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)
• Support 3 It's the best picture; it demonstrates him in action. ~ HAL333 22:14, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support updated photo. I don't think his VP photo should be used because he is famous at his current age and known now for running for president. I think if he loses and falls out of the spotlight it could go back to his VP photo because that's how he'll be remembered. Like after movie star dies we can go back to a younger photo from when they were most famous, like an obituary photo. That being said, I think the three choices aren't very good. I've found a better one (which is still less than ideal because he's facing to the right and not wearing a suit). Other crops can be made if it's too close. Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:19, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

  

"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)

Utility fish, I'm not a PI. I assume that the Capitol would have records of who worked there. Of course no one has questioned whether she worked there. If the story gets reported in major media, then I expect the Biden campaign will check that out if they have not already. At present however their best course of action is to say as little as possible since even if they were able to disprove the allegations, drawing attention to it would be damaging. TFD (talk) 19:58, 2 April 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)

Remember, only liberal sources are allowed. And since they are engaged in an obvious cover-up, it is not a notable allegation. Our venerable sources have authority because they have authority. They have no bias because they have no bias. Authority, bias, and credibility can never change despite how obvious they are. It's the way of Wikipedia. Even though the allegation has more evidence than the Kavanaugh stuff, Biden's friends in the mainstream media don't want to talk about it, so it never happened. Even though Biden told WaPo, one of the indisputably venerable sources, that "all women should be presumed to be telling the truth" (unless they are talking about him.). It's okay though, the complicity is part of the reason they continue to lose. Let them continue their Orwellian ways. If they had something good to offer the American people they wouldn't have to take part in the cover-up.JimmyPiersall (talk) 21:18, 31 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)

This whole section is horribly written. The first sentence says "Photographs and videos exist that show Biden in what some consider inappropriate proximity to women and children, including kissing and touching". Do the sources say "Photographs and videos exist"? No? Then that's WP:SYNTH. Just say that some have made such an allegation, and be specific because the weaselly way it's written right now seems to be full of innuendo. And the whole sentence is sources to one reliable source, plus three opinion pieces. Those are not considered reliable here unless they are notable in and of themselves. Volunteer Marek 01:34, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

The above discussion was really about restoring and improving the Biden response from April 2019. If you want to rework much of the section, have at it. I would suggest a new talk section where consensus can be gathered before we request the admins to make the change.--Davemoth (talk) 17:51, 31 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)

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

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

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

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

RS and Biden's inappropriate touching & sexual misconduct allegations

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

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

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

• The Times (See quote above.)
• Current Affairs
• The Week (Opinion piece is RS for the fact that there is an allegation)
• Salon (Investigates Reade and discusses media controversy)
  • The Hill's critique of the Salon story.[6].

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

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?[7]. Kolya Butternut (talk) 21:30, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

Mainstream RS: Tara Reade

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Non-compliant Lede

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• No It fails Due and undue weight. For a very high profile person like Biden, only substantial coverage of a story justifies inclusion. The argument that the allegations are serious and credible are arguments that the media should consider when deciding whether or not to cover the story. It could be that they have found the accusations lack credibility or perhaps they are so partisan they chose to ignore them. It really doesn't matter because they establish what is important. I note that a similar discussion came up with many times with Donald Trump, about allegations made by Jane Doe that were not covered in the media. (See for example  Talk:Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations/Archive 4#The lawsuit didn't receive much coverage / Remove Jane Doe?) It was agreed that due to lack of media coverage it should not be mentioned. TFD (talk) 17:33, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
• Yes per Atsme and Davemoth Quidster4040 (talk) 17:43, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

• 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)
  • Zloyvolsheb, The Guardian source is actually a column hence fails reliable sources, per WP:NEWSORG. But suppose it was reliable. How does an article titled "Why has the media ignored sexual assault and misbehaviour allegations against Biden?" show that this story has been well covered in the media? TFD (talk) 00:42, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
    • The Four Deuces, you can read the Guardian article as an opinion column, but it was actually published in the News section under U.S. politics and seemingly as part of women's interest, not in the separate Opinion section of the newspaper. I also initially assumed it was just an opinion column, and it resembles one. But regardless of the classification of this particular article, the very fact of its publication serves as an example of international discussion of the allegation, which addresses the arguments of those saying "undue." Zloyvolsheb (talk) 01:18, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
      • The test for inclusion is not that someone somewhere in the media has mentioned something but in proportion to its prominence in reliable sources, which does not include opinion pieces. Generally, if there is next to no coverage, it should be omitted. (See Balancing aspects.) Arwa Mahdawi is billed as a Guardian columnist and brand strategist, not a reporter.[8] And note it has been relegated to the feminism section, rather than politics. That's probably because she is writing about how the media ignore sex allegations against politicians they like. But that's an opinion, not an established fact. As I pointed out above, the media also ignored an accusation against a woman who made claims against Trump. TFD (talk) 02:21, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
        • OK, as I have before stated, for me the remaining question was the due weight of including this, given that the community has already recognized the first sources to have picked up Reade's allegation, The Intercept and The Hill, as WP:RS. We don't need every WP:RS, or twenty or a dozen WP:RS, if we already have multiple WP:RS. A set of reliable sources can pick up a fact or report an allegation that other reliable sources do not mention. Unless there is a contradiction in how something is actually described in different reliable sources, reliable source a omitting something you found in reliable source b does not detract from the argument for including the information according to source b. If that's settled, the remaining element is notability. We know there are dozens of popular, mainstream sources like Newsweek, HuffPo, etc. Among them Mahdawi in The Guardian, a major British newspaper, which proves that the allegation was not just reported reliably in the first place, but is also a subject of sufficient prominence. That addresses due weight. I separate this from reliability, but the reliability criterion was already met with WP:RS like The Times, The Intercept, and The Hill. So your argument looks like "it needs to be in one of or several American newspapers like The NY Times, LA Times, etc. to be worth mentioning." I think that is extremely restrictive, particularly when it comes to merely reporting the existence of an allegation that was reliably reported elsewhere. How many other facts are not reported in The NY Times? Zloyvolsheb (talk) 03:44, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
          • Why have the policy of weight at all if we can add anything that meets rs? TFD (talk) 04:01, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
            • Because it is applied to separate fringe and minority views from mainstream and majority views when describing things like science vs pseudoscience, or other controversies where we describe opposing views. WP:WEIGHT actually gives the example of Flat Earth, but there are less obvious examples that we come across regularly. Or how about this: suppose we had 3 sources alleging Biden was actually guilty of committing assault and 7 reliable sources telling us he was innocent. Weight again. But we are not presenting that kind of narrative, we are presenting the mere fact of the existence of an allegation, and including Biden's denial. There are no WP:RS denying its existence. In this case the appropriate interpretation for "weight" is notability. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 04:15, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
        • Actually The Guardian lists this "article". as an "Opinion". piece. Per WP:EXCEPTIONAL Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources. Newsweek and Huff Post are hardly "high-quality sources". There is no consensus that they are reliable. The Hill source is a video clip with no editorial oversight and should be treated as equivalent to primary source. CBS527^Talk 05:24, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
          • OK, The Guardian source is an opinion column and The Hill is WP:RS but a primary source. We take the reliability of many other sources as open to question. That leaves us with at least The Times, The Intercept, and the Fox website from Wikipedia's good sources list as secondary WP:RS. So, again, multiple sources to use for what Reade alleged. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 06:54, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
            • Opinion pieces can be used as RS to report facts.  Here the fact is that Reade accused Biden of assault.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 07:22, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
              • Kolya Butternut, see News organizations: "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." TFD (talk) 21:21, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
                • I interpret that to mean that the opinion itself cannot be used as a statement of fact, but facts reported within the editorial can (at least I thought I read that within some PAGs...). Kolya Butternut (talk) 21:28, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
• No - there's a reason why reliable and credible sources have ignored this story. Someone like Biden, who has been a Senator as well as a VP for 8 years, has been vetted up, down and sideways. And the initial allegation was made years ago. The fact that mainstream reliable source are not touching this is a pretty clear WP:REDFLAG. At this point this is nothing but a WP:FRINGE story which does not belong in a BLP. (The guardian and the Huff Po pieces are just opinion columns, which is not enough for a BLP). Volunteer Marek 01:29, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Do you consider The Times, The Intercept, The Hill and Fox News fringe sources? Zloyvolsheb (talk) 01:32, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
• Yes per Atsme. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 01:42, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
• Yes, Wikipedia should report the allegations, that is newsworthy and the Biden campaign has responded to them. But No, according to WP:BLP and Wikipedia:Offensive material, we don't need to provide a detailed narrative of an alleged sexual assault. And just because these policies and guidelines have been violated on other articles is not a good reason to allow for that on this one. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:14, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
• Include if-and-only-if it rises to the level of having electoral consequences. As an allegation standing alone it has insufficient significance in the scope of the subject's life. However, if the subject were to lose either the primary or general election, and if that loss reliable sources attributed that loss to some degree to the allegation, then it would definitely merit inclusion. BD2412 T 02:28, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

• Yes – There is more than enough secondary sources with detail to show due weight. This is verifiable and relevant. There is no reason why we should not include. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 03:41, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
• Yes per Atsme. Columbia Journalism Review has characterized this as a "notable story".[9] Current Affairs has now vetted the story.[10] Kolya Butternut (talk) 04:16, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
• Yes with caveat, and Snow Close There are no grounds on which to deny adding this to the article, and launching this RfC after removing well-sourced, consensed material from the article was out of line. Now we are set up to wait an entire month based on the deluded idea that specific media orgs must report on this before it can be included. This is nowhere mentioned in the PAGs, and the threshold for sources has been met. It is being brushed aside, but multiple articles have focused on the shocking fact that these specific media orgs have refused to acknowledge the story, and that is crucial here. CNN, NYT and MSNBC have been called out in these pieces, but these same outlets are being elevated here on WP to a position they haven't earned. 'It must be reported by the CNN's of the world or it didn't happen' is not a policy or guideline, and arguments suggesting otherwise are without merit until a proper RfC at the RS/N to establish this has been completed.

Yes, the allegation should be included in the article immediately. No, it should not be limited to three sentences, although it was a good start until plucked from the article without consensus. There was no discussion before removing the material as far as I can see. petrarchan47คุก 06:11, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

The section was removed here by a single editor with no discussion on the TP. The edit summary states "no substantial coverage in mainstream sources ("heavy" ain't)".

"Heavy" was used only to quote a tweet from Reade. The validity of the claim that she wrote this tweet is not in question, the tweet is available at the link to view. Heavy is perfectly reliable for the claim.

"No substantial coverage by mainstream sources" - the sources had been trimmed from the article down to Newsweek, Vox and Fox. These meet the threshold, but there are others as a quick glance at this page shows.

The edit summary is invalid; the removal of the material does not have consensus and should be restored now, not a month from now. petrarchan47คุก 07:06, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Hill critiques the Salon story.[11]. Kolya Butternut (talk) 16:45, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

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

Last week, podcaster Katie Halper, an avid fan of presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders, released an episode of her podcast containing a shocking accusation:... At the same time, Ryan Grim of The Intercept — a publication which has been strongly supportive of Sanders and critical of Biden — published a story...
— [12]

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

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

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

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

Just a quick note about The Hill. Tara Reade bravely chose to give an interview to The Hill and shared the details of the attack and her ordeal[13]. We have The Hill covered. It's not Wikipedia's fault that CNN, New York Times, and other far-left sources have chosen to ignore Reade and have devoted little time to the other eight women who have come forward to discuss Biden's alleged misconduct. Readers shouldn't have to read an incomplete biography because of journalistic malfeasance. 2600:1700:D281:27D0:951A:49BB:1F4F:EECE (talk) 14:58, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

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

The Hill critiques the Salon story.[14]. Kolya Butternut (talk) 16:45, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

• Yes - the argument regarding "low quality sources" is moot as there is plenty of sources reporting on it, and there is absolutely no doubt that the accusation has happened. Whether the accusation is true is a different story, but since it is a serious allegation, it should be included. BeŻet (talk) 12:51, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
• Yes - at least one sentence, it is/was big on social media and has been reported in detail in reputable outlets such as Vox, and also in Salon, Fox News, and Daily Caller. Danski14^(talk) 12:55, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
• Yes - the content is relevant, notable, and sourced, just keep it minimal unless it becomes a bigger issue. --Waters.Justin (talk) 14:05, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
• Yes - notable issue covered in sufficient reliable sources. Can and will be expanded as this develops. ɱ (talk) 14:40, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
• Yes - sufficiently covered, as per Davemoth. The Verified Cactus 100% 18:40, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
• Comment - anecdotally, I have seen on Twitter major bot activity that is certainly one of the reasons this story was trending a few days ago on the platform — accounts spamming identical or extremely similar replies and tweets with hashtags about it. This does not mean it is not a notable story that should be here (I am not experienced enough with notability to really have a certain opinion), but if one reason you are thinking it might be notable is that you saw it all over Twitter, remember that at least part of the reason for that is some very clear bot activity. Probably similar things are true on other social media platforms. DemonDays64 (talk) 20:46, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

• • • I don't have a subscription to The Economist, but from the first couple of paragraphs it looks like yet another source that just recycles the original interview. Sources that repeat the same thing are not providing the kind of verification we are looking for. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:37, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
      • Maybe this has been discussed, but I believe that we only need sources that verify the allegation took place, because we are not stating in the article that the assault actually happened.  So, whether to include the allegation in this article is really a question of WP:Weight not verifiability.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:43, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
        • No, that would be an oversimplification. And frankly, this has been a significant problem with the way this RfC has developed. Almost all of the "sourcing" comes from the original interview. There's been no independent verification by any mainstream media sources beyond the standard denial by the Biden campaign. In fact, what we would consider the "normal" mainstream media sources have largely steered clear of the claim, which is telling. The fact is, if this claim is not gaining mainstream media traction, it strongly suggests the claim may be viewed as dubious. If that is the case, it fails to meet the WP:WEIGHT standard, because it does not rise above the "noise" level you expect with notable figures who are on the receiving end of what turn out to be spurious claims. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:49, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
          • But again, the fact that an allegation has been made is verifiable; we can all see the interview ourselves and any sources who have rehashed the story have surely seen the interview themselves. So... verifiability has been established through several RS. Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:59, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
            • That's an absurdly low bar to pass. Literally anyone with an axe to grind could give an interview accusing any public figure of anything, and by your standards we would have to include it here. Obviously that is not the case, which is why we look for significant coverage in a preponderance of mainstream reliable sources. Can you explain why so many of the usual mainstream reliable sources have ignored this story, despite it being a week old? -- Scjessey (talk) 20:07, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
              • Yes, if the allegations gains media traction and are noteworthy enough they should be included. Tara Reade's allegations passes both bars and hence should be included. For example, the allegations have been covered by economist. The mainstream sources CNN, MSNBC, and The New York Times, which have not been covering the allegations may be ignoring them because they don't want to hurt Joe Biden's presidential campaign. ImTheIP (talk) 04:12, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

The deciding factors are whether the allegations are noteworthy and have been covered by verifiable sources. In this case they have and therefore they should be included in the article.

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

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

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

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

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

Petra, this Salon article sums up my position quite well. [15]Gandydancer (talk) 06:22, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

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

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

• Not yet There has been some coverage from reliable sources but not enough to warrant inclusion at this stage. It's similar to the Trump Jane Doe case in terms of coverage right now. Worth revisiting if that changes.LM2000 (talk) 21:42, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
  • The Jane Doe case is different because she was anonymous.[16] Tara Reade has given several recorded interviews. Jane Doe RfC Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:59, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
    • Roe v. Wade was anonymous too. TFD (talk) 04:11, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

The Economist magazine now has an article on the incident.

• "How to weigh an allegation of assault against Joe Biden - Democrats who thought Brett Kavanaugh should not be on the Supreme Court are ignoring Mr Biden's accuser". The Economist. April 4, 2020.
• Yes The claim seems more credible than the ones made against Brett Kavanaugh that we allow multiple paragraphs on here. There are plenty sources that discuss it and even ask why the mainstream media is ignoring it[17] even though its not apparently the only time he's behaved inappropriately [18].--MONGO (talk) 05:29, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

• With respect, if mainstream sources are "ignoring" it, that's precisely why we wouldn't include it in the article. We don't discuss fringe material and we don't right great wrongs. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 05:33, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

• I guess different people understand what "mainstream sources" are in different ways. Mainstream media outlets should never dictate what should and should not be included on Wikipedia. Each media outlet has an agenda. The story has definitely been reported in big media outlets (Newsweek, Fox News, Huffington Post etc.) but has not been reported by "mainstream" "liberal" media (like CNN or MSNBC), who are so far ignoring the story completely. BeŻet (talk) 12:36, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

• I'm not sure why this has to be constantly be repeated, but perhaps it is necessary. Newsweek is a poor source since it ceased being a newspaper. Fox News is not a reliable source in the Real World. Huffington Post is a news aggregator that, like Newsweek, is a clickbait site. Where's WaPo? Where's NYT? Where's WSJ? We need proper, reliable mainstream media sources. Also, allegations against other individuals being mentioned here as "justification" for violating WP:WEIGHT had massive coverage across all sources, which this absolutely does not. Why is this still up for debate? Madness. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:20, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

There is plenty of other news right now for all news to report on but I concur that we are not beholdened by what is offered or not offered by hypocritical left of center new sources. There are more than adequate sources to support this short mention as it also includes the Biden campaigns denial, which is of course to be expected. Scjessey, FoxNews IS deemed reliable by Wikipedia as shown by multiple Rfcs.--MONGO (talk) 14:39, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

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

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

• Scjessey, there is no policy that says we must wait until a few certain sources carry information before we can include it. There is only WP:RS. There is no WP:BUTONLYTHESERS. If the burden of DUE is overcome by other RS not including WaPo, NYT, or CNN, then we can freely include it here. Wikipedia collects knowledge from a broad spectrum, not simply just 3 US news organizations who can't and don't cover everything. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:06, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

• @Mr Ernie: There's no policy that says we must wait for certain sources; however, we do expect BLPs to be based on the prevailing view in a preponderance of reliable sources. As I have stated before, the fact that almost none of the usual mainstream reliable sources that cover politicians have covered this allegation is very telling. In fact, one could reasonably state that the absence of coverage indicates the skepticism on the part of the mainstream media. Sufficient time has now passed that one would have expected these better sources to have covered the story, but they haven't. Why do you suppose that is? Why do you suppose only low quality sources associated with Biden opponents have covered it? -- Scjessey (talk) 17:58, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

• Yes, that is a good point and I do not know why. This seems to be a departure from the multitude of the "believe all women" articles that were run alongside the Kavanaugh allegations. Both the Biden and Kavanaugh accusations were both a bit short on verifiable facts, but stemmed from the credibility of the accusations themselves. What makes Reade any less credible that Blasey Ford? I don't know the answer to that. But with Kavanaugh we also saw that two of the claims, one on that boat and the other in Colorado, were falsehoods. What is different about the Reade claim and the Blasey Ford claim? What facts are WaPo, NYT, et al party to about the Reade claim that weren't there with the Blasey Ford claim? What's the main difference between the two men? I think the main outlets are doing us a disservice by not reporting why they don't think the Reade allegation is notable enough to report about, when other RS have found that it is. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:13, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

• Comment MONGO says: "The claim seems more credible than the ones made against Brett Kavanaugh". Complete nonsense. You have a source which says this or are you just making stuff up? Volunteer Marek 18:06, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

• I would say the claims are quite similar. Both are nearly impossible to verify and both were denied by the alleged offending party. However one received near universal coverage and the other didn't run in the major US outlets. One was corroborated by witnesses at the time and the other denied by the witnesses at the time. Is that an issue with the allegations or with those that cover such stories? Mr Ernie (talk) 18:13, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
• Whether or not the claim is true is irrevalant here (no, I’m not going to post to that Medium piece again. Nor even the Salon piece) What does matter is how reliable sources discuss the claim. The Kavanaugh accusations (which should not be brought up as per WP:OTHERSTUFF) have been discussed in The New York Times, The Washington Post, Reuters, Wall Street Journal, etc. The Biden sexual assualt accusion (which is different than the sexual harassment allegations from last year) has not had coverage from any of these top-level sources as of today. Samboy (talk) 21:33, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

• Comment - a minor pause to acknowledge the obvious concerns stemming from what appears to be confusion over RS and the material we are allowed to include. See WP:NEWSORG, since that is what we are dealing with now rather than scholarly sources written with retrospect. With relevance to WP:PUBLICFIGURE and NEWSORG, our guidelines say we can...:

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

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

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

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

Full protection

I have requested temporary full page protection with the contentious material excluded until the RfC is concluded. We cannot have an edit war over an alleged sexual assault allegation. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:38, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

I have fully protected the page until this matter is resolved in order to enforce the policy on biographies of living people. Because the page was semi-protected indefinitely, I didn't want the 30 days to expire and then the page have no protection which is why the full protection is indefinite. Please ping me when this RfC is over and I will lower protection back to semi protection. Editors who wish to continue making changes unrelated to this RfC may make an edit request using {{FPER}} and an administrator will review it. — Wug·a·po·des​ 01:26, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

I do not see evidence this was warranted. I see no edit war. The talk page is peaceful. When sections were removed recently without consensus, we discussed it. No one tried to add them back. The version presently locked in place is not the consensed version. It was never discussed at all, and ignores the work of the community. Why should editors spend hours working on this talk page only to have all their work erased in a drive-by edit, and then locked for no reason? Please restore the previous version, and kindly explain why it is locked. petrarchan47คุก 10:55, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Wugapodes, I agree full protection is overkill. The allegation has proper sources, so it isn’t really a BLP concern at this point, but more of DUE. Mr Ernie (talk) 11:58, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

There is no hurry to include the content here. There are real issues with the allegations, and they have not been thoroughly investigated at this time. We can with 30 days—or longer—for there to be more coverage of this allegation before making edits can can potentially violate BLP. Samboy (talk) 12:14, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Full protection was needed because editors were appearing out of nowhere to revert the material back into the article, without regard to the RfC and related talk page discussions in which multiple editors pointed out that the material is mostly being carried by low quality sources. When protecting a page because of a content dispute, administrators have a duty to avoid protecting a version that contains policy-violating content, such as vandalism, copyright violations, defamation, or poor-quality coverage of living people. - MrX 🖋 12:19, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

It's not that much damage if a sourced allegation is inserted and reverted a few times before a stable consensus emerges. That type of stuff happens all the time as part of the normal editing process. Biden's running for president and editors ought to be able to freely update this page as we get closer to the election. Mr Ernie (talk) 12:57, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Nonsense. We had a legitimate edit warring concern, where the same VIOLATING material was being added and removed multiple times per day. This was the best solution, and editing in other areas can continue via WP:EREQ with little difficulty. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:11, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

I endorse the adding of full protection. Because the material was being edit warred in and out, this is a classic case of an article that needed it. I also endorse keeping the full protection in place until the RfC is resolved, since edit warring was going on despite the presence of an active RfC -- MelanieN (talk) 19:02, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

An edit war is more than a series of reverts in quick succession, and I protected because this page has been undergoing a slow-moving edit war for multiple days prior to and during this RFC. Starting at an arbitrary point in the history:

• Petrarchan47 adds content related to allegations 26 March c. 22:30
• MrX reverts those additions 26 March 00:55
• Maccaheartney adds content related to allegations 28 March c. 01:07
• YouCanDoBetter adds additional content 28 March 01:09
• SPECIFICO reverts the previous two additions 28 March 01:40
• Bobtinin adds content related to allegations 28 March 19:09
• The content is reworked for about 12 hours in what looks to me like normal editorial processes
• Mr Ernie and Scjessey remove a chunk of that content 29 March c. 13:00
• Volunteer Marek removes the remaining content 30 March 05:15
• This RfC is started on 30 March at 13:36
• Quidster4040 restores content removed by Marek 30 March 17:09
• Scjessey reverts the addition 30 March 17:33
• Wugapodes fully protects the page 31 March 01:22

Because this article is a BLP, it is subject to discretionary sanctions which allow any uninvolved administrator to "impose on any page or set of pages relating to the area of conflict page protection, [...] prohibitions on the addition or removal of certain content (except when consensus for the edit exists), or any other reasonable measure that the enforcing administrator believes is necessary and proportionate for the smooth running of the project." While I considered simply prohibiting addition of the content without consensus, I'm not interested in playing whack-a-mole on a highly viewed BLP of a US presidential candidate (see principle 1 of the BLP arbitration case). The alternative is page protection, and since the page was already semi protected and multiple editors engaged in the dispute are extended confirmed, full protection is the only effective protection level. Immediately after this page was protected, I logged it as an arbitration enforcement action. It can be appealed as such at arbitration enforcement or the administrator's noticeboard. (edit conflict) — Wug·a·po·des​ 19:50, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining that. It was the correct thing to do. TFD (talk) 21:13, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm afraid I just don't see an edit war. It looks like normal editing, with the exception of the removal of the entire section we had worked and agreed on through good faith efforts on the TP. The removal of consensed material without so much as a note on TP was improper, starting an RfC that locks the section for 30 days without discussing the idea first on the TP was also improper. Locking a non-consensed (or even discussed) version is akin to telling editors that gaining consensus and presenting arguments on the TP to determine content, as we are asked to do, is not actually how things work around here. "We had a legitimate edit warring concern" means that we didn't actually have any war, only a concern, which is not an emergency. petrarchan47คุก 01:14, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Let it go, Petrarchan. Maybe you "don't see an edit war" but that call is not up to you. It is up to an administrator, someone who knows an edit war when they see one and has been entrusted with the power to act on it. I am also an administrator, although I usually function at this page as a regular editor, and I also know an edit war when I see one. Wugapodes did the right thing. If you want to challenge it, there are other boards designed for that kind of thing, but arguing about the full protection at this page is a waste of bytes. -- MelanieN (talk) 03:24, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

It's a dozen or so edits across 5 days. That's hardly disruptive - now the page is entirely locked. That is not normal. Mr Ernie (talk) 07:46, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Mr. Ernie, That is not normal. Ernie, you are not in the Twilight Zone. It's been explained in detail above. BTW, do you think page restrictions do not apply to the article talk page? If they do, you just violated both page restrictions, 1RR and the 24-hour BRD sanction, with your recent edits. SPECIFICO talk 17:48, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

High school sit-in

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Bdien" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Bdien. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:37, 3 April 2020 (UTC)