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)

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)

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)

"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)

Lack of coverage by mainstream media

The surprising paucity of coverage by mainstream sources of this allegation is being called out as notable. This fact was removed today as "irrelevant". We rely on media, not editors, to determine what is relevant. I plan to reinsert this statement:

The alleged assault received little coverage from mainstream media, according to Vox Senior Correspondent Zack Beauchamp, among others.

Sources:

https://www.vox.com/2020/3/27/21195935/joe-biden-sexual-assault-allegation (added in later edit)

https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/joe-biden-faces-sexual-assault-181441242.html

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

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/biden-in-another-televised-appearance-isnt-asked-about-sexual-assault-allegation

https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/does-the-media-still-believe-women/

https://www.wgbh.org/news/national-news/2020/04/03/has-media-coverage-of-coronavirus-eclipsed-a-new-allegation-of-sexual-assault-against-joe-biden (added 4/04)

https://www.economist.com/united-states/2020/04/04/how-to-weigh-an-allegation-of-assault-against-joe-biden (added 4/04)

petrarchan47คุก 19:43, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Petrarchan47, don't. Coverage about how the media covers the allegation is a WP:COATRACK. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:08, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

No I don't think so. There is a connection to the Biden campaign: "The public relations firm that works on behalf of the Time’s Up Legal Defense Fund is SKDKnickerbocker, whose managing director, Anita Dunn, is the top adviser to Biden’s presidential campaign". Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:21, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Kolya Butternut, is Anita Dunn even mentioned on this page? If this does demonstrate WP:LASTING, it could deserve a mention at Joe Biden 2020 presidential campaign. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:37, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

"Anita Dunn" was present in this version.  So, this is not a question of relevance, but it is a question of weight.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 21:02, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

The Anita Dunn and Time's Up aspect of the story, along with Grim's piece, should never have been removed. It was done in this edit. It is an integral part of the story, closely related to Biden in several ways, and the subject of the Intercept article, which should obviously be covered here. It is credited with bringing the allegation to the public. petrarchan47คุก 00:09, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

And a fifth source to support adding a line about media coverage, from the Vox piece (which should never have been removed):

"Reade’s allegation initially received little coverage outside of left-wing media (and some media outlets on the right). But the hashtags #IBelieveTara and #TimesUpBiden started to pick up steam on Twitter earlier this week, as many wondered why it was not getting more attention ."

"Coatrack" invoked regarding a three sentence long paragraph, to justify excluding one more sentence with ample refs to show prominence? I don't see it. petrarchan47คุก 00:09, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

I see no good reason for yet another meta-comment about the old "lack of media coverage", just to go along with chatter like Media coverage of Bernie Sanders. Drmies (talk) 01:44, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Drmies. There's no rule that says how long something has to be to be a coatrack, Petrarchan47. Any discussion of the mainstream media and how it covers stories in this article is a coatrack. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:51, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Well, coatrack is only an essay and clearly doesn't apply here. The lack of coverage by legacy media is notable according to RS. petrarchan47คุก 06:46, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

It is premature to include this in the Biden article. It hasn’t even been a week since the story broke. The Vox article was only 2 days after the initial story and they are questioning why no one is covering it when they only just covered it themselves - that is dishonest coverage imho. Responsible journalism by other MSM sources can reasonably take longer than that on a story about a prominent politician. In any case, the link to Biden is tenuous at this point as no one is alleging he is responsible for the media coverage. Consensus is at best split on including this, and in my opinion is actually against including this at this time. They are already several RS sources reporting on this. How many are needed to refute this idea anyway? I personally would need at least another week before I would consider supporting it.--Davemoth (talk) 02:07, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

To be fair, Vox' senior correspondent said "I don't understand why the extremely serious sexual assault allegations against Joe Biden are not getting significant attention outside of left media".

Columbia Journalism Review has, "Media outlets on both the left and the right have covered Reade’s claim, yet mainstream news organizations have mostly avoided it."

And now Wikipedia editors are fighting tooth and nail to follow suit. petrarchan47คุก 05:37, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

petrarchan47 "And now Wikipedia editors are fighting tooth and nail to follow suit" - what a positively awful thing to say. Right, put yourself and those that agree with you as the shinning beacons of truth against injustice and brave leaders of those that defend women's long struggle, etc., etc., and us others as fighting tooth and nail against all that. Some of us believe that this story needs more time to develop but that does not mean that we don't support the movement that encourages women to speak out about sexual abuse. Often times the slow and steady approach is more productive than a burst of protest followed by inaction till the next exciting chance to protest comes along. Gandydancer (talk) 20:34, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Gandy, by "follow suit" I was referring only to the idea that "mainstream media" was noticably not reporting on irrefutable and well documented facts: an allegation was made; Biden responded. RS are commenting on this very fact, that CNN, MSNBC and NYT specifically, are ignoring this. How is it not surprising that only Fox reported on Biden's response? This has been called out quite a bit, and keeping any mention of these two simple facts out of WP when we do have RS might be considered equally disconcerting. When we worked on the BP issue, I learned from Slim Virgin that our NPOV policy at pages like BLP's and BP's is so important because many times when a page is obviously slanted, glaringly so, the issue ends up in media and paints both the subject of the page, and WP in general, in a very bad light. She gave examples of the consequences she's seen and they aren't pretty. If my wording sounds like a personal attack, I am sorry. I am clumsy with words sometimes, but know that my intentions are to relect only on PAG's in all of my comments. petrarchan47คุก 21:36, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Petra, you say:"mainstream media" was noticably not reporting on irrefutable and well documented facts: an allegation was made; Biden responded". Yes, it's a fact she said he assaulted her but we have no way of knowing if he actually did it, and that's a fact as well. You believe that the NYT and WashPo are biased and protecting Biden. I assume that they are still processing her claims, perhaps are doing some investigation, or perhaps have already decided that a claim from almost 30 years ago against an elderly man who has apparently never otherwise engaged in sexually aggressive behavior is not, at least for now, something they are willing to publish, or, last choice, they may actually be protecting him. But it matters not anyway because we are bound to base our coverage when it comes to such a serious claim on the top sources and not take the lead and correct their what you or someone else may see as bias. Gandydancer (talk) 04:22, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

We aren't broaching the subject of whether the accusation is true or false, only that it was made, and received an official response. RS has sufficiently covered these two facts, and legacy media orgs who have stayed completely silent are doing so for reasons we can only surmise, but we do have RS commenting on this fact, and none of the RS have suggested this silence is justified. These sources suggest or outright claim the motivation behind the blackout is suspicious, rather than honorable. It is not me saying this. WP:V has been satisfied, and if in fact the NYT and WaPo come out with articles that debunk the claim, that should be added too, obviously. Waiting to cover a well-documented claim/response until certain media has weighed in, is simply not in the PAGs. It cannot be ignored that their silence is the topic of a growing body or work, in fact a Google search the other day showed that roughly half of the articles written in RS on this matter focused on the alarming lack of response from legacy media. petrarchan47คุก 17:51, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Well, I will try to follow up on what you suggest because, as you know, I highly respect your investigative abilities and I just added my vote of "No" per lack of NYT and WashPo responses. You did not include any sites I might look at...any suggestions? Gandydancer (talk) 18:49, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

That position is not supported by policy, and I am glad. Lack of NYT or WaPo response has no inherant or agreed-upon meaning. From experience, we do have to question everything, and all media included. I can disprove the gold standard theory for NYT in one easy diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jeffrey_Epstein/Archive_5#The_New_York_Times's_claim_regarding_Giuffre

The New York Times claimed that Epstein's most prominent accuser, Virginia Giuffre, admitted to lying in past testimony about having seen Bill Clinton on Epstein's island. This both painted Giuffre as less than credible (a claim made nowhere else), and cleared Clinton of the accusation (which directly countered other reporting, like from CNN, "...she did not refute other details of the Daily Mail story, including that Epstein hosted a dinner on his Caribbean island for President Bill Clinton"). The NYTs version of events was re-added to the Epstein article after each of my attempts to remove it, on the basis that "It's the New York Times!!!!!". Finally, admin Newslinger was willing to actually look at the source material, and verified that the NYT statement was counterfactual. Most importantly, NYT was informed of the error and since August 2019, they have not responded to Newslinger nor have they corrected the article. Oh, and then there's the fake news to end all fake news: New York Times: we were wrong on Iraq.

Here, Forbes lays out how the WaPo engaged in fake news, saying it was a "top tier [newspaper] that fail[ed] to properly verify their facts". Here is a piece looking at bias in WaPo and other "corporate controlled press". WaPo has a COI regarding CIA reporting, and has been criticized for failing to disclose this in their reporting. Here is a Hill article accusing WaPo of printing highly partisan and opinionated "news". The CJR notes that WaPo doesn't always disclose COI with regard to their reporting on Amazon. Here Fox covers Bernie's allegation of bias by the Post.

Please tell me what you are asking for re: "sites I might look at"? petrarchan47คุก 20:33, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

If we've reached the point of the discussion where we have started trashing long-respected reliable sources, in the manner of Donald Trump, then I think we're done here. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:30, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Could they be silent for the same reason that they compared Biden's opponent Bernie Sanders to the coronavirus earlier? Or tried to connect him to mass executions in Central Park? The NY Times recently published a column acknowledging their own bias. Don't see why the silence of some obviously politicized "legacy media" sources should erase what is reported in multiple other respected and reliable sources. (The Times, The Hill, The Intercept, Vox, and Fox website, to list five "green" WP:RSPSOURCES yet another time). Zloyvolsheb (talk) 18:20, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

The present discussion, I think, highlights how the changes in the media that have occurred over the past couple of decades make it more difficult to figure out when an accusation should be included in a BLP, given that the most relevant guidance seems to have been written for the prior era. From WP:PUBLICFIGURE:

Example: A politician is alleged to have had an affair. It is denied, but multiple major newspapers publish the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation belongs in the biography, citing those sources. However, it should state only that the politician was alleged to have had the affair, not that the affair actually occurred.

In the present era, it is possible for an allegation to be made within the sphere of social media and to rise to the level at which a public figure may feel compelled to deny the allegation, even if the story has not been covered by "major newspapers" (or reliable third-party media sources). Can social media attention render something a "public controvery" even if it's not public in the traditional sense of being covered by major media outlets? If so, what is the threshold for assessing when social media attention rises to that level?

In the present era, also, the fact that a story is getting attention can cause media coverage (from minor to major) of the controversy, but with little to no investigation of the story itself. "An accusation was made; the accusation was denied". Is that the sort of media coverage that would justify the inclusion in Wikipedia of an accusation against a public figure if there is no associated public scandal (or none outside of social media)? If so, at what point can we be said to have reached a point of coverage equivalent to "multiple major newspapers", assuming that the language is not intended to constrain inclusion to situations in which the remaining traditional major print media outlets cover the story? Arllaw (talk) 17:42, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

This is a discussion for the policy talk page of WP:PUBLICFIGURE.  This story has been reported widely beyond social media.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:51, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Both of these ideas may be a better suited as discussion as a Proposal for a policy change.--Davemoth (talk) 18:06, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

In the sense that if the official guidance were improved we might have an easier time reaching consensus as to this type of issue? Sure, but this discussion is happening now, and within the context of the discussion it becomes necessary to try to parse the relevant policies. Arllaw (talk) 22:57, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Ok, but the discussion specifically about social media isn't relevant here. Yes, folks keep emphasizing that we need top notch reliable sources. But...we're not talking about science here, the woman is on film making an allegation. Every source is reliable. Unless we're saying we need a very reliable source to determine whether the accusation is reliable enough to make notable? I'm confused. There must be many other scandals we can look to for guidance. Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:31, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

It is not the case that "every source is reliable", nor is it the case that we can dismiss concerns about reliability as expressed in the limited official guidance we have on this question by declaring that the language used in the example is irrelevant, and that any amount of controversy or coverage of a controversy (as opposed to the allegation itself) is sufficient even when the mainstream media has produced no investigative journalism on the subject and is being exceedingly cautious about presenting the allegations beyond, at a modest level, noting that they were made and denied. Are there other scandals we could look to for guidance in relation to the application of Wikipedia's policies? Perhaps, but I'm not aware of any. Arllaw (talk) 21:03, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Aziz Ansari comes to mind, not because of the lack of mainstream coverage, but because he did receive mainstream coverage. That doesn't address policy, but it could influence our editorial decision.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 21:32, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Non-compliant Lede

WP:LEDE states that the intro should "summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies". This is policy, yet Biden's intro doesn't include one mention of the eight women who have come forward with complaints. We have an entire section dedicated to this, so it should have been included in the Lede long ago. petrarchan47คุก 19:56, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Petrarchan47, It's not one of the "most important points." – Muboshgu (talk) 20:07, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) These are not prominent controversies nor are they the most important points for a Presidential Medal of Freedom recipient who served 36 years as a U.S. Senator and 8 years as VPOTUS. - MrX 🖋 20:11, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

I see it is your opinion that an accusation of a criminal act, covered by credible media sources, is not prominent. But that is only an opinion. Many would likely view the nature of the allegation to raise the 'controversy' automatically to the level of "prominent". The fact that you already have a well-formed, long-standing section on this subject in general, means it should be included in the Lede without question. The fact that you have multiple women making these claims makes this addition unavoidable. The fact that it isn't mentioned, that indeed no controversy is mentioned in the intro, means this article is in violation of WP:NPOV. petrarchan47คุก 00:00, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Nah. - MrX 🖋 00:50, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

There have been accusations against against the most recent U.S. presidents and several VPs and cabinet officials of war crimes, which are far more serious, yet we don't put them in their leads. That's because criminal acts do not in themselves have weight. When news media start referring to these people as accused mass murderer rather than former president or whatever we should change the leads. Incidentally a recent president and VP had DUI convictions, but it is in not in the lead of their articles. TFD (talk) 01:22, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Petrarchan47, you seem to "already have a well-formed, long-standing section on this subject in general" yourself. Don't cast aspersions. To make a direct comparison, the WP:WEIGHT between the allegations made against Joe Biden and the allegations made against Donald Trump are not in the same stratosphere. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:54, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

You misread me, I wasn't casting aspersions. I meant that the article has a good sized section already. petrarchan47คุก 06:06, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

I meant that the article has a good sized section already. The article has 35 or 40 substantial sections. We don't summarize all of them in the lead. Take a look at the article Donald Trump: he has been accused by so many women that there is not just a section in his biography but a whole separate article, Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations; and yet we don't mention that subject in the Donald Trump lead. The lead is to summarize the "most important points"; apparently that subject didn't make the cut. And it shouldn't here either. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:21, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

I have to admit, I assumed Trump's lede would include a mention of the many allegations. Considering there exists an entire article dedicated to them, it seems very strange to omit any mention. To be very straightforward: I do hope Biden is the nominee, and none of my opinions here are politically motivated. As I said before, consistency is my goal, so I am satisfied by this comparison, thank you. petrarchan47คุก 18:08, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

It strikes me that comparing Biden to Kavanaugh is to some extend more fitting, since he is running for, not holding, a high public office. This was added to Kavanaugh's Lede soon after the allegations went public:

During the confirmation process, Professor Christine Blasey Ford came forward and alleged that Kavanaugh had sexually assaulted her by pinning her to a bed and forcibly attempting to remove her clothes. Kavanaugh has "categorically and unequivocally" denied that the event occurred.

This addition received no push back, and none of the arguments seen on this page are present at the Kavanaugh TP from the time. The article presently has in the Lede:

before his nomination...Blasey Ford contacted a Washington Post tip line with accusations that Kavanaugh had sexually assaulted her in the early 1980s while the two were in high school. Two other women also accused Kavanaugh of sexual misconduct. Kavanaugh denied all three accusations.

It doesn't appear to be equal treatment. petrarchan47คุก 23:47, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Petrarchan47, well, Kavanaugh and Biden's situations aren't equal, so they shouldn't be treated in the same exact manner. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:03, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

You mischaracterize my words: the comparison is "to some extend more fitting". I doubt we could find perfectly equal comparisons (and I never said they were) unless the subjects held identical positions. For this reason, I didn't suggest they be treated "in the exact same manner". However, in my view we aren't being anywhere near consistent in the application of arguments and PAGs between these two very comparable matters. petrarchan47คุก 00:15, 3 April 2020 (UTC) (Oh, I guess I did use the phrase "equal treatment" - struck.) petrarchan47คุก 00:21, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Indeed, the evidence accusing Kavanaugh was far flimsier, but we still included it. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 00:16, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

That would be difficult as we have no evidence at all in this allegation (and won't unless something is put forward or there is testimonial evidence). At least in the Kavanaugh case there was a sworn affidavit so we had at least that much evidence. Or is there something published that I am not aware of here with Reade?--Davemoth (talk) 00:25, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Sir Joseph, what you think of the "evidence" is your opinion and not relevant. The media coverage of Christine Blasey Ford vs. Tara Reade is not at all the same (so far). – Muboshgu (talk) 00:31, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

"Grim has contacted Reade’s friend and brother, both of whom say she told them about the alleged sexual assault by Biden in 1993." Vox. We know for certain Biden and Reade worked together, whereas there is no hard evidence Ford and Kavanaugh ever met. petrarchan47คุก 00:52, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Additionally everyone named by Blasey Ford as a witness has denied it occurred. Mr Ernie (talk) 08:21, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

RfC: Should Tara Reade's sexual assault allegation against Biden be included in the article?

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this request for comment is yes, Tara Reade's sexual assault allegation against Biden should be included in the article. There was initial opposition to the proposal on the basis that a number of mainstream U.S. reliable sources had not reported on the allegations, and the argument was that inclusion may create undue weight on the topic. However, since this RfC began, and especially within the past few days, the circumstances have changed as multiple mainstream sources have reported on the allegations, including The New York Times [16], The Washington Post [17], Associated Press [18], and other sources. Rather than focusing on whether the allegations should be discussed in the article, the discussion should now shift towards how the allegations should be discussed in the article. Relevant policies include the biographies of living persons policy, especially the subsection on public figures. In my view, there is no consensus yet within this discussion over any specific wording to be included in the article. Respectfully, Mz7 (talk) 01:04, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

---

Should Tara Reade's sexual assault allegation against Biden be included in the article? - MrX 🖋 13:36, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

In March 2019, Tara Reade, a former Senate staffer to Biden, said he had inappropriately touched her multiple times during her nine months in his employ, tweeting in March 2019, "Part of my story, the rest is silenced, ask me". On March 25, 2020, Reade alleged that Biden had sexually assaulted her in 1993. Biden's campaign released a statement denying the allegations.

Sources

---

Discussion

• Yes I support including a simple paragraph with the general allegation and rebuttal by the Biden staffers. There are several Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources reporting on this with independent interviews. We should beware of bias in sources, but bias is not an automatic rejection of that source. The Intercept is also a RS, although as the source that broke the story I would not accept on its own without independent backup. The Hill reference is the one that pushes it over the top for me -- as The Hill's news reporting is generally seen as a RS. FOX is a generally reliable source although obviously partisan (and troubling as they jumped on this story while ignoring stories about conservatives), but still also seems to be valid independently sourced material. Some of the other reliable sources behind paywalls (The Times and others) may also further tip the balance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davemoth (talk • contribs) 14:47, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
  • That's "The Hill Rising", a webshow on the Hill website, which is hosted by two cranks. It's akin to citing Sean Hannity's show and saying "Fox News is a RS, therefore this Sean Hannity video is a reliable source". Votes by editors who cannot tell what a RS is or who choose to intentionally mislead others about the contents of the sources they are citing should be dismissed by the closer of this RfC. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:08, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

    Snooganssnoogans Do you have a source for The Hill Rising not being considered as a RS? WP:RS/P Makes no mention about Rising or its two hosts. It only discusses Opinion and Contributor pieces, which this does not appear to be as there are no disclaimers or bylines as I've seen other pieces. Fox has a separate entry for Talk shows that labels them as Opinion.

    You do not seem to take direct issue with the other 2 sources I have listed. There is also Vox and other generally reliable sources as well as several other sources where there is no consensus. Do you question these sources as well? Your later !vote explanation is similar to what I state of a simple allegation and denial, but you do not define "high-quality" sources.

    Your last sentence can be easily seen as a personal attack if I was thinner skinned. The way you have posted this same content several times also seems a bit like a WP:BLUDGEON. You may want to review the tone of your 5 very similar updates and consider removing some and softening others. We should avoid making this personal or heated and stick with policy discussion.--Davemoth (talk) 17:40, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

    The Hill Rising is a web series on Hill TV and is not the same as The Hill which is a newspaper. There does not appear to be any consensus in WP:RSN whether The Hill Rising or Hill TV are reliable or not. WP:RSP is a simple guideline for general reliability of a publication or media outlet. That alone is not enough for a source to be reliable. Our policies require that for a source to be reliable the journalist, the publication and the content must be reliable. Content must be fact checked (vetted) and "The Hill Rising". clearly states that it has not been "independently verified". Unfortunately, quite a few of the sources listed in this discussion fail the verifiable policy for a reliable source. CBS527^Talk 21:07, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

    Numerous editors have made the argument here that as long as their preferred media companies have someone in their employ who clicked "submit" on an article that discusses Tara Reade, then we can include it in this page and then create the broader Joe Biden sexual assault allegations primary article. I haven't seen anything in Wikipedia policy that states "content must be fact checked." In fact, I would be shocked if this is a policy, given that the tales of Christine Ford, Deborah Ramirez, and Julie Swetnick have been vetted, and remain unverified, yet the claims enjoy their own bolded sections in Justice Kavanaugh's biography. There is no evidence or corroboration for these claims, therefore it is impossible to fact check them - very tough to prove a negative. All that matters is that an employee of a reliable source e.g. Fox News, The Economist, Newsweek, or the Huffington Post wrote an article about Reade's story. Which they have. 2600:1700:D281:27D0:A418:E4FA:4CB7:83A (talk) 23:15, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

    The last 3 discussions on WP:RSN about The Hill have been after Rising (news show) existed as part of the website. It is billed as a News Show and is Produced/Published (and presumably under editorial oversight) by The Hill news department. There are 56 articles referencing "thehill.com/hilltv/rising" and 10 more for hilltv that support others have used Rising for a source (many for BLP). Per WP:CONTEXTMATTERS (video interview) the article itself seemed a reliable independent source with a solid RS publisher for the fact Reade made an allegation. The argument about "independently verified" is misleading as the larger quote shows that it is in regard to "Reade's allegations" -- which would need further evidence that could not easily be obtained (and which is verified by some of the other independent sources via her brother and another Senate staff person.) I followed my normal process of checking RS and there was no reason I would suspect that Rising was not part of The Hill and considered RS.

    Snooganssnoogans and cbs527 Is there some WP policy, guideline, or precedent that I should be aware of that could help me next time I am reviewing a source? Perhaps one of you could start a RfC at WP:RS/N to remove the implied consensus for Rising.

    BTW, I am in the process of some analysis of sources, policy, and the RfC. As such I am planning to remove my dependence on The Hill rising piece as there are other better sources (such as Vox with newsweek as a supporting (no consensus) source.) If some of my policy questions are ever answered I might even switch my vote to No. Regards --Davemoth (talk) 04:43, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

    The reason why I watch Rising — that the hosts have a lot of freedom — is also the reason why I don't think it's reliable for negative claims in a BLP. There is also an op-ed in The Hill which came out yesterday so maybe that could help establish due weight. Connor Behan (talk) 17:27, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

• No The most prominent U.S. media can be relied on to cover so significant a story about the presumptive Democratic presidential candidate -- if and when they determine that it is credible. There is no rush at Wikipedia and our readers need to know that our content will be stable and not keep changing with developing coverage in remote corners of the media. While some of the proposed sources are credible and reliable for certain kinds of content, none of them has reporting resources and standards remotely comparable to the major U.S. mainstream news organizations that have declined to cover these allegations. The fog of partisan arguments on this talk page does not change that fact. SPECIFICO talk 15:21, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

  Why do you only want to include this if it is covered by U.S. media?  Kolya Butternut (talk) 15:46, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

  Gee willakers. Didn't I just say why? They are aware of it. They are investigating it. It would be big news if credible. We go with their judgment. That's the core of what WP editors do. If you are relying on a media suppression conspiracy theory to justify ignoring Wikipedia policies and guidelines, please take it to NPOVN or RSN or reddit. SPECIFICO talk 16:07, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

  I'm not sure if you heard me.  I'm asking why sources outside of the U.S. would not meet your criteria.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 16:13, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

  Time for a chill pill. I did hear you, at least the part that wasn't invisible ink. You did not ask that. Now let others have their say. SPECIFICO talk 16:30, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

  I won't speak for SPECIFICO, but imho the Guardian does no direct reporting on the allegations. I can't tell for The Times because of their paywall. The real point in that there should be consensus on if they are a RS. Only The Hill, The Intercept, and Fox have consensus as RS, some of those are seen as biased on partisan, so that needs to be considered in the attribution --Davemoth (talk) 16:37, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

  Vox and Newsweek have also covered the allegations, extensively. We've also got The Times UK, and Law and Crime has done two pieces. It's true the Guardian piece focuses more on the strange silence from US establishment media (and it should be noted that the Fox piece only covers Biden's official response to the allegations). petrarchan47คุก 08:33, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Whether or not the establishment media decides to mention this story should not influence whether we write about it on Wikipedia or not. We already have quality sources reporting on the event. BeŻet (talk) 11:32, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

• "The most prominent U.S. media can be relied on to cover so significant a story about the presumptive Democratic presidential candidate -- if and when they determine that it is credible." What's the evidence that this statement is really true and not a kind of warm feeling in our hearts? 'Of course they would cover it if it was real! They didn't cover it, so it's not real!' That is a dangerous level of faith in organizations which could EASILY have a political bias. Geographyinitiative (talk) 02:41, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

  What do you think the media is, some kind of corporate machine that can play politics? No, it's an unbiased judge of all that's newsworthy. Biden did not kick off his campaign at the home of a Comcast (NBC) executive [19]. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 03:14, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

• Yes absolutely per policy, and it warrants more information for our readers, not just the one case. Multiple 3rd party sources have published articles about Biden's alleged inappropriate touching and sexual misconduct, some of which Biden addressed publicly so that also needs to be included. WaPo published the following statement by Biden: When a woman alleges sexual assault, presume she is telling the truth. I included multiple RS in an easy-to-find list above under the section RS and Biden's inappropriate touching & sexual misconduct allegations (but only included 11 RS - there are many more). Also noting that the entire section that was removed today by Volunteer Marek in this edit despite it being cited to multiple reliable 3rd party sources that documented the allegations and/or incidents, including The Union (newspaper), Newsweek, Vox (website), Heavy.com and Fox News. WP:V, WP:DUE and the requirement set forth by WP:PUBLICFIGURE have all been satisfied. For whatever reason, VM's edit summary states no substantial coverage in mainstream sources ("heavy" ain't)). Policy does not specify "mainstream sources", only that they should be reliable 3rd party sources. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 16:20, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

  This is not just a question about "mainstream" sources (as some argue). 3 of the 5 sources you reference that were in the info removed by VM are not generally considered reliable (per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources and the 5th is generally seen as partisan. In my opinion this made that section "poorly sourced". As such Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Reliable sources states that "contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion". The RfC is the way to handle this now, but you might want to consider the consensus on what is a RS in your future arguments.--Davemoth (talk) 16:54, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

  To clarify, Davemoth, I listed the sources that were cited in the aggregate, not that they were each RS as a standalone. Together they corroborate each other, in context, re: the material that was added. The Union, Newsweek, Vox, and Fox = 4 RS. Verifiability is important, and that requirement was met. Also, we can use biased sources - bias doesn't make them unreliable. See WP:BIASED. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 02:04, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

  FYI. Newsweek is listed as No Consensus as a RS. As far as I know, The Union has not been evaluated. So Vox and Fox. If this is added again later RS would be better served to have The Hill and the Intercept as out secondary sources and The Union and Newsweek supporting sources. --Davemoth (talk) 12:59, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

  There is no Wikipedia policy requiring that we cover allegations of sexual assault in a BLP. In fact, WP:PUBLICFIGURE says to include it if is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented. The scant reporting suggests that it is not noteworthy and it is certainly not well documented. I would also point out that "When a woman alleges sexual assault, presume she is telling the truth" is not a Wikipedia policy. If our standards for inclusion were that minimal, Wikipedia would have a big credibility problem. - MrX 🖋 18:42, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

  You are correct but there is also no policy that says we should not cover it as evidenced by Kavanaugh, Trump, Lauer, etc. What needs to be considered above all is the quote by Biden himself wherein he said, "presume she is telling the truth". Biden is a former VP and current presidential candidate which gives the things he says publicly far more weight/credibility, regardless of the low numbers of left-leaning mainstream news sources that reported it. A substantial number of RS have met the requirements per our PAGs, and the attempts to convince editors that those sources do not meet certain qualifications is not gaining much traction, and is beginning to look more like bludgeoning. At the very least, based on the evidence brought forth in this RfC, it appears we may well have a case for WP:IAR at the very least, and the direction this RfC is headed supports it. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 23:30, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

• No - This is simply not ready for primetime. The accuser waited years before changing her story once Biden had become a major candidate for the presidency. The very limited sourcing available is largely a collection of opinion pieces from authors with either a pro-Bernie lean or a pro-Trump lean. The few examples of serious sources mostly regurgitate existing material, with very little new stuff added. Mainstream media in the US, where the claims were made, have been more or less silent on the issue. The Biden campaign has issued denials, but the lack of comment from Biden himself is an indication the allegation isn't regarded with any seriousness. Consequently, inclusion would fall foul of several policies and guidelines, including WP:BLPVIO, WP:WEIGHT and WP:RECENT. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:19, 30 March 2020 (UTC) Qualified Yes - Changing my vote to a qualified yes because of new coverage. I do not support the proposed language, but I do support some sort of inclusion now. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:53, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

  If the accused ignores it, that is a sign the claim should not be taken seriously? Some corrections: the accuser did not wait years, nor did she change her story. She immediately went to her immediate supervisor, which was protocol.* This evidence is sealed in Biden's records until after the election.07/11/7d0dd222-a347-11e9-bd56-eac6bb02d01d_story.html * She told a local paper part of her story last April*, after hearing Lucy Flores' complaints. She was smeared, received threats, and was doxxed.*, *, * She feared coming out with the more serious allegation, and went to Time's Up in January 2020. The organization helps women who want to come out with their "me too story" to deal with the challenges of holding powerful men accountable. In February she was told the org could not hep her, and finally in late March, she went ahead without support and told her entire story on a Rolling Stone podcast.* She never changed her story; she tweeted last year that there was more to the story.* Contemporaneous evidence exists: she told others at the time what had happened, and they have confirmed this with several media outlets, including in the seminal piece from The Intercept, and in Newsweek. The claim that mainly opinion pieces and heavily biased media have covered it is also false. petrarchan47คุก 07:31, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

  @Petrarchan47: I'm sorry, but pretty much everything in your response is irrelevant to this article. This article is about Joe Biden. It is not about Tara Reade. It is not about who Tara Reade spoke to and when. It is not about Time's Up and Ms. Reade's interactions with that organization. ALL that matters to this article is whether or not a preponderance of reliable mainstream media sources give significant, independent coverage at a level that passes WP:WEIGHT. It indisputably does not cross that bar. In fact, we can even infer from the lack of such coverage that mainstream media organizations aren't comfortable with the claims, at least not yet. There's no hurry. Let the media report the facts as they come out, and if it crosses the WP:WEIGHT bar we will absolutely give it the coverage it deserves. But not before. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:16, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

  Are you citing WP:WEIGHT?  If so that's a misrepresentation.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 15:43, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

  @Kolya Butternut: No, it really isn't. I've been a regular editor of Wikipedia for over 15 years and I've become intimately familiar with its policies and guidelines, including WP:WEIGHT. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:50, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

  But the actual policy doesn't matter, Scjessey. The joke's on you. Because now you've been the target of an unsubstantiated allegation, just like Biden. Just as on Twitter and the Intercept, this allegation may now take on a life of its own over the next days and weeks. Duck and cover. SPECIFICO talk 19:04, 31 March 2020 (UTC)  

  Scjessey, if that is so can you help me understand your interpretation of the policy?  I don't see anything close to your quote; maybe I would find it in a guideline? Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:55, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

  My comment is entirely relevant to this RfC; it points out that your !Vote contains numerous inacuracies. This entire line is untrue: The accuser waited years before changing her story once Biden had become a major candidate for the presidency. The very limited sourcing available is largely a collection of opinion pieces from authors with either a pro-Bernie lean or a pro-Trump lean and it makes clear that you have not done little to no research into the topic and the sources available. Further, the ratio of op-eds to serious coverage doesn't nessesarily mean what you think it does. A high number of op-eds could indicate nothing more than the fact that the topic is a heated one.  petrarchan47คุก 19:18, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

• No It fails Due and undue weight. For a very high profile person like Biden, only substantial coverage of a story justifies inclusion. The argument that the allegations are serious and credible are arguments that the media should consider when deciding whether or not to cover the story. It could be that they have found the accusations lack credibility or perhaps they are so partisan they chose to ignore them. It really doesn't matter because they establish what is important. I note that a similar discussion came up with many times with Donald Trump, about allegations made by Jane Doe that were not covered in the media. (See for example  Talk:Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations/Archive 4#The lawsuit didn't receive much coverage / Remove Jane Doe?) It was agreed that due to lack of media coverage it should not be mentioned. TFD (talk) 17:33, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
• Yes per Atsme and Davemoth Quidster4040 (talk) 17:43, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
  • This vote cites Davemoth's argument for inclusion. Davemoth's vote gave primary importance to the fact that a purported RS, "The Hill", had reported the allegations. But that's not the case. It was "The Hill Rising", a webshow on the Hill website, which is hosted by two cranks, that covered the allegations. It's akin to citing Sean Hannity's show and saying "Fox News is a RS, therefore this Sean Hannity video is a reliable source". Votes by editors who cannot tell what a RS is or who choose to intentionally mislead others about the contents of the sources they are citing should be dismissed by the closer of this RfC. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:10, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
• No - No to the suggested text. Needs to be clearer in regard to the denials. Open to including based on most recent high-quality sources. - As Newslinger correctly pointed out above, the predominate policies that apply to this area are WP:BLPPUBLIC and WP:EXTRAORDINARY. We need multiple reliable, high quality, third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident. Most of these sources discussed do not meet these requirements.

  * Although "The Hill" is normally a reliable source, the "The Hill". cited isn't a third party source and even states that Reade's allegations have not been vetted.

  * "Democracy Now!", "Huffington Post" and Heavy.com are primarily news aggregators and are questionable sources with no consensus on their reliability

  * Almost all the sources mentioned are relying on the "The Intercept" article with no additional reporting and fail the multiple source criteria per "Notability#cite_note-3"..

  A few of source that come close meeting the requirements (although they primarily reference "The Intercept" article they also  have additional reporting) are ""Newsweek""., "FoxNews". and to a lesser extent "Vox".. These sources also bring up some discrepancies in her story.

  Mainstream sources present the prevailing view within the journalism community. If the large majority of mainstream sources are not mentioning this allegation then that presents a wp:weight issue as well. If/until there are higher quality, better vetted sources then what has been mention here, we should not include Tara Reade's allegations. CBS527^Talk 19:31, 30 March 2020 (UTC)modified !vote CBS527^Talk 20:27, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

• Yes per Davemoth. The Fox News article with the Biden campaign denial formulates ground for inclusion. The allegation does not presume the truth of the allegation, only that the allegation was made. The Biden campaign denial must be included to presume innocence. yunquekabal 21:10, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
  • This vote cites Davemoth's argument for inclusion. Davemoth's vote gave primary importance to the fact that a purported RS, "The Hill", had reported the allegations. But that's not the case. It was "The Hill Rising", a webshow on the Hill website, which is hosted by two cranks, that covered the allegations. It's akin to citing Sean Hannity's show and saying "Fox News is a RS, therefore this Sean Hannity video is a reliable source". Votes by editors who cannot tell what a RS is or who choose to intentionally mislead others about the contents of the sources they are citing should be dismissed by the closer of this RfC. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:11, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
• Yes while this wouldn't have been appropriate enough to include back when most reports were just citing the original Intercept article, the recent Vox and Newsweek articles have added more to the story as they managed to field info from Tara & her friends/family, Time's Up, and the Biden campaign. The reports should be objectively explained followed by the campaign's word on the matter. Geekgecko (talk) 21:34, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

  FYI - Newsweek is not a high quality source. - MrX 🖋 22:02, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

• Yes. The sourcing has moved beyond The Intercept and mainstream media is now covering it, including the Huff Post, The Guardian, and other sources mentioned above (Vox, Fox, etc). The Biden campaign has also addressed the allegations and responded to them, which RS have included as well. WP should cover major updates that are covered by RS, which this situation applies to. --Kbabej (talk) 21:55, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
• Yes. We have sufficient sources -- an entire list of sources, including major newspapers like The Times and The Guardian in the UK. We have The Intercept and The Hill in the U.S., which all meet the standards of Wikipedia's list of perennial reliable sources. It's OK to describe an allegation as an allegation provided that multiple WP:RS exist; that is the policy stated in WP:BLP. There is no requirement that a fact or allegation about Biden be covered by every news organization for Wikipedia to describe it. The Biden campaign has also responded. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 23:39, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Zloyvolsheb, The Guardian source is actually a column hence fails reliable sources, per WP:NEWSORG. But suppose it was reliable. How does an article titled "Why has the media ignored sexual assault and misbehaviour allegations against Biden?" show that this story has been well covered in the media? TFD (talk) 00:42, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
    • The Four Deuces, you can read the Guardian article as an opinion column, but it was actually published in the News section under U.S. politics and seemingly as part of women's interest, not in the separate Opinion section of the newspaper. I also initially assumed it was just an opinion column, and it resembles one. But regardless of the classification of this particular article, the very fact of its publication serves as an example of international discussion of the allegation, which addresses the arguments of those saying "undue." Zloyvolsheb (talk) 01:18, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
      • The test for inclusion is not that someone somewhere in the media has mentioned something but in proportion to its prominence in reliable sources, which does not include opinion pieces. Generally, if there is next to no coverage, it should be omitted. (See Balancing aspects.) Arwa Mahdawi is billed as a Guardian columnist and brand strategist, not a reporter.[20] And note it has been relegated to the feminism section, rather than politics. That's probably because she is writing about how the media ignore sex allegations against politicians they like. But that's an opinion, not an established fact. As I pointed out above, the media also ignored an accusation against a woman who made claims against Trump. TFD (talk) 02:21, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
        • OK, as I have before stated, for me the remaining question was the due weight of including this, given that the community has already recognized the first sources to have picked up Reade's allegation, The Intercept and The Hill, as WP:RS. We don't need every WP:RS, or twenty or a dozen WP:RS, if we already have multiple WP:RS. A set of reliable sources can pick up a fact or report an allegation that other reliable sources do not mention. Unless there is a contradiction in how something is actually described in different reliable sources, reliable source a omitting something you found in reliable source b does not detract from the argument for including the information according to source b. If that's settled, the remaining element is notability. We know there are dozens of popular, mainstream sources like Newsweek, HuffPo, etc. Among them Mahdawi in The Guardian, a major British newspaper, which proves that the allegation was not just reported reliably in the first place, but is also a subject of sufficient prominence. That addresses due weight. I separate this from reliability, but the reliability criterion was already met with WP:RS like The Times, The Intercept, and The Hill. So your argument looks like "it needs to be in one of or several American newspapers like The NY Times, LA Times, etc. to be worth mentioning." I think that is extremely restrictive, particularly when it comes to merely reporting the existence of an allegation that was reliably reported elsewhere. How many other facts are not reported in The NY Times? Zloyvolsheb (talk) 03:44, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
          • Why have the policy of weight at all if we can add anything that meets rs? TFD (talk) 04:01, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
            • Because it is applied to separate fringe and minority views from mainstream and majority views when describing things like science vs pseudoscience, or other controversies where we describe opposing views. WP:WEIGHT actually gives the example of Flat Earth, but there are less obvious examples that we come across regularly. Or how about this: suppose we had 3 sources alleging Biden was actually guilty of committing assault and 7 reliable sources telling us he was innocent. Weight again. But we are not presenting that kind of narrative, we are presenting the mere fact of the existence of an allegation, and including Biden's denial. There are no WP:RS denying its existence. In this case the appropriate interpretation for "weight" is notability. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 04:15, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
        • Actually The Guardian lists this "article". as an "Opinion". piece. Per WP:EXCEPTIONAL Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources. Newsweek and Huff Post are hardly "high-quality sources". There is no consensus that they are reliable. The Hill source is a video clip with no editorial oversight and should be treated as equivalent to primary source. CBS527^Talk 05:24, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
          • OK, The Guardian source is an opinion column and The Hill is WP:RS but a primary source. We take the reliability of many other sources as open to question. That leaves us with at least The Times, The Intercept, and the Fox website from Wikipedia's good sources list as secondary WP:RS. So, again, multiple sources to use for what Reade alleged. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 06:54, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
            • Opinion pieces can be used as RS to report facts.  Here the fact is that Reade accused Biden of assault.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 07:22, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
              • Kolya Butternut, see News organizations: "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." TFD (talk) 21:21, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
                • I interpret that to mean that the opinion itself cannot be used as a statement of fact, but facts reported within the editorial can (at least I thought I read that within some PAGs...). Kolya Butternut (talk) 21:28, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
• No - there's a reason why reliable and credible sources have ignored this story. Someone like Biden, who has been a Senator as well as a VP for 8 years, has been vetted up, down and sideways. And the initial allegation was made years ago. The fact that mainstream reliable source are not touching this is a pretty clear WP:REDFLAG. At this point this is nothing but a WP:FRINGE story which does not belong in a BLP. (The guardian and the Huff Po pieces are just opinion columns, which is not enough for a BLP). Volunteer Marek 01:29, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Do you consider The Times, The Intercept, The Hill and Fox News fringe sources? Zloyvolsheb (talk) 01:32, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
• Yes per Atsme. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 01:42, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
• Yes, Wikipedia should report the allegations, that is newsworthy and the Biden campaign has responded to them. But No, according to WP:BLP and Wikipedia:Offensive material, we don't need to provide a detailed narrative of an alleged sexual assault. And just because these policies and guidelines have been violated on other articles is not a good reason to allow for that on this one. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:14, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
• Include if-and-only-if it rises to the level of having electoral consequences. As an allegation standing alone it has insufficient significance in the scope of the subject's life. However, if the subject were to lose either the primary or general election, and if that loss reliable sources attributed that loss to some degree to the allegation, then it would definitely merit inclusion. BD2412 T 02:28, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
• Yes – There is more than enough secondary sources with detail to show due weight. This is verifiable and relevant. There is no reason why we should not include. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 03:41, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
• Yes per Atsme. Columbia Journalism Review has characterized this as a "notable story".[21] Current Affairs has now vetted the story.[22] Kolya Butternut (talk) 04:16, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
• Yes with caveat, and Snow Close Per everything Zloyvolsheb has said. There are no grounds on which to deny adding this to the article, and the idea that specific U.S. media orgs must report on this before it can be included is misguided. This is nowhere mentioned in the PAGs, and reeks of U.S.-centrism. The threshold for sources has already been met. It is being brushed aside, but multiple articles have focused on the shocking fact that these specific media orgs have refused to acknowledge the story, and that is crucial here. CNN, NYT and MSNBC have been called out in these pieces, but these same outlets are being elevated here on WP to a position they haven't earned. 'It must be reported by the CNN's of the world or it didn't happen' is not a policy or guideline, and arguments suggesting otherwise are without merit until a proper RfC at the RS/N to establish this has been completed.

New York Mag What We Know About the Joe Biden Sexual Assault Allegation

The Intercept Time’s Up Said It Could Not Fund a #MeToo Allegation Against Joe Biden

Vox A sexual assault allegation against Joe Biden has ignited a firestorm of controversy

WaPo Sexual assault allegation by former Biden Senate aide emerges in campaign, draws denial

NBC Woman broadens claims against Biden to include sexual assault

Nathan J. Robinson * Evaluating Tara Reade’s Allegation Against Joe Biden

The Economist How to weigh an allegation of assault against Joe Biden

WGBH News Has Media Coverage Of Coronavirus Eclipsed A New Allegation Of Sexual Assault Against Joe Biden?

Fox cable news segment

MSNBC cable news segment

Newsweek Joe Biden's Sexual Assault Accuser Wants To Be Able To Speak Out Without Fear of 'Powerful Men'

Daily Dot Biden’s past comments on sexual assault dredged up in wake of graphic allegations

Yahoo/Refinery21 Joe Biden Faces Sexual Assault Allegations From A Former Staffer

HuffPost Joe Biden Accused Of Sexually Assaulting Senate Aide In 1993

Fox Biden campaign adamantly denies allegation of sexual assault

Democracy Now Interview with Tara Reade

Katie Halper Interview with Tara Reade

The Hill TV Interview with Tara Reade

HuffPost TV Hosts Fail To Ask Joe Biden Questions About Sexual Assault Allegation

Daily Dot CNN accused of ignoring Biden’s sexual assault allegations

The Guardian Why has the media ignored sexual assault and misbehaviour allegations against Biden?

Yahoo/The Week Joe Biden has a #MeToo problem

Fox Biden sexual assault allegation goes unmentioned in another televised interview

Fox New York Times edits Biden sexual assault coverage, deletes references to past inappropriate 'hugs, kisses and touching'

• The allegation should be included in the article immediately. IMO, it should not be limited to three sentences. Language used to describe the assault seems consistent with other articles, but it is too graphic for my taste. It also ignores the rest of Reade's account: being pushed up against the wall, the finger in the face with "You're nothing to me. Nothing.", and the subsequent loss of her job and ability to find another one on the Hill. 06:11, 31 March 2020 (UTC) petrarchan47คุก 00:09, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
• Limiting an encyclopedia's coverage by predetermining the amount of space allowed makes no sense. Case in point: we already have another sentence that needs to be added. petrarchan47คุก 19:53, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Reade filed a criminal complaint with the Washington D.C. Police on April 10 over the alleged sexual assault.

References

• I disagree with the reason for hatting the NYT discussion below. !Votes that depend largely on the premise that the NYT specifically can be seen as gold standard for RS, to the point it is a requirement, has no basis in policy, and further ignores relevant, indisputable facts. petrarchan47คุก 21:39, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

• Not now Yes Update 2020-04-12, it’s in The New York Times so, as promised, I am updating my vote. These accusations are very serious accusations, and before we include them in the Wikipedia article for such a public figure, we need to wait for them to be extensively discussed across multiple top-notch sources, such as The New York Times, which covered the less serious touchy-feely accusations last year. The fact that these accusations are very popular with a small, loud spoken minority who think Sanders will become the nominee if they can get these accusations to stick means that it will be extremely difficult to maintain any neutrality with them. If they get a prominent mention in The Washington Post or The New York Times, I will change my vote (2020-04-12: Front page of New York Times, vote now “Yes”) Samboy (talk) 08:09, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Off topic discussion about a the NYT that has no place in this RfC. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:15, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Be aware that the New York Times was caught misrepresenting the facts when Bill Clinton was allegedly seen at Epstein's island, and they smeared the eyewitness as a liar. They were alerted by Newslinger, and never responded to the request for correction. petrarchan47คุก 09:00, 31 March 2020 (UTC) That sounds like a fringe theory to me. Sorry, but you’re going to need a strong source to support that particular fringe theory. Also, Factcheck says Clinton never went to that Island Samboy (talk) 09:10, 31 March 2020 (UTC) What theory did I propose? The facts that the NYT in fact misrepresented concerned the court documents of an alleged eye witness. The NYT claimed that Virginia Giuffre admitted to having lied about seeing Clinton on the island. In the court documents, that admission does not exist. Do I have this correct in your view, Newslinger? To date, the office of corrections has not responded, which gives us very good reason to question whether their position as "the paper of record" is outdated. I am not promoting conspiracies or fringe. petrarchan47คุก 09:37, 31 March 2020 (UTC) The eyewitness that supposedly saw Clinton on Epstein’s island is a known unreliable witness. She claimed to have strongly implied she had sex with Marvin Minsky when he was on Epstein’s island, something that never happened (well, for it to have happened, both Minsky’s wife and Gregory Bendford would have to be lying, and we would have to believe a man married for 50 years would cheat on his wife like that). We don’t have any reliable indications Clinton was on the island, and a possible one-sentence error which doesn’t change the underlying facts does not make The New York Times unreliable. Samboy (talk) 09:59, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

• Yes a short paragraph of 2-3 sentences is appropriate. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:48, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
• No. BLP directs us to use caution, and rely on the best sources when reporting scandalous or inflammatory content. Here, the majority of sources offered are subpar. Two are from the post-2013 Newsweek, which is a lower-quality source (see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Newsweek (2013-present)). One is to an obscure, low-circulation Nevada newspaper. One is from Heavy.com, which is a clickbait source. And this last one is from Fox and focuses on the Biden campaign's denial. These are not sufficient sources to stick a serious criminal accusation in a BLP, nor do they demonstrate due weight. The large majority of mainstream sources are not mentioning this allegation, so we must follow suit. If this gets mentioned in the Associated Press, Reuters, New York Times, Washington Post, or Wall Street Journal, or similar, we can reevaluate. Most of the "include" comments here should receive no weight or low weight because they are based on the incorrect assumption that the existence of some sources repeating an allegation "guarantees inclusion," when our policy is the opposite: that a source exists does not guarantee inclusion. Neutrality^talk 15:54, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
• Not now Neutrality's arguments are persuasive. This specific allegation has been given some (not much) coverage in some (not many, and not mainstream) sources. The coverage at this point does not rise to the level that WP:BLP calls for. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:17, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

A few days ago, you said "I think the existing paragraph is OK - appropriate to the amount of coverage and non-sensational". Neutrality's argument uses false assertions. The low-circulation paper from Nevada is used to support the fact that Reade came out with her story last year, to the only paper that would air her story, her local paper. The source isn't being used to show weight, and it's low-circulation status is irrelevant here. That Heavy.com is a "clickbait source" is also irrelevant when it is only being used to support the fact that she tweeted something last year, nothing more. It's fine to question sources, but they must be viewed in context. N's argument does not look at context and therefore misinterprets the sources s/he doesn't like, whilst avoiding any mention of sources like Vox and The Intercept. Interestingly, those two sources specifically were the two used to initially add Blasey Ford's claim to Kavanaugh's bio. petrarchan47คุก 19:20, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Your views will be better received if you don't couch them in terms of disparagement or aspersions against another editor. SPECIFICO talk 19:31, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't see any aspersions here, SPECIFICO. Yes, petrarchan, I did say that a few days ago. The fact that the story has not expanded since then into the mainstream - that it is still a small amount of reporting in a few, mostly not mainstream outlets - is what has pushed me into "Not for now". Apparently the vast majority of high-quality journalistic outlets have decided that this is not worth reporting. If this later gets more prominent coverage from more significant sources, to the point where the weight of coverage is sufficient for inclusion, then I will change my vote. Wikipedia is all about coverage. It is not about what we personally think of the material, or of the person. It's not about us. We reflect what is published in Reliable Sources, but not everything that is published; we publish according to weight, namely the amount and duration of coverage and quality of sources. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:49, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

MelanieN, I meant this kind of stuff: Neutrality's argument uses false assertions..Not helpful. Discussion on this matter is (with a few exceptions) policy-free arguments against experienced editors who are trying patiently to explain the issue to less experienced editors who could easily read the policies and guidelines so as to engage on a more substantive and detailed level that might actually improve the article. SPECIFICO talk 20:23, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Are you accusing people of sealioning? I feel that good faith less experienced editors are raising good questions while the experienced editors are not explaining policy nuance. Kolya Butternut (talk) 21:15, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

It appears there may be a bit of confusion over WP:RS and what qualifies as a 3rd party RS for citing a WP:PUBLICFIGURE. Petrarchan47 did an excellent job of clarifying it. I, too, encountered a similar bit of confusion at RS/N regarding "in context" and what exactly constitutes a reliable 3rd party source. For one thing, to be reliable, the source doesn't necessarily have to agree with us. We also have to consider WP:V and the fact that Biden is subject to a slightly different set of rules in our policy as a public figure; therefore, some of the more stringent aspects of BLP do not apply here. It also appears that consensus is moving in the direction to include the well-sourced material and the arguments are strong ones suupported by multiple RS. Biden's behavior is not new or recent - it has been written about in the media for over a year. Arguing back and forth about the reliability of sources that consensus has long determined to be reliable is a weak position in this RfC. The unfriendly banter and unfounded allegations back and forth also need to stop, as does the badgering of editors over their iVotes. Let the process continue unhindered, and take the discussion below to a separate section. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 22:05, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Biden's behavior is not new or recent - it has been written about in the media for over a year. Wrong. What has been written about is that he has been touchy-feely in a way that made women feel uncomfortable. Hugs, pats, standing close. He admits that has been a lifelong pattern of his, and including it is not controversial. But nobody, up to now, has accused him of actual sexual assault; this is a whole new type of allegation. That would be a crime, a whole different kettle of fish from kissing someone on the back of the head. Biden is subject to a slightly different set of rules in our policy as a public figure; therefore, some of the more stringent aspects of BLP do not apply here The BLP policy is very explicit: if you are accusing a public figure of a crime, you need excellent sourcing - multiple reliable sources. We do not have anything approaching excellent sourcing at this point. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:24, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

The issue I have with this line of argument is the black-and-white nature of arguing being done here. There is not some invisible line with some sources being automatically being “unreliable” on one side of the line, and sources automatically being “reliable” on the other side. There are shades of gray. The Intercept is generally a reliable, if opinionated, source, but in the case of an extraordinary claim, they are not sufficient. For a claim this extraordinary: That Biden raped someone 27 years ago (even though his sexual conduct was extensively discussed last year, with no rape accusations coming up) we need multiple sources of the highest quality: Sources like The BBC, Reuters, Assosciated Press, The New York Times, Washington Post, and The Wall Street Journal. And, yes, MelanieN is right: This rape accusation is a very different kettle of fish than the improper touching accusations. Samboy (talk) 22:54, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

The mentioned sources have already been through screenings at RS/N, and they meet the qualifications as RS that can be cited per PUBLICFIGURE. There is nothing I've seen in our PAGs that specify "mainstream media"; rather it states that multiple 3rd party RS must have reported it, and the latter has been satisfied. MelanieN, it appears you misunderstood me because I am not wrong. The allegations about his sexual misconduct are not new. You appear to be focused on the one victim who recently came forward with the courage to describe the behavior she was subjected to using stronger language but his overall misbehavior is not new. There are multiple 3rd party RS available online - 3rd party does not equate only to "mainstream", it equates to "independent"; i.e., An independent source is a source that has no vested interest in a given Wikipedia topic and therefore is commonly expected to cover the topic from a disinterested perspective. Independent sources have editorial independence (advertisers do not dictate content) and no conflicts of interest (there is no potential for personal, financial, or political gain to be made from the existence of the publication). There is probably some level of bias in all online media sources because of the paradigm shift to clickbait. Regardless, there are several sources that verify the long standing sexual misbehavior allegations against Biden such as: USA Today, April 5, 2019; NPR, April 2, 2019; and WaPo that calls into question the position Biden took in the Anita Hill case; The Independent April 2019, etc. Biden denied Lucy Flores's sexual misconduct allegations, not unlike all the others who were accused of it, except maybe for Lauer who made a public apology, but still denied the descriptions. As editors, we now have a precedent on which to gage the allegations, including what happened to Kavanaugh, Weinstein, Trump, Lauer, Cosby and so many others. Our job is simply to evaluate what the sources say and include all significant views, not censor them. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 23:56, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

These "comparisons" make no sense. Cosby and Weinstein were convicted of multiple felony crimes. Lauer was fired from his job. Kavanaugh's accuser gave sworn testimony before Congress. Trump was accused by 23 women over a period of years. All five had far more extensive coverage than is the case here. You are also wrong to suggest that there is "nothing" in policies and guidelines that "specifies 'mainstream media.'" Wikipedia:Verifiability says that "Other reliable sources include: ... Mainstream newspapers." At various points, Wikipedia:Reliable sources refers to "material from high-quality mainstream publications" and "well-established news outlets." In any case, this is not a question of what sources exists; it's a question of WP:WEIGHT and WP:BLP. Neutrality^talk 00:32, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

The question is not whether the accusations from last year of improper touching should be included here (and, again, those allegations are not rape allegations, and just like there are shades of gray with the reliability of sources, there are also shades of gray with physical misconduct). The question for this section is very specific: Should Reade’s rape accusation be included here (no, touching someone on the neck is not "rape"). The very specific claim that Reade was allegedly raped by Biden (again, touching a woman’s genitalia is very different than touching her arm or neck) does not have the support from multiple top-level reliable sources required to merit its inclusion in a high profile Wikipedia article. Samboy (talk) 00:39, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Neutrality, of course they make no sense if you compare them using hind sight, and no I am not wrong. To begin, we are still only at the allegation stage for Biden whose position as a presidential candidate warrants the scrutiny, not censorship. "Other reliable sources include:..." does not say they "must be" mainstream newspapers. Besides, we are dealing with digital publications on the internet and as such, you should be looking at WP:NEWSORG. You can make it into whatever you want but facts are facts and the allegations are real, verifiable and published in multiple 3rd party RS per the guidelines for inclusion. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 00:45, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

I should be able to point out flaws in an argument without being accused of casting aspersions, which is a very serious claim with serious consequences.

The story of this allegation broke last Tuesday in an article from Ryan Grim for The Intercept. There are certain media outlets that haven't covered the allegation or Biden's official response to it. This has been viewed by many journalists as notably strange. That fact is ignored by arguments claiming certain outlets must report on this for inclusion here.

It is being asserted that The Intercept cannot be used for this type of allegation, however:

• "Intercept reporter Ryan Grim... broke the news of the letter detailing allegations against Brett Kavanaugh"*
• "Her story leaked anyway. On Wednesday, the Intercept reported that Feinstein had a letter describing an incident involving Kavanaugh and a woman while they were in high school and that Feinstein was refusing to share it with her Democratic colleagues."*

This WaPo article citing the Intercept shows that it considered highly reliable for such claims, and indeed it was the piece that all media used as the basis for their coverage. Ryan Grim received praise for his work (you can see that here, and the newer version that popped up after he reported on Biden). In this early version of the Kavanaugh allegation, you can also see that Heavy.com was used, showing that we appear to be applying double standards as the same source is being rejected on its face now. Articles like Why has the media ignored sexual assault and misbehaviour allegations against Biden? show that the media we love to trust might have a bias that is showing up now, and that it is time to rethink the notion that we can completely trust any media without double checking their motives and facts. Media has been accused of being partisan; we can't ignore that it is a possibility, and that it could easily effects our attempt at NPOV. Maybe the noted silence from establishment media is indicative of partisanship rather than irrelevance. petrarchan47คุก 00:55, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

The fact that this rape allegation has not made the pages of The New York Times, The Washington Post, or The Wall Street Journal is a big red flag indicating that the claim may be suspect. As per official Wikipedia policy “Surprising or apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources” are suspect and should not be included in Wikipedia articles. Samboy (talk) 01:15, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Well, that leaves out the fact that reliable mainstream sources have covered it, and no one has come out debunking it, and that Biden himself took it seriously enough to respond. Those media outlets that failed to report on his reponse at the very least should be considered suspect in this case. That is why so much has been written questioning their silence on this particular matter. petrarchan47คุก 01:21, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

That's just not accurate. Of the few reliable sources weighing in (and they very definitely FEW), they are mostly just regurgitating what was said in The Intercept and mostly doing it in opinion pieces. As for Biden's response, of COURSE he denied it. Any man falsely accused of sexual assault would deny it. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:42, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Sources are covering Grim's piece because he broke the story, just as they did when news about Kavanaugh's accuser broke. The fact that Biden's response isn't surprising has no relation to whether it is encyclopedic fodder. It is, and was covered by MSM. I disagree that "mostly" op-eds covered the Intercept piece. Can you provide evidence for that claim? petrarchan47คุก 01:54, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

"Surprising or apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources are suspect and should not be included in Wikipedia articles". That's not what the policy says. What it says is that they should "prompt extra caution". Caution taken. Aziz Ansari was all over cable news after Babe.net, who no one's ever heard of, broke the story. I think what we should be questioning is the reliability of mainstream sources rather than the reliability of the sources which actually do cover the allegation they don't want to believe. Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:01, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

No, what the policy says is “Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources”, and we should be cautious with “Surprising or apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources”. The claim that Biden raped someone 27 years ago is surprising, it’s important, but it’s not being covered by The New York Times, it’s not being covered by The Washington Post, it’s not being covered by the Wall Street Journal. If this claim was reliable, it should be “all over cable news”, but it’s not. It directly contradicts Wikipedia policy to be “questioning is the reliability of mainstream sources”. It’s not about whether an editor believes the claim since “Editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong on Wikipedia”. Samboy (talk) 06:33, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Reade's claim that Biden violated her 27 years ago is surprising and exceptional. However, the claim that Reade alleged he did is also surprising, but clearly not in the same universe of exceptional claims as that. Obviously, the first claim has not been verified as true, but the second has been, by multiple sources, and also covered in dozens of other mass media articles, opinion columns, etc. It's not astounding that sources closest to Biden in political orientation might opt to not publish an alleged claim about something from 27 years ago, a claim that is essentially impossible to verify at this point. It's still relevant to Biden that it was made, and it is covered by multiple reliable sources, as repeatedly pointed out. It warrants a brief mention, accordingly. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 07:11, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Samboy while quoting WP said: "It directly contradicts Wikipedia policy to be questioning is the reliability of mainstream sources. It’s not about whether an editor believes the claim since Editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong on Wikipedia".

This is exactly my point and makes me question why are you (and other editors) questioning the reliability of The Intercept, The Hill, Vox, and Fox? Each did independent reporting (interviews) and Per Wikipedia:Verifiability each of those is a mainstream RS. We therefore have multiple (4) mainstream third party reliable sources and many other sources which can be used supporting this. We should beware of Bias and Partisan sources, but they are not excluded (Fox is arguably the most partisan in the sources and they were the first to publish Biden's staffer's denial).--Davemoth (talk) 12:59, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

The issue I have with this line of argument is the black-and-white nature of arguing being done here. There is not some invisible line with some sources being automatically being “unreliable” on one side of the line, and sources automatically being “reliable” on the other side. There are shades of gray. The Intercept is generally a reliable, if opinionated, source, but in the case of an extraordinary claim, they are not sufficient. If this was an deletion discussion, I would be singing a very different tune. But, for this accusation, the bar for reliability is far higher. Samboy (talk) 15:04, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

• yes the story has been covered in multiple mainstream sources. We have a specific policy that covers this exact situation. Accusation made. Accusation denied. Story covered in multiple reliable sources. ResultingConstant (talk) 18:56, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

  "Multiple mainstream sources" is factually inaccurate. Lots of editors have been making this false claim. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:42, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

  Fox News. Salon. The Hill. Newsweek. Vox. The Intercept. Democracy Now! Washington Times. Washington Examiner. The Week. RealClearPolitics. Biden camp has issued a statement. What's your minimum of sources before it becomes "multiple"? 2600:1700:D281:27D0:E8D5:F7CE:5E45:8F0F

  I think you need read the language carefully. Wikipedia:Verifiability specifically does not define “mainstream”. As such it is logically implied that any RS source can count. Therefore “multiple mainstream sources” literally can mean “2 or more sources that consensus views as reliable.” In this case we have the Intercept for initial reporting and The Hill, Vox, and Fox that have each done some independent reporting and interviews.--Davemoth (talk) 03:44, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

  Don't forget Current Affairs. Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:56, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

  Whatever language one wants to use is fine. There are multiple mainstream sources reporting on Tara Reade's powerful story. There are multiple reliable sources reporting on Tara Reade's powerful story. Any assertion to the contrary has no basis in reality. 2600:1700:D281:27D0:E8D5:F7CE:5E45:8F0F (talk) 04:00, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

• Yes There are reliable sources covering the allegation.VoxRealClear Politics ~ HAL333 21:45, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
• No Maybe later. WP:BLP and WP:Recent apply here very well. Only if, at some point later in time, multiple reliable sources discuss the topic in depth, the content should be added to the article. Things could be easier if the issue was not so sensitive due to the coming election. Ktrimi991 (talk) 22:59, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
• Obviously The problem with these "how many liberals/conservatives can I bring to this page" type polls is that it creates the illusion of objectivity and neutrality, which very few people still bother to pretend exists here. Christine Ford (can't remember a thing other than Kavanaugh "pushed her" and "laughed", best friend doesn't believe it and was pressured by the FBI to lie and say she did, no evidence or corroboration), Deborah Ramirez (someone said someone "pushed" Deborah's hand into Kavanaugh's weiner, Ramirez doesn't know if it was Kavanaugh's, no evidence or corroboration), and Julie Swetnick (said Kavanaugh ran a gang-rape trafficking ring when she was in college and attending drunken high school parties, repped by Michael Avenatti, no evidence or corroboration). They all have their own SECTIONS on Kavanaugh's page. Tara Reade is the 9th woman to bravely come forward to tell her harrowing story of her attack at the hands of Joe Biden. Yet, people are clamoring for reasons to hide it from his page. Why? Occam's razor. 2600:1700:D281:27D0:E8D5:F7CE:5E45:8F0F (talk) 03:23, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
• Maybe if it's a single sentence which doesn't name names. Something like "one of the women elaborated on her story a year later to describe a sexual assault which the Biden campaign denied". I'm surprised the Salon article has not ben discussed more since it looks like the best one we have so far. Also, please ignore the people who derail the discussion about WP:WEIGHT by claiming that the accusation itself is suspicious. Connor Behan (talk) 03:48, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

  Notably, the Salon article explains why the claim is questionable from a journalistic perspective. It’s not a question of not believing the woman; it’s a question of not making a strong negative claim against Biden without more solid evidence (as described in the Salon article). Samboy (talk) 06:45, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

  Salon is "generally unreliable". There is no consensus on the reliability of Salon. Editors consider Salon biased or opinionated, and its statements should be attributed. We need to stick to the highest quality sources for this material, as has been argued ad infinitum.  petrarchan47คุก 15:43, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

  No, Salon is not generally unreliable. There is no consensus on the reliability. Those are two different things. - MrX 🖋 18:21, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

  The Hill critiques the Salon story.[23]. Kolya Butternut (talk) 16:45, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

  • That's not "the Hill". "The Hill Rising", a webshow on the Hill website, which is hosted by two cranks, that covered the allegations. It's akin to citing Sean Hannity's show and saying "Fox News is a RS, therefore this Sean Hannity video is a reliable source". Votes by editors who cannot tell what a RS is or who choose to intentionally mislead others about the contents of the sources they are citing should be dismissed by the closer of this RfC. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:14, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

• No - If I had to guess, this is probably an Eventually, but for the reasons put forward by Neutrality, TFD, et al., it's not enough yet. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:55, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
• Yes but not in the form as presented. It should be shortened, given the current low prominence in reliable sources, not directly quoting her 2019 tweet, just saying she modified her story, and it should be sourced only to the more reliable sources reporting it (namely Vox, which is mislabeled currently as Newsweek), not Fox News. It's gotten enough coverage to be worthy of inclusion, and WP:BLPVIO privacy concerns have little weight for me due to Biden's extreme prominence as a public figure. Sdkb (talk) 06:48, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

  "Modifying" would be an innacurate way to describe what happened. She tweeted 'there is more to the story, ask me'. She expanded her story, she didn't change it in any way. In spring 2019, Reade considered telling her full story, says Halper, “but she was doxed and smeared as a Russian agent. There are now witnesses to the story…her brother and close friend recall her telling them about the incident at the time,” said Halper.* petrarchan47คุก 01:05, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

• YesNo - Given the seriousness of the accusation, the low-to-middling quality of the sources, and the lack of independent investigation by high quality sources, this is not appropriate per WP:NOTSCANDAL, WP:BLP, WP:RS and especially WP:DUEWEIGHT. That the nexus of this story is two Bernie fans raises a huge red flag:

Last week, podcaster Katie Halper, an avid fan of presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders, released an episode of her podcast containing a shocking accusation:... At the same time, Ryan Grim of The Intercept — a publication which has been strongly supportive of Sanders and critical of Biden — published a story...
— [24]

If this is important, multiple high quality sources will pick it up. High quality sources would be the ones we predominantly use in this biography and similar biographies: The New York Times, The Washington Post, Politico, CNN, CBS News, ABC News, NBC News, NPR, Los Angeles Times, The Hill, BBC, The Wall Street Journal, and so on. Absolutely no opinion articles or bloggish sources should be used for this type of content.

I also agree with the arguments put forth by Cbs527, Neutrality, Volunteer Marek and other editors who echo similar concerns. WP:PUBLICFIGURE is not met because there is a dearth, not "a multitude of reliable published sources". It's imperative that we adhere to the policy principles that BLPs must be written conservatively; that 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; and that the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This shocking content with its shaky sources does not pass any those tests. - MrX 🖋 12:30, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Changed to Yes. There has now been sufficient coverage in reliable sources to warrant including a brief mention of this. The wording in the RfC is poor and mostly sourced to low quality sources, so a version that adheres to the major points of the best sources is what should go into the article. - MrX 🖋 12:27, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

The Intercept endorsing Sanders is not any more relevant than The New York Times endorsing Warren / Klobuchar. By all means prioritize coverage in the latter, but do so on the basis of reliability, not aspersions. Connor Behan (talk) 13:41, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

I said nothing about The Intercept endorsing Sanders. I did however provide a source that reflects the common knowledge that The Intercept is a biased source with respect to certain subjects. It should be treated accordingly. - MrX 🖋 14:28, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Just a quick note about The Hill. Tara Reade bravely chose to give an interview to The Hill and shared the details of the attack and her ordeal[25]. We have The Hill covered. It's not Wikipedia's fault that CNN, New York Times, and other far-left sources have chosen to ignore Reade and have devoted little time to the other eight women who have come forward to discuss Biden's alleged misconduct. Readers shouldn't have to read an incomplete biography because of journalistic malfeasance. 2600:1700:D281:27D0:951A:49BB:1F4F:EECE (talk) 14:58, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

You should review This Salon Article. They lay out a case that media bias is very unlikely in regard to reporting on this allegations. As your IP address has not submitted in anything other than this article, you are by definition a single purpose account. As such you need to be careful in your phrasing and citations. In my opinion, your discussion about "far-left" sources makes this sound like a fringe argument and is more detrimental to your supporting the argument that the allegations should be included. For myself, I was the first to vote Yes but I am starting to be swayed by arguments such as yours that are ignoring the big picture and claiming malfeasance.--Davemoth (talk) 15:36, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

The Hill critiques the Salon story.[26]. Kolya Butternut (talk) 16:45, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

• Yes - the argument regarding "low quality sources" is moot as there is plenty of sources reporting on it, and there is absolutely no doubt that the accusation has happened. Whether the accusation is true is a different story, but since it is a serious allegation, it should be included. BeŻet (talk) 12:51, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
• Yes - at least one sentence, it is/was big on social media and has been reported in detail in reputable outlets such as Vox, and also in Salon, Fox News, and Daily Caller. Danski14^(talk) 12:55, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
• Yes - the content is relevant, notable, and sourced, just keep it minimal unless it becomes a bigger issue. --Waters.Justin (talk) 14:05, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
• Yes - notable issue covered in sufficient reliable sources. Can and will be expanded as this develops. ɱ (talk) 14:40, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
• Yes - sufficiently covered, as per Davemoth. The Verified Cactus 100% 18:40, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
  • This vote cites Davemoth's argument for inclusion. Davemoth's vote gave primary importance to the fact that a purported RS, "The Hill", had reported the allegations. But that's not the case. It was "The Hill Rising", a webshow on the Hill website, which is hosted by two cranks, that covered the allegations. It's akin to citing Sean Hannity's show and saying "Fox News is a RS, therefore this Sean Hannity video is a reliable source". Votes by editors who cannot tell what a RS is or who choose to intentionally mislead others about the contents of the sources they are citing should be dismissed by the closer of this RfC. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:11, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
• Comment - anecdotally, I have seen on Twitter major bot activity that is certainly one of the reasons this story was trending a few days ago on the platform — accounts spamming identical or extremely similar replies and tweets with hashtags about it. This does not mean it is not a notable story that should be here (I am not experienced enough with notability to really have a certain opinion), but if one reason you are thinking it might be notable is that you saw it all over Twitter, remember that at least part of the reason for that is some very clear bot activity. Probably similar things are true on other social media platforms. DemonDays64 (talk) 20:46, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

  It does not look like Twitter has been used as direct source anywhere here. We should not be looking at Twitter for notability as it is a self published micro-blog platform. I have not seen any significant or serious entries in this talk page using twitter as more than a passing reference to this background.--Davemoth (talk) 21:05, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

  @Davemoth: true, it just seemed like something that could be subconsciously influencing people that they saw it trending. DemonDays64 (talk) 21:40, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

• Not yet I don't believe that the media coverage of this allegation at the moment is sufficient to meet due weight; it looks like most of the US media do not want to touch the issue. I find neutrality's argument to be very persuasive. buidhe 22:56, 1 April 2020 (UTC) Yes, brief mention After additional coverage I think it has become DUE to mention, along with Biden campaign's denial and former staffers' comments that they do not recall the alleged incident. buidhe 22:02, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
• No Due to lack of strong and reliable sources. Idealigic (talk) 23:03, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
• Yes - I don't understand the NOs. The allegation exists in the form of video and audio interviews. Therefore, we don't need a mainstream outlet to verify that the allegation itself exists. Add to this that it has been reported on my mid-tear (if not top-tier) outlets AND the fact the campaign deemed it important enough to respond to. Add to this, furthermore, that the Biden campaign's own response acknowledges and "encourages" that the story be told.
• All that needs to happen is that the allegation and official response be acknowledged. Perhaps even include that mainstream outlets have not covered it since these mid-tier outlets have voiced this very thing. This way the article will acknowledge this truth about lack of mainstream coverage which is of main concern to the NOs here. The allegation exists in video/audio form.
• The outlets that gave coverage to the allegations have wikipedia pages which can be linked to to provide readers perspective on status of said outlets and any particular leanings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nandofan (talk • contribs) 01:13, 2 April 2020 (UTC) — Nandofan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • The position of the Nos is not that question whether Tara Reade made the accusation but whether it has received sufficient coverage in the media to be included. It's not that one requires verification from the major news outlets, its that if it has not received any coverage by them it means it is insignificant to this article. According to policy that is the criterion for inclusion. By comparison, I could probably find a source for the name of Biden's grade three teacher, but would not add it unless the body of news reporting about Biden considered it important enough to report. Whether or not the media are doing a good job in reporting is a good question, but we can't second guess them without changing policy first. Note that an allegation against Trump of the rape of a minor has been excluded from his page for similar reasons. TFD (talk) 01:47, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

    "According to policy that is the criterion for inclusion." I disagree - policy does not list "major outlets" and states that we need multiple mainstream sources. Mainstream is not defined and it can be implied that it means sources that consensus consider reliable. If any of those are biased or partisan we should beware of them, but not automatically exclude them. In this case we have multiple (Intercept, Vox, The Hill, Fox) sources that are all considered reliable. There is absolutely nothing that either defines or requires major outlets. I obviously can't speak for all the Yes votes, but some of us (to steal your statement): The position of the Yes votes is not that question whether Tara Reade made the accusation but whether it has received sufficient coverage in the media to be included. The difference between the Yes and No is that we believe it has actually received sufficient coverage and has received (other than statement by Biden's staff) no contradiction from any significant source.--Davemoth (talk) 03:16, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

• Yes - Biden has come out forcefully in favor the the Me Too movement, there are multiple reliable sources covering the topic, and the alleged victim is out publicly with her story under her name giving her credibility. It should perhaps be worked into his position on sexual assault/Me Too movement stating his position as well as the fact that he has been accused of sexual assault.Patapsco913 (talk) 01:35, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
• Yes - Given the huge number of media sources mentioning the allegations. Earlier editors argued that there were no mainstream media coverage but now there is from Fox News, The Guardian and Washington Times. That the reporting may be damaging to Joe Biden's presidential campaign is not a reason to leave it out of the article. ImTheIP (talk) 06:37, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
• Yes - I support a reasonably brief mention, including Biden's team's response. Considering Biden's history with false or misleading statements, we shouldn't ignore an allegation based on his or his team's denial. Further, the allegations are fairly consistent with the others we include, so there's no reason to wait for pro-Biden media such as CNN to cover the claims to consider them noteworthy. For balance, we should include a note of Reade's stated political allegiances, and let the reader decide who to believe. UpdateNerd (talk) 10:41, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
• No It's been almost ten days since this report was released to the media and neither the NYT or WashPo has responded. Wikipedia does not report breaking news in our BLPs. When and if these outlets report this extremely serious charge of sexual assault we should report it as well per our policy to include negative information if it is well-sourced. Gandydancer (talk) 18:30, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Literally only those two outlets, or any national newspaper? Magazines like The Economist are not sufficient? Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:18, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

    One salient quote from the Economist: The most striking thing about Ms Reade’s story may be the silence with which it has been greeted. Most of the coverage mentions this. petrarchan47คุก 03:11, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

    It's worth pointing out that like CNN, the NYT has a proven track record of favoring certain political candidates in their reporting. You can't expect them to report fairly when they run articles like "Why Biden Is the Change Candidate". UpdateNerd (talk) 11:18, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

    @UpdateNerd: Once again, you are confusing EDITORIAL/OPINION pieces with REPORTING/JOURNALISM. While it is true an organization such as the New York Times will indulge itself in editorial endorsements and give column inches to opinion writers, it keeps those aspect separate from straight reporting. It is one of the reasons the organization is treated as a "paper of record" by most of the world. The same is true of most reliable sources. Some organizations, like Fox News for example, seem unable to separate these two aspects; consequently, they are seen as less reliable. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:51, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

    I wasn't confused, but you raise a good point. Nevertheless, the bias is undeniable whether left- or right-leaning. UpdateNerd (talk) 12:56, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

    It's not undeniable because he just denied it. Unbelievably, there are still many who believe that DNC propaganda teams like the New York Times, CNN, and the Washington Post are "fair, objective, non-partisan, and neutral." A better word to describe the corruption and bias may be "irrefutable," since I have never seen a convincing argument to back up this ludicrous "no bias in the media except conservative-leaning media" thesis. 2600:1700:D281:27D0:811:1608:C616:17D3 (talk) 14:24, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

    Well it depends on the reporter, no matter the outlet. I want to say "propaganda" is too strong a term, but it hasn't been true this election. I've seen the NYT & CNN promote their favored candidate, even against other Dems, to a classical level of bias. It may be the most transparent in opinion pieces, but it bleeds into their "reporting" on the election, as well as what they choose *not* to report on. UpdateNerd (talk) 16:41, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

    • I don't have a subscription to The Economist, but from the first couple of paragraphs it looks like yet another source that just recycles the original interview. Sources that repeat the same thing are not providing the kind of verification we are looking for. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:37, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
      • Maybe this has been discussed, but I believe that we only need sources that verify the allegation took place, because we are not stating in the article that the assault actually happened.  So, whether to include the allegation in this article is really a question of WP:Weight not verifiability.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:43, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
        • No, that would be an oversimplification. And frankly, this has been a significant problem with the way this RfC has developed. Almost all of the "sourcing" comes from the original interview. There's been no independent verification by any mainstream media sources beyond the standard denial by the Biden campaign. In fact, what we would consider the "normal" mainstream media sources have largely steered clear of the claim, which is telling. The fact is, if this claim is not gaining mainstream media traction, it strongly suggests the claim may be viewed as dubious. If that is the case, it fails to meet the WP:WEIGHT standard, because it does not rise above the "noise" level you expect with notable figures who are on the receiving end of what turn out to be spurious claims. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:49, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
          • But again, the fact that an allegation has been made is verifiable; we can all see the interview ourselves and any sources who have rehashed the story have surely seen the interview themselves. So... verifiability has been established through several RS. Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:59, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
            • That's an absurdly low bar to pass. Literally anyone with an axe to grind could give an interview accusing any public figure of anything, and by your standards we would have to include it here. Obviously that is not the case, which is why we look for significant coverage in a preponderance of mainstream reliable sources. Can you explain why so many of the usual mainstream reliable sources have ignored this story, despite it being a week old? -- Scjessey (talk) 20:07, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
              • Yes, if the allegations gains media traction and are noteworthy enough they should be included. Tara Reade's allegations passes both bars and hence should be included. For example, the allegations have been covered by economist. The mainstream sources CNN, MSNBC, and The New York Times, which have not been covering the allegations may be ignoring them because they don't want to hurt Joe Biden's presidential campaign.

              The deciding factors are whether the allegations are noteworthy and have been covered by verifiable sources. In this case they have and therefore they should be included in the article. ImTheIP (talk) 04:12, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

        Scjessey I don't think your statement above is accurate. By my count The Hill, Vox, and Fox (for generally reliable sources) and Newsweek (less reliable) have done at least 1 independent interview with Reade and/or with Biden staff. They rightly reference The Intercept (broke the story in reference to the podcast), but each have done independent verification.--Davemoth (talk) 20:11, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

        I feel like you're not hearing me.  The allegation is readily verifiable, RS who have rehashed the story have verified that the allegations simply exists, so what we have to determine is whether to give it weight.  WP:V has been met.  Has WP:Weight?  Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:17, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

        And you are not hearing me. It has received very little mainstream media coverage. It is not to be found on MSNBC, CNN, CBS News, ABC News, or any of the big newspapers like NYT, WaPo, WSJ, Chicago Tribune, LA Times, SF Chronicle, or a bunch of others. This LACK of coverage CONFIRMS that it doesn't pass WP:WEIGHT, which says that in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources. It cannot be said to be prevalent at all. I'm frankly mystified that this isn't blindingly obvious. Again, I ask you why do you think so many mainstream reliable sources have ignored the story? -- Scjessey (talk) 20:25, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

        Sorry, that was a rhetorical question. So I hope we now agree that this passes WP:V, and we can focus now on WP:WEIGHT.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:27, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

        Oh, to your question: I think it's pretty obvious that those mainstream news sources are not good RS for stories like this; I think they have a demonstrated record of bias in favor of corporate Democrats  Kolya Butternut (talk) 21:12, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

        Petra, this Salon article sums up my position quite well. [27]Gandydancer (talk) 06:22, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

        I think a source like Salon, which has not earned WP's stamp of reliability, deserves a bit of investigation before it should be trusted. In this case, the reporter who broke this allegation story, the esteemed Ryan Grim (who also broke the Kavanaugh story), caught the Salon writer fabricating one claim in the article that resulted in a smear of the accuser (see thread). This piece by Hill TV is a good, thourough assessment of that particular article (watch here). petrarchan47คุก 15:48, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

        • Salon was forced to amend the article. petrarchan47คุก 16:34, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

• Not yet There has been some coverage from reliable sources but not enough to warrant inclusion at this stage. It's similar to the Trump Jane Doe case in terms of coverage right now. Worth revisiting if that changes.LM2000 (talk) 21:42, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
  • The Jane Doe case is different because she was anonymous.[28] Tara Reade has given several recorded interviews. Jane Doe RfC Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:59, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
    • Roe v. Wade was anonymous too. TFD (talk) 04:11, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
      • I was referencing the Doe case to compare the coverage, not the nature of the cases themselves.LM2000 (talk) 06:43, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

The Economist magazine now has an article on the incident.

• "How to weigh an allegation of assault against Joe Biden - Democrats who thought Brett Kavanaugh should not be on the Supreme Court are ignoring Mr Biden's accuser". The Economist. April 4, 2020. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patapsco913 (talk • contribs) 02:52, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
• Yes The claim seems more credible than the ones made against Brett Kavanaugh that we allow multiple paragraphs on here. There are plenty sources that discuss it and even ask why the mainstream media is ignoring it[29] even though its not apparently the only time he's behaved inappropriately [30].--MONGO (talk) 05:29, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
  • With respect, if mainstream sources are "ignoring" it, that's precisely why we wouldn't include it in the article. We don't discuss fringe material and we don't right great wrongs. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 05:33, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
    • I guess different people understand what "mainstream sources" are in different ways. Mainstream media outlets should never dictate what should and should not be included on Wikipedia. Each media outlet has an agenda. The story has definitely been reported in big media outlets (Newsweek, Fox News, Huffington Post etc.) but has not been reported by "mainstream" "liberal" media (like CNN or MSNBC), who are so far ignoring the story completely. BeŻet (talk) 12:36, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
      • I'm not sure why this has to be constantly be repeated, but perhaps it is necessary. Newsweek is a poor source since it ceased being a newspaper. Fox News is not a reliable source in the Real World. Huffington Post is a news aggregator that, like Newsweek, is a clickbait site. Where's WaPo? Where's NYT? Where's WSJ? We need proper, reliable mainstream media sources. Also, allegations against other individuals being mentioned here as "justification" for violating WP:WEIGHT had massive coverage across all sources, which this absolutely does not. Why is this still up for debate? Madness. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:20, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
      • There is plenty of other news right now for all news to report on but I concur that we are not beholdened by what is offered or not offered by hypocritical left of center new sources. There are more than adequate sources to support this short mention as it also includes the Biden campaigns denial, which is of course to be expected. Scjessey, FoxNews IS deemed reliable by Wikipedia as shown by multiple Rfcs.--MONGO (talk) 14:39, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

        WRONG. Fox News is only reliable for what Fox News says, but it is not reliable for anything else. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:41, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

        Then draw up a new Rfc and see if you can succeed in getting it disqualifed.--MONGO (talk) 14:45, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

        • Scjessey, there is no policy that says we must wait until a few certain sources carry information before we can include it. There is only WP:RS. There is no WP:BUTONLYTHESERS. If the burden of DUE is overcome by other RS not including WaPo, NYT, or CNN, then we can freely include it here. Wikipedia collects knowledge from a broad spectrum, not simply just 3 US news organizations who can't and don't cover everything. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:06, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
          • @Mr Ernie: There's no policy that says we must wait for certain sources; however, we do expect BLPs to be based on the prevailing view in a preponderance of reliable sources. As I have stated before, the fact that almost none of the usual mainstream reliable sources that cover politicians have covered this allegation is very telling. In fact, one could reasonably state that the absence of coverage indicates the skepticism on the part of the mainstream media. Sufficient time has now passed that one would have expected these better sources to have covered the story, but they haven't. Why do you suppose that is? Why do you suppose only low quality sources associated with Biden opponents have covered it? -- Scjessey (talk) 17:58, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
            • Yes, that is a good point and I do not know why. This seems to be a departure from the multitude of the "believe all women" articles that were run alongside the Kavanaugh allegations. Both the Biden and Kavanaugh accusations were both a bit short on verifiable facts, but stemmed from the credibility of the accusations themselves. What makes Reade any less credible that Blasey Ford? I don't know the answer to that. But with Kavanaugh we also saw that two of the claims, one on that boat and the other in Colorado, were falsehoods. What is different about the Reade claim and the Blasey Ford claim? What facts are WaPo, NYT, et al party to about the Reade claim that weren't there with the Blasey Ford claim? What's the main difference between the two men? I think the main outlets are doing us a disservice by not reporting why they don't think the Reade allegation is notable enough to report about, when other RS have found that it is. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:13, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
• Comment MONGO says: "The claim seems more credible than the ones made against Brett Kavanaugh". Complete nonsense. You have a source which says this or are you just making stuff up? Volunteer Marek 18:06, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
  • I would say the claims are quite similar. Both are nearly impossible to verify and both were denied by the alleged offending party. However one received near universal coverage and the other didn't run in the major US outlets. One was corroborated by witnesses at the time and the other denied by the witnesses at the time. Is that an issue with the allegations or with those that cover such stories? Mr Ernie (talk) 18:13, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Whether or not the claim is true is irrevalant here (no, I’m not going to post to that Medium piece again. Nor even the Salon piece) What does matter is how reliable sources discuss the claim. The Kavanaugh accusations (which should not be brought up as per WP:OTHERSTUFF) have been discussed in The New York Times, The Washington Post, Reuters, Wall Street Journal, etc. The Biden sexual assualt accusion (which is different than the sexual harassment allegations from last year) has not had coverage from any of these top-level sources as of today. Samboy (talk) 21:33, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
• Comment - a minor pause to acknowledge the obvious concerns stemming from what appears to be confusion over RS and the material we are allowed to include. See WP:NEWSORG, since that is what we are dealing with now rather than scholarly sources written with retrospect. With relevance to WP:PUBLICFIGURE and NEWSORG, our guidelines say we can...:

  1. [take] information from opinion content, the identity of the author may help determine reliability. The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint.[notes 2] If the statement is not authoritative, attribute the opinion to the author in the text of the article and do not represent it as fact. Reviews for books, movies, art, etc. can be opinion, summary or scholarly pieces.[7][8]
  2. The reporting of rumors has a limited encyclopedic value, although in some instances verifiable information about rumors may be appropriate (i.e. if the rumors themselves are noteworthy, regardless of whether or not they are true).

  ...resume the usual banter, please. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 18:40, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

  • None of the opinion pieces are presented are by recognized experts. As policy says, Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact. If recognized experts like Alan Dershowitz or Laurence Tribe write about the case, it would be rs. TFD (talk) 20:14, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

  What part of the above or the following is not clear to you, TFD - If the statement is not authoritative, attribute the opinion to the author in the text of the article and do not represent it as fact.? We include it - we just don't say it in WikiVoice as fact. It is an allegation, not a fact, and the author is simply quoting what someone else said, not expressing their own opinion. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 00:33, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

  I did not say anything was not clear to me. If you cannot understand what other editors say or what policy or guidelines say, I don't understand what you are arguing about. TFD (talk) 03:33, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

  As someone who feels 4 Deuces has a better argument than Atsme here (For something as WP:EXTRAORDINARY as this rape allegation, we need mainstream coverage, not just coverage from otherwise reliable sources), and as someone who understands the frustration with being cooped up, please assume good faith and please do not make it personal. We need to stay calm and collected here and not make things a personal mudfest. Thank you. Samboy (talk) 04:56, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

• Yes. It is important we mention this significant event. There are sources, and Wikipedia covers other allegations just like this one. But it is important we describe the allegation in an unbiased manner. Ma nam is geoffrey (talk) (talk) 18:21, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
• Comment the personal opinions of users as to whether these allegations are truthful or credible are immaterial and should be ignored by the closer as they do not meet the standard of a policy-based argument. Wikipedia should include information published in WP:RS in a way that is mediated by WP:DUE and WP:BLP. It is a fact that these allegations exist; we're discussing whether to mention these allegations, not whether they are true. Your personal thoughts on whether said allegations are true are irrelevant.Jancarcu (talk) 19:00, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
• WGBH-TV makes the very plausible argument that perhaps media coverage of coronavirus has eclipsed the recent allegation of sexual assault against Biden. UpdateNerd (talk) 16:47, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

  Perhaps the CV has created busy newrooms such that in-depth investigative reporting on this allegation must wait, however mentioning the verifiable facts that the allegation was made, and that Biden has denied it (which is all we are proposing to include here) was no problem for many outlets such as Vox, The Economist, Huffington Post, The Intercept, Fox News, and others. WGBH segment asks why Biden has yet to "face scrutiny", which is different from reporting simple facts amid the CV crisis.

  It's not a bad piece, except it contains a few errors. She never said she wasn't wearing underwear, rather that she had no pantyhose on. She didn't "change her story", she always said there was more to it but wasn't ready to come out until last month.petrarchan47คุก 18:36, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

  This is not because of COVID. Just do a Google news search for Joe Biden to see all the frivolous pieces published by the more popular media over the past two weeks. Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:42, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

• Yes There seems to well be enough coverage, not just Fox but Newsweek, Vox, The Guardian etc. Vox even states that it has "ignited a firestorm of controversy". I think it would be an odd editorial stance to leave this completely out of the article. --Pudeo (talk) 12:21, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
• Neutral. If there's reporting by high-quality RS, then yes. If it's to be included with this low-quality sourcing, then it should be added as one sentence to the preexisting section in Biden's article on his inappropriate touching. The sentence could say: "In 2020, Biden was accused of sexual assault by a woman; the Biden campaign denied the accusation." I will also expect the numerous editors who would usually staunchly oppose adding similarly poorly sourced content on the pages of conservative politicians to consistently apply their newfound principles to future content disputes on pages related to conservatism. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:30, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

  Not "a" woman. Eight.[31] Eight brave women have come forward to speak their truth about their experiences with Joe Biden. That doesn't include any of the children in this report[32], who Joe Biden is seen massaging, stroking, and attempting to provide with unwanted kisses. As for the application of "newfound principles" to "conservative politicians," one can only note that Christine Ford, Deborah Ramirez, and Julie Swetnick all have their own bolded sections on Justice Kavanaugh's page, and none of them have any evidence or corroboration (only contradicting statements) to back their claims. But hey, it's on TV and in the newspaper, so it must be true. Really though, at this point, Joe Biden sexual misconduct allegations should not be in red font. 2600:1700:D281:27D0:C58B:4E79:1EDD:8409 (talk) 04:27, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

  And the article already mentions "inappropriate touching" of women and children. While I accept that not everything on TV and in the newspapers is true, those are the sources we use. "Verifiability, not truth." TFD (talk) 13:14, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

• Not Yet - not enough WEIGHT at this time. It seems recent, so maybe in another few weeks. Googling I see 146 Million hits for Biden, and adding sexual assault Reade only 176 thousand show up. Only a 0.1% prominence doesn’t feel DUE coverage. Biden and sexual assault is showing 7.8 M hits though so may be something there. While the story is being presented by major outlets (e.g. CNN, Guardian, Newsweek, etc) as are mentions of other women (Lapps and Flores)... this particular one does not seem enough WEIGHT at this time. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 06:03, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
• Yes - Should've been done a long time ago. And to wait for MSM to cover stuff that makes "their" candidate look bad is like waiting for end of time. It looks like a clear consensus is made in favor of including the sexual assault, and it's time to wrap this up. Beatitudinem (talk) 13:42, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

  Any !votes based on the claim the mainstream media is in the tank for Biden, rather than based on Wikipedia policies, should be ignored by the closer of this RfC. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:59, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

  I agree with you that this should be about policy. I don't think Beatitudinem (or few other Yes !votes) has based their vote on that. I think their point is more that waiting for each editor's 'perfect' sources is a fool's errand.--Davemoth (talk) 16:03, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

  If people just claim that top-tier sources are silent because of their bias as a blanket statement then I agree. But in this case, that hypothesis is made in some of the mid-tier reliable sources we have. Therefore it can be connected to policy. Connor Behan (talk) 17:27, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

• Yes, include at least a short paragraph describing the allegation, Biden's response, and at least some aspect of the public and media response (e.g. noted by Pudeo above). -Darouet (talk) 16:37, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
• Yes Limit to to about three sentences, describing the allegations and the Biden team's denial. There is no real concern over the sourcing per Davemoth's analysis here. As to WP:WEIGHT, as Current Affairs ([33]) and others have noted, this accusation fits into a pattern of allegations of inappropriate touching. It is not our place as editors to exclude the assault allegation simply because it appears to be a step up from what was reported in Apr 2019. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 22:59, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
  • • This editor again cites Davemoth's poorly based rationale for adding the content, which includes the false claim that a webshow hosted on the Hill website (by two cranks) is a RS. Current Affairs is an avowedly pro-Bernie Sanders website and has published a slew of downright embarrassing articles - not a RS or an indicator of notability. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:14, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
      • Even discounting the webshow previously claimed to be hosted on The Hill, there is still Vox and "a slew" of other RS per Atsme. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 23:35, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
• Comment Alyssa Milano has explained why Time's Up refused to fund Reade's claims.[34] She said the allegation was insufficient to launch an investigation and said that if the claims were credible then mainstream media would cover them. She pointed out that she had waited before publicly commenting on allegations against Harvey Weinstein and Brett Kavanaugh until they received substantial coverage. (I am using Fox News as a source for her comments because it is the only major news media to cover them.) If this article is to be fair and balanced, her comments should be included, as well as those who criticized her and her reactions to these criticisms. We can't just say that accusations have been made and denied, because it leaves the reader with no criteria with which to decide how credible the claims are. TFD (talk) 12:05, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
  • So, in other words, you don't think the allegation merits inclusion at all despite multiple WP:RS, but if included would require balancing with a celebrity's opinion because it aligns with your perspective? Zloyvolsheb (talk) 15:46, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
    • No, I am saying that if we decide a topic ignored in mainstream media (except Fox News) meets weight, then we have to provide the same weight to the topic as the alternative sources we use. And they all have cited Milano's interview as part of the story. Milano is treated in the media as a de facto spokesperson for "Time's Up." which was founded by celebrities. You will note that the Me Too movement arose after allegations of sexual assault against Hollywood executives. Hollywood employs celebrities. Milano originally coined the Me Too hashtag. It's important to understand what alternative media have written about the case and to have a general understanding of Me Too and Time's Up when deciding what should be in the article. TFD (talk) 04:18, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
      • I'm not personally a fan of Fox, but to be fair it is seen as "generally reliable" by the Wikipedia community per WP:RSP. So is The Times, also mainstream, among other sources. But speaking of Alyssa Milano and Fox, would you like to include Rose McGowan, who's also weighed in on Biden? [35] Zloyvolsheb (talk) 04:53, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
        • In the Intercept article it was explained clearly that Time’s Up told Tara they couldn’t help her because they feared loosing their tax exempt status. It’s not clear why Milano would make this up when anyone can prove her wrong in seconds.
        • From ‘’Law and Crime’’ “While we were engaged with her, we informed Ms. Reade that our 501(c)(3) precluded us from funding [public relations] and associated legal fees for her. That status mandates a strict and absolute prohibition on participating in electioneering or political campaign activity, and in this situation, we were dealing with the involvement of a candidate and close proximity to primary elections. Ms. Reade said she understood our position–and publicly confirmed this in an interview with Rising on March 26. Ms. Reade continued to engage with us in trying to find attorneys who might provide her assistance not contingent on our funding, until our conversation with her on March 2 after which we have not heard from her. We maintained then–as we do now–that we are willing to continue to try to find Ms. Reade legal assistance; we simply cannot fund any fees associated with that activity.” petrarchan47คุก 05:33, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
          • That's what they say but other sources say that was a cover. Following your paradigm, we need to publish all interpretations. And the story just got bigger as Rose McGowan called Milano a fraud. Meanwhile no mention whatsoever in ABC, CBS or NBC News or the New York Times or USA Today, although a brief mention was made in the Washington Post. TFD (talk) 23:57, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
            • What "other sources" are you considering RS for this ""cover" conspiracy?
            • Tara Reade today tweeted, Any attempt to say my case was not accepted in an effort to defame or smear me will not stand. I have 20 emails. Retract your defamatory statement immediately @Alyssa_Milano petrarchan47คุก 02:14, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
• Yes, one to two sentences should be suitable to cover the controversy. I know that this is already a big article, but this has been given plenty of mainstream media coverage and does deserve maybe two sentences. Worldlywise (talk) 16:26, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
• Yes, I believe a few sentences would be sufficient. However, do be wary as this is still a developing situation and although may be unrelated, an edit to Me_Too_movement should be looked at as well now that it seems to be gaining traction. Elli21486 (talk) 18:28, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
• Yes. This allegation has showed up in enough publications that I was surprised when I came to this article and found zero mention of it, even in the multi-paragraph "Controversies" section. Einsof (talk) 19:34, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
• Canvassing. A subreddit comprised largely of fringe kooks of one sort or another is directing people towards this RfC. The people on that subreddit generally have Wikipedia editing experience (usually Wikipedia editors who are disgruntled that content on Wikipedia doesn't reflect their warped views of the world), so there may be experienced accounts in this RfC who have been drawn here solely due to that reddit thread. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:23, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

  Assuming the speculation above is true, which ironically is in solid NOTAFORUM territory, it shouldn't make a difference outside of normal disruption housekeeping concerns. For the purposes of this RfC, it doesn't matter how many editors come to the page or whether you feel that their worldview is "warped." What matters is if Tara Reade's powerful story is covered in what Wikipedia believes to be reliable sources, which it is. As Muboshgu wisely pointed out today, RfC results aren't determined by a count of !votes from each side. There shouldn't have been an RfC or full page protection here for such a cut and dry content addition, but now that there is it should clearly have been wrapped up within days of its opening. 2600:1700:D281:27D0:190D:415B:22E4:83C0 (talk) 20:52, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

  Snooganssnoogans, which subreddit? I imagine the RfCs closing admin will want to know where comments (like the above) originated from. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:00, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

  Oh, I forgot to link to it: https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiInAction/comments/fuduz7/how_a_handful_of_media_outlets_shape_wikipedia/ Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:25, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

  So fix it: Wikipedia:Centralized discussion. But beware of the Streisand effect. Calling them "fringe kooks of one sort or another" isn't very becoming of the Wikipedia ideal, which is to edit with a neutral mindset. Their opinions may not be mainstream, but they hardly seem crazy. And if we're not counting !votes, numbers shouldn't matter. wbm1058 (talk) 22:50, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

  Fixed - added to centralized discussion on April 8, 2020. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 18:55, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

  This is my first time coming across that subreddit, and ugh, it's existence is infuriating. Discussions about Wikipedia should take place on Wikipedia, where if you start to do something like canvassing, you can be held accountable. There's no accountability on that subreddit for posts like the linked one, and no way to tell how many of the !voters here were canvassed there. If we can identify the accounts posting there to reprimand them, or take other action to try to shut it down, we absolutely should. And regarding WP:CENT, this really shouldn't have to go there since it affects only a single article, not anything project-wide, but it may be necessary to clog it up now to combat the canvassing. (Or this discussion should just be closed, since it's had plenty of participation and there's little left unsaid.) {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:25, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

  There are many, many places all over the Internet where discussion about Wikipedia is taking place. You could ask Reddit and other tech companies to "shut down" any speech involving this website, but I don't know how much success one would have. As others have stated, whether or not anyone was canvassed here is fairly irrelevant unless overt disruption is occurring. The reasons behind the votes is what the closer must weigh, which essentially comes down to: "Is Tara Reade's powerful story covered in The Reliable Sources?" This question of course has already been answered, so we're all just waiting for the RfC closure and subsequent unlocking of the page so that we can update the article. 2600:1700:D281:27D0:16E:24F:DC8B:C531 (talk) 20:48, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

• Yes. I disagree that we should not include controversies and allegations unless they have 'sufficient coverage'. I do not believe that political bias is the reason behind the lack of media coverage; it is likely because of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. Another allegation of sexual assault is simply not important enough to report on at this time. It is, however, notable enough to include as a brief entry on a public figure running for office. MassAffected (talk) 14:04, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
• No, not yet, per the reasons provided by MelanieN and Neutrality. Aoi (青い) (talk) 14:13, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
• Yes a few sentences would be sufficient should be suitable to cover the controversy as it is sourced in the The Economist and The Guardian amongst others.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:46, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
• Yes It should definitely be included as it is being published by a variety of news sources and is surprising to see it not included on this page. A few sentences should suffice - no need for a large article on the subject. Also - the fact is that she is accusing him of sexual assault and his campaign has responded which makes it noteworthy enough to be included in this article. (NOTE - Multiple reliable sources have covered that his deputy campaign manager Kate Bedingfield has denied these claims - so although the allegation itself isn't documented well - it has been documented that his campaign has responded and denied the allegations. - Must include per WP:BLPPUBLIC)willydrach^talk 18:06, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

References

• You lost me when you cited The Daily Mail as a source. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:49, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

  At this point it should be clear to any honest editor that Tara Reade's experience, along with those of the other 7-8 women who have come forward to share their highly credible allegations, should be documented in this article as well as a separate Joe Biden sexual assault allegations article. There are simply too many allegations of misconduct, covered in reliable sources, to ignore. I understand the administration's predicament. If an admin closes the RfC in favor of "include," they risk losing their liberal card and possibly even their admin powers as retaliation for not doing their part to help "defeat the most dangerous president in our history." If an admin closes the RfC in favor of "exclude," they lose all credibility and any pretense of this being a neutral, objective, non-partisan encyclopedia. It's a tough spot, but someone needs to step up. It's been over a week. 2600:1700:D281:27D0:74EB:63F2:9FA7:AD33 (talk) 18:57, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

  While I do think the allegations are noteworthy and should be included in this article, I am not sure if I agree on the need for whole page on the subject. I do hope and trust that editors alike can put aside political bias and adjudicate this RfC accordingly based on WikiPedia rules for the benefit of the readers here. ^talk 9:59, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

  I hope so too, but I'm not holding my breath given precedent. Also I wasn't advocating for a separate page just for Tara Reade, rather all eight women. Bill Clinton sexual misconduct allegations was created with just four credible allegations. Brett Kavanaugh's sexual assault allegations isn't its own page, but there are 10(!) paragraphs devoted to Christine Ford's claim (for which there is no evidence or corroboration, which her best friend says is false and revealed that she was pressured by the FBI to falsely corroborate), and two other claims of which there is no evidence or corroboration that have their own paragraphs. Joe Biden has had eight women come forward, and many of the allegations are on videotape. The allegations should have their own article. It's just too much to ignore. 2600:1700:D281:27D0:74EB:63F2:9FA7:AD33 (talk) 00:54, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Maybe after you get more experience than just editing this RfC you will realize that this in not how we do things here. We're not here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. - MrX 🖋 11:11, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Not one of the sources you listed is acceptable for such material, and WP:BLPPUBLIC does not require us to include anything. WP:BLP has to be taken as a whole, and WP:DUEWEIGHT requires that we don't amplify something with sparse coverage. - MrX 🖋 11:11, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

• Yes I'm British and so have no partisan interest in this; I'm just here because it's listed at WP:CENT. The newspaper which I find most reliable and respectable is The Economist and they have some coverage of the matter. If we consider other recent high-profile cases such as Alex Salmond and George Pell, we see that the allegations are covered in their Wikipedia articles, even though they have both been acquitted. We already have a section about other similar allegations in Biden's article and so it seems reasonable to include a brief mention of this one too. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:59, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
• Comment - If ya'll are waiting for CNN & MSNBC to cover this story? It's gonna be a long wait. GoodDay (talk) 22:22, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Long wait indeed. The story is now being covered by Britain's The Independent [36], Spanish TV Channel Antena 3 [37] and Czech Public Radio [38]. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 22:34, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

• The article in The Independent is not "coverage" — it is a piece in the "arts and entertainment" section about one celebrity attacking another celebrity on Twitter for her support of Biden, and referencing the allegation in her tweet. That is what you're choosing to hang your hat on? Neutrality^talk 20:49, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

• I am choosing to hang my hat on the combined coverage across multiple sources: first and foremost would be sources like The Intercept, The Times, Vox, and Fox News - all sources which the community has accepted, and the additional coverage in dozens of other sources, which has now gone worldwide. Some of the additional coverage reflects the split among the Me Too figures Milano and McGowan over supporting Biden or Reade. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 21:31, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

• Support per User:petrarchan47. The plethora of RSs as demonstrated show that this is worthy of inclusion and is WP:DUE weight. Furthermore, it passes WP:REDFLAG as multiple RSs have described the topic in detail. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 00:42, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
• No BLP says to use caution on stories that are this outlandish and still evolving. Wikipedia is also not a tabloid and this is still a questionable story. Also I see quite a few new accounts supporting its addition. That also raises more questions. ContentEditman (talk) 01:35, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
  • I checked and didn't find more than 1-2 newish accounts on the Yes side. Really? Zloyvolsheb (talk) 03:06, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
• Not yet There is a reason why these allegations have not yet been reported in mainstream media - they have not been properly fact-checked. Until that happens they should not be mentioned in the article per BLP. P-K3 (talk) 11:08, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
• Comment Most of the "yes" votes suggest "a very brief mention", "two or three sentences", etc. How can you mention in a biography of a living person that they were charged with a sexual assault very briefly in less than three sentences? You can't. I don't believe that this charge should be included until it has been investigated, which would result in extended coverage by all the major media outlets. If we decide to include it at this stage we must at least cover it with the full information that we have so far, not a couple of sentences. Gandydancer (talk) 13:45, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Which, BTW, makes it a Catch 22 in which by reporting it at length with a full recounting of what has transpired, we add weight to the charge and make it to seem to be a major episode in his life. ...best to leave it out for now and wait to see what develops, if anything. Gandydancer (talk) 13:58, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

• Yes At least something should be added as many news sources have begun to pick up the story. The intercept has a very good article covering why Times Up lawyers did not take the case. In a later update to the article, they claim to have reached out to Tara's brother and friend who confirmed that she did indeed relay the same events right after it happened in 1993.

(edit conflict) It already is a pretty big episode in his life. If my memory serves, supporters of then candidate Trump didn't think the salacious allegations against him warranted inclusion and the same for Kavanaugh during his appointment - but they were included, and separate articles were eventually created as more allegations were published. It's not about truth - it's about verifiability. And then there is perspective, which is why we have RfCs. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 16:11, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

"It's about 'verifiability.'" — Well, no, it's also about WEIGHT. WP:V: "Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion." Neutrality^talk 20:46, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

• Not now, although Reliable Sources will surely further investigate this and probably have more to say in the future. We will almost certainly have a clearer picture by the time this RFC closes.
  Given the overwhelming level of coverage of Biden it is a redflag that almost none of them report it, and most of the coverage that does exist is mostly reporting that it is not being covered. They often giving good reasons why reputable sources are being cautious. Per BLP we have to be cautious. Our job is to determine whether RS say it belongs in a biography, and (so far) they are largely saying no. Alsee (talk) 15:53, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
• Yes. Just looking at UK sources because those are the ones I'm more familiar with, we have coverage in The Times, The Independent, The Guardian, and The Economist. All of these are absolutely mainstream sources, considered generally reliable, and they cover a variety of political positions. the wub "?!" 20:21, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

• This is a distortion. These are, by and large, not "coverage" of the allegation. The Independent post is in the "arts and entertainment" section and about one celebrity attacking another celebrity on Twitter for her Biden support and referencing the allegation in her tweet. The Guardian post is a "Comment is Free" op-ed blog post. The Economist is a meta-piece opinion piece entitled "How to Weight an Allegation of Assault Against Joe Biden" that appears to be primarily mostly about media/political reaction, not the merits of the allegation. The Times of London mentions this allegation extremely briefly, it is not the focus of the article, nor is it mentioned in the first three paragraphs. This is basically cherry-picking. It is certainly insufficient to shoehorn a salacious claim into a BLP. Neutrality^talk 20:46, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

• User:Neutrality Do you consider the various articles from Fox, DailyMail & The Huffington Post on his deputy campaign adviser responding to the comments "insufficient" as well? His campaign obviously took the time to address the allegation which is noteworthy. --willydrach^talk 22:13, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

References

• Those are low-quality sources (the Daily Mail has actually been formally deprecated), but even if they were "reliable" this would fail the UNDUE and BLP tests. Just because a claim is denied doesn't mean it is noteworthy. Neutrality^talk 22:20, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

• Yes per Davemoth and the wub.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 20:37, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
• Yes: Supported by multiple reliable sources. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Media blackout#Contemporary. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:44, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
• Comment Is there a place where someone is keeping track of the reliable sources that have covered Tara Reade's brave decision to come forward and reveal her heartbreaking story of her experiences with Joe Biden? We have another one, that I haven't seen yet. The American Prospect wrote a piece detailing Reade's story, and the media's decision to largely ignore it.[39] The American Prospect, it should be noted, is not just a liberal news site - it describes its mission as "to advance liberal and progressive goals." In other words, their primary goal of the moment is to defeat Donald Trump. Yet they're still reporting it. I think we've exceeded a dozen reliable sources now. And this RfC is still open, and the page is still admin-only. Unfathomable. 2600:1700:D281:27D0:A488:2795:3925:B70B (talk) 05:27, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

• I think the list of sources is no longer being updated and newer ones are just scattered throughout the comments above. By the way, we now have two more. These are stories about the campaign and they still think Reade's allegation has enough weight. Connor Behan (talk) 19:04, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

• Yes - with the usual caveats it is notable, but any coverage we give needs to be due, and should not dwell on prurient content or allegations that are only there for the scandal value. Biographically this event is currently very minor, but as it evolves may become more significant and as such we then may expand the coverage. Koncorde (talk) 07:21, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
• Yes – The basic criteria of WP:BLPPUBLIC has been satisfied. We have multiple, major publications acknowledging that the allegations exist, and they are well-documented. Biden's camp has even responded with denial, which has also been reported. Both should be mentioned per the example given at this policy excerpt. Arguments against, which cite WP:EXCEPTIONAL, are misguided. This is not about the content behind the allegation or the likelihood that they're true/false. This is about the existence of allegations and their relevance to the subject, neither of which should be considered exceptional given the number of sources, both major and minor. It should also be taken into account the number of mainstream sources reporting on this outside of the US, some of which are even left-leaning (The Economist, The Guardian, etc.). The level of impartiality and objectivity from left-leaning, mainstream sources in the US could be compromised on the subject. After all, it's their leading presidential candidate. #WP:WORLDVIEW --GoneIn60 (talk) 08:50, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
• Yes But something does not feel right about the text. Its sources by I am unsure about the exact wording.Slatersteven (talk) 08:52, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
• Not yet Yes with rewrite Wait for WP:RS to cover it directly and not in op-eds. If there's something to this, reliable sources will follow. Let's give time to vet. Ratatosk Jones (talk) 10:48, 10 April 2020 (UTC) Good thing that we waited, since we now have reliable sourcing from the NYT. Obviously we can't use the text above (and we need to ditch weak sources like Newsweek and Heavy), and it needs to be rewritten in the light of the NYT article. Ratatosk Jones (talk) 05:39, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Not in op-eds? They are abundant. Just to name a few: Newsweek, HuffPost, Vox, Current Affairs, International Business Times --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:22, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

• Not yet Echoing the concerns of Alsee. If it is to be included, we must be very careful not to give undue weight to it, and I think a preceding sentence would be necessary detailing a) the previous allegation, n) the Biden campaign's response, and c) that Alyssa Milano has given a response detailing why Times Up did not take the case forward. However, first and foremost I urge caution, a principal we must follow on such topics with WP:BLP. I also worry about the effect of this RfC being directly linked in a popular subreddit, as Snooganssnoogans noted. Domeditrix (talk) 11:35, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
• Yes There are reliable sources (listed by others above) reporting on this. Some1 (talk) 21:39, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
• Yes its no different than the allegations that are on trump's page, and others. as stated above, the sources need to be better than the ones in the post and there are others posted above. hes the presumptive democratic nominee, the allegations are public, are newsworthy, but his response definitely must be included as well. ToeFungii (talk) 06:22, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
• Comment Business Insider has run a story regarding the newly filed criminal complaint here. Surely a criminal complaint against a presidential nominee is notable. Mr Ernie (talk) 10:46, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

  I saw this article also. For me, this elevates the matter into the same realm as the Stormy Daniels story with Trump. I'm still opposed to inclusion because of the lack of coverage in the more mainstream sources, but it has now reached the point where I find the lack of coverage somewhat perplexing. I can only conclude it's because of a lack of credibility, but I feel we're already past the point where that should matter. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:38, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

In no shape or form is Tara Reade's brave decision to come forward and reveal her harrowing experience "in the same realm" as two consenting adults having an encounter (which Trump denies even happened). Really disturbing that in 2020, someone would view sexual assault as suddenly "being elevated into the same realm" to consensual sex, but only after the victim files a criminal complaint. And no, it's not because of a "lack of credibility" that the pro-Biden media has largely ignored the story. It's because they're pro-Biden, as numerous editors have explained to you here. 2600:1700:D281:27D0:748C:E7F1:4144:831C (talk) 15:37, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Being in the "same realm" policywise is different from being in the same realm morally. Please WP:AGF. Connor Behan (talk) 15:58, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

• Mr. Ernie "criminal complaints" are filed all the time. This is not an indictment, just somebody taking her apparently non-notable grievance to the cops. Your "surely notable" opinion is Original Research and irrelevant. SPECIFICO talk 14:30, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Criminal complaints are filed against presidential nominees and written up in Business Insider all the time? Connor Behan (talk) 15:58, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

I think there's already consensus that publication in Business Insider doesn't meet the bar for automatic inclusion in the article. SPECIFICO talk 20:09, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

I specifically asked about Business Insider at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Media blackout#Contemporary and the consensus at the relkiable sources noticeboard was that it was not reliable. It's worth reading that discussion to see what sources were considered reliable. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:10, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

• I agree with User:Scjessey and User:SPECIFICO. We need better sources other than Newsweek, Daily Mail and Business Insider which are not the most reliable. This is a breaking news story. We should use caution in what we include. At a minimum we should at least have reliable reporting that MPD has acknowledged that a complaint has been received. Since the Statue of Limitations expired over 12 years ago on the alleged incident, which Ms. Reade has acknowledged, what purpose is served in filing a report? IMO we should wait and see what develops on this. CBS527^Talk 16:09, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
• Yes, with caveats: As much as I would prefer, above all else, coverage in the major United States newspapers, the criminal complaint and the overall weight of the sources (including British ones, but also The Hill, Current Affairs, etc.) altogether necessitate my vote for inclusion at this time. Naturally, we must be exceptionally careful about how we describe this claim; and a few sentences, at most, should be enough to detail it. — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 19:00, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

From the New York Times, this morning: "Examining Tara Reade’s Sexual Assault Allegation Against Joe Biden" — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 14:52, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

• Yes per above. The story has been reported in several RS. Davey2116 (talk) 21:27, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
• Yes – multiple quality RSes have now reported on this, eg NYT, Economist. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 22:09, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
• Yes At first I was hesitant and had intended to vote no, as it hadn't been covered widely. But its now been picked up by the "big boys", like the NYTimes. I read their piece on it, and its clear that they did some exceptional journalism. We have the best sources talking about it, time to follow their lead. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:55, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
• Yes agree with what levivich said, multiple high quality sources like the NYT, Economist, NBC newsWashington Post etc. have reported this. This is also a public figure.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 21:55, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
• Yes. NYT and many other reliable sources have reported this. I would modify the proposed language by adding the recent NYT article as a source for the claims. Mdaniels5757 (talk) 21:49, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Proposed closure

• Proposed Closure At the moment, this RFC has been open 10 day and is over 20,000 words. Since the issue is a contentious one it will require an excessive amount of time for a single closer. I propose that we request a multiple, non-involved administrator close. Thoughts? CBS527^Talk 17:08, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

  RfCs usually run a lot longer than just 10 days. Typically they run at least twice as long as that, and often as long as a month. Given that we apparently have a canvassing issue with an off-wiki website, it would be prudent to let this run a bit longer. Fortunately, we are in no hurry. Wikipedia is not a news website and with something so controversial, we can afford to let everyone have their say. It will also give time for some of the more respected mainstream media sources to have a chance to weigh in. Now that Biden is the presumptive nominee of the Democratic Party and all eyes will be upon him, the abundance of coverage (or lack thereof) will likely decide this issue anyway. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:53, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

  What was the amount of time between Christine Ford's evidence-free accusation was pushed out by the media and the first of ten detailed paragraphs were written in Brett Kavanaugh's biography? Was it more than an hour? I don't think it was more than an hour. I think it was less than an hour. No "admin-only" page protection either, after a cursory review of the edit history. 2600:1700:D281:27D0:A488:2795:3925:B70B (talk) 05:21, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

  SPA says what? -- Scjessey (talk) 11:40, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

  Huh. You didn't provide the amount of time that had elapsed. That's odd. I thought for sure you would know the answer. Either way, you get the point. 2600:1700:D281:27D0:A488:2795:3925:B70B (talk) 14:32, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

  14 September 2018 (no time listed) Accusation published in The New Yorker. [40]

  18:57, 14 September 2018 Accusation added to Brett Kavanaugh page.[41]

  If anyone can figure out the exact time the New Yorker published, please post it. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:36, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

  The New Yorker allegation was reported by AP, picked up by the Guardian(19:14 BST),[42] CNBC (11:50 AM EST)[43] the New York Times,[44] Vox,[11:60am EDT)[45] BBC[46], CNN (Updated 4:10 PM ET,[47] USA Today (1:45 pm ET)[48] - and that's just the first page of a google search for Sept. 14.[49] The sexual assualt allegations were added to Kavanaugh's page at 18:47 UTC (2:47 pm EDT),[50] So the story was not added to the Wikipedia article until it had been widely reported in major media. I would have objected to including the story had it not been reported in major media. TFD (talk) 18:19, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

  So in other words, the same day. We've had mainstream sources for two weeks (noted near the end of the discussion section above if you need some examples), and yet sourcing is still being brought up as a potential obstacle to inclusion. I understand that updating the source list at the beginning of the RfC isn't ideal, but perhaps we need to create a new "Source" section below, where a complete list of the most significant can be compiled for all to see at quick glance. Such a list should exclude tabloid and questionable sources, of which too many have snuck into this discussion so far. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:42, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

  GoneIn60, the difference is that the Biden allegations were virtually ignored by mainstream media although they reported the Kavanaugh ones the same day. An editor was trying to show that Wikipedia editors had added the information to the Kavanaugh article before it hit mainstream news (i.e., when it had only appeared in the New Yorker.) In fact it had already been covered by them. My point was that if it had been ingnoreded by ABC, CBS, CNN, NBC/MSNBC, the New York Times, USAToday, the Washington Post and most other legacy media, I would not have supported inclusion. I have in fact made the same arguments in articles about Donald Trump, Tulsi Gabbard, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren and many other subjects. TFD (talk) 20:46, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

  • The arguments presented bring up a major dispute in the interpretation of policy. Can something that has been covered in alternative media but has virtually no coverage in mainline media be considered to have received substantial coverage in the body of sources? In the past this has not been a major problem because generally the coverage has come from conservative sources, but this story has been covered in alternative progressive media as well. So for example we would not have added to Obama's article accusations that he was a socialist, not an American citizen, Muslim terrorist until mainstream media had paid attention to them and we had informed opinion about their credibility. So it might be helpful to get a clarification of how weight applies to this type of situation first. TFD (talk) 19:54, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
  • I'm still monitoring this page, and I'm willing to close it or help close it when the time comes. I think a team close would be a good idea, but it doesn't look like there's a clear consensus yet so I would prefer to let the RfC run longer, especially given the points TFD brings up about wider policy considerations. — Wug·a·po·des​ 20:32, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
  • I would support a team close with non-involved, experienced admins, known to be apolitical and ideally from outside the U.S. I was thinking of people such as Thryduulf, who served on ArbCom. This is highly contentious, and I think not a good fit for newer admins (but what do I know?).

  TFD includes a misstatement in his assessment above. "virtually no coverage in mainline media" is provably false. It would be more accurate to say that about U.S. media, specifically. (But it's already on Fox cable news.) petrarchan47คุก 21:16, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

  The word "virtually" means "almost entirely: NEARLY" (Merrian-Webster).[51] While Fox covered the story, the other four major networks - ABC, CBS, CNN, NBC/MSNBC - did not. At issue is whether something that appears only in Fox could be said to be covered in the body of cable news coverage. That's important because there are lots of stories that are only covered in Fox News. I would like to preemptively state that this is not an issue of reliability, but of weight. Fox News is a reliable source, per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. 03:32, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

  So, only U.S. media counts? Is it possible in your view for these outlets to be partisan? I think consensus holds that Fox supports Republicans, but I see very little acknowledgement on this TP that the "other four major networks" have any bias whatsoever. I also see no acknowledgement that, as RS has put forth, COVID19 coverage is to blame (whilst none of them suggest the story is unworthy of coverage in any way). So, during the wall-to-wall coverage of the virus, "weight" is less applicable. petrarchan47คุก 22:32, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

• I'm happy to be part of team closing this, but only when it is ready for closure and I see no immediately obvious reason to close it early. I wont be paying close attention to this page though, so please ping me again at the time if you still want my input. Thryduulf (talk) 21:43, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

  This is most appreciated. I don't believe there is any consensus for closing it now; I understood this section to be focused on who and how it would be closed. The argument that it's getting too long or involved, and should be closed for that reason, is not upheld by policy AFAIK. 22:56, 9 April 2020 (UTC) Upon re-read, OP is not suggesting we close early, only that this requires a team. Struck. petrarchan47คุก 23:05, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Is that a joke? There has been overwhelming consensus to include the allegations for roughly a week. No team is necessary. One admin can and should close this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1012:B142:18D3:D120:889F:B8EC:10F4 (talk) 21:47, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm ok with closing it now and having a current/prior Arb close it. The trust level doesn't get any higher than ArbCom...even if/when I don't agree with them all of the time. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 22:09, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose Snow Close. By my count, the RfC is currently 47 "Yes", 19 "No" or "Not Yet". The RfC has been open for 10 days, and there were 17 comments in the last 24 hours. I say wait until at least 14 days and fewer than 3 comments in the previous 24 hours. I Support Admin Closure, preferably more than one admin, simply because this is so likely to be appealed otherwise. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:24, 10 April 2020 (UTC) Changed per [52] --Guy Macon (talk) 15:59, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

  Now at 50 "Yes", 21 "No" or "Not Yet". --Guy Macon (talk) 16:01, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

  @Guy Macon: This is irrelevant. With so few mainstream reliable sources to rely on and the current reliance of poor quality sources and opinion pieces, the weight of argument is more than enough to trump the weight of numbers. Coupled with the off-site canvassing on anti-Biden forums, we need WAY more time for this to play out. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:31, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

  Scjessey, I agree with you on the strength of numbers vs strength of argument. For me, I have not seen any definition for "mainstream" in any WP Policy or Guideline. Are you aware of any definition or precedent that? To me this just seems that many of the No voters are cherry picking what RS sources they want to consider. As a Biden supporter I would be happy to change my vote to No if this was covered somehow when the policy was defined (or later).--Davemoth (talk) 21:27, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

  @Davemoth: It's subjective. I've looked at all the sources listed here, and three things bother me:

  1. None of the "regular" US reliable sources are included. For example, MSNBC/NBC, CBS, ABC, NPR, NYT, LAT, Chronicle, Trib et al. I don't buy this bullshit that they are focused on the virus, because we are talking about the presumptive nominee for the presidency.
  2. The sources we do have a mostly of low quality, and for a variety of reasons. They are largely opinion pieces, or stories written by pro-Trump or pro-Sanders people, or simply repeat what was originally run (like news aggregators), or are only writing about it because it sounds sensationalist. Many editors here are talking up these sources as if they are high quality, but they just aren't.
  3. The convention on BLPs (and no, it is not written into any policy I'm aware of) is for controversial content to only be included if it is well sourced in a preponderance of reliable sources, and yet this is absolutely not the case. You'd expect to see it in several of the sources I listed as examples in my first point.

  I'm also deeply bothered by the off-site canvassing, which is entirely anti-Biden, so is completely skewing the RfC in favor of inclusion. This whole thing stinks, frankly. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:16, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

  For the nth time, RfC's aren't simple vote tallies. There's nothing to "skew." If the closing admin finds that Tara Reade's heartbreaking story is printed in reliable sources, which it is, then that admin will unlock the page and allow us to update the article. If not, then the RfC is closed and Tara Reade's story gets swept under the rug. This idea that "Oh well they're talking about Wikipedia on some other website, so we should take that into account" just rings hollow. These continued attempts to influence closing admins by muddying the water with "canvassing" allegations, well-founded or not, are disruptive. 2600:1700:D281:27D0:A488:2795:3925:B70B (talk) 00:38, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

  I'm an experienced closer. You are definitely wrong - it is absolutely appropriate to raise concerns and evidence of canvassing for the closer's attention. WP:CANVASSING is one of Wikipedia's official WP:Policies and guidelines. One memorable RFC I closed had a vote tally of 10 vs 20. Almost all of the 20 votes had been canvassed, and I found a clear and overwhelming consensus in favor of the 10. The fact that this RFC was canvassed in favor of including the content actually makes it more likely for the content to be excluded. If the degree and effect of canvassing is unclear the closer may have to issue a No Consensus result. That would exclude the content, unless and until non-corrupted discussion reached a consensus to include. Alsee (talk) 13:18, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose close for now. Scjessey makes a good point. Given the issues with off-site linking, the relatively short duration (even if it has attracted a lot of attention) and the lack of a clear consensus, I'd propose waiting a few more days to give other experienced editors the opportunity to weigh in. It's still clearly attracting a lot of attention—12 new responses in the last 24 hours alone—there's absolutely no harm in letting it ride. Domeditrix (talk) 11:57, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose early close - This is still an active thread with additional editors continuing to arrive. It should run at least a month and then let's see whether the new particpation has run its course. I don't think it's helpful to post vote numbers as if this were going to be the measure of consensus. There are an awful lot of SPA's, collinear opinions ("yes per XYZ") and arguments against policy. Vote counts are irrelevant. SPECIFICO talk 16:22, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose close - I agree with the above, there is no rush to close this RfC. I say let it run the full course of a month as normal (so 20 more days should be sufficient) willydrach^talk 17:02, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Early Close Now that this has been by the New York Times, The Washington Post, NBC & AP I see no reason to keep this RfC open. This has been covered by numerous RS and there is no reason to debate this any further, as the reliability of previous sources was a concern with including this piece earlier. willydrach^talk 20:41, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose close - Should run for 30 days. We don't snow close BLP stuff, especially given the issues of canvassing (a notably non-zero number of !votes from IPs or from accounts with very few edits and/or making their first edit for a significant time). Black Kite (talk) 18:51, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
• Support Team Close - More Yes or No votes are not changing the strength of the arguments. And support it soon. The policy is basically boiled down to "multiple mainstream sources" need to have reported on the allegations. As far as I can tell, this is not defined in any WP Policy or Guideline. It doesn't matter if the RfC has votes that are even, 2-1, 3-1, or 4-1 in favor of inclusion because it is not a popularity contest. Instead it is a question of the strength of the arguments. The question for the closing team comes down to: Do sources (that per WP:RSP have consensus as Generally Reliable for American Politics and/or BLP) such as Vox, The Intercept, etc. count as mainstream sources? If the answer is No, then the closing team should define what sources count so that if we get multiple of those something should be included.--Davemoth (talk) 19:57, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose, but now there is a criminal complaint which changes the tenor of the issue - The lady has filed a formal criminal complaint with the DC police, so including the item should be proforma now. There's greater coverage now of this issue. ToeFungii (talk) 08:04, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

  You are incorrect. I just checked and all of the sources for that are unreliable; Daily Caller, Daily Mail, Sun, WND., etc. Per WP:V and WP:RS You need to wait until you see it in a reliable source like The Guardian, The Intercept, The Los Angeles Times, etc. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:56, 11 April 2020 (UTC) Changed per [53] --Guy Macon (talk) 16:01, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

• Comment, now that The New York Times has reported on Tara Reade, I think we have consensus to include. Kolya Butternut (talk) 10:41, 12 April 2020 (UTC) Now consensus is clear; Support. The only objection was that there may be an objection. There hasn't been one today, and all objections in the !votes above have been addressed. Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:29, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. I have changed my vote from “Not now” to “Yes” now that this story is on the front page of The New York Times. I make a motion to close this RFC, include the allegation in the article, and to reduce the protection level for this page. Samboy (talk) 12:03, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

• Support early closure. The story is now in The New York Times, so it has become notable enough to include in Biden’s biography. Like other reporting of the story, The New York Times is very skeptical of the claim: None of the other women who made claims of inappropriate touching said that Biden committed sexual assault against them; none of Reade’s then co-workers recall anything even hinting at sexual abuse by Biden; and co-workers who Reade claimed to talk to about her discomfort (if not the alledged assault) do not even remember Ms. Reade. But this is not a discussion of how to describe the allegation; this is merely a discussion about whether to include it at all; with it being in The New York Times, the answer is an unqualified “yes”. Samboy (talk) 12:13, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
  • There is no consensus to do anything. The NYT actually did the most investigation to date into Reade's  allegation. The Times concluded:

The Times began reporting on her account and seeking corroboration through interviews, documents and other sources. 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, beyond the hugs, kisses and touching that women previously said made them uncomfortable.

The discrepancies and contradictions in her story have been reported not only by NYT but Fox, Vox, etc. I have no doubt there will be more reporting forthcoming on this story and we should wait to see what comes out before this is closed.  CBS527^Talk 13:51, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

You have "no doubt" that more reporting is forthcoming but believe "we should wait". This is interesting. This RfC is simply about mentioning the allegation, not necessarily digging into its details and validity. Wikipedia is not an investigative wing of journalism. To wait further ignores the RfC's purpose and all the "No" and "Not yet" votes above that are based on the absence of an NYT or LAT mention, which we clearly have now. The SNOW will surely become an AVALANCHE. Let's not complicate it or move the goal posts. --GoneIn60 (talk) 14:24, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

• We don't wait for the conclusion of an investigation to report on a case; the NYT is not doing the investigation, it would be done by the D.C. Police. petrarchan47คุก 18:52, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

• Support early closure: The unofficial newspaper of record has reported on it; notability is now clearly established, regardless of the veracity of the allegations at hand. As Samboy correctly notes: 'this is not a discussion of how to describe the allegation; this is merely a discussion about whether to include it at all; with it being in The New York Times, the answer is an unqualified “yes”.' I concur. — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 14:55, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Noting that the New York Times was not necessary for inclusion, and it concerns me that it would even be considered so. They are simply another news source per WP:NEWSORG which is what helps determine what gets included in WP. There are plenty of 3rd party RS cited above that have published the allegation; however, I agree that it's time to close this RfC and has been for a while now. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 15:35, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

100% agree with Atsme, The New York Times was not necessary for inclusion, and it concerns that it would even be considered so. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 16:55, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

I concur. Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:41, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

It’s not a question of the NYT per se as much as it’s a question of it being reported in tier-one media sources. I would had done the same thing if it was in The Wall Street Journal, in The Washington Post, or even on the front page of CNN. The fact that a writer for the notorious Chapo Trap house (NYT link) as well as Donald Trump don’t like the NYT means they are doing something right. Samboy (talk) 19:06, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

It's unsettling to watch the NYT hold so much sway over this encyclopedia. They waited 2.5 weeks to report on this story and should be lambasted, not honored with the power to determine when we are allowed to mention it. As I stated in my !Vote, the NYT was caught lying in a way that exonerated Bill Clinton and smeared the accuser during the Epstein reporting. Worse, it did not correct the piece after alerted by Newslinger. Their Reade coverage has problems too. They've already whitewashed it. Note the caveat "beyond" has been removed altogether:

This 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, beyond the hugs, kisses and touching that women previously said made them uncomfortable.*

Now reads 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.*

They also falsely claim no former staff members corroborate any part of Reade's story, yet they also say (quoting Ryan Grim), "Tara Reade said that in retaliation for her complaint, she was moved off of managing interns. The Times found the interns, and they confirmed she suddenly stopped overseeing them". petrarchan47คุก 18:52, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

No original research please WP:NOTAFORUM Excuse me, but The New York Times is more reliable than the thoughts of random Wikipedia editors. There are a lot of possible reasons why they decided to reassign Reade 27 years ago. Samboy (talk) 19:12, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

• Comment It can be closed at any time as long as enough comment has been received that consensus is reached, or until it is apparent it won't be per Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Duration. The 30 days limit is just when Legobot assumes the discussion has been forgotten. No need to wait for that. --Pudeo (talk) 15:41, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose early closure - People are still commenting and a new source has been cited. We can wait until the discussion becomes idle for at least a few days, or 30 days as per standard practice. - MrX 🖋 15:58, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
• Support early closure - by my count, we have a 3 to 1 ratio of Yes votes. Wikipedia is not a democracy, however we seem to have a strong consensus that this information should be included. People opposed to inclusion keep repeating the same argument about how major sources haven't mentioned this. But they have (NYT being a notable example), so this point is moot. It is unclear what would satisfy such people, and hence it's slowly becoming a situation that's getting close to being WP:CENSOR, which is a bad look. BeŻet (talk) 17:02, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

  Absolutely not. The story in the NYT appears to strongly suggest Ms. Reade's allegation is likely false, in which case adding this to the article would be unfair to Joe Biden in that it would unreasonably associate him with an assault that likely didn't happen. It's stunning that editors here are claiming the NYT story somehow vindicates a disturbing and relentless push to shove this material into the article. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:20, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

  We are not stating whether the assault happened, but whether the accusation has happened. I don't care what NYT think about it, of course they will be defending Biden. It's stunning that a minority of editors here wants to censor this information. BeŻet (talk) 12:01, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

We are simply stating the the allegation was made, a report was filed, and Biden's team responded. petrarchan47คุก 18:58, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Support early closure per BeŻet. The fact that the NYT has now dedicated an article to the controversy only reinforces that it should be mentioned with due weight in the article. If they say the allegations are false, that should be the focus of the final prose. We should also acknowledge that most of the votes against including Reade's allegation were based on arguments that outlets like the NYT had yet to report on it. UpdateNerd (talk) 18:23, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

• Support close our job isn't to adjudicate the case but to report. Many RS have reported on the case and it's just our job to report if the RS reports it, with Biden's denial. As time goes on, if there is more information, we can include it. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:29, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
• Support close Given that most "no" votes have been satisfied as per above. petrarchan47คุก 18:58, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
• Comment regarding the new NYT piece. I agree that it's not some seismic event that two NYT employees, Lisa Lerer and Sydney Ember, decided to publish an article on their WordPress website. Carlos Slim doesn't own Wikipedia, and he shouldn't get to dictate what's written here and what's not. I appreciate that some of those who voted against inclusion are now changing their votes, but "my favorite website/TV station is now talking about it" is probably the worst possible reason. What's more, the main purpose of the NYT article is to try to discredit Reade and cover for Biden. Angry liberals also have immense sway over what is or isn't said in their articles - they've already gotten them to shut up about Biden's unwanted "hugs, kissing, and touching"[54], and this isn't the first time that The Times changed their story at the behest of Twitter: [55], [56]. It's very dangerous to allow one media corporation have such an immense control over Wikipedia, especially when the corporation is only trusted by one political party and ideological persuasion. 2600:1700:D281:27D0:2C42:DCA4:F0C6:C463 (talk) 20:14, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Oh yes, this is a massive cover-up on the part of the corporate leftist media elite. I mean, you did cite Mediaite, so I guess we're done here. - MrX 🖋 20:47, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

No, I would never insinuate that the media would try to influence politics with their coverage. I think we can all agree that media companies are our friends, and their employees are objective, non-partisan, and just want to give us the facts. Here's the link to a few of New York Times' own tweets, since you don't trust the ferociously left-wing Mediaite website: [57][58]. 2600:1700:D281:27D0:D976:4355:8684:E49A (talk) 20:53, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

• Support early closure – The New York Times article means that the dam has broken on this story. There is no concern of undue weight anymore. There is no reason to wait longer. Consensus is clear. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 00:37, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
• Support early closure not because I think that Wikipedia has a policy to not include material if the NYT doesn't cover it, but because that's the essence of many of the no !votes which pretty much made that exact argument. What I don't see is any chance that a couple of thousand more words will change the result. So, do we have a team of uninvolved and experienced closers ready to evaluate the consensus? The closing comments should be carefully crafted, because there are certain to be bitter complaints no matter which way it goes.   :(   -Guy Macon (talk) 01:50, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
• It's on the front page of the New York Times and the Washington Post, which settles it. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 05:38, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

  I kind of agree with this now, although the proposed text is unacceptable. Better coverage in higher quality sources with proper (rather than sensationalist) reporting has rather exceeded the need for the RfC now. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:58, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

• Comment - It's even on MSNBC now. BeŻet (talk) 16:00, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
• Support Its everywhere now, so we better get our ass going. Now, we're talking about early closure, but do we have some closers? Perhaps put a note on WP:AN to ask for a quick team close? Putting it on the closure request board is not gonna be fast enough, things go there to die. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:02, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

• Even NBC news!. Wikipedia should not whitewash or censor these reports.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 21:49, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

• I have requested admin attention at the AN noticeboard. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:16, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
• RfC is irrelevant This needs closure by the first Admin that sees it. NYT and WaPo have published this, there are ZERO concerns of DUE that can be raised. At this point we are running headlong into WP:NOTCENSORED being the argument for inclusion. We don't want to appear politically biased and I fear that any further delay on reporting this will make us appear so. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 00:02, 14 April 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.

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)

High school sit-in

Within the section concerning Biden's early life there is a sentence asserting that Biden participated in a sit-in at a Wilmington theater in the years of his education at Archmere Academy:

Biden attended the Archmere Academy in Claymont,[7]:27, 32 where he was a standout halfback and wide receiver on the high school football team; he helped lead a perennially losing team to an undefeated season in his senior year.[15][18] He played on the baseball team as well.[15] During these years, he participated in an anti-segregation sit-in at a Wilmington theater.[19] Academically, he was a poor student but was considered a natural leader among the students and elected class president during his junior and senior years.[7]:40–41[20]:99 He graduated in 1961.[7]:40–41

Wikipedia's statement is sourced to the Current Biography Yearbook 1987. Biden initially claimed to have been an activist in the civil rights movement while running for the Democratic nomination around that time, but in September 1987 admitted he was not an activist: "I was not an activist. I worked at an all-black swimming pool in the east side of Wilmington, Delaware. I was involved in what they were thinking, what they were feeling. I was involved, but I was not out marching. I was not down in Selma, I was not anywhere else. I was a suburbanite kid who got a dose of exposure to what was happening to black Americans in my own city." (Robert Mackey, The Intercept: "Ahead of South Carolina Vote, Joe Biden Faces Questions Over Claims of Civil Rights Activism")

In 2019 Biden again claimed to have taken some part in desegregation protests in Delaware. His campaign stated he was "proud that he protested in favor of desegregating the Rialto [theater] in 1962." The NY Times did a fact check, again casting doubt on Biden's claims of having been in the civil rights movement, noting he had previously "conceded that 'I was not an activist.'" On the other hand, The NY Times stated that Biden's story about protesting theater segregation in Wilmington was backed by his friend Richard "Mouse" Smith, a NAACP activist who also claimed to have taken part alongside Biden. (Linda Qiu, NY Times: Fact Checking Joe Biden...") However, in an interview with the Washington Post Smith said that the event had occurred in 1965. (WaPo interview)

The Intercept reviewed these claims and found that "In fact, the picketing of the segregated Rialto theater took place more than two years earlier, lasting from November 1962 until May 1, 1963, when the theater owner relented and agreed to admit black patrons." (Robert Mackey, The Intercept: "Ahead of South Carolina Vote, Joe Biden Faces Questions Over Claims of Civil Rights Activism")

As The Intercept notes at one point he also claimed to have taken part in desegregating a second theater -- the Queen theater in Wilmington -- which had been desegregated 11 years earlier according to its historian. Neither alleged protest, at the Rialto or at the Queen, is mentioned in Biden's biographies. They also don't mention that Biden was involved in any activism in high school.

In sum, the Wikipedia article's wording suggests that Biden took part in a Wilmington theater sit-in as a high school student at the Archmere Academy. As The NY Times and The Intercept note, Biden has a history of questionable claims regarding the civil rights movement. The only person to ever corroborate Biden's allegation that he took part in a desegregation protest against a theater in Wilmington, Richard Smith, said he met Biden in 1962, when Biden was a student at the University of Delaware. Smith stated that he and Biden took part in the protest in 1965. The protest actually occurred in 1962-1963, when Biden was at the University of Delaware and Smith was about 13 years old.

I propose we remove the sentence, since, as The Intercept notes, Biden's biographies say nothing about being involved in desegregating anything, especially during high school. (Note comments by Shaun King) Zloyvolsheb (talk) 21:48, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree. I would also mention that the Current Biography Yearbook relies in part on the subjects themselves for their information. Since Biden has fabricated considerable amounts of his biography (in fairness he is not the only candidate to do so), I would remove the Yearbook as a source and delete any other information that cannot be reliably sourced. TFD (talk) 22:55, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

I also agree. This sounds like a reasonable change given where this information comes from. BeŻet (talk) 18:05, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

The issue is not whether we as editors believe that the subject of a biographical article is credible or believe a specific factual claim included in a BLP. The issue is whether the fact presented in the article is supported by appropriate reliable sources. Biden's claim about having participated in two anti-segregation protests, and the attestation of the retired NAACP official who recalls him attending an anti-segregation protest at the Rialto, are covered in multiple, major media sources. The claim of the Intercept article cited above, "Although King was unable to produce conclusive proof that Biden did not protest outside the movie theater, he highlighted obvious contradictions and errors in the former vice president’s at times confusing account of his activities in the 1960s which leave plenty of room for critics inclined to disbelieve him.", is not the same as repudiation. Arllaw (talk) 19:59, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Arllaw, thanks for weighing in. Which reliable sources, specifically, describe Biden as having participated in a sit-in while he was a student at Archmere Academy, as stated in Wikipedia's own voice in this article? So far the only source found to support that claim has been the Current Biography Yearbook 1987. This is a dubious source because Biden backtracked on his claims during his campaign for the 1988 Democratic nomination. This is indeed not a matter of my beliefs, but a question of reliable sources. It's possible that Biden did at one point participate in a desegregation protest of some sort (I actually can imagine that), but there is no reliable source I am aware of. (If a "major media source" did report that Biden claimed to have participated in a sit-in while in high school, we would have to write "Biden claimed to have..." as that would still be a claim made by Biden, only attributed to him by someone else.) Have you located any good sources? Zloyvolsheb (talk) 21:09, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

I have found mention in a variety of major news articles, including the New York Times, that Biden participated in a couple of anti-segregation protests in his youth. But the issue here does not appear to be that those sources don't exist, but that some editors don't believe that the events described in the articles occurred as described. If you can demonstrate that Biden says that he never participated in any such protests, that's the source that would be helpful to resolve this question, not innuendo based upon other claims Biden has made. Arllaw (talk) 06:29, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Arllaw, could you actually list here some of the "variety of major news articles" you are saying you have found, so I can take a look at them? Given that Biden himself conceded that he was not an activist, I am skeptical you have those sources. Again... if a source reported that Biden claimed to have participated in X, we would have to write "Biden claimed to have..." as that would still be a claim made by Biden, only attributed to him by someone else. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 15:49, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

I would like to point out that Zloyvolsheb has helpfully provided sources above that Biden protested the cinema while he was in high school and in 1962 (when the protests occurred). Since Biden finished high school in 1961, at least one of these facts is false. REDFLAG and WP:BALASP apply. It's an extraordinary claim that requires better sources and it's not significant enough to include. TFD (talk) 22:43, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

It's certainly possible that Biden also did some kind of "sit-in" while in high school, say in 1960, before the actual documented protests (pickets) in 1962-1963, sure. But there's no source except the problematic Current Biography Yearbook 1987. Biden may have verbally claimed he was involved in desegregation during high school, in college, that he finished in the top half of his law class, that he was arrested in South Africa trying to see Nelson Mandela on Robben Island, but we clearly need to find reliable sources before asserting any such statement in our own voice. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 23:50, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

The retired NAACP official who describes being present with Biden at the Rialto protest indicated that the date discrepancy was a product of trying to recall events from fifty years before. That's right in The Intercept article that is being presented as a basis for removing the claim from the article. It is not the job of editors here to investigate claims that we don't believe are credible and change articles based upon our independent research. If some reliable sources state that an event occurred and some suggest that it did not, it is appropriate to present both sides rather than choosing sides. Arllaw (talk) 06:29, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

As per WP:RS and WP:SECONDARY, the retired NAACP official is not a reliable secondary source, so we don't care what he says, only what reliable secondary sources tell us. It's up to the people who write secondary reliable sources to determine if Richard Smith is credible. It's not up to Arllaw or Zloyvolsheb. You claim that you have media sources confirming Biden took part in desegregation. Can you list the sources? Any links, maybe? Article titles to type into Google? Zloyvolsheb (talk) 16:02, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

If there is confusion about the dates, we can't say that Biden did this when he was in high school. TFD (talk) 17:27, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

The NAACP official is quoted in the article that is ostensibly the basis for making this change, even though that article asserts that Biden's youthful participation in desegregation protests has not been disproved. So we have media coverage of Biden's claims, confirmation of the claims from Biden's campaign, a corroborating witness, and a later statement from the witness stating that the controversy over the date of a specific protest may be an error of his memory fifty years after-the-fact. If it is the case that some people are intent upon performing independent research, disregarding what the sources they offer in support of their position say, and removing material that is in fact supported by reliable sources, that's not a battle I'm interested in waging against them -- but that's not the proper role of a Wikipedia editor.Arllaw (talk) 18:03, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

No, the NAACP official is not the basis for the proposed change. The basis is the insufficiency of reliable sources for the sit-in claim in the article as it is written now. I am well aware of the statements by Biden, his campaign, and his friend Richard "Mouse" Smith, the NAACP official. That's why I included them as background for other editors at the beginning of this discussion. Notably, the reporters do not repeat these claims themselves, except as reports of Biden's statements. Now, let's take a look at the sentence I proposed removing. It states, in Wikipedia's voice, that Biden took part in a sit-in during his time as a student at Archmere Academy. We know Biden graduated from Archmere Academy in 1961, so any of Biden's or his campaign's or his friend Smith's claims about participation after 1961 are irrelevant to the change I have proposed.

As per The Intercept, Biden's campaign now states he took part in desegregating one theater. (He previously claimed it was at least two.) The Biden campaign stated he took part in desegregating the Rialto Theater in 1962. As The Intercept states, Richard "Mouse" Smith met Biden in 1962, when Biden took a job at the swimming pool. Biden graduated from Archmere Academy in 1961. The Joe Biden Wikipedia article states he took part in a sit-in during high school. So the article effectively states he participated in a theater sit-in before 1962, but his campaign claims he took part in "protesting" against one theater in 1962. You may want to include Biden's other claims (we can agree to disagree on that), but do you agree that the sentence about a sit-in during Biden's time at Archmere Academy has insufficient sourcing for inclusion? Would you agree to removing this specific sentence? Zloyvolsheb (talk) 19:02, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

This is the same thing as the sexual assault allegations. We don't know how credible either story is, because they have not received scrutiny. REDFLAG and NEWSORG both tell us to ignore them, but instead we throw out the policy and replace it with whatever individual editors find important. The problem is that we all have different views of the world and therefore could never agree on what is important. TFD (talk) 23:17, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

The Four Deuces, these are both allegations that can be discussed as allegations. The difference is that Tara Reade's allegation and Biden's denial of it can be discussed in the space of 1, or maybe 2-3 sentences. The allegation of Biden's participation in desegregation protests, in light of the contradictions as, for example, noted in The Intercept, in addition to his own public backtracking from the claim of having been a civil rights activist in 1987, his omission of it in his autobiography, etc. would require much more space to explain objectively. We could do that, but it would overwhelm the article, so it's a WP:DUE WP:BALASP issue (as you noted). Zloyvolsheb (talk) 00:25, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

TFD, no one has suggested we include any mention of whether the sexual allegations are credible, and certainly Blasey Ford's hadn't received scrutiny when we added her allegation either. Are you in doubt that the allegation was made, or that Biden responded to it, or both? Because that is all we need sourcing for, since we are simply stating these two things occurred using ample, high quality RS. WP:NEWSORG is satisfied: News reporting from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact.*, * petrarchan47คุก 00:56, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

When allegations are mentioned there is always the implication that they have some credibility, otherwise one would not mention them. Certainly the people who reported these comments believe they have some credibility. Only a gossip repeats stories about people when they have no idea how credible they are. BTW Biden has not denied the allegations. Politicians don't deny allegations against them that have not been reported in major media. And the Brett Kavanaugh accusations did receive scrutiny. Reporters in all major media read them and decided they were credible enough to publish. TFD (talk) 02:42, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

OK, but the allegation you're coming back to has been reported in some major media. Biden's campaign denied it. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 05:09, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Balancing aspects says, "An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. For example, discussion 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."

What that means is that if the newspapers we read and the networks we watch {the body of reliable, published material on the subject} ignore something, then it doesn't belong in the article. Your view as a Republican voter (which you probably describe as independent libertarian who votes Republican) is that voters need to know about this because it is important. The problem is that what is important depends on a subjective viewpoint. Biden supporters like the story about him protesting a segregated theater, even though that probably never happened, while MAGA supporters like the story that he assaulted a woman, even though we have no idea whether that actually happened. I don't think articles should push one narrative over another. But whatever I think, that's what policy says, and you need to change it rather than make an exception in this case. Why don't you change policy so that it is clear that information that has been ignored by ABC, CBS, CNN and NBC news and the New York Times and Washington Post should nonetheless be mentioned in Wikipedia articles about high profile people if editors find it important?

TFD (talk) 06:23, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

TFD, please don't assume. I am not a Republican voter or a libertarian, and it shouldn't matter if I were anyway.

It's tiring to have to return back to Reade over and over. I'm glad that we at least agree as far as the sit-in; we'll have to disagree about Reade. Again, I feel that the reader is best informed by being given all relevant information about a subject. For BLPs that means including allegations for which multiple WP:RS exist, as stated in policy. At the same time we want to follow good writing principles and not edit an article in an unbalanced way (as outlined in WP:BALASP). I feel that 1-2 sentences about Reade would not disrupt the flow, balance, or structure of the article, or prejudice the reader against either Reade or Biden.

But I believe it would take paragraphs to inform the reader about Biden's claims on desegregation protests in light of the many contradictory statements made by Biden himself. So I don't think we can include entire paragraphs discussing Biden's dubious claims of having been involved in civil rights protests, not because they are unproven claims -- and to the very best of my knowledge, they are unproven claims that WP:RS do not accept -- but because, given the many contradictions involved, it would create an unbalanced article if we were to devote multiple paragraphs to a minor controversy. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 07:31, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

While it may be that some want to include or exclude a claim for political reasons, that's a separate issue from adding or deleting material based upon one's own subjective belief as to its veracity or based upon an editor's own independent research. A 'balancing aspects' objection to the inclusion of a minor event from the high school activity of the subject of a BLP is a separate issue, and one that is far more compelling in the present context than an objection along the lines of "I don't believe it so it shouldn't be included." Arllaw (talk) 16:35, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

I am not sure what you are arguing regarding independent research. No one has the right to add information based on their own independent research, however all editors have the right to investigate and discuss sources to decide if they are mainstream, reliable, and correctly interpreted when summarized or rephrased within an article. That kind of "independent research", if it may be so called, is encouraged, and we have talk pages to discuss it among ourselves. I believe your second point regarding "balancing aspects" agrees with my own. I believe it's time to request a protected edit to delete the sentence in question, given that three out of the four editors who have weighed in support doing that and you are also coming around as well, if I understand your last statement correctly. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 23:05, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 11 April 2020

Requesting to delete the sentence

"During these years, he participated in an anti-segregation sit-in at a Wilmington theater.[20]"

from section Early life (1942–1965).

I already opened a talk page discussion concerning the problematic nature of this statement and its source on April 1, 2020. Discussion attracted a total of four participants. Two others, TFD and BeŻet, expressed support. The only other participant (Arllaw) appeared opposed but seems to have acknowledged the problematic nature of including the statement. Whether that amounts to 3/4 or 4/4, consensus clearly supports removing this sentence. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 19:31, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

 Done I have removed the sentence — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:43, 11 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.[59] 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 [60]. 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, [61], [62]. - 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 [63] 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)

Tara Reade sexual assault allegation: specific text.

Geographyinitiative, I created a new section which appears to have created an edit conflict.[64] 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.[65]. 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[66] 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.[67] 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[68][69][70][71][72] 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."[73]
• "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."[74]
• "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."[75]

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.[76] The AP states that the police report alleged an "unnamed person" sexually assaulted her. This is inconsistent with Rich McHugh's reporting.[77] Tara Reade told him that she did name Biden in the police report. It was the "incident report"[78] 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 [79] [80]. 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.[81] There is no consensus to state that Biden was not named in the police report. My edit,[82] "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[83] 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.[84][85][86][87] SeriousIndividuals (talk) 00:11, 17 April 2020 (UTC) — SeriousIndividuals (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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 . . ."[88] 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[89] provided by NBC News.[90] 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 [91] 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.[92] 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."[93] 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)

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 [94]--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[95], but they reported on Lucy Flores' initial allegation with the headline "Biden’s Tactile Politics Threaten His Return in the #MeToo Era".[96] 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.”[97] 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)

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)

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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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."[98] Kolya Butternut (talk) 14:55, 19 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)

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)

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.[99] 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)

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)

• 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)
• 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)

• 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)

NYT on Reade

According to SharabSalam ([100]), 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)

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[101], hearkening back to the Hillary Clinton campaign's control over the Hillary Clinton campaign's coverage[102][103][104][105]. 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.[106] 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[107] 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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)