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).

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?

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

"Frontrunner" in the lead

Should this be removed from the lead? Bernie Sanders is now the frontrunner not Joe Biden. It has always been Bernie Sanders the frontrunner but the DNC and the media bias against Sanders didn't like this fact. Their so-called frontrunner got destroyed in Iowa. SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 03:48, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing. With Biden's 4th-place finish in Iowa it's certainly an open question, too open and complex for the lede. I am going to remove that sentence. pbp 16:06, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

If you'll please look at the section immediately above this, you'll see that I addressed this concern with my edit of the lead content. The text you've now deleted was entirely appropriate, accurate, and informative and reflects the text of the article. Please undo your removal and explain why you think the mention of his initially being considered the "frontrunner" should not be mentioned. SPECIFICO talk 17:13, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

I also disagree with removing this sentence from the lead. Biden still leads in the national polls.[1] Even if he now falls out of first place, we can't just erase the fact that he has been considered the front runner for all of 2019 - basically from even before he declared his candidacy. And if he now falls out of first place, that can be reflected in the sentence - something like "He was considered the front runner until..." -- MelanieN (talk) 19:24, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

I have restored it, pending further discussion. And SPECIFICO, I changed your "upon entering the race" to "throughout 2019." I'm open to other ways of portraying the fact that he has been considered the front runner up to now. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:31, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

@MelanieN:, I think yours is an improvement - there was much speculation before he announced that he was/would be the frontrunner. SPECIFICO talk 20:44, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Oops, re-pinging SPECIFICO. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:39, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

• @MelanieN: @SPECIFICO: I continue to believe that having a frontrunner sentence right now is a bad idea. We may have to re-write the sentence in 2-3 days if he loses New Hampshire. As for calling it "sourced content" to restore it, the sources may very well be out of date, and therefore I'm not comfortable with the claim above that the sentence I deleted was "entirely appropriate [and] accurate". Who's the frontrunner before the election isn't particularly lead-worthy unless they continue to be frontrunner during and after the election. There's even an argument to be made that declaring pre-election frontrunners runs afoul of WP:CRYSTAL. pbp 20:10, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

THere's nothing "crystal" about it. There is no prediction involved. It is simply reporting the results of polls at the time. I grant you that early polling is notoriously inaccurate in predicting the actual outcome (remember President Giuliani? How about President Jeb?), but it is a widely reported part of the story. And yes, the information may/will have to be modified (not removed) if/when the situation changes. But the fact that the person was considered the frontrunner for a full year is an important part of the historical record. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:46, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

• Biden Is Not The Front-Runner Compared to Clinton's lead over Sanders in 2016, that merits a front-runner status on the lead, now that Biden is slipping in the national polls -> Sanders 25% to Biden's 17% and Sanders leads Biden in delegates and popular vote I think having the "Throughout 2019 he was the front-runner" is good, but reword it to like "Throughout 2019, Biden was seen as the front-runner, in the aftermath of the primaries however, he faced challenges from Senator Bernie Sanders" or something along those lines. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 09:39, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
• If Biden doesn't win in New Hampshire, we should move the frontrunner sentence from the lead to the body of the article. Poll performance in 2019 is not significant when early primaries/caucuses tell a different story. - MrX 🖋 12:38, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
• Biden was FIFTH, and sorry @MelanieN: @SPECIFICO:, but I'm seeing an emerging consensus against currently classifying him as the frontrunner. Also note that a recent NPR article is now calling Bernie the frontrunner pbp 04:54, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, he no longer appears to be the front runner. The fact that he has been considered the front runner for the past year is a historical fact. So I would like a sentence along the lines of "he was considered the front-runner until disappointing performances in Iowa and New Hampshire." However, maybe that is too much detail for the lead. -- MelanieN (talk) 05:13, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

It's a tricky situation. The current phrasing rather makes you wonder whether he's still considered the frontrunner in 2020, and if not, why not? On the other hand, explicit references to primaries necessitate updating the sentence every week or so! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.125.229.118 (talk) 07:38, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

See, that's why you might as just leave it out. pbp 15:01, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Well it seems that he has regained that frontrunner status. After Super Tuesday, he leads Bernie Sanders in the popular vote and in the delegate race. Thenextprez (User talk:Thenextprez|talk]]) 22:59, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Proposal

@SharabSalam, Purplebackpack89, SPECIFICO, TDKR Chicago 101, and MrX: We have been discussing the "front runner" sentence in the lead. I only just now noticed that there is nothing about "front runner" in the text; that should not have been the case but oh well. Based on this discussion and on recent developments, I propose removing that sentence from the lead and adding something like this to the "2020 campaign" section. What do the rest of you think?

Throughout 2019 Biden led in the national polls and was widely considered to be the frontrunner in the primary race. However, after disappointing showings in the Iowa and New Hampshire primary contests, he fell out of first place.

Sources

I also think we need to trim the "2020 presidential campaign" section by at least half - it has way too much coverage of trivia and day-to-day developments for a biography - but that's another issue.-- MelanieN (talk) 17:38, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

• That sounds good to me. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 17:40, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

• I can support this right now, though I suspect we will have to revisit this topic after Super Tuesday pbp 17:41, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
• OK with me. Only thing is, he was perceived to be faltering before the primaries began. I think there's extensive press coverage of that starting around the time the Ukraine scandal became front page news. Not that WP would make the connection, but I think that, by the time of the Iowa primary, the media was not uniformly considering him the frontrunner. SPECIFICO talk 17:44, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
• Yes, this looks good. Of course it could change if he bounces back in South Carolina and beyond. - MrX 🖋 17:48, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

OK, I added it. This will certainly need to be modified by future events, although I don't think we need to add any more polls or primary results, per NOTNEWS. If there are important developments - say he regains frontrunner status, or on the other hand drops out of the race - that's the kind of thing we should add. Meanwhile I am going to see if I can give that section a haircut. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:48, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Frontrunner back in lead?

Well, I guess I have to eat my words. I was one of those people who declared Biden's candidacy dead, the ones he complained about at Roscoe's. I expected Biden to be out or badly trailing Bernie at this point and he's not. pbp 00:43, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Campaign

Under the section about the current campaign, it says Trump falsely accused Biden of having the prosecutor fired in Ukraine... How can it be false when Biden is on video bragging about it? I realize a lot of folks on here suffer from TDS, but this is just a lie.2605:A000:CB03:8D00:996B:2879:2F15:79AC (talk) 07:15, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

If we have "Trump Derangement Syndrome", what do you call your condition, where you believe fake news? Biden bragged about getting a corrupt prosecutor fired because he wasn't investigating Burisma. Getting the prosecutor fired put Hunter Biden at a greater risk, not less. Also, Biden delivered that threat to the Ukrainian government on behalf of the entire Western world. It wasn't him acting on his own. You are misinterpreting what Biden is bragging about having done. The sentence "President Donald Trump and his allies falsely accused Biden of getting the Ukrainian prosecutor general Viktor Shokin fired because he was ostensibly pursuing an investigation into Burisma Holdings, which employed Biden's son, Hunter." is factually correct, though it could be written in a clearer fashion. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:49, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

You left out the rest of the sentence. Trump did not falsely accuse Biden of asking for the prosecutor to be fired, he falsely presented the reason. TFD (talk) 07:03, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

This is all perfect except for the fact Shokin rearrested Burisma Holdings, LTD, Cyprus assets (cars, houses, not all money as they are in Cyprus) a weak before (on 2nd February 2016 by Peterchsky court) he was fired by Biden. First result in google https://nv.ua/ukraine/events/gpu-soobshchila-chto-imushchestvo-eks-ministra-ekologii-zlochevskogo-snova-pod-arestom-95375.html official statement from Shokin https://web.archive.org/web/20160205092116/http://www.gp.gov.ua/ua/news.html?_m=publications&_c=view&_t=rec&id=168807 2A00:1FA0:208:5755:C157:F517:29BF:24C (talk) 04:40, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 March 2020

Remove the word SEGREGATIONIST in reference to Biden's bill with Thomas Eagleton. Specifically, change the sentence:

In 1977, Biden co-sponsored an amendment alongside segregationist Thomas Eagleton (D-MO) to close loopholes in Byrd's amendment.

to the following:

In 1977, Biden co-sponsored an amendment alongside Thomas Eagleton (D-MO) to close loopholes in Byrd's amendment.

From Eagleton's Wiki article there is no mention of him being a segregationist. To the contrary, he was anything but one. https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Thomas_Eagleton Thinkbanq (talk) 19:49, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree. The term segregationist normally refers to Southern Democrats who until the 1960s supported laws that kept the races separate. It was no longer relevant to this time period. TFD (talk) 20:51, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

I removed it. Thanks for calling this to our attention. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:10, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

New sexual assault allegations

In the wake of the new allegations by Reade - which has been covered by many reliable news sources - there has been and will continue to be politicized efforts to remove the information from Wikipedia. Administrators take notice. https://www.pastemagazine.com/politics/joe-biden/joe-biden-has-been-accused-of-graphic-sexual-assau/ https://theintercept.com/2020/03/24/joe-biden-metoo-times-up/ YouCanDoBetter (talk) 20:25, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Those are not good sources for controversial BLP content. See WP:BLPSOURCES. - MrX 🖋 01:04, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Paste Magazine may not be a good source for this. The Intercept does not contain any more perceptible bias than mainstream news sources. A disgruntled readers' feelings that there is bias does not make it so. YouCanDoBetter (talk) 02:35, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Tara Reade

Take note that the current version of the page has removed mention of Tara Reade entirely, not only her detailed sexual assault allegations from March of 2020 but also her taking part in the wave of allegations from the spring of 2019. Does anyone support this? YouCanDoBetter (talk) 20:44, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

It is unsupportable and will be taken to the proper noticeboards if this happens again. petrarchan47คุก 22:15, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

The content in question is not supported by RS and should be removed ASAP. There is one RS: A Business Insider piece that briefly mentions her in a piece that mentions every allegation against Biden. Petrarchan47 has violated the 24-hr BRD restrictions on this article by immediately restoring the challenged content. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:27, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

I did not "wholesale restore" the content as you claimed on my talk page, I improved some sources, which was your less-than-informative edit summary claiming all sources were insufficient. And why did you remove Biden's longstanding rebuttal? This feels like a careless act, your wholesale removal of an hour's worth of my work. Please take your time and comment on each complaint/source/removal so that I can address them. petrarchan47คุก 01:46, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Can someone show several impeccable sources to demonstrate that this meets WP:DUEWEIGHT. We need to seer very clear of sources like Paste Magazine and the Intercept, in my opinion. We also need to adhere to what sources actually write. If this worth including, it should trivial to find good sources. - MrX 🖋 01:03, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

[edit conflict] Can you explain why you think The Intercept fails WP:RS? You can search the NB archives for a section supporting your stance, otherwise I would open a new thread on the matter. To my knowledge it is considered highly reputable.

Here is an article on Yahoo from Refinery29 quoting addressing your question as to whether sparse mention in media is equivalent to a lack of due weight (or encyclopedic importance): Reade’s accusation has opened up discourse on social media about why the mainstream media is ignoring the story. “I don’t understand why the extremely serious sexual assault allegations against Joe Biden are not getting significant attention outside of left media,” tweeted Vox Senior Correspondent Zack Beauchamp.

We have the proper sources and enough of them to support the mention of this case and the new developments. The sources meet RS requirements, and it is a violation of WP:NPOV to block the addition of (some form of) this material. petrarchan47คุก 01:46, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Petrarchan47, The Intercept has a clear pro-Bernie bias. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:01, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, and an anti-establishment bias. Their political articles tend to have an invective tone, and often promote marginal viewpoints. - MrX 🖋 02:18, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

If you want to play this game, we can sit here all day and talk about pro-establishment Fox, anti-establishment Huffington Post, pro-establishment CNN, etc. It does not matter what slant you think you perceive. It is reliable. YouCanDoBetter (talk) 02:32, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Someone sort it out. It's unacceptable that an assault charge - explicitly laid out in a verifiable interview - that details behavior tangibly different than previous harassment charges is not included. Here are the sources, find consensus on what is considered "reliable". And let me be the first to put my vote against turning away The Intercept as an unreliable source.

https://thehill.com/hilltv/rising/489719-tara-reade-discusses-biden-allegation-with-hilltvs-rising

https://thefederalist.com/2020/03/26/hollywoods-me-too-group-turned-down-biden-sexual-assault-accuser/

https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/he-penetrated-me-with-his-fingers-joe-biden-accused-of-sexual-assault/

https://theintercept.com/2020/03/24/joe-biden-metoo-times-up/

https://www.democracynow.org/2020/3/26/headlines/the_intercept_times_up_legal_defense_fund_refused_to_support_metoo_allegation_against_joe_biden YouCanDoBetter (talk) 01:34, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Those are not mainstream RS references. When the story has been vetted and published in mainstream RS, please show us the relevant links. SPECIFICO talk 01:43, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, Specifico, The Intercept and The Hill are considered mainstream and more importantly, reliable. As are Democracy Now and Law and Crime. It is on you to prove your claim to the contrary. Has this been established at the RS NB? petrarchan47คุก 01:48, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

It's not "on" anyone to prove BLP material is unsourced. It's on the editor advocating BLP content to demonstrate the highest level of Reliable Sourcing. Intercept is nowadays more or less an angry and often childish anti-American blog. The Hill is RS for some of what it publishes, but it also runs a lot of right to far-right nonsense in the mix. If these are solid accusations -- I have no opinion -- there will be numerous mainstream RS references you'll be able to cite. It's not necessary to root around for truffles in the muck. Good content is easy to source. If the material is valid, there will soon be many uncontroversial sources with the details. SPECIFICO talk 02:10, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Your opinions on The Intercept being an anti-American blog (dubious and and not relevant, to put it bluntly), are not the point. Those are two reputable sources. And much more importantly, we can and should not require "mainstream" sources, as the entire drive of that logic is to silence marginalized voices. Full stop. I'm with Petrarchan47. YouCanDoBetter (talk) 02:27, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

The Hill article is unsuitable for including such an allegation in this bio. It may suitable for including something about Time's Up refusal to provide financial support to Tara Reade in her bio. The Intercept is not a mainstream news source. - MrX 🖋 02:36, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Does not need to be. YouCanDoBetter (talk) 02:43, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

I have asked for admin Newslinger to give his view on these reversions *, *, *, *, *. If the complaint is that no sources meet WP:RS, is it not the responsibility of those opposing the material to prove this, for each source? If the complaint is that actually due weight has not been established, is that not simply a judgement? How is something like this determined in a timely manner? petrarchan47คุก 02:00, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

You don't go grab an admin to settle a content dispute. And no, the "complaint" was not that no sources meet WP:RS. You might want to re-read the comments in this section again. - MrX 🖋 02:25, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Why is it that the same weak sources and the same authors are showing up here as were being used for content at Media coverage of Bernie Sanders? Paste Magazine, The Intercept, Democracy Now, Ryan Grim, Katie Halper–this can't be a coincidence. If my memory serves correctly, Grim was a social media promoter of Sanders. - MrX 🖋 02:42, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

• Its a pretty severe allegation for us to add to the page of an extremely visible politician. Until the story is picked up by an outlet like the WSJ or NYTimes, it probably shouldn't be included. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 02:47, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

The issue here is not Sanders. It's about Biden, and Biden only. The question is not "why the same authors", the question is when a woman accuses a powerful politician of rape, why don't corporate-owned (mainstream) sources take notice, especially those who historically support him, and why are these mainstream sources the only valid ones when it's this situation? Because if it wasn't a powerful politician being accused, The Hill would not be being challenged, nor would "mainstream" sources be required. Everyone here knows that. This is silencing, pure and simple. YouCanDoBetter (talk) 02:51, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, Wikipedia's consensus so far regarding The Intercept has been that The Intercept is generally reliable for news. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 06:20, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi all, I was asked to comment here. The policy that is most applicable to this situation is WP:BLP § Public figures (WP:BLPPUBLIC), which states three main points:

1. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it.
2. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out.
3. If the subject has denied such allegations, their denial(s) should also be reported.

Another relevant policy is WP:V § Exceptional claims require exceptional sources (WP:REDFLAG), which says, "Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources."

This discussion appears to be going smoothly. As a general reminder, please ensure your arguments adhere to the relevant policies and guidelines. Any editor is welcome to escalate this issue to the biographies of living persons noticeboard or create a request for comment to seek input from a broader section of the community. Thanks and happy editing. ​— Newslinger talk 07:20, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Here's the summation. Is it noteworthy and relevant? Yes. A credible (it has been verified) accusation of a significant crime directed toward a politician running for the highest office in the United States of America is unquestionably relevant, especially given the past (separate) allegations, and it is noteworthy given both the nature of the allegations being different from previous.

Are there reliable third-party sources? Yes. The Hill and The Intercept. Absolutely no serious argument has been given to challenge the reliability of those sources. Thanks to Zloyvolsheb for clearing that up.

Is it an exceptional claim? No. Severe, yes, but exceptional? Absolutely not.

Has the subject denied allegations? Not yet, but of course if he does that should be added as well.

So unless there is any more discussion (reliability has been settled), it should be reinstated. I will leave that to Petrarchan47, who is a better editor than me, if that's agreeable. YouCanDoBetter (talk) 07:36, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

• Do not add. Disagree. Sources are not adequate. SPECIFICO talk 08:36, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

And now we have editors breathlessly adding this to Joe Biden 2020 presidential campaign as well. - MrX 🖋 11:26, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

• Do not add I feel very strongly that considering that since we are all anons with no credentials what so ever we must be committed to the WP guidelines that have been set up to avoid destroying reputations. A charge of rape that went unreported for years must not be added to this article until after it is reported in the major news sources including the NYT and Washpo, AND we must keep to guidelines that discourage adding WP:RECENT information that is hardly more than "breaking news"--we certainly must NOT add it so early that Biden has not yet even responded. Gandydancer (talk) 14:56, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
• Do not add Fails weight, since not covered in major news outlets. Even if they do mention it, it will depend on the degree of coverage. TFD (talk) 23:44, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

New day, more sources (and a look at Kavanaugh)

This story broke Wednesday, March 25 with the very reputable Ryan Grim. Though Reade told part of her story a year ago, her full allegation which includes sexual assault, was never public and known only to her family prior.

Today Vox is reporting on it, and IBTimes has also picked it up. (Check the RSN before claiming either of these fail WP:RS, please.) The allegation is notable enough to have evoked a response from Biden.

The story is out, and it is inexcusable not to even mention her name or any aspect of her story in this encyclopedia article. My summary of the story was removed yesterday, as was Biden's defense, with the claim that this all needed consensus. However, only the Reade allegation was new material. As you can see from the archives, Biden's defense has been in the article for at least a year, and the well documented fact that Biden has received numerous similar allegations was also mentioned then, yet it too was removed yesterday.

Ryan Grim was the same journalist who broke the Kavanaugh/Blase allegations in The Intercept, for which he received praise. The material was almost immediately * into Kavanaugh's bio using Vox and New Yorker, and there was never a complaint. By the 15th Sept it made it into the lede. Here is the first section on the talk page where it was discussed; although the situation is similar, the entire community behaved exactly opposite to what is happening here. Please drop the arguments that a journalist's presumed political leanings has an effect on the legitimacy of their reporting without also bringing evidence of falsehood. It should be known the the NYT was caught misrepresenting facts in a similar story involving Clinton, so it cannot be assumed that only 'legacy media' can be trusted. petrarchan47คุก 19:58, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Why did you say that I made an edit that your link shows was made by Volunteer Marek? I started a discussion about an unprecedented move by a U.S. Senator in the midst of a Supreme Court confirmation, and listed five national sources in addition to The Intercept. You have listed Vox and IBTimes. - MrX 🖋 20:16, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Oh, my mistake. I've removed that. I have listed Vox, IBTimes and Fox in addition to the many sources I used in the article and that are already listed in the section above. You make it sounds as though only 2 sources support the material. Please don't make comments that clearly misrepresent the facts, and I will try to do likewise. petrarchan47คุก 20:30, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

The quality of the sourcing presented thus far is very poor, with some extraordinary claims made by certain editors about how reliable they are. Moreover, it seems incredibly strange that Ms. Reade chose this particular moment to tell her "full story", rather than when Biden was seeking reelection to the Senate, or had been nominated for VP. It's also remarkable that it wouldn't come up in the strong vetting that would've taken place prior to the 2008 election. I find it interesting that this seems to be coming from predominantly pro-Bernie sources, and augmented on social media by Russian bots. One could very easily be very suspicious of the claim. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:26, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Leave any conspiracy theorizing at your own talk page, not here. If you have comments about a particular source, please identify it so we can respond. Blanket claims don't help much. Thanks, petrarchan47คุก 20:32, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

This is just grasping at straws. Ryan Grim, the Intercept, etc. only point up the fact that the best quality mainstream journalists are not touching this. They are quite aware of it and they do not consider it "fit to print". That's really all we need to know. Call back when this is presented as a credible claim by mainstream RS reporting. SPECIFICO talk 20:37, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Indeed. For something as potentially serious as this, we would expect to see coverage in a preponderance of high quality, mainstream media sources. This is a BLP, so cast-iron sourcing is expected for what is potentially defamatory. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:41, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

We can't include the Reade allegations unless there is widespread coverage in mainstream media per weight. It might be tempting to listen to Reade's interviews and read what reputable people say about them and say it should be in the article because it is significant to the topic. But editors don't get to determine what is significant but must follow what mainstream sources do. While one may debate why this policy exists, we would need to change it before adding this story. TFD (talk) 20:52, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Fox News has reported on this. Given that "mainstream" has become code for "news sources that I like", I don't know if this is going to be good enough for most people. But I think this should settle it, and maybe by a narrow vote we may have consensus. https://www.foxnews.com/politics/biden-campaign-denies-false-allegations-of-sexual-assault

YouCanDoBetter (talk) 21:39, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

The Fox News article does not verify anything. It regurgitates The Intercept and then covers the denial by Biden staffers. It's clear the story doesn't clear the WP:WEIGHT and WP:BLP hurdles it would need to in order to be considered for inclusion. Wikipedia should not be giving credence to dubious claims of sexual assault by notable people without high quality sourcing, and so far there is none to be seen. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:33, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Hey so I'm new here and not familiar with how Wikipedia politics works or whatever but I would like to say it's ridiculous there's still no mention of this for all the reasons others have already spelled out. If the handful of corporate news sources you guys like continue to ignore what should be a massive story that's on them. Is there anything I can do to help get this included? Utility fish (talk) 23:06, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Please read Due and undue weight. Wikipedia is not an alternative encyclopedia but shows the same importance to issues as you would expect to find in corporate news sources such as ABC, CBS, FOX and NBC news. Articles will summarize the main points they find important. If you don't think the corporate media is doing a good job covering issues, complain to them. If you think that Wikipedia policy is wrong, get it changed. Alternative encyclopedias exist. Conservapedia for example has a lengthy section on this issue in its Biden article. Readers who want their particular emphasis on the Joe Biden story are welcome to read it. TFD (talk) 23:29, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't see anything in Due and undue weight that pertains to this issue. If you don't think this holds due weight, could you explain your reasoning in specific terms? Whether or not you believe the allegations, a serious, credible claim of sexual assault against a frontrunner for the US presidency holds a lot of weight in my view and many others'. I am not going to complain to the corporate media because the corporate media do not answer to me or the general public. I am not going to start using Conservapedia because I am not a conservative or a fundamentalist Christian. Neither are many other people who would nonetheless be interested in this topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Utility fish (talk • contribs) 23:58, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

A serious, credible claim of sexual assault against a frontrunner for the US presidency holds a lot of weight in my view and many others'. Except it's not a serious, credible claim. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:00, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Any claim of sexual assault is serious by definition. And it's as credible as any such claim given years after the fact can reasonably be expected to be (obviously there were no witnesses but Reade's brother and others have confirmed that she told them about it at the time and she has tried multiple times now to draw attention to her story starting almost a year ago). Do you not consider any of these allegations serious or credible enough to warrant inclusion in Wikipedia, or do they suddenly become serious and credible once they've been filtered through CNN? Utility fish (talk) 00:19, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

That's absurd. Spurious claims are made against high profile individuals all the time. Given the details I have read in the sources provided above, it would not surprise me at all if this didn't turn out to be just such a claim. The timing of the claim is incredibly suspect, and the fact that sources are predominantly pro-Bernie and pro-Trump does not feel right either. While your throwaway comment about CNN is obviously intended to be sarcastic, there is a ring of truth to it. I would expect to see extensive coverage in mainstream media (CNN, MSNBC, Fox News Channel, NYT, WaPo, WSJ, etc.) before even considering adding material to the biography of a public figure. We hold the same standard with every such figure, because otherwise Wikipedia descends into a cesspit of false allegations. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:35, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

It might be appropriate to create a separate article in the vein of Bill Clinton sexual misconduct allegations and Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations. In both cases the articles reference serious claims of sexual assault, with appropriate balance. JJARichardson (talk) 23:39, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

If there was a significant body of allegations with good sourcing, then perhaps that could be considered. But right now it would basically be a WP:POVFORK. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:02, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't think there are sufficient sources. There is no way for a neutral reader to determine the credibility of the accusations. There has been no independent verification for example that Reade ever worked for Biden. TFD (talk) 00:58, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

"Employment documents provided by Reade show that she worked in Biden’s office from December 1992 to August 1993." https://www.theunion.com/news/nevada-county-woman-says-joe-biden-inappropriately-touched-her-while-working-in-his-u-s-senate-office/ Utility fish (talk) 01:07, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

It also needs to be taken note of that dismissing the Fox News source because of it being taken from The Intercept is a logical fallacy. There are two separate discussions - weight in the media, which is where Fox comes in, regardless of where their sources come from, and then the issue of reliability. And The Intercept and The Hill have NOT been challenged as unreliable sources in any academic way in this entire thread. So not only are they still considered reliable, but more importantly the Fox News dismissal was an OT fallacy. YouCanDoBetter (talk) 01:14, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree it doesn't matter where a story originates but the degree of coverage it receives. Fox News on its own is insufficient. in the article about Tulsi Gabbard, some editors wanted to insert false claims about her that were reported in NBC news, but no other news source had covered them. In the Donald Trump article, some editors wanted to include claims of sexual assault that the media had almost entirely ignored because they lacked credibility. Utility fish, someone providing employment documents is not independent verification. TFD (talk) 01:39, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree with The Four Deuces that this is a question of due weight, not a lack of reliable sources. The Intercept and The Hill are reliable sources, as previously acknowledged. The question is what weight should currently be assigned to this given that the story has been picked up by these and now multiple other sources, but not the newspapers of record like NYT, Washington Post, or LA Times. Perhaps there's no obvious answer that would satisfy everyone. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 02:01, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

That's well put, and I understand, I don't mean to be aggressive. I am just worried that the width of coverage of a charge can be erased if it is not chosen to be covered by the big corporate news sources. Huffington Post has now reported on this, so now it's not just a major news source (Fox News) from the right, but not a fairly major one from the left. Is this, combined with an appropriate mention of Biden's denial, good enough yet? YouCanDoBetter (talk) 02:49, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

You're making a good argument, and I don't think you're being aggressive. I really don't think there's anything obviously wrong with putting Tara Reade's allegation into the article. It's notable enough to be discussed by several reliable sources, and since it can be reliably sourced the episode can be mentioned without any violation of BLP policies. On the other hand I see it's also not widely recognized as one of the most important things in Biden's life, given that the story is omitted by the leading newspapers, so in the end I'm fine with either. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 03:21, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

How else would you verify that she worked for him then? Utility fish (talk) 03:07, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

The Tara Reade allegation is defiantly back in the article without a consensus to include it. I'm not comfortable with this material being in the article unless it gets considerably more coverage in high quality sources. - MrX 🖋 01:21, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Vox and HuffPost have both made articles on the story. Don't think or know if it's sufficient enough but just want to put it out there.Geekgecko (talk) 02:09, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Joe Biden is such a high profile person that unless some aspect of his life has extensive coverage across the media, it's not worthy of inclusion. TFD (talk) 04:15, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Joe Biden had some comments on these types of allegations a year and a half ago - from WaPo - link. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:34, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Current sources

So far we have Huffington Post, Fox News, Newsweek (in addition to the widespread coverage in smaller sources, equally valid to justify inclusion in this article but to avoid controversy we'll focus on the above three). This, alongside of the fact that the Biden campaign has responded, is justification for inclusion. Again, high-quality is subjective, arguing that dozens of corporate-owned news sources need to weigh in sets a terrifying precedents that no one wants. We've got multiple major sources, and many "minor" ones, covering both the left and right wing spectrum. There needs to be consensus that takes into account the spread of this in the mainstream (it does not have to be in the majority, that's not in any way Wikipedia due-weight policy), does not engage in rape-culture arguments about the woman's timing. At this point we're stalling. https://www.newsweek.com/biden-campaign-team-denies-past-sexual-assault-allegation-former-senate-staffer-1494794

YouCanDoBetter (talk) 04:40, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. Also I'm still not entirely convinced that the due weight thing is even a relevant argument here. The example given to demonstrate that policy is the omission of the flat earth theory from the earth article. A viewpoint like "the earth is flat" isn't at all comparable to the viewpoint we're discussing including, which can be summarized as "Tara Reade has accused Joe Biden of sexual assault." That's not even a minority viewpoint; no one is denying that she has made the accusation, only its content. Utility fish (talk) 05:43, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

I came to this article to see if there was a well sourced statement from the Biden campaign. I saw the allegations rising in prominence. The Newsweek article sources include both the Biden campaign and Reade. It seems that we should include Biden’s denial as well as Reade’s allegation at this point. In my opinion Newsweek is the most reliable of the many sources now starting to report on this. We should have some sort of at least placeholder statement. Maybe: allegations of past sexual assault were made in March 2020. These allegations were patently denied by the Biden campaign.--Davemoth (talk) 10:12, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi! I just want to say that if we include Tara's story, we shouldn't just let it be about her story alone, even though it's the most serious allegation, but all allegations of sexual misconduct of which there are eight so far reported in some media sources. 51.175.0.239 (talk) 14:33, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

There's now also an [opinion column] on the story on The Guardian. I know it's only an opinion post, but it's still the most prominent paper to have commented on this.Geekgecko (talk) 15:40, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, it points out the Ms. Reade changed her story. Originally, she stated "he used to put his hand on my shoulder and run his finger up my neck. I would just kind of freeze and wait for him to stop doing that." Now that Biden is a candidate for president, her new story is one of sexual assault. Meanwhile, every single source seems to point back to the interview she gave The Intercept, so there's been almost zero corroboration by other journalists. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:28, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

although they reference the Intercept it appears that both The Hill and Newsweek have independently interviewed Reade and staffers on the Biden campaign. --Davemoth (talk) 16:49, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

So what is the consensus? The previous votes do not take the new articles into account, and has been established the arguments do not hold up for keeping it off the article anyway. It seems the consensus is shifting toward inclusion, people need to speak up one way or the other. YouCanDoBetter (talk) 17:03, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to including a couple of brief sentences about this after a few major news organizations report on it. Remember, Wikipedia does not lead on publishing information. If this is important, 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. - MrX 🖋 17:13, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

All these references have been rejected, so there's no point repeating them. If this matter is ever reported in the sources MrX has listed, you are likely to be disappointed that the narrative is going to be calling these allegations questionable and unsubstantiated. Of course they may later be substantiated, but we have no idea about future developments. Please don't keep citing the same rejects and suggesting that editors need to reply "no" each time you repeat them. SPECIFICO talk 17:20, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Mr. X just listed The Hill.  obviously the belief here is that the mainstream corporate media are protecting Biden.  That does not change our requirement for reliable sources, but we do have reliable sources.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:13, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

There are now not only multiple sources reporting it that are commonly used as reliable sources, but the fact that the Biden campaign acknowledged it should make this grounds for inclusion. How do we establish that we have a consensus? entropyandvodka (talk) 18:31, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

You can propose some text and start an RfC. - MrX 🖋 19:11, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

RfC is not the next step in dispute resolution. You listed The Hill as an RS, so hasn't your standard been met? Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:14, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

No, my standard has not been met. By the way, an RfC is an appropriate step because there is still no consensus, yet people continue adding this material. - MrX 🖋 00:40, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose inclusion per WP:WEIGHT and WP:BLP, and a lack of WP:V by reliable sources. With that said, I've tightened up the existing text to at least make it look vaguely encyclopedic. It shouldn't be in there though, because it is technically a WP:BLPVIO. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:50, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

The Times has now reported "Tara Reade, an assistant to the likely Democratic presidential candidate when he was a senator in 1993, claimed that he forcibly penetrated her with his fingers. She was among a group of women last year who claimed that Mr Biden had behaved inappropriately." [2]. Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:34, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

• Mahdawi, Arwa (March 28, 2020). "Why has the media ignored sexual assault allegations against Biden?". The Guardian.
• Harsanyi, David (March 27, 2020). "Will Biden Live Up to His Own Principles?". National Review.
• North, Anna (March 27, 2020). "A sexual assault allegation against Joe Biden has ignited a firestorm of controversy - A woman says Biden assaulted her in 1993. Now #TimesUpBiden is trending". Vox Media.
• "Biden Accused of Sexual Harassment by Former Staffer". The Young Turks. March 27, 2020.

Audio interview of Tara Reade by Katie Halper

• Halper, Katie (Mar 30, 2020). "Biden accuser: "I wanted to be a senator; I didn't want to sleep with one"". Katie Halper podcast.

• I think these recent allegations are a fact, covered by multiple news sources, that need to be acknowledged (the fact that there are allegations, not whether they are factually true). I think the current coverage in the article is sufficient. I think the fact that the news broke during a national health crisis is the only reasons that they haven't received even further coverage. They are at least as credible as the accusations against Trump or other high-profile individuals. But we shouldn't provide a narrative of these experiences which seems sensationalistic. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:52, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

I think the allegations against Time's Up though are a red herring and are in dispute. Times Up said that their PR firm has nothing to do with their individual financing decisions and, really, why would they? Also, even though Times Up have provided advice and support to thousands of women who have brought allegations to them, they have only financially supported about 200 cases. I'd remove this latest edit but I have already removed content today. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:16, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Support Inclusion of a simple paragraph without salacious details. At least 7 of sources now reporting on this are generally considered WP:RS. Some are consider biased or partisan, but that does not automatically disqualify them. At least 3 of those sources apparently interviewed Reade directly and a few got direct statements from Biden staffers.

Oppose inclusion of media bias and Times Up. This is still a breaking story and many of the MSM sources might be working on reporting and fact checking. Media Bias in 2020 could probably be a whole different article. It goes across political ideologies. Many of the sources pointing out the Reade allegtions were silent (or defensive) when Kavannaugh allegations initially broke. We can wait for more of this to shake out. --Davemoth (talk) 17:09, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Support Inclusion per sufficient evidence of mainstream coverage. I see that the story is now not just covered by The Intercept, The Hill, and others like Newsweek, National Review, Fox News, and The Guardian. It made it into the World Edition of The Times. That actually happens to be one of the English-speaking world's newspapers of record. In this case WP:BLP instructs: "In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." That said, I would prefer to keep the description short and simple, as generally reported. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 05:46, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Consistency in treatment of salacious individual claims

In order to avoid being used as a platform for potential astroturfing, Wikipedia generally does not provide coverage of lone unsubstantiated allegations - for example, allegations regarding Jennifer Fitzgerald are not mentioned at all in George H. W. Bush, and those regarding Larry Sinclair are not mentioned at all in Barack Obama. Although the article on Donald Trump notes in general terms that sexual assault claims have been raised against him, it specifically does not mention the lawsuit by Katie Johnson claiming that Jeffrey Epstein arranged for Trump to rape her when she was thirteen years old, even though the lawsuit alleging this received substantially greater media coverage than the claim at issue here, and involved both an investigation and legal action. Perhaps the best solution is to develop a clearly stated rule for consistent treatment of situations like these. I can't see the case for disparate treatment of the issues. BD2412 T 19:10, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

BD2412, why is the Kavanaugh allegation by Swetnick, which is (Redacted) featured so prominently in his BLP? These standards should be universally upheld, or not at all. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:55, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Mr Ernie, please remove this BLP violation.  It is slanderous to accuse Swetnick of making a false allegation without providing evidence.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 21:20, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

No I will not. Her accusation is the BLP violation. Mr Ernie (talk) 21:23, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Ernie, get a grip. She swore an afadavit and presented it to a congressional committee, not a Wikipedia article. Anyway Chmn. Grassley referred her and Avenatti for prosecution. How did that turn out? SPECIFICO talk 21:31, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Mr Ernie I've redacted the clear BLP violation in your comment. Feel free to revert this, and I will happily take this to ANI if need be. Thanks, —MelbourneStar☆^talk 03:21, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

I think this is relevant for the article since Biden has championed the MeToo movement that a women should be believed. Larry Sinclair was an ex-con without a shred of credibility; Jennifer Fitzgerald was an alleged affair and not a sexual assault; Katie Johnson is not the accusers real name and she never came forward publicly. Reade on the other had is public and out there with her accusation (she gave a one hour interview) Patapsco913 (talk) 21:36, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

• Halper, Katie (Mar 30, 2020). "Biden accuser: "I wanted to be a senator; I didn't want to sleep with one"". Katie Halper podcast.

Biden stands against sexual assault with lady Gaga

• "Joe Biden And Lady Gaga Join Forces To Send An Important Message About Sexual Assault". A Plus. October 27, 2017.

Biden states that any woman’s public claims of assault should be presumed to be true

• Rucker, Philip (September 17, 2018). "Joe Biden: When a woman alleges sexual assault, presume she is telling the truth". Washington Post. Former vice president Joe Biden....said Monday night that any woman's public claims of assault should be presumed to be true.

• @Mr Ernie: The Kavanaugh allegation by Swetnick is prominent because it was the subject of the Senate hearing that determined the vote on Kavanaugh's confirmation to the Supreme Court. The Senate is, of course, free to call a hearing on the allegation against Biden, if they consider the claim credible enough to justify such a step. Having testimony given under oath would certainly raise the profile of this matter. BD2412 T 21:51, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

BD2412, I appreciate your suggestion, but we currently already have a policy formula for BLPs, and this talk page is not the best place to discuss changing the BLP policy. WP:BLP states "In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." That would cover situations with one allegation, provided there is sufficient reliable sourcing. Due weight may be a separate issue for some. If some happen to disagree with the policy itself, the place to discuss changing the policy would be at that policy's talk page. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 22:23, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

It may well be that the general understanding is that allegations of this sort, as with that of Katie Johnson, are undue for inclusion. BD2412 T 00:54, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Troubling editorial behavior

Despite no consensus for inclusion and in violation of WP:BLP, some editors continue to add potentially defamatory content into the article. This is very troubling behavior that would not be tolerated at any of the other BLPs I have on my Watchlist. You simply cannot put this kind of information into the article without agreement. I suggest we remove the material per WP:BRD and WP:RECENT, let the story develop (if it does), and then have an RfC on the matter. In the meantime, the edit warring must stop. If necessary, and administrator should lock the article. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:38, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

What is in there now is ok for the time being, I think. A short paragraph is all that is currently appropriate, until move coverage develops. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:51, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

I disagree. I would at least remove the part about how much mainstream media coverage it has received. As with the bit about TimesUp, it has nothing to do with Biden and is thus not biographically relevant. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:56, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree, and I've removed that part. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:59, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

I think the existing paragraph is OK - appropriate to the amount of coverage and non-sensational. But I don't think it should be a whole separate subsection. It should just be a paragraph in the the "Allegations of inappropriate physical contact" section. I was about to remove the subsection heading, but then decided I should get input here first. IMO having it as a separate subsection is making too much of it. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:43, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

The Reade stuff has been removed wholesale by user:Volunteer Marek, which seems to be against the consensus formed here. VM - can you please re-insert the short paragraph in the subsection with the other allegations? Mr Ernie (talk) 08:27, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

I see no such consensus. Better to leave it out during discussion. SPECIFICO talk 08:59, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. As with any BLP, we must leave out contentious material until a solid consensus for inclusion has been established, and even then it must be based on significant coverage in a preponderance of reliable sources. Neither condition has been satisfied. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:24, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

To me it seems that there is very rough consensus for a minimal statement and response based on this being reported in several RS perennial sources. Without that we are just going to get edit warring. Unfortunately a RfC will take too long during a rapidly changing current event. Hmmm, maybe the real solution here is we should take this out of the Biography article with a reference to a different article. Of course if this becomes a major story (related to Bio, not 2020 run) then it may be appropriate.--Davemoth (talk) 13:40, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Inappropriate touching

Amid the discussion of Tara Rade's assault allegations, the following sentence was removed from the end of the previously stable version of the subsection on inappropriate touching:

At a conference in April 2019, Biden apologized for not understanding how people would react to his actions, but said that his intentions were honorable; he went on to say that he was not sorry for anything he had ever done, which led critics to accuse him of sending a mixed message.

That was a good sentence discussing Biden's response and the reaction, and I propose reinstating it. Since there are allegations of inappropriate touching, it is imperative to include Biden's response. The source was an op-ed in the LA Times "Biden is sorry, not sorry", but the non-apology apology received the same reaction elsewhere: Washington Post "Biden’s new video is well done. But it’s not an apology", Bloomberg "Biden Offers No Apology for Touching But Vows to Change Style".

I propose adding this statement back in with the additional references. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 04:07, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Why would readers want to know that Biden said this at a conference in April 2019? TFD (talk) 04:18, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

It was his response to the allegations, and received broad coverage and criticism. Do you object? Zloyvolsheb (talk) 04:20, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, his handling of gender politics and harrassment charges is relevant given his position as leader. YouCanDoBetter (talk) 04:42, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

per WP:BLPPUBLIC 3rd main point: “If the subject has denied such allegations, their denial(s) should also be reported.” We should include Biden’s response. --Davemoth (talk) 08:41, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans it looks like you inadvertently removed the above line in your edits at 2013 on March 26. Can you review and put it back if you agree?--Davemoth (talk) 10:26, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

I have included the original statement and source to restore some balance --Davemoth (talk) 22:48, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Credit legislation

@Zloyvolsheb: I'd appreciate it if you'd explain your reinstatement of the text I copyedited and cleaned up. I don't believe I changed the meaning of anything relating to Biden. Clinton's veto can only be related to Biden by WP:SYNTH, which presumably was not your intent. The remainder of my edit was just copyedit and clearer language. I think there may be some further content to be had on this matter from other sources, but the text you restored does not add anything and is simply worse article text. Let me know your thoughts before I restore the other version. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 02:18, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

It's the Bankruptcy Bill, I inadvertently put "credit" in the edit summary. I don't see how your version was only a copyedit. It substantially changed the wording of the text to remove the mention of Clinton's veto and opposition from leading Democrats and consumer rights organizations. The criticism is in the source previously cited, The Guardian; the version I restored is actually quite restrained in briefly mentioning it. The reference to Clinton's veto is not a synthesis; Biden helped write the original bill vetoed by Clinton, then passed the 2005 version. For example, see this factcheck from a recent debate:

Biden misleadingly claimed that he “did not” help write a 2005 bankruptcy bill that made it easier for credit card companies to collect debt, but decided it was better to work with Republicans to improve the bill because a Republican president was expected to sign it.... The fact is, Biden had a long history with the legislation and his support for it predated Bush. In fact, Biden helped draft a version of the bankruptcy bill that Congress sent to President Bill Clinton in 2000, only to have the Democrat president pocket veto the bill before leaving office....

After Clinton vetoed the bill, Grassley reintroduced the Bankruptcy Reform Act in July 2001 and Biden co-sponsored it. Biden was a member of an informal conference committee to work on the bankruptcy bill, and the committee was scheduled to have its first meeting on Sept. 12, 2001 — which, as it turned out, was the day after the 9/11 terrorist attack. At the time, Congressional Quarterly described Biden as “one of the measure’s most vocal supporters.”

It wasn’t until 2005 that the bankruptcy bill became law....

And, as he did in 2000, Biden spoke in support of the bill’s provisions that made it easier for women and children to collect alimony and child support. “I am here again today to show that, contrary to a lot of the rhetoric that has been tossed around, this bill actually improves the situation of women and children who depend on child support,” Biden said.

Contrary to his claims during the debate, Biden helped write the bankruptcy law, and it wasn’t just because he knew the bill was going to become law under a Republican president and Republican Congress. He was involved over the years in many attempts to enact the legislation.

Zloyvolsheb (talk) 02:39, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

I addressed the Clinton veto above. None of the rest of your post here was kin the version I copy edited. As I said above, some of that additional content may be good for additional article text. SPECIFICO talk 03:18, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Your edit summary implied the Clinton veto was unrelated to Biden. As I have shown, the veto related to Biden's legislation. You also began this discussion by stating this was a synthesis. Per WP:SYNTH, a synthesis is a combination of two sources to state or imply an original conclusion not stated in them: "If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources." However, discussion of the Clinton veto was not an original conclusion but the background of Biden's involvement with the Bankruptcy Bill. I hope we are in agreement regarding the restored text, if not please elaborate further so I can better understand your objections. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 03:53, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

I did not say the Clinton bit was SYNTH. I said it was unrelated to Biden in your text. I cannot discuss this with you if you misrepresent what I say. SPECIFICO talk 07:39, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Why did you think it was unrelated to Biden? Actually, just above you wrote "Clinton's veto can only be related to Biden by WP:SYNTH, which presumably was not your intent." What did you mean by that? Zloyvolsheb (talk) 08:09, 29 March 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"?[3]  Brett Kavannaugh's article, for example, includes the allegation.[4]. 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" [5]. 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)

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.)

Kolya Butternut (talk) 16:44, 29 March 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?[6]. Kolya Butternut (talk) 21:30, 30 March 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/

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)

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)

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)

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

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

---

• 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)
• 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)

• 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)

• 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)
• 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)

• No -  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)

• 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)
• 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)

Related note

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)