Talk:Joe Biden 2020 presidential campaign: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 19:08, 14 April 2020

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Joe Biden 2020 presidential campaign article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

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

Article policies

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

Archives: 1

Warning: active arbitration remedies

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:

You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on this article (except in limited circumstances)
You must follow the bold-revert-discuss cycle if your change is reverted. You may not reinstate your edit until you post a talk page message discussing your edit and have waited 24 hours from the time of this talk page message

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Further information

Enforcement procedures:

Violations of any of these restrictions should be reported immediately to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard.
Editors who are aware of this topic being designated a contentious topic and who violate these restrictions may be sanctioned by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense.

With respect to the WP:1RR restriction:

Edits made solely to enforce any clearly established consensus are exempt from all edit-warring restrictions.
Edits made which remove or otherwise change any material placed by clearly established consensus, without first obtaining consensus to do so, may be treated in the same manner as obvious vandalism.
In order to be considered "clearly established" the consensus must be proven by prior talk-page discussion.
Reverts of edits made by anonymous (IP) editors are exempt from the 1RR but are subject to the usual rules on edit warring. If you are in doubt, contact an administrator for assistance.
Whenever you are relying on one of these exemptions, you should refer to it in your edit summary and, if applicable, link to the discussion where consensus was clearly established.

The contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topics sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions.

If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. Remember: When in doubt, don't revert!

This article was nominated for deletion on January 9, 2017. The result of the discussion was delete.

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Elections and Referendums Start‑class

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Politics: American Start‑class Mid‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as High-importance).

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

United States: Presidential elections Start‑class High‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. presidential elections (assessed as Top-importance).

Biden controversies

New section needs to be created for this alone https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yc0vxsfcsSk AHC300 (talk) 20:00, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A YouTube video is not a reliable source upon which we can establish an article section. Can you provide a reliable source? bd2412 T 20:49, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/19/politics/joe-biden-senate-segregationists-civility/index.html AHC300 (talk) 11:46, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Another controversy I didn't find on the article page that I believe is noteworthy enough to discuss is he's claimed he was arrested during a visit with Nelson Mandela in apartheid South Africa with the Congressional Black Caucus and other US officials. Here is an article source:Business Insider article, which turned out to be not true. Wanted to discuss this , but unless I get some resistance I'll probably throw it up there at some point. --PrecociousPeach (talk) 02:58, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have included this under gaffes.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:43, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That seems reasonable. BD2412 T 01:16, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't object to this content, although more clarity was needed. I do object to using a verbal gaffe section as a coatrack for convincing readers that Biden is mentally unstable or for citing the "full of shit" comment he made to someone who was full of shit. - MrX 🖋 12:05, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in Joe Biden 2020 presidential campaign

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Joe Biden 2020 presidential campaign's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "timeline":

From Efforts to impeach Donald Trump: Bowden, John (September 21, 2019). "Timeline: The Trump whistleblower complaint". The Hill. Archived from the original on September 22, 2019. Retrieved 23 September 2019.
From Facebook: "Company Timeline" (Press release). Facebook. January 1, 2007. Retrieved March 5, 2008.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 22:45, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Touching and Ukraine

I object to this edit which adds material not related to the campaign, and casts the BLP subject as an active participant in Trump's controversy. I'm opening this section so that Schnuppiepup can seek consensus.- Mr X 🖋 11:46, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree that Schnuppiepup's edits are not best. I reverted till it can be worked on talk page to see if it has support and consensus. ContentEditman (talk) 00:41, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Schnuppiepup's edits regarding Ukraine were mild and correct. How can there be any understanding of the controversy without the context of Biden's December 2015 visit to Ukraine where he promised to withold $1 billion in loan guarantees for the firing of a foreign public servant. It is integral to the Trump/Giuliani claims because Biden's statements on this event are referenced as "bragging" by Trump/Giuliani, and a factor that drove their efforts to compel Ukraine to reopen the investigation. This should be a separate section. -- Ingyhere (talk) 02:00, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Touching has been an issue for Biden for years. When it came to light in the #METOO movement, Biden offered what many deemed a half-hearted apology. It is my opinion this should be viewed as a serious controversy not to be left out or glossed over. Failing to address this opens the editorial content up to claims of sexism, privilege, rationalization and complicity in alleged harassment. Here is an article from April that discusses the issue: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/apr/04/joe-biden-allegations-physical-behavior-women This should clearly be explored under a separate sub-section. -- Ingyhere (talk) 02:00, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This material on Ukraine is right-wing propaganda, not a serious controversy. All reputable journalistic sources, and the historical record, agree that Biden was acting on behalf of the Obama administration and in accord with demands from the European Union for the then-Ukrainian government to fire a prosecutor known not to be seeking out and prosecuting corruption but rather potentiating it. Hours of testimony at the impeachment hearings were devoted to documenting and explaining this, with no credible evidence to the contrary presented by Team Trump."Bragging" is not a criminal offense and in fact can be described using other terms, should you desire to do so. This Trumped up charge should go: or must Wikipedia enshrine the lowest form of disproved conspiracism, no more credible than "Pizzagate"? A serious question. Actio (talk) 03:12, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It needs to be rewritten so that it makes it clear that it was a debunked conspiracy theory. - MrX 🖋 11:49, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unjustified removal of content

@MrX: I have reintroduced the content you have removed because your justification was very poor. Yahoo News isn't alternative press. It isn't "news of the day", it's been in the news for a while now. Content isn't poorly sourced. You are making false statements. Please reconsider your actions. BeŻet (talk) 11:48, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My edit summary expressed the primary reason, not the only reason for removing this material. The Yahoo! lifestyle section is not an acceptable source for a criminal allegation against a living person. They are basically regurgitating what they read from a Bernie supporter in The Intercept, apparently without conducting their own investigation. They literally quote social media, which is about the lowest form knowledge in existence. Our BLP policy WP:BLPSOURCES and our neutral point of view policy WP:DUEWEIGHT cover why this material should remain out of the article until high quality sources report about it. High quality sources would be major news networks, major newspapers (non-syndicated content), or a major magazines or journals (not upstart publications, or articles written by authors who frequently Tweet their undying love of Biden's opponents). I hope that helps clarify my reasoning. - MrX 🖋 12:56, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This still doesn't make sense to me. The Yahoo! lifestyle section is not an acceptable source for a criminal allegation against a living person – is there any reason to believe that the allegation did not happen? Are you suggesting that Reade in fact did not make the allegation? There's video evidence of it. There is absolutely no doubt about whether the allegation happened, so this particular line of reasoning does not make sense. Also, we are entering tricky territory here where what is a "major" magazine or news outlet is completely arbitrary. BeŻet (talk) 15:31, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't The Hill (newspaper), Washington Examiner count as major news outlets, or is that not major enough? BeŻet (talk) 15:50, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Now also Vox, Internation Business Times talks about it too (and Fox News, but that's not a preferred source). How much more is needed? BeŻet (talk) 20:44, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Biden's campaign has already rejected the charge of rape. This is a major news story, it's only somewhat hidden because of all the coronavirus news. Is there still a reason to keep it out of the article?—Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 03:05, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not decree whether reports constitute a "major news story". Rather, such stories are defined by consistent and widespread coverage in high-level news sources. As I noted in my previous comment, Wikipedia is not a place to launch astroturfing campaigns. We therefore generally have not provided coverage of lone unsubstantiated allegations - for example, allegations regarding Jennifer Fitzgerald are not mentioned at all in George H. W. Bush 1988 presidential campaign, and those regarding Larry Sinclair are not mentioned at all in Barack Obama 2008 presidential campaign. The campaign articles that do mention such allegations, such as those regarding Bill Clinton and Donald Trump, are those where multiple claimants have made allegations, or where these have in fact been widely reported in reliable sources. I would also note that even though Donald Trump 2016 presidential campaign mentions the volume of sexual assault allegations against Trump, it specifically does not mention the lawsuit by Katie Johnson claiming that Jeffrey Epstein arranged for Trump to rape her when she was thirteen years old, even though the lawsuit alleging this was also covered by Vox. BD2412 T 03:52, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BD2412, I don’t have the source at hand but could probably find it, but there was a detective who investigated the claims that Trump raped this lady when she was 13 and discounted it because she claimed that Epstein brought her to his parties with celebrities, even though Epstein never brought underage girls to parties with the rich and famous, he kept that illegal side of his life secret. It is ridiculous to claim, as this woman did, that Epstein invited underage girls to these parties where the attendants would be shocked and outraged and when none of the attendants even ever remember him bringing underage girls to them; it was his private islands and his mansions in New York where such abuse occurred. So her story is obviously a fake. It is ridiculous to think Trump would threaten to murder the then 13 year old by referencing a previous murder and in effect confess and implicate himself in the tragic murder of a 12-year-old girl and have her walking around as a witness. Finally, Donald’s Trump’s interest has always been focused on women in their twenties and thirties, not underage girls. This woman made her claims at the height of the general election. As for other claims by other women of sexual inappropriateness and wrongdoing I do not know about but this claim is definitely bogus.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 05:12, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not making a judgment on the credibility of either claim here, merely pointing out that there are numerous isolated instances of unsubstantiated salacious claims made against many political candidates that we consistently do not cover because such a thing doesn't reach the level of encyclopedic coverage. In the case of the claim proposed for inclusion in this article, the matter hasn't even reached the level, so far as any source reports, of having a detective investigate the claim, so it is clearly at a lower level of notability than a claim that was investigated as such. BD2412 T 05:34, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd just like to highlight that it's quite arbitrary what is "encyclopedic" and what isn't. I think there is also a wider problem of the difficulty of defining what "major outlets" are. Outlets like MSNBC and CNN will avoid covering accusations like that as much as possible, until it's impossible to ignore, so we can't wait until they benevolently decide to report on something. Meanwhile, several other outlets report on it. Is it worth including in the article? Personally, I feel like it's a pretty massive deal. I understand if people disagree, but trying to show how tricky this situation is, and I really want to avoid a situation where things don't get included on Wikipedia unless they are mentioned in 2 or 3 specific outlets. Every single media outlet has a political agenda, and quite clearly outlets like CNN are completely ignoring this scandal (while, for instance, spending hours on Bernie's "snake emojis", or sexism accusations made by a Warren staffer). You might be right that we do not cover these things in general, to be frank I'd have to look into it, but it's perhaps not quite clear what makes it worth including. BeŻet (talk) 09:25, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with MrX. Wikipedia is not the place to launch astroturfing efforts against WP:BLP subjects from low-level sources. BD2412 T 14:59, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with MrX as well. There is also the WP:RECENT problem where we would be engaging in reporting breaking news even before Biden has responded to this charge of rape. Gandydancer (talk) 15:16, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How come Politio is a poor source? Why did you remove this fragment? BeŻet (talk) 15:27, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There was no citation for the last sentence. If the material is verifiable in the Politico article, the citation should appear after the material. - MrX 🖋 15:38, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have now moved the ref tag to the end of the paragraph. BeŻet (talk) 15:45, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think this should be included with better sources, should it get significant coverage (CNN, WaPo, etc). There's a similar section on Biden's primary article, which is maybe where all of these claims should go, unless they become relevant to the campaign itself. If his spokespeople reject the claims, that can be included too. UpdateNerd (talk) 07:50, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's also an OP on Guardian now asking why has the media ignored sexual assault allegations against Biden? BeŻet (talk) 09:16, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As well as a mention at The Week. UpdateNerd (talk) 07:47, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend this argument be set aside until the resolution of a related RfC at the main article is concluded. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:18, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. BeŻet (talk) 12:53, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Biden’s sexual misconduct claims were omitted by mainstream media outlets for a reason

Source: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/28/joe-biden-sexual-assault-allegations-why-has-media-ignored-claims

Claims by people such as Tara Reade during Biden’s campaign should not be omitted, and shows a clear bias on behalf of this article. It is omitted by mainstream media due to obvious bias and gaslighting; the subsequent claims were also not by “opposing” sources as the bio by MrX suggests. The tone of Wikipedia should be unbiased and middle-grounded, an opinion-sensitive article is not what Wikipedia is about.

Additional sources that will be used in this section: https://www.economist.com/united-states/2020/04/04/how-to-weigh-an-allegation-of-assault-against-joe-biden

https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/491273-a-woman-accuses-biden-of-sexual-assault-and-few-liberals-listen?

https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/03/joe-biden-democrats-sexual-assault-they-never-learn/

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/28/joe-biden-sexual-assault-allegations-why-has-media-ignored-claims Pompous Retail (talk) 02:32, 7 April 2020 (UTC) — Pompous Retail (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

As noted in previous discussions, this allegation is omitted from this article to exactly the same degree that the claim by Katie Johnson, which was more intensely investigated by authorities, is omitted from the Trump 2016 campaign article. Moreover, has this been raised as campaign issue by any specific opposing campaign? BD2412 T 02:48, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also, please see the previous thread. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:12, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thoroughly sourced section on Biden's problems with touching/rape allegations. Any recommendations for improvement before I add it?

Alright, I know this is "controversial," but I have a well sourced section. I can easily add some material relating it back to the campaign if that's the problem. Comments for improvement are welcome before I put it in again:

"Touching" and rape allegations

Biden has long had issues with "inappropriate touching," which some claim is simply part of his "Uncle Joe" persona, drawing controversy over what types of personal contact is appropriate in a professional setting.^[1]^[2]

Biden has had numerous claims made against him of sexual assault.^[3] On March 24, 2020, Alexandra Tara Reade, a former staffer, accused Biden of rape,^[4]^[5] adding, "Thank you, I was silenced for so long."^[6] On the 30th, the campaign issued a blanket denial.^[7] The accusation has attracted extra controversy due to it appearing to be ignored by mainstream media, and has been cited as an example of the inconsistent advocacy the Democratic party has towards #MeToo,^[8]^[9] especially when compared with the attitude the party had towards Brett Kavanaugh.^[10] It is as of yet unclear whether the allegations are true.^[11]

Sources

^ "What Men—and Women—Can Learn From Joe Biden's 'Inappropriate Touching'". Time. Retrieved 2020-04-08.
^ Durkin, Erin (2019-04-04). "Three more women say Joe Biden's touching made them uncomfortable". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 2020-04-08.
^ McGann, Laura (2019-03-29). "Lucy Flores isn't alone. Joe Biden's got a long history of touching women inappropriately". Vox. Retrieved 2020-04-08.
^ Halper, Katie (2020-03-24). "This is a story that @ReadeAlexandra has been trying to tell since it happened in 1993. It's a story about sexual assault, retaliation and silencing. #meToohttps://soundcloud.com/katie-halper/joe-bidens-accuser-finally-tells-her-full-story …". @kthalps. Retrieved 2020-04-08. {{cite web}}: External link in |title= (help)
^ ""It Shattered My Life": Former Joe Biden Staffer Tara Reade Says He Sexually Assaulted Her in 1993". Democracy Now!. Retrieved 2020-04-08.
^ Reade), taratweets ( Alexandra Tara (2020-03-24). "Thank you I was silenced for so long. Thank you". @ReadeAlexandra. Retrieved 2020-04-08.
^ http://www.washingtontimes.com, The Washington Times. "Biden camp denies Tara Reade's sexual assault claim: 'These accusations are false'". The Washington Times. Retrieved 2020-04-08. {{cite web}}: External link in |last= (help)
^ "Joe Biden has a #MeToo problem". theweek.com. 2020-03-31. Retrieved 2020-04-08.
^ Wulfsohn, Joseph (2020-04-06). "Rose McGowan trashes 'fraud' Alyssa Milano for backing Biden amid assault claim, invokes Kavanaugh hypocrisy". Fox News. Retrieved 2020-04-08.
^ "How to weigh an allegation of assault against Joe Biden". The Economist. ISSN 0013-0613. Retrieved 2020-04-08.
^ "A woman accuses Joe Biden of sexual assault, and all hell breaks loose online. Here's what we know". Salon. 2020-03-31. Retrieved 2020-04-08.

--Nerd1a4i (talk) 21:28, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is really good and well-sourced the only thing you might consider adding is the fact that intercept reporters reached out to Tara's brother and friend who both confirmed that she told them what happened right afterward in 1993. The intercept article also does a good job of explaining the suppression in the media and why Times UP lawyers did not take the case.^[1]

Sources
^ Grim, Ryan (24 March 2020). "Time's Up Said It Could Not Fund a #MeToo Allegation Against Joe Biden, Citing Its Nonprofit Status and His Presidential Run". The Intercept.

N8tegr8 (talk) 13:48, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not ready for primetime yet. The sources are all poor and there's very little proper mainstream media coverage. And as mentioned in the previous thread, you should let the RfC at the main article run its course before adding it here. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:16, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, this should be left out unless it gets coverage in high quality sources. The Washington Times, Twitter, Salon, Democracy Now, and Soundcloud are not reliable sources for such material. Fox News is a questionable source. The other sources are weak at best. Also, the material is really not about the campaign at all. - MrX 🖋 14:36, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Nerd1a4i: Sexual assault should be changed to sexual harassment. The source for "numerous claims made against him of sexual assault" specifically says he has NOT been accused of sexual assault.—Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 14:38, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Where has this been brought up as a campaign issue? I have not seen any other campaign specifically raise this as an issue. BD2412 T 15:51, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The allegation of sexual assault is now included into the article about Joe Biden. Washington Post and New York Times have covered the story and the campaign manager of Trump tweeted about it.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/sexual-assault-allegation-by-former-biden-senate-aide-emerges-in-campaign-draws-denial/2020/04/12/bc070d66-7067-11ea-b148-e4ce3fbd85b5_story.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/12/us/politics/joe-biden-tara-reade-sexual-assault-complaint.html?searchResultPosition=2

https://twitter.com/parscale/status/1249037951075602438

Is it time to include it here as well?--Baumfreak (talk) 10:35, 14 April 2020 (UTC) — Baumfreak (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

No. There's no evidence this is a campaign issue. -- Scjessey (talk) 10:57, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This needs to be trimmed way down to keep it relevant to the campaign and avoid weasel words. A little on the 4th-wall-breaking side which can be construed as POV. UpdateNerd (talk) 16:45, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What would make it relevant to the campaign would be reporting in independent, reliable sources specifically covering its relevance to the campaign, in sufficient depth. We should not be using tweets as sources for anything, and certainly not hinging characterizations of relevance on them. BD2412 T 17:30, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's significant enough to the campaign to be well-covered by RS. But the mention here should be one or two sentences rather than the suggested paragraphs. Some issues I see:

The "Uncle Joe" persona shouldn't be mentioned without explanation.
It's unclear who's being addressed in "Thank you, I was silenced for so long."
The phrases "blanket denial" and "the inconsistent advocacy the Democratic party has towards #MeToo" are POV.
The party's "attitude" towards Brett Kavanaugh is an excessive detail/off topic.
"It is as of yet unclear whether the allegations are true" does not need to be stated. UpdateNerd (talk) 18:50, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this clarification :) What exactly is sufficient depth? Since the allegation is against the presumptive Democratic nominee for president in the 2020 election, it is hard to not see the effects on his campaign.

This is too short I guess? https://www.cnbc.com/2020/04/14/joe-biden-accused-of-sex-assault-amid-challenge-to-donald-trump.html --Baumfreak (talk) 19:04, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[1] "What Men—and Women—Can Learn From Joe Biden's 'Inappropriate Touching'". Time. Retrieved 2020-04-08.

[2] Durkin, Erin (2019-04-04). "Three more women say Joe Biden's touching made them uncomfortable". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 2020-04-08.

[3] McGann, Laura (2019-03-29). "Lucy Flores isn't alone. Joe Biden's got a long history of touching women inappropriately". Vox. Retrieved 2020-04-08.

[4] Halper, Katie (2020-03-24). "This is a story that @ReadeAlexandra has been trying to tell since it happened in 1993. It's a story about sexual assault, retaliation and silencing. #meToohttps://soundcloud.com/katie-halper/joe-bidens-accuser-finally-tells-her-full-story …". @kthalps. Retrieved 2020-04-08. {{cite web}}: External link in |title= (help)

[5] ""It Shattered My Life": Former Joe Biden Staffer Tara Reade Says He Sexually Assaulted Her in 1993". Democracy Now!. Retrieved 2020-04-08.

[6] Reade), taratweets ( Alexandra Tara (2020-03-24). "Thank you I was silenced for so long. Thank you". @ReadeAlexandra. Retrieved 2020-04-08.

[7] ttp://www.washingtontimes.com, The Washington Times. "Biden camp denies Tara Reade's sexual assault claim: 'These accusations are false'". The Washington Times. Retrieved 2020-04-08. {{cite web}}: External link in |last= (help)

[8] "Joe Biden has a #MeToo problem". theweek.com. 2020-03-31. Retrieved 2020-04-08.

[9] Wulfsohn, Joseph (2020-04-06). "Rose McGowan trashes 'fraud' Alyssa Milano for backing Biden amid assault claim, invokes Kavanaugh hypocrisy". Fox News. Retrieved 2020-04-08.

[10] "How to weigh an allegation of assault against Joe Biden". The Economist. ISSN 0013-0613. Retrieved 2020-04-08.

[11] "A woman accuses Joe Biden of sexual assault, and all hell breaks loose online. Here's what we know". Salon. 2020-03-31. Retrieved 2020-04-08.

[12] Grim, Ryan (24 March 2020). "Time's Up Said It Could Not Fund a #MeToo Allegation Against Joe Biden, Citing Its Nonprofit Status and His Presidential Run". The Intercept.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[1]

@@ Line 129: / Line 129: @@
 :::*The party's "attitude" towards Brett Kavanaugh is an excessive detail/off topic.
 :::*"It is as of yet unclear whether the allegations are true" does not need to be stated. [[User:UpdateNerd|UpdateNerd]] ([[User talk:UpdateNerd|talk]]) 18:50, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
+::::Thank you for this clarification :) What exactly is ''sufficient depth''? Since the allegation is against the presumptive Democratic nominee for president in the 2020 election, it is hard to not see the effects on his campaign.
+::::This is too short I guess? https://www.cnbc.com/2020/04/14/joe-biden-accused-of-sex-assault-amid-challenge-to-donald-trump.html --[[User:Baumfreak|Baumfreak]] ([[User talk:Baumfreak|talk]]) 19:04, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
-Thank you for this clarification :) What exactly is ''sufficient depth''? Since the allegation is against the presumptive Democratic nominee for president in the 2020 election, it is hard to not see the effects on his campaign.
-This is too short I guess? https://www.cnbc.com/2020/04/14/joe-biden-accused-of-sex-assault-amid-challenge-to-donald-trump.html --[[User:Baumfreak|Baumfreak]] ([[User talk:Baumfreak|talk]]) 19:04, 14 April 2020 (UTC)