criminal complaint", but "criminal complaint" is not correct. An opinion out of Washing D.C. states that "an individual is 'charged' . . . when a criminal complaint . . . and warrant . . . are signed by a judge and filed . . ."[45] A criminal complaint is a court document, not a report by a citizen to police. Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:56, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Close, but please take out "Washington Metropolitan Police" unless a reliable source (Business Insider is not reliable) names the specific police department. It almost certainly was the Washington Metropolitan Police, and it would be easy to do some WP:OR and see if that name in on the published incident report, but it could conceivably be some other law enforcement agency (county sheriff's department, capitol police, even the park police have jurisdiction in some places.) Naming the department when we don't have a source in no way improves the page. If I remember correctly the sources use "D.C. Police". We should go with the wording from the best sources, like the AP and NYT (nobody think any NYT bias means that they get basic facts wrong). --Guy Macon (talk)

This is the public incident report[46] provided by NBC News.[47] Kolya Butternut (talk) 04:55, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Guy Macon, is this a reliable source since it is linked to by NBC?  Kolya Butternut (talk) 15:58, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

No. The relevant Wikipedia policy is WP:PRIMARY, which says:

"Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved. They offer an insider's view of an event, a period of history, a work of art, a political decision, and so on... Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge."

Being linked to by NBC news makes zero difference. Many reliable secondary sources link to primary sources, but that does not make the primary sources acceptable for anything other than the straightforward, descriptive statements of facts described in the policy. In this case the only straightforward, descriptive statement of fact contained in that public incident report is is "On April 9 2020 some unnamed individual reported a sexual assault by another unnamed individual in 1993". What we can't do is use it as a source for even that statement on any page that talks about Biden of Reade. If another source says it is about Biden, cite that other source. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:16, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Proposed text to comply with NPOV:

"On April 9, 2020 Reade filed a report with the Washington, D.C., police alleging she was sexually assaulted in spring 1993. The public incident report available from  the police does not mention  Biden. Reade stated that the report was about Biden." Biden's 2020 presidential campaign has denied the allegation."

(Sources: 1. Lerer, Lisa; Ember, Sydney (12 April 2020). "Examining Tara Reade's Sexual Assault Allegation Against Joe Biden". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 14 April 2020. Retrieved 14 April 2020., 2. Reinhard, Beth; Viebeck, Elise; Viser, Matt; Crites, Alice (12 April 2020). "Sexual assault allegation by former Biden Senate aide emerges in campaign, draws denial". Washington Post. Washington, D.C.: Nash Holdings LLC. Retrieved 14 April 2020.)  CBS527^Talk 05:35, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Those details are both unclear and unnoteworthy.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 06:24, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

@Kolya Butternut: I don't really see how the proposed text is worse than what is currently in the article. We are currently implying that Biden was not named in the report. As you seem to agree, we do not know if this is the case. All we know is he is not named in the publicly released document. IMO the proposed text is decent, and far better than our current version [48] and I would support a quick replacement so we don't continue to mislead. If people want to just remove all mention of that report, I may support this. But it seems harmful to continue to mislead readers while we discuss that aspect.

Edit: Sorry I missed your proposal just above cbs527. Is there any dispute over mentioning that Biden's campaign denied the allegations? If not, as I understand it, the dispute is solely over whether to include the line "The public incident report available from the police does not mention Biden"? I would support either version with no clear preference. I think the more important thing is we come to some consensus on some version which fixes the current problem where we mislead readers rather than nitpick of whether or not something is significant enough to mention.

Nil Einne (talk) 13:38, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

@Kolya Butternut: - "Those details are both unclear and unnoteworthy." It is not clear what you are saying. If you would be more specific it would be helpful. The first line is essentially the same as what you suggested earlier with the change suggested by Guy Macon which I agree with. We can not use the actual PID as a source. I used the sources suggested by Atsme without inline attribution. I have no problem if inline attributions are added and at this point it probably is a good idea. The rest of the text is similar to what is currently in the article which there appears to be a rough consensus to use and, to comply with WP:NPOV. The purpose of this discussion is to try and find a consensus not push our personal POV. CBS527^Talk 14:07, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Before tweaking any text, we should decide whether there should be any mention of this police document in the article. I oppose it. Please comment in the subsection below. SPECIFICO talk 14:15, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

This whole section, "Why the police report",  was started is to address if the police report should be included or not. As I stated, both in my first comment in this section and in the below section, I feel that it should not be included. That being said, a number of the editors are suggesting it should be.  At this point it appears my opinion on whether or not to include it may be a minority view. I have no problem waiting until more people comment on this in the next section.  CBS527^Talk 16:03, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: I disagree. Currently, there is a good chance we are misleading readers with our text. As I said in my reply, fixing the section so we do not mislead readers is surely more important than a likely long debate over whether a section which does not mislead, but may be WP:UNDUE belongs. In fact, I am not going to offer any feedback on that issue precisely because I feel we need to deal with the far more urgent matter first and don't want to risk distraction, especially not since you seem to be willing to allow the misleading text to remain. Nil Einne (talk) 18:55, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

{{BLP noticeboard} Regarding this edit.[49] Kolya Butternut (talk) 16:48, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

NPR has confirmed that the police report does indeed name Biden: "NPR obtained confirmation of the police report from a law enforcement source. A record of the report names Biden. NPR has filed a Freedom of Information Act request for the full report."[50] Kolya Butternut (talk) 14:48, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Is the report noteworthy?

Our article content is about the allegation(s). Tara Reade has acknowledged that whatever documnent she filed with the police is only for her protection and that the statute of limitations on any 1993 misconduct has run out. There is little press coverage of this document relative to coverage of the allegation itself. I fail to see why this document is noteworhty or even related to Joe Biden. As others have pointed out, any of us could file a similar document at any police station and claim e.g. that our neighbor's cat is calling us nasty names when nobody's listening. I would like to hear a simple affirmative case for including this report that Reade has conceded cannot, and she did not intend to, have any official effect. I think it is entirely unrelated to Biden and at worst is only fueling garbled derogatory internet chatter. SPECIFICO talk 12:32, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

No, I don't think the police report should be included and does not improve this biography. It is far less important than the allegation itself. The vast amount of coverage is about the allegation not the police report.  As you pointed out earlier, this is not about the notability of the police report. As of yet, I haven't seen a policy based reason to include the police report. After all, the WP:ONUS is upon those seeking to include it. CBS527^Talk 13:31, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Maybe not the report itself, but the fact she filed one definitely belongs per DUE. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 15:10, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

I think there would be a better argument for mentioning the report in the article that deals specifically with this allegation. I don't see any connection between her report -- as she herself later characterized it -- and the bio of Joe Biden. SPECIFICO talk 15:28, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

I think it is noteworthy and relevant. It's a police report about sexual assault against the subject of this article, Joe Biden who is a public figure. Its a sexual assault report, not "neighbor's cat is calling us nasty names".--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 15:38, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Of course this should be in the article.  1. The filing of the police report is about Biden.  2. The police report is mentioned in most of the sources which reported on the allegation. Kolya Butternut (talk) 15:53, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

The filing of the police report is about Biden. - But that is not what she said. She said it was about protecting herself, whatever she meant by that. SPECIFICO talk 18:05, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to assume good faith with that obviously false statement.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:08, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

As I said above, I don't think it's acceptable that this discussion is being use to distract from the fact we had misleading text in the article. I refuse to participate until and unless we have consensus that is is not acceptable to allow misleading text to remain. Nil Einne (talk) 19:08, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

I support removal of any unsupported text from the bio immediately.  petrarchan47คุก 19:40, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Joe Biden is named in the police report

Domeditrix, please revert your edit .[51]. Biden was named in the police report, as NPR reports.[52] This has been much discussed; it was only the anonymized public report that did not include names.  Also, notice that there was an active investigation,[53] which would not have happened without a name. Kolya Butternut (talk) 15:32, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Will revert. Domeditrix (talk) 15:34, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

We have no knowledge as to this "active investigation". It could well be an investigation of Reade's concern about harassment and internet stalkers. And were it not for the statute of limitations having run and Reade's inscrutable statement about her purpose in filing the report, we should note that police do not wait for the name of the alleged perpetrator to launch a crime investigation, if that's what you think is happening. Police do detective work, which sometimes includes identifying an unkown suspect. SPECIFICO talk 15:53, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

"An active investigation" usually refers to a status of a case and doesn't necessarily mean that any actual investigation has commenced. As SPECIFICO points out we don't know what was investigated if anything. It's a moot point anyway since on April 25, 2020 MPD stated it is an inactive investigation. Additionally, the comment,  "Also, notice that there was an active investigation, which would not have happened without a name" is a blatantly false statement and is not helpful. One doesn't need to have the name of a perpetrator for a alleged crime to be investigated.  CBS527^Talk 17:47, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

That ignores context.  The police have stated that they investigated because Biden is high profile.  In this case it is unlikely that they would have investigated a 27 year old sexual assault case against an unnamed man.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 07:09, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. SPECIFICO talk 17:52, 29 April2020 (UTC)

We know what was investigated because the public incident report described an alleged assault.  And NPR confirmed Biden was named. There's no consensus to include text which states Biden was not named.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:18, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

You have a source that tells you "what was investigated"? Could you share? Not clear anything was actually investigated, except by NY Times and WaPo. SPECIFICO talk 17:31, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Since the investigation is "inactive", this is all a bit moot, isn't it? The police report is meaningless and should probably be excluded. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:36, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

From USA Today: "Earlier this month Reade filed a police report saying she was assaulted in 1993 in order to give herself safety from threats she has received. A record reviewed by AP didn't mention Biden by name. NPR has reported, however, that a record does name Biden and has filed a Freedom of Information Act request for the full report."[54] So, the AP reviewed one record which didn't name Biden, and NPR reviewed another record which did name Biden, therefore, Biden was named to police. I hope we're not going to now argue that they may have reviewed identical documents and come to different conclusions about whether or not he was named. We already know the "public incident report" was anonymized, and that is the report many sources describe having seen. Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:14, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

The question you were asked, Kolya Butternut, was whether you have a source that documents what was investigated and if so to provide a link. You have refused to answer. Nothing was investigated. They just filed the report like every other cold case, in the dead report file. SPECIFICO talk 23:25, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Please don't make accusations against me because I decided to contribute an update that I found and did not reply to your request. I suggest you do some research yourself instead of engaging in baseless speculation that the police investigation concerned internet harassment. Once you have contributed to the conversation I will provide feedback, then you can accuse me of refusing to provide information. Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:54, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

The point is this: The police didn't investigate anything. They let her file a report. As has previously noted, anyone is free to file any report -- credible, dubious, or insane, as long as it's not provably and willfully false. She filed something or other and the police didn't act on it. Either it wasn't credible or it was ignored due to its being stale. Your repeated insistence that any investigation occurred is based on either your opinion or on some source you've 3 times refused to provide. OK, fine. SPECIFICO talk 01:01, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

The title of this subsection is what I'm arguing. This bullying is not collaborative.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 07:01, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Section header

SPECIFICO has removed the section header of "Allegation of sexual assault" from the article saying it is undue at this time. I don't think that's true. NBC, NYT, WaPo and many other mainstream media have reported the allegation. It is definitely due to have its own section header. SPECIFICO came to my talk page saying that I have previously made a revert saying that this edit in which I removed the word "strongly" because it's editorial, is a revert. I didn't revert anyone, that was my own bold edit to improve the sentence. Revert means to return back to the previous version or wording etc., yet the sentence has been from the time that it was added with the word "strongly".--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 18:36, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Not that this is the place to discuss 1RR violation, but that edit was recently added, so it was indeed a revert rather than a bold edit of longstanding content. At any rate, the section subheading is UNDUE -- there are half a dozen more notewothy events in the campaign that don't have subheaders. It should be removed. SPECIFICO talk 18:57, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

You have a wrong definition of revert, the revert should restore a version or wording that existed sometime previously. My edit was my own bold wording of the sentence. Also, no the subsection is not undue. It is reported in all major news outlets and it is still being reported, like this article in CNBC from 2 hours ago [55]--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 19:49, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

No, SPECIFICO is correct. Per "Revert Rules". "An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert." CBS527^Talk 20:48, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

The rule is correct and SPECIFICO is wrong, per that rule I didn't make a revert the rule says "undoes other editors' actions. What I did was not undoing other editors' action, it was bold wording of the sentence.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 21:05, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

This is a complex story and will require extensive text in order to present all angles. The header seems correct. TFD (talk) 19:02, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

There's no problem with a header when it is commensurate with the text. Whatever it "will require" remains unknown.

@SharabSalam: When you removed the header you also removed some copyedits I made. I presume that was inadvertent, so I'd appreciate it if you would restore them. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 19:08, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

This was more than re-adding the header. It moved it from the "Allegations of inappropriate physical contact" section to the "Campaign" section. It should be in the appropriate section with the other allegations of inappropriate physical contact. It has nothing to do with the campaign. I see no problem with "allegations of sexual assault" as a sub-header. CBS527^Talk 20:11, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

It was in the Campaign section before I re-added.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 20:14, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

• I agree with UpdateNerd moving the content to "Allegations of inappropriate physical contact" section. However, since the allegations now include sexual assault, we should include 'and sexual assault' in the header.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 20:14, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm okay with the move to "Allegations of inappropriate physical contact" and adding 'and sexual assault' to the header. CBS527^Talk 20:31, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Removing the heading and shortening the paragraph as much as possible could be seen as an attempt at hiding the information. I would recommend being cautious. BeŻet (talk) 22:00, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. This one sexual assault allegation does not warrant its owns section. It should be merged with the section heading, “Allegations of inappropriate physical contact and sexual assault.” Amorals (talk) 22:38, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree the sexual assault allegation should be with the allegations of inappropriate non-sexual physical contact. In the interests of neutrality, we need to make it clear that, unlike the non-sexual allegations, there is only one allegation of sexual assault, and it is less widely supported than the non-sexual contact allegations from last year. I have seen at least one Wikipedia editor incorrectly equate the widely supported non-sexual allegations with the single sexual allegation, and that’s an error. Samboy (talk) 23:48, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Sexial assault has been edited into the article with no resolution to this discussion. It should be removed pending resolution. @Kolya Butternut:. SPECIFICO talk 23:53, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

The wording currently in the article is a consensus wording we agreed on earlier. I agree we shouldn’t put “sexual assault” in a heading, but I also, in the interests of bowing to consensus, agree the phrase “sexual assault” reflects what reliable sources have to say on the matter: “She filed a police report in Washington on Thursday saying she was the victim of a sexual assault” “Tara Reade’s Sexual Assault Allegation” Samboy (talk) 00:06, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Huh? Why would we not have "sexual assault" in a heading? Tara Reade's allegation is not accurately described is "inappropriate physical contact". Either it gets its own subsection or this subsection's title has to change. Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:15, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

To place “sexual assault” in a heading places undue weight on a single allegation which is nowhere as reliable as the allegations of inappropriate non-sexual touching. There is pretty much universal agreement that Biden engaged in inappropriate non-sexual physical contact. There is much less agreement that Biden has engaged in sexually assault, since there is only one allegation, and reliable sources appear to be skeptical about the allegation.  Samboy (talk) 00:20, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

We're not evaluating reliability we're evaluating notability noteworthiness. Regardless, what title would you suggest? Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:03, 15 April 2020 (UTC)Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:14, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

"Allegations of inappropriate physical contact and 1993 sexual assault allegation"? Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:13, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Please Kolya Butternut, this has nothing at all to do with either notability or notability. If you are not contributing to these discussions within the framework of Wikipedia policies and guidelines, your efforts will be wasted. It really will be worth your time to learn the policies and guidelines for editing WP articles. SPECIFICO talk 01:19, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

"Non-sexual"? I think the multiple women who have come forward to describe unwanted touching, hugging, and kissing would probably take issue with that characterization of their experiences. These should all be placed under the banner of "Allegations of sexual misconduct." 2600:1700:D281:27D0:95A5:2580:6F2A:B67A (talk) 03:54, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

You may be right, but we need a source which characterizes his behavior as sexual misconduct. Kolya Butternut (talk) 04:30, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't realize I was logged out. Not sure how much we can rely on the NYT these days, since they admitted today that the Biden campaign is essentially quarterbacking their coverage of the latest allegation[56], but they reported on Lucy Flores' initial allegation with the headline "Biden’s Tactile Politics Threaten His Return in the #MeToo Era".[57] The article included a quote from Gloria Steinem, saying "Our bodies and voices belong to us — that should be the first step in democracy." Flores told CNN "It was shocking because you don’t expect that kind of intimate behavior, you don’t expect that kind of intimacy from someone so powerful.”[58] Do we really need a source to use the phrase "sexual misconduct" to characterize non-consensual kissing and touching as "sexual misconduct"? SeriousIndividuals (talk) 04:44, 15 April 2020 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:48, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

I would say so. Some of the accusers even specifically state it was not sexual, while others do characterize it as sexual, especially by comparison with his behavior towards men. Kolya Butternut (talk) 05:06, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

• Sigh. Do I really need to post another RfC asking "Should the section header to the material agreed to in the last RfC ("RfC: Should Tara Reade's sexual assault allegation against Biden be included in the article?") be titled "Allegation of sexual assault"? Will I then have to post an RfC about the first sentence, then another RfC about the second sentence, and so on? I am fine with whatever the consensus is on the header and the wording, but I see no consensus for not including the allegation of sexual assault header and no policy that says to not use a header inn this case. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:57, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

I think we can wait a little to determine whether the Reade assault allegation is noteworthy enough to have its own subheading before escalating this. The discussion has only just begun. Kolya Butternut (talk) 06:48, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

I would be opposed to creating a new section related to this, regardless of what we call it. - MrX 🖋 19:59, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

I’m not sure I understand what is being asked here. The current section is titled “Allegations of inappropriate physical contact and sexual assault”. I’m OK with that. Are we asking whether to make “allegation of sexual assault” a separate subsection within the section? I would oppose that. Are we asking whether to make “inappropriate” and “assault” into entirely separate sections? I would oppose that. Right now we have a section in which the assault allegations are briefly summarized, with details left for the linked article on the subject. That’s enough. It doesn’t need to be a section of its own. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:17, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

P.S. The separate article is currently at AfD. If it should get deleted, which I doubt, then we will have to add a bunch of detail here in a section of its own. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:20, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

"Allegations of inappropriate physical contact and sexual assault" is fine. at one time it was buried under "Campaign". --Guy Macon (talk) 18:20, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

It was not "buried" -- it was located under "campaign". I agree with @MelanieN: but I would go farther. This is all about the campaign. That's the context in which it all arose. If any of the allegations develops into anything more serious, we can start a new section. Right now it's another one of the many issues and narratives that's arisen in Biden's campaign, and there has been nothing reported that would require its own subheading on this page. SPECIFICO talk 18:23, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Agree with those above, "Allegations of inappropriate physical contact and sexual assault" is fine, for now. Obviously this depends on how the story unfolds. I also think if we are to diverge from how similar material is handled on, say, Republicans' biographies, the community would need to hear the argument for how this is NPOV.  petrarchan47คุก 21:39, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Guy Macon, the header keeps being changed against the consensus we had come to, to something I think most of us would disagree with,[59] so I'm hoping we don't need an RfC.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:35, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

I hate to say this, but I think we need an uninvolved administrator to step in and deal with what is happening on this page. I won't name names but we have some really good editors who are working heard at treating a difficult topic according to Wikipedia policy, and some who appear to care more about who wins the election than whether this is a good article. I am going to unwatch this page rather than getting caught up in the shitstorm which I believe is coming. :( -Guy Macon (talk) 19:12, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

"Allegations of inappropriate behavior" seems like a good section heading. It's an accurate summary of the range of behaviors that Biden is alleged to have engaged in. Like article titles, section headings should be concise. - MrX 🖋 19:33, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Clearly there was never consensus for the former section title. I agree with MrX as to NPOV heading language, "Allegations of inappropriate behavior" . SPECIFICO talk 20:31, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

(This comment is supposed to be under the "Section header" section; something's broken on this page.) The heading has been stable for two weeks; that's a lot for this story. Please find a source which categorizes the assault allegation as "inappropriate behavior", if you think that fits. Guy Macon, could you recommend any admins to ping? If that doesn't work I assume the next step is to go back to BLP/N. I'll let you alone after this. Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:05, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Re: "could you recommend any admins to ping" the admins I work with tend to focus on pseudoscience. I don't hang around politics pages enough to know who is helpful. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:53, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Admins may be summoned at WP:AN, though it's hard to see an urgent need here. SPECIFICO talk 23:46, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

No idea why an admin is needed. @Kolya Butternut:, 13 days ago you changed the heading from 'Allegations of inappropriate physical contact to 'Allegations of inappropriate physical contact and sexual assault'. That was challenged 12 days later. You changed it back to your preferred version the next day, apparently in violation of a page editing restriction that says: "If an edit you make is reverted you must discuss on the talk page and wait 24 hours before reinstating your edit." Based on this discussion, and counting the editors who have reverted the version of the heading that includes the phrase "sexual assault", I think I can confidently say that there is no consensus and 12 days does not make for a "stable" version. - MrX 🖋 00:09, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Please revert to the longstanding consensus header then, which is "Allegations of inappropriate physical contact." Please find a source which categorizes the assault allegation as "inappropriate behavior"; I haven't seen any sources which categorize sexual assault that way. Was my reversion back to my edit against the page restriction? My edit was not reverted back to what it was before; I felt like the "inappropriate behavior" header was a bold edit in the BRD cycle. There is certainly no consensus for this title, so the consensus should be restored. Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:27, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

That's not a reasonable demand, as there is no consensus either way as I previously explained. Forgive me for assuming that you have already reviewed the sources. There are at least two strong sources already in the article that refer directly to "inappropriate behavior". - MrX 🖋 14:40, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

MrX, you did not actually respond to what I said.  I asked you to revert to the last consensus, the header which has been there for at least a year,[60] which I quoted above, which is not the same as my preferred header as it does not include "sexual assault".  Please do not revert to your preferred header[61] without discussing first.  It is irrelevant whether sources "refer" to "inappropriate behavior", please show me sources which categorize sexual assault as inappropriate behavior. Kolya Butternut (talk) 15:12, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I misunderstood. I would agree to do that. - MrX 🖋 15:24, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

WP:SKYBLUE Sexual assault, like other crimes, is inappropriate behavior. SPECIFICO talk 15:29, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

That's ridiculous; is that how we categorize Bill Cosby's or Harvey Weinstein's or Ted Bundy's behavior?  Please do not cite my request that the longstanding header be restored as a reason to revert in the future.  This article clearly needs admin attention.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 15:52, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

No. What's ridiculous is that you should equate a dubious claim of assault from a person who has changed their story multiple times to convicted sex offenders and murderers. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:17, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

That is a strawman argument.  Murder falls under the description "all other crimes".  That's why that rationale is absurd. Please stop calling her allegations dubious; that is s BLP violation.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:28, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

It is absolutely NOT a BLP violation to say Ms. Reade's claim is dubious. It is, in fact, a well supported assertion. And you can't claim I'm using a strawman argument based on your own absurd comparison with convicted criminals. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:33, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

• By my read of this section, the majority agree with "Allegations of inappropriate physical contact and sexual assault", which was the header on the article for nearly two weeks, so I have restored it. I'm counting myself, SharabSalam, Cbs527, Kolya Butternut, Guy Macon, MelanieN, petrarchan47, and the IP in favor, with Samboy, SPECIFICO, and MrX opposed, and I'm not sure where TFD, BeŻet, and Scjessey stand on it. Apologies if I've gotten anyone wrong here. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 20:12, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

This does not look like a consensus to me. - MrX 🖋 18:08, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Are your Flinstones glasses broken? :-) OK I'll make it a formal proposal. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 19:38, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

• Allegations of inappropriate physical contact is best. It includes the sole allegation of assault and also comprises the well-docuemnted "too-close" conduct that -- importantly -- Biden has acknowledged and discussed. The other header in the plural is false and misleading -- there is only a single assault allegation -- and it elevates the least credible allegation, Reade's somewhat kaleidic account. SPECIFICO talk 16:59, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Are there any sources that categorize sexual assault as "inappropriate physical contact"? If not neither should we. I find your characterization of Reade's allegation to be a BLP violation against her. Please stop. Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:22, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Are there any sources that confirm Biden committed sexual assault? If not, we should not use that inflammatory language in a section header, which is supposed to be neutral, because that would be a BLP violation against the subject of the article. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:34, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

KB previously asked that same question, and I answered her, above in this thread. KB, please see WP:CRYBLP SPECIFICO talk 17:48, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

We don't need a source saying he committed sexual assault in order to support a section heading that says "allegations of sexual assault". That's a straw man argument. It's not "inflammatory", it's how the sources describe the allegation. Here's NPR, today, for example: [62]. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 19:38, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

We don't need to legitimize a dubious claim when a perfectly acceptable neutral title is available. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:43, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with "legitimizing" a claim. Another straw man argument. I'm disappointed you reverted with an edit summary about "POV pushing", and yet you are the one who is here expressing a POV (that the claims are "dubious" and shouldn't be "legitimized"). This is about describing the allegations in the way the sources describe it; it has nothing to do with the merits of the claim, and it's not for us to decide whether or not the claim is dubious or legitimate. Anyway, we can continue this discussion in the formal proposal section I'm about to post below. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 19:58, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Joe Biden/GA3. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

• The article's neutrality has been questioned, it is clearly not stable and has been subject to full PP because of edit warring. Perhaps it can be reassessed after the 2020 election when things have calmed down but as it stands now, it fails GA. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 14:59, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

  I agree, this is a clear delist for the time being. Mz7 (talk) 17:32, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

• It was promoted to GA back in 2008, before he even became VP. The article has since grown by leaps and bounds, and is unrecognizable compared to the 2008 version. Now I do harbor some hope that the article can be kept at status however, as was done with Obama's article. Obama was made an FA in 2004. It received a whopping 10 FA reviews between 2007 and 2012, but hard working contributors ensured that it kept FA status throughout Obama's campaign and presidency. Now...do I think that could be done here? Perhaps. But unless a group of contributors is willing to come together to save it, I would opt to delist (And no, I don't have time to join a GA team I'm afraid). My main concerns is neutrality, especially as we come into the election. Everything is pretty much sourced, but I would like to see a thorough source review. I personally don't think stability is an issue as long as any controversial changes are made into RfC's and gain consensus...which is probably how most big edits to this page are going to need to be made in the next year anyway. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:32, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

That isn't how GA works, CaptainEek. We don't leave it with a GA rating when there is edit warring and controversy surrounding it. If it ever settles down, it can be renominated. Just because it passed in 2008, doesn't mean it remains a GA 12 years later. That's why we have GAR. It would be a different story if we were looking at promoting it to FA but that certainly isn't the case now. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 21:41, 16 April 2020 (UTC) ^{CaptainEek, after going back and reviewing your input, I'm concerned that I may have misunderstood your view about stability, and apologize if I came across too matter-of-factly. I'm of the mind that stability and NPOV are like bacon and eggs - they go together. 😊 Atsme _Talk 📧 23:56, 21 April 2020 (UTC)}

Atsme, we also do not delist without mentioning specific issues that makes it fall below GA. I do not think it is as unstable as you say. We should go for a couple editors to do a full review and see if some other editors can take care of any issues and rescue it. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 03:12, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Atsme, No worries, thanks for the clarification :) CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 00:22, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

• At the time this GAR was written (15 April): "as it stands now" edit warring had long ceased ("stability"), full page protection had ceased (in-line with the closing of an RfC dealing with BLP matters), and neutrality concerns remain(?) for a section in the article that is continuously being worked on (something that happens on Wikipedia every day). If the nominator for this GAR could please elaborate further as to why this article should be delisted, that'd be great. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 04:15, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
• Delist If it was going to be at GAN right now it would be an immediate fail as there is edit warring and several content disputes. Since it already is a GA but now is experencing edit warring, has content disputes and apparently editors have questioned the article's neutrality, it fails GA as shown here.--MONGO (talk) 19:20, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
• Remove GA It's not one. It won't be one during the election season. It fails a number of GA criteria and does not resemble the article that was assessed as a GA. There are major content RfC's, edit warring, content forks, and various other distractions. ConstantPlancks (talk)
• Remove GA As it stands, our article Joe Biden is partisan campaign literature in large part. Not only is it subject to edit warring, but there is massive partisan editing to minimize Biden's recent gaffes and accusations that Biden has engaged in nonconsensual physical contact with women up to and including fingerbanging a staffer while he was in the United States Senate. Compare our article Brett Kavanaugh to this article and it's apparent the degree to which this article glosses over important issues which were brought up in our article on Brett Kavanaugh.

The degree of political slant in Joe Biden makes a mockery of our WP:NPOV ethic. --loupgarous (talk) 17:30, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

• Here following a notice at the reassessment page. I am very familiar with the GAR process from a practical standpoint and don't really care about American politics if that is an issue. I haven't looked at the article yet, I am just commenting on what I am seeing at this page. This has been opened as an individual reassessment. This means that the person opening it is supposed to close it. Other comments are welcome, but in the end it is up to Atsme to close it as they see fit. In best practise the person opening the reassessment presents some clear examples of how it fails the criteria. However, we don't delist for edit warring or ongoing rfcs. The stability criteria is more a practical criteria for reviewers (it is hard to review an article if it is constantly changing). By the same principle, if there is an ongoing content dispute it is better to wait for that to settle down before conducting a reassessment. Also the GAR process should not be used as a tool to resolve content disputes (not saying that is the case here, but I have seen this in the past). AIRcorn (talk) 21:58, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
• While this is formatted as an individual reassessment, I will note that a lot of the comments here aren't particularly helpful. Assertions that an article fails one of the criteria are easy to make, but in the absence of substantiating evidence, carry no weight, and are not actionable. With respect to political articles in particular, assertions that an article fails NPOV are a dime a dozen. To be constructive GAR comments, opinions here need to get into the substance of what needs to change in the article, and why, with specific reference to the source material. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:10, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
• Thank you all very much for the input, but I disagree with the "keep" sentiment as this is a totally different article from the one that was promoted in 2008. The new article fails GA criteria which is why we have GAR, but there is more to it as the following will demonstrate:

1. GA/FA promotion has been my focus as a WP editor since 2011, and I was taken back a step or two when I discovered this article was promoted over a decade ago under dubious circumstances; the latter of which is part of the reason I initiated this GAR.
2. The article is not stable which makes it an immediate fail. It also requires a level of PP because of the disagreements regarding content - keeping in mind that consensus decides what does or does not get included but consensus can change, so if PP and DS are in place, and RfCs are ongoing as more material is added/removed, it tells us the article lacks stability and does not meet GA criteria; rather, it is a work in progress. As most long-standing editors are aware, edit wars and disputes typically arise when there are NPOV issues, and it matters not if the article is political or happens to be about dogs. An unstable article that gets promoted despite failing GA criteria makes a mockery of the process, especially when the instability is not caused by vandalism, and full protection has to be applied.
3. When an article wears the GA symbol and doesn't qualify, it sends the wrong message to editors and readers alike. It also depreciates the hard work that I and other longtime editors have invested as reviewers/promoters over the years.
4. After carefully reviewing this article from when it was first promoted in 2008 until now, I found that it was not only disappointing, it sadden me to think the process has been exploited and drug into the political arena. All one has to do is look at the spikes in revision history stats for the page.
5. GA1 failed on 9/17/2008 - read the discussion and what was involved, if you haven't already - it was supposed to fail. Two days later, GA2 unsurprisingly passes...a few months prior to the 2008 election. Look at the article that passed. The Biden article today is not even close to being the same article that was dubiously promoted to GA in 2008, 2 days after it failed.
6. During the time between elections, the article has not undergone a single peer review but it has changed dramatically and has expanded beyond what WP:Article length suggests.
7. I did not rush to remove GA status because I wanted input from other editors to see how they felt. I am quite confident that I made the right decision when I initiated this GAR.

I am going to demote this article for the reasons I mentioned above. Once all the issues have been resolved, it is possible that the article can be improved enough to meet GA criteria once it is stable, but I highly recommend a peer review first. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 18:50, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

I am not particularly familiar with the GA process so I will defer to others' judgement. However, I would like to respond to some of your points.

• 1, 4, 5) Could you please explain what you mean by "dubious circumstances" and/or why you disagree with GA2? I read GA1 and GA2 and nothing seemed dubious to me.
• 2, 6, 7) Coffeeandcrumbs and MelbourneStar both seem to have asked for specific issues with the article. The only issues you cited are stability, that the article's neutrality has been questioned, and length.

• With respect to the issue of stability, the recent "edit warring" was the result of an ongoing RFC. It can be expected to subside now that the Tara Reade RFC has concluded and the content has largely been moved to Joe Biden sexual assault allegation. (For this particular RFC, the unique circumstance of the gap in time between arguably-RS sources and definitely-RS sources reporting Reade's allegations contributed to the edit warring.)
• With respect to the issue of neutrality, you have only brought up that the neutrality has been questioned. Every article about a controversial/political public figure will have its neutrality "questioned" by someone. I can't tell if you are stating that the article is not neutral or just that others have stated so; if it is the former, please provide example(s).
• With respect to the issue of length, as you said yourself WP:Article length is a suggestion. WP:GAR states that compliance with the Manual of Style […is] not covered by the GA criteria and therefore not grounds for delisting.

I'd appreciate it if you could provide specific instances of where this article fails the GA criteria. I also note that WP:GAR says that the individual reassessment should be used if You don't see any ongoing content dispute or edit war, which was not the case. I believe a community reassessment is more appropriate. userdude 19:35, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

• See WP:GAFAIL: Immediate fail: It is not stable due to edit warring on the page;
• It also fails the following 2 of the 6 GA criteria:

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

And as I explained in detail above, it has a level of PP which is further proof of its instability. It is not the same article that was reviewed 12 years ago. Instability is a symptom of NPOV issues. Without the PP and DS, what do you think would happen? Suggestion - if you are so confident about the article's stability, then submit a request to have the PP and DS restrictions removed, and renominate it for GA. It's that simple. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 20:52, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Instead of asserting that you are correct, please provide specific instance(s) of where this article is not neutral. I am unaware of any rule that GAs may not be protected. User:Aircorn said The stability criteria is more a practical criteria for reviewers, thus WP:GAFAIL#4 should not be applied to GARs. As I said, the edit warring was due to an unusual circumstance that has since been resolved by an RFC. I would find it wholly inappropriate if this GAR were to be closed now as delist — it should not be an individual reassessment for the reason stated above. userdude 21:21, 21 April 2020 (UTC); edited 21:23, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Instability is a reason not to pass an article (again mainly for practical reasons), but not in itself a reason to delist. Otherwise any current good article that undergoes an edit war or disagreement (which are a lot) would suddenly need to be delisted. Even worse it opens the door to editors deliberately making an article unstable so they can delist it. Normal editing practices (which in this case appears to be a content dispute that turned into an edit war and now is being resolved by RFC) are not grounds to delist. In fact the Good Article process gives precedent to community consensus. So if there is community consensus established through a RFC, no matter how egregious that may appear to some, then it has to be accepted as good enough to meet the Good Article criteria. Nothing presented here has really explained how it fails the criteria. It is all very well to say it is not neutral, but examples need to be given. Protection in itself is not proof of anything apart from that the article is attracting disruptive editing. I tend to agree that this should have gone through the community process, although that can be a bit hit and miss at the moment. If someone want to challenge Atsmes close the could take it there themselves after the close. AIRcorn (talk) 23:30, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Atsme, I am the editor that brought it to GA way back when and I was the editor who kept it there for the next seven years, until I stepped away from these kinds of high-profile active political articles. I do not believe the promotion to GA was dubious and I believe it warranted its GA status for the whole time I was minding it. (I have 160 combined FA/GA/DYK credits and so I think I know something about reviewed content.) As for stability and edit-warring and NPOV claims and page protection, that comes with the territory with these kinds of articles and it has never prevented articles of this kind achieved reviewed status. Indeed, Barack Obama was FA through both his presidential elections and presidency, John McCain was FA throughout his presidential election in 2008, and the same was true for Mitt Romney in 2012 and Hillary Rodham Clinton in 2016 (I was involved in several of these). I can assure you there were always people, from both sides, complaining about the neutrality of each of these articles. That's almost the definition of neutrality – big fans will think it's too hard on the subject and big opponents will think it's too soft on the subject. I can't really speak to the current state of the article, but in my view the grounds you have for taking the GA away are not sufficient. Better would be to point out concrete, specific things wrong with it and see if those can be remedied. In my time doing these kinds of articles that was always a big frustration – people would complain in generalities but rarely list out specific, actionable points. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:40, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

• Delist - Per WP:GAFAIL points 3 & 4. The article still has maintenance tags Joe Biden#First term (2009–2013) and is far from stable with big changes and some edit warring. PackMecEng (talk) 22:59, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Decision

• The arguments to keep do not align with GA's core set of editorial standards. At the bare minimum, a good article should be neutral, stable, free of maintenance tags, and should not omit any major facets of the topic. An article is an immediate fail when there's edit warring but this one goes much further and has resulted in full or semi-PP, and DS restrictions of 1 revert per 24 hrs. A GA is exactly what its name implies - a good article, but when there is edit warring, disruption, NPOV issues and instability the article is clearly not good. Also, a GA should not be so long that it is unwieldy and difficult to read. This article is currently at 88 kB (14495 words) vs the 2008 GA article that was promoted at 31 kB (5122 words), so no, it is not the same article that was promoted over a decade ago. The delist arguments were the strongest and most convincing in support of delisting. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 01:48, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

• Atsme, I find your decision troubling. Neither you nor any of the delist !votes provided any specific examples where the article is not neutral, despite I and numerous other users asking for examples. You repeatedly said the article has grown significantly since GA2, but you have not provided any examples of new content that fails GA criteria. You cited the edit war over Tara Reade's allegations as an example of instability, but this issue has been resolved by an RFC and was caused by an unusual circumstance, as mentioned above. WP:GAR says that GAR should be used if you don't see any ongoing content dispute or edit war. You used the fact that this article is protected as evidence of instability, but per that argument no major controversial/political topic could have GA status. The only specific examples of this article failing GA criteria you cited are length and a single maintenance tag from April 2020.

You say the keep arguments do not align with GA's core set of editorial standards, but you have ignored the content of the arguments. Numerous users have asked for specific examples of neutrality failure, but none have been provided. The arguments that the article fails neutrality have not been arguments — they've been assertions. You've asserted that GA2 was dubious, but have not stated why. I and Wasted Time R challenged this assertion, but you did not respond. You used the recent edit war as evidence of failing the stability criterion, but you have not responded to my statement that the edit war was caused by an unusual circumstance and has since been resolved by RFC. You used the page's protection status as evidence of instability despite the fact that the page for a major party's presidential nominee would be protected under any circumstance, regardless of the article's quality.

I didn't come into this expecting to defend the article. Having never participated in a GAR, I was planning on just watching. But when I saw that you were planning on delisting the article after several users asked for specific examples of the article failing GA criteria and none were provided, something seemed wrong. I'm not sure even sure if this article does meet GA criteria, but you have avoided making substantive arguments for delisting and ignored arguments against delisting. I am unfamiliar with the steps of dispute resolution, but I would like for a neutral user to determine the consensus of this GAR. userdude 04:57, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

@UserDude: Atsme didn't even bother responding to my comment which had asked for further elaboration on why she intends to delist the article. Considering no elaboration was provided, it would stand to reason that the article's issues aren't "extensive" after all; yet, if that were the case, Atsme blatantly ignored the three steps to take prior to initiating GAR (particularly: #1: fix simple problems yourself, #2: tag serious problems you can't fix, #3: Remember, the aim is not to delist the article, but to fix it). So I'm not entirely shocked that Atsme came to this decision to delist... a week after she nominated the article for a GAR to delist. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 05:41, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree this does not align with the principles of conducting a reassessment. The aim is to fix problems and for that to happen the problems need to be outlined. It feels very much like this has been nominated with the intention of delisting it without giving it a chance to be kept. The pile on !votes from editors not familiar with the reassessment process do not help the cause. If it is delisted with the current commentary here I would recommend it is taken to community GAR. It should probably have been raised there in the first place. I will do so myself if nobody else does. AIRcorn (talk) 06:30, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Seems fairly straightforward to me. She has explained the issues several times that I can see and there is a clear majority supporting it. PackMecEng (talk) 14:34, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Anyone can vaguely explain issues, that's not quite difficult. Difficult is providing examples of those issues within the article, when those issues don't actually exist. If this page were still fully PP, if edit warring was still occurring, and if there were a litany of actual examples of NPOV breaches – I'd be singing a different tune. That's evidently not the case on 15 April when this GAR was opened, or now. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 15:21, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

With reverts happening daily and content changing drastically I find it hard to say the article is stable in any sense of the word. Also as I mentioned there is still an active maintenance tag in the article that pretty much requires a re-write of the section to correct. PackMecEng (talk) 15:29, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

A maintenance tag that was placed after the GAR, and per GAR's "before initiating a reassessment" (underline mine) statement: (#2) Tag serious problems that you cannot fix with appropriate template messages, if the templates will help other editors find the problems. Do not tag bomb the article. So if it were tagged prior to the GAR, and nothing was done to fix it -- you'd have a point. Now that it's been delisted? not so much of a point. Secondly, there are a few reverts here and there, which does not constitute to edit warring. Yes, changes occur to this article... you'll find that actually happens a lot on Wikipedia (GA, Featured articles too). But that hardly makes it unstable. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 15:40, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

We do not look at the article in a bubble of when the discussion started, if that were the case there was serious edit warring at the time. You cannot have it both ways. Also yes big changes, constant reverts, RFCs, and lots of talk discussion indicate unstable articles. Thats how it works. That is what unstable means. PackMecEng (talk) 15:45, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

No that's actually wrong. The edit warring ceased with the commencement of the PP; the latter, it too, ceased with the ending of the contentious (and understandably so) RfC dealing with significant BLP matters. And then this discussion started. Lot's of talk and discussion, RfCs on serious matters -- whilst that to you makes an "unstable article", to me it actually looks like a proper functioning encyclopedia. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 15:51, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Sure I agree, proper functioning encyclopedia. That is not the same as a stable article. Also yes the RFC closed, now the contentious matter of what to say exactly and how. I guess me and the majority of people that agree it is not stable are all wrong? PackMecEng (talk) 15:54, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

We can play a game of semantics till the cows come home, I think it's implied that I believe this article has been stable, and was certainly stable at the time of the GAR. Yes, RfC has closed and people can continue to work collaboratively on here. And yes, I respectfully do believe on the matter of stability, you are all wrong. Just as I'd imagine you would believe I'm wrong. The difference is, it's the onus of the GAR nominator to outline how it's unstable. GAR nominator, you, and the others can't really explain that considering at the time of writing the GAR, the brief spell of edit warring has long ceased. I feel like I've repeated myself, whether you've listened is up to you... and so that's my cue to leave things. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 16:06, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

• As promised I opened a community reassessment. If you believe it doesn't meet the criteria please leave actionable comments there. AIRcorn (talk) 23:27, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Could someone uninvolved close this thread, and point folks to the new GAR in said closing? CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 00:24, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Post-close comments

• Atsme This is an individual reassessment, and you're technically able to close it however you want, at any point that you want. However, if you're closing it as "delist", you need to list actionable issues that anyone interested in rescuing can address. "Article is not neutral" is not an actionable issue. If you have NPOV concerns, you've to point to specific instances where the article does not accurately represent available source material. I haven't read all the source material, to be clear, so I have no opinion on whether or not it does; but having worked on both promoting and reviewing a lot of political articles, this is the only way to do it. Asserting a lack of neutrality without reference to the source material, and delisting it on that basis, will just mean someone will renominate it, and request another reviewer; and they'd be within their rights to do so. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:02, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your input, Vanamonde93, it is very much appreciated. There are no clear procedures - one seems to contradict the other - and having been involved in a GAR myself several years ago which actually helped make me more aware of things to be cautious about and that has helped me immensely in my work at NPP, AfC, and as a GA/FA reviewer-promoter. The way GAR is written now tends to be quite confusing, especially since I was adhering closely (or thought I was) to the reassessment process which clearly states: The outcome of a reassessment should only depend on whether the article being reassessed meets the good article criteria or not. I will clearly list my reasons for closing this delist below, and again, thank you. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 17:42, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

@Atsme: I'd talking less about the written procedures, which are somewhat general, and more about behavioral best practices and broader policy concerns. Anyone can say an article isn't neutral. That isn't sufficient to delist an article, because if it was, we'd have no politcs GAs at all. Concerns with neutrality have to be based on the source material, and have to be actionable; these aren't things that are necessarily codified, but these are things administrators would consider if this blew up into a dispute needing administrator attention, for instance. So it's less about following the letter of the process, which you are doing, and more about minimizing drama from the outset. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:08, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

@Atsme: This is an exact copy of the instructions at WP:GAR, How to use this process instruction #8:

• Individual reassessment

  To close the discussion, edit the individual reassessment page of the article. State the outcome of the discussion (whether there was consensus and what action was taken) and explain how the consensus and action was determined from the comments.

• Community reassessment

  To close the discussion, edit the community reassessment page of the article and locate {{GAR/current}}. Replace it with {{subst:GAR/result|result=outcome}} ~~~~. Replace outcome with the outcome of the discussion (whether there was consensus and what action was taken) and explain how the consensus and action was determined from the comments. A bot will remove the assessment from the GA reassessment page and will add it to the current archive.

It doesn't appear that you need to use any fancy templates for an individual close; it's a pretty low-key thing to do. wbm1058 (talk) 18:34, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

But I should point out that the Template:GAR/current documentation does say it can be used for closing individual reassessments. – wbm1058 (talk) 18:42, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Oh, wait. It says that in the documentation for Template:GAR/AH. The documentation for those two templates is combined on the same page. wbm1058 (talk) 18:54, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

{{GAR/result}} is only to be used for closing community good article reassessments, per the documentation. Sorry about that. wbm1058 (talk) 18:57, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Close GAR

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.

---

My conclusion after carefully evaluating all of the arguments and discussion is that consensus weighed heavily to delist. The article has been delisted for the reasons I stated below:

The sentence before last in the first paragraph of WP:GAR, clearly states: The outcome of a reassessment should only depend on whether the article being reassessed meets the good article criteria or not. When we examine GA criteria, we can see that it clearly fails the criteria. Following are 4 reasons to immediately fail a GA:

1. It is a long way from meeting any one of the six good article criteria
2. It contains copyright violations
3. It has, or needs, cleanup banners that are unquestionably still valid. These include {{cleanup}}, {{POV}}, {{unreferenced}} or large numbers of {{citation needed}}, {{clarify}}, or similar tags (See also {{QF}})
4. It is not stable due to edit warring on the page

Joe Biden fails 2 of the 4 immediate fail criteria:

• Fails #3 - the article contains maintenance tags and clearly needs more. The article is unwieldy in length, difficult to read, contains trivia, and is overly promotional. MOS:LEAD states that the article should be well-written, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies. The lead fails to include any prominent controversies, and there are several, including allegations of inappropriate touching and sexual assault; however, as evidenced on the article's TP there are ongoing content disputes. The article also fails neutrality in that it does not represent viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. Another example, UNDUE: the article personalizes Biden by focusing on his personal tragedies and emotions, as though it were an effort to garner sympathy from the reader rather than focusing on his notability. Great stuff for a book or movie, but not for an encyclopedia. There is far too much detail throughout the article, which helps to explain why it is unwieldy.
• Fails #4 - the article is not stable, it is under PP, DS with a 1RR restriction, and at one point required full PP. A brief lull in edit warring typically occurs when an RfC is in the process attempting to resolve a dispute. When a dispute has reached a consensus, another dispute arises as to how the consensus material shall be worded in the article. The article changes significantly from day to day as the edit history demonstrates, including ongoing edit wars and content disputes. It is clearly not a stable article, and without the protection afforded, the article would be a battleground. See this discussion, this RfC, and this discussion and the Proposal that follows the RfC. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 01:16, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

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.

Reply: The "immediate fail" criteria (these 4 criteria) are different from the "GA criteria"(these 6 criteria). The GAR quote (as I read it) refers to the latter set. Otherwise, any good article could be immediately delisted if it had a single maintenance tag (such articles can be seen here) — or, for that matter, if a single user was unhappy with the result of an RFC and took it upon themselves to make an individual review wherein they vaguely assert NPOV violations and edit warring, ignore requests for examples, and unilaterally decide that consensus is heavily in their favor. The immediate fail criteria exist to determine if an article is even worth a reviewer spending time on it; this article is already beyond that point.

In addition to that, your claim that this article has maintenance tags is (as of 01:45, 1 May 2020 (UTC)) untrue. MrX and I fixed the issues tagged during the course of GA3. That is the point of GAR. userdude 01:45, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

@UserDude: The 4 "immediate fail" criteria are not essentially different from the 6 "GA criteria":

• "immediate fail" #4: It is not stable due to edit warring on the page is essentally the same as 5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute
• "immediate fail" #3: It has, or needs, cleanup banners that are unquestionably still valid essentially is covered by 1. Well written and 2. Verifiable with no original research

In other words, any article that passes the "GAR six" will also pass the "immediate fail" 4. – wbm1058 (talk) 04:58, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

That is mostly true (some cleanup banners are not covered by the criteria). This is all moot now as the only one that can overturn it is Atsme and I see little chance of that happening. AIRcorn (talk) 05:38, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

@Wbm1058: My apologies, I was unclear in my previous comment. As I read it, the point of the "immediate fail 4" is essentially to shut down the GAn discussion before it starts because there is no chance of the article passing the "GA 6". It seems to me that Atsme is using the "immediate fail 4" to close the discussion in their favor, which is contrary to the purpose of GAR—to improve the article. In the course of a GAR, issues are supposed to be specified and/or tagged so the article can be improved. If a tagged issue resulted in an immediate fail, the process would be pointless. userdude 05:42, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

I have disagreed with Atsmes interpretation of the reassessment process here and since the delisting have opened it for reevaluation by the community at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Joe Biden/1 AIRcorn (talk) 01:41, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

RfC: Should this article include Tara Reade's criminal complaint against Joe Biden?

Should the following be added to Joe Biden's BLP? petrarchan47คุก 19:16, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

• Related TP discussion
• Related RS/N section

In March 2020, Reade accused Biden of pushing her against a wall and digitally penetrating her on Capitol Hill in 1993. Reade filed a criminal complaint over the alleged assault on April 9 with the Washington D.C. Police.

Sources

---

Discussion.

• No, per the NYT: No other allegation about sexual assault surfaced in the course of reporting, nor did any former Biden staff members corroborate any details of Ms. Reade’s allegation. The Times found no pattern of sexual misconduct by Mr. Biden. Why would we include a futile criminal complaint made after the statute of limitations has expired and rejected so completely comprehensively by the NYT? Coverage of this allegation - which has not been viewed as credible enough to repeat by people who normally comment on such things, such as Ronan Farrow - is greatly excessive in this article already. We are not a tabloid. Guy (help!) 19:22, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

McHugh was Ronan Farrow's partner in the Weinstein investigative reporting. The filing has been included in every related article since it happened one week ago, and has been added to earlier articles, like from Vox. The accuser has stated her reasons for filing a futile report, but the reason we include it is because RS has done so. Reade states she filed the complaint against Biden for "safety reasons," to establish a paper trail of the incident in case anything happened to her. The statute of limitations for the alleged incident has passed..."I also wanted to make it clear that I would be willing to go under oath or cooperate with any law enforcement regarding it"

Wikipedia is not a mirror of routine news reporting. Our task is to separate the wheat from the chaff. This is not wheat. - MrX 🖋 21:04, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

The NYT piece is problematic for use by an encyclopedia as they have admitted to making an edit that removed factual information on behalf of the Biden campaign. petrarchan47คุก 19:34, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Guy has added it as big quote and I reverted, its undue and irrelevant to the article of Joe Biden. Also, the authors are not experts or notable. --SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 19:48, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

• Yes (As proposer) Rich McHugh is a reliable source, and his account has not been questioned. Some subsequent reporting has shortened the "formal criminal complaint" to "a (police) report", however I don't find that change encyclopedic. petrarchan47คุก 19:23, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

• Update: Active investigation: DC police probe sexual assault allegation against Joe Biden petrarchan47คุก 06:00, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

• Yes widely reported and reliably sourced.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 19:43, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
• No. Far too excessive (undue weight); we are not a tabloid and this is not a newspaper. The argument for inclusion is simply "well, X and Y ran news stories about it, and X and Y are reliable sources, ergo we must include it" - but that is not the standard for inclusion. Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion, and nor are we an indiscriminate collection of information. BLP heightens these considerations. Absent some substantive new development, this doesn't belong here. (The proposed "criminal complaint" text is also misleading: a "criminal complaint" is a charging document, akin to an indictment, issued by prosecutors, whereas this was an individual's complaint to police.)  Neutrality^talk 19:48, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Neutrality, this RfC is not over the specific text.  We can decide to call it a " police report" rather than "criminal complaint". Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:44, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

• Wikipedia does not censor. It is not undue, its the context, its reported in multiple high-quality sources.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 19:55, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

SharabSalam, it's not about censorship, it's ab out giving undue weight to an allegation about which you don't want the reader to know "No other allegation about sexual assault surfaced in the course of reporting, nor did any former Biden staff members corroborate any details of Ms. Reade’s allegation. The Times found no pattern of sexual misconduct by Mr. Biden". In point of fact, the allegation of censorship is an unusually reliable indidcator of POV-pushing on Wikipedia. Guy (help!) 21:27, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

• Yes - it meets the requirement for DUE, complies with WP:V and BLP:PUBLICFIGURE, and has more than adequate RS. Exclusion could be viewed as whitewashing or censorship in favor of a political candidate. My concern is focused more on our readers and keeping them here reading our articles. We should provide all the information most will be seeking rather than risk losing them to other sources - worse yet, to fake news sources. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 20:03, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
• No - We're not here for the clicks (hopefully). Elevating this futile action in a high-profile biography would give far too much WP:WEIGHT to something that has no real effect. Based on the relatively sparse coverage in reliable sources, Reade's allegation should occupy a small amount of space in this article, basically acknowledging that she made the allegation and that Biden denied it. Also, why are editors still proposing content sourced to Business Insider and Newsweek? I thought we were past that. - MrX 🖋 20:18, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
• Yes Per Atsme above. Didn't we just get through with an Rfc about this here?--MONGO (talk) 20:22, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
• No I don't think the article should be ahead of the curve by giving proportionately more coverage to the story than mainstream media. Per weight, matters that have received little coverage, particularly things currently in the news, should not be mentioned at all. Editors need to put aside their personal views about the candidate or whether or not they find the complaint credible. TFD (talk) 20:50, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Agree on all counts, except that what I (and others) have noticed is that this report is mentioned in every single article on the subject written since the filing. The Vox article written just after Reade came out was updated to include it. The idea that it should be included here came from this observation. petrarchan47คุก 05:49, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

• Yes Per Atsme above. It is more than appropriate to note that she filed a complaint. We of course must also include his campaign's denial. With both of those perspectives, its inclusion strikes the right balance.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 21:01, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
• Comment If this is getting added, then there should also be a note on how the trustworthiness of the allegation in general has been questioned by the sources. This is a serious issue and there should be context. On the other hand, WP:UNDUE is a serious problem here. The section on this already significantly longer than the similar section in the Donald Trumps article. Dead Mary (talk) 21:41, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
• No This document is not noteworthy for Joe Biden's biography. The allegations are significant, but not this docuemnt. The article already relates Tara Reade's allegation, so the report adds no facts about Biden. Reade has said that she knew the statute of limitations had already lapsed. She said that filed the report to give herself "an additional degree of safety from potential threats." So how is it relevant to Biden's biography? The central fact for his biography relates to the allegations themselves, not the document Reade gave the police. SPECIFICO talk 23:50, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

She didn't give anyone a document, she reported the alleged assault over the phone in a 45 minute conversation with D.C. Police. According to sources, such as Vanity Fair, it was the filing of this criminal complaint that led to the widespread coverage that happened on Easter. After Rich McHugh reported on the report for Business Insider on Friday, the Times, the Post, the AP, and NBC News all followed* petrarchan47คุก 05:49, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

• Yes The fact that a police report was filed against Biden is the second-most noteworthy piece of the allegation story. Most RS focus on the police report, many even right in the headline or subheading. For example: Vox, "A woman says Biden assaulted her in 1993 and has filed a criminal complaint.", Vice, "The Woman Accusing Biden of Sexual Assault Filed a Report to Police.", MSN, "Tara Reade, Former Senate Staffer, Files Police Report Against Joe Biden Over Alleged '93 Incident". Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:02, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
  • NPR has confirmed that the police report does indeed name Biden: "NPR obtained confirmation of the police report from a law enforcement source. A record of the report names Biden. NPR has filed a Freedom of Information Act request for the full report."[63] Kolya Butternut (talk) 14:55, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
    • Granted we could be waiting 2.5 weeks for the NYT et al to mention this, but there is an open investigation into this allegation according to Rich McHugh* (Washington Examiner and other right wing outlets have jumped on it, but no one else yet). petrarchan47คุก 16:02, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

*Yes Extremely well sourced and one of the most important pieces of the sexual assault allegation. SeriousIndividuals (talk) 01:08, 18 April 2020 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet account. SPECIFICO talk 12:25, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

A brand-new account with a grand total of 1 mainspace edits. Please familiarize yourself with our policies and guidelines before participating in RfCs. Neutrality^talk 00:34, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

I finally created an account after editing without one, at the urging of several people. I'm familiar with the basics, but it doesn't take a seasoned veteran to know that a woman coming forward to report a highly credible allegation of misconduct (the 9th woman to do so) and filing a criminal complaint against a presumptive presidential nominee is a "big fuckin' deal," to quote the subject of this page. EDIT: I stand corrected. She filed a police report, not a criminal complaint. SeriousIndividuals (talk) 02:08, 19 April 2020 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet account. - CBS527^Talk 15:03, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Filed a police report, not a criminal complaint. A criminal complaint is a written document filed by a state or federal prosecutor that alleges a person committed a crime, sets out the basic facts and charges and is filed with the respective criminal court.[64] It is the first step on the path to a criminal trial. A police report is a written document created by a police officer after someone reports something (often a crime but it could be anything) so that the police have a record of it. The one source that says that a criminal complaint was filed is unreliable. The reliable sources call it a police report. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:39, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

The type of report filed is called a criminal complaint. There is now an open investigation. If the phrasing is wrong as you suggest, McHugh would have been corrected and discredited for sloppy reporting. petrarchan47คุก 05:49, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out the distinction, I included a note about that since it's important to be precise with the language, although my opinion on this remains the same. SeriousIndividuals (talk) 19:00, 19 April 2020 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet account. - CBS527^Talk 15:03, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

• Weak no - It seems undue and trivial given the fact that it has no legal effect. The impact that the actual report has on Biden will be nonexistent. I agree with other editors who have said that the actual allegations are more important than the document. --WMSR (talk) 04:09, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

It has an effect, there is now an open investigation into Biden per Rich McHugh: Update: while it is typical for a criminal complaint filed out of statute--like the one Tara Reade filed against Joe Biden--to be closed/archived, DC Metro Police confirmed to me, 11 days later, "This is an active investigation..."* petrarchan47คุก 05:49, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

• This RfC is pointless – The article already includes "police report". I have no idea what the point of this RfC is. As a resident of Washington D.C., "criminal complaint" makes no sense to me. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 08:27, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

  RfCs are intended to help come to consensus on something, such as whether to cover something in an article. If this RfC comes to a consensus against mentioning the police report, then it should be removed as with anything without consensus. The fact that something is currently in an article doesn't mean it has consensus to stay that way forever. Nil Einne (talk) 19:33, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

  If the question is "Does the police report have due weight to remain in the article?", then my !vote is a clear and unequivocal Yes. The fact that she has filed a police report has been covered by major RS. It is also what brought the whole thing to a head. It is a necessary context and aftermath that requires mentioning. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 00:31, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

• Weak yes now that people seem to have stopped trying to add misleading text to our article, it seems fair enough to discuss this. I say a weak yes mostly because I think even a short mention of the allegation seems incomplete without mentioning the police report. However it shouldn't be overly detailed, probably just along the lines of she made the police report and the Biden campaign rejected the allegations. (The only other thing that might be worth mentioning is that the allegations appear outside the statute of limitations of any alleged crime.) It's also quite hard to make a judgment at this time as all this is still very new, especially the police report. If over time, most refs which mention the allegation don't mention the police report, then nor should we. But we don't really know at this time, we can only get some idea from how refs clearly written after the police report, cover this. From what I've seen most do mention the police report although it's also true many such refs are covering the police report or related issues. I do agree we should say police report and not criminal complaint. Nil Einne (talk) 19:33, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
• Mention the complaint / Keep things as-is - As of right now, the article contains the text:
  • In March 2020, Reade accused Biden of pushing her against a wall and digitally penetrating her on Capitol Hill in 1993. On April 9, 2020, she filed a police report with the Washington Metropolitan Police alleging she was sexually assaulted in spring 1993. Biden's 2020 presidential campaign has denied the allegation.
• This appears to be reasonable and encyclopedic to me. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 05:28, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
• Yes, for the same reason our article on Brett Kavanaugh hax an entire section entitled "Sexual assault allegations", We have an NPOV ethic here and that means if we give massive article space to allegations made against Justice Kavanaugh which were found unpersuasive by the Senate during his confirmation, then Tara Reade's accusations deserve that sort of detail and space.

We should read Brett_Kavanaugh and devote just as much space to Tara Reade's accusations as we have to Christine Blasey Ford's accusations. Either that, or stop pretending WP:NPOV is one of the project's core values. We have no business doing WP:PROMO for either large political party. --loupgarous (talk) 17:17, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

• NPOV is about neutral representation of RS narratives within a page. It is not about comparisons between articles, Kavanaugh vs. Biden. SPECIFICO talk 18:41, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

• Yes (agreeing with Nil Einne on the details). It's an important part of the story, and the story is an important part of the article. A sexual assault allegation against the subject of a biography is pretty transparently noteworthy in a biography, and the fact that a police report was filed as of just recently is pretty transparently noteworthy to the sexual assault allegation (which is why it was covered in multiple places). Loki (talk) 06:43, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

• The mere statement that it's noteworthy is not a convincing rationale as to why it is noteworthy. We do not just count votes, so any convincing arguments should be presented in enough detail to support your conclusion. SPECIFICO talk 21:20, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

• No it is UNDUE and trivial. It does not contribute significantly to this issue or this article. The allegation is not inherently noteworthy, there is no such thing as inherit notability, and no such thing as inherited notability. The issue has already been appropriately verified and placed in the article as part of that process with appropriate WEIGHT already applied. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 18:45, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
• No - It would be redundant, and undue weight. It's also troubling to see off-wiki forums pushing this content again. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:12, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
• After some indecision, yes. However, the footnote currently in the article (According to Reade, she did not share the entirety of her story earlier because she had faced backlash following her 2019 statements due to her previously expressed support of Putin.) is an attempt at bypassing WP:UNDUE, but should still be removed. Readers looking for context on Reade's actions can go to Joe Biden sexual assault allegation.
  It is not true that the media have consensus that Biden does not have a pattern of committing sexual abuse, but even if it was true, it would not undermine the due weight of this specific allegation. Petrarchan47 quotes an excellent passage from Slate below which is relevant (beginning Whether they intend to or not, the explicit framing around the lack of pattern ...). The specific police report is significant due to its media attention and its implications of the seriousness of Reade's complaint, regardless of whether it is true and regardless of whether it is an isolated complaint. — Bilorv (talk) 22:53, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
• No this is UNDUE per above. Only support including a one or two sentence summary that links to further detail on the other sexual allegations sub article. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 11:58, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
• Yes this is not undue, we should treat this as we did Donald Trump's allegations and not continue handling Biden's with kid gloves as we currently are. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 06:17, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
• Yes a police report, a criminal complaint, has been filed against a former vice president of the United States and the presumptive democratic party nominee for president in 2020. The "sexual assault" article notwithstanding, this certainly belongs in Biden's biography.EdJF (talk) 01:53, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
• Yes Trump's page mention it. It has entered the public awareness and is a subject of political debate. If presented accuratly and in all reserves considering the truth or falsehood of the allegations, it ought to be there, especially since his opponent's page mentiones similar allegations. Francis1867 (talk) 09:24, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
• Yes – per RSes. In pretty much every summary of this allegation written by RSes, "filed a police report" is mentioned. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 19:33, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
• Conditional Yes - Widely covered in the sources, but explicitly "police report" as per most of the sources, and not "criminal complaint", which is unnecessarily loaded. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:12, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
• Yes. She has filed a formal police report about the alleged incident. It should at least be mentioned in the article. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:41, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
• Yes Widespread coverage in RS, meets DUE. Hrodvarsson (talk) 22:22, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
• Yes per discussion ShadZ01 (talk) 21:28, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

NYT on Reade

According to SharabSalam ([65]), mentioning the NYT's finding that "No other allegation about sexual assault surfaced in the course of reporting, nor did any former Biden staff members corroborate any details of Ms. Reade’s allegation. The Times found no pattern of sexual misconduct by Mr. Biden" is WP:UNDUE in a way that including the allegation that was unsubstantiated by anybody they talked to somehow is not.

Oddly enough, I disagree. Guy (help!) 21:23, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

It seems like important context to me. How is it undue? – Muboshgu (talk) 21:31, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

JzG, these random authors are not experts in the subject also the quotation inside templates to highlight what they said, is giving them undue weight. Cant be included in the article. Also, this is irrelevant to the article, what they are talking about is their (the authors) findings and excuse to why they didnt report the incident, it has nothing to do with the incident itself, its about their lack of reporting the story which isnt even in this article. --SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 21:36, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

They are investigative reporters and they investigated the allegation. Also, that no other women have made any allegations against Biden stands in stark contrast to the cases of Donald Trump, Bill Clinton, and others who have engaged in sexual misconduct. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:51, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

The reporters are expert investigative reporters who are thoroughly aware of and dedicated to best practices for such investigation. They also provided a great deal of transparency as to the scope and nature of their investigation -- who they interviewed and some of the substance of those conversations. "Random authors" is really not applicable here. SPECIFICO talk 21:57, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

I do not see anything wrong with noting that NYT did not find any other allegations of sexual assault. That just means that they didn't find any. There could or could not be more, as we have seen before. Given the correction by the NYT they should be looked at a bit more skeptically than under normal circumstances. The statement "The Times found no pattern of sexual misconduct by Mr. Biden" though seems to be undue to me. This seems to be them expressing an opinion on the entirety of the claims by Reade (and others) and those that could (or could not exist) which we know nothing about (the known unknowns). The problem with this statement about "misconduct" is that some of the past general allegations of inappropriate physical contact (touching shoulders, smelling hair etc) could be seen as "misconduct", "harassment" or simply inappropriate. Is the NYT talking about those claims too? There clearly is a pattern of complaints there. That is clearly not assault, but could be misconduct, harassment or simply inappropriate. We are not under any obligation to take the NYT's characterization of those known allegations as the gospel truth. Sure, they found no pattern of sexual assault... and maybe they don't CONSIDER these other allegations misconduct.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:13, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

This article is about Joe Biden, their own findings are irrelevant here, they are making an excuse why they didn't report the story earlier, if we are going to add that quote that we should give the context, which is that the NYT didn't report the allegation for long period of time.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 22:21, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

The NYT investigative journalists investigated Biden, so it fits. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:23, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

They are not experts or notable. They are only journalists. Their story is interesting but it is undue. Also, giving them a big fat quote template is giving much more undue weight.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 22:18, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

"Only journalists".... how dismissive. You realize how much Wikipedia owes to journalism? – Muboshgu (talk) 22:21, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

This is a legal matter that involves a BLP. You need real legal investigators not journalists making an excuse why they didnt report the story.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 22:23, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

So we can't use the New York Times as a source for articles about legal cases in the news? Then we'll have to delete a lot of articles starting with the Impeachment of Donald Trump. TFD (talk) 23:13, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Blocked sockpuppet distraction -- Scjessey (talk) 13:53, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
NYT is generally reliable for non-political subjects. It's important to keep in mind that the Biden campaign is running the NYT's coverage of the Biden campaign[66], hearkening back to the Hillary Clinton campaign's control over the Hillary Clinton campaign's coverage[67][68][69][70]. So we can use the NYT as some kind of general guidance or maybe for supporting links to more reliable sources, but it's important to keep in mind who NYT "journalists" are working for. SeriousIndividuals (talk) 01:20, 18 April 2020 (UTC) SeriousIndividuals, no, the Biden campaign is not "running" the NYT's coverage. It is normal for a newspaper to check content with a subject, and equally normal for them to take a conservative approach when the subject has specific objections. Citing right wing media bubble sources such as the Daily Caller as a source for a supposedly factual statement on bias in the mainstream is a problematic position on Wikipedia and I suggest you don't do that.Guy (help!) 11:53, 18 April 2020 (UTC) I included two left-wing bubble sources in my previous comment. It's one thing to take a "conservative approach." It's another thing to forward articles for a campaign's approval before publication. Or in this case, to publish a factually correct story that provided needed context for Tara Reade's allegation by describing previous allegations of sexual misconduct, and then removing the context under the direction of a candidate's PR team. Imagine if the Trump campaign had that kind of control over the NYT? Whoo, boy. SeriousIndividuals (talk) 21:37, 18 April 2020 (UTC) SeriousIndividuals The NY Times did not forward articles for pre-approval. That is a serious misstatement of fact. You should redact/replace it with something truthful ASAP. SPECIFICO talk 21:55, 18 April 2020 (UTC) I provided the links just in case someone here didn't know about what happened. If you don't think the journalists were telling the truth about the actions taken by Kenneth Vogel, Glenn Thrush, and Mark Leibovich, I suggest you voice your concerns with them. SeriousIndividuals (talk) 22:08, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

@SharabSalam: You wrote, "This is a legal matter that involves a BLP". What is your RS for claiming this is a "legal matter"? Reade has acknowledged that the statute of limitations has expired. She has said she only filed the police report for personal purposes ("safety", as if she were unsafe, without further explanation). The current status of Reade's new allegation is that it's only been a media matter. The substance is entirely unclear and it is clearly not a legal matter. SPECIFICO talk 12:24, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Due and undue weight says articles are required to "represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." The opinions expressed by the New York Times reporters and other reporters in mainstream media are the most significant viewpoints in that they have received the most prominence in mainstream sources. And the most significant aspect of the story is that the claims are not considered credible. If the claims aren't credible and have received little coverage of course it raises the question of why we should mention them at all. Personally I have no idea how credible they are, just repeating the opinion expressed in reliable sources. TFD (talk) 23:13, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

I would support including this, but not as a standout quote. We could paraphrase it to something like "Reade's allegations could not be corroborated with former Biden staff and no other sexual assault accusations came to light during an investigation by the New York Times." The last sentence of the original quote and the attribution are not necessary. - MrX 🖋 00:33, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

• The current section is fine as is, hopefully with the addition of the criminal complaint once the above RfC concludes. Further details about Biden's mishandling of Reade can be/should be included in Joe Biden sexual assault allegation. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 00:59, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

You say. Meanwhile int he real world there was a long period when people were trying to crowbar this contrent into this article but failed because it had zero coverage in good quality sources, and when we do get coverage in a good quality source (NYT is top tier for reliability), we find that they explicitly state that the allegation is not credible, which explains why it got no traction earlier. In a BLP, that is about as relevant as it gets. Guy (help!) 09:23, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Your statement is a BLP violation against Tara Reade.  The NYTimes did not state that. Kolya Butternut (talk) 12:52, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

If I understand correctly, K.B., this is the same claim you are making at the BLPN thread you opened. But without links and specifics, I don't think the rest of us are seeing this. Could you provide those? SPECIFICO talk 13:24, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

You want a link to the NYTs article we're discussing? WP:LIBEL, WP:ONUS. Kolya Butternut (talk) 15:44, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

• The details of what reporters sought and could not find are superfluous and undue. The noteworthy allegations of sexual misconduct are included in this article, readers can infer no other instances have been found. If we're going to write about staff members who saw nothing, we're going to have to write about the interns who the NYTs failed to describe as "corroborating" that she abruptly stopped supervising them, and we're going to have to write about what her friends and her brother heard about her experience. Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:33, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

• Could you provide sources and examples of that kind of additional article content, if that's what you are proposing? SPECIFICO talk 01:48, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

It sure seems like many editors here are extraordinarily keen to make sure Biden's biography contains a sexual assault allegation, but not include journalism from one of the world's most reliable sources that casts serious doubt on the allegation. Why could that be? -- Scjessey (talk) 13:36, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't think we should be using "the world" interchangeably with "Democrats." 53% of Democrats trust the NYT. 15% of Republicans share that trust.[71] I don't know the party breakdown of NYT trust internationally, but in the US, that's pretty dismal. Additionally, burying an earth-shattering story like this on page A20, and then later admitting that they cleaned it up at the behest of Biden's campaign[72] probably doesn't do much for their credibility. I think that's the primary reason that we're seeing resistance to the "journalism" of NYT staffers, and editors are relying on more reliable sources of information. SeriousIndividuals (talk) 21:46, 18 April 2020 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:53, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

By "the world", I mean "the world". The NYT is a world-renowned and trusted news source. I would speculate the reason the story is "buried" is probably because it is likely a non-credible accusation, and so isn't worthy of higher-placed coverage. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:06, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

What's your source that says "the world" trusts the NYT? I gave you my source that shows just 53% of Democrats, which the NYT caters to, trusts the NYT. I think it's only fair I see your source. Regarding the "credibility" of Tara Reade's corroborated, evidence-backed account of her experience, it's not up to us to decide if we BelieveWomen or not. That's why three women with no evidence or corroboration for their claims all have hundreds of words describing their stories on Brett Kavanaugh's page. SeriousIndividuals (talk) 22:12, 18 April 2020 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:53, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

r.e. Kavanaugh, I know that it's frustrating, but sauce for the goose is absolutely not sauce for the gander in terms of Wikipedia. Different pages are influenced by different editors and will vary wildly in terms of quality generally and specifically when it especially comes to controversy/criticism of article entities. As somebody who's looked at a lot of articles on Wikipedia about domestic abuse, sexual assault, et cetera, it's the consistent inconsistency that sticks out most to me. "But X isn't presented in Z way, so Y shouldn't be either" isn't really an argument. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 05:22, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

• I've asked for clarification at the RS/N; given that the NYT made a substantive edit to their piece at the request of the Biden campaign, the article might have limited use for the encyclopedia. petrarchan47คุก 03:04, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

For what it's worth, Slate addresses the NYT piece:

Whether they intend to or not, the explicit framing around the lack of pattern ends up making a statement about Reade’s believability. Not every sexual abuser makes a habit of committing multiple similar assaults in a span of a few years, but in recent years, both readers and reporters have become accustomed to gauging accusers’ credibility by counting their numbers. If an abuser leaves a trail of survivors in his wake, we demand they all make their allegations known to the press if any one of them is to be believed, in defiance of the personal and professional risks. (Reade says she didn’t tell her full story sooner because she was doxed after merely alleging that Biden had harassed her.) We’ve been spoiled, in the worst possible sense of the word, by the proliferation of stories detailing yearslong patterns of sexual violations committed by the likes of Harvey Weinstein, Bill Cosby, Roger Ailes, Matt Lauer, Bill O’Reilly, Charlie Rose, and Donald Trump. We’ve come to expect every abuser to come with an entire fleet of women giving the same details. petrarchan47คุก 02:51, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

petrarchan47, the NYTs text remains in the Tara Reade section, without consensus. The only line I support is "No other allegation about sexual assault surfaced in the course of reporting"; the rest are controversial. Also, the heading of the section has been changed without consensus. [73] Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:01, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Levivich, we could use more eyes on this section. Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:30, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Kolya Butternut, I don't know, the fact of the NYT's investigation and its results (whatever they may be) seems important enough to be a DUE inclusion in this paragraph somewhere. However, the problem I have is that what's in the article right now are details that I think are unimportant and thus not DUE: (1) No other allegation about sexual assault surfaced in the course of reporting ... – I mean, who cares? Imagine if, in an article about a murder suspect, we said that "the newspaper investigated and did not find any other murders in the course of reporting". Like, that's good, but it's not really ... relevant, unless for some reason we were expecting the newspaper to find more victims in the course of reporting. In this case, that the NYT didn't find more victims doesn't really tell our reader anything DUE about these allegations or Joe Biden. (2) ...  nor did any former Biden staff members corroborate any details of Ms. Reade's allegation – Again, we wouldn't expect them to. I'm sure that in the case of most people facing accusations, their own staff usually don't corroborate any details. In fact, it's "big news" when that happens, when someone "turns" on their boss or becomes a whistleblower. (3) The Times found no pattern of sexual misconduct by Mr. Biden. I'd think this was DUE if it was the police. I mean, the Times has been covering and investigating Biden for... what.. over thirty years? In all that time they never turned this up (or if they did, they didn't report it). So I'm not seeing it particularly DUE that the Times didn't find a pattern, since "a pattern" isn't really the allegation. In sum, I'm ok with including the NYT investigation, but I'd rather include content that sums up what the Time found out about the Tara Reade allegations, and not just the lack of other victims, corroborating staff members, or a pattern of misconduct. Those three seem like unimportant details to me. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 21:06, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Levivich, I agree that that information is undue. However, the NYTs did find that "Two former interns who worked with her...recalled that she abruptly stopped supervising them in April, before the end of their internship." This corroborates Reade's claim that this responsibility was taken from her after her assault, which occurred in the spring. Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:13, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Also, there are many witnesses; her brother, two friends, a coworker and a neighbor from 1995, and ostensibly her mother. We could say that several witnesses recall Reade sharing her story with them contemporaneously. Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:23, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Kolya Butternut, in my view, the fundamental problem here is using the NYT as a source for the NYT investigation. The NYT article is a primary source for the conclusions of its own investigation. (See WP:ALLPRIMARY and related discussion in the context of academic journals at RSN.) So if we want to talk about the NYT investigation and we use the NYT article as a source, we're left with editors deciding which parts of the NYT article are DUE or important enough to mention, and that's the fundamental problem with using primary sources: any decision made by editors is WP:OR. So to get around that, what we need are other reliable secondary sources that report about the NYT investigation (there are many, everybody has reported it by now). So I'd go about it by picking two or three of the best RSes (other than NYT) that discuss the NYT investigation, and then summarize the NYT investigation based on those two or three RSes said, preferably in wikivoice if we can get there. Something like, "The NYT investigated and concluded X." Now, if the two or three RSes each reported the same details from the NYT report (whether that's two former interns recalling her abrupt departure, or Biden's aides not corroborating, or "no pattern", or the Larry King call, or whatever it may be), then I'd be convinced those details should also be included in our article. If the two or three RSes each characterized the conclusions of the NYT investigation as "X", then I'd think we should also say "X". In this way, we're just following the sources... sources other than the NYT reporting about the NYT investigation. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 22:33, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it should be included. The section looks fine as-is (at least the version I saw before clicking edit here). It was one of the first really good sources on this topic and provides useful context. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:15, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Rhododendrites, there is no consensus for this text; that should be reason enough to remove it. The text does not summarize the findings of the NYTimes; it gives weight to what was not found rather than what was found; and its statement that no coworkers corroborated Reade's claims is disputed by other sources, which consider the statements of the interns to be corroboration of Reade's story. Please revert and discuss. Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:26, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

I mainly reverted because the main reason you gave for reverting seemed to be that it was somehow WP:OR and that we need to wait until people summarize what the NYT says. That's just not what OR means. It's a newspaper doing reporting. It's a secondary source. As for not being consensus, I did look at the history a bit first and did a spot check over the last several days, and it was in each version I clicked. Whether there's consensus for it seems unclear, and I won't object if someone undoes my edit with a different rationale. Addressing what you wrote here: if the language we use is a quote rather than a summary (if I understand what you're saying), then summarize it. As for giving weight to what was not found rather than what was found, it's included because the Times articulated what wasn't found. That's very different from, say, an editor inferring from the negative space. That kind of nuance is a feature of a journalistic project, not a bug. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:43, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Rhododendrites, I removed the text mainly because as has been repeatedly discussed here and at the separate article on sexual assault allegation, there is no consensus for the text. In addition, it is undue. The fact that it has been repeated restored against consensus is not a good reason for you to restore it. If you would like to discuss new text summarizing the NYTs reporting, please do that, but first please help out by reverting your edit. Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:53, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

@Kolya Butternut: First, please stop claiming the NYT text is "against consensus" when it clearly isn't. Second, please stop claiming that any of Ms. Reade's sometime supporters are "witnesses" when they are not. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:06, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Scjessey, I do not believe there is a consensus to include that specific NYTs text.

It is not I who claim they are witnesses; the witnesses have identified themselves. If you feel the word is inappropriate, I would suggest that you stop policing others' speech before considering your own reading comprehension. Kolya Butternut (talk) 15:37, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

The consensus is obviously leaning towards inclusion of the NYT text, and frankly it would be WEIRD not to include it. And your "witnesses" didn't "witness" the incident, so they aren't witnesses. Maybe you shouldn't be commenting on my reading comprehension if you don't want to attract a sanction. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:55, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

I think we can reject, on purely logical grounds, that a witness who self-identifies as such is the most credible arbiter of that proposition. Ever hear of the cannibal and the canoe? I am not a cannibal, hop in SPECIFICO talk 17:08, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

The consensus may not be against including no NYTs text, but that is not my assertion. The consensus is against including all of it as it is now. I'm not sure how not to comment on reading comprehension when we are still having this semantics discussion. No one is claiming anyone has witnessed Joe Biden sexually assaulting Tara Reade; that is not what the sources mean by "witnesses". Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:16, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Witness is a witness, not a person with an opinion or a person who's repeating something unrelated to the allegation, especially when it is something they are kind of sure they might have heard sometime long after the event, on second thought, after they revise their recollection. Witness has a clear meaning in ordinary speech. But as I tried to suggest, logic trumps semantics and there are no witnesses. That's in the nature of these things, so that does not by itself invalidate her claims. The results of journalists' investigations do, however cast considerable doubt on the allegation. SPECIFICO talk 17:44, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Please focus on what the source say. The sources call them witnesses; the current sources do not describe there being "considerable doubt on the allegation". Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:49, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Please review our behavioral guideline on this kind of repetitive talk page insistence. You're shifting your pretext for these. First you said they were self-identified witnesses. Is her mother a witness? Larry King is a witness. Sources please. Imagine how many crimes Larry King has witnessed by that standard? SPECIFICO talk 17:57, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Stating multiple things that are true is not "shifting". I'm not going to provide you with sources if you're going to make strawmen about Larry King. First, do you disagree that Reade's friends, brother, coworker, and neighbor are accurately described as witnesses? Kolya Butternut (talk) 06:19, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Levivich Editors are using a passage from the NYT article that contains the removal of a disclaimer regarding Biden’s pattern of misconduct (NY Times faces blowback for removal of controversial passage on Biden sexual assault allegation | TheHill) made solely because the Biden campaign wanted the change. It seems clear to me that using that sentence without alerting readers as to it’s controversial history and inherent COI is a policy violation. petrarchan47คุก 18:16, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Petrarchan47, all the more reason, I think, not to cite only to the NYT for the NYT investigation. For example, here's what Reuters says about the NYT investigation: The New York Times said in a statement on Wednesday an investigation it conducted of the matter “made no conclusion either way.” [74]. BTW, I find Jack Shafer's op-ed in Politico this week to be pretty comprehensive in its survey of media coverage of the allegation [75]. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 20:22, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for helping. With regard to media coverage, might I recommend this new piece from the New York Times' media columnist Ben Smith; he conducted the interview wherein the NYT admitted to changing the text simply because Biden asked them to (discussed also here, where he was a guest this morning on Hill TV's "Rising").

The Times gave a summary of their Reade reporting yesterday, when they had to clear up a lie being spread about it from the Biden campaign, as evidenced by leaked talking points. Their summary is perfect for the encyclopedia. They did uncover evidence, and are reliable for that. Their own summary is very accurate and neutral in my opinion.

[O]ur story found three former Senate aides whom Reade said she complained to contemporaneously, all of whom either did not remember the incident or said that it did not happen...The story also included former interns who remembered Reade suddenly changing roles and no longer overseeing them, which took place during the same time period that Reade said she was abruptly reassigned,” the statement continued. “The Times also spoke to a friend who said Reade told her the details of the allegation at the time; another friend and Reade’s brother say she told them of a traumatic sexual incident involving Biden. petrarchan47คุก 21:53, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

• I've opened a straw poll at RS/N regarding the use of the NYT's edited statement, and whether we will need a formal RfC in order to remove, or properly attribute, the sentence in Biden's BLP. More courtesy pings: Levivich Scjessey Rhododendrites CoffeeWithMarkets Darryl Kerrigan Muboshgu petrarchan47คุก 14:58, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

The NYT article originally stated "We found no pattern of sexual misconduct by Biden, beyond hugs, kisses and touching that women previous said made them uncomfortable." And was later edited by NYT staff to remove the last part about the hugs and touching. This was newsworthy and reported on by several outlets, the NYT quote should reflect that change. https://thehill.com/homenews/media/492680-ny-times-faces-blowback-for-removal-of-controversial-passage-on-biden-sexual Robertexs (talk) 08:22, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Biden and Social Security

For decades, Biden has advocated cuts to Social Security, yet there is nothing about this long held position in this article. i checked the talkpage archives and i see that this information was once in this article but was removed in 2013. Now that Mr Biden intends to run for President again, this information should be restored. 173.85.194.197 (talk) 17:56, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Thats an issue position and on the Biden 2020 Precedential page. You can read here. ContentEditman (talk) 19:26, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

References

"American Christian Zionists"

Christian Zionism is a specific thing. As far as I can tell, Biden has only said he's a "Zionist" in the context of being generally pro-Israel. The category "American Christian Zionists" does not belong in the article. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:46, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

He has said he is a Zionist, that category is for Christians who are Zionists. "Zionist" has a specific meaning, it doesn't just mean "generally pro-Israel".--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 01:54, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

No. "Christian Zionist" relates to a particular set of people, none of whom is Joe Biden. Please undo your reinsertion. SPECIFICO talk 02:36, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

It would help to be very specific here. According to our own Wikipedia article, a "Christian Zionist" is someone who believes that it was the fulfillment of Christian biblical prophecy that the Jews established the state of Israel in 1948. I haven't done any research on Joe Biden in that regard, but is that what he believes? If reliable sourcing can be found to that effect, then the category is applicable, and if cannot be found, then the category is unsupported and should be removed. Fair enough? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 03:02, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Biden said he was a Zionist a long time ago. More recently he said he would be a Zionist if he were Jewish. Whatever the truth, he is not significant enough in the Zionist movement for inclusion. The point of categories is to help readers navigate to articles that tell them more about the topic. Including 95% of of the 520,000 elected U.S. officials doesn't help. 03:24, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

I took it out on BLP grounds. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:30, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

• Looking at who is in the category people like Mike Pence and Sarah Palin. Seems like anyone who has shown support for Zionism got added. PackMecEng (talk) 03:39, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
  • They should all be removed unless they support the biblical "Christian Zionism". Pence... might? – Muboshgu (talk) 15:47, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
    • The only mention in the article about Zionism was the cat tag. I could see Pence possibly fitting, but it was not directly referenced in the article. Though I suppose I should start a discussion at those articles rather than here. PackMecEng (talk) 15:57, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
      • Yes, any discussions about those other figures should take place at those particular talk pages. It's certainly possible that both Palin and Pence qualify as 'Christian Zionists' in the specific sense of the term, but that's a matter of checking those related reliable sources. As for Biden, the category isn't appropriate and thankfully has been removed. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 19:33, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Community reassessment

Joe Biden

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: delisted per § Reassessment – wbm1058 (talk) 20:53, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

One of my main focuses here is the reassessment process, and I am the main contributor in this area. My attention was drawn to this article following a post on the Good Article Reassessment talk page. I am not happy with how that individual reassessment process was conducted and feel that it needs to be reexamined through a community one. My main concerns are.

• That it should have gone through the community reassessment process in the first place. Articles where the decision of the nominator is likely to be controversial should be brought to the community for discussion. This is particular true for controversial or partisan topics with a sudden surge of interest.
• Stability was brought up as one of the main reasons for delisting. My feelings on this criteria are that it is important for reviewing an article nominated for Good Article status as it gives the reviewer a stable version to review. When delisting however the opposite applies. A lot of Good Articles undergo bouts of edit warring and other forms of content dispute. That doesn't mean they suddenly are no longer good articles. Generally we wait for the dispute to end and then assess the article. In fact one little pet peeve of mine here is when the Good Article process is used as a tool during a content dispute. Even if we take the stability criteria as read, at the time of reassessment the article was fully protected. You can not get more stable than that on Wikipedia.
• There was not an adequate explanation of how the article fails the criteria. Neutrality was brought up, but it was never explained how the article failed the neutrality requirement. This was despite various other editors asking. The purpose of a reassessment is to give interested editors the chance to fix problems with the article. To do that they need to know what the problems are.

I don't know, or really care, if this article is kept or delisted. What I do care about is that it is given a chance. I do not feel that was the case in the recently conducted reassessment. I know there was a lot of delist !votes there, but this is not decided by a show of hands. What is needed is a break down of the failings which allows any interested editors the chance to resolve them. Also since this is likely to attract editors not that familiar with Good Articles it probably bears mentioning that the requirements are not as strict as many think (see Wikipedia:What the Good article criteria are not). AIRcorn (talk) 23:22, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Pinging commentators at Talk:Joe Biden/GA3 @Mz7, CaptainEek, Coffeeandcrumbs, MelbourneStar, MONGO, ConstantPlancks, Vfrickey, Vanamonde93, UserDude, and PackMecEng: Sorry if I missed anyone. AIRcorn (talk) 23:35, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

• I do not disagree with the claim that the initiator of the GA reassessment should have used the community process as opposed to the individual one, given the contentiousness of the article and the probability of a controversial outcome. With that being said, the article does fail the stability criterion of the good article criteria. This criterion states that the article should not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
  Joe Biden is an active politician and a presumptive nominee for perhaps the most contentious political contest in the United States—as more information about his candidacy becomes known, so too must the article change, and since more information is coming out day-by-day, so too is his article changing day-by-day, with more than 50 edits in the last week alone. New content disputes are being contended every day on the article's talk page, many of which involve neutrality and quality of sources, which are also central aspects of a good article. I would reject the argument that because the article was fully protected at the time of reassessment, the article "technically" met the stability criterion—the article so poorly failed to meet the stability criterion that an administrator had to forcibly cause it to do so.
  I agree that if the content dispute was just a one-off thing that resolved itself in a month or so, there is no need to start a good article reassessment, and I sympathize with the complaint about good article reassessments being used as tools during content disputes. However, when the content of an article is subject to dispute after dispute, lasting several months, I think that should raise doubt as to whether the article is truly stable. We do not necessarily need to wait until the article is stable before reassessing whether it is in fact stable. Respectfully, Mz7 (talk) 00:02, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

I should note here that I am open to persuasion. Perhaps I am being a little jaded after trudging through all the recent contentiousness on the talk page when I closed the RfC. I figure the content of this article is changing on a day-to-day basis, and probably will until after the election is over. With that being said, if it is just a one-off dispute (i.e. the Tara Reade allegations) and there isn't anything else pending, then perhaps I am wrong. Mz7 (talk) 00:19, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Historical perspective: Barack Obama was FA through both his 2008 and 2012 presidential elections and throughout his presidency; John McCain was GA and then FA throughout his presidential campaign in 2008; Mitt Romney was GA and then FA throughout his presidential campaign in 2012; and Hillary Rodham Clinton was GA throughout her presidential campaign in 2008 and then FA throughout her presidential campaign in 2016. The same kinds of things that you have seen, and will see, with the Biden article this year – edit-warring, RfCs, claims of NPOV violations, momentary lacks of stability – are the same kinds of things that all these articles saw back then. But it did not prevent those articles from gaining and keeping their reviewed status, nor should it automatically cause this article to lose its reviewed status. This GAR should be about specific, detailed, concrete issues identified with this article – this fact here is wrong; that source there is weak; the prose in such-and-such section has inappropriate tone; this important topic has insufficient coverage; that not-so-important topic has too much coverage; etc. – and whether they can be remedied. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:36, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

The article either meets GA or it does not. Just because other articles did not get a reassessment has no bearing on this one. Right now because of the drastic changes, the RFCs and heavy discussions on controversial subjects, and rapid large changes to the article it fails stability. Full stop. Perhaps down the road it can be re-run though GA and might even pass. But as it stands there are stability issues and maintenance tags that require a lot of work to address. PackMecEng (talk) 03:34, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

• Arguments that claim noncompliance with WP:Article length, WP:NPOV, presence of maintenance tags, edit warring, and instability resulting in full PP and DS with 1RR restrictions should not be the criteria for delisting a GA is inadvertently making those failures the criteria for maintaining an article riddled with problems as a GA, and that makes a mockery of the entire GAR process. I see it as a slap in the face ^(hyperbole) to those editors who have worked hard over the years to promote, review and/or maintain GA articles to assure our readers the article actually does meet the criteria for GA. I hope the community will agree as others already have in the original GAR or we risk losing the dignity and significance of having on any article. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 11:05, 23 April 2020 (UTC) ^{Adding that the accusation by the OP is fallacious in regards to my motives for delisting as being partisan or anything but good faith, or that I, in any way, attempted to politicize the GAR process. The same could be said of the effort by those who are trying to pretentiously maintain its GA status, and a much stronger argument when the article clearly fails to meet GA criteria, so please, let's not politicize GAR - I would/have felt the same for any article in any topic area and my actions had nothing to do with partisanship, as my non-partisan view is further evidenced here. 11:32, 23 April 2020 (UTC)}
• Oppose delist. Completely concur with AIRcorn's assessment of why we're here again, and thank them for opening this discussion. I'd like to point out: at the time of this GAR, just like the previous GAR a week ago: no edit warring, no article protection, no article disputes (some will class an RfC as a dispute; 1. collaborative encyclopedia, 2. BLP matters ← good to get community input on both of those). Likewise, at the time of this GAR's opening no specific neutrality concerns have been raised — oddly enough, just like the GAR preceding this one. As such, I don't believe the article should be delisted. I am happy to be convinced otherwise, as long as editors can provide specific examples. Also, for the previous nominator to speak of a "slap to the face" and making a mockery of the GAR process... I would urge them to keep a look out for a WP:BOOMERANG. The only reason we are here is because they did not adequately explain the reasons as to why the article should be delisted in the first place — despite others specifically asking them to, might I add. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 15:04, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

• 29 April: editors endorsing a delist of this article have failed to provide examples of any of the issues they've discussed. Neutrality? no firm examples whatsoever. Edit warring? none post the PP. PP? temporary, to assist an RfC on a BLP matter. DS/1RR restrictions? WP:ARBAPDS, look at FA Hillary Clinton. It's rather disingenuous for editors to suggest a problem, yet fail to pin–point where exactly that problem is, leaving it unfixable. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 04:53, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

• I'm not a GAR regular and I've been adminning in the topic area, so I'm not going to take a position on delisting. But I do want to share some perspective into what I suspect might be going on.
  I believe Talk:Joe_Biden#RfC:_Should_this_article_include_Tara_Reade's_criminal_complaint_against_Joe_Biden? and the coincident page protection were deeply frustrating to many users. We've seen that frustration play out in several forums already. The issue was complicated because at the time the RfC started, many mainstream news outlets had not yet picked up the story, making it a questionable BLP issue. I suspect that many of the people trying to include the allegation in the article felt that their views were being actively censored by other editors and the admins who protected the article. (I believe this was true of Atsme too, who was liberally using big words like "stonewalling", "whitewashing" and "censorship" in the related talk page discussions.) I don't want to invalidate the frustration people probably feel, but I do wonder if strong feelings related to the Tara Reade thing might be coloring people's view of the rest of the article. Afterall, if there's this big group of editors and admins stonewalling coverage of the Reade allegation then certainly the rest of the article must suffer from that bias.
  In any case, I think it would be unfortunate if the GA process became politicized. GA shouldn't be a bone that partisans can fight over, but something that encourages and facilitates article improvement. For that reason I would encourage User:Atsme to follow the instructions at the top of Wikipedia:Good article reassessment by pointing out specific actionable problems and tagging the relevant sections, paragraphs, or sentences where appropriate, instead of simply demoting the article to a "C" and moving on. And I would encourage others who might weigh in here to take the time to read the article top-to-bottom and jot down a list of problems that need fixing. Whether the article gets a or not is unimportant. What matters is that the process results in actual article improvement. ~Awilley (talk) 22:02, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

• @Awilley: Perhaps you should read all the issues people have raised here and at the previous discussion. They have been laid out several times by several people in several ways. Please stop trying to color this as a partisan issue when nothing supports that misguided view. Also stop personalizing comments about editors, it is less than helpful. PackMecEng (talk) 22:19, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

• Only here as I was pinged. I respect that many GAC reviews are diligent and attempt to provide a good review, but question why one person can elevate such an article pretty much unilaterally but one person cannot delist it when "keep" arguments are weak (how an article can expand 4 fold and be expected to meet the earlier review a decade ago is beyond me) I am however well versed in Peer review and the FAC process with more than a dozen articles in which I was the primary editor and another 30 in which I was secondary that I do not even list on my userpage. This article FAILS GA due to the lack of stability. I think Atsme has adequately explained this previously at the GAR and since she is someone like others with background in GAC, FAC, etc. its not like they are some clueless noob about it. Comments about how the Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton (I was a participant in that FAC) "survived" being successfully challenged for their ranking while they were in the limelight are fair, but that could also mean that we had less diligence then than we do now. I find @Awilley:'s assumptions of bad faith regarding Atsme's efforts to also be troubling. Awilley seems to be saying that Atsme did not get her way so she decided to extract revenge...that is a pretty powerful accusation. Here is my recommendation: Allow the GAR to stand as "delisted" and in a month or two after gathering comments, place it again at GAC and see if anyone wishes to reexamine it and promote it back. GAR is not the same thing as FARC, where an article is reexamined by numerous folks and time is allowed for appropriate changes to perhaps keep it listed as FA. The instability, edit warring, good faith claims that the article lacks neutrality of this GA is more than enough reason since it was a GA, to demote it. Everyone should carefully read once again the criteria of a Good Article here.--MONGO (talk) 23:37, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Historical perspective II. Here is an example of a GAR being done for an article about a candidate in a presidential race, in this case Martin O'Malley during the early stages of the 2016 presidential campaign – Talk:Martin O'Malley/GA2. (It's one I remember because I'm the one who did it.) The GAR does not rely on general claims of edit-warring or instability or NPOV or article growth over time. Instead it lists a number of very specific faults, omissions, and other issues with the article. When there were no responses after a couple of weeks, the GA was removed. Had somebody done work to remedy the listed problems, the GA could have been retained. This is the approach that makes sense to me. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:35, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Further clarity for the reasons given to delist per GAR procedure: Also see Talk:Joe Biden/GA3 for the initial delist discussion.

1. The article is unstable - immediate fail. The article is currently under PP, DS with a 1RR restriction which is a clear indication that it is a locus of chaos now, has been for a while, and will continue to be for some time to come. When instability is caused by vandalism, we do not demote GA/FA promoted articles but the same does not apply to the instability this article suffers as the result of conflicting views and challenged material. The topic area has -0- influence because the same behavior occurs in other topic areas, and at times where it is least expected...such as a dog or fish article.

   • Response: "The article is currently under PP, DS with a 1RR restriction" — the article falls under the scope of WP:ARBAPDS. That includes FA article Hillary Clinton — which has the same restrictions. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 03:35, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

2. This article is plagued by edit warring - immediate fail. The argument that edit warring is expected in controversial articles and should not affect current GA status is an invalid argument to not delist as is the argument that there hasn't been any edit warring in a while, and the reason follows: this article has PP, DS, and 1RR restrictions that are not conducive to WP's open platform which is lauded for it's design that encourages article improvement and neutrality.

   • Response: Please provide recent examples of this article being "plagued by edit warring". I would be curious to see if they are in relation to the BLP matters which resulted in full-PP. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 03:35, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

3. The article has neutrality issues - immediate fail. See Talk:Joe Biden/GAR3 - neutrality speaks to POV conflicts that raise questions about content and compliance with WP's core content policies. Until a consensus is reached that resolves the neutrality issues, the article unequivocally fails GA criteria and should be delisted.

   • Response: Please provide examples. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 03:35, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

   • It took some time for the cautious Obama and the blunt, rambling Biden to work out ways of dealing with each other.[204] This is placed right after a maintenance tag. Username⁶⁸⁹² 03:37, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

   • Hardly POV, if anything awkwardly written like a story as the maintenance tag describes. Would need to be rewritten, though. Can you please provide a list of NPOV examples? because if there are blatant NPOV breaches, we all need to be made aware of them so they can be fixed. I would further be happy to delist if there's plenty of NPOV issues -- as implied within both this and the previous GAR. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 03:45, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

4. The article is not well-written per GA Criteria 1, as it contains too much detail, trivia, and promotion; e.g., things like his early life college football, and/or noncompliance with MOS:LEAD which states: The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies. Also, the article is currently 88 kB (14495 words) vs the 2008 article that was promoted to GA with 31 kB (5122 words). In its current state, the article is unwieldy and should be split per WP:Article length.

   • Would splitting his Senate career and/or his vice-presidency into seperate articles be a good idea? Username⁶⁸⁹² 14:15, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

5. The article still has maintenance tags and needs more but maintenance tags tend to be removed when instability is an issue and 1RR prevents removed tags from being restored. PP and DS w/1RR are deterrents that have a chilling effect and results in disincentivizing editors from contributing.

   • Response: I don't see why you wouldn't be able to tag where necessary if it's needed. I certainly wouldn't remove a tag (I'd be curious to see who would, especially if it's needed). Further, in the context of a GAR: we need to know where things need to be fixed. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 03:35, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

• Hopefully the above list will provide the clarity needed. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 14:00, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

I would say that the above did provide clarity, though perhaps not in the way Atsme intended. Much as I dislike bolding in this manner—it's effectively shouting—I think it's important to point out a basic fact of GAR that is being overlooked: there is no such thing as an immediate fail at GAR. There just isn't. At GAN, there is (the WP:GAFAIL, cited by many people, though in context it's clear the "immediate" part only applies to new GA nominations when article issues are so severe that there is no point in embarking on a full review), but as is evident throughout the description of how GAR works at WP:GAR, the goal of a GAR is to attempt to deal with the article's shortcomings in terms of the GA criteria: Remember, the aim is not to delist the article, but to fix it.

GAR is a deliberative process, and reading the individual GAR (Talk:Joe Biden/GA3), it's clear that the guidelines were not followed. There was no attempt to note any issues with the GA criteria aside from instability, and requests that this be done were ignored. The end result seems to have been decided from the moment it was opened: there had been edit warring, therefore GA status had to be removed, regardless of what anyone said. Never mind that the edit warring had subsided, according to more than one editor. It is a weakness of the individual GAR—as indeed with individual GAN reviews—that the opening editor has the final say, because sometimes the reassessor or reviewer gets it wrong, and that's why the community GAR is available, so that the community at large can have its say.

Going over the five points above:

1. Is the article unstable today? Right now? Measures such as being under PP, DS with a 1RR restriction are imposed to bring stability to an article that has suffered edit warring and other problems. If they have succeeded in bringing a reasonable degree of stability to the article, then the GA criteria are met.
2. Similarly, if the editing restrictions have put the brakes on edit warring (or it has subsided on its own), then again the GA criteria are met.
3. I have yet to see a specific example of neutrality issues in any of these reassessments. For this to be raised, examples of passages and/or biased sections need to be specified. Of course, since GARs are meant to bring articles back to GA level if possible, those passages and biases can be fixed in the course of this review.
4. GA criteria 1 issues: if there are sections that are problematic, again, raise them here, and if they cannot be corrected, then the delisting can stand. But they must be raised and given an opportunity for correction. The invocation of WP:Article length here, however, is not relevant, as it is not a part of the GA criteria. It may be good advice for future article development; indeed, I notice there's a split discussion currently under way. (GA status, if any, stays with the parent article.) If there are concerns regarding criterion 3b (it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style)), those should be enumerated so they can be addressed.
5. Maintenance tags on the article should be addressed in the course of a reassessment, and I hope someone will do so now that it's been highlighted. (I see one "citation needed" template, and the second half of the "First term" section's "story" template, which also has "clarification needed" and "according to whom" templates). Again, this is part of fixing the article, a clear goal of GAR.

• I have fixed the "citation needed", "clarification needed", and "according to whom" in-line tags. I used Ballotpedia references for the "citation needed" tag and reworded the content tagged with "clarification needed" and "according to whom" based on two NY Times articles. See Special:Diff/953102135; Special:Diff/953282948. userdude 00:17, 27 April 2020 (UTC), diffs added 00:23, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

My hope is that this community GAR can proceed per the guidelines at WP:GAR, particularly that the article be fully assessed against the GA criteria in terms of where it falls short today, and that those who are interested in doing so work at editing the article so that it no longer falls short of the criteria in those areas.

If the article does come to meet the criteria in a reasonable timeframe, then I trust that the consensus will reflect that fact and the article will qualify for listing. If it doesn't meet the criteria at that point, then consensus will reflect that. Either way, the reassessment can at that point be closed, and the result reflected on the article's talk page. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:43, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

• I disapprove of any attempts to cheat the system. We have proceeded per the guidelines; therefore, attempts to call an unstable article stable by ignoring challenged neutrality and multiple issues that require PP and 1RR restrictions to get it to that point make a mockery of the GA process and a travesty, indeed. Resolve the issues first, get the article stable without PP or DS, and renominate it. Imposing false stability on an unstable, challenged article is not how the GA process works. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 17:18, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

• I honestly don't know where to begin in responding to this, because phrases like cheat the system, make a mockery of the GA process, and even Imposing false stability on an unstable, challenged article is not how the GA process works don't reflect how the GAN and GAR processes do work. Even now, the challenged neutrality issues have not been identified with any specifics—flouting the very process supposedly being cheated. I just hope that when an independent closer appears for this page, they will look at the actions and arguments and actual GAR guidelines and GA criteria, and if the article meets the criteria on that date, close this GAR as relisted. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:23, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

• Thanks for the responses. I would just like to make some comments regarding a few points raised.
  • Mz7. If this was not already judged a good article and someone nominated it during a period of high activity I would mostly agree with you. It is bloody near impossible to review an article undergoing mass changes. In this case it would be prudent for the nominator to let the dust settle before proposing it for assessment. The same should really apply here. We should be judging the article under all the dust, not just looking at the current storm. A somewhat relevant discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 153#RfC: Proposal: make subjects actively in the news ineligible for GANs and FACs. It was withdrawn, but the consensus was clearly opposing the proposal.
  • Awilley. I agree with you. The sole purpose of this process is to improve an article. If that is not possible or no one is willing to then we delist it. Whether the article is marked as being "Good" or not is not really important. It does serve some utility as providing a standard that other similar articles can use as a template, but beyond that it is really just peer review lite. Saying that, someone has devoted a lot of time get this article up to a certain standard and we owe them or any other interested editors the chance to resolve any concerns.
  • Mongo. One person can delist it, as Atsme has already done. The community process here serves as a safety net of sorts. If someone believes an article they nominated has been unfairly failed they can bring it here so it can be reassessed by the community. Same if someone believes an article was inappropriately passed or in this case delisted. You are wrong when you say that GAR is not the same thing as FARC, where an article is reexamined by numerous folks and time is allowed for appropriate changes to perhaps keep it listed as FA.. As it says at the top of the reassessment page Remember, the aim is not to delist the article, but to fix it..
  • Atsme. You are still just reiterating the criteria with out explaining how it fails them. If it is not neutral you need to show what parts are not neutral and use sources to show how they are not neutral. If a RFC has been closed giving consensus to certain content or wording then that is considered neutral as far as GAs are concerned. This is not an end run around community consensus. Right now what we have is the equivalent of the "I don't like it" !votes at a deletion discussion. Also listen to BlueMoonset. They know more about the Good Article process than probably anyone else.

We don't need to relitigate the process. All we need is for somoene who thinks this doesn't meet th criteria to provide clear examples of how it doesn't. AIRcorn (talk) 00:04, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Oh come on. Just look at the talk page. Years ago when Biden was not running for President the article was stable enough that GA wasn't an issue. Now, there are edits all the time and they are not just gnome like edits. There are edits that involve many discussions on the talk page, many edits that have some edit wars, or RFC's, etc. The article itself is always evolving and what we have today is going to be considerable different than what may be there next week. The GA process is not for articles that are rapidly evolving. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 01:01, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

It already passed the GA process though. Sure I wouldn't recommend nominating an article that is undergoing rapid changes, but by the same token we don't delist articles because they suddenly become heavily edited. AIRcorn (talk) 08:47, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

The GA that passed 12 years ago is not the same article that was delisted - see the 5 reasons given for delisting. Just curious...Aircorn, what reasons do you believe would be valid reasons to delist a GA because it appears you are arguing in opposition to the reasons stated in GAR? A few have said that we should leave it a GA, fix the issues and improve the article but simple logic tells us articles that need fixing have problems which is the reason it was delisted in the first place, so the keep arguments contradict themselves. Fix the issues that caused the delisting, hopefully to the point the article has improved and will pass GA criteria. Until then, it is not a GA. The arguments to delist provided at GA3 were solid ones, and now similar arguments have been echoed here, some by new editors who support the delisting. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 11:47, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

BlueMoonset has already addressed your five points and I agree with what they say. The only part of the criteria I dispute as being relevant is the instability one, which has been convered quite extensively here. Every other one is fair game. I don't know how else to explain it, but we do not do immediate delists. We give editors a chance to fix the issues and to do that we need to explain how it fails. If you or other editors say it is not neutral and another editor says it is then there needs to be an explanaiton of how it is not neutral. This is not happening, just vague allusions to the talk page and protection levels. AIRcorn (talk) 23:57, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

• Comment This has reached the point of diminishing returns. There are two big problems with GAR. One is too little participation and the other is too much participation, particularly from editors who are unfamiliar with the process and not willing to listen to editors who are. This is definitely the later and it is problematic because it can drown out the more GA knowledgeable editors. I left a note at WT:GA when I opened this so hopefully some more of the regulars venture over when this settles down some and we can get some actual reassessment instead of our current retreading. This was opened because I was unhappy with how the individual delisting went. Therefore this should be considered a continuation of that reassessment, with the status quo being that it is a "Good Article". If no one presents any clear and actionable reasons on how this fails the criteria (the ongoing debate on instability notwithstanding) then it should be returned to the status quo. AIRcorn (talk) 01:08, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

@Aircorn: re: I left a note at WT:GA when I opened this – you opened this at 23:22, 22 April 2020; the last edit at Wikipedia talk:Good articles was on April 14 (a week earlier). The only note I'm finding is at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations#Joe Biden: "make sure the comments align with the GA criteria. it also begs a deeper question on how the stability criteria applies to delisting articles that we should probably address a bit more formally at some point." It's hard for me to see how we can avoid addressing the issue now, as this strikes me as the crux of the matter. Do you mean that you want to make sure the comments align with the GA criteria, or the GA review criteria? At Wikipedia:Good article criteria#Criteria I see six good article criteria, including "it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute", but Wikipedia:Good article reassessment says, paraphrasing, "don't use this process if you see any ongoing content dispute or edit war". Despite this advice not to use this process, this process has been used twice (both individual and community) for the Biden article where there have been recent content disputes. If the GA criteria, including the "immediate failure" criteria, does not apply to GA reviews, then what are the reassessment criteria? WP:GAR doesn't clearly say what the GAR criteria are, and how they differ from the GA criteria. – wbm1058 (talk) 14:29, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Apologies, I meant the Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations#Joe Biden post. Both talk pages have similar functions (there was a propsoal to merge them at somepoint), but WT:GAN is much more frequented than WT:GA so is a better place to post if you are looking for more eyes. As far as I am concerned the stability issue is a bit of a red herring. The instructions here clearly say not to bring reassessments here during an edit war and that supercedes what other instructions on other pages say. This is backed up by Wikipedia talk:Good article reassessment/archive4#RfC: Reassessment of an "Unstable" Article on the talk page. Sure it is old, but the participants are well regarded good article contributors. Anyway old consensus still stands unitl a newer consensus is obtained, no matter how old it is. So in my opinion the instability of the article (which is disputed by some anyway) is not a reason to delist this article. It is up to those who think it should be to obtain a new consensus. Nuetrality concerns could be a reason to delist, along with referencing, prose and broadness.

As to why I brought it here, it was because I had no choice. An editor used an individual reassessment to delist this and I disagreed with how that was conducted. This is the only real way to make sure the correct decision is made as it attracts editors who are not just interested in the article, but the Good Article process as well. This will be closed by an independant editor who will either judge that the case for delisting is sound and uphold the previous delist, or that it wasn't and restore the Good Article status. I have no stake in this article so don't care whether it is a Good Article or not. What I care about is that correct process is followed and that this process is not used as a pawn to further ones own political agendas. To my mind no convincing reason has been given yet.

Moving beyond this reassessment I think some clarifiacation is needed to clear up any future misunderstandings or to change the consensus here to state that stability is a reason to delist. I close 90% of these reassessemnts and put no weight into instability arguements so if it is seen as being a good reason to delist then I would like to know that. I will start a clarification one if no one else does, but am not keen to do so while there is so much heat on this article. The last thing we need is editors with no interest in Good Articles in general making calls that could affect multiple articles based on a single relatively uncommon incidence (the reason we have such an old consensus is probably because this has not really come up that often). AIRcorn (talk) 01:25, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

The viability of your argument that instability is not a reason to delist apparently hinges on the assessment of the consensus of this RfC which was opened after a content dispute on "Poker Face" (Lady Gaga song). There is a footnote on criterion 5: "Reverted vandalism, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply to the "stable" criterion. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of disruptive editing may be failed or placed on hold." In the specific case of the Lady Gaga song it was argued that edit warring was "being done under a silly pretext", but the assumption in the RfC was to take it as a good-faith disagreement rather than disruptive editing. The RfC was closed at 18:23, 18 June 2009, about a week after the last comment there, without a formal assessment of consensus, but while it was still open Geometry guy added this to the reassessment guidelines on 10 June 2009 (with edit summary "Add clause per RFC at WT:GAR)":

• Requesting reassessment during a content dispute or edit war is usually inappropriate: reviewers are rarely content experts, nor can they reassess a moving target. Wait until the article stabilizes and then consider reassessment; if significant instability persists for more than a couple of weeks, then reassessment on the grounds of instability may be considered.

The length of time to wait before considering reassessment on the grounds of instability wasn't discussed in that RfC, but I see several contemporary comments supporting "a couple of weeks":

• I guess I'll give the article a total of two weeks for the problems to be addressed and delist if they aren't. Thanks for the help guys. DiverseMentality 21:43, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
• Currently there's the backlog template on this page, despite there only being seven articles here right now. Do you think we can just remove it? Noble Story (talk • contributions) 00:54, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

  It automatically lists reassessments more than 2 weeks old, and automatically removes itself when there are none. Geometry guy 08:11, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

• Community GARs are only deliberately kept open for about 2 weeks in most cases. The fact that many remain open for 2 months or more has nothing to do with some idea that good editing happens in the second month. Instead it reflects the fact that closing GARs is a difficult responsibility which takes time to do properly - and editors with the inclination and expertise to do so are few. An article should be listed as a GA if it meets the GA criteria and not listed if it does not. Geometry guy 23:17, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

So wait two weeks, if the content dispute doesn't resolve in that time, put them on notice for another two weeks, and if after four weeks they are still disputing some content then delist it.

Thanks to BlueMoonset for pointing out this 3 March 2016 edit which they characterized as "overreach". I would use a stronger word. At this time the text "If significant instability persists for more than a couple of weeks, then reassessment on the grounds of instability may be considered." had been in the article guideline for 6 years, 8 months. Prhartcom's edit summary Major copy edit. Tried to bring consistency to the instructions for both types of reassessment. Did not change any guidelines, only improved formatting and clarity in the wording of the existing guidelines. is not truthful. Removal of the longstanding advice that after waiting two weeks, reassessment on the grounds of instability could be considered, was an (apparently bold and undiscussed) change in this guideline that put it in conflict with the "GA six". This change should have been, and still should be, reverted. – wbm1058 (talk) 16:21, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Oh, wait. The lead paragraph at WP:GAR states The outcome of a reassessment should only depend on whether the article being reassessed meets the good article criteria or not. That pretty unambiguously says that there are no separate reassessment criteria. – wbm1058 (talk) 19:57, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

• At the risk of sounding like a broken record, assessments of neutrality need to point to specific content in the source material that is inadequately represented in the article (or misrepresented). I do not see sufficient specificity in the GAR. This is not to say legitimate concerns with this article don't exist, but they have not been demonstrated clearly enough. As with Awilley, I'm not going to take a position here (the GAR was within-process, in any case; this discussion, as far as I can see, cannot overturn it; that would need a new GA review), but "biased, delist" isn't a useful thing to say at any point, because that is turning this process into a battleground, as it doesn't allow for improvement of the article. Vanamonde (Talk) 14:43, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

  struck, per below. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:08, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your insight, Vanamonde93, but I actually did explain the non-neutral issues in various places during the discussion, most recently in the formal close as follows (my bold underline): MOS:LEAD states that the article should be well-written, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies. The lead fails to include any prominent controversies, and there are several, including allegations of inappropriate touching and sexual assault; however, as evidenced on the article's TP there are ongoing content disputes. The article also fails neutrality in that it does not represent viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. I further elaborated by providing examples of material that was not presented in a dispassionate tone (the tragedies) and that were UNDUE as over-emphasized trivia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atsme (talk • contribs) 16:46, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Reply:

• If the "prominent controversy" you are referring to is Joe Biden sexual assault allegation I think including it in the lead would be undue recentism — dozens of controversies will likely arise during the course of a US presidential election, they do not all belong in the lede. Regardless of what I think, this is a content dispute that ought to be resolved by consensus, not you unilaterally deciding content should be included and thus the article is not worthy of GA status for not including it.
• I disagree with your claim that "the tragedies" are UNDUE and over-emphasized. With regard to UNDUE, this article is about Joe Biden and numerous reliable sources support the notion that "the tragedies" had a significant impact on his life. With regard to over-emphasis: the death of Neilia and Naomi is covered in one 135-word paragraph; the death of Beau is covered in one 85-word paragraph; Biden's brain surgeries are covered in four paragraphs, 253 words total (I agree that the fourth paragraph is trivia and I will boldly remove it after posting this comment—bringing this section down to three paragraphs, 216 words). These are all events that significantly impacted Biden's life; I fail to see how this level of coverage is UNDUE or over-emphasizing.
• If there is content written in a "dispassionate tone" please tag it or even just point it out on this page. If you already elaborated by providing examples of material that was not presented in a dispassionate tone, I kindly request that you direct me to where you provided such examples. I have tried to stay up-to-date on this discussion but I missed your examples.

userdude 17:54, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: One function of community GARs is to reevvalute fails at GAN. We have never had to formally put it in writing that this also applies to delists at individual GARs as it has never really come up before, but the principle is the same. The Good Article process is deliberately simple by allowing individual editors to pass and delist articlew with relative felxibilty. However there needs to be a place to reavaluate contentious closes. This is the only place that can happen (I guess it could be done at the Good Article talk page if it is a blatent case of sockpuppeting or other obvious tom foolery). Bias may play a part in it (Atsme doing an individual reassessment shows an incredible lack judgement if nothing else), but the main reason I brought it here was because it was a bad close. There was no effort to give the article a chance to be saved, which is the fundamental principle of GAR and was pointed out several times. This was also in spite of multiple editors being willing to work on the article. Here was a chance for editors beleiving it should be delisted, or even better some impartial editors, to provide an actual proper reassessment. Instead it is turned into a rehash of editors saying delist because criteria and others saying explain how. The only good thing to come out of this is that it has highlighted that certain processes here need to be clarified and updated. Nothing like political wikilaywering to find the weak points in instructions. Anyway some poor bastard is going to have to read all this and come to a conclusion. My position is that if there is no consensus the default should be to keep it listed as that was the status quo before the reassessments started. AIRcorn (talk) 19:08, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

It's time for you to WP:DROPTHESTICK, Aircorn. You made my reassessment controversial when it should not have been and it was based on your fallacious allegations of it being political. Was my denial of the Trump GA nom also political? The problems with the article are blindingly obvious, and your insistence in keeping a 12-year-old promoted GA that has increased in size 4x, if not more, is now raising concern over your ability to reassess. If you think the guidelines need to be changed, then go in that direction instead of discrediting me. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 20:44, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Aircorn, Vanamonde, it has been my impression that the community reassessment was always available (as was a new GAN) if an individual GAR was felt to be controversial or problematic. (Ditto for a GAN review with similar issues.) If such was not the case, the following would not currently be given as the standard {{Article history}} introductory text at Talk:Joe Biden: Joe Biden was one of the Social sciences and society good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. This is a perfectly valid community reassessment of an earlier individual reassessment. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:00, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset: Thanks for the clarification (and you too, Aircorn). I've struck the relevant part of my statement above. I am going to still refrain from taking a position on whether this articles meets the GAC or not, but I will state again for the record that the original GAR did not provide detailed enough analysis (with reference to source material) as to why this fails NPOV at the moment. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:08, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Are stability-based GARs appropriate?

I was reading through the WP:GAR page, and came across the following in both the Individual and Community "When to use this process" sections: You don't see any ongoing content dispute or edit war. If it's true that GARs should only be used when there aren't ongoing disputes/wars, why are we even here, and how was the original reassessment allowed to proceed at all?

It turns out that the basic idea comes down from a May/June 2009 RfC on the subject of stability reassessments. The discussion can be seen at Wikipedia talk:Good article reassessment/archive4#RfC: Reassessment of an "Unstable" Article. Consensus that something should be added to the GAR guidelines on their advisability resulted in this addition to the Community section (the feeling I get from the RfC is that individual assessments weren't appropriate, but it wasn't discussed enough for consensus): Requesting reassessment during a content dispute or edit war is usually inappropriate: reviewers are rarely content experts, nor can they reassess a moving target. Wait until the article stabilizes and then consider reassessment; if significant instability persists for more than a couple of weeks, then reassessment on the grounds of instability may be considered. The reviewers are rarely content experts, nor can they reassess a moving target phrase was removed by Aircorn in October 2012, and the current wording and expansion to all reassessments dates from March 2016. These last edits strike me as overreach, but it's interesting how many GAR nominators ignore this and many other portions of the GAR guidelines.

To answer my own question, and absent a new consensus, I'd say generally not, and delisting for stability reasons is a controversial enough practice that it should be only done as a community reassessment. Otherwise, you have editors who, as in this case, have decided the article needs to be delisted immediately, and GAR is the tailor-made process to do so. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:23, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

I am not a regular here, and Iam only going to comment on one issue: an unstable article , should not be listed as a GA. I do not see why it should be controversial.It implies a disagreement over appropriate content, and an article with such disagreement is not a GA until agreement is reached. I do not know the background of the 2009 RfC in issue, but it seems to have reached no conclusion at all. (I'm rather skeptical on the appropriateness of deciding things by 10 yr old RfCs in general) . DGG ( talk ) 19:53, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

This is probably a discussion for the talk page as it covers more than just this article. This case does highlight the issue though. From practical purposes I have closed the vast majority of community reassessments and I don't recall once delisting one for stability. In most cases they are brought here by an editor failing to get their version approved, edit warring and then claiming it can't be "Good" because of the so called edit war. We have various means to deal with content disputes and this place should not be one of them. If we take the stability criteria as including heavily edited articles or ones where content is disputed most Good Articles on current BLPs (sports personalities, politicians, etc) controversial topics (take your pick of any fringe topic) or even popular interest topics like (various sciences, countries etc) would fail it at some point. In fact even some pretty mundane articles go through periods of contentious editing. Also the aim of a reassessment is to fix an article and we fix unstablity by dealing with the root cause, either through an RFC, protection or if necessary blocks. Delisting it does not fix those issues. And then if the article stabilises do we have to have another reassessment to promote it again because it is now stable. AIRcorn (talk) 23:14, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

If stability was not an issue, it would not be one of our 6 criteria. I agree that GAR is not the place to deal with content issues, and yes, that discussion belongs on the article TP so that editors can fix the problems. When reviewing a GA, we do not edit the article, and when reassessing to delist a GA we do not edit the article, so why even bring it up? All cases are different so there is no concrete rule that applies here. We are talking about an article that was initially promoted 12 years ago when it was a fraction of the size it is now. Hopefully the process has evolved since then, and so have our standards. It is not a good article, it is not well-written, it is unwieldy in its trivia and hard to read, it is overly promotional, has neutrality issues, and more. Instability is a symptom of other issues - I refer back to the list of reasons in the highlighted section above. There are 5 reasons listed - all valid and easily spotted by an experienced reviewer/editor. In the first GA3 delist, an editor pointed out the need for a sourcing review because of neutrality concerns, and I agree. I recently attempted to recruit 2 admins to help me address Awilley's comments above because the goal is to improve the article so it will once again pass a GA review. I think BD2412 summed it up correctly in his succinct response when he politely turned down my invitation. I agree with him. It doesn't take much to see why the article was delisted, and why leaving it as a GA is a terrible reflection on the process. In the state it is in today, it is certainly not what we want representing WP's GAs. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 01:15, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Aircorn, the thing is that Atsme listed five reasons and the article RIGHT NOWis failing for those five reasons. There is just too much back and forth, and content disputing going on. The article is not neutral, the article is not stable. It just isn't a GOOD ARTICLE. It's just as simple as that. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 05:13, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Five reasons without context and some even without examples, is not five reasons at all. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 05:19, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

If you visit the talk page, you can see all the examples you need. It is clear as day that the article is not a GA candidate. What was in 2009 is not the same article. I don't get the urgency of keeping it. Delist, wait a few months and relist once everything settles. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 05:27, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

I could literally say the same thing about not understanding the urgency to delist, considering the onus is actually on those that brought this 'GAR to delist' on in the first place. Secondly, "visit the talk page, you can see all the examples" is clearly unhelpful. This is a GAR, the examples are supposed to be brought up here and discussed (especially when asked). —MelbourneStar☆^talk 05:30, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

It just makes it sound more and more like this process is being used to settle a talk page dispute. AIRcorn (talk) 23:19, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

I would encourage a wider discussion on this point at WT:GA. To the extent that this section is a question of policy, I agree with the 2009 consensus. We discourage edit wars because it harms the collaborative spirit by inflaming tensions between editors. Similarly, turning the GAR process into a venue for editors in a content dispute to complain about how the article is on The Wrong Version is not a good idea since it will most likely inflame tensions without leading to actual improvements. As an example, what meaningful improvement has come from this discussion, and how has this discussion fostered a spirit of collaboration among editors of the article? As with the 2009 discussion, I think the best procedure is to not have a GAR until after a content dispute is resolved, and if the consensus version does not comply with the GA standards, using GAR to figure out what improvements ought to be made at that point. The alternative—delisting any article in the middle of a content dispute or update—places bureaucratic nitpickery over maintaining an encyclopedia and risks editors using the GAR process to make an end run around our normal consensus building processes. — Wug·a·po·des​ 21:14, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

One exception might be if the article clearly fails the criteria before the edit war occurred. I don't think a content dispute should be a reason to have a GAR, but by the same token it should not be a reason not to have one if there were already serious flaws with the article. Although thinking about it as I type this it could be gamed quite easily so maybe better just to not have GARs during content disputes period. There is really no rush to delist articles, some sit here for months anyway before they are closed let alone the hundreds that have unresolved tags. Agree that this needs to be decided at a talk page not during a specific reassessment. AIRcorn (talk) 23:27, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

I totally disagree. We don't keep GAs for the same reason we fail them. When I delisted that article, there was not an ongoing content dispute or edit war - the RfC resolved that dispute (on the side I supported actually), and the edit warring had stopped. We don't keep GAs because of edit warring and instability. The article fails on 5 counts right out of the box. Instability is one of them, noncompliance with NPOV is another, MOS failings, yet another. I was not involved in any of the edit warring, I couldn't care less about what's going on at that article except for the fact that it clearly does not deserve GA status, and that is where my focus is and always has been. Nowhere in our GA guideline does it say you can simply overturn a delist - there needs to be more respect shown for that process. The article has already been through an initial GA3 and delisting was supported as it has been supported here. The only option that aligns with our GAR guideline is to renominate the article after the issues have been resolved and allow it to properly go through a complete GA review because of its expansion and the fact that it is not even close to the same article that was passed 12 years ago. It is going to need an experienced reviewer, and my top choices would be CaroleHenson or The Rambling Man, if they would oblige. It will not be an easy undertaking because of its unwieldy size, promotional nature and NPOV issues. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 21:30, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

With due respect, several users have raised issues with your closure of GA3 (including that it should not have been raised as an individual review to begin with)—but you have not responded to this concern, nor have you responded to the requests for examples of NPOV violations. You continue to assert NPOV and MOS violations without providing examples. Please do not try to move the goalposts of this discussion into needing a new GA review when it was clearly raised as a continuation of the GA3. userdude 22:55, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Experienced GA reviewers have already provided the information, and if you can't see where the problems are after multiple veteran editors have pointed them out, including an Arb, there is nothing more I need to say here except Happy Editing! ^Atsme _Talk 📧 23:29, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

UserDude I'd argue Atsme's conduct as it relates to this article's GA smacks of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT; when pressed on specifics, the editor has repeatedly chosen to either not respond or respond without diffs/examples. If you're going to open a GAR, delist an article, be prepared to actually answer questions and back up your rationale. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 04:53, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Appeal to authority much. Being an arb doesn't automatically give you specialised knowledge into the GA process. If we are going by experienced reviewers look at this page here User:GA bot/Stats. I have five times the number of reviews as all the editors advocating delist here combined and I have still yet to see anyone provide a set of actionable reasons why this fails. If you still need more evidence of experience then look through the closed reassessments (221 vs 5) The only other person here who could be classed as a regular is BlueMoonset who has commented on 73. These claims of experienced GA reviewers are as specious as the evidence you are providing here on how this fails the criteria. Please look at how other reassessments are conducted as you clearly do not understand the process. AIRcorn (talk) 07:32, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Re Atsme (edit conflict) But that's my whole point about placing bureaucratic nitpickery over maintaining an encyclopedia. Yes the rules might say to do X, but depending on the context, doing X may actually cause more harm than good. We're here to build an encyclopedia, not play cop over a green circle, which is why I and others have been stressing the point that GARs are collaborations to improve articles rather than a place to resolve a content dispute. So yes, you've brought up other points besides stability, but the title of this section is "Are stability-based GARs appropriate?" and so Aircorn and I are discussing that specific question; should criterion 5 apply to reassessments? I think no. GARs during and in response to content disputes are an c2:AntiPattern like edit warring. The process turns into a WP:BATTLEGROUND to gain leverage in the content dispute, and the superordinate goal of improving the article and encyclopedia take a back seat to winning an argument. The encyclopedia isn't better off because an article has or does not have a green circle in the top corner, it is better off when people work through issues and collaborate to build stuff.

With that said, I want to address your argument more directly, because I think it further exemplifies why GARs during content disputes go badly. In your opening and closing comments at Talk:Joe Biden/GA3 you cite edit warring as reasons to delist the article. In your 21:41, 16 April 2020 comment on that page, you say there is edit warring and controversy surrounding it. If it ever settles down, it can be renominated., and on this page, your second reason for delisting the article is, in bold, This article is plagued by edit warring. Your argument in this thread is that When I delisted that article, there was not an ongoing content dispute or edit war, but it seems like that is directly contradicted by your previous comment here and elsewhere. Not only are these arguments internally inconsistent, they provide no direction for how to improve an article. We have tools to resolve stability concerns, but when we use those tools that is also brought up as a reason to delist the article (argument 1: The article is currently under PP, DS with a 1RR restriction which is a clear indication that it is a locus of chaos). Stability concerns are set up like a catch-22; if the article is unstable, delist it, if administrators try to stabilize an article, that's evidence of instability and we should delist it. How is the GAR process supposed to work when the discussion is structured to force a particular outcome? I don't really care whether Joe Biden, or any article, has a green circle; I do care that the GAR process is used to build an encyclopedia and that our policies and standards reflect that goal. — Wug·a·po·des​ 07:46, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Please...sorry, but no. To begin, I find your comment "not play cop over a green circle" disrespectful to the process. In my eyes it is not just a "green circle". I will not indulge further in this unwarranted trial because it appears too much like wikilawyering. Apply the arguments you presented to me to yourselves because it works both ways with one exception - I hold that green circle and what it stands for in high regard, so please proceed with your suggestions to fix and improve the article which is the whole purpose in reassessing and renominating. But please, don't attempt to improve the article here - do it at the article TP where such discussion belongs. It is good to know that your focus is on fixing the problems and stabilizing it, and that the delisting and removal of the "green circle" is not where the focus should be. I feel that I have done my job here as a GA/FA reviewer/promoter in upholding the integrity of the process. Happy editing. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 16:05, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

I would encourage you to read User:Wugapodes/Good article status is no big deal to understand why I don't care about whether I'm disrespecting a process that has no feelings, and why I do care that GARs are more than an up-or-down vote. I've reviewed over 50 good articles nomination, written 5, and improved two of those to FA status, so I think my opinions on the process developed over the years are more than simply wikilawyering. If you would like to see the article improved, we get to the question of how to improve it? If you are such a stickler for The Process, why are you ignoring the GAR guidelines which state Remember, the aim is not to delist the article, but to fix it by saying don't attempt to improve the article here? People have asked you for specifics; you provided a list of points; other editors responded to those points; in 5 days you haven't responded to any of those comments. Your only comments since then have been to argue with people who question whether this is a good use of our time or within the spirit of the process. You're free to not participate in the community reassessment, but as the one who undertook the individual reassessment, you are not immune from having your decision and reasoning scrutinized. — Wug·a·po·des​ 20:33, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

You might want to read this article to get an idea of how things are being viewed by media. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 16:10, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

• I think this conversation isn't going anywhere fast on this page. Might I suggest that this be recapitulated in a neutral way on the GA talk page? It will get more people in the discussion and from a wider audience. Having this discussion only in the context of Joe Biden seems to be cause for discontent. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 17:47, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
• Find it preposterous that an article that has grown 3-4 fold since it was unilaterally promoted to GA like forever ago and has had a history of recent edit warring issues, suffers recentism issues, has POV issues, has NPOV issues (all evidenced by sometimes heated discussions at the article talkpage), has maintenance tag issues as clearly mentioned repeatedly and ignored by filibustering demands to provide specifics that are not even necessary since these issues alone fail this for GAC outright. If this article was presented to me for review I would immediately fail it. As I mentioned previously but apparently no one is reading...until this article is stable it should not be a GA but once it IS stable, then perhaps renominate it for GAC and see if someone passes it. I sure wouldn't in this current state, but I won't review it. I am amazed that the very criteria that would be an immediate fail at GAC are being simply ignored. These criteria are posted at the top of the GAC criteria page...if you're going to ignore that criteria then put that page up for Mfd.--MONGO (talk) 21:20, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

+1. You basically hit the nail on the head for the issues here or lack there of. PackMecEng (talk) 01:35, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

This highlights the problem I mention in my comment. You have never conducted a GA review in your 15 years editing here, yet state with absolute certainty that you would immediately fail this one. AIRcorn (talk) 01:08, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes! Based on the posted criteria. Maybe my 30 FA level article contributions of which I was the primary on more than a dozen? Maybe based on my experience doing peer reviews and FAC reviews? I recognize GA and FA are vastly different but one can read the criteria, so since you seem to want to ignore that criteria then may as well throw it to Mfd.--MONGO (talk) 10:51, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

I am only ignoring the stability one for reasons I have elaborated on about half a dozen pages now. The rest are fair game. The thing is we don't just say it fails a criteria we explain how it does. I don't doubt your FA credentials, but like you say this is a vastly different beast. I wouldn't show up at FA and insist I knew how it should operate if that flew in the face of how experienced editors there say it operates. AIRcorn (talk) 01:37, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Not to be rude but you are welcome to try and change the criteria. You do not get to ignore it though. PackMecEng (talk) 02:49, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

"You do not get to ignore it though" said with such confidence! I must say that is quite funny considering how those arguing to delist have "ignored" simple questions asking for specifics. Like examples of the supposed NPOV breaches. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 04:37, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

The consensus as described at the start of this section is not to delist based on instability. It applies if we are nominating an article for GA, but doesn't if we are delisting one. AIRcorn (talk) 05:19, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

I think we are seeing different consensus, because I am seeing consensus to follow policy. Which would delist based on instability. Specifically per WP:GAR, The outcome of a reassessment should only depend on whether the article being reassessed meets the good article criteria or not. PackMecEng (talk) 14:33, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

No, you don't get to close this one anymore than I could close the GA3 and not be challenged. You are involved as the OP. A third party closer completely independent of GA needs to close this discussion. Some good closers who have been acknowledged as good closers would be SilkTork, Emir of Wikipedia, GRuban and the like - impartial, experienced and nonpolitical. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 15:36, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

On second thought, I agree with Vanamonde's statement above: "...(the GAR was within-process, in any case; this discussion, as far as I can see, cannot overturn it; that would need a new GA review),.... I hope participation in this GAR has incentivized editors to participate in (a) improving the GAR process and (b) helping to fix the problems at the delisted article to make it worthy of GA status. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 17:10, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Strictly within the language of WP:GAR Vanamonde93's statement seems to be correct. As far as I can tell, GAN is the only GAR review process. Also strictly within the language of WP:GAR, I could open thousands of GARs en masse, assert neutrality violations, not respond to requests for specifics, and unilaterally decide that consensus is heavily in favor of delisting. I assert this is equivalent to Atsme's GA3, thus the delist result of GA3 should not be considered final and this community GAR should be seen as a continuation of GA3. userdude 17:54, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

GA3 formal close

As a formality - upon the thoughtful suggestion of Vanamonde93 yesterday, I concluded the independent reassessment Talk:Joe Biden/GA3 by providing a more formal close. It appears a few editors were confused or lacked a clear understanding of the reason behind the independent reassessment; therefore, the formal close brings further clarity without anyone having to spend a great deal of time actually reading the more detailed explanations in the lengthy discussions. I am dismayed by some of the allegations in the GAR and in this community reassessment that were used as part of the basis for challenging the first GAR, such as political motivation and a bit of back and forth regarding a lack of experience with the GA process by some of the participants. Of the 6 editors who have supported the delist (MONGO, Mz7, CaptainEek, DGG, PackMecEng, and myself), all but PME are experienced reviewers in either the GA or FA process and/or as qualified reviewers per WP:GOOD, including a few with experience in the reassessment process, so I'm not quite sure what the OP is referring to when he calls out inexperience. Furthermore, the allegation that the delist action was politically motivated is absurd, the absurdity of which is evidenced in some of the oppose statements, not to mention that the primary purpose of a reassessment is to improve an article. I see no correlation with politics unless there is a motive to use GA status as a means of assuring readers that everything in the article is factually accurate and represents a NPOV which is what an article's stability represents and why we attach a GA symbol. Granted, the AP topic area can be rather toxic which helps explain why so few editors want to spend any time there, and why I don't edit those articles. My main focus on WP has always been to promote/review and participate in article improvement and to help build the encyclopedia by attending WikiConferences, and becoming a member of several WikiProjects, including the Lead Improvement Team. I am also a qualified reviewer at NPP/AfC, and have 17 GAs and 8 FAs to my credit as either a nom or reviewer. The one editor of the 6 who supported delisting qualifies as a GA reviewer but I am not aware if their qualifications have yet been put to use, except for this reassessment. Happy editing. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 15:29, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

You brought experience into this when you said Experienced GA reviewers have already provided the information. I was pointing out the relative experiences of the reviewers as it seemed to be being used as a reason to delist the article without actually providing any substance. The lack of experience is not really the issue anyway, it is the lack of listening to editors with the experience. You have been involved in three community reassessments including this one. In the other two you display the same battleground behaviour you are displaying here. When editors that have been involved in many times more try and explain how Good Article reassessments should be conducted it is generally a good idea to listen to them instead of doubling down that you are right. Myself and BlueMoonset are probably the two most active editors here and we have both tried to explain how things work. Vandemonde and Wugapodes (each with over 50 reviews to their name) have also questioned the way the process was used to conduct your reassessment. By contrast the six you mention as being experienced reviewers have 0,8,3,0,0, and 10 reviews to there names respectively (as recorded by User:GA bot/Stats, which while not perfect is the best we have at keeping track of such things). Their input is more than welcome and can be valuable, but lets keep it in context. AIRcorn (talk) 00:25, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

@Aircorn:, I just came across this. You say you have much experience with GA, is it normal for an editor who initiates a review saying this fails GA is also the same editor to perform an Independent close of the review? I'm quite shocked. starship.paint (talk) 06:05, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

• @Starship.paint: Sorry been away for a bit. If you are talking about Talk:Joe Biden/GA3, then that is how it is supposed to work. There are individual reassessments and community ones. That was an individual one so it is expected for the initiated to close it. This one here however is a community one so it will need an independent closer. AIRcorn (talk) 07:17, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Closing this discussion

@Aircorn and Atsme: It's been 3 weeks since the last comment here. Should this discussion be closed? Username⁶⁸⁹² 20:14, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Nothing has changed - the same issues that resulted in the original GAR3 delist still exist with more occurring. The article fails WP:GAR: The outcome of a reassessment should only depend on whether the article being reassessed meets the good article criteria or not. In a nutshell, it does not meet GA criteria. The article continues to be unstable, it is constantly changing, there are serious issues involving NPOV that are not being addressed, particularly in the lead as well as several issues in the body. See my most recent comment regarding those issues wherein I basically point to NPOV, (DUE & BALANCE). Read Talk:Joe Biden - read the lead of the article. There is nothing in the lead about any controversy, as if none exists, including his inappropriate behavior which dates back to his Senate days - nothing about the sexual abuse allegation per WP:LEAD which also refers back to NPOV & DUE. There is nothing about the Ukrainian investigation, despite coverage by WaPo, AP, etc. There is an attempt to keep his racist comment out of the article despite WP:PUBLICFIGURE: ...which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. The article still has maintenance banners and would have more if they were not being reverted. Read the GAR3 discussion, and reassessment of the reassessment which resulted in no improvement of the article because, quite simply, it is unstable and because of PP, DS, and various edit restrictions it is unlikely to be stable, much less comply with NPOV. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 11:57, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

The best way is to request a close either at the WT:GAN page or the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. There are still a few open reassessments above this so if someone wants to close those it will bump this one further up the queue. AIRcorn (talk) 07:21, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

There are currently no fewer than three Biden-related requests for closure at the administrators' noticeboard (permanent link). One of these was just recently closed, while the other two have been archived without a formal closure. I believe that occasionally RfCs are formally closed after they have been moved to archives.

Talk:Joe Biden sexual assault allegation#RfC: "... alleged that Biden ..."

(Initiated 1535 days ago on 25 April 2020) Formal close needed. Thanks. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 19:09, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

•  Done.—S Marshall T/C 15:29, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Joe Biden sexual assault allegation/Archive 11#RfC: Should a separate section be included that lists people who have been told by Reade of her allegation, under a heading 'Corroborating statements', 'Witness statements', or similar?

(Initiated 1529 days ago on 1 May 2020) Non-involved admin close requested; controversial topic. Archived RfC. petrarchan47คุก 23:11, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Joe Biden sexual assault allegation/Archive 10#RfC: Should we use the word "corroborate" to describe accounts that align with parts of the allegation?

(Initiated 1522 days ago on 8 May 2020)

Non-involved admin close requested; controversial topic. Archived RfC. petrarchan47คุก 23:11, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

These requests for closure certainly lend credence to the assertions that the article has not been stable for an extended period of time. wbm1058 (talk) 11:14, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

It's easy to miss that the three discussions I boxed above are about the content of the sub-article Joe Biden sexual assault allegation, and thus are not directly applicable to the GAR of this article, the main bio. However, the discussion linked below,

Talk:Joe Biden#RFC: "Allegations of inappropriate physical contact" header, is applicable, and has not been closed yet. – wbm1058 (talk) 16:12, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

There is also another open RfC "Allegations of inappropriate physical contact" header which was started 22 May 2020. – wbm1058 (talk) 16:22, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

I have read through this discussion and have formulated a rough closure in my head. I'm working on getting the close keyboarded and expect to post my close later today. This will be my first-ever close of a Good article (re-)assessment. Normally I would defer to a more experienced closer for such a high-profile case as this, but I see that the most active GAR participants are involved in the discussion and this project doesn't have that many active administrators closing discussions – hence I am stepping up. I have posted three comments to this discussion, but this can be closed by any uninvolved registered user. (Significant contributors to the article are "involved", as are reassessment nominators; editors are not usually considered to be "involved" unless they have contributed significantly to GA disagreements about the article prior to the community reassessment.) I did not contribute to Talk:Joe Biden/GA3 except in the post-close comments. More than four weeks have passed since the reassessment was opened on 22 April 2020‎.

19 editors have contributed to this discussion 12 of 19 also participated in the individual reasssessmet

16 editors contributed to the individual reassessment 12 of 16 also contributed to the community reassessment

23 editiors contributed to one or both of these discussions. Consensus is determined by weight of argument rather than counting votes, but given that, to ensure that I've accounted for everyone's arguments, my rough count is:

* Keep (2): Coffeeandcrumbs, MelbourneStar

* Delist (9): Atsme, CaptainEek, ConstantPlancks, DGG, MONGO, Mz7, PackMecEng, Sir Joseph, Vfrickey

* Neutral or unclear (10): Aircorn, Awilley, BlueMoonset, Starship.paint, UserDude, Username6892, Vanamonde93, Wasted Time R, Wbm1058, Wugapodes

* Technical edits only (2): MrX, SNUGGUMS

The line between neutral and keep is a bit fuzzy. I have the sense that several "neutral" editors would like to find a way to keep, but generally these editors are more concerned with process than the outcome. The "delist" voters have more conviction. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:22, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

 Doing... wbm1058 (talk) 11:14, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

First things to look for: "Before conducting an extensive review, and after ensuring you are viewing an unvandalized version, check that the article does not have cleanup banners that are obviously still valid, including {{cleanup}}, {{POV}}, {{unreferenced}} or large numbers of {{citation needed}}, {{clarify}}, or similar inline tags." Given this, after two (individual and community) reviews, I was surprised to find some of these unaddressed issues:

• remove from Category:Pages with reference errors by restoring references that were removed by the edit 04:36, 6 June 2020
• Remove {{better source}} tag which was added without explanation at 12:55, 2 May 2019 by Tobby72. How can you improve on a primary source which is a video of the man speaking himself? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D1j0FS0Z6ho
• clarify statement about net worth

Remaining are a few dated statement categorizations, as old as "Articles containing potentially dated statements from September 2015". I'll assume it isn't expected to try to update these for GA status to be maintained. – wbm1058 (talk) 18:25, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Reassessment

Good article reassessment (GAR) is a process primarily used to determine whether an article that is listed as good article (GA) still merits its good article status according to the good article criteria. Most GARs don't include this ({{subst:GATable}}), but, as a first-time reviewer/closer I thought it would be a useful exercise:

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	I've just finished reading the article and have clarified the prose and corrected grammar in a few places. Apparently this was not done by earlier reviewers in this community review. wbm1058 (talk) 18:01, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	The lead section was reviewed for compliance in this discussion. As a general rule of thumb, a lead section should contain no more than four well-composed paragraphs; the lead now has five, so it's pushing the length limits, but not yet so far as to cause a fail here (this issue wasn't raised in the discussion). While assertions were made about trivia in the body, I didn't see any suggestions for removal of specific text from the lead. The lead should summarize any prominent controversies. wbm1058 (talk) 15:10, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	The article appears to be well referenced. I have not done a thorough review for this. wbm1058 (talk) 21:06, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	The sources appear to be reliable. I have not done a thorough review for this. wbm1058 (talk) 21:06, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
	2c. it contains no original research.	No evidence of OR has been presented. I have not done a thorough review for this. wbm1058 (talk) 21:06, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	No evidence has been presented. I have not done a thorough review for this. wbm1058 (talk) 21:06, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	The Wikipedia:Out of scope essay says "Use the most general scope for each article you can. Since Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia, it's supposed to summarise essentially all knowledge. Hence accidental or deliberate choice of a limited scope for an article can make notable information disappear from the encyclopedia entirely, or make it highly inaccessible.", which appears to discourage exclusion of "trivia", which seems counter to the advice of the next requirement (3b) to not go into unnecessary detail. wbm1058 (talk) 22:24, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Hey! "focused on the topic" links to Wikipedia:Article size – and Wikipedia:Summary style is all about splitting to subtopics. So, not so fast about that stuff being out-of-scope for GA reviews. A split was proposed on 24 April 2020 which quickly gained consensus in support. Vice presidency of Joe Biden was created on 30 April 2020‎ and United States Senate career of Joe Biden was created on 1 May 2020‎, but as discussed on 18 May this work has yet to be finished. In contrast with the longish lead of this article (1b above) the leads of Vice presidency of Joe Biden and United States Senate career of Joe Biden are each just one short paragraph, making it difficult to summarize those sections here. This article cannot be recertified as a Good Article until after this work is done. wbm1058 (talk) 17:00, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	This is such a subjective criterion that I feel that it can only be determined by consensus in a community discussion. What I mostly see in this discussion is an assertion that the article is not neutral responded to by mostly unanswered requests for specifics, and some acknowledgement(s) of "good faith claims that the article lacks neutrality". This criterion feels somewhat redundant to me. I think an article that passes all other criteria, particularly stability, is unlikely to fail on just this one. In any event the discussion hasn't sufficiently specifically addressed this criterion for me to make a call. wbm1058 (talk) 22:50, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	As indicated above 9 !voters were leaning to delist based on instability. This was a borderline "no consensus" discussion, but regardless the outcome is the same. See additional comments below.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	All 39 images in the article are tagged; most as public domain or creative commons. wbm1058 (talk) 21:58, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	All 39 images in the article are relevant and captioned. wbm1058 (talk) 21:58, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
	7. Overall assessment.

Neutrality and stability

Items 4 and 5 are the "elephant in the room" around which this GAR revolves. I view these criteria as very much connected because the crux of the stability issues revolve around disputes over neutrality. Indeed § Are stability-based GARs appropriate? discusses this.

I noticed a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations, "List of Wikipedians by number of Good articles?" and volunteered to work on producing such a list (after I finish closing this). I think such a list for the "content creators" would nicely balance out the "gnomes list". Based on the algorithm for producing that list, I see that Wasted Time R would get credit for this GA. Indeed this seems to be a good measure based on the XTools report which gives them a significant margin over other editors in authorship, number of edits, and added text.

A point of contention in this GAR is whether an article can be delisted based on the Immediate failures criteria. It was asserted that "there is no such thing as an immediate fail at GAR" and the "immediate" part only applies to new GA nominations. But GAR determines whether an article that is listed as good article still merits its GA status according to the good article criteria. There are no separate "review criteria", so I find that the "immediate" part does apply. However, the Wikipedia:Good article reassessment "When to use this process" guideline says "Use the individual reassessment process if You don't see any ongoing content dispute or edit war and "Requesting (community) reassessment during a content dispute or edit war is usually inappropriate, wait until the article stabilizes and then consider reassessment. If significant instability persists for more than a couple of weeks, then reassessment on the grounds of instability may be considered." So, following the guideline, a GAR may only fail based on the "immediate" part after waiting at least two weeks to confirm persistent instability and obtaining a very clear consensus for an immediate fail from at least five editors in a community discussion. In fairness to Atsme, until I made this uncontested reversion, the guidelines were contradictory on stability-based reviews, so I can't fault her for starting an individual GAR. Editors are advised that in the future stability-based reassessments should only be done by the community process. This is to ensure fairness to editors like Wasted Time R who've put in a lot of work to get the article up to the GA standard. In any event, this review has gone on long enough that it is way past being able to be called an "immediate" review. - wbm1058 (talk) 21:48, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Wbm1058 for noticing my past role, it is appreciated. But during 2015–16 I retired from working on this and other current political articles, so regardless of how much work I put into it in the past, I have accepted having no part in what happens to it going forward. I will say, as I mentioned previously in these GAR discussions, that I don't see stability per se as a barrier to GA/FA, since between 2008 and 2016 five of the six major party presidential candidate articles were FA at the time of the November elections (and some had been GA before that) and all of those may have looked on the surface like they had stability issues. But in reality the vast bulk of each article changed little from day to day and the value each article presented to the reader remained consistently high. That can be done here as well. Anyway, good luck with doing the rest of this close, you have taken on a pretty thankless task ... Wasted Time R (talk) 00:05, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Precedents. Criterion 5 is open to interpretation: "it does not change significantly from day to day". The footnote to that provides some clarification: "Reverted vandalism, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply to the "stable" criterion. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of disruptive editing may be failed or placed on hold." The key word open to interpretation is "significant". This word may be ambiguous in some situations. "Having a noticeable or major effect." "Reasonably large in number or amount." An article "undergoing rapid expansion or being rewritten" is undergoing significant change, but what about the addition of a single sentence to an already lengthy article? If that single sentence mentions allegations of sexual misconduct not previously mentioned in the article, that single sentence arguably has a noticeable or major effect. Edit-warring over the addition of that sentence may reasonably be interpreted as evidence that the addition had a noticeable effect; if it didn't, in my view an edit war is much less likely to develop.

I have heard the appeals to precedents. Wikipedia doesn't have any policies or guidelines on this. Although precedents are not required to be followed, I am sympathetic with the Wikipedia:Precedents essay. With that in mind, I searched the archives and found a nearly 14-year old discussion titled "Dealing with Bad Faith objections on controversial topics". While the debate that led to this was over religion, it seems relevant given the separation of church and state, but can religion and politics really be separated?

The dispute was over the Creation-evolution controversy article, which has since moved to Rejection of evolution by religious groups. The article was delisted per this GAR as explained by the reviewer HERE and on the revewer's talk. The {{Article history}} on Talk:Rejection of evolution by religious groups shows that the article was listed on January 22, 2006, delisted on October 4, 2006, and apparently no attempts have been made to relist it after that.

I noticed that Result: 6 delist to 4 keep, no consensus was added by another editor (not the reviewer) when they archived the discussion. I'm not sure whether the reviewer counted votes, but this edit demonstrates the view that no consensus in a GAR results in delisting rather than maintaining the status quo, which is counter to the view expressed by some in this GAR. I think that's right; Good Article Reviews simply confirm that an article still passes the criteria. If a first time assessment would fail criterion 5 if there was no consensus, then I don't see how a reassessment should have a different outcome with no consensus. I haven't seen anything in the instructions supporting that view.

I'll make a quick search now for more, confirming precedents. – wbm1058 (talk) 16:56, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

I just confirmed that the stability criterion hasn't substantially changed since March 2006 so the above precedent still seems relevant.

Another point of contention in the discussion revolves around the Wikipedia:Stable version supplement to the page protection policy. An argument was made that you can not get more stable than a fully protected article, which was rejected by another participant with the rationale that if an article so poorly failed to meet the stability criterion that an administrator had to forcibly cause it to be stable, then it isn't truly stable. I concur with this latter view. If one should wait at least two weeks to confirm an article's instability, arguably most high-profile articles will always pass the criterion because administrators will not allow instability to persist for that long before protecting the article. It makes no sense to have a criterion that can never fail. The rationale for protection should be examined. If it's protected due to vandalism, then it's still stable for GAR purposes. But if it's protected due to edit warring, then it's not. Per Wikipedia:Stable version § Inappropriate usage it is inappropriate usage to invoke this argument to avoid a delisting for instability. An open request for comment over a proposed "significant" change in content, i.e. a change that will have a "noticeable or major effect" on the article, should be viewed as a sign of instability for as long as the RfC remains open.

I realize this is problematic for articles of this type. A possible solution might be to introduce the concept of a "last good version" or a new indicator showing that the good article "may be outdated and is currently undergoing review of possible content changes". wbm1058 (talk) 20:32, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════

I suppose the sections below may be considered as equivalent to the workshop page of an Arbitration Committee case. LOL wbm1058 (talk) 15:10, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Summary-style split

For 3b, I'd like to point out that I did propose a split which ended up happening, but discussion about the prose to keep in the article went nowhere. It's been brought up again, but that discussion also went nowhere. As much as I want to help, I realize that I have almost no splitting/summarizing experience and I'm terrible at summarizing things. Username⁶⁸⁹² 02:41, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Lead section

• 1b fails - it is a campaign speech with all controversy omitted and reads like a whitewashed presentation by a candidate during an election year. Remove some of the cruft and candidate marketing from the lead, add the most notable controversies per MOS, otherwise it clearly fails 1b. MOSLEAD states (my bold underline): The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies. I will also note that tags regarding NPOV were wrongfully removed from this article, and I was not going to get into an edit war over it. It is not a neutral article for the reasons I have already mentioned, and it is highly protected - again another fail. Also, the independent reassessment involved community input so I don't see any difference between the independent community reassessment and the community reassessment except for a difference in the two editors who called for comments. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 13:31, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

I am not seeing much support for failing 1b from the !voters. Most of the "delist" sentiment I see is based on failing 5, and perhaps 4. Let's address your two relevant points separately. wbm1058 (talk) 15:10, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Length

The lead now has five paragraphs; the manual of style suggests reducing this to four. What would you remove? Feel free to either strike through words to omit using <s>...</s> tags or rewrite it below. wbm1058 (talk) 15:10, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

---

Username6892's opinion for removals, Removals Username6892 is less sure about, Username6892's opinion for additions

Joseph Robinette Biden Jr. (/ˌrɒbɪˈnɛt ˈbaɪdən/; born November 20, 1942) is an American politician who served as the 47th vice president of the United States from 2009 to 2017 and represented Delaware in the U.S. Senate from 1973 to 2009. A member of the Democratic Party, Biden is the presumptive Democratic nominee for president of the United States in the 2020 election. This is Biden’s third run for president after he unsuccessfully sought the Democratic nomination in 1988 and 2008.

Biden was raised in Scranton, Pennsylvania, and New Castle County, Delaware. He studied at the University of Delaware before receiving his law degree from Syracuse University. He became a lawyer in 1969 and was elected to the New Castle County Council in 1970. He was elected to the U.S. Senate from Delaware in 1972 when he became the sixth-youngest senator in American history. Biden was reelected six times and was the fourth-most senior senator when he resigned to assume the vice presidency in 2009.

As a senator, Biden was a longtime member and eventually chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee. He opposed the Gulf War in 1991 but advocated for U.S. and NATO intervention in the Bosnian War in 1994 and 1995, expanding NATO in the 1990s, and the 1999 bombing of Serbia during the Kosovo War. He argued and voted for the resolution authorizing the Iraq War in 2002 but opposed the surge of U.S. troops in 2007. He has also served as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, dealing with issues related to drug policy, crime prevention, and civil liberties, as well as the contentious U.S. Supreme Court nominations of Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas. Biden led the efforts to pass the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act and the Violence Against Women Act.

In 2008, Biden was the running mate of Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama. As vice president, he oversaw infrastructure spending to counteract the Great Recession and helped formulate U.S. policy toward Iraq through the withdrawal of U.S. troops in 2011. His negotiations with congressional Republicans helped the Obama administration pass legislation including the Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010, which resolved a taxation deadlock; the Budget Control Act of 2011, which resolved that year's debt ceiling crisis; and the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012, which addressed the impending fiscal cliff. In the aftermath of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, Biden led the Gun Violence Task Force, created to address the causes of gun violence in the United States. Obama and Biden were reelected in 2012.

In October 2015, after months of speculation, Biden announced he would not seek the presidency in the 2016 election. In January 2017, Obama awarded Biden the Presidential Medal of Freedom with distinction. After completing his second term as vice president, Biden joined the faculty of the University of Pennsylvania, where he was named the Benjamin Franklin Professor of Presidential Practice. He announced his 2020 candidacy for president on April 25, 2019, joining a large field of Democratic candidates pursuing the party nomination. Throughout 2019, he was widely regarded as the party's frontrunner. After briefly falling behind Bernie Sanders after poor showings in the first three state contests, Biden won the South Carolina primary decisively, and, several center-left moderate candidates dropped out of the race and endorsed him before Super Tuesday. Biden went on to win 18 of the next 26 contests. With the suspension of Sanders's campaign on April 8, 2020, Biden became the Democratic Party's presumptive nominee for the presidential election. On June 9, 2020, Biden met the 1,991-delegate threshold needed in order to secure the party's nomination.

References

References

References

Prominent controversies

What specific controversies should be mentioned in the lead? These should be controversies that are already covered in the article body.

There is no consensus for including a specific statement in the lead of Joe Biden sexual assault allegation. If attempts to add controversies to the lead of this article have been reverted, a similar discussion should be initiated to get a consensus to include them. wbm1058 (talk) 15:10, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

• Response to Wbm1058 and (1b) regarding controversies:

1. the Tara Reade RfC close states: this RfC is about how much detail about that allegation to give in the lead. A consensus has not been reached as to how much so the dispute is ongoing. Regardless, that is not the only controversy as the following will evidence:
2. Politico and other RS have published Biden's controversial ‘you ain’t black’ comment, which belongs in the lead per MOS;
3. the Vox article about Joe Biden’s controversial comments about segregationists and wealthy donors, explained;
4. the NYTimes article, Biden’s ‘Breakfast Club’ Controversy Shows What His Rivals Already Knew;
5. Time article,

Top 10 Joe Biden Gaffes - Throughout his decades of public service, the former Senator and current Vice President has earned a reputation for often saying the wrong thing at the wrong time;

• And there are many more. Not even one notable controversy is mentioned in the lead, few are in the body text, and there should be several. Sorry, but it FAILS NPOV on many counts. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 14:39, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree, but the word "gaffes" makes it sound pro-Trump. Other editors may or may not think so, but that's just what I think. Thanks, Thanoscar21_{talk, contribs} 01:10, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Even Bushisms, with their own article, didn't make it to George W. Bush's lead. I don't think Biden's gaffes are more significant. starship.paint (talk) 15:36, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

• @Atsme:, a very recent RfC discussion (which you participated in) resulted in consensus not to have "you ain't black" in the body. You are free to start a another RfC for a new consensus, but to plainly assert that it belongs in the lead is simply ignoring the current consensus. starship.paint (talk) 15:36, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

  @Starship.paint: Just for clarification that is not a RFC. That was a discussion that was open about a week and a half. PackMecEng (talk) 15:40, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

  @PackMecEng: - you're absolutely right. I apologize for my error. Thank you for the correction, I have edited my post accordingly. starship.paint (talk) 15:42, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Nomination

With the withdrawal of Bernie Sanders from the 2020 US presidential election, Joe Biden has been nominated by the Democratic Party as its presidential candidate. The article however still shows him as the presumptive candidate so I will go and edit the article in a few minutes CityOfSails2 (talk) 09:46, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

@CityOfSails2: The current language is correct. He will not be the formal nominee until he is formally nominated as such at the party's convention. This is why news outlets refer to him as the "presumptive Democratic presidential nominee," for example see [76]. Aoi (青い) (talk) 09:56, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Biden is the Democratic party nominee for President of the United States when the state Democratic parties, meeting in national convention (however they're going to manage to do it in 2020) vote to nominate him and he accepts the nomination. It's overwhelmingly likely that's how it's going to play out at time of writing but there are pathways to a different nominee, most of which involve medical emergencies. The same delegates end up showing up for the same convention but you end up having a real open convention and there would be no disloyalty or rules violations if previously pledged Biden delegates vote for someone else. TMLutas (talk) 18:54, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree that "presumptive Democratic presidential nominee" is the correct way to term things, as stated above. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 19:00, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

He hasn't been nominated by the Democratic Party as its presidential candidate. That statement is false. If you are in doubt, please consult the United States presidential primary and Democratic National Convention articles. BeŻet (talk) 22:42, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Splitting Proposal

• Joe Biden#United States Senate (1973–2009)→Senate career of Joe Biden
• Joe Biden#Vice presidency (2009–2017)→Vice presidency of Joe Biden
  

One of the issues that has been discussed in the GAR discussion, despite not being part of the criteria, is the article's size. The article's prose is currently 88 kB, which means it likely should be split. The combined prose size of both the sections I am proposing splitting is 54 kB. As Joe Biden continues his presidential run and the 2020 election happens, there may be much more to write about, thus causing the prose to possibly top 100 kB. Due to these problems, I propose splitting the aforementioned sections to the aforementioned titles.
Pinging GAR participants: @Atsme, Aircorn, Mz7, CaptainEek, MelbourneStar, Wasted Time R, PacMecEng, Awilley, and MONGO: Username⁶⁸⁹² 17:22, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

• Support This strikes me as a good idea with precedent (Vice presidency of Al Gore, United States Senate career of John McCain, 2001–2014, United States Senate career of Hillary Clinton). – Muboshgu (talk) 17:59, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
• Support - per Muboshgu. It is an excellent idea. Thank you, Username! ^Atsme _Talk 📧 18:13, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
• Support as part of a general move toward summary style, which is almost always essential with especially significant politicians. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:26, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
• Support Great idea! Its always a challenge keeping these big articles at a reasonable size, so anything helps us meet our summary style goal. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 21:12, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
• Support – Nice work, Usermane. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 03:12, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
• Support per Username6892. Perhaps we should start discussing the prose to remain in this article? userdude 04:05, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

  @UserDude: The usual way of doing this is for the prose in this article to essentially be a copy of the introduction of the new article, since both are meant to be a summary of the new article's body. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:12, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

• Support obviously this is for the betterment of the article and to cut down on the main article's flab. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 06:20, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
• Support Notable senators have a dedicated page about this. I believe Joe Biden is one of them. Stay safe, EditQwerty (talk) 15:56, 25 April 2020 (UTC)EditQwerty
• Support - Considering that Biden's Senate and VP sections aren't likely to get much heavy editing anymore but are taking up a lot of room, it makes perfect sense to me to break them off into their own articles. --Woko Sapien (talk) 16:02, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
• Support Telluride (talk) 07:34, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
• Support. Seems reasonable. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:27, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
• Support - This appears consistent with past precedent, which is good. I agree. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 19:37, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Prose to keep

It's been about 2 days since I opened this discussion and it appears highly likely to be split, but what prose should be left in this article? I personally find that putting a lead-style summary would probably make the early life section seem extremely detailed in comparison with other sections. I am currently of the opinion that the Senate section should be reduced to about 10 kB of prose in this article (It's currently 33 kB), similar to that of John McCain's pre-2000 congressional career and Hillary Clinton's Senate career. I'm not sure about the VP section yet. Username⁶⁸⁹² 21:26, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

As I said above, the usual solution is that the prose "left behind" is basically the introduction of the new article, since they are both intended to be summaries of the same thing. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:50, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

I'll get the ball rolling on the Vice presidency of Joe Biden article. Please feel free to add content to it. --Woko Sapien (talk) 14:34, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

As Woko split off the vice presidency, I just split off the Senate career to United States Senate career of Joe Biden. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:09, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

The whole point of splitting the article off into sub-articles is to get most of the text from those sections out of the main article. The sub-articles should be where the bulk of the information resides and the main article should just contain the summary of what is in those sub-articles. It's pointless to split up an article into sub-articles if the you are just going to duplicate the majority of the content that is still remaining in the main article. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:08, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

@Rreagan007: I think the idea is to eventually reduce the amount of information in the main article down to a minimum so that bulky stuff is only in the sub-article. --2603:3005:D04:5C00:315D:65B2:DB82:7864 (talk) 20:25, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Which photo of teenager Biden should we use?

We have 3 photos of Biden during his high school years:

• 
  Option 1
• 
  Option 2
• 
  Option 3

Which one should we use? I prefer Option 3 because it's taken professionally. It has a good background and good lighting. The other photos have Biden's shadow behind him. FunnyMath (talk) 03:37, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

• I feel like option 2 shows more detail, but option 3 is probably marginally better, as it was a professionally taken photo as opposed to a candid picture. The background/shadow on option 2 is also a little distracting. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:25, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
• Support 3 - I agree with the above arguments. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 19:35, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2 - 3 is a washed-out low contrast scan from a damaged original. Unless somebody can do some restoration work to darken, spiff up, and remove the scratches, that one is a non-starter. Just leaves the impression that he was a teen ager before photogrpahy was perfected. SPECIFICO talk 20:04, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO I found a higher quality for 3 in a New York Magazine article. Perhaps we can use that? It's not perfect since you can see the texture of the paper that the photo is printed on, especially on Biden's face. Maybe someone can do a retouch. FunnyMath (talk) 23:10, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Much better - good find, but he's looking away from the reader in 3, whereas in 2 he is looking at us. So I would still favor 2. SPECIFICO talk 23:38, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

I was able to find 2 more yearbook photos of Biden. Now, I strongly believe that option 3 is the best. It would make the 3 yearbook photos harmonious. FunnyMath (talk) 03:55, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Where did you see those other two images at? CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 04:07, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

I put the sources in the image description. I made sure that they are in the public domain. FunnyMath (talk) 04:08, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Okay, thank you. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 04:16, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

There's some ambiguity with the third one, but it seems to be {{PD-US-not renewed}}. I started a discussion on Commons for those interested, and hopefully those with more copyright knowledge will be able to help. — Wug·a·po·des​ 00:26, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

• Option 2 - Only cause he's facing the camera, either option 2 or 3 would be fine in my honest opinion. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 18:43, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
• Weak preference for Option 2, with option 3 as second choice (1 would be confusing, since readers don't know which is him). Both need some retouching (2 seems a little too soft and is washed out, whereas 3 is a little too hard with details of the paper visible), but I think his smile and overall appearance seems more genuine in 2, whereas 3 looks very posed. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:25, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
• Support 3 Better quality but number 2 is not awful either. Just 3 stands out a little better and seems more professional. ContentEditman (talk) 23:18, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2, but recrop it from option 1 because the luminance levels are wrong. Option 3 is inferior because the subject is somewhat less recognizable, the shadow is too prominent, and because he is looking away from the camera. - MrX 🖋 00:30, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: I have uploaded a new version of option 2, cropped from the original image. - MrX 🖋 20:13, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

I would also support option 4. In fact, it's slightly preferable to option 2. - MrX 🖋 01:23, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

• Comment - If we do go with "Option 2", we ought to re-crop it, as stated above. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 06:15, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Option 4

• Option 4 – I re-cropped Option 2 and posted it as Option 4 to the right. I think it's an improvement, not sure if others will agree. Option 2 is my second choice. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 20:06, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Sexual Assault allegations

Why is there no sexual assault allegation section? Kavanaugh has a section even though he was falsely accused by political agendists. No evidence at all. Biden has legitimate witnesses with evidence and there doesnt seem to be a mention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.125.92.151 (talk) 20:56, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

See Joe_Biden#Allegations_of_inappropriate_behavior and try to keep your POV and false equivalencies out of talk page comments. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:06, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

@Muboshgu: There are credible accusations against Biden including evidence from a phone call to Larry King by Reade's mother in 1993; I request that you be nicer to people who have opinions and understandings different from your own. I have added the CNN clip to the page. I do not plan to make any further changes or additions for the sake of protecting my account; if you all have to delete what I added then that's up to you. As far as I can see, I have made a legitimate edit consistent with BLP and Wikipedia's no censorship policies. I request users to not contact me on the issue, but just delete the information outright or discuss it amongst yourselves- I added a CNN report my friends. Yes, it does technically make the sentence preceding it from the New York Times look hideous, but that's where the facts lie as far as I can see; perhaps the reliability of the New York Times on this issue should be examined. Geographyinitiative (talk) 03:01, 28 April 2020 (UTC) (modified)

Geographyinitiative, comparing the Kavanaugh coverage to the Biden coverage is a false equivalency. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:56, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

No it isn't, it is a legitimate complaint of how democrat's are held to a different standard in Wikipedia, just look at them with an unbiased eye.

I don't want to get myself permabanned from Wikipedia for comments on a pretty sensitive topic about a US presidential candidate and hence cannot directly respond to comments from a long-time Wikipedia editor that seem to contradict the spirit of my edits. It would be like an egg (me) running into a wall (Wikipedia admins). I will not make any further posts concerning this edit, regardless of whether or not the edit is reverted on the main page. I again assert that I have made a worthwhile and legitimate Wikipedia edit as I understand it and I hope that others will build on what I have done so far create a better article on Mr. Biden, even if that means removing what I added today. Geographyinitiative (talk) 05:06, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Geographyinitiative, don't worry about voicing a valid opinion. These BLP issues get repetitive and I can forget to explain that reliably sourced coverage is what determines the weight everything gets in an article, and each article needs to be discussed in its own talk page and not compared on others. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:32, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

An article by RealClearPolitics, which I’m not sure is considered an RS but is an important political news source in the U.S., is criticizing our comparative lack of information about the Biden assault claims compared to Kavanaugh’s. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 11:45, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Buzzfeed lists a statement that the NYT DID NOT COME TO ANY CONCLUSION on the Reade accusation, Please remove from the article that they did. It seems a few democrats have read this article and are quoting it, that the NYT's exonerated Biden. https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/rubycramer/joe-biden-tara-reade-talking-points-campaign-defense 173.172.158.168 (talk) 05:08, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Larry King call-in

This was recently added to the article:

A 1993 clip from CNN's Larry King Live surfaced appearing to feature Reade's mother asking questions related to a dismissed female staffer's problems with a prominent senator that she says were not able to be addressed at that time.

References

I don't think it belongs in the article per WP:UNDUE, WP:NOTNEWS, and WP:BLP. It unduly bolster's the allegation against Biden. - MrX 🖋 13:22, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. Although the clip appears to be legitimate, it's WAY too much into the weeds for this biography. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:38, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

This is UNDUE. There's nothing in the factual reporting to tie this to the 2020 allegation that is the subject of this article. Lord knows what could be found in the Larry King call-in archives of many years. SPECIFICO talk 14:52, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Reliable sources would disagree. https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2020/04/joe-biden-tara-reade-business-insider/ ResultingConstant (talk) 19:58, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

• https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/04/28/joe-biden-sexual-assault-allegation-what-we-know-tara-reade/3039909001/
• https://www.newsweek.com/new-biden-accuser-tape-cnn-silence-stir-discord-among-sanders-democrats-1500235

I know this is not suppose to be here, but, is there a list page on wikipedia that I can reference for a list of reliable news sources? It would be helpful, that way you can refer to it when you write something that someone wants to censor because it goes against their personal bias and can be used in your defense if they have a higher edit position for your arbitration. 173.172.158.168 (talk) 05:21, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

• https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-election/tara-reade-joe-biden-sexual-assault-claim-larry-king-video-a9487001.html
• https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/04/video-tara-reade-mother-joe-biden-larry-king.html
• https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2020/04/25/biden-accuser-mom-called-larry-king-live-1993-over-assault-advice-mj-lee-vpx.cnn
• https://reason.com/2020/04/27/tara-reade-mother-larry-king-joe-biden-sexual-assault/
• https://www.huffpost.com/entry/joe-biden-vp-tara-reade_n_5ea86f02c5b66d8003aac14f
• https://www.commondreams.org/news/2020/04/28/demand-grows-biden-address-tara-reade-allegations-democrats-wrestle-metoo-hypocrisy
• https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/04/joe-biden-sexual-assault-unnecessary-witnesses.html
• https://www.salon.com/2020/04/28/two-women-corroborate-elements-of-tara-reades-sexual-assault-allegation-against-joe-biden/
• https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/04/biden-should-release-his-papers/610801/
• https://www.chicagotribune.com/election-2020/ct-nw-joe-biden-tara-reade-sexual-assault-allegation-20200428-fpiury2sijc6hff3bblczor6a4-story.html

ResultingConstant (talk) 22:12, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

That is what I figured, all liberal and have to retract stories all the time, the same exact reason that conservative sources are not allowed. So you admit that Wikipedia editors only allow liberal sources. Oh well. 173.172.158.168 (talk) 06:05, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Not really. Just a google list, as far as I can tell from reading the few more journalistic articles there. SPECIFICO talk 22:30, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

• Exclude The policy is the degree of coverage it has received rather than its relevance. Some editors have decided that one article about Tara Reid in CNN is the equivalent of 700 articles about Christine Blasey Ford. It doesn't matter whether her claims are credible or not, true or false. So far it has received minimal coverage. We can wait to see if Trump makes it an issue and if it gets coverage. TFD (talk) 03:38, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Who decides when it has received substantial coverage? By all accounts it is well-covered, with the sources cited above as an example. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 04:24, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Us editors decide. We don't just count sources. Please have a read at WP:NPOV, WP:CON, WP:ONUS, WP:BLP, and WP:NOT. - MrX 🖋 13:44, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

No. Reliable sources are what we use, no matter what the circumstances or what we personally think. Otherwise, Wikipedia becomes an opinions website and not an encyclopedia. Please let's at least pay attention to the long list of reliable sources given in this thread. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 15:27, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Are you responding to my comment? I never suggested that we don't use reliable sources. I said that we also use editorial discretion, consensus, and neutral point of view. By the way, about half of those sources are not usable according to our standards. - MrX 🖋 18:48, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken, determing whether something has received substantial coverage requires common sense on the part of editors. When CNN published 700 stories about Ford's accusations against Kavanaugh, a little know judge, that was substantial. When they publish one article about Reade's accusations against Biden and no articles about the phone call among many articles they publish about him every single day, it isn't substantial relative to overall coverage. TFD (talk) 23:50, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

• Include – it's widely covered by RS, per the links above (and there are others). Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 19:28, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

• Include as stated above. ShadZ01 (talk) 23:56, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
• Include it's relevant to the nature of the allegations and it's has been reported upon in mainstream reliable publications (ie. the atlantic) Epluribusunumyall (talk) 03:38, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
• Include and add NPR to the list as well. https://www.npr.org/2020/04/29/847840765/new-information-emerges-around-biden-sexual-assault-allegation Sir Joseph ^(talk) 04:34, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
• Exclude - it's ridiculous to try to include it in this high level article. Clearly violates NPOV and UNDUE. It belongs in the dedicated article on the subject. Volunteer Marek 04:39, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
• Include - it's more ridiculous to not include it. If you think this violates NPOV you're being ridiculous, this has been widely-reported on and is intrinsically linked to understanding the article's subject. Excluding this is doing nothing but covering-up information. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 08:10, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
• Include even if some of our editors want to ignore it. Some people think that they can include ten paragraphs of insults on one candidate and then ignore RSes for someone else who’s accused of the same thing. I support per NPOV. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 11:13, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
• Exclude. We are not going to through every new aspect related to the accusation in the main bio article, and list the corroborating and conflicting aspects. For comparison, the Trump main article contains two short concise paragraphs[77] about the sexual assault allegations against him. Just as it would be inappropriate to recite the details of each credible allegation in that article, it is inappropriate in this article. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:01, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Interesting. However, President Trump has far more controversies to list in that article than Joe Biden, having been president for over three years, so I think comparing the coverage of these two is like comparing apples and oranges, unless Joe Biden gets elected in November. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 14:44, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

• Exclude - I don't think it belongs in the article per WP:UNDUE, WP:NOTNEWS, and WP:BLP. It unduly bolster's the allegation against Biden. About half of those sources are unsuitable for BLP content. - MrX 🖋 15:03, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Which ones in particular? I can see the Reason and CommonDreams ones falling into that category, however they are only two and you claim its "about half" so can you elaborate? MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 15:15, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Also Newsweek, Slate, Salon, and Huffington Post. - MrX 🖋 19:42, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

How is this no more than news? It is an important development in the allegations. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 16:16, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

What makes it important? "The [mother]/woman does not mention sexual assault or harassment, nor does she describe in any detail what "problems" she might be referring to. Her daughter's name and Biden are also not mentioned."[78] - MrX 🖋 19:42, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

I think this may be UNDUE for the main BLP, but certainly applicable at the allegations article. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:24, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

• Exclude Absolutely not appropriate for this article. Seems appropriate for the split article. Gandydancer (talk) 15:36, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
• Exclude There is no connection whatsoever to Reade's allegation of Biden trumping her. SPECIFICO talk 17:11, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

There clearly is; the interview took place with her mother. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 18:39, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Whoever that was that Larry King spoke to -- not selected for an interview, it was call-in bingo night at Larry King Show -- that caller did not describe what later became Reade's 2020 allegation. Tens of thousands of people call in to talk shows every year. SPECIFICO talk 21:47, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

• Include If you are going to include one writer from the New York Times' glowing praise that "The New York Times reported that "No other allegation about sexual assault surfaced in the course of reporting, nor did any former Biden staff members corroborate any details of Ms. Reade's allegation. The Times found no pattern of sexual misconduct by Mr. Biden."" in this article, which is essentially the Democratic Party organ saying "we support Joe" and not a real journalistic assessment, then I recommend you not cover up real facts, that is, the CNN clip that has been reported on by CNN and Fox News, especially when Fox News directly calls out the New York Times as covering up the whole incident. It's quite clear to me at least that the New York Times is not a reliable source on this issue: party organ. Geographyinitiative (talk) 00:10, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Removed Geographyinitiative (talk) 00:14, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

WP:FALSEBALANCE, etc. You're comparing a statement about the allegations in general with a specific detail. This isn't a game of balancing positive and negative; it's about how to properly summarize the sources in various articles. This is the main article, and therefore should include a summary of what we have a whooollle other article about. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:28, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

I tried to help you make Wikipedia a credible resource rather than the mouthpiece of the NYT, but you all have failed us. This is a political campaign season people, OF COURSE the NYT may say have a motive to not do the investigative reporting that would turn up, I don't know, something like a video from CNN in 1993 and just sweep it all under the rug. Oh well Geographyinitiative (talk) 00:34, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

You're right, but Wikipedia fails in this particular regard by perpetuating this false illusion reliable sources cannot hold biases themselves, and often some editors with bad faith take advantage of this; not making any explicit accusations, of course. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 05:12, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

• Exclude - This specific detail absolutely should be included in the article about the allegations. The job here is to summarize what reliable sources say about the allegations and link to that article, not to include the various details here, too. If this turns out to be a major factor in how this story plays out, then it might wind up making sense to include in the summary, but at this stage it doesn't seem like it. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:28, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
• Exclude This is Joe Biden's bio, an anonymous call made to a talk show 27 years ago, with no proven link to Biden or the allegations, does not belong here. Whether or not it belongs on other Biden-topic pages is debatable on their respective talk pages. Zaathras (talk) 00:35, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
• First include that her friends and family said she told them what happened to her at the time. Kolya Butternut (talk) 06:01, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Inactive case

Stalwart supporters of Joe Biden Fox News are reporting the sexual assault complaint made by Tara Reade is now an "inactive case" per the MPD. Obviously this needs to be in the article, so I have added it. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:19, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

If we keep the information about the complaint, then yes, we need to include this. Ideally, we will just remove the all of the material about the complaint once the RfC concludes. It's obviously moot. - MrX 🖋 18:31, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

The sources are still mentioning the police report in new stories; it's not moot. Kolya Butternut (talk) 05:53, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Accusation of sexual assault

It is not merely inappropriate physical contact. Mr X has reverted the accurate section heading. Which version has consensus? petrarchan47คุก 18:27, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

There is already a discussion further up the page about this. Did you miss it? The current and longstanding wording that I restored is accurate, since sexual assault is indeed a type inappropriate physical contact. - MrX 🖋 18:34, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

I would not call rape a type of inappropriate physical contact. Would you? She says she was raped and that is the charge. Gandydancer (talk) 19:10, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

You don't think rape is inappropriate? I certainly do. I assume we at least agree that it's a type of physical contact. - MrX 🖋 19:35, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Another pointless, POV-pushing thread. I've changed the BLP-violating heading of this thread as well as reverting a similar violation in the article. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:37, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Well Petra, so here we are...it's ok to call rape "inapropriate physical contact." This idea really sucks and it pisses me off. Gandydancer (talk) 20:32, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

It's a BLP violation to suggest a living person committed a "rape" when there's no evidence such a thing occurred. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:04, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting anything and certainly not that Biden raped anyone. But Reade is saying that Biden raped her. Never in my life have I seen rape defined as merely inappropriate physical contact. Wikipedia must not make up their own definition of rape that in this case would certainly make it sound much less than the physical assault that it is. Rape leaves a mark on a woman that she never completely gets over. Gandydancer (talk) 21:35, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Wait—I've read a lot of sources about this subject, but I have yet to come across one in which Reade says that Biden raped her. Cite please? - MrX 🖋 00:38, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Entirely varies by locale. According to this , D.C. falls in the "does not legally define rape; classifies all forms of sexual penetration as the same crime" category. Zaathras (talk) 00:52, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

"it was my former boss, Joe Biden, who raped me," Reade told Fox News." [79] Gandydancer (talk) 03:23, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

New Rasmussen Poll shows people are paying attention to this, and that only 24% believe Biden did not do this. Seems most of those 24% are the upper level editors here based on how hard it is for them to accept this without using ONE SOURCE that exonerates him! But they say that same source is not biased! 173.172.158.168 (talk) 23:18, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Proposal re: "inappropriate physical contact"/"sexual assault" section header

Should the section header "Allegations of inappropriate physical contact" (permalink) be changed?'

1. No, leave it as is, "Allegations of inappropriate physical contact"
2. Yes, to "Allegations of sexual assault"
3. Yes, to "Allegations of inappropriate physical contact and sexual assault"
4. Yes, to something else (please specify)

Please indicate your ranked preference.

Survey

• 2, 3 – (as proposer) #2 is my first choice; #3 is my second choice. I'm open to something else (#4) if it's proposed, but opposed to #1 (keep the same). The most serious, most recent, and highest-profile allegation is that he inserted his fingers into someone else's vagina without their consent. This allegation is most accurately described as "sexual assault", not "inappropriate physical contact". "Sexual assault" is also what the sources call it, e.g.: NPR, "New Information Emerges Around Biden Sexual Assault Allegation"; NYT, "Democratic Frustration Mounts as Biden Remains Silent on Sexual Assault Allegation"; WaPo, "Pelosi says she remains ‘satisfied’ with Biden’s response to sexual assault allegation, praises his ‘integrity’"; NBC, "Woman broadens claims against Biden to include sexual assault"; CBS, "Pelosi says she is "satisfied" with Biden's response to sexual assault allegations"; ABC, "At women’s event, Biden navigates around lingering sexual assault allegation"; AP, "Former Senate staffer accuses Joe Biden of sexual assault"; Reuters, "Democrat Biden faces calls to address sexual-assault allegation"; USAToday, "Former staffer Tara Reade says Joe Biden sexually assaulted her in 1993. Here's what we know."; Forbes, "A Timeline Of Tara Reade’s Sexual Assault Allegations Against Joe Biden"; The Economist, "How to weigh an allegation of assault against Joe Biden". I'm ok with #3 because the section isn't only about sexual assault, but it's inappropriately-euphimistic to label a sexual assault allegation as an "allegation of inappropriate physical contact". Finally, the section header should match the main article, which is Joe Biden sexual assault allegation. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 20:03, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
• Abort - Let's finish the discussion about whether or not any of this should be included first. This survey may turn out to be a complete waste of time. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:06, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

  When you say any do you mean any of these section headings or anything about the assault in general? PackMecEng (talk) 21:14, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

  @Scjessey: I have the same question as PME. To what discussion are you referring? Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 15:58, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

  I had thought there was an RfC on inclusion for any of this allegation, and I am surprised to learn there is not. Based on the lack of evidence, the lack of reliable witnesses, the extraordinary amount of time that passed between the alleged incident, and the suspicious timing of the allegation, I suspect this will turn out to be a false claim. If that is indeed the case, I will expect most of the material will be excluded and coverage to only exist as a footnote of some kind. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:29, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

  Until then, what do you think the section header should be? Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 16:38, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

  1 - "Allegations of inappropriate physical contact". -- Scjessey (talk) 16:40, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

  @Scjessey: There was a RFC on if the Reade stuff should be included here. Looks like you were a part of it even, unless I am misunderstanding which RFC you mean. PackMecEng (talk) 18:55, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

  @PackMecEng: Aha! I knew I wasn't going crazy. Thank you for pointing it out. I had thought it was still active, but I guess I missed the close. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:42, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

  Oh good, I thought I was missing something there! PackMecEng (talk) 20:43, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

• Option 2 - I'm open to using different wording, but we need to avoid euphemisms here. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 17:17, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
  • This equates unwanted shoulder rubs with sexual assault. That's a nonstarter. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:00, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
• No to option 2 No final opinion other than this, but the "inappropriate touching" of shoulder rubs and hair sniffing are not sexual assault, and it would be a horrendous BLP violation to put "inappropriate touching" under a section header of option #2. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:00, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
  • #1 would be a non-starter for exactly the same reason. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 02:11, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1- This is the broadest description that would encompass all the incidents, and most closely describes the large majority of the incidents. It is most compliant with WP:HEADING and WP:NPOV. Option 2 is not possible because there has only been one allegation of sexual assault. If it made its way into the article, it would be quickly removed per WP:BLPREMOVE. - MrX 🖋 01:19, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3 I am not sure if I see opposition to this option. This option avoids mischaracterizing the less severe and more severe allegations. Perhaps "allegations" of inappropriate physical contact is not ideal? The acts are on film, so they're not alleged to have happened, they are not allegedly inappropriate, the accusation is that they are inappropriate. Therefore, the even more unwieldy but perhaps more precise, "Accusations of inappropriate physcial contact and 1993 sexual assault allegation". Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:00, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
• #4, my suggestion which is to have a level three section called "allegations of misconduct"(examples of sections that have the same name) and two level four sections below, one is called "Allegations of inappropriate physical contact" and the other is "Allegation of sexual assault". If not, then I think #3.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 03:28, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
• 4- Allegations of sexual assault and inappropriate touching- (also support 3 or 2 as alternative)- I think the most serious allegation should go first, but either way leaving it as just "inappropriate touching", is very misleading since what he is being accused of by Tara Reade clearly falls into the definition of sexual assault.--Rusf10 (talk) 16:51, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not possible - There is only one allegation of sexual assault. Any attempt to add this to a heading would result in a prompt WP:BLPREMOVE. - MrX 🖋 12:58, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

• 4: My !vote is a hard no to option 2, as "allegations of sexual assault" indicates there have been multiple sexual assault allegations, constituting a BLP violation. Softer no to option 3, as it can easily be misinterpreted as meaning there have been multiple sexual assault allegations. I agree with SharabSalam's idea of a level four section below, but I don't like their proposed section three heading—"allegations of misconduct" is too broad and could include things like his plagiarism accusations. I propose "allegations of inappropriate behavior" instead. Or alternatively, a level three heading of "allegations of inappropriate physical contact" and a single level four heading of "allegation of sexual assault"; however, as Levivich pointed out, "inappropriate physical contact" (while technically including sexual assault) may be too euphemistic. userdude 19:00, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 per MrX. Simple, encompassing, and neutral. RedHotPear (talk) 19:05, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
• "Inappropriate physical contact" gives the impression of a personal foul in basketball, rather than the content discussed in the section. Considering the multitudinous RS using the 'sexual assault' wording, it would be appropriate to inform readers of what the section is about. I support option 3, or the current section header (which is "Allegations of sexual assault and inappropriate touching" at the time I am writing this). Hrodvarsson (talk) 21:52, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
• 3 per others. It’s not perfect, as others have pointed out, but I think it’s the best reasonable choice. As others say, #2 is problematic. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 23:15, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

In ALL mainstream media outlets? Seeing how the overwhelming majority of journalists are liberals https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/what-media-bias-journalists-overwhelmingly-donated-to-hillary-clinton

then, never. On the other hand, I get why every single thing doesn’t need to go into an article.

I work in education. Students know that if they answer my questions with Wikipedia—they are dismissed . They get it. I’ve showed them multiple examples of why they should never trust Wikipedia on any topic that matters. F. L. (talk) 14:05, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

• I haven't added an RFC tag to this section. I'll leave it to someone else to decide whether that should be done. I think the other sections discussing this on this page should be closed to focus discussion here, but I'll also leave that to someone else to decide. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 20:03, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
• Call it what it is. Has anyone denied he was accused specifically of “sexual assault”? No. We aren’t labeling it properly in the article, and this is pitiful. All readers know about the allegation, and when they see Wikipedia’s mealy-mouthed, inaccurate labeling of the allegation as “inappropriate touching”, they will rightly question our reliability. And if they venture to Kavanaugh’s BLP, they will have no question that Wikipedia plays favorites and should not claim to be neutral. petrarchan47คุก 13:56, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

• Yet again, meaningless comparisons are being made to a different article about a different person with different circumstances. What happens at another article has no bearing on what happens here. If you are unhappy with the way the Kavanagh article is being edited, go there and make a case to change it. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:34, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

• Well I see that you completely skipped over the central part of Petra's argument to the Kavanagh comparison part that you could quite easily call not sound thinking. Petra is absolutely right. If we decide to call sexual assault (in this case rape) merely inappropriate contact we can kiss good bye to any ground we have made in our efforts to "womanize" Wikipedia . Women will read this article and use it as proof that Wikipedia is indeed written by and for male editors. Over the years I have worked especially hard on my woman-related articles and I see this as a sad day and a step backwards. Gandydancer (talk) 17:39, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

• Which comment are you referring to? It is unclear from your threading. If you are responding to my comment, you are making a straw man argument that has little to do with what I said. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:00, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
• The immediate problem here is just how to caption the section so that it takes account of Reade's allegation without suggesting that Biden's other acknowledged behavior (that was inappropriate or some better word but not assault) was also alleged assault. Is there a way to accomplish that without diminishing the seriousness of Reade's allegation? SPECIFICO talk 18:44, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

• 2 is a BLP violation. There's only a single allegation that has been called "assault." 3 could easily be misinterpreted to say there is more than one assault allegation, so that one is not good. SPECIFICO talk 01:25, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

It is good to see someone working toward a good and reasonable solution. As I have said already, we must not group rape with the other allegations and Petra, who as much as said women and others who work to educate the public would chalk this one up to typical male superiority issues that exist on WP, said as well. SPECIFICO, do you have any suggestions? Gandydancer (talk) 02:02, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Specifico actually makes a good point, some but not all of the allegations against Biden rise to the level of sexual assault. Option 2 probably isn't the right way to go.--Rusf10 (talk) 16:55, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Rusf10, I believe only one allegation against Biden could be termed a "sexual assault". – Muboshgu (talk) 17:05, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

• "Allegations of inappropriate physical contact and 1993 sexual assault" clarifies that "sexual assault" is singular. Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:55, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

• Non-starter 1993 is also an allegation. SPECIFICO talk 00:12, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes that was the intention, but I see how that changes how it sounds. How about Sexual assault allegation and unwanted physical contact. Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:46, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Newly added images and OR

After EdJF's recent edits, half of the photos we include in "post-vice presidency" section seem to be intended to show him "caught in the act." Putting aside that both of them were while VP (not a big deal given the way the material is organized) and the undue weight of two images here, there's also some straight up OR: in the subsection for "allegations of inappropriate physical contact" an image has been added where "he 'canoodled with a biker lady'" cited to a source that says nothing about allegations of inappropriate physical contact. This seems to be more about a Wikipedia editor finding an image that doesn't look so good and throwing it in as though it's one of the allegations. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:39, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Stephanie Carter

EdJF, please take that bit about Stephanie Carter out of the article. What you put in is sensationalist violating WP:NOTNEWS and an incomplete account of the story. Carter denied it was anything.[80] If not, someone else take this out. I'm at 1RR for the day. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:46, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you ValarianB! – Muboshgu (talk) 02:58, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I've read Stephanie Carter's comments and understand she downplayed the incident. But there's more to it than that - a picture is worth a thousand words, right? - the photo is clear evidence of a pattern of behavior by Biden where he is inappropriately touching people. As one of the country’s senior leaders, he is supposed to be setting an example on how to interact with people. At this point who would argue that he has not failed in executing that responsibility? Nevertheless, I will remove because I respect your position as an admin. I would also ask that you think about this some more. There’s nothing “sensationalist” about an article and a story that circulated widely in the mainstream media.EdJF (talk) 03:05, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

EdJF, you tried to use those photos to insinuate something that the woman involved denies, without using the words that the woman used to deny it. That's tendentious by its definition. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:01, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Muboshgu The edit was almost entirely quotes from RS, not my words. Is it fair to re-enter using Carter's explanation? EdJF (talk) 16:20, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

EdJF, it was an incomplete telling of the RS. I object to including it at all as it's pure WP:NOTNEWS. It was in the 24 hour news cycle when it happened, and then it faded. Stephanie Carter's post makes it clear there's nothing to see here. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:28, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Muboshgu acknowledged EdJF (talk) 16:39, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Yea that was serious overkill. ValarianB (talk) 02:59, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Actually, it is exactly what this section needs.EdJF (talk) 03:05, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Actually, it isn't. Peruse WP:UNDUE in your free time. Zaathras (talk) 03:08, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

You are conflating inappropriate touching with sexual assault, just the same narrative that fringe media is attempting. Be better than that. ValarianB (talk) 03:13, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm glad you agree it was "inappropriate touching." I certainly wasn't trying to imply it was an assault. EdJF (talk) 16:20, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

The section is about both. PackMecEng (talk) 03:15, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes it is, so ValarianB hold on the moral grandstanding you're demonstrating here. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 05:15, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

The section heading for that section also seems to be conflating inappropriate touching with sexual assault. Would you agree that it needs to be changed? Clementina1989 (talk) 14:47, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

County Londonderry

The article was recently amended to say of his mother "Jean was of Irish descent, with roots variously attributed to County Louth... and County Derry." See Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Ireland-related_articles#Derry/Londonderry - "Use Derry for the city and County Londonderry for the county in articles." I edited this accordingly at 18.41 to-day, but my edit was overtaken by the reversion of the previous edit about Tara Reade's brother. As the subsequent edit does not appear to have been directed at the county name, I have edited the article in accordance with the Manual of Style. Alekksandr (talk) 19:02, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Reade's story corroborators

Should we include this text:

• Reade's brother and multiple friends corroborate that in the 90s she told them about a nonconsensual sexual incident involving Biden.

A similar edit[81] was recently reverted. Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:49, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

This is not a poll, please offer suggestions for improvement. Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:31, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, as you reverted similar text,[82] would you share your opinion? Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:54, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Sources

The word "friends" may be imprecise. We could replace "Reade's brother and multiple friends" with "Reade's brother and multiple contacts". Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:52, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

• No: I have many concerns about the sentence. Chief among these: "corroborate" is definitely the wrong word to use. The "sources" all point to the same Business Insider article and are not independent reporting. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:01, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Scjessey, we have no shortage of top-tier RS to choose from. They use the word "corroborate". Why do you not want to use the same word the sources use? Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:03, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

• No Correct me if I am wrong, but only the neighbor has said she was told of the alleged assault. The others say Reade claimed she was sexually harassed. Although that could be described as an alleged sexual incident, the wording implies that she was describing the alleged assault. TFD (talk) 22:18, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

The brother said Reade said Biden put his hands under her clothes during what the NYTs characterized as an "traumatic sexual incident". One friend says Reade told her the whole story. We could remove the word "multiple" an just leave "friends". Do you propose other wording? Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:05, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

• No The brother and other peoples' statements should be in the article, as should the context (the brother being ... "advised" by the editor of Current Affairs on what to say, the friend being contacted and reminded of what she actually remembered), but this is not a NPOV phrasing. Volunteer Marek 22:41, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek, which sources discuss these two details? Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:45, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

• No The whole thing is a BLP violation. It wasn't verified by the sources. I haven't looked at the additional source it appears you've now added. Aggregating a bunch of tenuous, unrelated, and inconsistent stories into one "Multiple!!! XYZ Corroborate!!! ABC" does not make any of the sources or components NPOV, V, DUE, or BLP-conforming. SPECIFICO talk 00:13, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

• No, it is speculative hearsay. Claiming you heard a person tell you a thing does not make it true. If it is to be included, it needs to be phrased so that it is not starting a fact. Zaathras (talk) 00:28, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
• No - Saying that people corroborated her account is not a faithful summary of the verifiable facts. I agree with all the 'no' comments to this point. I suppose a faithful paraphrasing would look something like "Business Insider reported that, according to Reade, her brother, and some her associates, Reade had told them about a sexual assault or sexual harassment by Biden, that had occurred while Reade worked in Biden's Senate office in the 1990s." The problem with that is, the accounts are hearsay; they are inconsistent; and the sourcing is questionable. That all adds up to a big WP:UNDUE mess. - MrX 🖋 01:11, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't understand, as multiple RS report, Reade's friends corroborate (WaPo uses "corroborate" right in the headline) that she told them her story. If multiple RS report this, I thought we can use Wikivoice (unless we use a direct quote like from the NYTs below. Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:23, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

• No. I pretty much look at long-standing similar articles and I don't find lists of people that agreed with the central person in the controversy. Perhaps it is because if we group all of those that supported Reade's allegations it results in a total that is more than the parts, so as to speak. To present a combined host of those that remember and support Reade's allegation along side Biden and a few people who were working in Biden's office at that time who remember nothing gives an impression that they must be using selective memory. Surly they must remember something!?, one may think. Perhaps... At any rate, we don't normally do that. Gandydancer (talk) 01:33, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Gandydancer, did you see the sources I added below and the quote from the New York Times? (I propose the NYTs quote itself as an alternative.) I hope that addresses some of your concerns, or do you have suggestions for improvements? This does seem to be a huge part of what the RS are giving weight to. (FYI, the NYTimes did find that two interns remember Reade abruptly stopped supervising them in April 1993). Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:40, 2 May 2020 (UTC)Kolya Butternut (talk) 07:49, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

• Support if alternate wording is used - Maybe we can have a sentence with something such as "Reade's brother and some acquaintances have stated that she alleged a nonconsensual sexual incident involving Biden in conversations with them during the 90s". I share the concerns about NPOV phrasing. However, I do think that the information is merited inclusion in some form. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 09:52, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Two alternatives

How about this? This is what is heavily reported by the RS themselves:

1. Reade's brother and other personal contacts corroborate that in the 90s she had told them about a nonconsensual sexual incident involving Biden.

2. "Several of Ms. Reade’s friends have said she told them about a traumatic sexual incident involving Mr. Biden."

Note the existing language in the section: "...nor did any former Biden staff members corroborate any details of Ms. Reade’s allegation."[83]Kolya Butternut (talk) 21:11, 2 May 2020 (UTC)Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:20, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Washington Post, "The sexual allegations against Joe Biden: The corroborators"

• A friend "said she learned of the alleged assault from Reade in 1993".
• Her brother "recalled Reade telling him in the early 1990s that Biden had cornered her and put his hands under her clothes."
• "Lynda LaCasse, Reade's neighbor in the mid-1990s....'[Reade] felt like she was assaulted'".

New York Times, "Biden Denies Tara Reade's Assault Allegation: 'It Never Happened'", "Several of Ms. Reade’s friends have said she told them about a traumatic sexual incident involving Mr. Biden."

Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:53, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

That completely ignores the nearly unanimous negative reactions you've elicited above. I suggest you find other paths to explore. SPECIFICO talk 02:01, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Well, I was putting the sources together before I had a chance to read everything, but I'm not sure how the information I just provided didn't show you how well-sourced this is. Do you want to just use the quote from the New York Times? Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:10, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

No. But since you asked me, I think it would make sense to stop wasting time with this. Here's what will happen next: If you decide to continue with more of the same proposals, other editors will stop bothering to respond to each iteration. At that point, either you can move on to something else, OR, you will say "seeing no objection, I will put the latest version into the article." If that happens, because it will still be a BLP, NPOV, V, violation, somebody will revert your addition. Anyway, no, please don't suggest more versions of the same thing. Also, the first thing I said about this - in my edit summary when I reverted your first go at it - was to be sure you conform your article text additions to the cited sources. You should never write article text without being thoroughly familiar with the sources you are citing. If you don't have the chance to read them, then wait a while to write article text. SPECIFICO talk 03:20, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Please do not discuss me and make assumptions. I believe you have been warned against this behavior.[84][85] I am asking your opinion on the content. You stated above that you didn't read all the sources; so I'm confused. And I've included direct quotes from the sources here. I removed the word "multiple" per your objection. But if we start with the most simple text, the NYTs text, can you tell me your thoughts on that? It's a quote that provides synthesis itself. Do you oppose it by the same rationale as my main (revised) suggestion? I honestly don't understand where the disagreement is. I'm asking for you to contribute suggestions for this noteworthy information. Kolya Butternut (talk) 04:04, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

While I appreciate the efforts to continue to tweak the wording, this still appears to be phrased in a problematic way. Just because material represents the viewpoints expressed by sources don't necessarily mean that the terminology used has to be rigidly adhered to. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 09:59, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback CoffeeWithMarkets. It sounds like you feel the word "corroborate" is NPOV because it is expressing support for her allegation. This word is used in RS which are not opinion pieces. And the word is consistent with existing text in the section: "The New York Times reported that 'No other allegation about sexual assault surfaced in the course of reporting, nor did any former Biden staff members corroborate any details of Ms. Reade's allegation.'" The only difference there is that that it is a direct quote. What are you thoughts on using the direct quote from the NYTs I suggested above as an alternative? "Several of Ms. Reade’s friends have said she told them about a traumatic sexual incident involving Mr. Biden." Kolya Butternut (talk) 14:33, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Why should we use the word corroborate when simpler less ambiguous words are available? TFD (talk) 02:58, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Personally I feel that the word that the sources use is the most precise, clear word. The word "confirm" would not work, because that may suggest that it is proven that she told them her story. The closest word would be "testified", but that implies legal proceedings. The only alternative is to write that her friends "have said" that she told them her story. That is accurate, but it doesn't communicate that this is supportive evidence, like the sentence it would follow which also uses the word "corroborate". If writing "have said" would bring us to consensus I of course support that. What are your thoughts on the NYTs quote? Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:28, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

WP:1RR

Any concerns about DS violations belong on editor talk pages or noticeboards, not here. SPECIFICO talk 15:38, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I would like to remind you @MrX: that there is a WP:1RR rule here. You have made at least two independent reverts already. Please self-revert one of them. BeŻet (talk) 13:38, 2 May 2020 (UTC) Please read the policy before invoking it. "A series of consecutively saved reverting edits by one user, with no intervening edits by another user, counts as one revert." Also, these kinds of post belong on user talk pages, not on article talk pages. - MrX 🖋 13:52, 2 May 2020 (UTC) It's better here because this is not the first time this has been pointed out to you, and other people can help explaining the rules to you. "An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert". Of course this doesn't mean that you can keep reverting things on a page as you please, just because you are not doing the same revert twice. Please self-revert. BeŻet (talk) 13:58, 2 May 2020 (UTC) Also let me highlight things for you so you understand better: "A series of consecutively saved reverting edits by one user..." - you have reverted edits of at least two users. BeŻet (talk) 14:02, 2 May 2020 (UTC) I am the one user who made the reverting edits. You can stop lecturing me now, since you obviously don't understand the underlying policy, and please don't post any more user warnings on article talk page. - MrX 🖋 14:26, 2 May 2020 (UTC) BeZet is right. It says "edits by one user". You can't make two reverts for two users and not breach 1rr. I suggest you self-revert yourself.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 14:32, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

New allegation from Eva Murry

Since this has been reverted, let's discuss the new allegation that has been presented against Biden. Fragment that has been added and then removed:

On the same day [1 May 2020], another women came forward alleging in an interview with Law & Crime that Joe Biden complemented her breasts when she was 14 years old at the First State Gridiron Dinner & Show in 2008, adding that she felt his comments "were verbal sexual harassment".

Current sources:

• Becket Adams (1 May 2020). "Second Biden misconduct allegation emerges". Washington Examiner.
• Colin Kalmbacher (1 May 2020). "Woman Claims Biden Sexually Harassed Her When She Was 14 Years Old by Complimenting Her Breasts". Law & Crime.
• Fox News (however it's an unacceptable source of information)

I am expecting another argument about "mainstream media not talking about it" (i.e. The New York Times or some other very specific outlet), so just wanted to kickstart a discussion around when will this be ready to be included. Thanks. BeŻet (talk) 13:46, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

As I explained, this fails WP:WEIGHT and WP:BLPSOURCES. This is not a breaking news page. It's a biography of a high profile person. - MrX 🖋 13:54, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

How does it fail WP:BLPSOURCES? BeŻet (talk) 13:59, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure if Law & Crime counts as a reliable source here. An opinion column from the Washington Examiner seems rather poor by comparison. Fox News is better than those two, but after looking at the article it appears to center around merely repeating what Law & Crime has asserted. We can talk about inclusion when we get better sourcing. A predictable thing to say, I know, but that really is where our guidelines put us. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 15:21, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Neither Washington Examiner nor the tabloid-style blog Law and Crime are RS for a BLP. Anything of significance will have been reported by more credible sources. SPECIFICO talk 15:35, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

It will be ready for inclusion when there is ongoing discussion in all mainstream news outlets and Biden has been questioned about it on cable news networks. TFD (talk) 16:55, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Actual reliable sources would need to be found for this to be even considered, although I seriously doubt this will ever get into the article. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:53, 2 May 2020 (UTC)