Misplaced Pages

Talk:Joe Biden: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 21:44, 10 May 2020 view sourceBetsyRMadison (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,656 edits →Reset the reset← Previous edit Latest revision as of 15:00, 6 January 2025 view source Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,301,099 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Talk:Joe Biden/Archive 19) (bot 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{GAR/link|22:45, 22 April 2020 (UTC)|page=4|GARpage=1|status= }}
{{Skip to talk}}
{{Talk header|search=yes}} {{Talk header|search=yes}}
{{Not a forum}}
{{American politics AE |Consensus required = no |BRD = yes}}
{{American English}} {{American English}}
{{Article history|action1=GAN
{{Vital article|level=5|topic=People|subpage=Politicians|class=B}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|blp=yes|activepol=yes|1=
{{WikiProject Biography|living=yes|class=B|activepol=yes|politician-work-group=yes|politician-priority=high|listas=Biden, Joe}}
{{WikiProject U.S. Congress|class=B|importance=High|subject=Person}}
{{WikiProject Barack Obama|class=B|importance=High}}
{{WikiProject United States|class=B|importance=Mid|DE=yes|DE-importance=Mid|USPE=Yes|USPE-importance=Mid|listas=Biden, Joe|Cape-Cod=yes|Cape-Cod-importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Pennsylvania|class=B|importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Politics|class=B|importance=low}}
{{WikiProject College football|class=B|importance=bottom}}
}}
{{split to|from=Joe Biden|from_oldid=954085573|to=Vice presidency of Joe Biden|date=April 30, 2020|diff=954070556}}
{{Annual readership|scale=log}}
{{Article history|action1=GAN
|action1date=03:48, 18 September 2008 |action1date=03:48, 18 September 2008
|action1link=Talk:Joe Biden/GA1 |action1link=Talk:Joe Biden/GA1
Line 31: Line 17:
|action3result=delisted |action3result=delisted
|action3oldid=952402643 |action3oldid=952402643
|action4=GAR
|action4date=20:53, 28 June 2020
|action4link=Misplaced Pages:Good article reassessment/Joe Biden/1
|action4result=delisted
|action4oldid=964882135
|action5=GAN
|action5date=07:55, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
|action5link=Talk:Joe Biden/GA4
|action5result=failed
|action5oldid=981625415
|itndate=23 August 2008
|itnlink=Special:Diff/233681908
|currentstatus=DGA |currentstatus=DGA

|topic=Social sciences |topic=Social sciences
}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|blp=activepol|class=B|vital=yes|listas=Biden, Joe|1=
{{WikiProject Biography |politician-work-group=yes|politician-priority=top}}
{{WikiProject U.S. Congress|importance=High|subject=Person}}
{{WikiProject United States|importance=High|DE=yes|DE-importance=Mid|USPE=yes|USPE-importance=Mid|USGov=yes|USGov-importance=top}}
{{WikiProject United States Presidents |importance=top |trump=yes |trump-importance=high}}
{{WikiProject Pennsylvania|importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Politics|importance=High|American=yes|American-importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject College football|importance=bottom}}
{{WikiProject Science Policy|importance=high}}
{{WikiProject Barack Obama|importance=high}}
}}
{{pp-vandalism|small=yes}}
{{Skip to bottom}}
{{American politics AE |1RR = no |Consensus required = no |BRD = yes}}


{{Banner holder|text=Other banners: Top 25 reports; media mentions; pageviews; section size|collapsed=yes|1=
{{Banner holder|text='''Top 50 Report''' and '''Top 25 Report''' annual lists|collapsed=yes|1=
{{All time pageviews|82}}
{{Annual report|], ], ], and ]}}
{{Top 25 report|May 31 2015|Jan 8 2017|Mar 1 2020|Aug 9 2020|Aug 16 2020|Aug 30 2020|Sep 13 2020|Sep 27 2020|until|Nov 15 2020|Jan 3 2021|Jan 17 2021|Jan 24 2021|Apr 9 2023|Jun 23 2024|until|Jul 7 2024|Jul 21 2024|Nov 3 2024}}
}} }}
{{Press | collapsed=yes {{Press | collapsed=yes
Line 62: Line 79:
| url5= https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2020/04/29/biden_vs_kavanaugh_how_the_metoo_numbers_stack_up_143065.html | url5= https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2020/04/29/biden_vs_kavanaugh_how_the_metoo_numbers_stack_up_143065.html
| org5= ] | org5= ]
| title6= Nobody should trust Misplaced Pages, says man who invented Misplaced Pages
| author6 = Mayank Aggarwal
| date6= July 16, 2021
| url6= https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/wikipedia-founder-larry-sanger-democrats-b1885138.html
| org6= ]
| title7= Larry Sanger: ‘I wouldn’t trust Misplaced Pages — and I helped to invent it’
| author7 = Madeleine Spence
| date7= August 1, 2021
| url7= https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/larry-sanger-i-wouldnt-trust-wikipedia-and-i-helped-to-invent-it-cflrhmdhx
| org7= ]
| title8= Misplaced Pages 'War in Afghanistan' Article Describes It As a 'Taliban Victory'
| author8 = Jack Beresford
| date8= September 2, 2021
| url8= https://www.newsweek.com/wikipedia-war-afghanistan-article-describes-taliban-victory-1624465
| org8= ]
}}
{{Page views double}}
{{anchor|Section sizes}}{{Section sizes}}
}} }}
{{dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment | course = Misplaced Pages:Wiki_Ed/University_of_California,_Berkeley/Social_Movements_and_Social_Media_(Fall_2016) | assignments = ] }}
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn {{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
|target=Talk:Joe Biden/Archive index |target=Talk:Joe Biden/Archive index
Line 69: Line 103:
|leading_zeros=0 |leading_zeros=0
|indexhere=yes}} |indexhere=yes}}
{{Auto archiving notice|bot=Lowercase sigmabot III|age=21|dounreplied=yes}}
<!-- Metadata: see ] --> <!-- Metadata: see ] -->
{{User:MiszaBot/config {{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{Talkarchivenav}} |archiveheader = {{Talkarchivenav}}
|maxarchivesize = 80K |maxarchivesize = 50K
|counter = 9 |counter = 19
|minthreadsleft = 4 |minthreadsleft = 3
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |minthreadstoarchive = 1
|algo = old(21d) |algo = old(21d)
Line 83: Line 116:
__TOC__ __TOC__


== Current consensus == <!-- Must be on this page, not the subpage, to support mobile users -->
== RfC: Infobox picture ==
{{/Current consensus}}
Considering a noticeable age difference between the current infobox picture and now, I think it might be time for an image change. I have a few proposals below. Thoughts?
(Originally started by ] but without RfC template. <u>At that time the lead image was his 2013 official portraint. </u>) ] (]) 18:19, 8 April 2020 (UTC)<small>] (]) 04:04, 9 April 2020 (UTC)</small>

] ] ] --] (]) 01:02, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

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

: I would support changing it to the second image. <b style=background:#0800aa;padding:2px>&nbsp;]&nbsp;</b><b style=background:#006eff;padding:2px> ]&nbsp;</b><b style=background:#00a1ff;padding:2px>&nbsp;]&nbsp;</b> 07:37, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
:: I agree. However, over at ], 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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.] (]) 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. ] (]) 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.--] (]) 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? --] (]) 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.--] (]) 06:22, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
*'''Support''' I would support changing it to the second image. ] (]) 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. - ]] 🖋 16:21, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
**{{u|MrX}}, do you know how to reopen this RfC? &nbsp;I added a new photo too. &nbsp;] (]) 16:51, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
:::{{u|Kolya Butternut}} The RfC was never closed. - ]] 16:57, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
*'''Oppose #2, Support #3''' His face now takes up way too much space in the infobox, it's kind of terrifying. — ] (]) 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. -- ] (]) 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 ] <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 00:09, 8 March 2020 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
*'''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. ] (]) 20:24, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
*'''Support 3''' It's the best picture; it demonstrates him in action. ~ ]] 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. &nbsp;] (]) 02:19, 1 April 2020 (UTC) ]
::While my first choice is the fourth photo, my second choice is his official VP photo because the others are so poor. &nbsp;] (]) 02:04, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

{{Multiple image
|align=right
|direction=horizontal
|total_width=400
|image1=Joe Biden official portrait crop.jpg
|image2=Joe Biden official portrait 2013.jpg
|footer=
}}
*'''Comment''' Why not use one of his offical portraits or . I mean he was the vice president for 8 years and most other articles on those who have held high political postions use the offical portraits. Regards ] ]
::This RfC is precisely discussing whether to change the lead image from his official photo as vice president to something more recent. When this RfC began the lead image was the official portrait from 2013. ] (]) 03:58, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
::We have an official portrait from when he was an officeholder. There is no need to resort to lower-quality images. This is not a difficult choice. ] (]) 14:25, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
*'''Note''' I have added his official portrait since there hasn't been an actual consensus in which "recent" photo would be best to replace the official portrait. Seeing that within this week there has been constant changing of the lead image I have placed the official portrait back on the infobox with a note saying that it should not be change until a '''final consensus on which picture would be best to replace it''' and hopefully it will stop the constant back and forth. --] (]) 09:42, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
::{{u|TDKR Chicago 101}}, please revert. &nbsp;The consensus was clearly against the seven year old photo. I mistakenly reopened this RfC because I had thought an official close was necessary. &nbsp;Only one editor reverted the recent change. (Also, you did not use his official portrait, you used a crop.) This is a mostly dormant account has preferre&nbsp;] (]) 10:51, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
*'''Support #4''' (File:Joe Biden (48554137807) (cropped).jpg; presumably added by {{u|Kolya Butternut}}). Biden is now more notable as the presumptive 2020 Democratic nominee than as former VP, so the recent images are preferable to the "official" portraits. Of the three images offered by Cliffmore: in the first, he is looking down; in the second, the crop is too tight and his teeth are distractingly prominent; in the third, his face and eyes are in shadow. ] 14:42, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
* '''Support '''. Where we have a fairly recent official portrait, that is prefereble. He is running for president and the candids, aside from lower visual quality, are inappropriate where the high quality professional alternative is avaliable. ]] 18:16, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
::As I stated in my edit summary, consensus was already acheived against the official portrait. &nbsp;I opened this RfC back up with a new photo. &nbsp;] (]) 18:36, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
:::So you're claiming you opened it and then you closed it? Go to ]. Or leave well enough alone and drop it. ]] 18:41, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
::::Please refrain from incivil personal comments. &nbsp;I did open reopen it, it's easy enough to see that it was at the time of my first edit to the RfC. &nbsp;I have not closed it. &nbsp;Please revert and discuss before escalating. &nbsp;] (]) 18:49, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
:::::Nobody is going to "escalate" - AN is where you can request closure by an uninvolved Admin. But if the 2019 RfC was indeed closed, you should have started a new one with new information or alternatives. Closed is closed, unless there's a valid closure review. I haven't been following this, I just saw that a good photo was replaced by the worst alternative of the whole lot, a close-up candid-looking crop that's out of character with the subject. ]] 19:23, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
::::::: We've had consensus for two months against the 2013 photo. Affirmed by {{u|SharabSalam}}.. &nbsp;Please revert to the consensus until this reopened RfC is closed. ] (]) 20:08, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
::::::: You characterized the fourth photo, in this version as the "worst alternative of the whole lot, a close-up candid-looking crop". &nbsp;This comes off as disingenuous. &nbsp;The other new photos are all candid crops (and you could edit them for a zoomed out crop). &nbsp;I feel like you may be personalizing past disagreements. &nbsp;Please don't escalate tensions. &nbsp;] (]) 20:20, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
* I'd support the '''2013 VP photo''' as the photo. There is no need to change it. ] 18:56, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
*'''Support official portrait''' - Yes it is from 2013 but I think it is best to use last official portrait. Similar to ]. ] (]) 18:58, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
::{{u|PackMecEng}}, {{u|Corkythehornetfan}}, did SPECIFICO communicate something to you about this RfC? ] (]) 19:43, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
:::{{re|Kolya Butternut}} Ummmm... no. It’s called I saw the change on my watchlist and came to see the discussion. I’ve never liked the idea of removing an official image, especially of a VP or POTUS or top government official. ] 20:25, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
:::{{reply|Kolya Butternut}} No, and I am just as confused as you that I would be agreeing with her. Right {{U|SPECIFICO}}? ] (]) 21:38, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

*'''Support #3''' - Since it is more recent, he looks to be making a speech, and his head doesn't take up the whole photo like the other two. ]<sup>(])</sup> 15:59, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
*'''Support official portrait''', which is the convention we normally apply to ''all'' politicians. -- ] (]) 16:02, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
*'''Support official portrait''', the argument he has aged between 2013 and 2020 is simply not true. He looks exactly the same. ] (]) 06:13, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
*'''Support official portrait''', which is the convention. More recent photos could be included in the body for more recent events. Cheers ] (]) 01:40, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
*'''Support official portrait''' - I don't see anything wrong with it. While one can argue that he looks different now, I honestly don't see that myself. ] (]) 03:43, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
*'''Support changing to 2nd one''' - He's not in office currently so a current picture is appropriate. Showing an older "official" picture when he's running for a new office is misleading. ] (]) 02:41, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
::Its really not, Biden was in-office for 8 years as vice present and in-office for 36 years before that, its more misleading to attempt to portray Biden as an average "joe" when he's been politics for the majority of his life. ] (]) 09:20, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
*'''Support official portrait''' - as the current portrait seems to be from his time serving as vp, i believe that is the one we should use and continue to use if for example he loses the upcoming election. the images use in perpetuity would help to reflect the highest office he achieve during his career. that being said, if he is election in november, i believe we should change it once he officially becomes president. also don't think he's aged that much between the photos (at least in appearence, lol) ] (]) 03:44, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
*'''Support official portrait'''. It's the best quality picture that we currently have of him. ] (]) 05:43, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
*'''Support official portrait''' per ] and ], and because it's a better photo than the others proposed here. —]&nbsp;(] '''·''' ]) 15:13, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
* '''Support official portrait''' per ] slightly over #2 of the original suggestions. While there is an age difference between the official portrait and now, only a few years of aging aren't enough to warrant a change when the alternatives are not as good. <small>--Comment by </small> ] (] about my ]) 15:27, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
* '''Support official portrait''' per above. --] (]) 20:39, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

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

{{u|Liz}}, why did you want to remove the specific allegation in favor of the vague language "sexual assault"? &nbsp;Brett Kavannaugh's article, for example, includes the allegation.. ] (]) 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--] (]) 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? ] (]) 16:51, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
:::Yeah, leave that out. It's sensationalistic and adds no encyclopedic value whatsoever. - ]] 16:52, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
:::: Please cite policy. &nbsp;] (]) 17:37, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
:::::], ], ]. Now you cite a policy that says we must use salacious detail in our articles. - ]] 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 face" . 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. ] (]) 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.--] (]) 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. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 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 Misplaced Pages be accused of biased and politicization of sexual allegations?. Especially that one is republican and the other is democrat.--] (]) 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. ] (]) 19:26, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
::::::::: 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 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 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. '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px #B8B8B8;">]]]</span>''' 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 ]. 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. ] <sub>]</sub> ] 19:36, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
:::Yes. Removing the detail is a violation of ]. 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. ] (]) 20:18, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
::::Feel free to take that to the not censored noticeboard. Meanwhile, the ] policy is clear: {{hl|Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Misplaced Pages's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives}}. - ]] 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. - ]] 20:44, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
::::: Descriptions of sexual assault are not pornographic, i.e., titillating. &nbsp;Please further explain your understanding of the policy and the editorial decisions at the Kavanaugh page. &nbsp;] (]) 21:10, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Leave out the graphic stuff. Our job is to soberly relate what has been widely reported, WITHOUT sensationalism. -- ] (]) 22:46, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
:RE {{tq|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. -- ] (]) 22:59, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
::{{u|MelanieN}}, is there a past policy discussion that would help me understand this? &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;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. ] (]) 23:56, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
:::Relevant policy has already been quoted to you, several times. To recap, at ] (which is POLICY) we find {{tq|Editors must take particular care when adding&nbsp;information about living persons&nbsp;to&nbsp;any&nbsp;Misplaced Pages&nbsp;page.&nbsp;Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity}} Also {{tq|Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy.&nbsp;Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, not a&nbsp;tabloid: it is not Misplaced Pages'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 ]. 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 Misplaced Pages, 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. -- ] (]) 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 {{tq|"We include graphic details only if the story was major."}} What policy is this based on? ] (]) 02:40, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
:::::{{tq|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. -- ] (]) 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 ]. There is also ] to consider; therefore, arguments that align with ] 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. ] <sub>]</sub> ] 20:55, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
:::::::This isn't a matter of ], which is an essay, not policy.
:::::::*According to ], {{tq| Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Misplaced Pages'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 ], which says {{tq|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.}} <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 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 ] and ]. 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 , 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. 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. ] <sub>]</sub> ] 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 {{u|MelanieN}} which I have written above. ] (]) 04:26, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
::'''Include''' The allegations may be included, per ], now that the NYT has covered it. Before then, I would have voted no. They can also be described exactly as they are in the sources. If that description is somewhat graphic, so be it. There is no ] here, so long as the description is factual and reliably sourced. ] (]) 21:06, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
:::I'm not sure if you meant for this to be a formal !Vote, but there is an RfC over this matter a few sections further down the page... {{u|Wikieditor19920|ping}} '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px #B8B8B8;">]]]</span>''' 23:20, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

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

== RS and Biden's inappropriate touching & sexual misconduct allegations ==

This issue is obviously well-sourced and should be handled the same way we have handled other highly notable politicians per ], & ]. The removed material should be restored. ] <sub>]</sub> ] 16:32, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
] <sub>]</sub> ] 16:32, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
* (See quote above.)
*
* (Opinion piece is RS for the fact that there is an allegation)
* (Investigates Reade and discusses media controversy)
**''The Hill'''s critique of the ''Salon'' story..
*
*''Current Affairs'' references: "Prof. Anthony Zenkus, an expert on sexual violence at the Columbia School of Social Work, shocked by Marcotte’s doubting of Reade’s sexual assault claim because she 'changed' her story over time, explains in an op-ed why the apparent contradiction is no contradiction at all"
] (]) 16:44, 29 March 2020 (UTC)<small>] (]) 03:41, 31 March 2020 (UTC)</small><small>] (]) 10:53, 31 March 2020 (UTC)</small><small>] (]) 16:22, 31 March 2020 (UTC)</small><small>] (]) 16:48, 1 April 2020 (UTC)</small><small>] (]) 19:38, 12 April 2020 (UTC)</small><small>] (]) 22:33, 12 April 2020 (UTC)</small>
:Please consult the talk page before creating a new section with the same information already being discussed in previous sections. - ]] 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. ] <sub>]</sub> ] 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. - ]] 20:58, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
:Atsme, what was removed? '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px #B8B8B8;">]]]</span>''' 00:16, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
::As of today, all of it. ] <sub>]</sub> ] 15:13, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
:::It looks like it was removed because the citations didn't include these reliable sources. &nbsp;Maybe it can be restored. &nbsp;] (]) 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.--] (]) 16:22, 30 March 2020 (UTC)--] (]) 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. &nbsp;What about ''Columbia Journalism Review''?. ] (]) 21:30, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
:: You can check sources that have already been discussed yourself at ]. 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.--] (]) 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". ] (]) 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 ]). 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. ] (]) 23:11, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

=== Mainstream RS: Tara Reade ===

<br>
] (]) 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 Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages, ''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 ]: "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.
:] (]) 16:36, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
:: This is a mainstream source and you're mischaracterizing it. &nbsp;] (]) 16:44, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
:::The ] 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 ], 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. '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px #B8B8B8;">]]]</span>''' 17:29, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
::I can explain why using your own ]. 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? --] (]) 16:59, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
:::Since you asked: There’s a which argues against the allegation (that’s light red over at ]), and, as mentioned above, (which is yellow over at ]). This Economist article is using the same thought process used in other conservative opinion pieces about this allegation (e.g., ): If we gave the ] 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. ] (]) 17:26, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
: No, the only reason it is not being given the Kavanaugh treatment is because WE KNOW WHY. The bias of Misplaced Pages editors who are higher up and can disappear editors and source material they are biased against. Has happened to me. POINT IN CASE Just because the LIBERAL "Reliable Source" news media that the "Editors" accept do not cover a story, does not mean it is not true. It took over 5 months for the liberal "Main Stream" sources that Wiki editors will accept (even though they are constantly having to correct their biased stories) to actually acknowledge the love child of Senator John Edwards, with many of them poo pooing the story as being a right wing conspiracy. Yet the same "Reliable Sources" will immediately accept any accusation against a Republican, not vet that story for 5 months, and they certainly won't hold off if the Republican denies it or wait for 5 months for them to admit it. https://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/08/10/edwards.coverage/index.html And wikipedia's editorial POV gets thrown right out the window against Republicans. ] (]) 19:46, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
::::"Medium is a blog hosting service. As a self-published source, it is considered generally unreliable and should be avoided unless the author is a subject-matter expert or the blog is used for uncontroversial self-descriptions. Medium should never be used as a secondary source for living persons." '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px #B8B8B8;">]]]</span>''' 17:36, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
::::{{u|Samboy}} I asked if you can cite WP policy or guidelines about the 4 sources I list. Instead you {{strikethrough|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?--] (]) 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 ], and it converts a discussion which should ''not'' be personal into a personal one. To answer your question: ] 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 ]) which make a point that this story has not been discussed by mainstream media? ] (]) 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 ] and I have reviewed it many times.
::::::This brings me back to my original question and your answer regarding ], 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?--] (]) 21:52, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
<!-- TFD, feel free to respond here (or elsewhere) to keep the threaded discussion consistent-->

:{{u|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.--] (]) 17:05, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
::Agreed. In fact, I think starting ''yet another'' top level section is highly disruptive. -- ] (]) 17:24, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

=== Highest profile mainstream RS ===

*''New York Times'':
*''NBC News'':
*''Washington Post'':
*''Chicago Tribune via NYTs:
*''Associated Press'':
*''ABC News'' via AP:
*''MSNBC'', ''Kasie DC'' via ''NBC News:
*''San Francisco Chronicle'' via AP:
*''Boston Globe'' via AP
*''Die Welt'': ("Allegation of harassment against Joe Biden causes dispute in me-too movement")
*''Le Parisien'': ("US Presidential: Democrat Joe Biden Charged With Sexual Assault"
*''The USA Today'' via AP:
*''Los Angeles Times'':

:] (]) 10:30, 12 April 2020 (UTC)<small>] (]) 02:40, 13 April 2020 (UTC)</small><small>] (]) 16:05, 13 April 2020 (UTC)</small><small>] (]) 16:23, 13 April 2020 (UTC)</small><small>] (]) 20:25, 13 April 2020 (UTC)</small><small>] (]) 21:01, 13 April 2020 (UTC)</small>

:This is not helpful for article improvement. "High profile source" is not found in our policies. ]] 16:32, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
::And yet that is the standard that has been set in the RfC. ] (]) 16:35, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
:::That's not correct, and at any rate it's a complaint, not an argument.]] 16:38, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
::::I have changed it again, now to "Highest profile mainstream RS", per ]: "Red flags that should prompt extra caution include: Surprising or apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources" (Personally I think "mainstream" here refers to scientific opinion, not mere news reporting.) ] (]) 17:37, 13 April 2020 (UTC)<small>] (]) 17:39, 13 April 2020 (UTC)</small>

== Sanders endorsed Biden ==

I added the following to the article, through full protection and without asking for consensus first.
<blockquote>On April 13 Sanders endorsed Biden in a live-streamed discussion on split screens from both of their homes.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/13/us/politics/bernie-sanders-joe-biden-endorsement.html|title=Bernie Sanders Endorses Joe Biden for President|last1=Ember|first1=Sydney|last2=Glueck|first2=Katie|date=April 13, 2020|work=The New York Times|accessdate=13 April 2020}}</ref>
{{sources-talk}}
</blockquote>

I thought this was such obviously important news that it wouldn't be necessary to get consensus here first. But my edit has been criticized at ] so I will revert it and ask permission here before re-adding it. -- ] (]) 23:21, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

:* Seems entirely fine. I cannot conceive of any genuine objection to this. ]<sup>]</sup> 23:25, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
:::You'd be surprised. :-( -- ] (]) 23:37, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
::::{{u|MelanieN}}, I think there's a distinction between the contents of the edit and how the edit was done. An administrator has no special powers to edit, yet an administrator has more tools to edit. You violated the first part when you edited the fully protected article without seeking consensus, especially as an admin who edits in the American Political area as an editor.
::::That being said, I don't think there is anything wrong with this edit being in the article. ] <sup>]</sup> 23:59, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
::::Your addition was incomplete. When someone is accused of sexual assaults and is reported in all major news outlets, he becomes radioactive, we should be cautious about how to write that endorsement. 1) The NYT article you cited and Bernie Sanders himself have said that Sanders supports "Joe Biden" <u>'''candidacy'''</u>. 2) The source says that Bernie move was to unite the party. This should be mentioned.--] (]) 00:05, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

:I would shorten it to "On April 13 Sanders endorsed Biden." That's all the information that is necessary for the main Joe Biden article. ] (]) 00:08, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
::See my comment above. That would be BLP violation and not accurate. The relevant source mentions at the top that Bernie supported Biden "candidacy" and Bernie didn't say he endorse Joe Biden, he said "I support your candidacy"--] (]) 00:12, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
:::That's an endorsement of his candidacy. The rest of your objection is projecting your personal opinion of the situation onto the individuals in question, and does not in any conceivable way rise to a ] violation. &mdash; <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 19:12, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
I am opposed to virtually any edits to the article until the RfC is closed, but especially edits that add current news. Adding Bernie's endorsement to the article would be prioritizing favorable news over unfavorable news. Both stories are facts, both stories should be included. Wait until the RfC closes before adding any new news please. ] (]) 00:18, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
:I agree with TFD - all that is needed is "On April 13 Sanders endorsed Biden." That is a fine example of a neutral, obvious, and uncontroversial edit. Of course adding "split screen" from homes is also uncontroversial and a sign of the times (perhaps useful for posterity). However, I don't think it is wholly necessary to attribute a motive such as "uniting the party". That might not be the only motive. Another possible motive is that it is important for a segment of the population to simply defeat Trump - whether it is a ham sandwich or Joe Biden. So, let's not worry about motives because there might be a dozen of them. ---] (]) 02:13, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
::Although the edit struck me as being uncontroversial when I saw it, Steve Quinn's comments above have me thinking that maybe it isn't such a good idea for an admin to edit a protected page as opposed to putting in an edit request like the rest of us have to do. If this had been an unprotected page, Steve could have simply edited it as he suggest above, which I believe is an improvement. So my conclusion on this one is: '''"Sorry, this edit was not uncontroversial enough. It should have been discussed in an edit request"''' while still allowing ''completely'' uncontroversial edits to protected pages by admins. --] (]) 02:47, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' including mention of support by Sanders because it is purely promotional, and not encyclopedic in the sense that it will have any long lasting encyclopedic significance. Under the current circumstances, inclusion would be noncompliant with NPOV because it appears to be an attempt to boost the Biden candidacy in an election year. ''Matter-of-factly'' Sanders is going to fade away as an unsuccessful two-time presidential candidate, and his only historic/encyclopedic significance as a political figure will be his accomplishments as a US Senator, not as a twice failed presidential candidate, much less his endorsement of Joe Biden, who is facing several sexual assault allegations. ] <sub>]</sub> ] 04:02, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
*'''Support''' Neutral, factual, non-controversial, and reported by , , , , , etc. ] (]) 04:42, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
:Now that the article is no longer fully protected (which seems to have been the main objection), I've BOLDLY gone ahead and re-added the sentence (with slightly tightened language). ] ]] 06:53, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
*'''Yes, of course''' this should be included, along with Obama's endorsement. MelanieN's edit was uncontroversial, but since this is Misplaced Pages, controversy ensued anyway. - ]] 20:17, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
*'''Oppose, but support including in the Campaign article''' this is an obvious case of ], try ] and see if it would be relevant in this biographical article. I would support including in the Campaign article, if you try the 10 years test there it would make sense.--] (]) 20:24, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
*:{{u|SharabSalam}}, the campaign discusses his primary battle with Sanders over several paragraphs. The Sanders endorsement seems like the obvious "end" to that story, and IMO leaving it off makes our discussion of the primary incomplete. ] ]] 22:01, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
*::I have a different opinion, the campaign story ends by stating that Biden won and that Sanders left the race. The endorsement addition would be off-topic/coatrack and recent (see ]).--] (]) 22:23, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
*:{{u|SharabSalam}}, 12 years later, Hillary's endorsement of Obama is still relevant. The candidate endorsing their rival is not off topic at all. &ndash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;(]) 22:28, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
*:: Obama was the current president during Hillary's Campaign. ''"The candidate endorsing their rival is not off topic at all"'', that's not aan accurate way to represent what I said, I said it is off-topic in this article, you should have said, "The candidate endorsing their rival is not off topic at all in the candidate biographical article", I disagree, its off-topic.--] (]) 22:35, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
*:::{{red|Obama was the current president during Hillary's Campaign}} - no. ]] 22:49, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
*'''Support''' More than enough coverage to justify a short sentence. --] (]) 03:50, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
*'''Support''' — Incredibly silly in my opinion that something so uncontroversial (but factual, clearly notable, and obviously appropriate to end a primary-season section on) be omitted from this article. {{U|Atsme}}'s rationale "Under the current circumstances, inclusion would be noncompliant with NPOV because it appears to be an attempt to boost the Biden candidacy in an election year" — respectfully, I think you're reading way too much into it. Not only is endorsing the successful candidate common practice, but surprise, surprise, it typically occurs during an election campaign and to boost the other candidacy. With that said, if you're accusing editors of not adhering to NPOV, perhaps find a better example than editors highlighting a rather innocuous practice. —]<span style="color: #FF9F00;">☆</span>] 10:34, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
::Since you pinged me and for the sake of clarity, my response is simply because this article was recently under full PP resulting from edit warring to keep Reade's unflattering RS material in/out of the article, yet flattering material was important enough to add it unconventionally over PP - the timing, rush to add it and how it was initially included made it seem more promotional in nature than encyclopedic. ] <sub>]</sub> ] 18:24, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
:::{{ping|Atsme}} Okay, so we're clear: you're drawing a comparison between adding something obviously controversial and (at the time) possibly in violation of BLP ''<u>to</u>'' adding something that is so mundane, part of a process, and uncontroversial that if circumstances were different –Biden losing to Sanders/Biden endorsing Sanders– ''we'd probably mention that here too''. Apples and oranges. —]<span style="color: #FF9F00;">☆</span>] 03:51, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
::::You are entitled to believe whatever suits you. I'm done here so stop pinging me. ] <sub>]</sub> ] 09:53, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
:::::If you're unable to back your comments, especially regarding other editors and NPOV – that's not my problem. Thanks, —]<span style="color: #FF9F00;">☆</span>] 11:18, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
* '''Obvious support.''' ] (]) 19:46, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
*'''Support''' No-brainer. ] (]) 23:47, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
*'''Support, ''but''...''' - It ''could'' be expanded to say Biden has been endorsed by all his Democratic primary opponents, including Sanders. But I'm happy as it is too. -- ] (]) 11:31, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
*'''Obvious Support''' - this is truly one of the most ludicrous arguments that I've seen on Misplaced Pages to date. The edit itself is short, well-written, neutral, and backed by sources, and shouldn't have been controversial in any way. If this page wasn't fully protected, I sincerely doubt that most editors would've given it a second thought. Including it would be a net positive for the article, so I don't see what the problem is. ] (]) 02:58, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
:* the problem is that it is not providing context. Bernie has said that he had to choose between Trump and Biden and he choose Biden implying that the endorsement is only to defeat Trump. It is currently without a huge context.--] (]) 03:05, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
::*], and that is especially true for a BLP. Either way, that interview would be a primary source and wouldn't warrant inclusion in the article, anyway. ] (]) 03:23, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
*'''Support''' - I also can't believe this is controversial. --] (]) 04:02, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' - I can, I concur with Atsme. Just promotional fluff, like saying Trump was endorsed by Cruz if this was 2016. Utterly nonsensical but only there to make Biden look good. ] (]) 09:15, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

== Tara Reade sexual assault allegation: specific text. ==

{{u|Geographyinitiative}}, I created a new section which appears to have created an edit conflict. We may not have consensus on the text detailing the assault. ] (]) 04:48, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
: I hereby plan not to make any further edits on this page. I want to protect myself and my account as much as I can. I tried to write this edit as objectively as I could. If you all remove the new material I added, that's fine with me, but I think that I have made a valid Misplaced Pages edit. I will not respond to any further inquiries here. ] (]) 04:53, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
{{u|Samboy}}, I think the text before your edit was better.. When you say she had "''previously'' alleged", it could be interpreted to mean she changed her story. My text simply states that she had alleged inappropriate touching the year before, and gives the context that she had come forward among other women. ] (]) 05:57, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
:{{u|Koyla Butternut}} (and others) How about “one of the women who in 2019 alleged Biden inappropriately touched her”. It’s more awkward, but I feel more neutral while describing the facts. ] (]) 06:27, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
::I liked {{u|Samboy}}'s edit which has now been changed to remove the context that Reade was known as one of the women who came forward with Flores in the spring of 2019. ] (]) 17:36, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
:::Agreed. I have updated the article to have the older version of the wording, because we have some rough consensus that this is acceptable wording. I have no issue with including the <s>criminal complaint</s> police report, since the <s>complaint</s> report is reliably sourced. ] (]) 23:56, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
::::Where is it reliably sourced? "Criminal complaint" has a specific meaning: A criminal complaint is a document that charges a defendant with a crime. A police report is not a criminal complaint. A complaint to the local police is not a criminal complaint. Criminal complaints are almost always filed by the government. --] (]) 00:02, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
:::::Here is the current wording in the article: “On April 9, 2020, Tara Reade, a former aide in Biden's U.S. Senate office and one of the women who in 2019 alleged Biden inappropriately touched her, filed a '''police report''' alleging that she was sexually assaulted in 1993; Reade later stated that the report was about Joe Biden. The Biden 2020 presidential campaign has denied the allegation.” (emphasis added) The wording “police report” comes from so is reliably sourced with a top-level media organization which is a “green” source at ]. ] (]) 00:10, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Apologies - new user. The quote from May 1, 2020 interview is incorrect and missing a "never": "It's not true. I'm saying unequivocally it never, never happened, and it didn't. It never happened".<!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 14:44, May 3, 2020 (UTC)</small>
:Thank you {{u|Johannesepke}}, I've made the correction. - ]] 16:56, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

== Why the police report? ==

Currently, our Tara Reade section has to be phrased rather awkwardly because the police report doesn't actually mention Biden by name. I edited it to be as clear as possible without being technically inaccurate, but really, I'm not sure why we focus on the police report in the first place. She first came forward with the accusation in a podcast on March 25—surely that should be the key event, and not the police report? ] ]] 09:25, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
:I agree that the police report isn't necessary.&nbsp;If we are going to add that Reade says she filed an incident report it should be balanced&nbsp;with the sources are also reporting that Biden is not specifically named in the public available copy. ]<sup>]</sup> 10:21, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
::The criminal complaint is what was filed. The public incident report is the name of the form used to convey information to media, but keep private information private. From the original report by Rich McHugh,
:::"Tara Reade, who worked for Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden's Senate office in the early 1990s, has filed a formal criminal complaint against the former Vice President in Washington, DC.....While the incident report obtained by Business Insider was anonymized for public release, it states that a subject "disclosed that she was the victim of a sexual assault which was committed by Subject-2 in 1993." Reade confirmed that she was the complainant and that "Subject-2" is Biden. The penalty for filing a false or fictitious police report in Washington DC is a fine and up to 30 days in jail.
::In other words, she risked spending time in jail if what she claimed in the report was found to be a lie. McHugh is a reliable source, and his reporting on this criminal complaint was cited by ''Vanity Fair'' as providing the basis for the legacy media reporting that followed. The criminal complaint is seen by VF as prompting the onslaught of recent reports. As for why, the article states:
:::"Reade said she filed the complaint against Biden for "safety reasons," to establish a paper trail of the incident in case anything happened to her. The statute of limitations for the alleged incident has passed..."I also wanted to make it clear that I would be willing to go under oath or cooperate with any law enforcement regarding it"" '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px #B8B8B8;">]]]</span>''' 20:57, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
:::{{tq|she risked spending time in jail if what she claimed in the report was found to be a lie}} That's getting into OR and asking for conclusions from unknown premises. Not an effective argument for your position on the matter. ]] 21:21, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
::::I disagree with this edit. She came forward to the media months ago, but everyone was ignoring her. The March 25 Katie Halper interview may just have been the first publicly reported interview. The Intercept reported the story earlier. I think the April 9th date is the most important to lead with. ] (]) 21:14, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
: For example, says {{tq|Thursday evening, Reade filed an official complaint with the Washington, D.C., police. The public incident report — which is one page long and doesn't name Biden — was obtained by NBC News and recounts an assault sometime from March 1 to May 31, 1993. Reade confirmed that she is "Subject-1" in the report and that "Subject-2" is Biden. It is illegal to falsify police reports, and the statute of limitations for prosecuting the allegations has passed}}. I don't understand why you removed the police complaint.--] (]) 21:26, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
::That was a good edit. The complaint has not been processed. We will soon know the upshot. Meanwhile, the allegation stands, but the complaint adds no information ''about Biden''. A good edit that was not obvious to the rest of us at the time.]] 21:39, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
::: What you just said does not make sense to me, the police complaint adds "no information"? The policy complaint is a the most notable thing here. Since she filled the police complaint, the news started to extensively cover this controversy, before that there only few news outlets reporting this.--] (]) 21:47, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
::::{{ec}} Correlation does not prove causation. I could just as easily say that "since ''Reason Magazine'' started running stories on this the news started to extensively cover the allegation, before that there only few news outlets reporting it." Just because two things happen at around the same time, that does not mean that one caused the other. --] (]) 22:05, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
:::: Please don't present your ] about the timing of the NY Times article. It was apparently in research for weeks and the timing of the police report doesn't confirm any of your insinuation. ]] 22:04, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
::::{{u|SharabSalam}}, AP, NYT, and WaPO all state that the claim originated from the podcast, and have all stated that they've been examining the claim since the podcast. (NYT and WaPO mention the podcast first, while AP mentions the police report first.) ] ]] 22:02, 14 April 2020 (UTC) <small>Second ping because I forgot to sign: {{u|SharabSalam}}</small>
* At ] petrarchan47 argues for using the "criminal complaint" wording used in marginally reliable source ''Business Insider'' alongside "incident report". I argue for the "incident report" wording used in generally reliable sources. See ].
:This is a BLP, a person in the middle of trying to win an election, and a serious accusation that has ruined many careers (many rightly and a few wrongly). We need to be super careful about the sourcing for even small details. I say we should only use the highest quality sources. --] (]) 21:50, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
::] is clear on this point {{tq|Do '''''not''''' use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person...Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source, subject to the restrictions of this policy, no original research, and the other sourcing policies. Please note that exceptional claims require exceptional sources.}} (emphasis original). Information about living people must be sourced to high quality, secondary, reliable sources. <span style="white-space: nowrap;">— ]]​</span> 21:56, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
:::I've preveously pointed this out and removed a link to our article on criminal compliants, AKA indictments. This was a police report and should be described, if at all, as such.]] 22:06, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
*: The complaint is significantly reported in high-quality reliable sources. {{tq|Thursday evening, Reade filed an official complaint with the Washington, D.C., police.}} : {{tq|She recently made an official complaint to police in Washington, D.C.}} {{tq|She filed a police report in Washington on Thursday saying she was the victim of a sexual assault}}--] (]) 22:16, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

::: "Criminal complaint" has a specific meaning:
:::* "'''A criminal complaint is a document that charges a defendant with a crime.''' Complaints serve at least a couple purposes: providing some kind of showing that the government has a legitimate reason to prosecute the defendant and clearly informing defendants of the allegations against them."
:::* "An arrest, by itself, doesn’t begin formal criminal proceedings. Rather, the filing of a document in court is required. In most instances in state court, the document is a 'complaint.' Complaints can be either civil or criminal. Civil complaints initiate lawsuits, typically between private parties or a private party and the government. '''Criminal complaints, on the other hand, are almost always filed by the government.''' (Some states allow citizens to file criminal complaints or applications for them.)"
:::* "The complaint is a written statement of the essential facts constituting the offense charged. Except as provided in Rule 4.1, it '''must be made under oath before a magistrate judge''' or, if none is reasonably available, before a state or local judicial officer."
:::* "What will happen after I file a Criminal Complaint? There is a person at the court called the "clerk-magistrate." The clerk-magistrate will schedule a hearing. The hearing is called a "show cause" hearing. The show cause hearing is to see if there are enough facts to show that what happened was a crime."
:::* "an 'indictment,' an 'information,' and a 'complaint' all serve the same function – '''they initiate a criminal case''' and inform the defendant of the charges against him. They also ensure that a prosecutor has sufficient evidence to establish probable cause that a crime has been committed."
::: Biden has not been charged with a crime. There was no show cause hearing. It is unlikely that a magistrate judge or clerk-magistrate was involved. It is likely that the report was made to a cop manning the front desk at the police station. It appears that Reade simply reported what happened to the local police. You can report ''anything'' to the local police and they will file a police report on it. (Even a report that a dead squirrel told me that John Smith is an evil space alien might be good to know if John Smith gets murdered later). --] (]) 23:53, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

The reason why the wording “police report” is OK is because and makes it clear it is a police report against Biden. Since this is reliably sourced, I think it’s best we use the same wording as the AP. ] (]) 00:00, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

:Sounds good to me. --] (]) 03:46, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
{{u|Volunteer Marek}}, I don't think this is accurate. The AP states that the police report alleged an "unnamed person" sexually assaulted her. This is inconsistent with Rich McHugh's reporting. Tara Reade told him that she did name Biden in the police report. It was the "incident report" which was anonymized. ] (]) 06:42, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
::It's accurate. I don't know what Rich McHugh was told or what Business Insider says but more reliable sources explicitly state she did not name Biden in the police report . The assumption that it was the incident report and not the police report is ].<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 13:46, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
:::{{U|Volunteer Marek}} None of the sources say that "she did not name Biden". Both sources say that the '''report doesn't name Biden'''. Also, the first source clearly say it's a public incident report. You accidentally used two sources that contradict your assertion.--] (]) 14:01, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
::::Are you trying to split hairs between "she did not name Biden in the police report" and "the police report doesn't name Biden"? <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 15:44, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

More generally, are there TWO reports - an "incident report" and some other "police report"? Because it looks to me like all the sources are reporting the same thing, which is the incident report which DOES NOT name Biden. What Reade told reporters is a different story. If there are two reports... source please.<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 15:49, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

:::: on Reade's police report: {{xt|"She told The Post she did so because she is being harassed online and wanted law enforcement to be aware of her claim. A public record of the complaint does not name Biden but says Reade “disclosed that she was the victim of a sexual assault” in 1993."}} It goes on to say: {{xt|"Reade told The Post she gave police a long interview describing the alleged assault by Biden. The portion of the police report detailing her allegation is not public."}} The is similar: {{xt|...Ms. Reade filed a report with the Washington, D.C., police, saying she was the victim of a sexual assault in 1993; the public incident report, provided to The Times by Ms. Reade and the police, does not mention Mr. Biden by name, but she said the complaint was about him."}} She said the reason she filed the report was for additional safety against threats. Imagine the reception news media would have received if they had said a fraction of the things about Christine Blasey Ford that they're implying/saying/publishing about Reade. What happened to believe what the women are saying? ] <sub>]</sub> ] 16:19, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
:::::Ok, that clears it up a bit but it still seems she did not name Biden in the report, maybe in the interview and then told the press it was about Biden. And please don't try to compare this to the Ford case which was substantially different and is irrelevant to how we describe this case.<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 16:57, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
:::Most of the sources, NYT, WaPo, AP,etc are reporting the police report or Public Incident Report does not mention Biden by name, but Reade said the complaint was about him. Crime reports and investigations are not covered by FOIA request in the District of Columbia. The MPD&nbsp; releases a PIR upon request. The term "police report" is a generic term and can refer to a number of documents.&nbsp;{{cite web |title=Here's a copy of the most recent PIR |url=https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/6835319/Redacted-Event-20056902-Public-Incident-Packet-1.pdf}} ]<sup>]</sup> 17:10, 15 April 2020 (UTC) <small>Reminder: Per WP:BLPPRIMARY "Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person." ]<sup>]</sup> 17:23, 15 April 2020 (UTC)</small>
At this point it seems to me we have conflicting sources, more purported detail from a weaker source, and lots of OR and speculation among Misplaced Pages editors. This clearly suggests we should omit this. The report does not of itself add anything to the narrative of her allegation, the failure of media to corroborate it, and the Biden campaign's denial. Those are the core facts we can verify now. ]] 16:50, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
:At issue is whether we state that she didn't name Biden in the report.<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 16:57, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
::I do not think it's ] that she named Biden in the report. I also think it's not important to mention the report in the article. It insinuate that there's an active crime scene. Particularly with the wording that was initially being used here. ]] 17:16, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
:The police report is noteworthy. The AP is the only source which is inconsistent with the others. ''The Times'' and ''WaPo'' are clear that she reported to police that Biden assaulted her, and they are clear that the information in the police report is not public, unlike the incident report. The AP is generally reliable, not always reliable. ] (]) 17:14, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
:::This is not true. All credible sources say she filed a report but DID NOT name Biden specifically in it. She told reporters that it was about Biden (and maybe she said that to the police but didnt put it in the report). Sources, including AP are consistent on this. The only inconsistent source is the Business Insider. Neither Times nor WaPo say she put Biden's name in the report. AP is more reliable than BI.<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 18:37, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
:::: That's not true. &nbsp;The AP is the only source which we have discussed which states her police report did not name Biden. &nbsp;WaPo and NYTimes report that Biden's name was not in the ''public'' report. &nbsp;WaPo states "Reade told The Post she gave police a long interview describing the alleged assault by Biden", not an unnamed man. &nbsp;The NYTimes is less explicit. &nbsp;] (]) 19:16, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
::I am not hearing why her filing a report -- of which any precinct gets dozens a day -- is a noteworthy fact about Biden. Particularly when she stipulates that the report is moot and only for her own sake. ]] 17:18, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
::: Please cite sources. &nbsp;] (]) 17:57, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
:::::Simple resolution - quote the NYTimes, add WaPo as a 2nd source and be done with it. ] <sub>]</sub> ] 19:10, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
::::::I think the simple solution would be to paraphrase: "Tara Reade stated that she filed a police report with the Washington, D.C. police alleging that Biden sexually assaulted her in 1993". If the AP corrects their article we may remove "stated that she". This works? ] (]) 19:31, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
{{u|SPECIFICO}}, please self-revert this edit. There is no consensus to state that Biden was not named in the police report. My edit, {{tq|"On April 9, 2020, she filed a police report with the Washington Metropolitan Police alleging she was sexually assaulted in spring 1993. Reade stated that the report was about Biden."}} directly paraphrases ''The Times'', {{tq|"On Thursday, Ms. Reade filed a report with the Washington, D.C., police, saying she was the victim of a sexual assault in 1993; the public incident report, provided to The Times by Ms. Reade and the police, does not mention Mr. Biden by name, but she said the complaint was about him."}} The "public incident report" does not of itself add anything to the story of her allegation, and it is not noteworthy. ] (]) 01:32, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
:::::::I edited it to conform to the cited AP reference. Let's just be very straightforward and pretend we don't know anything except what's in the sources. ]] 01:48, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
::::::::You haven't addressed my comment. 1. Obviously my intention is to cite ''The Times'' (but regardless, my edit is consistent with the AP source). 2. There is no consensus for your text. 3. The "public incident report" which does not name Biden is not noteworthy. &nbsp;] (]) 02:18, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
::::::::Or to put it simply, we all agree she filed a police report, and we all agree she stated that the report was about Biden. ] (]) 02:53, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
:::::::It might be a good idea to stop edit warring over this. There is no consensus&nbsp;to include the "police report" either. All of the high quality reliable sources are reporting, in one way or the other, that Reade filed a complaint, the "police report" does not name Biden, and Reade says it is about Biden. We don't cherry pick sources, NPOV requires we present the police report fairly and proportionately as reported by the sources.&nbsp; ]<sup>]</sup> 07:17, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
::::::::The AP is the only source which states Biden was not named in the "filed" "police report". There are clearly errors in the reporting because some sources say that she "filed" a "public incident report". My proposed text, "she filed a police report with the Washington, D.C. police alleging she was sexually assaulted in spring 1993. Reade stated that the report was about Biden." is consistent with all the sources. Would could say she "filed a report with the Washington D.C. police". ] (]) 11:06, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
:::::::::Rich McHugh (investigative reporter, more information at the ]) {{tq|And it’s important to note, it is not accurate to say that Reade did not name Biden in the police report she filed. Neither Reade or Biden were named on the public version of the complaint she filed, for obvious reasons.}} There are two reports in question: one that is private, the "criminal complaint", and one that was released to the public. Journalists haven't done a great job at elucidating this, so it gets confusing. '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px #B8B8B8;">]]]</span>''' 21:46, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
::::::::::Can we get more confirmation of this? It makes sense to me that in their public release, the police may choose to hide the names of the people involved and so when I read someone say this was what happened yesterday I assumed that was what happened and Biden's name was in the police's records. But then today I read our article suggesting that Biden was not named in her report point blank. As I understand it, the public release doesn't even name the complainant and instead talks about subject-1 and subject-2, and I find it unlikely the police don't at least have a record of who subject-1/the complainant is. OTOH, it occurs to me that it may not be clear whether or not Biden was named. Has the complainant clearly said he was? Have the police? I'm guessing the public release probably doesn't say subject-1 and subject-2's name are in the police record. It looks like there is a Washington Post article which may provide some details but I'm lazy to get access. IMO we need to clear this up, as our current wording is potentially misleading. ] (]) 23:11, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
:::::::::::This is the public incident report provided by NBC News. The public doesn't know what the confidential police report says, but the sources all say that Reade said the report was about Biden. The AP, however, gets it wrong. ] (]) 03:00, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
::::::::::::{{u|Nil Einne}} {{tq|NPR obtained confirmation of the police report from a law enforcement source. A record of the report names Biden. NPR has filed a Freedom of Information Act request for the full report.}} '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px #B8B8B8;">]]]</span>''' 02:29, 20 April 2020 (UTC)In response to the idea that "criminal complaint" language comes only from court documents, that is not so.

* The tides began to shift following Rich McHugh's report in Business Insider on Friday that Reade had filed a '''criminal complaint''' against Biden. The New York Times ran its first report about the allegation on Sunday morning as millions of Americans were observing Easter. The Washington Post and NBC News issued their own reports later that day.
* Tara Reade filed a '''criminal complaint''' with the Washington Metropolitan Police Department...according to Business Insider
* Ms Reade filed a '''criminal complaint''' on 9 April with police
* A woman who worked in Joe Biden’s Senate office filed a '''criminal complaint'''
We are not obligated to follow other media who chose for unknown reasons to shorten this to "a report". We have proof that the first outlet to diverge from the "criminal complaint" language, the NYT, has edited their article on behalf of the Biden campaign. Such partisan sources or editing choices aren't very useful to an encyclopedia. '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px #B8B8B8;">]]]</span>''' 21:59, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
:*The Times explained its edit of a sentence. That is not uncommon. "on behalf of the Biden campaign" is a misrepresentation. Please don't do that again. ]] 22:37, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
::*{{tq|...the edit was made because the Biden campaign argued...}}. I fail to see the problem with my paraphrase "on behalf of the Biden campaign". '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px #B8B8B8;">]]]</span>''' 18:28, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
::<s>Agreed, {{u|Petrarchan47}}. The NYT isn't a reliable source for Biden's sexual misconduct accusers, as they have admitted to tailoring their coverage to please the Biden campaign. Not that the other usual partisan sources are any more reliable, but so far the NYT is the only source that has openly admitted that they are allowing the Biden campaign to tell them how to cover the Biden campaign. ] (]) 00:11, 17 April 2020 (UTC) <small>— ] (]&#32;• ]) has made ] outside this topic. </small></s> Block sockpuppet. -- ] (]) 13:47, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
:::It's one thing for editors to corroborate a story by finding other independent sources - I've done that with the NYTimes and WaPo above, stating that we should simply quote the corrobated RS and use in-text attribution. It is something entirely different when we dig so deep we're conducting OR in an attempt to satisfy our own expectations, which leads to POV creep. That is not our job - we simply publish what RS say, and when it's an allegation such as this one, we simply use in-text attribution. This is a no-brainer...just follow ] and we're good to go. If more info develops, we update the article. ] <sub>]</sub> ] 00:27, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
::::Can we all agree on this language: "On April 9, 2020, she filed a police report with the Washington Metropolitan Police alleging she was sexually assaulted in spring 1993. Reade stated that the report was about Biden."? This is consistent with EVERY source. "Police report" is consistent with what some of the journalists mean by "criminal complaint", but "criminal complaint" is not correct. An opinion out of Washing D.C. states that "an individual is 'charged' . . . when a criminal complaint . . . and warrant . . . are signed by a judge and filed . . ." A criminal complaint is a court document, not a report by a citizen to police. ] (]) 03:56, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
:::::Close, but please take out "Washington Metropolitan Police" unless a reliable source (Business Insider is not reliable) names the specific police department. It almost certainly ''was'' the Washington Metropolitan Police, and it would be easy to do some ] and see if that name in on the published incident report, but it could conceivably be some other law enforcement agency (county sheriff's department, capitol police, even the park police have jurisdiction in some places.) Naming the department when we don't have a source in no way improves the page. If I remember correctly the sources use "D.C. Police". We should go with the wording from the best sources, like the AP and NYT (nobody think any NYT bias means that they get basic facts wrong). --] (])
::::::This is the public incident report provided by NBC News. ] (]) 04:55, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
::::::{{u|Guy Macon}}, is this a reliable source since it is linked to by NBC? &nbsp;] (]) 15:58, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
:::::::No. The relevant Misplaced Pages policy is ], which says:
::::::::'''"Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved. They offer an insider's view of an event, a period of history, a work of art, a political decision, and so on... Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may be used on Misplaced Pages only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge."'''
:::::::Being linked to by NBC news makes zero difference. Many reliable secondary sources link to primary sources, but that does not make the primary sources acceptable for anything other than the straightforward, descriptive statements of facts described in the policy. In this case the only straightforward, descriptive statement of fact contained in that public incident report is is "On April 9 2020 some unnamed individual reported a sexual assault by another unnamed individual in 1993". What we ''can't'' do is use it as a source for even that statement on any page that talks about Biden of Reade. If another source says it is about Biden, cite that other source. --] (]) 21:16, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
:::::Proposed text to comply with NPOV:
::::::''"On April 9, 2020 Reade filed a report with the Washington, D.C., police alleging she was sexually assaulted in spring 1993. The public incident report available from &nbsp;the police does not mention &nbsp;Biden. Reade stated that the report was about Biden."&nbsp;Biden's 2020 presidential campaign has denied the allegation."''
::::::(Sources: 1. {{cite news |last1=Lerer |first1=Lisa |last2=Ember |first2=Sydney |title=Examining Tara Reade's Sexual Assault Allegation Against Joe Biden |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/12/us/politics/joe-biden-tara-reade-sexual-assault-complaint.html |accessdate=14 April 2020 |work=The New York Times |date=12 April 2020 |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20200414043025/https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/12/us/politics/joe-biden-tara-reade-sexual-assault-complaint.html |archivedate=14 April 2020}}, 2. {{cite news|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/sexual-assault-allegation-by-former-biden-senate-aide-emerges-in-campaign-draws-denial/2020/04/12/bc070d66-7067-11ea-b148-e4ce3fbd85b5_story.html|title=Sexual assault allegation by former Biden Senate aide emerges in campaign, draws denial|date=12 April 2020|accessdate=14 April 2020|newspaper=]|publisher=Nash Holdings LLC|location=Washington, D.C.|first1=Beth|last1=Reinhard|first2=Elise|last2=Viebeck|first3=Matt|last3=Viser|first4=Alice|last4=Crites}}) &nbsp;]<sup>]</sup> 05:35, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
::::::: Those details are both unclear and unnoteworthy. &nbsp;] (]) 06:24, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
::::::::{{replyto|Kolya Butternut}} I don't really see how the proposed text is worse than what is currently in the article. We are currently implying that Biden was not named in the report. As you seem to agree, we do not know if this is the case. All we know is he is not named in the publicly released document. IMO the proposed text is decent, and far better than our current version and I would support a quick replacement so we don't continue to mislead. If people want to just remove all mention of that report, I may support this. But it seems harmful to continue to mislead readers while we discuss that aspect. {{paragraph break}}Edit: Sorry I missed your proposal just above cbs527. Is there any dispute over mentioning that Biden's campaign denied the allegations? If not, as I understand it, the dispute is solely over whether to include the line "{{talk quotation|The public incident report available from the police does not mention Biden}}"? I would support either version with no clear preference. I think the more important thing is we come to some consensus on some version which fixes the current problem where we mislead readers rather than nitpick of whether or not something is significant enough to mention. {{paragraph break}}] (]) 13:38, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
::::::::{{replyto|Kolya Butternut}} - {{tq|"Those details are both unclear and unnoteworthy."}}&nbsp;It is not clear what you are saying. If you would be more specific&nbsp;it would be helpful. The first line is essentially&nbsp;the same as what you suggested earlier with the change suggested by&nbsp;{{u|Guy Macon}} which I agree with. We can not use the actual PID as a source. I used the sources suggested by&nbsp;{{u|Atsme}} without&nbsp;inline attribution. I have no problem if&nbsp;inline attributions are added and at this point it probably is a good idea. The rest of the text is similar to what is currently in the article which there appears to be a rough consensus&nbsp;to use and, to comply with ].&nbsp;The purpose of this discussion is to try and find a consensus not push our personal POV. ]<sup>]</sup> 14:07, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
::::::::Before tweaking any text, we should decide whether there should be any mention of this police document in the article. I oppose it. Please comment in the subsection below. ]] 14:15, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
:::::::::This whole section, "Why the police report",&nbsp;&nbsp;was started is to address if the police report should be included or not. As I stated, both in my first comment in this section and in the below section, I feel that it should not be included. That being said, a number of the editors are suggesting it should be.&nbsp; At this point it appears my opinion on whether or not to include it may be a minority view.&nbsp;I have no problem waiting until more people comment on this in the next section. &nbsp;]<sup>]</sup> 16:03, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
:::::::::{{replyto|SPECIFICO}} I disagree. Currently, there is a good chance we are misleading readers with our text. As I said in my reply, fixing the section so we do not mislead readers is surely more important than a likely long debate over whether a section which does not mislead, but may be ] belongs. In fact, I am not going to offer any feedback on that issue precisely because I feel we need to deal with the '''far more urgent''' matter first and don't want to risk distraction, especially not since you seem to be willing to allow the misleading text to remain. ] (]) 18:55, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

{{BLP noticeboard}
Regarding this edit.
] (]) 16:48, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

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

===Is the report noteworthy?===
Our article content is about the allegation(s). Tara Reade has acknowledged that whatever documnent she filed with the police is only for her protection and that the statute of limitations on any 1993 misconduct has run out. There is little press coverage of this document relative to coverage of the allegation itself. I fail to see why this document is noteworhty or even related to Joe Biden. As others have pointed out, any of us could file a similar document at any police station and claim e.g. that our neighbor's cat is calling us nasty names when nobody's listening. I would like to hear a simple affirmative case for including this report that Reade has conceded cannot, and she did not intend to, have any official effect. I think it is entirely unrelated to Biden and at worst is only fueling garbled derogatory internet chatter. ]] 12:32, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
:No, I don't think the police report should be included and does not improve this biography.&nbsp;It is far less important than the allegation itself. The vast amount of coverage is about the allegation not the police report.&nbsp;&nbsp;As you pointed out earlier, this is not about the notability of the police report.&nbsp;As of yet, I haven't seen a policy based reason to include the police report. After all, the ] is&nbsp;upon those seeking to include it. ]<sup>]</sup> 13:31, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
::Maybe not the report itself, but the fact she filed one definitely belongs per DUE. ] <sub>]</sub> ] 15:10, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
:::I think there would be a better argument for mentioning the report in the article that deals specifically with this allegation. I don't see any connection between her report -- as she herself later characterized it -- and the bio of Joe Biden.]] 15:28, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
:I think it is noteworthy and relevant. It's a police report about sexual assault against the subject of this article, Joe Biden who is a public figure. Its a sexual assault report, not "neighbor's cat is calling us nasty names".--] (]) 15:38, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
:Of course this should be in the article. &nbsp;1. The filing of the police report is about Biden. &nbsp;2. The police report is mentioned in most of the sources which reported on the allegation. ] (]) 15:53, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
::{{purple|The filing of the police report is about Biden.}} - But that is not what she said. She said it was about protecting herself, whatever she meant by that. ]] 18:05, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
::: I'm not sure how to assume good faith with that obviously false statement. &nbsp;] (]) 23:08, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
:As I said above, I don't think it's acceptable that this discussion is being use to distract from the fact we had misleading text in the article. I refuse to participate until and unless we have consensus that is is not acceptable to allow misleading text to remain. ] (]) 19:08, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
::I support removal of any unsupported text from the bio immediately.  '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px #B8B8B8;">]]]</span>''' 19:40, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
===Joe Biden is named in the police report===
{{u|Domeditrix}}, please revert your edit .. Biden was named in the police report, as NPR reports. This has been much discussed; it was only the anonymized public report that did not include names.  Also, notice that there was an active investigation, which would not have happened without a name. ] (]) 15:32, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
:Will revert. ] (]) 15:34, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
:We have no ] as to this "active investigation". It could well be an investigation of Reade's concern about harassment and internet stalkers. And were it not for the statute of limitations having run and Reade's inscrutable statement about her purpose in filing the report, we should note that police do not wait for the name of the alleged perpetrator to launch a crime investigation, if that's what you think is happening. Police do detective work, which sometimes includes identifying an unkown suspect. ]] 15:53, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
:"An active investigation" usually refers to a status of a case and doesn't necessarily mean that any actual investigation has commenced. As {{u|SPECIFICO}} points out we don't know what was investigated if anything. It's a moot point anyway since on April 25, 2020 MPD stated it is an inactive investigation. Additionally, the comment,  {{tq|"Also, notice that there was an active investigation, which would not have happened without a name"}} is a blatantly false statement and is not helpful. One doesn't need to have the name of a perpetrator for a alleged crime to be investigated.  ]<sup>]</sup> 17:47, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
::: That ignores context.  The police have stated that they investigated because Biden is high profile.  In this case it is unlikely that they would have investigated a 27 year old sexual assault case against an unnamed man.  ] (]) 07:09, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
::Thanks for the update. ]] 17:52, 29 April2020 (UTC)
::: We know what was investigated because the public incident report described an alleged assault.  And NPR confirmed Biden was named. There's no consensus to include text which states Biden was not named.  ] (]) 18:18, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
::::You have a source that tells you "what was investigated"? Could you share? Not clear anything was actually investigated, except by NY Times and WaPo. ]] 17:31, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
:::::Since the investigation is "inactive", this is all a bit moot, isn't it? The police report is meaningless and should probably be excluded. -- ] (]) 17:36, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
::::::From ''USA Today'': {{tq|"Earlier this month Reade filed a police report saying she was assaulted in 1993 in order to give herself safety from threats she has received. A record reviewed by AP didn't mention Biden by name. NPR has reported, however, that a record does name Biden and has filed a Freedom of Information Act request for the full report."}} So, the AP reviewed one record which didn't name Biden, and NPR reviewed another record which did name Biden, therefore, Biden was named to police. I hope we're not going to now argue that they may have reviewed identical documents and come to different conclusions about whether or not he was named. We already know the "public incident report" was anonymized, and that is the report many sources describe having seen. ] (]) 23:14, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
:::::::The question you were asked, Kolya Butternut, was whether you have a source that documents what was investigated and if so to provide a link. You have refused to answer. Nothing was investigated. They just filed the report like every other cold case, in the dead report file. ]] 23:25, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
::::::::Please don't make accusations against me because I decided to contribute an update that I found and did not reply to your request. I suggest you do some research yourself instead of engaging in baseless speculation that the police investigation concerned internet harassment. Once you have contributed to the conversation I will provide feedback, then you can accuse me of refusing to provide information. ] (]) 23:54, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
:::::::::The point is this: The police didn't investigate anything. They let her file a report. As has previously noted, anyone is free to file any report -- credible, dubious, or insane, as long as it's not provably and willfully false. She filed something or other and the police didn't act on it. Either it wasn't credible or it was ignored due to its being stale. Your repeated insistence that any investigation occurred is based on either your opinion or on some source you've 3 times refused to provide. OK, fine. ]] 01:01, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
::::::::::The title of this subsection is what I'm arguing. This bullying is not collaborative.  ] (]) 07:01, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
The police report was just removed against consensus. ] (]) 20:35, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
*'''Support removal''' of irrelevant police report that relates to an "inactive" case. It's essentially meaningless. Besides, looking at the discussion above it is not clear if there was every a consensus for inclusion in the first place. -- ] (]) 21:33, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
::Please provide RS which summarize the story and investigation which leaves out the police report (rather than your personal opinion). Please see the related noticeboard discussion which shows consensus. ] (]) 01:05, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
:::This article is the story ''of Joe Biden's life'' -- this "report" - per Reade's words - is about herself. It's barely about Biden and in the arc of his life, it's simply insignificant. There is no consensus to include it in this article, hence it is omitted. ]] 02:11, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

== Section header ==

{{u|SPECIFICO}} has the section header of "Allegation of sexual assault" from the article saying it is undue at this time. I don't think that's true. NBC, NYT, WaPo and many other mainstream media have reported the allegation. It is definitely due to have its own section header. SPECIFICO came to my talk page saying that I have previously made a revert saying that in which I removed the word "strongly" because it's ], is a revert. I didn't revert anyone, that was my '''own bold edit to improve the sentence'''. Revert means to return back to the previous version or wording etc., yet the sentence has been from the time that it was added with the word "strongly".--] (]) 18:36, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
:Not that this is the place to discuss 1RR violation, but that edit was recently added, so it was indeed a revert rather than a bold edit of longstanding content. At any rate, the section subheading is UNDUE -- there are half a dozen more notewothy events in the campaign that don't have subheaders. It should be removed. ]] 18:57, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
::You have a wrong definition of revert, the revert should restore a version or wording that existed sometime previously. My edit was my own bold wording of the sentence. Also, no the subsection is not undue. It is reported in all major news outlets and it is still being reported, like this article in CNBC from 2 hours ago --] (]) 19:49, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
:::No, {{u|SPECIFICO}} is correct. Per&nbsp;{{cite web |title=Revert Rules |url=https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Edit_warring#Other_revert_rules}} {{tq|'''"An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert."'''}} ]<sup>]</sup> 20:48, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
::::The rule is correct and SPECIFICO is wrong, per that rule I didn't make a revert the rule says "'''undoes other editors' actions'''. What I did was not undoing other editors' action, it was bold wording of the sentence.--] (]) 21:05, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
:This is a complex story and will require extensive text in order to present all angles. The header seems correct. ] (]) 19:02, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
::There's no problem with a header when it is commensurate with the text. Whatever it "will require" remains unknown.
:{{ping|SharabSalam}} When you removed the header you also removed some copyedits I made. I presume that was inadvertent, so I'd appreciate it if you would restore them. Thanks. ]] 19:08, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
:This was more than re-adding the header. It moved it from the "Allegations of inappropriate physical contact" section to the "Campaign" section. It should be in the appropriate section with the other allegations of inappropriate physical contact. It has nothing to do with the campaign. I see no problem with "allegations of sexual assault" as a sub-header. ]<sup>]</sup> 20:11, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
::It was in the Campaign section before I re-added.--] (]) 20:14, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
*I agree with {{u|UpdateNerd}} moving the content to "Allegations of inappropriate physical contact" section. However, since the allegations now include sexual assault, we should include 'and sexual assault' in the header.--] (]) 20:14, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
:: I'm okay with the move to "Allegations of inappropriate physical contact" and adding 'and sexual assault' to the header. ]<sup>]</sup> 20:31, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
Removing the heading and shortening the paragraph as much as possible could be seen as an attempt at hiding the information. I would recommend being cautious. ] (]) 22:00, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
::Agreed. This one sexual assault allegation does not warrant its owns section. It should be merged with the section heading, “Allegations of inappropriate physical contact and sexual assault.” ] (]) 22:38, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
:::I agree the sexual assault allegation should be with the allegations of inappropriate non-sexual physical contact. In the interests of neutrality, we need to make it clear that, unlike the non-sexual allegations, there is only one allegation of sexual assault, and it is less widely supported than the non-sexual contact allegations from last year. I have seen at least one Misplaced Pages editor incorrectly equate the widely supported non-sexual allegations with the single sexual allegation, and that’s an error. ] (]) 23:48, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
::::Sexial assault has been edited into the article with no resolution to this discussion. It should be removed pending resolution. {{ping|Kolya Butternut}}. ]] 23:53, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
:::::The wording currently in the article is a consensus wording ]. I agree we shouldn’t put “sexual assault” in a heading, but I also, in the interests of bowing to consensus, agree the phrase “sexual assault” reflects what reliable sources have to say on the matter: “” “” ] (]) 00:06, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
::::::Huh? Why would we not have "sexual assault" in a heading? Tara Reade's allegation is not accurately described is "inappropriate physical contact". Either it gets its own subsection or this subsection's title has to change. ] (]) 00:15, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
:::::::To place “sexual assault” in a heading places ] on a single allegation which is nowhere as reliable as the allegations of inappropriate ''non-sexual'' touching. There is pretty much universal agreement that Biden engaged in inappropriate non-sexual physical contact. There is much less agreement that Biden has engaged in sexually assault, since there is only one allegation, and reliable sources appear to be skeptical about the allegation. &nbsp;] (]) 00:20, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
::::::::: We're not evaluating reliability we're evaluating <s>notability</s> <u>noteworthiness</u>. Regardless, what title would you suggest? ] (]) 01:03, 15 April 2020 (UTC)<small>] (]) 03:14, 15 April 2020 (UTC)</small>
::::::::: "Allegations of inappropriate physical contact and 1993 sexual assault allegation"? ] (]) 01:13, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
::::::::::Please Kolya Butternut, this has nothing ''at all'' to do with either notability or ]. If you are not contributing to these discussions within the framework of Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines, your efforts will be wasted. It really will be worth your time to learn the policies and guidelines for editing WP articles. ]] 01:19, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
:::::::"Non-sexual"? I think the multiple women who have come forward to describe unwanted touching, hugging, and kissing would probably take issue with that characterization of their experiences. These should all be placed under the banner of "Allegations of sexual misconduct." ] (]) 03:54, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
::::::::You may be right, but we need a source which characterizes his behavior as sexual misconduct. ] (]) 04:30, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
:::::::::<s>Sorry I didn't realize I was logged out. Not sure how much we can rely on the NYT these days, since they admitted today that the Biden campaign is essentially quarterbacking their coverage of the latest allegation, but they reported on Lucy Flores' initial allegation with the headline "Biden’s Tactile Politics Threaten His Return in the #MeToo Era". The article included a quote from Gloria Steinem, saying "Our bodies and voices belong to us — that should be the first step in democracy." Flores told CNN "It was shocking because you don’t expect that kind of intimate behavior, you don’t expect that kind of intimacy from someone so powerful.” Do we really need a source to use the phrase "sexual misconduct" to characterize non-consensual kissing and touching as "sexual misconduct"? ] (]) 04:44, 15 April 2020 (UTC) </s> Blocked sockpuppet. -- ] (]) 13:48, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
::::::::::I would say so. Some of the accusers even specifically state it was not sexual, while others do characterize it as sexual, especially by comparison with his behavior towards men. ] (]) 05:06, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

* Sigh. Do I really need to post another RfC asking "Should the section header to the material agreed to in the last RfC ("RfC: Should Tara Reade's sexual assault allegation against Biden be included in the article?") be titled "Allegation of sexual assault"? Will I then have to post an RfC about the first sentence, then another RfC about the second sentence, and so on? I am fine with whatever the consensus is on the header and the wording, but I see no consensus for not including the allegation of sexual assault header and no policy that says to not use a header inn this case. --] (]) 05:57, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
::I think we can wait a little to determine whether the Reade assault allegation is noteworthy enough to have its own subheading before escalating this. The discussion has only just begun. ] (]) 06:48, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

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

:I’m not sure I understand what is being asked here. The current section is titled “Allegations of inappropriate physical contact and sexual assault”. I’m OK with that. Are we asking whether to make “allegation of sexual assault” a separate subsection within the section? I would oppose that. Are we asking whether to make “inappropriate” and “assault” into entirely separate sections? I would oppose that. Right now we have a section in which the assault allegations are briefly summarized, with details left for the linked article on the subject. That’s enough. It doesn’t need to be a section of its own. -- ] (]) 18:17, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
::P.S. The separate article is currently at AfD. If it should get deleted, which I doubt, then we will have to add a bunch of detail here in a section of its own. -- ] (]) 18:20, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

::"Allegations of inappropriate physical contact and sexual assault" is fine. at one time it was buried under "Campaign". --] (]) 18:20, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
:::It was not "buried" -- it was located under "campaign". I agree with {{ping|MelanieN}} but I would go farther. This is all about the campaign. That's the context in which it all arose. If any of the allegations develops into anything more serious, we can start a new section. Right now it's another one of the many issues and narratives that's arisen in Biden's campaign, and there has been nothing reported that would require its own subheading on this page. ]] 18:23, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
::Agree with those above, "Allegations of inappropriate physical contact and sexual assault" is fine, for now. Obviously this depends on how the story unfolds. I also think if we are to diverge from how similar material is handled on, say, Republicans' biographies, the community would need to hear the argument for how this is NPOV.  '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px #B8B8B8;">]]]</span>''' 21:39, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
:::{{u|Guy Macon}}, the header keeps being changed against the consensus we had come to, to something I think most of us would disagree with, so I'm hoping we don't need an RfC.  ] (]) 18:35, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
:::::I hate to say this, but I think we need an uninvolved administrator to step in and deal with what is happening on this page. I won't name names but we have some really good editors who are working heard at treating a difficult topic according to Misplaced Pages policy, and some who appear to care more about who wins the election than whether this is a good article. I am going to unwatch this page rather than getting caught up in the shitstorm which I believe is coming. :( -] (]) 19:12, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
::::"Allegations of inappropriate behavior" seems like a good section heading. It's an accurate summary of the range of behaviors that Biden is alleged to have engaged in. Like article titles, section headings should be concise. - ]] 19:33, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
:::::Clearly there was never consensus for the former section title. I agree with MrX as to NPOV heading language, "Allegations of inappropriate behavior" .]] 20:31, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
::::::(This comment is supposed to be under the "Section header" section; something's broken on this page.) The heading has been stable for two weeks; that's a lot for this story. Please find a source which categorizes the assault allegation as "inappropriate behavior", if you think that fits. {{u|Guy Macon}}, could you recommend any admins to ping? If that doesn't work I assume the next step is to go back to BLP/N. I'll let you alone after this. ] (]) 22:05, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
:::::::Re: "could you recommend any admins to ping" the admins I work with tend to focus on pseudoscience. I don't hang around politics pages enough to know who is helpful. --] (]) 22:53, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
::::::::Admins may be summoned at ], though it's hard to see an urgent need here. ]] 23:46, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
:::::::::No idea why an admin is needed. {{re|Kolya Butternut}}, the heading from 'Allegations of inappropriate physical contact to 'Allegations of inappropriate physical contact and sexual assault'. That was 12 days later. You the next day, apparently in violation of a page editing restriction that says: '''"If an edit you make is reverted you must discuss on the talk page and wait 24 hours before reinstating your edit."''' Based on this discussion, and counting the editors who have reverted the version of the heading that includes the phrase "sexual assault", I think I can confidently say that there is no consensus and 12 days does not make for a "stable" version. - ]] 00:09, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
::::::::::Please revert to the longstanding consensus header then, which is "Allegations of inappropriate physical contact." Please find a source which categorizes the assault allegation as "inappropriate behavior"; I haven't seen any sources which categorize sexual assault that way. Was my reversion back to my edit against the page restriction? My edit was not reverted back to what it was before; I felt like the "inappropriate behavior" header was a bold edit in the BRD cycle. There is certainly no consensus for this title, so the consensus should be restored. ] (]) 00:27, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
:::::::::::That's not a reasonable demand, as there is no consensus either way as I previously explained. Forgive me for assuming that you have already reviewed the sources. There are at least two strong sources already in the article that refer directly to "inappropriate behavior". - ]] 14:40, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
::::::::::::{{u|MrX}}, you did not actually respond to what I said.  I asked you to revert to the '''last consensus''', the header which has been there for at least a year, which I quoted above, which is not the same as my preferred header as it does not include "sexual assault".  Please do not revert to your preferred header without discussing first.  It is irrelevant whether sources "refer" to "inappropriate behavior", please show me sources which categorize sexual assault as inappropriate behavior. ] (]) 15:12, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
{{od|13}} Sorry, I misunderstood. I would agree to do that. - ]] 15:24, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
:::::::::::::] Sexual assault, like other crimes, is inappropriate behavior. ]] 15:29, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
:::::::::::::: That's ridiculous; is that how we categorize ]'s or ]'s or ]'s behavior?  Please do not cite my request that the longstanding header be restored as a reason to revert in the future.  This article clearly needs admin attention.  ] (]) 15:52, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::No. What's ridiculous is that you should equate a dubious claim of assault from a person who has changed their story multiple times to convicted sex offenders and murderers. -- ] (]) 16:17, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::That is a strawman argument.  Murder falls under the description "all other crimes".  That's why that rationale is absurd. Please stop calling her allegations dubious; that is s BLP violation.  ] (]) 18:28, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::It is absolutely NOT a BLP violation to say Ms. Reade's claim is dubious. It is, in fact, a well supported assertion. And you can't claim I'm using a strawman argument based on your own absurd comparison with convicted criminals. -- ] (]) 18:33, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
*By my read of this section, the majority agree with "Allegations of inappropriate physical contact and sexual assault", which was the header on the article for nearly two weeks, so I have restored it. I'm counting myself, {{u|SharabSalam}}, {{u|Cbs527}}, {{u|Kolya Butternut}}, {{u|Guy Macon}}, {{u|MelanieN}}, {{u|petrarchan47}}, and the IP in favor, with {{u|Samboy}}, {{u|SPECIFICO}}, and {{u|MrX}} opposed, and I'm not sure where {{u|The Four Deuces|TFD}}, {{u|BeŻet}}, and {{u|Scjessey}} stand on it. Apologies if I've gotten anyone wrong here. ]&thinsp;<sup style="white-space:nowrap;">] – ]'']</sup> 20:12, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
::This does not look like a consensus to me. - ]] 18:08, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
:::Are your Flinstones glasses broken? :-) OK I'll make it a formal proposal. ]&thinsp;<sup style="white-space:nowrap;">] – ]'']</sup> 19:38, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
*'''Allegations of inappropriate physical contact''' is best. It includes the sole allegation of assault and also comprises the well-docuemnted "too-close" conduct that -- importantly -- Biden has acknowledged and discussed. The other header in the plural is false and misleading -- there is only a single assault allegation -- and it elevates the least credible allegation, Reade's somewhat kaleidic account. ]] 16:59, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
::Are there any sources that categorize sexual assault as "inappropriate physical contact"? If not neither should we. I find your characterization of Reade's allegation to be a BLP violation against her. Please stop. ] (]) 17:22, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
:::Are there any sources that confirm Biden committed sexual assault? If not, we should not use that inflammatory language in a section header, which is supposed to be neutral, because that would be a BLP violation against the subject of the article. -- ] (]) 17:34, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
::::KB previously asked that same question, and I answered her, above in this thread. KB, please see ]]] 17:48, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
::::We don't need a source saying he committed sexual assault in order to support a section heading that says "allegations of sexual assault". That's a straw man argument. It's not "inflammatory", it's how the sources describe the allegation. Here's NPR, today, for example: . ]&thinsp;<sup style="white-space:nowrap;">] – ]'']</sup> 19:38, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
:::::We don't ''need'' to legitimize a dubious claim when a perfectly acceptable neutral title is available. -- ] (]) 19:43, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
::::::This has nothing to do with "legitimizing" a claim. Another straw man argument. I'm disappointed you reverted with an edit summary about "POV pushing", and yet you are the one who is here expressing a POV (that the claims are "dubious" and shouldn't be "legitimized"). This is about describing the allegations in the way the sources describe it; it has nothing to do with the merits of the claim, and it's not for us to decide whether or not the claim is dubious or legitimate. Anyway, we can continue this discussion in the formal proposal section I'm about to post below. ]&thinsp;<sup style="white-space:nowrap;">] – ]'']</sup> 19:58, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

==GA Reassessment==
{{Talk:Joe Biden/GA3}}

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

{{rfc|soc|pol|rfcid=813F5B0}}

Should the following be added to Joe Biden's BLP? '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px #B8B8B8;">]]]</span>''' 19:16, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

::*
::*

<font color="#A0A0A0">In March 2020, Reade accused Biden of pushing her against a wall and digitally penetrating her on Capitol Hill in 1993.</font> {{tq|Reade filed a criminal complaint over the alleged assault on April 9 with the Washington D.C. Police.<ref>{{cite web |last1=McHugh |first1=Rich |title=Former staffer files criminal complaint against Joe Biden over 1993 sexual assault allegation |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200417210137/https://www.businessinsider.com/tara-reade-files-criminal-complaint-against-joe-biden-2020-4
|website=Business Insider |accessdate=17 April 2020}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |last1=North |first1=Anna |title=A sexual assault allegation against Joe Biden has ignited a firestorm of controversy |url=https://www.vox.com/2020/3/27/21195935/joe-biden-sexual-assault-allegation |website=Vox |accessdate=17 April 2020}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=Biden campaign denies ex-aide's sexual assault allegation |url=https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-52299468 |website=BBC |accessdate=17 April 2020}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |last1=Palmer |first1=Ewan |title=Joe Biden Sexual Assault Accuser Tara Reade Files Criminal Complaint |url=https://www.newsweek.com/joe-biden-sexual-assault-police-tara-reade-1497391 |website=Newsweek |accessdate=17 April 2020}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=Biden accuser Tara Reade files criminal complaint over 1993 allegation |url=https://www.businessinsider.com.au/former-biden-staffer-tara-reade-files-sexual-assault-complaint-2020-4 |website=Business Insider Aus |accessdate=17 April 2020}}</ref>}}

{{sources talk}}

{{hr}}
===Discussion.===
* '''No''', per the NYT: {{tpq|No other allegation about sexual assault surfaced in the course of reporting, nor did any former Biden staff members corroborate any details of Ms. Reade’s allegation. The Times found no pattern of sexual misconduct by Mr. Biden.}} Why would we include a futile criminal complaint made after the statute of limitations has expired and rejected so completely comprehensively by the NYT? Coverage of this allegation - which has not been viewed as credible enough to repeat by people who normally comment on such things, such as Ronan Farrow - is greatly excessive in this article already. We are not a tabloid. ''']''' <small>(])</small> 19:22, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
::McHugh was Ronan Farrow's partner in the Weinstein investigative reporting. The filing has been included in every related article since it happened one week ago, and has been added to earlier articles, like from ''Vox''. The accuser has stated her reasons for filing a futile report, but the reason we include it is because RS has done so. Reade states she {{tq|filed the complaint against Biden for "safety reasons," to establish a paper trail of the incident in case anything happened to her. The statute of limitations for the alleged incident has passed..."I also wanted to make it clear that I would be willing to go under oath or cooperate with any law enforcement regarding it"}}
:::Misplaced Pages is not a mirror of routine news reporting. Our task is to separate the wheat from the chaff. This is not wheat. - ]] 21:04, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
::The NYT piece is problematic for use by an encyclopedia as they have to making an edit that removed factual information on behalf of the Biden campaign. '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px #B8B8B8;">]]]</span>''' 19:34, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
::Guy has added it as big quote and I reverted, its undue and irrelevant to the article of Joe Biden. Also, the authors are not experts or notable. --] (]) 19:48, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
*'''Yes''' (As proposer) Rich McHugh is a reliable source, and his account has not been questioned. Some subsequent reporting has shortened the "formal criminal complaint" to "a (police) report", however I don't find that change encyclopedic. '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px #B8B8B8;">]]]</span>''' 19:23, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
:*Update: '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px #B8B8B8;">]]]</span>''' 06:00, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
*'''Yes''' widely reported and reliably sourced.--] (]) 19:43, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
*'''No'''. Far too excessive (]); we are not a tabloid and this is not a newspaper. The argument for inclusion is simply "well, X and Y ran news stories about it, and X and Y are reliable sources, ergo we must include it" - but that is <u>not</u> the standard for inclusion. ], and nor are we an ]. BLP heightens these considerations. Absent some substantive new development, this doesn't belong here. (The proposed "criminal complaint" text is also misleading: a "criminal complaint" is a ], akin to an indictment, issued by prosecutors, whereas this was an individual's complaint to police.) &nbsp;]<sup>]</sup> 19:48, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
:: {{u|Neutrality}}, this RfC is not over the specific text. &nbsp;We can decide to call it a " police report" rather than "criminal complaint". ] (]) 22:44, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
*: ]. It is not undue, its the context, its reported in multiple high-quality sources.--] (]) 19:55, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
::: {{u|SharabSalam}}, it's not about censorship, it's ab out giving undue weight to an allegation about which you don't want the reader to know "No other allegation about sexual assault surfaced in the course of reporting, nor did any former Biden staff members corroborate any details of Ms. Reade’s allegation. The Times found no pattern of sexual misconduct by Mr. Biden". In point of fact, the allegation of censorship is an unusually reliable indidcator of POV-pushing on Misplaced Pages. ''']''' <small>(])</small> 21:27, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
*'''Yes''' - it meets the requirement for DUE, complies with WP:V and BLP:PUBLICFIGURE, and has more than adequate RS. Exclusion could be viewed as whitewashing or censorship in favor of a political candidate. My concern is focused more on our readers and keeping them here reading our articles. We should provide all the information most will be seeking rather than risk losing them to other sources - worse yet, to fake news sources. ] <sub>]</sub> ] 20:03, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
*'''No''' - We're not here for the clicks (hopefully). Elevating this futile action in a high-profile biography would give far too much ] to something that has no real effect. Based on the relatively sparse coverage in reliable sources, Reade's allegation should occupy a small amount of space in this article, basically acknowledging that she made the allegation and that Biden denied it. Also, why are editors still proposing content sourced to Business Insider and Newsweek? I thought we were past that. - ]] 20:18, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
*'''Yes''' Per Atsme above. Didn't we just get through with an Rfc about this ?--] (]) 20:22, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
*'''No''' I don't think the article should be ahead of the curve by giving proportionately more coverage to the story than mainstream media. Per weight, matters that have received little coverage, particularly things currently in the news, should not be mentioned at all. Editors need to put aside their personal views about the candidate or whether or not they find the complaint credible. ] (]) 20:50, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
::Agree on all counts, except that what I (and others) have noticed is that this report is mentioned in every single article on the subject written since the filing. The ''Vox'' article written just after Reade came out was updated to include it. The idea that it should be included here came from this observation. '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px #B8B8B8;">]]]</span>''' 05:49, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
*'''Yes''' Per {{no ping|Atsme}} above. It is more than appropriate to note that she filed a complaint. We of course must also include his campaign's denial. With both of those perspectives, its inclusion ].--] (]) 21:01, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' If this is getting added, then there should also be a note on how the trustworthiness of the allegation in general has been questioned by the sources. This is a serious issue and there should be context. On the other hand, ] is a serious problem here. The section on this already significantly longer than the similar section in the Donald Trumps article. ] (]) 21:41, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
*'''No''' This document is not noteworthy for Joe Biden's biography. The allegations are significant, but not this docuemnt. The article already relates Tara Reade's allegation, so the report adds no facts about Biden. Reade has said that she knew the statute of limitations had already lapsed. She said that filed the report to give herself "an additional degree of safety from potential threats." So how is it relevant to Biden's biography? The central fact for his biography relates to the allegations themselves, not the document Reade gave the police. ]] 23:50, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
::She didn't give anyone a document, she reported the alleged assault over the phone in a 45 minute conversation with D.C. Police. According to sources, such as ''Vanity Fair'', it was the filing of this criminal complaint that led to the widespread coverage that happened on Easter. {{tq|After Rich McHugh reported on the report for Business Insider on Friday, the Times, the Post, the AP, and NBC News all followed}} '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px #B8B8B8;">]]]</span>''' 05:49, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
*'''Yes''' The fact that a police report was filed against Biden is the second-most noteworthy piece of the allegation story. Most RS focus on the police report, many even right in the headline or subheading. For example: ''Vox'', , ''Vice'', , MSN, . ] (]) 01:02, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
**'''NPR has confirmed that the police report does indeed name Biden:''' {{tq|"NPR obtained confirmation of the police report from a law enforcement source. A record of the report names Biden. NPR has filed a Freedom of Information Act request for the full report."}} ] (]) 14:55, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
***Granted we could be waiting 2.5 weeks for the NYT et al to mention this, but there is an open investigation into this allegation according to Rich McHugh (Washington Examiner and other right wing outlets have jumped on it, but no one else yet). '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px #B8B8B8;">]]]</span>''' 16:02, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
<s>*'''Yes''' Extremely well sourced and one of the most important pieces of the sexual assault allegation. ] (]) 01:08, 18 April 2020 (UTC)</s><small> Blocked sockpuppet account.]] 12:25, 22 April 2020 (UTC)</small>
:A brand-new account with a grand total of 1 mainspace edits. Please familiarize yourself with our policies and guidelines before participating in RfCs. ]<sup>]</sup> 00:34, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
::<s>I finally created an account after editing without one, at the urging of several people. I'm familiar with the basics, but it doesn't take a seasoned veteran to know that a woman coming forward to report a highly credible allegation of misconduct (the 9th woman to do so) and filing a criminal complaint against a presumptive presidential nominee is a "big fuckin' deal," to quote the subject of this page. EDIT: I stand corrected. She filed a police report, not a criminal complaint. ] (]) 02:08, 19 April 2020 (UTC)</s><small> Blocked sockpuppet account. - ]<sup>]</sup> 15:03, 22 April 2020 (UTC)</small>
:::Filed a police report, not a criminal complaint. A criminal complaint is a written document filed by a state or federal prosecutor that alleges a person committed a crime, sets out the basic facts and charges and is filed with the respective criminal court. It is the first step on the path to a criminal trial. A police report is a written document created by a police officer after someone reports something (often a crime but it could be anything) so that the police have a record of it. The one source that says that a criminal complaint was filed is unreliable. The reliable sources call it a police report. --] (]) 04:39, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
::::The type of report filed is called a criminal complaint. There is now an open investigation. If the phrasing is wrong as you suggest, McHugh would have been corrected and discredited for sloppy reporting. '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px #B8B8B8;">]]]</span>''' 05:49, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
::::<s>Thank you for pointing out the distinction, I included a note about that since it's important to be precise with the language, although my opinion on this remains the same. ] (]) 19:00, 19 April 2020 (UTC)</s><small> Blocked sockpuppet account. - ]<sup>]</sup> 15:03, 22 April 2020 (UTC)</small>
*'''Weak no''' - It seems undue and trivial given the fact that it has no legal effect. The impact that the actual report has on Biden will be nonexistent. I agree with other editors who have said that the actual allegations are more important than the document. --] (]) 04:09, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
::It has an effect, there is now an open investigation into Biden per Rich McHugh: {{tq|Update: while it is typical for a criminal complaint filed out of statute--like the one Tara Reade filed against Joe Biden--to be closed/archived, DC Metro Police confirmed to me, 11 days later, "This is an active investigation..."}} '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px #B8B8B8;">]]]</span>''' 05:49, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
*'''This RfC is pointless''' – The article already includes "police report". I have no idea what the point of this RfC is. As a resident of Washington D.C., "criminal complaint" makes no sense to me. ---&nbsp;]&amp;]]) 08:27, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
*:RfCs are intended to help come to consensus on something, such as whether to cover something in an article. If this RfC comes to a consensus against mentioning the police report, then it should be removed as with anything without consensus. The fact that something is currently in an article doesn't mean it has consensus to stay that way forever. ] (]) 19:33, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
*::If the question is "Does the police report have due weight to remain in the article?", then my !vote is a clear and unequivocal '''Yes'''. The fact that she has filed a police report has been covered by major RS. It is also what brought the whole thing to a head. It is a necessary context and aftermath that requires mentioning. ---&nbsp;]&amp;]]) 00:31, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
*'''Weak yes''' now that people seem to have stopped trying to add misleading text to our article, it seems fair enough to discuss this. I say a weak yes mostly because I think even a short mention of the allegation seems incomplete without mentioning the police report. However it shouldn't be overly detailed, probably just along the lines of she made the police report and the Biden campaign rejected the allegations. (The only other thing that might be worth mentioning is that the allegations appear outside the statute of limitations of any alleged crime.) It's also quite hard to make a judgment at this time as all this is still very new, especially the police report. If over time, most refs which mention the allegation don't mention the police report, then nor should we. But we don't really know at this time, we can only get some idea from how refs clearly written after the police report, cover this. From what I've seen most do mention the police report although it's also true many such refs are covering the police report or related issues. I do agree we should say police report and not criminal complaint. ] (]) 19:33, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
*'''Mention the complaint''' / '''Keep things as-is''' - As of right now, the article contains the text:
**''In March 2020, Reade accused Biden of pushing her against a wall and digitally penetrating her on Capitol Hill in 1993. On April 9, 2020, she filed a police report with the Washington Metropolitan Police alleging she was sexually assaulted in spring 1993. Biden's 2020 presidential campaign has denied the allegation.''
*This appears to be reasonable and encyclopedic to me. ] (]) 05:28, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
*Yes, for the same reason our article on ] hax an entire section entitled "Sexual assault allegations", We have an NPOV ethic here and that means if we give massive article space to allegations made against Justice Kavanaugh which were found unpersuasive by the Senate during his confirmation, then Tara Reade's accusations deserve that sort of detail and space.
:We should read ] and devote just as much space to Tara Reade's accusations as we have to Christine Blasey Ford's accusations. Either that, or stop pretending ] is one of the project's core values. We have no business doing ] for either large political party. --] (]) 17:17, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
:*NPOV is about neutral representation of RS narratives within a page. It is not about comparisons ''between'' articles, Kavanaugh vs. Biden. ]] 18:41, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
*'''Yes''' (agreeing with Nil Einne on the details). It's an important part of the story, and the story is an important part of the article. A sexual assault allegation against the subject of a biography is pretty transparently noteworthy in a biography, and the fact that a police report was filed as of just recently is pretty transparently noteworthy to the sexual assault allegation (which is why it was covered in multiple places). ] (]) 06:43, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
:*The mere statement that it's noteworthy is not a convincing rationale as to why it is noteworthy. We do not just count votes, so any convincing arguments should be presented in enough detail to support your conclusion. ]] 21:20, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
*'''No''' it is UNDUE and trivial. It does not contribute significantly to this issue or this article. The allegation is not inherently noteworthy, there is no such thing as inherit notability, and no such thing as inherited notability. The issue has already been appropriately verified and placed in the article as part of that process with appropriate WEIGHT already applied. ---] (]) 18:45, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
*'''No''' - It would be redundant, and ]. It's also troubling to see off-wiki forums pushing this content again. -- ] (]) 21:12, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
*After some indecision, '''yes'''. However, the footnote currently in the article ({{tq|According to Reade, she did not share the entirety of her story earlier because she had faced backlash following her 2019 statements due to her previously expressed support of Putin.}}) is an attempt at bypassing ], but should still be removed. Readers looking for context on Reade's actions can go to ]. {{pb}} It is not true that the media have consensus that Biden does not have a pattern of committing sexual abuse, but even if it was true, it would not undermine the due weight of this specific allegation. Petrarchan47 quotes an excellent passage from ''Slate'' below which is relevant (beginning {{tq|Whether they intend to or not, the explicit framing around the lack of pattern ...}}). The specific police report is significant due to its media attention and its implications of the seriousness of Reade's complaint, regardless of whether it is true and regardless of whether it is an isolated complaint. — ] (''']''') 22:53, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
* '''No''' this is UNDUE per above. Only support including a one or two sentence summary that links to further detail on the other sexual allegations sub article. ] (]) 11:58, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
* '''Yes''' this is not undue, we should treat this as we did Donald Trump's allegations and not continue handling Biden's with kid gloves as we currently are. ] (]) 06:17, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
* '''Yes''' a police report, a criminal complaint, has been filed against a former vice president of the United States and the presumptive democratic party nominee for president in 2020. The "sexual assault" article notwithstanding, this certainly belongs in Biden's biography.] (]) 01:53, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
* '''Yes''' Trump's page mention it. It has entered the public awareness and is a subject of political debate. If presented accuratly and in all reserves considering the truth or falsehood of the allegations, it ought to be there, especially since his opponent's page mentiones similar allegations. ] (]) 09:24, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
*'''Yes''' – per RSes. In pretty much every summary of this allegation written by RSes, "filed a police report" is mentioned. ]&thinsp;<sup style="white-space:nowrap;">] – ]'']</sup> 19:33, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
*'''Conditional Yes''' - Widely covered in the sources, but explicitly "police report" as per most of the sources, and not "criminal complaint", which is unnecessarily loaded. &mdash; <samp>] <sup style="font-size:80%;">]</sup></samp> \\ 23:12, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
*'''Yes'''. She has filed a formal police report about the alleged incident. It should at least be mentioned in the article. ] (]) 05:41, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
*'''Yes''' Widespread coverage in RS, meets DUE. ] (]) 22:22, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
*'''Yes''' per discussion ] (]) 21:28, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
*'''Yes''' - widely noted and the phrasing is suitably restrained. Could reduce the overcite though, maybe just BBC and Newsweek ? Cheers ] (]) 14:00, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

== NYT on Reade ==

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

Oddly enough, I disagree. ''']''' <small>(])</small> 21:23, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
:It seems like important context to me. How is it undue? &ndash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;(]) 21:31, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
::{{u|JzG}}, these random authors are not experts in the subject also the quotation inside templates to highlight what they said, is giving them undue weight. Cant be included in the article. Also, this is irrelevant to the article, what they are talking about is their (the authors) findings and excuse to why they didnt report the incident, it has nothing to do with the incident itself, its about their lack of reporting the story which isnt even in this article. --] (]) 21:36, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
:::They are investigative reporters and they investigated the allegation. Also, that no other women have made any allegations against Biden stands in stark contrast to the cases of Donald Trump, Bill Clinton, and others who have engaged in sexual misconduct. &ndash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;(]) 21:51, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
:::The reporters are expert investigative reporters who are thoroughly aware of and dedicated to best practices for such investigation. They also provided a great deal of transparency as to the scope and nature of their investigation -- who they interviewed and some of the substance of those conversations. "Random authors" is really not applicable here. ]] 21:57, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
::::I do not see anything wrong with noting that NYT did not find any other allegations of sexual assault. That just means that they didn't find any. There could or could not be more, as we have seen before. Given the correction by the NYT they should be looked at a bit more skeptically than under normal circumstances. The statement "The Times found no pattern of sexual misconduct by Mr. Biden" though seems to be undue to me. This seems to be them expressing an opinion on the entirety of the claims by Reade (and others) and those that could (or could not exist) which we know nothing about (]). The problem with this statement about "misconduct" is that some of the past general allegations of inappropriate physical contact (touching shoulders, smelling hair etc) could be seen as "misconduct", "harassment" or simply inappropriate. Is the NYT talking about those claims too? There clearly is a pattern of complaints there. That is clearly not assault, but could be misconduct, harassment or simply inappropriate. We are not under any obligation to take the NYT's characterization of those known allegations as the gospel truth. Sure, they found no pattern of sexual assault... and maybe they don't CONSIDER these other allegations misconduct.--] (]) 22:13, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
:::::This article is about Joe Biden, their own findings are irrelevant here, they are making an excuse why they didn't report the story earlier, if we are going to add that quote that we should give the context, which is that the NYT didn't report the allegation for long period of time.--] (]) 22:21, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
::::::The NYT investigative journalists investigated Biden, so it fits. &ndash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;(]) 23:23, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
::::They are not experts or notable. They are only journalists. Their story is interesting but it is undue. Also, giving them a big fat quote template is giving much more undue weight.--] (]) 22:18, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
:::::"Only journalists".... how dismissive. You realize how much Misplaced Pages owes to journalism? &ndash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;(]) 22:21, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
:::::: This is a legal matter that involves a BLP. You need real legal investigators not journalists making an excuse why they didnt report the story.--] (]) 22:23, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
:::::::So we can't use the ''New York Times'' as a source for articles about legal cases in the news? Then we'll have to delete a lot of articles starting with the Impeachment of Donald Trump. ] (]) 23:13, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
{{hat|Blocked sockpuppet distraction -- ] (]) 13:53, 22 April 2020 (UTC)}}
::::::::NYT is generally reliable for non-political subjects. It's important to keep in mind that the Biden campaign is running the NYT's coverage of the Biden campaign, hearkening back to the Hillary Clinton campaign's control over the Hillary Clinton campaign's coverage. So we can use the NYT as some kind of general guidance or maybe for supporting links to more reliable sources, but it's important to keep in mind who NYT "journalists" are working for. ] (]) 01:20, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
::::::::: {{u|SeriousIndividuals}}, no, the Biden campaign is not "running" the NYT's coverage. It is normal for a newspaper to check content with a subject, and equally normal for them to take a conservative approach when the subject has specific objections. Citing right wing media bubble sources such as the Daily Caller as a source for a supposedly factual statement on bias in the mainstream is a problematic position on Misplaced Pages and I suggest you don't do that.''']''' <small>(])</small> 11:53, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
:::::::::: I included two left-wing bubble sources in my previous comment. It's one thing to take a "conservative approach." It's another thing to forward articles for a campaign's approval before publication. Or in this case, to publish a factually correct story that provided needed context for Tara Reade's allegation by describing previous allegations of sexual misconduct, and then removing the context under the direction of a candidate's PR team. Imagine if the Trump campaign had that kind of control over the NYT? Whoo, boy. ] (]) 21:37, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
:::::::::::{{u|SeriousIndividuals}} The NY Times did not forward articles for pre-approval. That is a serious misstatement of fact. You should redact/replace it with something truthful ASAP. ]] 21:55, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
::::::::::::I provided the links just in case someone here didn't know about what happened. If you don't think the journalists were telling the truth about the actions taken by Kenneth Vogel, Glenn Thrush, and Mark Leibovich, I suggest you voice your concerns with them. ] (]) 22:08, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
{{hab}}
:::::::{{ping|SharabSalam}} You wrote, {{purple|"This is a legal matter that involves a BLP"}}. What is your RS for claiming this is a "legal matter"? Reade has acknowledged that the statute of limitations has expired. She has said she only filed the police report for personal purposes ("safety", as if she were unsafe, without further explanation). The current status of Reade's new allegation is that it's only been a media matter. The substance is entirely unclear and it is clearly not a legal matter.]] 12:24, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
:] says articles are required to "represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." The opinions expressed by the ''New York Times'' reporters and other reporters in mainstream media are the most significant viewpoints in that they have received the most prominence in mainstream sources. And the most significant aspect of the story is that the claims are not considered credible. If the claims aren't credible and have received little coverage of course it raises the question of why we should mention them at all. Personally I have no idea how credible they are, just repeating the opinion expressed in reliable sources. ] (]) 23:13, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
:I would support including this, but not as a standout quote. We could paraphrase it to something like {{tq|"Reade's allegations could not be corroborated with former Biden staff and no other sexual assault accusations came to light during an investigation by the New York Times."}} The last sentence of the original quote and the attribution are not necessary. - ]] 00:33, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
*The current section is fine as is, hopefully with the addition of the criminal complaint once the above RfC concludes. Further details about Biden's mishandling of Reade can be/should be included in ]. ] <sub>]</sub> ] 00:59, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
:: You say. Meanwhile int he real world there was a long period when people were trying to crowbar this contrent into this article but failed because it had zero coverage in good quality sources, and when we do get coverage in a good quality source (NYT is top tier for reliability), we find that they explicitly state that the allegation is not credible, which explains why it got no traction earlier. In a BLP, that is about as relevant as it gets. ''']''' <small>(])</small> 09:23, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
::: Your statement is a BLP violation against Tara Reade. &nbsp;The NYTimes did not state that. ] (]) 12:52, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
::::If I understand correctly, K.B., this is the same claim you are making at . But without links and specifics, I don't think the rest of us are seeing this. Could you provide those? ]] 13:24, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
:::::You want a link to the NYTs article we're discussing? ], ]. ] (]) 15:44, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
*The details of what reporters sought and could not find are superfluous and undue. The noteworthy allegations of sexual misconduct are included in this article, readers can infer no other instances have been found. If we're going to write about staff members who saw nothing, we're going to have to write about the interns who the NYTs failed to describe as "corroborating" that she abruptly stopped supervising them, and we're going to have to write about what her friends and her brother heard about her experience. ] (]) 01:33, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
:*Could you provide sources and examples of that kind of additional article content, if that's what you are proposing? ]] 01:48, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

{{od}} It sure seems like many editors here are extraordinarily keen to make sure Biden's biography contains a sexual assault allegation, but not include journalism from one of the world's most reliable sources that casts serious doubt on the allegation. Why could that be? -- ] (]) 13:36, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
:<s>I don't think we should be using "the world" interchangeably with "Democrats." 53% of Democrats trust the NYT. 15% of Republicans share that trust. I don't know the party breakdown of NYT trust internationally, but in the US, that's pretty dismal. Additionally, burying an earth-shattering story like this on page A20, and then later admitting that they cleaned it up at the behest of Biden's campaign probably doesn't do much for their credibility. I think that's the primary reason that we're seeing resistance to the "journalism" of NYT staffers, and editors are relying on more reliable sources of information. ] (]) 21:46, 18 April 2020 (UTC) </s> Blocked sockpuppet. -- ] (]) 13:53, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
::By "the world", I mean "the world". The NYT is a world-renowned and trusted news source. I would speculate the reason the story is "buried" is probably because it is likely a non-credible accusation, and so isn't worthy of higher-placed coverage. -- ] (]) 22:06, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
:::<s>What's your source that says "the world" trusts the NYT? I gave you my source that shows just 53% of Democrats, which the NYT caters to, trusts the NYT. I think it's only fair I see your source. Regarding the "credibility" of Tara Reade's corroborated, evidence-backed account of her experience, it's not up to us to decide if we BelieveWomen or not. That's why three women with no evidence or corroboration for their claims all have hundreds of words describing their stories on Brett Kavanaugh's page. ] (]) 22:12, 18 April 2020 (UTC) </s> Blocked sockpuppet. -- ] (]) 13:53, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
::::r.e. Kavanaugh, I know that it's frustrating, but sauce for the goose is absolutely not sauce for the gander in terms of Misplaced Pages. Different pages are influenced by different editors and will vary wildly in terms of quality generally and specifically when it especially comes to controversy/criticism of article entities. As somebody who's looked at a lot of articles on Misplaced Pages about domestic abuse, sexual assault, et cetera, it's the consistent inconsistency that sticks out most to me. "But X isn't presented in Z way, so Y shouldn't be either" isn't really an argument. ] (]) 05:22, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
*I've asked for clarification at the ; given that the NYT made a substantive edit to their piece at the request of the Biden campaign, the article might have limited use for the encyclopedia. '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px #B8B8B8;">]]]</span>''' 03:04, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
:For what it's worth, addresses the NYT piece:
:{{tq|Whether they intend to or not, the explicit framing around the lack of pattern ends up making a statement about Reade’s believability. Not every sexual abuser makes a habit of committing multiple similar assaults in a span of a few years, but in recent years, both readers and reporters have become accustomed to gauging accusers’ credibility by counting their numbers. If an abuser leaves a trail of survivors in his wake, we demand they all make their allegations known to the press if any one of them is to be believed, in defiance of the personal and professional risks. (Reade says she didn’t tell her full story sooner because she was doxed after merely alleging that Biden had harassed her.) We’ve been spoiled, in the worst possible sense of the word, by the proliferation of stories detailing yearslong patterns of sexual violations committed by the likes of Harvey Weinstein, Bill Cosby, Roger Ailes, Matt Lauer, Bill O’Reilly, Charlie Rose, and Donald Trump. We’ve come to expect every abuser to come with an entire fleet of women giving the same details.}} '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px #B8B8B8;">]]]</span>''' 02:51, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
::{{U|petrarchan47}}, the NYTs text remains in the Tara Reade section, without consensus. The only line I support is "No other allegation about sexual assault surfaced in the course of reporting"; the rest are controversial. Also, the heading of the section has been changed without consensus. ] (]) 03:01, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
{{u|Levivich}}, we could use more eyes on this section. ] (]) 20:30, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
:{{u|Kolya Butternut}}, I don't know, the fact of the NYT's investigation and its results (whatever they may be) seems important enough to be a DUE inclusion in this paragraph somewhere. However, the problem I have is that what's in the article right now are details that I think are unimportant and thus ''not'' DUE: (1) {{tqq|No other allegation about sexual assault surfaced in the course of reporting&nbsp;...}} – I mean, who cares? Imagine if, in an article about a murder suspect, we said that "the newspaper investigated and did not find any other murders in the course of reporting". Like, that's good, but it's not really ... relevant, unless for some reason we were expecting the newspaper to find more victims in the course of reporting. In this case, that the NYT didn't find more victims doesn't really tell our reader anything DUE about these allegations or Joe Biden. (2) {{tqq|...&nbsp; nor did any former Biden staff members corroborate any details of Ms. Reade's allegation}} – Again, we wouldn't expect them to. I'm sure that in the case of most people facing accusations, their own staff usually don't corroborate any details. In fact, it's "big news" when that happens, when someone "turns" on their boss or becomes a whistleblower. (3) {{tqq|The Times found no pattern of sexual misconduct by Mr. Biden.}} I'd think this was DUE if it was the police. I mean, the Times has been covering and investigating Biden for... what.. over thirty years? In all that time they never turned this up (or if they did, they didn't report it). So I'm not seeing it particularly DUE that the Times didn't find a pattern, since "a pattern" isn't really the allegation. In sum, I'm ok with including the NYT investigation, but I'd rather include content that sums up what the Time found out ''about the Tara Reade allegations'', and not just the lack of other victims, corroborating staff members, or a pattern of misconduct. Those three seem like unimportant details to me. ]&thinsp;<sup style="white-space:nowrap;">] – ]'']</sup> 21:06, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
::{{u|Levivich}}, I agree that that information is undue. However, the NYTs did find that "Two former interns who worked with her...recalled that she abruptly stopped supervising them in April, before the end of their internship." This corroborates Reade's claim that this responsibility was taken from her after her assault, which occurred in the spring. ] (]) 22:13, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

::Also, there are many witnesses; her brother, two friends, a coworker and a neighbor from 1995, and ostensibly her mother. We could say that several witnesses recall Reade sharing her story with them contemporaneously. ] (]) 22:23, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
:::{{u|Kolya Butternut}}, in my view, the fundamental problem here is using the NYT as a source for the NYT investigation. The NYT article is a primary source for the conclusions of its own investigation. (See ] and related discussion in the context of academic journals ].) So if we want to talk about the NYT investigation and we use the NYT article as a source, we're left with editors deciding which parts of the NYT article are DUE or important enough to mention, and that's the fundamental problem with using primary sources: any decision made by editors is ]. So to get around that, what we need are ''other reliable secondary sources'' that report about the NYT investigation (there are many, everybody has reported it by now). So I'd go about it by picking two or three of the best RSes (other than NYT) that discuss the NYT investigation, and then summarize the NYT investigation based on those two or three RSes said, preferably in wikivoice if we can get there. Something like, "The NYT investigated and concluded X." Now, if the two or three RSes each reported the same details from the NYT report (whether that's two former interns recalling her abrupt departure, or Biden's aides not corroborating, or "no pattern", or the Larry King call, or whatever it may be), then I'd be convinced those details should also be included in our article. If the two or three RSes each characterized the conclusions of the NYT investigation as "X", then I'd think we should also say "X". In this way, we're just following the sources... sources other than the NYT reporting about the NYT investigation. ]&thinsp;<sup style="white-space:nowrap;">] – ]'']</sup> 22:33, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it should be included. The section looks fine as-is (at least the version I saw before clicking edit here). It was one of the first really good sources on this topic and provides useful context. &mdash; <samp>] <sup style="font-size:80%;">]</sup></samp> \\ 23:15, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
:{{u|Rhododendrites}}, there is no consensus for this text; that should be reason enough to remove it. The text does not summarize the findings of the NYTimes; it gives weight to what was not found rather than what was found; and its statement that no coworkers corroborated Reade's claims is disputed by other sources, which consider the statements of the interns to be corroboration of Reade's story. Please revert and discuss. ] (]) 23:26, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
::I mainly reverted because the main reason you gave for seemed to be that it was somehow ] and that we need to wait until people summarize what the NYT says. That's just not what OR means. It's a newspaper doing reporting. It's a secondary source. As for not being consensus, I did look at the history a bit first and did a spot check over the last several days, and it was in each version I clicked. Whether there's consensus for it seems unclear, and I won't object if someone undoes my edit with a different rationale. Addressing what you wrote here: if the language we use is a quote rather than a summary (if I understand what you're saying), then summarize it. As for giving weight to what was not found rather than what was found, it's included because the Times ''articulated'' what wasn't found. That's very different from, say, an editor inferring from the negative space. That kind of nuance is a feature of a journalistic project, not a bug. &mdash; <samp>] <sup style="font-size:80%;">]</sup></samp> \\ 23:43, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
:::{{u|Rhododendrites}}, I removed the text mainly because as has been repeatedly discussed here and at the separate article on sexual assault allegation, there is no consensus for the text. In addition, it is undue. The fact that it has been repeated restored against consensus is not a good reason for you to restore it. If you would like to discuss new text summarizing the NYTs reporting, please do that, but first please help out by reverting your edit. ] (]) 23:53, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
::::{{reply|Kolya Butternut}} First, please '''stop''' claiming the NYT text is "against consensus" when it clearly isn't. Second, please '''stop''' claiming that any of Ms. Reade's sometime supporters are "witnesses" when they are not. -- ] (]) 15:06, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
::::::{{u|Scjessey}}, I do not believe there is a consensus to include that specific NYTs text.
::::::It is not I who claim they are witnesses; the witnesses have identified themselves. If you feel the word is inappropriate, I would suggest that you '''stop''' policing others' speech before considering your own reading comprehension. ] (]) 15:37, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
:::::::The consensus is obviously leaning towards inclusion of the NYT text, and frankly it would be WEIRD not to include it. And your "witnesses" didn't "witness" the incident, so they aren't witnesses. Maybe you shouldn't be commenting on my reading comprehension if you don't want to attract a sanction. -- ] (]) 15:55, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
:::::::I think we can reject, on purely logical grounds, that a witness who self-identifies as such is the most credible arbiter of that proposition. Ever hear of the cannibal and the canoe? ] ]] 17:08, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
::::::::The consensus may not be against including ''no'' NYTs text, but that is not my assertion. The consensus is against including all of it as it is now. I'm not sure how not to comment on reading comprehension when we are still having this semantics discussion. No one is claiming anyone has witnessed Joe Biden sexually assaulting Tara Reade; that is not what the sources mean by "witnesses". ] (]) 17:16, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
:::::::::Witness is a witness, not a person with an opinion or a person who's repeating something unrelated to the allegation, especially when it is something they are kind of sure they might have heard sometime long after the event, on second thought, after they revise their recollection. Witness has a clear meaning in ordinary speech. But as I tried to suggest, logic trumps semantics and there are no witnesses. That's in the nature of these things, so that does not by itself invalidate her claims. The results of journalists' investigations do, however cast considerable doubt on the allegation. ]] 17:44, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
::::::::::Please focus on what the source say. The sources call them witnesses; the current sources do not describe there being "considerable doubt on the allegation". ] (]) 17:49, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
:::::::::::Please review ]. You're shifting your pretext for these. First you said they were self-identified witnesses. Is her mother a witness? Larry King is a witness. Sources please. Imagine how many crimes Larry King has witnessed by that standard? ]] 17:57, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
:::::::::::::Stating multiple things that are true is not "shifting". I'm not going to provide you with sources if you're going to make strawmen about Larry King. First, do you disagree that Reade's friends, brother, coworker, and neighbor are accurately described as witnesses? ] (]) 06:19, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
{{od}} {{u|Levivich}} Editors are using a passage from the NYT article that contains the removal of a disclaimer regarding Biden’s pattern of misconduct () made solely because the Biden campaign wanted the change. It seems clear to me that using that sentence without alerting readers as to it’s controversial history and inherent COI is a policy violation. '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px #B8B8B8;">]]]</span>''' 18:16, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
:{{u|Petrarchan47}}, all the more reason, I think, not to cite only to the NYT for the NYT investigation. For example, here's what Reuters says about the NYT investigation: {{tqq|The New York Times said in a statement on Wednesday an investigation it conducted of the matter “made no conclusion either way.”}} . BTW, I find ]'s op-ed in Politico this week to be pretty comprehensive in its survey of media coverage of the allegation . ]&thinsp;<sup style="white-space:nowrap;">] – ]'']</sup> 20:22, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
::Thank you for helping. With regard to media coverage, might I recommend from the New York Times' media columnist Ben Smith; he conducted the interview wherein the NYT admitted to changing the text simply because Biden asked them to (discussed also , where he was a guest this morning on Hill TV's "Rising").
::The ''Times'' gave a summary of their Reade reporting yesterday, when they had to clear up a lie being spread about it from the Biden campaign, as leaked talking points. Their summary is perfect for the encyclopedia. They ''did'' uncover evidence, and are reliable for that. Their own summary is very accurate and neutral in my opinion.
:::{{tq|ur story found three former Senate aides whom Reade said she complained to contemporaneously, all of whom either did not remember the incident or said that it did not happen...The story also included former interns who remembered Reade suddenly changing roles and no longer overseeing them, which took place during the same time period that Reade said she was abruptly reassigned,” the statement continued. “The Times also spoke to a friend who said Reade told her the details of the allegation at the time; another friend and Reade’s brother say she told them of a traumatic sexual incident involving Biden.}} '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px #B8B8B8;">]]]</span>''' 21:53, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
*I've opened a at RS/N regarding the use of the NYT's edited statement, and whether we will need a formal RfC in order to remove, or properly attribute, the sentence in Biden's BLP. More courtesy pings: {{u|Levivich}} {{u|Scjessey}} {{u|Rhododendrites}} {{u|CoffeeWithMarkets}} {{u|Darryl Kerrigan}} {{u|Muboshgu}} '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px #B8B8B8;">]]]</span>''' 14:58, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
The NYT article originally stated "We found no pattern of sexual misconduct by Biden, beyond hugs, kisses and touching that women previous said made them uncomfortable." And was later edited by NYT staff to remove the last part about the hugs and touching. This was newsworthy and reported on by several outlets, the NYT quote should reflect that change. https://thehill.com/homenews/media/492680-ny-times-faces-blowback-for-removal-of-controversial-passage-on-biden-sexual ] (]) 08:22, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

== Biden and Social Security ==

For decades, to Social Security, yet there is nothing about this long held position in this article. i checked the talkpage archives and i see that this information was once in this article but ] in 2013. Now that Mr Biden intends to run for President again, this information should be restored. ] (]) 17:56, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
: Thats an issue position and on the Biden 2020 Precedential page. You can read here. <ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/Joe_Biden_2020_presidential_campaign#Veracity_of_statements</ref> ] (]) 19:26, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
{{reflisttalk}}

== "American Christian Zionists" ==

] is a specific thing. As far as I can tell, Biden has only said he's a "Zionist" in the context of being generally pro-Israel. The category "American Christian Zionists" does not belong in the article. ] (]) 01:46, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
:He has said he is a Zionist, that category is for Christians who are Zionists. "Zionist" has a specific meaning, it doesn't just mean "generally pro-Israel".--] (]) 01:54, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
::No. "Christian Zionist" relates to a particular set of people, none of whom is Joe Biden. Please undo your reinsertion. ]] 02:36, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
::It would help to be very specific here. According to our own Misplaced Pages article, a "]" is someone who believes that it was the fulfillment of Christian biblical prophecy that the Jews established the state of Israel in 1948. I haven't done any research on Joe Biden in that regard, but is that what he believes? If reliable sourcing can be found to that effect, then the category is applicable, and if cannot be found, then the category is unsupported and should be removed. Fair enough? Regards, ] (]) 03:02, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
:Biden said he was a Zionist a long time ago. More recently he said he would be a Zionist if he were Jewish. Whatever the truth, he is not significant enough in the Zionist movement for inclusion. The point of categories is to help readers navigate to articles that tell them more about the topic. Including 95% of of the 520,000 elected U.S. officials doesn't help. 03:24, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

I took it out on BLP grounds. &ndash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;(]) 03:30, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

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

==Community reassessment==

{{Misplaced Pages:Good article reassessment/Joe Biden/1}}

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

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

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

:I agree that "presumptive Democratic presidential nominee" is the correct way to term things, as stated above. ] (]) 19:00, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
He hasn't been nominated by the Democratic Party as its presidential candidate. That statement is false. If you are in doubt, please consult the ] and ] articles. ] (]) 22:42, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

== Splitting Proposal ==

*]→]
*]→]<br/>
One of the issues that has been discussed in the ], despite not being part of the ], is the article's ]. The article's prose is currently 88 kB, which means it likely should be split. The combined prose size of both the sections I am proposing splitting is 54 kB. As Joe Biden continues his presidential run and the 2020 election happens, there may be much more to write about, thus causing the prose to possibly top 100 kB. Due to these problems, I propose splitting the aforementioned sections to the aforementioned titles.<br/>
Pinging GAR participants: {{ping|Atsme|Aircorn|Mz7|CaptainEek|MelbourneStar|Wasted Time R|PacMecEng|Awilley|MONGO}} ''']<sup>]</sup>''' 17:22, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
*'''Support''' This strikes me as a good idea with precedent (], ], ]). &ndash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;(]) 17:59, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
*'''Support''' - per Muboshgu. It is an excellent idea. Thank you, Username! ] <sub>]</sub> ] 18:13, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
*'''Support''' as part of a general move toward ], which is almost always essential with especially significant politicians. -- ] (]) 19:26, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
*'''Support''' Great idea! Its always a challenge keeping these big articles at a reasonable size, so anything helps us meet our summary style goal. ] <sup>]</sup>] 21:12, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
*'''Support''' – Nice work, Usermane. —]<span style="color: #FF9F00;">☆</span>] 03:12, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
*'''Support''' per Username6892. Perhaps we should start discussing the prose to remain in this article? ] 04:05, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
*:{{reply|UserDude}} The usual way of doing this is for the prose in this article to essentially be a copy of the introduction of the new article, since both are meant to be a summary of the new article's body. -- ] (]) 13:12, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
*'''Support''' obviously this is for the betterment of the article and to cut down on the main article's flab. ] (]) 06:20, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
*'''Support''' Notable senators have a dedicated page about this. I believe Joe Biden is one of them. ] (]) 15:56, 25 April 2020 (UTC)EditQwerty
*'''Support''' - Considering that Biden's Senate and VP sections aren't likely to get much heavy editing anymore but are taking up a lot of room, it makes perfect sense to me to break them off into their own articles. --] (]) 16:02, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
*'''Support''' ] (]) 07:34, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. Seems reasonable. ] (]) 19:27, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
*'''Support''' - This appears consistent with past precedent, which is good. I agree. ] (]) 19:37, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

===Prose to keep===
It's been about 2 days since I opened this discussion and it appears highly likely to be split, but what prose should be left in this article? I personally find that putting a lead-style summary would probably make the early life section seem extremely detailed in comparison with other sections. I am currently of the opinion that the Senate section should be reduced to about 10 kB of prose in this article (It's currently 33 kB), similar to that of ]'s pre-2000 ] and ]'s ]. I'm not sure about the VP section yet. ''']<sup>]</sup>''' 21:26, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
:As I said above, the usual solution is that the prose "left behind" is basically the ''introduction'' of the new article, since they are both intended to be summaries of the same thing. -- ] (]) 21:50, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
:I'll get the ball rolling on the ] article. Please feel free to add content to it. --] (]) 14:34, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
::As Woko split off the vice presidency, I just split off the Senate career to ]. &ndash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;(]) 03:09, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
:The whole point of splitting the article off into sub-articles is to get most of the text from those sections out of the main article. The sub-articles should be where the bulk of the information resides and the main article should just contain the summary of what is in those sub-articles. It's pointless to split up an article into sub-articles if the you are just going to duplicate the majority of the content that is still remaining in the main article. ] (]) 20:08, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
:{{reply to|Rreagan007}} I think the idea is to eventually reduce the amount of information in the main article down to a minimum so that bulky stuff is only in the sub-article. --] (]) 20:25, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

== Which photo of teenager Biden should we use? ==

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

<gallery mode=packed heights=240px>
File:Joe Biden at Archmere Academy.jpg|300px|'''Option 1'''
File:Joe Biden at Archmere Academy (cropped).jpg|'''Option 2'''
File:Joe Biden's Yearbook Photo.jpg|'''Option 3'''
</gallery>

Which one should we use? I prefer '''Option 3''' because it's taken professionally. It has a good background and good lighting. The other photos have Biden's shadow behind him. ] (]) 03:37, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
*I feel like option 2 shows more detail, but option 3 is probably marginally better, as it was a professionally taken photo as opposed to a candid picture. The background/shadow on option 2 is also a little distracting. ] (]) 19:25, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
*'''Support 3''' - I agree with the above arguments. ] (]) 19:35, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
*'''Option 2''' - 3 is a washed-out low contrast scan from a damaged original. Unless somebody can do some restoration work to darken, spiff up, and remove the scratches, that one is a non-starter. Just leaves the impression that he was a teen ager before photogrpahy was perfected. ]] 20:04, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
::@{{u|SPECIFICO}} I found a higher quality for 3 in a . Perhaps we can use that? It's not perfect since you can see the texture of the paper that the photo is printed on, especially on Biden's face. Maybe someone can do a retouch. ] (]) 23:10, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
:::Much better - good find, but he's looking away from the reader in 3, whereas in 2 he is looking at us. So I would still favor 2. ]] 23:38, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
::::I was able to find 2 more yearbook photos of Biden. Now, I strongly believe that option 3 is the best. It would make the 3 yearbook photos harmonious. ] (]) 03:55, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
:::::Where did you see those other two images at? ] (]) 04:07, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
::::::I put the sources in the image description. I made sure that they are in the public domain. ] (]) 04:08, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
:::::::Okay, thank you. ] (]) 04:16, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
::::::::There's some ambiguity with the third one, but it seems to be {{tl|PD-US-not renewed}}. I started ] for those interested, and hopefully those with more copyright knowledge will be able to help. <span style="white-space: nowrap;">— ]]​</span> 00:26, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
*'''Option 2''' - Only cause he's facing the camera, either option 2 or 3 would be fine in my honest opinion. ] (]) 18:43, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
*Weak preference for '''Option 2''', with option 3 as second choice (1 would be confusing, since readers don't know which is him). Both need some retouching (2 seems a little too soft and is washed out, whereas 3 is a little too hard with details of the paper visible), but I think his smile and overall appearance seems more genuine in 2, whereas 3 looks very posed. <span style="color:#AAA"><small>&#123;{u&#124;</small><span style="border-radius:9em;padding:0 5px;background:#088">]</span><small>}&#125;</small></span> <sup>]</sup> 19:25, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
*'''Support 3''' Better quality but number 2 is not awful either. Just 3 stands out a little better and seems more professional. ] (]) 23:18, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
*'''Option 2''', <s>but recrop it from option 1 because the luminance levels are wrong.</s> Option 3 is inferior because the subject is somewhat less recognizable, the shadow is too prominent, and because he is looking away from the camera. - ]] 00:30, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
::Note: I have uploaded a new version of option 2, cropped from the original image. - ]] 20:13, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
::I would also support '''option 4'''. In fact, it's slightly preferable to option 2. - ]] 01:23, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' - If we do go with "Option 2", we ought to re-crop it, as stated above. ] (]) 06:15, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
{{multiple image
| perrow = 3
| align = right
| total_width = 300
| image1 = Joe Biden at Archmere Academy (crop 2).jpg
| caption1 = Option 4
| image2 = Joe Biden at Archmere Academy (cropped 2).jpg
| caption2 = Option 4 (re-cropped)
| image3 = Joe Biden at Archmere Academy (cropped 3).jpg
| caption3 = Option 4 (re-cropped 2)
}}
*'''Option 4''' – I re-cropped Option 2 and posted it as Option 4 to the right. I think it's an improvement, not sure if others will agree. Option 2 is my second choice. ]&thinsp;<sup style="white-space:nowrap;">] – ]'']</sup> 20:06, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
::Option 4 is cramped. I've attached a file with the same dimensions and more head room. --] (]) 21:06, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
{{clear}}
:::I agree that option 4 looks much better. If we don't go with option 3, then 4 would be my second choice. The extra head room is better as well. However, I think that there should be more room around Biden's left shoulder (i.e. right side of the image). ] (]) 21:23, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
::::I posted my preferred image as "Option 4 (re-cropped 2)" ] (]) 21:35, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
:::::Option 4 re-cropped is fine, but option 4 re-cropped 2 with the Virgin Mary's fingers at the edge of the frame is a "no" for me. - ]] 22:14, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
::::::Would it be ok if we edit out the fingers? ] (]) 22:36, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
*Support either '''Option 4 (re-cropped)''' or '''Option 4 (re-cropped 2)''', then Option 2, followed by Option 3. --] (]) 21:32, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

== Sexual Assault allegations ==
Why is there no sexual assault allegation section? Kavanaugh has a section even though he was falsely accused by political agendists. No evidence at all. Biden has legitimate witnesses with evidence and there doesnt seem to be a mention. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 20:56, 26 April 2020 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:See ] and try to keep your POV and false equivalencies out of talk page comments. &ndash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;(]) 21:06, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
:: {{ping|Muboshgu}} There are credible accusations against Biden including evidence from a phone call to Larry King by Reade's mother in 1993; I request that you be nicer to people who have opinions and understandings different from your own. I have added the CNN clip to the page. I do not plan to make any further changes or additions for the sake of protecting my account; if you all have to delete what I added then that's up to you. As far as I can see, I have made a legitimate edit consistent with BLP and Misplaced Pages's no censorship policies. I request users to not contact me on the issue, but just delete the information outright or discuss it amongst yourselves- I added a CNN report my friends. Yes, it does technically make the sentence preceding it from the New York Times look hideous, but that's where the facts lie as far as I can see; perhaps the reliability of the New York Times on this issue should be examined. ] (]) 03:01, 28 April 2020 (UTC) '''(modified)'''
:::{{u|Geographyinitiative}}, comparing the Kavanaugh coverage to the Biden coverage is a false equivalency. &ndash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;(]) 04:56, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
:No it isn't, it is a legitimate complaint of how democrat's are held to a different standard in Misplaced Pages, just look at them with an unbiased eye.
:::: I don't want to get myself permabanned from Misplaced Pages for comments on a pretty sensitive topic about a US presidential candidate and hence cannot directly respond to comments from a long-time Misplaced Pages editor that seem to contradict the spirit of my edits. It would be like an egg (me) running into a wall (Misplaced Pages admins). I will not make any further posts concerning this edit, regardless of whether or not the edit is reverted on the main page. I again assert that I have made a worthwhile and legitimate Misplaced Pages edit as I understand it and I hope that others will build on what I have done so far create a better article on Mr. Biden, even if that means removing what I added today. ] (]) 05:06, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
:::::{{u|Geographyinitiative}}, don't worry about voicing a valid opinion. These BLP issues get repetitive and I can forget to explain that reliably sourced coverage is what determines the weight everything gets in an article, and each article needs to be discussed in its own talk page and not compared on others. &ndash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;(]) 05:32, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
::::::An article by , which I’m not sure is considered an RS but is an important political news source in the U.S., is criticizing our comparative lack of information about the Biden assault claims compared to Kavanaugh’s. <small>--Comment by </small> ] (] about my ]) 11:45, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
::::::: Buzzfeed lists a statement that the NYT DID NOT COME TO ANY CONCLUSION on the Reade accusation, Please remove from the article that they did. It seems a few democrats have read this article and are quoting it, that the NYT's exonerated Biden. https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/rubycramer/joe-biden-tara-reade-talking-points-campaign-defense ] (]) 05:08, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

== Larry King call-in ==

This was recently added to the article:
{{tq2|A 1993 clip from CNN's '']'' surfaced appearing to feature Reade's mother asking questions related to a dismissed female staffer's problems with a prominent senator that she says were not able to be addressed at that time.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.foxnews.com/media/new-york-times-latest-development-tara-reade-sexual-assault-claim-joe-biden|title=New York Times skips latest development in Tara Reade's sexual assault claims against Joe Biden|date=28 April 2020|accessdate=28 April 2020|website=]|authors=Brian Flood, Joseph A. Wulfsohn}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://edition.cnn.com/videos/politics/2020/04/25/biden-accuser-mom-called-larry-king-live-1993-over-assault-advice-mj-lee-vpx.cnn|title=Biden's accuser says mother called 'Larry King Live' for advice after alleged sexual assault|website=]|accessdate=28 April 2020|quote=Newly surfaced video from 1993 appears to feature the mother of Tara Reade, a woman who accused Joe Biden of sexual assault, calling into "Larry King Live" to seek advice around the time of the alleged assault.}}</ref>}}
{{reflist talk}}
I don't think it belongs in the article per ], ], and ]. It unduly bolster's the allegation against Biden. - ]] 13:22, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
:Agreed. Although the clip appears to be legitimate, it's WAY too much into the weeds for this biography. -- ] (]) 13:38, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
:This is UNDUE. There's nothing in the factual reporting to tie this to the 2020 allegation that is the subject of this article. Lord knows what could be found in the Larry King call-in archives of many years. ]] 14:52, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

:::Reliable sources would disagree. https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2020/04/joe-biden-tara-reade-business-insider/ ] (]) 19:58, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
{{od}}
* https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/04/28/joe-biden-sexual-assault-allegation-what-we-know-tara-reade/3039909001/
* https://www.newsweek.com/new-biden-accuser-tape-cnn-silence-stir-discord-among-sanders-democrats-1500235
I know this is not suppose to be here, but, is there a list page on wikipedia that I can reference for a list of reliable news sources? It would be helpful, that way you can refer to it when you write something that someone wants to censor because it goes against their personal bias and can be used in your defense if they have a higher edit position for your arbitration. ] (]) 05:21, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
* https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-election/tara-reade-joe-biden-sexual-assault-claim-larry-king-video-a9487001.html
* https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/04/video-tara-reade-mother-joe-biden-larry-king.html
* https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2020/04/25/biden-accuser-mom-called-larry-king-live-1993-over-assault-advice-mj-lee-vpx.cnn
* https://reason.com/2020/04/27/tara-reade-mother-larry-king-joe-biden-sexual-assault/
* https://www.huffpost.com/entry/joe-biden-vp-tara-reade_n_5ea86f02c5b66d8003aac14f
* https://www.commondreams.org/news/2020/04/28/demand-grows-biden-address-tara-reade-allegations-democrats-wrestle-metoo-hypocrisy
* https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/04/joe-biden-sexual-assault-unnecessary-witnesses.html
* https://www.salon.com/2020/04/28/two-women-corroborate-elements-of-tara-reades-sexual-assault-allegation-against-joe-biden/
* https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/04/biden-should-release-his-papers/610801/
* https://www.chicagotribune.com/election-2020/ct-nw-joe-biden-tara-reade-sexual-assault-allegation-20200428-fpiury2sijc6hff3bblczor6a4-story.html
] (]) 22:12, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
: That is what I figured, all liberal and have to retract stories all the time, the same exact reason that conservative sources are not allowed. So you admit that Misplaced Pages editors only allow liberal sources. Oh well. ] (]) 06:05, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
:Not really. Just a google list, as far as I can tell from reading the few more journalistic articles there. ]] 22:30, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
*'''Exclude''' The policy is the degree of coverage it has received rather than its relevance. Some editors have decided that one article about Tara Reid in CNN is the equivalent of 700 articles about Christine Blasey Ford. It doesn't matter whether her claims are credible or not, true or false. So far it has received minimal coverage. We can wait to see if Trump makes it an issue and if it gets coverage. ] (]) 03:38, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
::Who decides when it has received substantial coverage? By all accounts it is well-covered, with the sources cited above as an example. ] (]) 04:24, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
:::Us editors decide. We don't just count sources. Please have a read at ], ], ], ], and ]. - ]] 13:44, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
::::No. ] are what we use, no matter what the circumstances or what we personally think. Otherwise, Misplaced Pages becomes an opinions website and not an encyclopedia. Please let's at least pay attention to the long list of reliable sources given in this thread. <small>--Comment by </small> ] (] about my ]) 15:27, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
:::::Are you responding to my comment? I never suggested that we don't use reliable sources. I said that we also use editorial discretion, consensus, and neutral point of view. By the way, about half of those sources are not usable according to our standards. - ]] 18:48, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
:::], determing whether something has received substantial coverage requires common sense on the part of editors. When CNN published 700 stories about Ford's accusations against Kavanaugh, a little know judge, that was substantial. When they publish one article about Reade's accusations against Biden and no articles about the phone call among many articles they publish about him every single day, it isn't substantial relative to overall coverage. ] (]) 23:50, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
*'''Include''' – it's widely covered by RS, per the links above (and there are others). ]&thinsp;<sup style="white-space:nowrap;">] – ]'']</sup> 19:28, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

*'''Include''' as stated above. ] (]) 23:56, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
*'''Include''' it's relevant to the nature of the allegations and it's has been reported upon in mainstream reliable publications (ie. the atlantic) ] (]) 03:38, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
*'''Include''' and add ] to the list as well. ] <sup>]</sup> 04:34, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
*'''Exclude''' - it's ridiculous to try to include it in this high level article. Clearly violates NPOV and UNDUE. It belongs in the dedicated article on the subject.<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 04:39, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
*'''Include''' - it's more ridiculous to ''not'' include it. If you think this violates NPOV you're being ridiculous, this has been widely-reported on and is intrinsically linked to understanding the article's subject. Excluding this is doing nothing but covering-up information. ] (]) 08:10, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
* '''Include''' even if some of our editors want to ignore it. Some people think that they can include ten paragraphs of insults on one candidate and then ignore RSes for someone else who’s accused of the same thing. I support per ]. <small>--Comment by </small> ] (] about my ]) 11:13, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
* '''Exclude.''' We are not going to through every new aspect related to the accusation in the main bio article, and list the corroborating and conflicting aspects. For comparison, the Trump main article contains two short concise paragraphs about the sexual assault allegations against him. Just as it would be inappropriate to recite the details of each credible allegation in that article, it is inappropriate in this article. ] (]) 12:01, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
::Interesting. However, President Trump has far more controversies to list in that article than Joe Biden, having been president for over three years, so I think comparing the coverage of these two is like comparing apples and oranges, unless Joe Biden gets elected in November. <small>--Comment by </small> ] (] about my ]) 14:44, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
*'''Exclude''' - I don't think it belongs in the article per WP:UNDUE, WP:NOTNEWS, and WP:BLP. It unduly bolster's the allegation against Biden. About half of those sources are unsuitable for BLP content. - ]] 15:03, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
::Which ones in particular? I can see the Reason and CommonDreams ones falling into that category, however they are only two and you claim its "about half" so can you elaborate? ] (]) 15:15, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
:::Also Newsweek, Slate, Salon, and Huffington Post. - ]] 19:42, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
:::How is this no more than ]? It is an important development in the allegations. <small>--Comment by </small> ] (] about my ]) 16:16, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
::::What makes it important? "The /woman does not mention sexual assault or harassment, nor does she describe in any detail what "problems" she might be referring to. Her daughter's name and Biden are also not mentioned." - ]] 19:42, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
:I think this may be UNDUE for the main BLP, but certainly applicable at the allegations article. ] (]) 15:24, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
*'''Exclude''' Absolutely not appropriate for this article. Seems appropriate for the split article. ] (]) 15:36, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
*'''Exclude''' There is no connection whatsoever to Reade's allegation of Biden trumping her. ]] 17:11, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
::There clearly is; the interview took place with her mother. <small>--Comment by </small> ] (] about my ]) 18:39, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
:::Whoever that was that Larry King spoke to -- not selected for an interview, it was call-in bingo night at Larry King Show -- that caller did not describe what later became Reade's 2020 allegation. Tens of thousands of people call in to talk shows every year.]] 21:47, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
*'''Include''' If you are going to include one writer from the New York Times' glowing praise that "The New York Times reported that "No other allegation about sexual assault surfaced in the course of reporting, nor did any former Biden staff members corroborate any details of Ms. Reade's allegation. The Times found no pattern of sexual misconduct by Mr. Biden."" in this article, which is essentially the Democratic Party organ saying "we support Joe" and not a real journalistic assessment, then I recommend you not cover up real facts, that is, the CNN clip that has been reported on by CNN and Fox News, especially when Fox News directly calls out the New York Times as covering up the whole incident. It's quite clear to me at least that the New York Times is not a reliable source on this issue: party organ. ] (]) 00:10, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
:Removed ] (]) 00:14, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
::], etc. You're comparing a statement about the allegations in general with a specific detail. This isn't a game of balancing positive and negative; it's about how to properly summarize the sources in various articles. This is the main article, and therefore should include a summary of what we have a whooollle other article about. &mdash; <samp>] <sup style="font-size:80%;">]</sup></samp> \\ 00:28, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
::: I tried to help you make Misplaced Pages a credible resource rather than the mouthpiece of the NYT, but you all have failed us. This is a political campaign season people, OF COURSE the NYT may say have a motive to not do the investigative reporting that would turn up, I don't know, something like a video from CNN in 1993 and just sweep it all under the rug. Oh well ] (]) 00:34, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
:::: You're right, but Misplaced Pages fails in this particular regard by perpetuating this false illusion reliable sources cannot hold biases themselves, and often some editors with bad faith take advantage of this; not making any explicit accusations, of course. ] (]) 05:12, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
*'''Exclude''' - This specific detail absolutely should be included in the article about the allegations. The job here is to summarize what reliable sources say about the allegations and link to that article, not to include the various details here, too. If this turns out to be a major factor in how this story plays out, then it might wind up making sense to include in the summary, but at this stage it doesn't seem like it. &mdash; <samp>] <sup style="font-size:80%;">]</sup></samp> \\ 00:28, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
*'''Exclude''' This is Joe Biden's bio, an anonymous call made to a talk show 27 years ago, with no proven link to Biden or the allegations, does not belong here. Whether or not it belongs on other Biden-topic pages is debatable on their respective talk pages. ] (]) 00:35, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
*'''First''' include that her friends and family said she told them what happened to her at the time. ] (]) 06:01, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

== Inactive case ==

Stalwart supporters of Joe Biden ] are the sexual assault complaint made by Tara Reade is now an "inactive case" per the ]. Obviously this needs to be in the article, so I have added it. -- ] (]) 15:19, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
:If we keep the information about the complaint, then yes, we need to include this. Ideally, we will just remove the all of the material about the complaint once ] concludes. It's obviously moot. - ]] 18:31, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
::The sources are still mentioning the police report in new stories; it's not moot. ] (]) 05:53, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

== <span id="Biden has been accused of sexual assault"></span> Accusation of sexual assault ==

It is not merely inappropriate physical contact. Mr X has reverted the accurate section heading. Which version has consensus? '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px #B8B8B8;">]]]</span>''' 18:27, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
:There is already a discussion further up the page about this. Did you miss it? The current and longstanding wording that I restored is accurate, since sexual assault is indeed a type inappropriate physical contact. - ]] 18:34, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
::I would not call rape a type of inappropriate physical contact. Would you? She says she was raped and that is the charge. ] (]) 19:10, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
:::You don't think rape is inappropriate? I certainly do. I assume we at least agree that it's a type of physical contact. - ]] 19:35, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
::::Another pointless, POV-pushing thread. I've changed the ]-violating heading of this thread as well as reverting a similar violation in the article. -- ] (]) 19:37, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
Well Petra, so here we are...it's ok to call rape "inapropriate physical contact." This idea really sucks and it pisses me off. ] (]) 20:32, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
::It's definately interesting what passes for arguments around here. '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px #B8B8B8;">]]]</span>''' 02:48, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
:It's a BLP violation to suggest a living person committed a "rape" when there's no evidence such a thing occurred. -- ] (]) 21:04, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
::I'm not suggesting anything and certainly not that Biden raped anyone. But Reade is saying that Biden raped her. Never in my life have I seen rape defined as merely inappropriate physical contact. Misplaced Pages must not make up their own definition of rape that in this case would certainly make it sound much less than the physical assault that it is. Rape leaves a mark on a woman that she never completely gets over. ] (]) 21:35, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
:::Wait—I've read a lot of sources about this subject, but I have yet to come across one in which Reade says that Biden raped her. Cite please? - ]] 00:38, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
::::Entirely varies by locale. According to , D.C. falls in the "does not legally define rape; classifies all forms of sexual penetration as the same crime" category. ] (]) 00:52, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
:::::"it was my former boss, Joe Biden, who raped me," Reade told Fox News." ] (]) 03:23, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
:::::: New Rasmussen Poll shows people are paying attention to this, and that only 24% believe Biden did not do this. Seems most of those 24% are the upper level editors here based on how hard it is for them to accept this without using ONE SOURCE that exonerates him! But they say that same source is not biased! <ref>https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2020/few_think_biden_telling_truth_about_sex_charge </ref> ] (]) 23:18, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
:::::::New ''Politico'' shows "more than a third of voters believe Democrats should abandon Biden as their nominee over the recent claims from the former Senate aide".
:::::::The legal definition of rape was in 2012:
:::::::{{tq|“Forcible rape” had been defined by the UCR SRS as “the carnal knowledge of a female, forcibly and against her will.” That definition, unchanged since 1927, was outdated and narrow. It only included forcible male penile penetration of a female vagina. The new definition is: “The penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.”}} '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px #B8B8B8;">]]]</span>''' 02:48, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

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

''Should the section header "Allegations of inappropriate physical contact" () be changed?'''
#No, leave it as is, "Allegations of inappropriate physical contact"
#Yes, to "Allegations of sexual assault"
#Yes, to "Allegations of inappropriate physical contact and sexual assault"
#Yes, to something else (please specify)
Please indicate your ranked preference.

=== Survey ===
*'''2, 3''' – (as proposer) #2 is my first choice; #3 is my second choice. I'm open to something else (#4) if it's proposed, but opposed to #1 (keep the same). The most serious, most recent, and highest-profile allegation is that he inserted his fingers into someone else's vagina without their consent. This allegation is most accurately described as "sexual assault", not "inappropriate physical contact". "Sexual assault" is also what the sources call it, e.g.: , "New Information Emerges Around Biden Sexual Assault Allegation"; , "Democratic Frustration Mounts as Biden Remains Silent on Sexual Assault Allegation"; , "Pelosi says she remains ‘satisfied’ with Biden’s response to sexual assault allegation, praises his ‘integrity’"; , "Woman broadens claims against Biden to include sexual assault"; , "Pelosi says she is "satisfied" with Biden's response to sexual assault allegations"; , "At women’s event, Biden navigates around lingering sexual assault allegation"; , "Former Senate staffer accuses Joe Biden of sexual assault"; , "Democrat Biden faces calls to address sexual-assault allegation"; , "Former staffer Tara Reade says Joe Biden sexually assaulted her in 1993. Here's what we know."; , "A Timeline Of Tara Reade’s Sexual Assault Allegations Against Joe Biden"; , "How to weigh an allegation of assault against Joe Biden". I'm ok with #3 because the section isn't ''only'' about sexual assault, but it's inappropriately-euphimistic to label a sexual assault allegation as an "allegation of inappropriate physical contact". Finally, the section header should match the main article, which is ]. ]&thinsp;<sup style="white-space:nowrap;">] – ]'']</sup> 20:03, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
**I also support reversing the order, "Allegations of sexual assault and inappropriate physical contact". ]&thinsp;<sup style="white-space:nowrap;">] – ]'']</sup> 16:05, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
*'''Abort''' - Let's finish the discussion about whether or not ''any'' of this should be included first. This survey may turn out to be a complete waste of time. -- ] (]) 21:06, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
*:When you say {{tq|''any''}} do you mean any of these section headings or anything about the assault in general? ] (]) 21:14, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
*:{{yo|Scjessey}} I have the same question as PME. To what discussion are you referring? ]&thinsp;<sup style="white-space:nowrap;">] – ]'']</sup> 15:58, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
*::I had thought there was an RfC on inclusion for ''any'' of this allegation, and I am surprised to learn there is not. Based on the lack of evidence, the lack of reliable witnesses, the extraordinary amount of time that passed between the alleged incident, and the suspicious timing of the allegation, I suspect this will turn out to be a false claim. If that is indeed the case, I will expect most of the material will be excluded and coverage to only exist as a footnote of some kind. -- ] (]) 16:29, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
*:::Until then, what do you think the section header should be? ]&thinsp;<sup style="white-space:nowrap;">] – ]'']</sup> 16:38, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
*::::'''1''' - "Allegations of inappropriate physical contact". -- ] (]) 16:40, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
*:::{{reply|Scjessey}} There was a RFC on if the Reade stuff should be included . Looks like you were a part of it even, unless I am misunderstanding which RFC you mean. ] (]) 18:55, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
*::::{{reply|PackMecEng}} Aha! I knew I wasn't going crazy. Thank you for pointing it out. I had thought it was still active, but I guess I missed the close. -- ] (]) 20:42, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
*:::::Oh good, I thought I was missing something there! ] (]) 20:43, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
*'''Option 2''' - I'm open to using different wording, but we need to avoid euphemisms here. ] (]) 17:17, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
**This equates unwanted shoulder rubs with sexual assault. That's a nonstarter. &ndash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;(]) 19:00, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
*'''No to option 2''' No final opinion other than this, but the "inappropriate touching" of shoulder rubs and hair sniffing are not sexual assault, and it would be a horrendous BLP violation to put "inappropriate touching" under a section header of option #2. &ndash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;(]) 19:00, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
** #1 would be a non-starter for exactly the same reason. ]&thinsp;<sup style="white-space:nowrap;">] – ]'']</sup> 02:11, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
*'''Option 1'''- This is the broadest description that would encompass all the incidents, and most closely describes the large majority of the incidents. It is most compliant with ] and ]. Option 2 is not possible because there has only been one allegation of sexual assault. If it made its way into the article, it would be quickly removed per ]. - ]] 01:19, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
*'''Option 3''' I am not sure if I see opposition to this option. This option avoids mischaracterizing the less severe and more severe allegations. Perhaps "''allegations''" of inappropriate physical contact is not ideal? The acts are on film, so they're not ''alleged'' to have happened, they are not ''allegedly'' inappropriate, the ''accusation'' is that they are inappropriate. Therefore, the even more unwieldy but perhaps more precise, "'''Accusations of inappropriate physcial contact and 1993 sexual assault allegation'''". ] (]) 03:00, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
* '''#4, my suggestion''' which is to have a level three section called "allegations of misconduct"() and two level four sections below, one is called "Allegations of inappropriate physical contact" and the other is "Allegation of sexual assault". If not, then I think '''#3'''.--] (]) 03:28, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
* '''4'''- '''Allegations of sexual assault and inappropriate touching'''- '''(also support 3 o<s>r 2</s> as alternative)'''- I think the most serious allegation should go first, but either way leaving it as just "inappropriate touching", is very misleading since what he is being accused of by Tara Reade clearly falls into the definition of sexual assault.--] (]) 16:51, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
:: {{Impossible}} - There is only one allegation of sexual assault. Any attempt to add this to a heading would result in a prompt ]. - ]] 12:58, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
:::Whatever option gains consensus here will not be removed and anyone trying to overrule consensus by crying BLP would be answering for it at AE. So please stop. ]&thinsp;<sup style="white-space:nowrap;">] – ]'']</sup> 14:06, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
::::Local consensus cannot override community-wide consensus. If anyone attempts to put "allegations of sexual assault" in a heading in this article, I guarantee it will be removed, by me or any number of other editors who understand and respect our policies. - ]] 14:31, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
:::::Seriously, making threats doesn't help reach consensus. ]&thinsp;<sup style="white-space:nowrap;">] – ]'']</sup> 16:05, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
::::::You mean threats like "... anyone trying to overrule consensus by crying BLP would be answering for it at AE. So please stop."? - ]] 16:51, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
:::::::Yes, exactly. As you can see, threats beget more threats; it's a vicious cycle. So please stop. ]&thinsp;<sup style="white-space:nowrap;">] – ]'']</sup> 16:54, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
::::::::: Wouldn't the "unwieldy" one I suggested above solve the problem?  ] (]) 17:36, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
::: There are allegations, plural, of sexual assault and inappropriate touching in that section. Using the singular allegation would either be a misrepresentation of the content, or an implication that the sexual assault is alleged while the inappropriate touching is established fact. ] (]) 23:44, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
:::{{yo|MrX}}If you have a sincere belief that sexual assault allegations is a BLP violation then why don't you have it removed from ] (a page you have edited)?--] (]) 15:41, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
::::I didn't say that, and don't ping me again. - ]] 15:52, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
::::Hey Rusf, where are you getting this plural assault allegations thing. Have you been following the sources and the talk page discussion. If you have any sort of basis for that, it really needs to be cited here. Because nobody else has mentioned more than a single such allegation in RS publications. ]] 23:45, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
:::::Who says its more than one allegation of sexual assault? "allegations of sexual assault '''and''' inappropriate touching", it has to be plural because there is more than one thing. There is an allegation of sexual assault AND allegations of inappropriate touching.--] (]) 23:56, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
* '''4''': My !vote is a hard no to option 2, as "allegation<u>s</u> of sexual assault" indicates there have been multiple sexual assault allegations, constituting a BLP violation. Softer no to option 3, as it can easily be misinterpreted as meaning there have been multiple sexual assault allegations. I agree with {{u|SharabSalam}}'s idea of a level four section below, but I don't like their proposed section three heading—"allegations of misconduct" is too broad and could include things like his plagiarism accusations. I propose "allegations of inappropriate behavior" instead. Or alternatively, a level three heading of "allegations of inappropriate physical contact" and a single level four heading of "allegation of sexual assault"; however, as Levivich pointed out, "inappropriate physical contact" (while technically including sexual assault) may be too euphemistic. ] 19:00, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
* '''Option 1''' per MrX. Simple, encompassing, and neutral. ] (]) 19:05, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
* "Inappropriate physical contact" gives the impression of a ] in basketball, rather than the content discussed in the section. Considering the multitudinous RS using the 'sexual assault' wording, it would be appropriate to inform readers of what the section is about. I support '''option 3''', or the current section header (which is "Allegations of sexual assault and inappropriate touching" at the time I am writing this). ] (]) 21:52, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
* <s>'''3''' per others. It’s not perfect, as others have pointed out, but I think it’s the best reasonable choice. As others say, #2 is problematic. <small>--Comment by </small> ] (] about my ]) 23:15, 2 May 2020 (UTC)</s>
* '''1'''. I did not see that a link to the sexual assault allegation(s) page is included immediately after the heading, making a mention of it in the heading unnecessary. <small>--Comment by </small> ] (] about my ]) 18:33, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
* '''2''' - unwanted touching with sexual overtures is an assault and we should not treat it as if it was nothing more than a wolf whistle. ] <sub>]</sub> ] 01:58, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
*'''3''' For now, "Allegations of inappropriate physical contact and sexual assault" is the best, albeit sloppy, option we have. I agree with others that the use of plural is messy since there is only one assault allegation, and it isn't right to use language so imprecise a reader could assumt there are more. A cleaner, more precise version would involve the use of a separate subsection for the non-rape innapropriate contact allegations, and one for the Tara Reade rape allegation. IMO, they cannot be lumped together, either as "assault" or as "Biden's just a bit of a hugger". There is a legally defined distinction. '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px #B8B8B8;">]]]</span>''' 02:48, 6 May 2020 (UTC)



{{cot|Off topic comment. - ]] 20:44, 3 May 2020 (UTC)}}
In ALL mainstream media outlets? Seeing how the overwhelming majority of journalists are liberals
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/what-media-bias-journalists-overwhelmingly-donated-to-hillary-clinton

then, never. On the other hand, I get why every single thing doesn’t need to go into an article.

I work in education. Students know that if they answer my questions with Misplaced Pages—they are dismissed . They get it. I’ve showed them multiple examples of why they should never trust Misplaced Pages on any topic that matters. ] (]) 14:05, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
{{cob}}

=== Discussion ===
*I haven't added an RFC tag to this section. I'll leave it to someone else to decide whether that should be done. I think the other sections discussing this on this page should be closed to focus discussion here, but I'll also leave that to someone else to decide. ]&thinsp;<sup style="white-space:nowrap;">] – ]'']</sup> 20:03, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
*Call it what it is. Has anyone denied he was accused specifically of “sexual assault”? No. We aren’t labeling it properly in the article, and this is pitiful. All readers know about the allegation, and when they see Misplaced Pages’s mealy-mouthed, inaccurate labeling of the allegation as “inappropriate touching”, they will rightly question our reliability. And if they venture to Kavanaugh’s BLP, they will have no question that Misplaced Pages plays favorites and should not claim to be neutral. '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px #B8B8B8;">]]]</span>''' 13:56, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
:*Yet again, meaningless comparisons are being made to a different article about a different person with different circumstances. What happens at another article has no bearing on what happens here. If you are unhappy with the way the Kavanagh article is being edited, ''go there and make a case to change it''. -- ] (]) 15:34, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
* Well I see that you completely skipped over the central part of Petra's argument to the Kavanagh comparison part that you could quite easily call not sound thinking. Petra is absolutely right. If we decide to call sexual assault (in this case rape) merely inappropriate contact we can kiss good bye to any ground we have made in our efforts to "womanize" Misplaced Pages . Women will read this article and use it as proof that Misplaced Pages is indeed written by and for male editors. Over the years I have worked especially hard on my woman-related articles and I see this as a sad day and a step backwards. ] (]) 17:39, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
:*Which comment are you referring to? It is unclear from your threading. If you are responding to my comment, you are making a straw man argument that has little to do with what I said. -- ] (]) 18:00, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
:*The immediate problem here is just how to caption the section so that it takes account of Reade's allegation without suggesting that Biden's other acknowledged behavior (that was inappropriate or some better word but not assault) was also alleged assault. Is there a way to accomplish that without diminishing the seriousness of Reade's allegation? ]] 18:44, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
* '''2 is a BLP violation'''. There's only a single allegation that has been called "assault." 3 could easily be misinterpreted to say there is more than one assault allegation, so that one is not good. ]] 01:25, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
::It is good to see someone working toward a good and reasonable solution. As I have said already, we must not group rape with the other allegations and Petra, who as much as said women and others who work to educate the public would chalk this one up to typical male superiority issues that exist on WP, said as well. SPECIFICO, do you have any suggestions? ] (]) 02:02, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
::Specifico actually makes a good point, some but not all of the allegations against Biden rise to the level of sexual assault. Option 2 probably isn't the right way to go.--] (]) 16:55, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
:::{{u|Rusf10}}, I believe only one allegation against Biden could be termed a "sexual assault". &ndash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;(]) 17:05, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
*<s>'''"Allegations of inappropriate physical contact and 1993 sexual assault"'''</s> <u>'''"Accusations of inappropriate physical contact and 1993 sexual assault allegation"''' is the most precise and</u> clarifies that "sexual assault" is singular. ] (]) 23:55, 2 May 2020 (UTC)<small>] (]) 19:26, 3 May 2020 (UTC)</small>
:*'''Non-starter''' 1993 is also an allegation. ]] 00:12, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
:::Yes that was the intention, but I see how that changes how it sounds. How about '''Sexual assault allegation and unwanted physical contact'''. ] (]) 02:46, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
::::Please read ]. Even with strikerthrough etc you should not completely reverse the meaning - or attempt to, anyway - after there has been a reply. This is making the thread unintelligible or too hard to decipher for other editors. Please undo your ex post and make a separate suggestion, properly sequenced, if that's what you're trying to do. ]] 20:38, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
:::::It just looks odd because you haven't responded to my new suggestion which addresses your complaint. You can fix that; I haven't found a policy reason to undo my edit. ] (]) 01:53, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
*{{u|Atsme}}, you said {{tq|unwanted touching with sexual overtures is an assault and we should not treat it as if it was nothing more than a wolf whistle}}. I agree. Which of Biden's alleged (and obvious) unwanted touchings have had sexual overtones? I think thus far only Tara Reade has suggested anything like that. There are otherwise reports of people saying As far as I'm aware, there's one alleged sexual assault. &ndash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;(]) 03:04, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
:::My apologies if my tone is ''matter-of-fact'' - it is the dreaded pragmatist in me - but rape has different meanings when describing how a woman may feel about a sexual violation/penetration, and it doesn't necessarily have to be sexual intercourse. We are having intercourse right now in the form of communication - no big deal - it's a word, and we are supposed to be wordsmiths. What Reade alleged happened to her could be described as digit rape. Our job as editors is to present all significant views in our own words to avoid copyvio, and that includes the POV from a violated woman's perspective based on what is verifiably published in RS. We should not make the pedia a mirror of those RS or limit what we include to a single perspective, especially that of the alleged perpetrator. addresses the controversy and shines a little light on the terminology that was used by the women who had the courage to come forward and speak out against a very powerful politician. Lucy Flores said he kissed her on the back of the head, and that she couldn't move or say anything but wanted him to get away from her. That is what I call an assault that was sexual in nature. Kissing, rubbing noses, rubbing the back of someone's neck, forcing yourself on them to where they cannot move...such behavior could be referred to as sexual advances rather than, say, a simple handshake or hug, especially when it is not reciprocated and the woman feels trapped. Also, see for a published list of the women who spoke out about his alleged "inappropriate touching" which instinctually could be considered unwanted sexual advances, or using legalese we'd say assaults or being politically correct, we say unwanted physical contact that made those women feel uncomfortable. In Reade's case, I think "alleged sexual assault" is far more neutral than "alleged digit rape". I hope that helps, and that we do our best to present the information matter-of-factly without censorship but with strict adherence to NPOV and BLPIE. Happy editing! ] <sub>]</sub> ] 16:35, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

== Newly added images and OR ==

After {{u|EdJF}}'s , half of the photos we include in "post-vice presidency" section seem to be intended to show him "caught in the act." Putting aside that both of them were ''while'' VP (not a big deal given the way the material is organized) and the undue weight of two images here, there's also some straight up OR: in the subsection for "allegations of inappropriate physical contact" an image has been added where "he 'canoodled with a biker lady'" cited to a source that says nothing about allegations of inappropriate physical contact. This seems to be more about a Misplaced Pages editor finding an image that doesn't look so good and throwing it in as though it's one of the allegations. &mdash; <samp>] <sup style="font-size:80%;">]</sup></samp> \\ 02:39, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

== Stephanie Carter ==

{{u|EdJF}}, please take that bit about Stephanie Carter out of the article. What you put in is sensationalist violating ] and an incomplete account of the story. Carter denied it was anything. If not, someone else take this out. I'm at 1RR for the day. &ndash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;(]) 02:46, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
:Thank you {{u|ValarianB}}! &ndash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;(]) 02:58, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

::Yes, I've read Stephanie Carter's comments and understand she downplayed the incident. But there's more to it than that - a picture is worth a thousand words, right? - the photo is clear evidence of a pattern of behavior by Biden where he is inappropriately touching people. As one of the country’s senior leaders, he is supposed to be setting an example on how to interact with people. At this point who would argue that he has not failed in executing that responsibility? Nevertheless, I will remove because I respect your position as an admin. I would also ask that you think about this some more. There’s nothing “sensationalist” about an article and a story that circulated widely in the mainstream media.] (]) 03:05, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
:::{{u|EdJF}}, you tried to use those photos to insinuate something that the woman involved denies, without using the ''words'' that the woman used to deny it. That's ] by its definition. &ndash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;(]) 16:01, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
:::::{{u|Muboshgu}} The edit was almost entirely quotes from RS, not my words. Is it fair to re-enter using Carter's explanation? ] (]) 16:20, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
::::::{{u|EdJF}}, it was an incomplete telling of the RS. I object to including it at all as it's pure ]. It was in the 24 hour news cycle when it happened, and then it faded. Stephanie Carter's post makes it clear there's nothing to see here. &ndash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;(]) 16:28, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
::::::{{u|Muboshgu}} acknowledged ] (]) 16:39, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
:Yea that was serious overkill. ] (]) 02:59, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

:: Actually, it is exactly what this section needs.] (]) 03:05, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

:::Actually, it isn't. Peruse ] in your free time. ] (]) 03:08, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

:::You are conflating inappropriate touching with sexual assault, just the same narrative that fringe media is attempting. Be better than that. ] (]) 03:13, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
:::: I'm glad you agree it was "inappropriate touching." I certainly wasn't trying to imply it was an assault. ] (]) 16:20, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
::::The section is about both. ] (]) 03:15, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
:::::Yes it is, so {{u|ValarianB}} hold on the moral grandstanding you're demonstrating here. ] (]) 05:15, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
::::The section heading for that section also seems to be conflating inappropriate touching with sexual assault. Would you agree that it needs to be changed? ] (]) 14:47, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

==County Londonderry==
The article was recently amended to say of his mother "Jean was of ] descent, with roots variously attributed to ]... and ]." See ] - "Use Derry for the city and County Londonderry for the county in articles." I edited this accordingly at 18.41 to-day, but my edit was overtaken by the reversion of the previous edit about Tara Reade's brother. As the subsequent edit does not appear to have been directed at the county name, I have edited the article in accordance with the Manual of Style. ] (]) 19:02, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

== Reade's story corroborators ==

Should we include this text:
*<blockquote>{{tq|Reade's brother and multiple friends corroborate that in the 90s she told them about a nonconsensual sexual incident involving Biden.<ref>{{Cite news|last=Lerer|first=Lisa|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/12/us/politics/joe-biden-tara-reade-sexual-assault-complaint.html|title=Examining Tara Reade's Sexual Assault Allegation Against Joe Biden|date=2020-04-12|work=The New York Times|access-date=2020-04-25|last2=Ember|first2=Sydney|language=en-US|issn=0362-4331}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last1=Jaffe |first1=Alexandra |title=Report: Biden accuser spoke to neighbor about alleged assault |url=https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/04/28/report-joe-biden-accuser-tara-reade-spoke-neighbor-alleged-assault/3039253001/ |accessdate=1 May 2020 |work=USA Today |date=28 April 2020}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |last1=O'Rourke |first1=Ciara |title=Tara Reade has accused Joe Biden of sexual assault. Here’s what we know |url=https://www.politifact.com/article/2020/apr/30/tara-reade-has-accused-joe-biden-sexual-assault-he/ |website=PolitiFact |accessdate=1 May 2020 |date=30 April 2020}}</ref>}}</blockquote>
A similar edit was recently reverted. ] (]) 20:49, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

This is not a poll, please offer suggestions for improvement. ] (]) 23:31, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

{{u|SPECIFICO}}, as you reverted similar text, would you share your opinion? ] (]) 23:54, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
{{sources-talk}}

The word "friends" may be imprecise. We could replace "Reade's brother and multiple friends" with "Reade's brother and multiple contacts". ] (]) 20:52, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
*'''No''': I have many concerns about the sentence. Chief among these: "corroborate" is ''definitely'' the wrong word to use. The "sources" all point to the same Business Insider article and are not independent reporting. -- ] (]) 21:01, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
::{{u|Scjessey}}, we have no shortage of top-tier RS to choose from. They use the word "corroborate". Why do you not want to use the same word the sources use? ] (]) 23:03, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
*'''No''' Correct me if I am wrong, but only the neighbor has said she was told of the alleged assault. The others say Reade claimed she was sexually harassed. Although that could be described as an alleged sexual incident, the wording implies that she was describing the alleged assault. ] (]) 22:18, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
::The brother said Reade said Biden put his hands under her clothes during what the NYTs characterized as an "traumatic sexual incident". One friend says Reade told her the whole story. We could remove the word "multiple" an just leave "friends". Do you propose other wording? ] (]) 23:05, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
*'''No''' The brother and other peoples' statements should be in the article, as should the context (the brother being ... "advised" by the editor of Current Affairs on what to say, the friend being contacted and reminded of what she actually remembered), but this is not a NPOV phrasing.<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 22:41, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
::{{u|Volunteer Marek}}, which sources discuss these two details? ] (]) 22:45, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
*'''No''' The whole thing is a BLP violation. It wasn't verified by the sources. I haven't looked at the additional source it appears you've now added. Aggregating a bunch of tenuous, unrelated, and inconsistent stories into one "Multiple!!! XYZ Corroborate!!! ABC" does not make any of the sources or components NPOV, V, DUE, or BLP-conforming.]] 00:13, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

*No, it is speculative hearsay. Claiming you heard a person tell you a thing does not make it true. If it is to be included, it needs to be phrased so that it is not starting a fact. ] (]) 00:28, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
*'''No''' - Saying that people corroborated her account is not a faithful summary of the verifiable facts. I agree with all the 'no' comments to this point. I suppose a faithful paraphrasing would look something like {{tq|"Business Insider reported that, according to Reade, her brother, and some her associates, Reade had told them about a sexual assault or sexual harassment by Biden, that had occurred while Reade worked in Biden's Senate office in the 1990s."}} The problem with that is, the accounts are hearsay; they are inconsistent; and the sourcing is questionable. That all adds up to a big ] mess. - ]] 01:11, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
::I don't understand, as multiple RS report, Reade's friends corroborate (WaPo uses "corroborate" right in the headline) that she told them her story. If multiple RS report this, I thought we can use Wikivoice (unless we use a direct quote like from the NYTs below. ] (]) 02:23, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
:::The Washington Post is not one of the three sources. Also, you apparently disregarded the rest of my reasoning. - ]] 22:08, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
*No. I pretty much look at long-standing similar articles and I don't find lists of people that agreed with the central person in the controversy. Perhaps it is because if we group all of those that supported Reade's allegations it results in a total that is more than the parts, so as to speak. To present a combined host of those that remember and support Reade's allegation along side Biden and a few people who were working in Biden's office at that time who remember ''nothing'' gives an impression that they must be using selective memory. Surly they must remember something!?, one may think. Perhaps... At any rate, we don't normally do that. ] (]) 01:33, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
::{{u|Gandydancer}}, did you see the sources I added below and the quote from the ''New York Times''? <u>(I propose the NYTs quote itself as an alternative.)</u> I hope that addresses some of your concerns, or do you have suggestions for improvements? This does seem to be a huge part of what the RS are giving weight to. (FYI, the NYTimes did find that two interns remember Reade abruptly stopped supervising them in April 1993). ] (]) 02:40, 2 May 2020 (UTC)<small>] (]) 07:49, 2 May 2020 (UTC)</small>
*'''Support if alternate wording is used''' - Maybe we can have a sentence with something such as ''"Reade's brother and some acquaintances have stated that she alleged a nonconsensual sexual incident involving Biden in conversations with them during the 90s"''. I share the concerns about NPOV phrasing. However, I do think that the information is merited inclusion in some form. ] (]) 09:52, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

* Yes, RS use "corroberated", but the meaning of told instead of witnessed might be clearer if explicitly phrased 'confirmed she had told them'. "Acquaintances of Ms Reade have said she confided in them after the alleged assault." , Two more people, another friend and Reade’s brother, have said she mentioned “a traumatic sexual incident involving Biden”." , "Friends and family of Reade’s have corroborated parts of her account to news outlets" , "Reade’s brother, Collin Moulton, confirmed parts of Reade’s account to The Intercept in March, but did not speak to the Times. Two friends, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, corroborated parts of Reade’s story." , " Cheers ] (]) 05:20, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
*'''Corroborated''' is the correct term per RS, those saying otherwise have not been researching the topic whatsoever.
:* "Subsequent reporting has '''corroborated''' elements of Reade’s story."
:* "And in large part, she '''corroborates''' the story that Tara had told me."
:* "List of '''Corroborators'''"
:* "Former Neighbor '''Corroborates''' Tara Reade's Account Of Sexual Assault By Joe Biden"
:* "AP report: Two more sources '''corroborate''' Tara Reade's allegations"
:* "New Sources '''Corroborate''' Timeline of Sexual Assault Accusation Against Biden"
:* "...Business Insider published this account, '''corroborating''' Reade’s prior testimony"
:* "Friends and family of Reade’s have '''corroborated''' parts of her account"
:* "...'''corroborated''' parts of Reade’s story"
: '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px #B8B8B8;">]]]</span>''' 21:20, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
::This is, of course, completely misleading. Some of these people partially corroborate what Ms. Reade ''said'' (especially after a bit of coaching), but '''none''' of them corroborate what did or did not actually happen. -- ] (]) 21:38, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

===<u><s>Two</s> alternatives</u>===
How about this? This is what is heavily reported by the RS themselves:
<blockquote>1. {{tq|Reade's brother and other personal contacts corroborate that in the 90s she had told them about a nonconsensual sexual incident involving Biden.}}</blockquote>

<u><blockquote>2. {{tq|"Several of Ms. Reade’s friends have said she told them about a traumatic sexual incident involving Mr. Biden."}}</blockquote></u>

<u><blockquote>3. {{tq|Reade's brother and other personal contacts confirm that in the 90s she had told them about a nonconsensual sexual incident involving Biden.}}</blockquote></u>
<u>Note the existing language in the section: "{{tq|...nor did any former Biden staff members corroborate any details of Ms. Reade’s allegation."}}</u><small>] (]) 21:11, 2 May 2020 (UTC)</small><small>] (]) 23:20, 2 May 2020 (UTC)</small><small>] (]) 06:18, 4 May 2020 (UTC)</small>

''Washington Post'',
*A friend {{tq|"said she learned of the alleged assault from Reade in 1993".}}
*Her brother {{tq|"recalled Reade telling him in the early 1990s that Biden had cornered her and put his hands under her clothes."}}
*{{tq|"Lynda LaCasse, Reade's neighbor in the mid-1990s....' felt like she was assaulted'".}}

''New York Times'', , {{tq|"Several of Ms. Reade’s friends have said she told them about a traumatic sexual incident involving Mr. Biden."}}
:] (]) 01:53, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

::That completely ignores the nearly unanimous negative reactions you've elicited above. I suggest you find other paths to explore. ]] 02:01, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
:::Well, I was putting the sources together before I had a chance to read everything, but I'm not sure how the information I just provided didn't show you how well-sourced this is. Do you want to just use the quote from the ''New York Times''? ] (]) 02:10, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
::::No. But since you asked me, I think it would make sense to stop wasting time with this. Here's what will happen next: If you decide to continue with more of the same proposals, other editors will stop bothering to respond to each iteration. At that point, either you can move on to something else, OR, you will say "seeing no objection, I will put the latest version into the article." If that happens, because it will still be a BLP, NPOV, V, violation, somebody will revert your addition. Anyway, no, please don't suggest more versions of the same thing. Also, the first thing I said about this - in my edit summary when I reverted your first go at it - was to be sure you conform your article text additions to the cited sources. You should never write article text without being thoroughly familiar with the sources you are citing. If you don't have the chance to read them, then wait a while to write article text. ]] 03:20, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
:::::Please do not discuss me and make assumptions. I believe you have been warned against this behavior. I am asking your opinion on the content. You stated above that you didn't read all the sources; so I'm confused. And I've included direct quotes from the sources here. I removed the word "multiple" per your objection. But if we start with the most simple text, the NYTs text, can you tell me your thoughts on that? It's a quote that provides synthesis itself. Do you oppose it by the same rationale as my main (revised) suggestion? I honestly don't understand where the disagreement is. I'm asking for you to contribute suggestions for this noteworthy information. ] (]) 04:04, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

:While I appreciate the efforts to continue to tweak the wording, this still appears to be phrased in a problematic way. Just because material represents the viewpoints expressed by sources don't necessarily mean that the terminology used has to be rigidly adhered to. ] (]) 09:59, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
::Thank you for your feedback {{u|CoffeeWithMarkets}}. It sounds like you feel the word "corroborate" is <u>violates</u> NPOV because it is expressing support for her allegation. This word is used in RS which are not opinion pieces. And the word is consistent with existing text in the section: "The New York Times reported that 'No other allegation about sexual assault surfaced in the course of reporting, nor did any former Biden staff members corroborate any details of Ms. Reade's allegation.'" The only difference there is that that it is a direct quote. What are you thoughts on using the direct quote from the NYTs I suggested above as an alternative? {{tq|"Several of Ms. Reade’s friends have said she told them about a traumatic sexual incident involving Mr. Biden."}} ] (]) 14:33, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
:::Why should we use the word corroborate when simpler less ambiguous words are available? ] (]) 02:58, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
::::Personally I feel that the word that the sources use is the most precise, clear word. The word "confirm" would not work, because that may suggest that it is proven that she told them her story. The closest word would be "testified", but that implies legal proceedings. The only alternative is to write that her friends "have said" that she told them her story. That is accurate, but it doesn't communicate that this is supportive evidence, like the sentence it would follow which also uses the word "corroborate". If writing "have said" would bring us to consensus I of course support that. What are your thoughts on the NYTs quote? ] (]) 03:28, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
:::::If the case results in a hearing of some sort then lawyers can argue about the significance of the evidence.I don't think we want to communicate anything like that but merely report the conclusions reported in reliable sources. I don't think it would be helpful for us to weigh in on the debate. ] (]) 17:10, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
::::::I think these ''are'' the conclusions. The text in the article now only includes the conclusion that no staff members corroborated the sexual allegation, but it leaves out the corroboration of her story by her friends, and the corroboration from the interns that she lost work responsibilities. I just assumed, naively, that this text would be uncontroversial so I got distracted from the immediate issue: a ] violation. The existing NYTs text needs to be removed now. ] (]) 22:44, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
:] - Third alternative ... I'm deleting that NYT bit as UNDUE and details, which may make this whole topic moot. What 'The New York Times reported' re several "former Biden staff members" just never had enough WEIGHT to deserve enquotation. That presentation is also really an odd tone - as if that is highlighting how suspect the sourcing of denial is. I'm setting the section to simply her accusation and his 1 May denial, and skipping one paper says several staffers did not corroberate and another paper says friends and family do corroberate as lower details. If it goes into that level then NPOV and WEIGHT would mean both those should be included -- but I'd suggest without any naming papers or putting it in quotes or anyone using "corroberate". OK, lets see how this goes ... Cheers ] (]) 05:54, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
:p.s. Just for completeness -- Looking for another thread, I see a story about that NYT article in The Hill about the NYT . I still think internal details and disputes belong more the breakout article rather than the BLP, since it hasn't had a major or enduring BLP significance, but figured I should include a note that NYT article is only noted in an odd way. Cheers ] (]) 06:32, 4 May 2020 (UTC
::Yes, this has been much discussed at ] and on this talk page Cheers. ] (]) 06:47, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
::I've reverted Mark's ridiculous slashing of the article. The NYT material ''is'' important, as is the bit about the inactive MPD case. I'm surprise multiple editors haven't already jumped on this ludicrous edit, frankly. I guess it's because it's a Monday. -- ] (]) 12:35, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
{{BLP noticeboard}} ] (]) 12:57, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
{{od}} {{reply|Kolya Butternut}} I would like to work with you to include some sort of text about Ms. Reade's brother and other contacts. I think words like "corroboration" aren't going to work; however, we ''should'' include the gist of their statements somehow. Part of the problem here is that what they have said has been somewhat fluid. For example, Ms. Reade's brother initially said one thing and then texted what I would generously describe as a clarification. None of the three alternatives you suggested at the top of the thread work for me, but I think that is mainly because you have tried to wrap it all into a single sentence. While that may satisfy ] concerns, it leads to vagueness and inaccuracy that would be worse. -- ] (]) 13:06, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
:If you would really like to work with me, please read this discussion which addresses all of your concerns; the text you restored also uses the word "corroborate"; proposals #2 and #3 do not use the word corroborate, and #2 does not mention the brother and is a ''direct quote''. ] (]) 13:48, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
:One problem we would need to address is how to include the reports that Reade has been prompting the friends and family who comment to bloggers or journalists or wherever. ]] 14:34, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
::Collaboration means offering up something -- suggestions, sources, solutions, not unsourced problems <u>which are BLPTALK violations against Tara Reade.</u> ] (]) 14:44, 4 May 2020 (UTC)<small>] (]) 15:16, 4 May 2020 (UTC)</small>
::{{reply|SPECIFICO}} I think the prompting thing is to be expected in cases like this, and not really all that important a consideration. -- ] (]) 16:37, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
:::Except when folks keep changing their "recollection". Certainly in matters to be adjudicated in any formal setting, people would be warned about such matters. Of course in this case there are no witnesses, only people who are called "witnesses" so I can't say how this fits. We now have the new ]] 16:45, 4 May 2020‎
::::I don't think it is significant for this biography. -- ] (]) 17:15, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
:::::Oh, I certainly agree with you the whole friends and family plan is nonsense. UNDUE for the bio, for sure. The whole thing was a deflection. ]] 17:28, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
:::Alternative number 3 is the right sort of tone, I think, but it needs to be a little more elaborate. We probably want something along these lines:
:::{{tq2|In an interview with the ''Washington Post'', Reade's brother said she talked about Biden touching her neck and shoulders, later clarifying that he also recalled her sharing that Biden had put his hand "under her clothes." A former neighbor of Reade told ''Business Insider'' she remembered being told about the alleged assault in the mid-1990s. An anonymous friend and a colleague also gave similar accounts.}}
:::This is very much a rough draft to help me get things straight in my mind. It would need tightening up before it is ready for primetime, but it represents my thinking. -- ] (]) 16:35, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
::::That's a start, but the details are unbalanced. The preceding NYTimes text are summary conclusions. We shouldn't select four of the five witnesses; the mother may have passed but her Larry King live clip is given heavy weight by RS. And of course we should not begin the sentence with the weakest evidence -- that the brother's memory improved; that's very NPOV. {{u|Scjessey}}, please revert the non-consensus text you restored; if you believe there is a BLP violation against Biden without it, then remove the entire Tara Reade story please. If the only consensus text violates BLP; it must be removed. ] (]) 17:31, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
:::::{{ec}} Try to understand that our apparent views of this incident are ''diametrically opposed''. From what I have seen and read, my view is that Tara Reade's complaint is bullshit. Despite that, I have gone to a considerable effort to find a way to compromise and introduce what you consider to be missing elements into the article. Your contention that the existing text is a "BLP violation" is absolutely absurd, because this is JOE BIDEN's article and the text would have to be a violation AGAINST Biden. Your claim the details are "unbalanced" is, in my view, wrong. I think the text I have suggested (albeit still in rough form) is a fair summary of the comments in support of Reade's that provides the necessary balance you are seeking with the NYT-related content. Finally, I did not include the Larry King stuff because that is still being discussed elsewhere, and I didn't want to preempt the conclusion of that discussion. -- ] (]) 18:11, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
::::::{{reply|Scjessey}} Wow, I did not see this. That raises so many questions...way too much to get into, but I'm always grateful for honesty. My feelings on her allegations aren't so simple, but I would discuss that on our talk pages. I've discussed why I disagree with that interpretation of BLP policy at the BLP Noticeboard. ] (]) 16:36, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
::::::I also want to say that I appreciate that here you framed your characterization of her allegation as a personal feeling, whereas elsewhere you directly called her claims "dubious", which I will not suffer. I encourage us all to openly discuss our negative feelings about each other and content. This environment is plagued with dishonesty. ] (]) 16:42, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
:::::::But they ''are'' dubious. It's logically impossible to make inconsistent and credibly rebutted statements and not have some of them be dubious. That's straightforward. If you want to share your feelings about Scjessey, please don't do it on article talk pages. ]] 16:56, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
::::::::Please discuss what the RS say, rather than stating your opinions as facts. Also mind your own business. ] (]) 17:07, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
::::This is the existing text: {{tq|Biden's 2020 presidential campaign has denied the allegation. The New York Times reported that "No other allegation about sexual assault surfaced in the course of reporting, nor did any former Biden staff members corroborate any details of Ms. Reade's allegation. The Times found no pattern of sexual misconduct by Mr. Biden."}} Notice how different it would sound if it were paraphrased like this: {{tq|The NYTimes did not find any former staff members who knew about the alleged sexual assault, nor did they find any other complaints from women "beyond the hugs, kisses and touching that women previously said made them uncomfortable." Friends of Reade's have confirmed that years ago she told them her story about a nonconsenual sexual incident with Biden.}} That communicates the same information but it sounds quite different doesn't it? ] (]) 18:04, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
:::::Well, yes. I am not sure what your point is. I have already said that we need to provide more information about the people who allegedly support Reade's story, but your rewrite doesn't do that and makes their dubious, ever-changing statements seem more solid. -- ] (]) 18:17, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
::::::Please stop making unsourced BLPTALK violations against Tara Reade and her confidants. Your unsourced opinions will make it impossible to create NPOV text. Why have you not reverted your edit? That is a policy violation to include non-consensus text. ] (]) 19:21, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
::::::I am frustrated with the ''repeated'' misrepresentations of what the sources report about Reade's brother. The NYTimes reports that the brother described a "traumatic sexual incident", even before the WaPo story came out with his memory of Biden "putting his hands under her clothes". The out-of-date ''initial'' NYTimes story, which includes even less supportive evidence for Reade than we have now, summarizes the story as follows (which is the very least of what we should summarize in Reade's favor):<blockquote>{{tq|"The former aide, Tara Reade, who briefly worked as a staff assistant in Mr. Biden’s Senate office, told The New York Times that in 1993, Mr. Biden pinned her to a wall in a Senate building, reached under her clothing and penetrated her with his fingers. A friend said that Ms. Reade told her the details of the allegation at the time. Another friend and a brother of Ms. Reade’s said she told them over the years about a traumatic sexual incident involving Mr. Biden. A spokeswoman for Mr. Biden said the allegation was false. In interviews, several people who worked in the Senate office with Ms. Reade said they did not recall any talk of such an incident or similar behavior by Mr. Biden toward her or any women. Two office interns who worked directly with Ms. Reade said they were unaware of the allegation or any treatment that troubled her."}}</blockquote>
::::::] (]) 19:47, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
:::::::It is becoming apparent that you are unable to look at this issue dispassionately, because you continue to make absurd claims about BLP violations that simply aren't true and make demands based on incorrect claims. I offered you a bone and you've tried to bite my arm off. Do you want to work with me on this issue or not? If you do, you need to be constructive, rather than posting long screeds about what you think I am doing wrong. Look at the text I suggested, which you described as "a start", and offer an alternative. I will do the same with what you propose. Hopefully, we will be able to go back and forth until we are both happy with what we are seeing, and then we can ask the larger group to weigh in. -- ] (]) 20:08, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
::::::::And of course that text KB just offered above? That would have to be removed immediately because it misrepresents the source to elevate Reade's uncorroborated allegations. ]] 20:25, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
::::::::Please don't conflate passion with irrationality. The conclusory characterization of "absurd" and "untrue" does not bring us to understanding. Please do not accuse me of trying to "bite arm off" while dismissing my legitimate grievances. I've expressed frustration over what I'm hearing, that's my feeling; you don't have to personalize it. I'm again frustrated because I just offered you a constructive, if passionate, suggestion that we use a condensed version of what the NYTimes itself uses as a summary of the story. I appreciate your feelings, but please comment on the content of my suggestions. ] (]) 20:51, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
::::::::Again, it's a policy violation to include non-consensus text. So I politely ask that you revert your restoration of the text until we can come to a consensus. If you feel like without that text there is a BLP violation against Biden, please remove the entire Reade story until we can hash it out. ] (]) 21:12, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
:::::::::No it is not {{red|a policy violation to include non-consensus text}}. Please see ]. ]] 21:24, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
::::::::::It is policy that text must have consensus; BRD is not a policy. ] (]) 21:41, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
:::::::::::That's not what you wrote. People take you at your word. Other editors don't come here to tutor or correct obvious preventable errors of others. ]] 21:51, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
::::::::::::Please steer away from aspersive statements. I did not write violation of BRD; I wrote it's a policy violation to include non-consensus text. If the semantics are wrong you can surely infer which policy violation I am speaking of. ] (]) 22:06, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
{{od}} {{reply|Kolya Butternut}} I made a good faith attempt to work with you on this, but rather than taking that olive branch you have basically ranted and stamped your feet and demanded to be heard. That's just not the way this project is supposed to work. I'm still willing to work with you on the back-and-forth I spoke of earlier, but you have to meet me halfway. -- ] (]) 23:35, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
:{{u|Scjessey}}, please cease creating your preferred narrative about me; I also note that you have not commented on the content of my grievances. Now, let us move on to content. #1, do you acknowledge that there is no consensus for the text you restored? Edit-war history of this text: ] (]) 23:48, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
::{{reply|Kolya Butternut}} It's not a "preferred narrative" at all. I offered some text as a beginning point for a back-and-forth refinement, but rather than taking that opportunity you decided to issue demands. And you're ''still'' doing it. -- ] (]) 12:41, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
:::{{reply|Scjessey}} it is a preferred narrative, because you did not address my grievances over your conduct but instead tone-policed me. Now you are falsely stating that I did not engage in back and forth, but as I have already clarified, I offered up a proposal. Now, instead of engaging in back and forth by commenting on my proposal, you are accusing me of issuing demands when I ask a simple question. Please cease the discussion over conduct, and discuss content by sharing whether you believe there is consensus for the text you restored, and sharing your thoughts on my latest suggestion. ] (]) 12:52, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
::::{{reply|Kolya Butternut}} You are trying to get me to work on something I did not offer to work on. At this time, I am offering to work with you on the text covering Reade's family/friends/colleague, ''and that's it.'' Either we work together to refine that text, or we don't. Your choice. Furthermore, ''if'' (and only if) we successfully work something out that is approved by the wider group of editors, I will happily work with you to address your other concerns. But first things first. -- ] (]) 13:23, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
:::::{{reply|Scjessey}} I'm hearing that your answer to my question is that you don't want to answer my question, which means you have restored text against consensus and are unwilling to engage in discussion to find consensus. Thank you for answering; now we can move on.
:::::I keep hearing you say that you are offering to work with me in a "back and forth", but you haven't responded to my suggestion. I'm also not sure why there is a particular order over what concerns are addressed. ] (]) 14:04, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
::::::You didn't ''make'' a suggestion. You just quoted an NYT article. Please take the "start" I made and adapt the language to make it reflect what you are looking for. I will then do the same with your revision, and so on until we come up with something we are both happy with. Why is this so hard? -- ] (]) 14:32, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
:::::::What made it so hard was that we were disagreeing over whether I made a suggestion. I feel I did; I suggested we summarize the quote I cited. You have not opined on that quote or suggestion as I had hoped. You are now asking that I adapt the language first to show what I am looking for. I will do so. ] (]) 14:43, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
::::::In fact, let me make it even easier for you. Here's the "template" for you to edit as you see fit. -- ] (]) 14:35, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

===Working drafts===
Original suggestion: {{tq2|In an interview with the ''Washington Post'', Reade's brother said she talked about Biden touching her neck and shoulders, later clarifying that he also recalled her sharing that Biden had put his hand "under her clothes." A former neighbor of Reade told ''Business Insider'' she remembered being told about the alleged assault in the mid-1990s. An anonymous friend and a colleague also gave similar accounts.}}
-- ] (]) 14:56, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
Edited: {{tq2|In April 2019, Tara Reade said that in 1993, while she was a staffer in Biden's Senate office, he had inappropriately touched her several times on her shoulder and neck. In March 2020, Reade accused Biden of pushing her against a wall and digitally penetrating her while on Capitol Hill in 1993. On April 9, 2020, Reade filed a police report with the Washington Metropolitan Police (MPD) alleging she was sexually assaulted in spring 1993. The case was inactive by April 29, 2020. On May 1, 2020, Biden said, "It's not true. I'm saying unequivocally it never, never happened, and it didn't. It never happened." The New York Times reported that "In interviews, several people who worked in the Senate office with Ms. Reade said they did not recall any talk of such an incident or similar behavior by Mr. Biden toward her or any women," and two former interns "recalled that she abruptly stopped supervising them in April," 1993. "Several of Ms. Reade’s friends have said she told them about a traumatic sexual incident involving Mr. Biden."}} ] (]) 14:54, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
:Okay, it seems you want me to work on the ''entire'' section, and not just the bit I was trying to discuss with you. Sigh. -- ] (]) 14:59, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
::I can't really separate out the context. ] (]) 15:02, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
:::Okay, I'll look at the whole thing. Did you intentionally exclude Ms. Reade's brother? -- ] (]) 15:03, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
:::We should change that to "Some friends and family". ] (]) 15:08, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
::::Maybe. Let me do a rework of what you have written, and I'll post it below. I'm currently doing a little bit of research on some of the statements. -- ] (]) 15:09, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
Draft of revision:
{{tq2|In April 2019, Tara Reade said that while she was a staffer in Biden's Senate office, he had inappropriately touched her several times on her shoulder and neck. In March 2020, Reade expanded her story and accused Biden of pushing her against a wall and digitally penetrating her. Reade filed a police report with the Washington Metropolitan Police (MPD) alleging she was sexually assaulted in spring 1993, which the MPD later characterized as an "inactive" case. In an interview on May 1, 2020, Biden said, "It's not true. I'm saying unequivocally it never, never happened, and it didn't." The ''New York Times'' reported that "several people who worked in the Senate office with Ms. Reade said they did not recall any talk of such an incident or similar behavior by Mr. Biden toward her or any women." In an interview with the ''Washington Post'', Reade's brother said she talked about Biden touching her neck and shoulders, later clarifying that he also recalled her sharing that Biden had put his hand "under her clothes." A former neighbor of Reade told ''Business Insider'' she remembered being told about the alleged assault in the mid-1990s. An anonymous friend and a colleague also gave similar accounts.}}
Kolya, I'm not completely happy with this draft, but it represents my current thinking. Feel free to post another revision. -- ] (]) 16:01, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
:I thought I saw you discuss why you preferred detailed information about specific friends and family rather than a summary, but I can't find what you said. But I know I am opposed to the brother text, but it implies that all he told WaPo originally was the same as her 2019 partial revelations, but that is inconsistent with the other RS. WaPo does not write how he interpreted Biden's alleged actions; more importantly, the NYTimes and the earlier sources such as the Intercept say the brother confirms the mother wanted her to go to police, and that it was a traumatic sexual incident. ] (]) 17:02, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
::I have already explained how this works. Don't tell me about WHY you oppose what I have written about the brother. Take what I have written, adjust it to what you think is right, and post it below. Back and forth! -- ] (]) 17:26, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
:::Um, is that what collaboration looks like? Ok, I will try.
Edited: {{tq2|In April 2019, Tara Reade said that while she was a staffer in Biden's Senate office in 1993, he had inappropriately touched her several times on her shoulder and neck. In March 2020, Reade told the rest of her story, alleging that that same year Biden pushed her against a wall and digitally penetrating her while on Capitol Hill. On April 9, 2020, Reade filed a police report with the Washington Metropolitan Police (MPD) alleging she was sexually assaulted in spring 1993. By April 29, 2020, the MPD changed the case status to "inactive". On May 1, 2020, Biden said, "It's not true. I'm saying unequivocally it never, never happened, and it didn't. It never happened." The New York Times reported that "In interviews, several people who worked in the Senate office with Ms. Reade said they did not recall any talk of such an incident or similar behavior by Mr. Biden toward her or any women," and two former interns "recalled that she abruptly stopped supervising them in April," 1993. A friend who was a staffer for Ted Kennedy confirms that Reade told her everything in 1993. Reade's brother said she told him about a traumatic incident where she said Biden "had her up against the wall and made a hand move under her clothes." A former neighbor of Reade's also says she heard about the assault a couple years later.}} ] (]) 18:54, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
:No, this is a troubling turn. You have added a bunch of stuff that was not in your previous version, and you've rewritten parts to make Reade's supporters seem more credible. Some of the new info is superfluous and totally unrelated to Joe Biden's biography. For example, who cares if Tara Reade's friend worked in Ted Kennedy's Senate office? No, I am much happier with the version I presented, which was already quite generous to Reade's side of the story. -- ] (]) 19:14, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
::Not to mention the POV OR insinuated between the cherrypicked bits of reported fact. ]] 19:32, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
:::Yup, there does seem to be an element of that. -- ] (]) 19:37, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
::::Just keep the door ajar. You'll be OK.]] 19:47, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
:::::{{u|Scjessey}}, I thought you said we weren't to talk about what we didn't like in each others' edits? My first draft had an undetailed summary of her friends and family; your draft had detailed information, so I responded with my version of the detailed information, back and forth. I would, however, prefer to discuss our drafts in between edits. You haven't given me anything to work with, however. The Ted Kennedy bit simply provides the context for their 1993 friendship in D.C.. You've generally characterized my edits but offered no specifics, so I can't respond. But I do hear what sounds like aspersive statements. How about some "I" statements about your feelings on specific wording? I feel like my text was an accurate, if long, representation of the RS. We can both view each others' edits us unfairly generous to one party or the other, accusations don't help. ] (]) 06:06, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
:::::{{u|SPECIFICO}}, I don't feel that you're contributing anything constructive here; just not abiding your warnings with all that loaded language. ] (]) 06:12, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
::::::Kolya, you've changed the goalposts ''twice'' now. Both times, you have ADDED material that previously wasn't being discussed. I've tried to work constructively with you, but it's becoming clear your focus is less about improving the article and more about advocating for Ms. Reade. I know this is casting aspersions and/or an assumption of bad faith, but your actions have made it impossible for me to work with you. Our collaboration is at an end. -- ] (]) 13:10, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
:::::::{{u|Scjessey}}, a mocking edit summary and yes, accusations of bad faith, do not show that you are working constructively. The only "goalpost" is accurately representing the RS and meeting policy. My opinion on which text best does that is not rigid; my changes may reflect criticism of my own previous drafts as well. Please also consider this as a brainstorming session.
:::::::I am put in the position of "advocating" for Ms. Reade because that is aligned with advocating for the policy of RS and BALANCE. If a more negative representation of her story were accurate there would be no policy to advocate for. Yes I do believe you have bias against her story; there may be other RS and interviews you have not seen. I feel you have been taking unfair control of this process. You created strict rules for this "back and forth" (which I have accommodated) and now you are abandoning the process without even acknowledging my reasons for my draft changes. If you don't like something ''talk about it''. I asked you for your rationale for specific text suggestions; you said you didn't want to talk about it, and then you got upset when I made changes you didn't like. I can't accommodate you if I don't know what you want. ] (]) 13:38, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
::::::::Your interesting revisionism notwithstanding, I think you have a misunderstanding of Misplaced Pages policy. First, you need to remember that the subject of the article is JOE BIDEN, not Tara Reade. Our responsibility as editors of the JOE BIDEN article is to make sure the prose is a fair reflection of what a preponderance of reliable sources say about JOE BIDEN, not other people. I think it is clear from reliable sources that Ms. Reade's story, which she ''changed'', describes an incident that would be out of character for Joe Biden. I think it is ''also'' clear from reliable sources that brother/neighbor/friend/colleague stories have not been consistent, and have been steered by prompting from Ms. Reade. Finally, I think it is clear from reliable sources that Ms. Reade's claim is treated with suspicion. With all that in mind, I think it is clear we need to be extremely cautious including coverage about what appears to be a dubious claim, the details of which are only just coming to light. We must remember Misplaced Pages is not meant to be ], and that BLPs are meant to be written from an historical perspective. Clearly, the content is not ready for primetime, because nobody seems to be able to agree on any text. Consequently, the best course of action is for the Tara Reade material to be removed. -- ] (]) 14:02, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
:::::::::You are offering opinions on what is "clear" from the RS with no evidence. This is why I showed you a long direct quote from the NYTimes with their summary of the story with the suggestion that we concisely paraphrase it. That is how we adhere to RS and BALANCE. I now agree that we are done here. ] (]) 14:17, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
:::::::::But I invite others to join in. ] (]) 14:51, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
{{od}} It doesn't seem an impossible task to simply summarize this https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/04/29/sexual-allegations-against-joe-biden-corroborators/ '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px #B8B8B8;">]]]</span>''' 22:08, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
:I agree. Or the quote you've mentioned several times, which WaPo shows is the full statement by NYTimes:<blockquote>{{tq|"BuzzFeed reported on the existence of talking points being circulated by the Biden campaign that inaccurately suggest a New York Times investigation found that Tara Reade’s allegation “did not happen.” Our investigation made no conclusion either way. As BuzzFeed correctly reported, our story found three former Senate aides whom Reade said she complained to contemporaneously, all of whom either did not remember the incident or said that it did not happen. The story also included former interns who remembered Reade suddenly changing roles and no longer overseeing them, which took place during the same time period that Reade said she was abruptly reassigned. The Times also spoke to a friend who said Reade told her the details of the allegation at the time; another friend and Reade’s brother say she told them of a traumatic sexual incident involving Biden."}}</blockquote> ] (]) 02:16, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
::There's not going to be agreement on that. I think we have learned that much. We need to wait until the facts are clearer and the sources more aligned with a mainstream narrative. We are not Crimestoppers. This article is about Biden's long life and career. Some of this is more DUE for the Allegations article. Some of it is simply too unclear for an encyclopedia at this time. ]] 02:23, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
:::No, we'll work it out, don't worry.  ] (]) 03:21, 7 May 2020 (UTC)


===Previous discussion continued===
*'''Include #1 brother corroborated her''' - more WEIGHT and RS phrasing is there than is on the mentioned NYT “corroborated” usage, and NPOV requires *all* significant viewpoints to be presented. If the article is going to details and phrasing “corroborated” said about denials, then both sides seems obviously required and “corroborated” seems obviously acceptable verbiage. Personally, I don’t think this level of details advisable, but since that approach got deleted then ... OK, everything goes in. I’d suggest a source different than the NYTimes article though, since that has particular one has some side notoriety digressions about having been held back and also coordinated with the Biden campaign. Cheers ] (]) 07:15, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
:*Markbassett, please review the references on her brother and his statements and the associated history. There is no "corroboration" of the assault allegation there. ]] 14:21, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
:::Yes, there is no "corroboration" of the assault allegation; what WaPo reports is that there is corroboration of her ''story''. ] (]) 15:00, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
::::From ''The Nation'' (perhaps this can be distilled into a couple sentences?)
::::{{tq|According to LaCasse, Reade disclosed an incident that occurred when Reade worked for then-Senator Joe Biden in 1993: After she took him his gym bag, he backed her up against a wall, kissed her neck and hair, put his hand under her clothes, and penetrated her digitally. “I remember the skirt. I remember the fingers. I remember she was devastated.” Reade wept at the memory; LaCasse urged her to file a police report....Such evidence supplements several other accounts that corroborate elements of Reade’s story—from her brother, two anonymous friends, a former colleague, and footage from Larry King Live apparently featuring Reade’s now deceased mother, who called in to the show a few months after the alleged incident in 1993 to seek advice on behalf of her daughter.}} '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px #B8B8B8;">]]]</span>''' 22:08, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

== ] ==
{{hat|Any concerns about DS violations belong on editor talk pages or noticeboards, not here.]] 15:38, 2 May 2020 (UTC)}}
I would like to remind you {{Ping|MrX}} that there is a ] rule here. You have made at least two independent reverts already. Please self-revert one of them. ] (]) 13:38, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
:Please read the policy before invoking it. "A series of consecutively saved reverting edits by one user, with no intervening edits by another user, counts as one revert." Also, these kinds of post belong on user talk pages, not on article talk pages. - ]] 13:52, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
::It's better here because this is not the first time this has been pointed out to you, and other people can help explaining the rules to you. "An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert". Of course this doesn't mean that you can keep reverting things on a page as you please, just because you are not doing the same revert twice. Please self-revert. ] (]) 13:58, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
::Also let me highlight things for you so you understand better: "A series of consecutively saved reverting edits by '''one user'''..." - you have reverted edits of at least two users. ] (]) 14:02, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
:::I am the '''one user''' who made the '''reverting edits'''. You can stop lecturing me now, since you obviously don't understand the underlying policy, and please don't post any more user warnings on article talk page. - ]] 14:26, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
:::: BeZet is right. It says "edits by one user". You can't make two reverts for two users and not breach 1rr. I suggest you self-revert yourself.--] (]) 14:32, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
{{hab}}

== New allegation from Eva Murry ==

Since this has been reverted, let's discuss the new allegation that has been presented against Biden. Fragment that has been added and then removed:

:{{tq|On the same day , another women came forward alleging in an interview with '']'' that Joe Biden complemented her breasts when she was 14 years old at the First State Gridiron Dinner & Show in 2008, adding that she felt his comments "were verbal sexual harassment".}}
:Current sources:
:* {{cite web|url=https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/second-biden-misconduct-allegation-emerges|title=Second Biden misconduct allegation emerges|author=Becket Adams|website=Washington Examiner|date=1 May 2020}}
:* {{cite web|url=https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/woman-claims-biden-sexually-harassed-her-when-she-was-14-years-old-by-complimenting-her-breasts/|title=Woman Claims Biden Sexually Harassed Her When She Was 14 Years Old by Complimenting Her Breasts|website=Law & Crime|author=Colin Kalmbacher|date=1 May 2020}}
:* ''(however it's an unacceptable source of information)''
I am expecting another argument about "mainstream media not talking about it" (i.e. The New York Times or some other very specific outlet), so just wanted to kickstart a discussion around when will this be ready to be included. Thanks. ] (]) 13:46, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
:As I explained, this fails ] and ]. This is not a breaking news page. It's a biography of a high profile person. - ]] 13:54, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
::How does it fail ]? ] (]) 13:59, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
:I'm not sure if ''Law & Crime'' counts as a reliable source here. An opinion column from the ''Washington Examiner'' seems rather poor by comparison. ''Fox News'' is better than those two, but after looking at the article it appears to center around merely repeating what ''Law & Crime'' has asserted. We can talk about inclusion when we get better sourcing. A predictable thing to say, I know, but that really is where our guidelines put us. ] (]) 15:21, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
:Neither Washington Examiner nor the tabloid-style blog Law and Crime are RS for a BLP. Anything of significance will have been reported by more credible sources. ]] 15:35, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

:It will be ready for inclusion when there is ongoing discussion in all mainstream news outlets and Biden has been questioned about it on cable news networks. ] (]) 16:55, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
:Actual reliable sources would need to be found for this to be even considered, although I seriously doubt this will ever get into the article. -- ] (]) 19:53, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
::It's better to avoid slander than to apologize for it. Right now, it looks like this allegation isn't holding up to investigation.
:::“After reviewing my files of the dinner which included attendees and the show itself, I can conclusively say, Senator Biden was not at the dinner,” Murphy said in a letter dated Saturday.
:::The allegation was reported by Law & Crime, but the news outlet quietly removed the story from its website after it was widely shared.
::The truth has put its shoes on. ] (]) 20:53, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
* Those three sources are not RS, especially for a sensitive BLP matter. -- ] (]) 05:50, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

*] - there are further sources mentioning it, but at the BLP level the norm is more to say a summary form, such as 'nine women alleged sexual misconduct' (e.g. eight last year listed in or plus this one). Give it a further 48-hour waiting period and see if actual WEIGHT of coverage and further details develop, but I suspect a specific line for it is just going to be too much. Cheers ] (]) 07:12, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
:*Neither sources says 9 women alleged sexual misconduct. ] (]) 17:14, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
::And those cites were prefaced by ‘eight last year listed in’. A cite saying “nine” would be *this* year, since #9 just recently showed up. For example “As of now, nine women have accused Biden of harassment.” Eight before plus one addition equals nine. Cheers ] (]) 15:10, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

== Biden requests that records about the accusations by Reade be made public ==

{{quotebox|“I request that you take or direct whatever steps are necessary to establish the location of the records of this Office, and once they have been located, to direct a search for the alleged complaint and to make public the results of this search,” Biden wrote in a letter to Julie Adams, the secretary of the Senate.

“I would ask that the public release include not only a complaint if one exists, but any and all other documents in the records that relate to the allegation,” he added.}}

'''Source''':

No payoffs or refusals to turn over records, as we have seen Trump do. -- ] (]) 05:48, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

*Meh. No edit proposed, none worth making. Biden could have been told no such record exists before he made such a statement, and Reade's statements say they're not much anyway so ... it's all meh. And response has been “The most transparent thing Joe Biden did this morning was admit that he is hiding documents so they can't be used against him,” said Emma Vaughn, Florida press secretary for the Republican National Committee. (Politico ) None of either seems BLP significant or enough WEIGHT to get any mention at the BLP level. Cheers ] (]) 07:21, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
:Vaughn's comments don't make any sense in this context. She's complaining that he's hiding documents when, in fact, he's calling for any relevant documents to be made public. ] (]) 14:33, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
:: Vaughn is highlighting that Biden is denying access to his own office archives. That he should open his own internal records re the firing of her back then, instead of an empty gesture. Cheers ] (]) 07:50, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
:: See also The Guardian Steve Guest, rapid response director for the Republican National Committee, wrote in an email: “Joe Biden’s attempt to offer faux transparency ground to a screeching halt this morning.” It’s interesting to watch the support from Trump or attempts to deflect without *appearing* to ignore it, but in the end there was no edit proposed here and none seems worth making at the BLP level. Maybe going into the details at the allegation article, but not here. Cheers ] (]) 13:53, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
:::We should not care what the rapid response director of either the RNC or DNC says. Their jobs are to spin. &ndash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;(]) 16:10, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
::::And "spin" is a generous characterization. -- ] (]) 16:14, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
::: Empty posturing by Joe was met by empty posturing by Republicans, plus denial by Senate. Again, no edit was proposed and none worth making. Cheers ] (]) 15:15, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

*Have we discussed that he will not release his Delaware Senate papers? He's only approved of records being released from a different location. ] (]) 17:13, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
:*No reason to discuss the Delaware Senate papers because they have absolutely no relevance whatsoever. These are private papers held by the university, as is customary with public officials, for posterity. Information contained within them will only be accessible once Biden has left public life, and any classified material contained therein is declassified. The call to have them released is a fishing expedition by Biden's opposition. It's "but her emails" bad, in fact. -- ] (]) 17:22, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
::*The RS have reported it as relevant (although I don't recall which sources). Any personnel papers would be there. If there were instructions for her responsibilities to change, etc. ] (]) 18:17, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
:::*Did you read any sources? Who has claimed that Senate personnel records are in the personal files of a Senator? To save time and attention, please link to claims about sources when a content edit is being discussed. ]] 18:24, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
::::*Save ''you'' time. I just said that I wasn't sure; you could use that information as you like. I Googled it for you: {{tq|"Now there’s a focus on his refusal to commit to opening up his archived papers at the University of Delaware — a trove of documents that critics suspect might house Reade’s complaint."}} I don't know yet how much weight that deserves, but it's part of the story. ] (]) 19:03, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
:::::*So you fell for the same trap Politico did. "That critics suspect" is the problem here, because "critics" mean political opponents. Personnel files are NOT in those documents, and no reliable sources would suggest otherwise. Like I said, Biden's opponents want to see the files because they hope they can dig up dirt. -- ] (]) 19:08, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
::::::*Please stop with the personal comments. Please do not dismiss things without comment on the sources or providing new sources; this unfairly puts the onus on me to do that work for you.<blockquote>{{tq|"Biden said in a statement that the university would not have the relevant documents, and that they could only be found at the National Archives. 'The National Archives is where the records are kept at what was then called the Office of Fair Employment Practices,' Biden said, and called for the records to be released. But the Archives told Insider that such documents wouldn't be kept there, and it's not entirely clear where the records would be. Documents from the Senate's Office of Fair Employment Practices are governed by a Senate resolution that bars their release for 50 years.}}</blockquote>
:::::::His "critics" say he should allow access to both locations of records because nobody knows where they are -- simple.  ] (]) 13:47, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

== Tara Reade reset ==

I have just at ] a quick and dirty solution to the anguished cries of "BLP violation!" here. Let's remove '''all''' the Tara Reade material and only add it back when we have a solid consensus for the entire text worked out on this talk page. It will stop the slomo edit war immediately and it will prevent any "unbalanced" text being in the article. We can work on the whole thing together, or split it up into bits (as I was trying to do above). We should only put text back in the article when an RfC on the new text wins consensus. The current discussions are ''exhausting''. What say you? -- ] (]) 13:42, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
:The Reade story has been rattling around for a couple of months now, and whatever its significance for our developing norms for how gender issues, harassment and abuse concerns are treated, nothing has risen to the level of a significnat part of Biden's life story. Absent more decisive Admin action to deal with behavioral issues, Scjessey's suggestion is not unreasonable.]] 13:48, 5 May 2020‎ (UTC)
:I also expressed removing all the text at the BLP/N if the BLP violating non-consensus text was not quickly removed. We don't necessarily need to agree to ''all'' of the text before inserting anything, and we don't know if an RfC will be necessary. One temporary proposal is:<blockquote>{{tq|"In April 2019, Tara Reade said that in 1993, while she was a staffer in Biden's Senate office, he had inappropriately touched her several times on her shoulder and neck. In March 2020, Reade accused Biden of pushing her against a wall and digitally penetrating her while on Capitol Hill in 1993. On April 9, 2020, Reade filed a police report with the Washington Metropolitan Police (MPD) alleging she was sexually assaulted in spring 1993. The case was later described as "inactive" by the MPD . On May 1, 2020, Biden said, "It's not true. I'm saying unequivocally it never, never happened, and it didn't. It never happened."}}</blockquote>
:This way it is simply a he-said-she-said. But they may be a false balance, depending on how we interpret the RS. If there's doubt we'd have to remove it all, or acknowledge this this is a current news story which is still being evaluated. ] (]) 17:20, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
:I agree that per wikipedia regular standards, all mention of the Tara Reade story should be removed and deleted from the article as non-notable. ] (]) 21:59, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
:'''No''' - should include at least the existence of allegation and denial, per ]. The area of dispute seems only about having *just* the favorable NYT quotes without the unfavorable reports of corroberation by her brother and two others that she told them of this long ago. To go into details seems optional - but if going there, then by ] the details are going to need both sides covered, and by ] the corroberations should get far more content than a quote from NYT as reflecting their greater proportion of ]. It's not reasonable to exclude any mention of the allegation until 'later', because clearly 'later' might never arrive. Cheers ] (]) 07:20, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
::+1. Exactly so. ]&thinsp;<sup style="white-space:nowrap;">] – ]'']</sup> 07:37, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
::{{reply|Markbassett}} No, the area of dispute is the whole thing, because it likely didn't even happen. -- ] (]) 13:06, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
:::You need to stop with the BLPTALK violations. Your opinion is interfering with policy goals. ] (]) 13:58, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
::::You have a fundamental misunderstanding of policy, Kolya. -- ] (]) 14:03, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
:::::Conclusory statements are not constructive. In the future please share your personal criticisms on my talk page with references to policy and past policy analysis. ] (]) 14:11, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
::'''I agree.''' Will my suggestion above work, minus the police report? I only included the report because it had clear consensus, but including that without anything else gives it too much weight. I want to point out that the area of dispute would not be resolved by adding the corroboration of her friends and family; those particular NYTimes quotes have no consensus regardless. Thank you. ] (]) 13:58, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
:''Is this a joke?'' A total reset? Removing ''all'' material about the allegation after it's been through a lengthy and rigorous RfC? Why would someone suggest such a thing? {] is disallowed. Our opinions are beyond irrelevant and a stumbling block to working as a community. As a courtesy to other users, it is recommended to be well-versed in policy lest editor's precious time isn't wasted. If anyone seriously wants to remove the allegation, it is done through another RfC, not this TP section suggesting we get "dirty". '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px #B8B8B8;">]]]</span>''' 21:51, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
::That RfC was on a specific issue as to sourcing. Also, OR refers to article content, not to an editor saying, in effect, that he finds an unclear set of verified facts. I believe this was also discussed at BLPN recently. ]] 22:56, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
::The text as it is now is a BLPBALANCE violation against Tara Reade because of the text which was added against consensus. So if we can not agree on an edit to remove the BLP issues, and administrators don't want to get their hands dirty, an alternative is to reset. Of course that is what some want. Yet nothing is barring us from bold edits except fear of the collective Anthony Fremont. ] (]) 01:48, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

===New coverage===
If we do "start again" after a reset, has a very good summary. It essentially says Tara Reade came forward a year ago and made it ''very'' clear that it was '''not''' a sexual assault. Then as she started to "feel the Bern" she went to some pro-Bernie news organizations and told them a different story. It's clear from the article the author tried VERY hard to get Ms. Reade's story, but was frustrated largely by Ms. Reade herself. -- ] (]) 19:57, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
:Interesting. Also the her engagement of a high-priced law firm today after a year of do-it-yourself public representation appears to recast the story after she suffered increasing scepticism in the mainstream press. These seem appropriaate for the "allegations" article. ]] 20:24, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
::It sounds like Reade says that the sexual assault isn't the point of the story. To her the sexual assault was about abuse of power. ] (]) 20:29, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
:::That would be bizarre. Employers have considerable power over their staff, but they are not empowered to commit assault. Another bizarre twist. ]] 20:46, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
:::Or maybe the sexual assault wasn't part of the story because, well, it wasn't actually a thing. Remember in the CNN Larry King call-in, her mother (if that ''was'' her) did not mention anything even remotely like a sexual assault. Her story only changed to sexual assault around the time Bernie conceded the nomination to Biden. -- ] (]) 21:32, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
::::Also peculiar: Ms. Reade had '''internet-based''' interviews scheduled with Chris Wallace (Fox News) and Don Lemon (CNN), but cancelled them because of unnamed "security concerns" and arranged for a '''face-to-face''' interview with Megyn Kelly instead. -- ] (]) 21:21, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
:::::Now ''that's'' interesting. - ]] 22:11, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
:::::Is Kelly currently employed? Is this going to be self-hosted internet video? ]] 22:37, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
:::::The interview has already happened, but has not been published in full: {{tq|The interview was conducted Wednesday, and Ms. Kelly posted excerpts on Twitter on Thursday.}} I also note that this discussion seems to be wandering into ] territory. ''If'' this section is reset, I believe it should be presented as a he-said-she-said with more information available on the accusation article — otherwise the supporting evidence on each side will be subject to subjective editorial decisions, almost inevitably leading to edit warring. ] 23:11, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
::::::The text is sufficient for this article. It should not be in the lead of this article. Unless there are major new developments, I think anything more extensive should be in the allegations article, preferably moved to "Tara Reade" if all the current content is to be retained there. ]] 23:29, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
::] That's an insinuation, not usable. It's akin to saying that NY Times conveniently did not run their story until after Biden beat Bernie. Or noting how much the Democrats proclaiming the Kavanaugh accusations suddenly were silent or denying once it was one of their own being accused. None of those are usable for this BLP article nor usable for any discussion of edits for the article. Cheers ] (]) 03:07, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
Once we're talking about new coverage, here's an article that shows the first time it's actually mentioned in court documents that she complained about harassment in Biden's office and this is from 1996. ] <sup>]</sup> 03:42, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
:{{ping|Starship.paint}} please see the court document above.  ] (]) 04:50, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
::{{ping|Kolya Butternut}} - that's useful, thank you. Is there anything you want me to do? ''']] (])''' 04:55, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
::: I just saw that you were editing in the recent Vox story which casts doubt on whether she ever even felt sexualized, and this court document is the '''first hard evidence''' that she told someone she was sexually harassed in Biden's office.  ] (]) 04:59, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
::::{{ping|Kolya Butternut}} - our job is to present both pieces of information (in the sexual assault allegation article, no comment on this article). It's not for us to self-censor Vox, a generally reliable source. What happened in 1996 doesn't automatically render what Reade did in 2019 irrelevant. If the 1996 document is such strong proof as you are apparently claiming, readers should be able to figure that out (unless you are arguing that we have misrepresented the 1996 court document?) ''']] (])''' 05:03, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
:::::{{ping|Starship.paint}} I'm not suggesting anything other than to say the court document offers hard evidence which should not be left out of the article, especially if the Vox piece is included which may be the strongest evidence in the other direction. ] (]) 05:17, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
::::::{{ping|Kolya Butternut}} - the court document is already in the assault allegation article, I'm not sure if you noticed? I didn't make any attempt to delete it. {{tq|On May 7, 2020, The Tribune unearthed a court document from 1996 in which Reade's then-husband, Theodore Dronen, says Reade mentioned "a problem she was having at work regarding sexual harassment, in U.S. Senator Joe Biden's office." The document does not mention that Biden was the perpetrator of sexual harassment, and also does not mention sexual assault. Donen added Reade "eventually struck a deal with the chief of staff of the Senator’s office and left her position" and "It was obvious that this event had a very traumatic effect on , and that she is still sensitive and effected by it today."}} ''']] (])''' 05:21, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
:::::::Sorry about that; not sure how I missed this. ] (]) 05:44, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

===Proposed reset text===
I think what {{u|UserDude}} said just above makes a lot of sense. Battling over all these details in this main BLP is having a detrimental effect on article stability and preventing us from working on other parts of the article. We should strip this down to the barebones, basically acknowledging that in the context of Biden's entire life (which this article hopes to capture), this allegation doesn't have much significance and extensively documenting every aspect of it here would be ]:
{{tq2|In March 2020, former Biden staffer Tara Reade ] in 1993. Both Biden and his campaign denied the allegation.}}
ALL the other details should be left to the main article on the allegation. Of course, if the allegation succeeds in derailing Biden's campaign, thus having a greater impact on his life, we will need to expand this to comply with policy. -- ] (]) 13:13, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

====Support or not====
*'''Support''' - Nothing more is needed in this article for now. Our efforts are better directed to the other article. ]] 13:19, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
*'''<u>Option 2</u>''' No to proposed text <u>of option 1</u>. We can achieve the same goal with text which we already have concensus to, and which gives proper weight.  Example:
::{{tq2|In April 2019, Tara Reade said that in 1993, while she was a staffer in Biden's Senate office, he had inappropriately touched her several times on her shoulder and neck. In March 2020, Reade accused Biden of pushing her against a wall and digitally penetrating her while on Capitol Hill in 1993. On May 1, 2020, Biden said, "It's not true. I'm saying unequivocally it never, never happened, and it didn't. It never happened."}} ] (]) 14:03, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
:::That is too much unnecessary detail and seems to do exactly the opposite of the intent of ]. The NOTABLE part is the sexual assault claim. The prior claim isn't notable, and all the additional dates are not needed. Details of the alleged assault aren't significant either. -- ] (]) 14:11, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
:::It's not helpful to insert that alternative text in this section, because the poll is about whether to get rid of it. KB, you should just state your !vote "oppose" Scjessey's proposal and then if the outcome is that consensus rejects it, we can resume normal editing such as the wording you propose. Please conform to the purpose of this thread, which is to get editor views on Scjessey's proposal. Of course, you're welcome to start other threads as you wish. ]] 14:24, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
::::We don't have to start new RfCs or polls when someone has alternative text which accomplishes the same goal. This is '''option 2'''. This option does accomplish the goal of reducing it to a he-said-she-said and removes all of the evidence, the police report, and conclusions. We should not leave the text bare-bones until after the election and only reinsert it if he loses and people don't care if his reputation is affected. It's not appropriate to give Reade's story less detail than Lucy Flores, and we're not going to cut the rest of the section for consistency. ] (]) 17:54, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
* '''Support''' – Keep things barebones in the main bio for now. Curious readers can click to the allegation article. <small>No pun intended, but hey, can't un-write.{{fbdb}}</small> {{yo|Scjessey}} I took the liberty of correcting your typo in the proposed text. We could also do without repeating "Biden" twice, so i would suggest "former staffer" instead of "former Biden staffer". — ] <sup>]</sup> 15:05, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
*'''Support''' An article which contains the full information exists and is linked. This article need only direct the reader to that article for now. ] (]) 15:18, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
*'''Support''' - good solution. (I've been watching the article and this controversy since threads about it started appearing on numerous noticeboards, in case anyone finds it strange that I suddenly appear here with this edit.)] (]) 16:04, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
*'''Option 2''' is best. While I agree with OP we shouldn't "extensively documenting every aspect of it here", we also shouldn't over-correct by allowing only two sentences. This allegation is having a notable impact on his run for POTUS, according to recent polls, such as this : ''POLITICO/Morning Consult poll shows that more than a third of voters believe Democrats should abandon Biden as their nominee over the recent claims from the former Senate aide that date back to the early 1990s'' '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px #B8B8B8;">]]]</span>''' 21:15, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
:*Petra, it's preposterous to cite that poll and somehow infer a conclusion about Reade's dwindling credibility. That same 30% thought Hillary should be locked up, thought Ukraine was hiding a Biden crime syndicate, thought Pizzagate, and thinks Mike Pence is Vice President. Since when does America's 30% Republican core matter to the Democratic presidential nominaton?  ]] 21:20, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
::: What we believe is irrelevant.  The poll just shows how notable the story is.  We have better RS though.  ] (]) 21:27, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
::::Utter nonsense. The poll shows nothing of value whatsoever. -- ] (]) 21:36, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
::::K. Butternut, please stay on point here. Petra claimed that this poll demonstrated the allegation had a "notable impact" on Biden's run for President. That remains preposterous. None of what "we believe" was at play. ]] 21:39, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
:::::The poll Petra is talking about is an "''online poll.''" Donald Trump's lawyer, Michael Cohen, testified to Congress that Donald Trump pays companies to rig & manipulate online polls . Online polls are obviously not credible and are completely irrelevant to 2019 Reade's allegation & to Reade's 2020 allegation. ] (]) 15:13, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
'''Oppose''' - seeks to erase the RFCs above and consensus text not in dispute. i.e. to include the 2019 allegation and the 2020 allegation with wording “digitally penetrated”. The dispute seemed only about the NYT quotes and either dropping that as UNDUE or adding the opposing “corroboration” for BALANCE and having greater WEIGHT. '''Option2 is closer to the mark.''' Erasing RFC and prior consensus would only lead to repeating the content/ rfc and winding up with something like Option2 anyway, which with cites and wiki links I thought was:
::{{tq2|In April 2019, Tara Reade said that in 1993, while she was a staffer in Biden's Senate office, he had inappropriately touched her several times on her shoulder and neck.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Riquelmy |first1=Alan |title=Nevada County woman says Joe Biden inappropriately touched her while working in his U.S. Senate office |url=https://www.theunion.com/news/nevada-county-woman-says-joe-biden-inappropriately-touched-her-while-working-in-his-u-s-senate-office/ |accessdate=April 14, 2020 |work=The Union |date=April 3, 2019 |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20200401210312/https://www.theunion.com/news/nevada-county-woman-says-joe-biden-inappropriately-touched-her-while-working-in-his-u-s-senate-office/ |archivedate=April 1, 2020 |quote="He used to put his hand on my shoulder and run his finger up my neck."}}</ref> In March 2020, Reade accused Biden of ] while on ] in 1993. On May 1, 2020, Biden was asked about Reade's accusation on the ] program '']''. He said, "It's not true. I'm saying unequivocally it never, never happened, and it didn't. It never happened".<ref>{{cite news|last=Phillips|first=Amber|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/04/30/who-is-tara-reade-biden-accuser/|title=What we know about Tara Reade’s sexual assault allegation against Joe Biden|work=The Washington Post|date=May 1, 2020|access-date=May 1, 2020}}</ref>}}
:Cheers ] (]) 07:17, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' Current version of this (3rd paragraph in section ) is actually much better than any of these two versions. However, I think the previous 2nd paragraph in this section need to be written much shorter, i.e. just to say that "several women said Biden had touched them in ways that made them feel uncomfortable ". This is all what should be said. Right now 2nd paragraph is highly repetitive and provides a lot of unnecessary details. ] (]) 23:59, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
*'''Support''' - option 1 ] (]) 15:38, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

{{reflist-talk}}

====Comments====

'''New version May 10''' I think this resolves problems. ] (]) 12:04, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

<u>The below text misrepresents my version; it is out of context and leaves out the most substantial piece. Please see the section below where I have cited my actual edit.</u> ] (]) 12:59, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

:Your current version is this:
:{{tq2|In April 2019, former Biden staffer ] said that she had felt uncomfortable on several occasions when Biden touched her on her shoulder and neck during her employment in his Senate office in 1993.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Riquelmy |first1=Alan |title=Nevada County woman says Joe Biden inappropriately touched her while working in his U.S. Senate office |url=https://www.theunion.com/news/nevada-county-woman-says-joe-biden-inappropriately-touched-her-while-working-in-his-u-s-senate-office/ |accessdate=April 14, 2020 |work=The Union |date=April 3, 2019 |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20200401210312/https://www.theunion.com/news/nevada-county-woman-says-joe-biden-inappropriately-touched-her-while-working-in-his-u-s-senate-office/ |archivedate=April 1, 2020 |quote="He used to put his hand on my shoulder and run his finger up my neck."}}</ref> In March 2020, Reade accused Biden of ] while on ] in 1993.<ref>{{cite web |last1=Halper |first1=Katie |title=Tara Reade Tells Her Story |url=https://www.currentaffairs.org/2020/03/tara-reade-tells-her-story |website=Current Affairs |accessdate=10 May 2020 |date=31 March 2020}}</ref> On May 1, 2020, Biden said, "It's not true. I'm saying unequivocally it never, never happened, and it didn't. It never happened."<ref>{{cite news |last1=Phillps |first1=Amber |title=What we know about Tara Reade’s sexual assault allegation against Joe Biden |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/04/30/who-is-tara-reade-biden-accuser/ |accessdate=10 May 2020 |work=Washington Post |date=5 May 2020 |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20200506153901/https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/04/30/who-is-tara-reade-biden-accuser/ |archivedate=6 May 2020}}</ref>}}
{{sources-talk}}
:I would be inclined to edit it just a ''little'' bit:
:{{tq2|In April 2019, former Biden staffer ] said that she had felt uncomfortable on several occasions when he touched her on her shoulder and neck during her employment in his Senate office in 1993.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Riquelmy |first1=Alan |title=Nevada County woman says Joe Biden inappropriately touched her while working in his U.S. Senate office |url=https://www.theunion.com/news/nevada-county-woman-says-joe-biden-inappropriately-touched-her-while-working-in-his-u-s-senate-office/ |accessdate=April 14, 2020 |work=The Union |date=April 3, 2019 |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20200401210312/https://www.theunion.com/news/nevada-county-woman-says-joe-biden-inappropriately-touched-her-while-working-in-his-u-s-senate-office/ |archivedate=April 1, 2020 |quote="He used to put his hand on my shoulder and run his finger up my neck."}}</ref> In March 2020, Reade clarified her story, accusing Biden of ].<ref>{{cite web |last1=Halper |first1=Katie |title=Tara Reade Tells Her Story |url=https://www.currentaffairs.org/2020/03/tara-reade-tells-her-story |website=Current Affairs |accessdate=10 May 2020 |date=31 March 2020}}</ref> On May 1, 2020, Biden said, "It's not true. I'm saying unequivocally it never, never happened, and it didn't."<ref>{{cite news |last1=Phillps |first1=Amber |title=What we know about Tara Reade’s sexual assault allegation against Joe Biden |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/04/30/who-is-tara-reade-biden-accuser/ |accessdate=10 May 2020 |work=Washington Post |date=5 May 2020 |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20200506153901/https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/04/30/who-is-tara-reade-biden-accuser/ |archivedate=6 May 2020}}</ref>}}
{{sources-talk}}
:Reliable sources ''all'' point out that Ms. Reade expanded/clarified/changed her story, and if we are going to include all salacious details of her claim against Biden we should at ''least'' acknowledge this equally significant part of the story. "Clarified" is the most flattering word I can think of to describe her changed story. -- ] (]) 12:16, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
I've reinstated the status quo pending agreements on any changes on the talk page. Pointless to jump ahead of an active talk page discusssion. Also, we have learned at ] that there is no BLP concern with the stable version. ]] 12:21, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
:KB pointed out that the "extensive NYT investigation" was recently added and lacked secondary source, so I undid that and provided a different statement with a secondary source. ]] 13:40, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
::No, you are misrepresenting me.  I asked you to revert your edit because there was no consensus for such undue text.  I said nothing about sourcing.  You are edit warring. ] (]) 13:57, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
:::The wording you removed was not explicitly stated in the NYT source, so it could have been taken as editorial OR. That is what I understood from your edit summary about not stating it in WP's voice. However, the new text is sourced to a ], which I believe gives us a sufficient secondary RS to characterizes the investigation in WP's voice. ]] 14:53, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
::::Stop. My edit summary cited UNDUE and lack of consensus. Please remove this text. ] (]) 15:02, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
:{{reply|SPECIFICO}} What do you think of the edited version of Kolya's preferred text that I proposed above? -- ] (]) 12:23, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
::Scjessey, there seems to be emerging consensus for your initial proposal at the outset of this talk page section. That's really all we need to say at the moment. If developments warrant more, we can revisit that. There's really no rush. I don't think the "May 10" versions add any necessary content. The article edits that KB made are not consistent with the views expressed so far in this thread. ]] 12:32, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
:I added my actual May 10 version below. The Times quote is the most substantial piece; it does not make sense to offer alternatives to my out-of-context edits.
:The "clarify" wording is unrelated to my version; this word wasn't in the previous version either.
:SPECIFICO did not restore the "stable" version, the line about The Times investigation was not there before.
:We have not learned that there was not a BLPBALANCE violation. We have received various opinions. I feel my edit correct the BLPBALANCE violation.
:I note that there has been zero comment above actually discussing the changes I've made. ] (]) 12:52, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
::I apologize. At the time you linked to the paragraph in question, the text was as I copied directly from the article. It was why I presented it above as "your" version and then edited it to reflect changes I felt were necessary. -- ] (]) 12:55, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
:::No it wasn't; I didn't start this talk page section until after I had finished. The portion that you copied is accurate I believe, but the sentence you left out was in the article at the time. ] (]) 13:02, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
::::Okay. I guess there was an interim change I was unaware of. -- ] (]) 13:06, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

==Compromise proposal: May 10==
===The actual May 10 version===
<u> I believe addresses all of our disagreements.

The purpose for this proposal can be seen through the edit summaries in my series of edits beginning .It was reverted without comment on the content. Please comment below</u>  ] (]) 13:07, 10 May 2020 (UTC)<small>] (]) 18:40, 10 May 2020 (UTC)</small>

{{tq2|In April 2019, former Biden staffer ] said that she had felt uncomfortable on several occasions when Biden touched her on her shoulder and neck during her employment in his Senate office in 1993.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Riquelmy |first1=Alan |title=Nevada County woman says Joe Biden inappropriately touched her while working in his U.S. Senate office |url=https://www.theunion.com/news/nevada-county-woman-says-joe-biden-inappropriately-touched-her-while-working-in-his-u-s-senate-office/ |accessdate=April 14, 2020 |work=The Union |date=April 3, 2019 |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20200401210312/https://www.theunion.com/news/nevada-county-woman-says-joe-biden-inappropriately-touched-her-while-working-in-his-u-s-senate-office/ |archivedate=April 1, 2020 |quote="He used to put his hand on my shoulder and run his finger up my neck."}}</ref> In March 2020, Reade accused Biden of ] while on ] in 1993.<ref>{{cite web |last1=Halper |first1=Katie |title=Tara Reade Tells Her Story |url=https://www.currentaffairs.org/2020/03/tara-reade-tells-her-story |website=Current Affairs |accessdate=10 May 2020 |date=31 March 2020}}</ref> On May 1, 2020, Biden said, "It's not true. I'm saying unequivocally it never, never happened, and it didn't. It never happened."<ref>{{cite news |last1=Phillps |first1=Amber |title=What we know about Tara Reade’s sexual assault allegation against Joe Biden |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/04/30/who-is-tara-reade-biden-accuser/ |accessdate=10 May 2020 |work=Washington Post |date=5 May 2020 |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20200506153901/https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/04/30/who-is-tara-reade-biden-accuser/ |archivedate=6 May 2020}}</ref>
:
While ''The New York Times'' was investigating the Reade allegation,  no other allegation about sexual assault surfaced, and no pattern of sexual misconduct was found. <ref>{{Cite news|last=Lerer|first=Lisa|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/12/us/politics/joe-biden-tara-reade-sexual-assault-complaint.html|title=Examining Tara Reade's Sexual Assault Allegation Against Joe Biden|date=2020-04-12|work=The New York Times|access-date=2020-04-25|last2=Ember|first2=Sydney|language=en-US|issn=0362-4331}}</ref>}}  ] (]) 12:42, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
{{sources-talk}}

The beginning of the last sentence can be changed to "Over the course of". One important goal is to separate this from the Reade paragraph.  ] (]) 17:58, 10 May 2020 (UTC)


== Biden believes he could have won re-election ==
===Alternate version===
:I will simply edit it this new version:
:{{tq2|In April 2019, former Biden staffer ] said that she had felt uncomfortable on several occasions when he touched her on her shoulder and neck during her employment in his Senate office in 1993.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Riquelmy |first1=Alan |title=Nevada County woman says Joe Biden inappropriately touched her while working in his U.S. Senate office |url=https://www.theunion.com/news/nevada-county-woman-says-joe-biden-inappropriately-touched-her-while-working-in-his-u-s-senate-office/ |accessdate=April 14, 2020 |work=The Union |date=April 3, 2019 |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20200401210312/https://www.theunion.com/news/nevada-county-woman-says-joe-biden-inappropriately-touched-her-while-working-in-his-u-s-senate-office/ |archivedate=April 1, 2020 |quote="He used to put his hand on my shoulder and run his finger up my neck."}}</ref> In March 2020, Reade clarified her story, accusing Biden of ].<ref>{{cite web |last1=Halper |first1=Katie |title=Tara Reade Tells Her Story |url=https://www.currentaffairs.org/2020/03/tara-reade-tells-her-story |website=Current Affairs |accessdate=10 May 2020 |date=31 March 2020}}</ref> Biden said, "It's not true. I'm saying unequivocally it never, never happened, and it didn't."<ref>{{cite news |last1=Phillps |first1=Amber |title=What we know about Tara Reade’s sexual assault allegation against Joe Biden |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/04/30/who-is-tara-reade-biden-accuser/ |accessdate=10 May 2020 |work=Washington Post |date=5 May 2020 |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20200506153901/https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/04/30/who-is-tara-reade-biden-accuser/ |archivedate=6 May 2020}}</ref> While investigating the story, the ''New York Times'' found no other sexual assault allegations, and no pattern of sexual misconduct.<ref>{{Cite news|last=Lerer|first=Lisa|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/12/us/politics/joe-biden-tara-reade-sexual-assault-complaint.html|title=Examining Tara Reade's Sexual Assault Allegation Against Joe Biden|date=2020-04-12|work=The New York Times|access-date=2020-04-25|last2=Ember|first2=Sydney|language=en-US|issn=0362-4331}}</ref>}}
{{sources-talk}}
:I still prefer the abbreviated version favored by SPECIFICO, but I can live with this is well. -- ] (]) 13:06, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
::The sentence about what The Times found is not about the Reade allegation itself; it is about Biden's history which came up during the investigation, that's why I made it a separate paragraph.
::The word "clarify" is unsourced. It is unneeded; it is clear from the context that she made a new allegation. "Clarify" is inaccurate; these are two separate things that happened to her while at Biden's office. ] (]) 13:14, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
:::The NYT sentence does not need to be in a separate paragraph, because their investigation was predicated on Ms. Reade's complaint.
:::"Clarified" does not need to be sourced, because it isn't a quote. It is presented in Misplaced Pages's voice. If you prefer something sourced, "" is available, so how about {{tq|In March 2020, Reade changed her story dramatically, accusing Biden...}} instead? -- ] (]) 13:22, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
::::Why do you oppose The Times sentence being in a separate paragraph? You don't find my solution for compromise over this very contentious text to be reasonable?
::::I understand that you believe Reade's story is dubious, but we're not going to use a single Vox source when we have better sources, but we can discuss your Vox suggestion in another discussion. We're not going to use the contentious word "clarify" without sources. Again, "clarify" has nothing to do with this discussion; the word was neither in the previous version nor my suggestion. Please comment on my proposal. ] (]) 13:33, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
:::::We don't need to have a one-paragraph story spread out over two paragraphs, and since they are linked it makes perfect sense to keep them in the same paragraph.
:::::"We're not going to use..." - Misplaced Pages is a collaborative effort. You don't get to dictate what is or isn't in an article. Reade CHANGED her story, which is HUGELY significant. We cannot possibly exclude such a detail while having all the other stuff you insist on having. I've SLIGHTLY edited the version you proposed, and THAT is my comment on your version. -- ] (]) 13:39, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
::::::Please don't tone-police me.  ''We are not going to achieve consensus'' with unsourced contentious text.
::::::No, you have not edited my proposal, you have suggested an edit to the existing text that is unrelated to my proposal.  ] (]) 13:51, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
:::::::I ''literally'' copy/pasted your "My Proposed May 10 version" text and then edited it. -- ] (]) 13:53, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
::::::::That's pedantry.  ] (]) 14:00, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
:::::::::It's ''fact''. I've made ''very few'' changes to your proposal:
:::::::::#I changed a "Biden" to "he" (too many Bidens).
:::::::::#I added the "clarified" bit.
:::::::::#I removed the "Capitol Hill" location (such details are best left to the main article on the allegation).
:::::::::#I shortened Biden's response (there was redundancy).
:::::::::#I rearranged the NYT bit and pulled it into the paragraph.
:::::::::That's all I did. Nothing more complicated than that. -- ] (]) 14:12, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
::::::::::: You're missing my point.  No need to continue.  ] (]) 14:33, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
:To  ] - you copied this subsection on the WP talk page (here ) and asked people there to come here, to this subsection, and comment. Here's my comment:
: <b>Your edited text</b> {{tq|While ''The New York Times'' was investigating the Reade allegation, no other allegation about sexual assault surfaced, and no pattern of sexual misconduct was found.}} is ambiguous so may cause the WP reader to incorrectly infer that <i>'after'</i> the NYT investigation <i>'more'</i> allegations of sexual assault were found, and that would be a false inference.
:'''Your edit was reverted to''': "''The New York Times reported that "No other allegation about sexual assault surfaced in the course of reporting, nor did any former Biden staff members corroborate any details of Ms. Reade's allegation. The Times found no pattern of sexual misconduct by Mr. Biden.''" This reverted text is very clear, not ambiguous at all, and it does just what you said what you want it to do on the other WP talk page where you wrote: "''give information about Joe Biden's history, which is that nothing else like this is known to exist.''" So I '''support keeping the reverted text''' within this ] WP article. ~Respectfully ] (]) 17:05, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
:: That's missing the point of my edit.  ] (]) 17:38, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
:::What's the point it's missing? I also think the way it was reverted is much better. ] (]) 18:13, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
::::I've tried to figure that out as well. As far as I can tell it's the word "clarified" - which I object to as well but I'm guessing not for the same reasons: She did not ''clarify'' her story, she ''changed'' it.  ] (]) 18:20, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
::::It was to address the concerns in .  This alternate version is taking my proposal out of context.  We cannot discuss it if its purpose is ignored.  Look at my edit summaries.  ] (]) 18:24, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
:::::To ] - There's an old saying, "''if it ain't broke, don't fix it.''" The reverted text is perfect as is and does exactly what you claim you want it to accomplish. I '''support keeping the reverted text''' within this WP article. ] (]) 18:44, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
::::::I assure you that your preferred text in no way addresses my concerns. In addition, there was never a consensus for this text. ] (]) 18:48, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
:::::::That's substantially the same stable text that was in the article for about two weeks. The poll above was considering whether to keep that or to shorten it to a simpler bare-bones version. Consensus seemed to be going toward the latter. There's been no support for additional text that deprecates the NY Times. Quite the opposite on the talk page, at RSN, or, per several Admins at BLPN. I suggest we get back to the intial question, namely, the poll on Scjessey's proposed text vs the current text. ]] 20:03, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
::::::::: That text has not been stable.  Additional text is not equivalent to deprication.  ] (]) 20:26, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
:::::::::: You can check a diff around 12 days prior. Very little change. I think there was one other bit that was added or removed in the meantiem. At any rate, we have a poll in progress on Scjessey's original minimalist text. Let's resolve that firs and then if it does not prevail, we can work on other alternatives. ]] 21:31, 10 May 2020 (UTC)


In December 2024, as was widely reported, Biden told aides he regretted his decision to withdraw from the race; believing he would have won the election as his party's nominee.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Massie |first=Graeme |date=December 29, 2024 |title=Biden still regrets dropping out of 2024 race and believes he could have beaten Trump, says report |newspaper=] |url=https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/biden-trump-us-elections-2024-merrick-garland-b2671126.html |access-date=December 29, 2024 }}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |last=Pager |first=Tyler |date=December 28, 2024 |title=Joe Biden’s lonely battle to sell his vision of American democracy |newspaper=] |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/12/28/bidens-lonely-battle-to-sell-american-democracy/ |access-date=December 29, 2024 }}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |last=Tait |first=Robert |date=December 28, 2024 |title=Biden reportedly regrets ending re-election campaign and says he’d have defeated Trump |newspaper=] |url=https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/dec/28/joe-biden-regrets-dropping-out-re-election |access-date=December 29, 2024 }}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |last=Calder |first=Rich |date=December 28, 2024 |title=Biden regrets leaving presidential race, thinks he could’ve beaten Trump: report |newspaper=] |url=https://nypost.com/2024/12/28/us-news/biden-regrets-leaving-presidential-race-thinks-he-would-beat-trump/ |access-date=December 29, 2024 }}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |last=Stimson |first=Brie |date=December 28, 2024 |title=Biden still regrets dropping out of 2024 presidential race, believes he could have beaten Trump: report |publisher=] |url=https://www.foxnews.com/politics/biden-still-regrets-dropping-out-2024-presidential-race-believes-he-could-have-beaten-trump-report |access-date=December 29, 2024 }}</ref>
===Updating NYT reporting===
Since the original NYT investigation, more reporting has been done, and includes the earlier work as well as the latest findings. Can we move forward with a proposal that includes the current state of the case, as well as Biden's responses? In their latest piece, the NYT wording doesn't use the Biden talking point about the "pattern", so this updated reporting is preferable for our use in that it is not outdated, and doesn't include COI. We could quote this verbatim and call it a day.
:{{tq|The New York Times interviewed dozens of workers in Mr. Biden’s office in the early 1990s and was unable to find anyone who remembered any kind of sexual misconduct against Ms. Reade or anyone else in the office. Five friends, former co-workers and family members have come forward to corroborate that Ms. Reade told them of an episode of either assault or harassment.}}  '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px #B8B8B8;">]]]</span>''' 18:57, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
:I assume that quote would go after the text "penetrating her"? If so I would support that instead of my proposal. ] (]) 19:46, 10 May 2020 (UTC)


This information is confirmed by multiple ] and is obviously relevant to his notability as a politician. ] (]) 15:36, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
===Reset the reset===
:But is it actually relevant, (assuming its true). ] (]) 15:47, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
This is gone ''beyond'' the ridiculous. There are now umpteen versions, claims, counter claims and even arguments over text ''not even worked out on '''this''' talk page''. It's become almost impossible to understand what is going on. '''Yet again''', I find myself proposing what I ''first'' proposed:
{{tq2|In March 2020, former Biden staffer Tara Reade ] in 1993. Both Biden and his campaign denied the allegation.}}
This is the only way we can introduce stability into the article. Let the main article about the allegation be the battleground, not this BLP. The POV-pushing, edit warring and false claims of "consensus" '''must stop'''. -- ] (]) 19:29, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
:I do not support your proposal.  You have been part of this edit war when you restored The Times quote which was never a consensus.  Reducing the text to your proposal encourages edit warring to acheive the desired results of less text.  I worked very hard at a compromise, but your suggested changes did not address the changes I was making to the existing text.  We cannot address disagreements by introducing more disagreements.  ] (]) 19:53, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
'''* Support''' - the version posted by ] {{tq|"''In March 2020, former Biden staffer Tara Reade accused him of sexual assault in 1993. Both Biden and his campaign denied the allegation''"}} should be used. It seems to me that if we're going to put in-depth details of Reade's 2020 story, then for balance we'd naturally need to put in-depth detail of Reade's 2019 story. For example, we'd have to include the fact that on 4/6/2019 Reade wrote that her story about Biden, “'''''is <U>not</U> a story about sexual misconduct'''''.” Reade wrote that in her essay (published at The Union ) as a follow-up to her 4/3 Union interview where she told the Union that Biden touched only her neck and shoulders. And, since there is no in-depth detail of Reade's 2019 story, there should not be in-depth details of Reade's 2020 story. ] (]) 21:44, 10 May 2020 (UTC)


:"Anonymous Sources Said" is a red flag for ] articles. We're not a tabloid. ] (]) 22:34, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
== Editing problems ==
{{ref-talk}}


== Oldest living President of the United States box??? ==
Just a quick technical query (and yes, I'm aware this is not normally appropriate for article talk). Is anyone else having trouble editing some of the sections of this talk page? I have no "edit" button for over half the sections, and I'm forced to edit the whole page to add comments. It seems to be a problem unique to ''this'' talk page. -- ] (]) 21:41, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
:I have experienced this problem; I believe it was here. ] (]) 21:51, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
:I am also currently experiencing this problem on this page. ] 22:17, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
:Yes, I see edit at GA3 formal close, and then not until the second section of proposed reset. Cheers ] (]) 07:22, 9 May 2020 (UTC)


Aren't we pushing it too much, with trivia? Do we really need an Oldest living President of the United States succession box??? ] (]) 00:24, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
== Tactile politician? ==


No objections? I've deleted it. ] (]) 20:30, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
The article presently reads, " described himself as a "tactile politician" and admitted this behavior has caused trouble for him in the past." The source is pay-walled and I can't read it however from all that I've read he has not been aware of "trouble in the past." Does the source state this in those words? Reading this New Yorker article it is my impression that we could improve the wording to better describe his reaction to complaints of unwanted physical contact. Thoughts? ] (]) 19:21, 9 May 2020 (UTC) Say, I used to know how to break this chain of refs that appear below, but I've forgotten Anyone? ] (]) 19:23, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
: isn't paywalled for me for some reason? Here's the somewhat odd but relevant section / quote:
::{{quote|During a March 16 speech in Dover, Del., Biden '''referred to himself as a “tactile politician.”''' “I always have been, and '''that gets me in trouble as well''', because I think I can feel and taste what is going on,” he told the crowd.}}
:"Gets in trouble" might be better wording as its a direct quote; saying that he admit it's "caused trouble for him in the past" may be accurate but seems a little iffy. {{small|(P.S. I added the <nowiki>{{reflist-talk}}</nowiki> template further up to get rid of the ref chain below...)}}--] (]) 20:06, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 15:00, 6 January 2025

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Joe Biden article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19Auto-archiving period: 21 days 
This page is not a forum for general discussion about Joe Biden. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Joe Biden at the Reference desk.
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
Former good articleJoe Biden was one of the Social sciences and society good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
In the news Article milestones
DateProcessResult
September 18, 2008Good article nomineeNot listed
September 19, 2008Good article nomineeListed
April 22, 2020Good article reassessmentDelisted
June 28, 2020Good article reassessmentDelisted
October 4, 2020Good article nomineeNot listed
In the news A news item involving this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the "In the news" column on August 23, 2008.
Current status: Delisted good article
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.This page is about a politician who is running for office or has recently run for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some current political conflict or controversy. For that reason, this article is at increased risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This  level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.
WikiProject iconBiography: Politics and Government
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Top-importance).
WikiProject iconU.S. Congress High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject U.S. Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States Congress on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.U.S. CongressWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. CongressTemplate:WikiProject U.S. CongressU.S. Congress
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
This article is about one (or many) Person(s).
WikiProject iconUnited States: Delaware / Presidential elections / Government High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Delaware (assessed as Mid-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. presidential elections (assessed as Mid-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as Top-importance).
WikiProject iconUnited States Presidents: Donald Trump Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject United States Presidents, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of United States Presidents on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United States PresidentsWikipedia:WikiProject United States PresidentsTemplate:WikiProject United States PresidentsUnited States Presidents
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Donald Trump task force.
WikiProject iconPennsylvania Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Pennsylvania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pennsylvania on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PennsylvaniaWikipedia:WikiProject PennsylvaniaTemplate:WikiProject PennsylvaniaPennsylvania
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconPolitics: American High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as Top-importance).
WikiProject iconCollege football Bottom‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject College football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of college football on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.College footballWikipedia:WikiProject College footballTemplate:WikiProject College footballcollege football
BottomThis article has been rated as Bottom-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconScience Policy High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Policy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Science policy on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Science PolicyWikipedia:WikiProject Science PolicyTemplate:WikiProject Science PolicyScience Policy
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconBarack Obama (inactive)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Barack Obama, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Barack ObamaWikipedia:WikiProject Barack ObamaTemplate:WikiProject Barack ObamaBarack Obama

    Warning: active arbitration remedies

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

    • You must follow the bold-revert-discuss cycle if your change is reverted. You may not reinstate your edit until you post a talk page message discussing your edit and have waited 24 hours from the time of this talk page message

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

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

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

    If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. Remember: When in doubt, don't revert!
              Other banners: Top 25 reports; media mentions; pageviews; section size
              Top 50 Report and Top 25 Report annual lists
    This article has been viewed enough times to make it onto the all-time Top 100 list. It has had 82 million views since December 2007.
    This article has been viewed enough times in a single year to make it into the Top 50 Report annual list. This happened in 2020, 2021, 2023, and 2024.
    This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report 24 times. The weeks in which this happened:
    Media mentionThis article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:
    Section sizes
    Section size for Joe Biden (63 sections)
    Section name Byte
    count    		 Section
    total
    (Top) 9,772 9,772
    Early life (1942–1965) 9,050 9,050
    Marriages, law school, and early career (1966–1973) 10,450 27,033
    1972 U.S. Senate campaign in Delaware 1,826 1,826
    Death of wife and daughter 3,802 3,802
    Second marriage 8,351 8,351
    Teaching 2,604 2,604
    U.S. Senate (1973–2009) 74 39,472
    Senate activities 19,293 19,293
    Brain surgeries 2,434 2,434
    Senate Judiciary Committee 6,590 6,590
    Senate Foreign Relations Committee 5,856 11,081
    Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq 5,225 5,225
    1988 and 2008 presidential campaigns 44 16,364
    1988 campaign 10,829 10,829
    2008 campaign 5,491 5,491
    2008 and 2012 vice presidential campaigns 49 27,951
    2008 campaign 12,032 12,032
    2012 campaign 15,870 15,870
    Vice presidency (2009–2017) 77 38,362
    First term (2009–2013) 23,882 23,882
    Second term (2013–2017) 10,003 14,403
    Role in the 2016 presidential campaign 4,400 4,400
    Post-vice presidency (2017–2021) 6,681 6,681
    2020 presidential campaign 78 31,894
    Speculation and announcement 3,490 3,490
    Campaign 22,406 22,406
    Presidential transition 5,920 5,920
    Presidency (2021–present) 133 195,933
    Inauguration 6,205 6,205
    First 100 days 13,050 13,050
    Domestic policy 9,091 74,670
    Economy 19,261 19,261
    Judiciary 5,670 5,670
    Infrastructure and climate 13,846 13,846
    Immigration 11,541 11,541
    Pardons and commutations 3,460 3,460
    Pardon of Hunter Biden 5,366 5,366
    2022 elections 6,435 6,435
    Foreign policy 7,782 59,703
    Withdrawal from Afghanistan 11,473 11,473
    Russian invasion of Ukraine 12,113 12,113
    China affairs 10,192 10,192
    Israel–Hamas war 14,104 14,104
    NATO enlargement 4,039 4,039
    Investigations 23 13,988
    Retention of classified documents 5,768 5,768
    Business activities 8,197 8,197
    Age and health concerns 9,001 9,001
    2024 presidential campaign 19,183 19,183
    Political positions 30,857 30,857
    Public image 10,788 19,375
    Job approval 7,113 7,113
    Media depictions 1,474 1,474
    See also 238 238
    Notes 138 138
    References 17 1,680
    Citations 34 34
    Works cited 1,629 1,629
    Further reading 1,430 1,430
    External links 119 10,878
    Official 440 440
    Other 10,319 10,319
    Total 467,108 467,108

    Current consensus

    NOTE: It is recommended to link to this list in your edit summary when reverting, as:
    ] item
    To ensure you are viewing the current list, you may wish to purge this page.

    01. In the lead section, mention that Biden is the oldest president. (RfC February 2021)

    02. There is no consensus on including a subsection about gaffes. (RfC March 2021)

    03. The infobox is shortened. (RfC February 2021)

    04. The lead image is the official 2021 White House portrait. (January 2021, April 2021)

    05. The lead image's caption is Official portrait, 2021. (April 2021)

    06. In the lead sentence, use who is as opposed to serving as when referring to Biden as the president. (RfC July 2021)

    07. In the lead sentence, use 46th and current as opposed to just 46th when referring to Biden as the president. (RfC July 2021)

    08. In the lead section, do not mention Biden's building of a port to facilitate American aid to Palestinians. (RfC June 2024)

    Biden believes he could have won re-election

    In December 2024, as was widely reported, Biden told aides he regretted his decision to withdraw from the race; believing he would have won the election as his party's nominee.

    This information is confirmed by multiple WP:RS and is obviously relevant to his notability as a politician. ZebulonMorn (talk) 15:36, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

    But is it actually relevant, (assuming its true). Slatersteven (talk) 15:47, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
    "Anonymous Sources Said" is a red flag for WP:BLP articles. We're not a tabloid. Zaathras (talk) 22:34, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

    References

    1. Massie, Graeme (December 29, 2024). "Biden still regrets dropping out of 2024 race and believes he could have beaten Trump, says report". The Independent. Retrieved December 29, 2024.
    2. Pager, Tyler (December 28, 2024). "Joe Biden's lonely battle to sell his vision of American democracy". The Washington Post. Retrieved December 29, 2024.
    3. Tait, Robert (December 28, 2024). "Biden reportedly regrets ending re-election campaign and says he'd have defeated Trump". The Guardian. Retrieved December 29, 2024.
    4. Calder, Rich (December 28, 2024). "Biden regrets leaving presidential race, thinks he could've beaten Trump: report". New York Post. Retrieved December 29, 2024.
    5. Stimson, Brie (December 28, 2024). "Biden still regrets dropping out of 2024 presidential race, believes he could have beaten Trump: report". Fox News. Retrieved December 29, 2024.

    Oldest living President of the United States box???

    Aren't we pushing it too much, with trivia? Do we really need an Oldest living President of the United States succession box??? GoodDay (talk) 00:24, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

    No objections? I've deleted it. GoodDay (talk) 20:30, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

    Categories: