Talk:Joe Biden/Archive 11

Reade's story corroborators
Should we include this text: A similar edit was recently reverted. Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:49, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * "Reade's brother and multiple friends corroborate that in the 90s she told them about a nonconsensual sexual incident involving Biden."

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

, as you reverted similar text, would you share your opinion? Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:54, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

The word "friends" may be imprecise. We could replace "Reade's brother and multiple friends" with "Reade's brother and multiple contacts". Kolya Butternut (talk) 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. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:01, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , 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?  Kolya Butternut (talk) 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. TFD (talk) 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?  Kolya Butternut (talk) 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.  Volunteer Marek   22:41, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , which sources discuss these two details? Kolya Butternut (talk) 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. SPECIFICO talk 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. Zaathras (talk) 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 "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 WP:UNDUE mess. - MrX 🖋 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. Kolya Butternut (talk) 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. - MrX 🖋 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.  Gandydancer (talk) 01:33, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , did you see the sources I added below and the quote from the New York Times? (I propose the NYTs quote itself as an alternative.)  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). Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:40, 2 May 2020 (UTC) Kolya Butternut (talk) 07:49, 2 May 2020 (UTC)


 * 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. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 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." BBC, Two more people, another friend and Reade’s brother, have said she mentioned “a traumatic sexual incident involving Biden”." The Guardian, "Friends and family of Reade’s have corroborated parts of her account to news outlets" time, "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." Forbes, "     Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:20, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Corroborated is the correct term per RS, those saying otherwise have not been researching the topic whatsoever.
 * Buzzfeed News "Subsequent reporting has corroborated elements of Reade’s story."
 * NYT "And in large part, she corroborates the story that Tara had told me."
 * WashingtonPost "List of Corroborators"
 * NPR "Former Neighbor Corroborates Tara Reade's Account Of Sexual Assault By Joe Biden"
 * Fox News "AP report: Two more sources corroborate Tara Reade's allegations"
 * NY Mag "New Sources Corroborate Timeline of Sexual Assault Accusation Against Biden"
 * Nation "...Business Insider published this account, corroborating Reade’s prior testimony"
 * TIME "Friends and family of Reade’s have corroborated parts of her account"
 * FORBES "...corroborated parts of Reade’s story"
 *  petrarchan47  คุ  ก   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. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:38, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Two alternatives
How about this? This is what is heavily reported by the RS themselves: "1. Reade's brother and other personal contacts corroborate that in the 90s she had told them about a nonconsensual sexual incident involving Biden."

"2. 'Several of Ms. Reade’s friends have said she told them about a traumatic sexual incident involving Mr. Biden.'"

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

Washington Post, "The sexual allegations against Joe Biden: The corroborators"
 * A friend "said she learned of the alleged assault from Reade in 1993".
 * Her brother "recalled Reade telling him in the early 1990s that Biden had cornered her and put his hands under her clothes."
 * "Lynda LaCasse, Reade's neighbor in the mid-1990s....'[Reade] felt like she was assaulted'".

New York Times, "Biden Denies Tara Reade's Assault Allegation: 'It Never Happened'", "Several of Ms. Reade’s friends have said she told them about a traumatic sexual incident involving Mr. Biden."
 * Kolya Butternut (talk) 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.  SPECIFICO talk 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?  Kolya Butternut (talk) 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.  SPECIFICO talk 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. Kolya Butternut (talk) 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. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 09:59, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your feedback . It sounds like you feel the word "corroborate" is violates 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? "Several of Ms. Reade’s friends have said she told them about a traumatic sexual incident involving Mr. Biden." Kolya Butternut (talk) 14:33, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Why should we use the word corroborate when simpler less ambiguous words are available? TFD (talk) 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? Kolya Butternut (talk) 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. TFD (talk) 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 WP:BLPBALANCE violation.  The existing NYTs text needs to be removed now.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:44, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * User:Kolya Butternut - 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 Markbassett (talk) 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 "NY Times faces blowback for removal of controversial passage on Biden sexual assault allegation" about the NYT “The Times Took 19 Days to Report an Accusation Against Biden. Here’s Why,”.  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 Markbassett (talk) 06:32, 4 May 2020 (UTC
 * Yes, this has been much discussed at Reliable_sources/Noticeboard and on this talk page Cheers. Kolya Butternut (talk) 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. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:35, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

BLP noticeboard Kolya Butternut (talk) 12:57, 4 May 2020 (UTC) 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 WP:WEIGHT concerns, it leads to vagueness and inaccuracy that would be worse. -- Scjessey (talk) 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. Kolya Butternut (talk) 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.  SPECIFICO talk 14:34, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Collaboration means offering up something -- suggestions, sources, solutions, not unsourced problems which are BLPTALK violations against Tara Reade. Kolya Butternut (talk) 14:44, 4 May 2020 (UTC) Kolya Butternut (talk) 15:16, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I think the prompting thing is to be expected in cases like this, and not really all that important a consideration. -- Scjessey (talk) 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 related thread here.  SPECIFICO talk 16:45, 4 May 2020‎
 * I don't think it is significant for this biography. -- Scjessey (talk) 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.  SPECIFICO talk 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:
 * 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. -- Scjessey (talk) 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. , 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.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:31, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 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. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:11, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 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.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 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.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 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.  SPECIFICO talk 16:56, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Please discuss what the RS say, rather than stating your opinions as facts. Also mind your own business.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:07, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * This is the existing text: Biden's 2020 presidential campaign has denied the allegation.[384][385] 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: 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?  Kolya Butternut (talk) 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. -- Scjessey (talk) 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.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 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):"'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.'"
 * Kolya Butternut (talk) 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. -- Scjessey (talk) 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.  SPECIFICO talk 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 [your] 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.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 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.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 21:12, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * No it is not . Please see WP:BRD. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 21:24, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It is policy that text must have consensus; BRD is not a policy. Kolya Butternut (talk) 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. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 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.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:06, 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.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:06, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

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. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:35, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , 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:  Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:48, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 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. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:41, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 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.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 12:52, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 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. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:23, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 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.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 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? -- Scjessey (talk) 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.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 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. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:35, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Working drafts
Original suggestion: -- Scjessey (talk) 14:56, 5 May 2020 (UTC) Edited: Kolya Butternut (talk) 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. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:59, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I can't really separate out the context. Kolya Butternut (talk) 15:02, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'll look at the whole thing. Did you intentionally exclude Ms. Reade's brother? -- Scjessey (talk) 15:03, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * We should change that to "Some friends and family". Kolya Butternut (talk) 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. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:09, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Draft of revision:

Kolya, I'm not completely happy with this draft, but it represents my current thinking. Feel free to post another revision. -- Scjessey (talk) 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. Kolya Butternut (talk) 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! -- Scjessey (talk) 17:26, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Um, is that what collaboration looks like? Ok, I will try.

Edited: Kolya Butternut (talk) 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. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:14, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Not to mention the POV OR insinuated between the cherrypicked bits of reported fact. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 19:32, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yup, there does seem to be an element of that. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:37, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Just keep the door ajar. You'll be OK.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 19:47, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , 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.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 06:06, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , I don't feel that you're contributing anything constructive here; just not abiding your warnings with all that loaded language. Kolya Butternut (talk) 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. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:10, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , 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.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 13:38, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Your interesting revisionism notwithstanding, I think you have a misunderstanding of Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia is not meant to be covering the latest news, 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. -- Scjessey (talk) 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.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 14:17, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * But I invite others to join in. Kolya Butternut (talk) 14:51, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

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/   petrarchan47  คุ  ก   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:"'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.'"  Kolya Butternut (talk) 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. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 02:23, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * No, we'll work it out, don't worry.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 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 Markbassett (talk) 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. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 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. Kolya Butternut (talk) 15:00, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * From The Nation* (perhaps this can be distilled into a couple sentences?)
 * 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.   petrarchan47  คุ  ก   22:08, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Editing problems
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. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:41, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I have experienced this problem; I believe it was here. Kolya Butternut (talk) 21:51, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I am also currently experiencing this problem on this page. userdude 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 Markbassett (talk) 07:22, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Tactile politician?
The article presently reads, "[Biden] 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? Gandydancer (talk) 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? Gandydancer (talk) 19:23, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The source isn't paywalled for me for some reason? Here's the somewhat odd but relevant section / 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 [him] 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. (P.S. I added the template further up to get rid of the ref chain below...)--Bangalamania (talk) 20:06, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Tara Reade reset
I have just suggested at WP:BLP/N 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? -- Scjessey (talk) 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.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 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:"'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 date]. 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.'"
 * 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.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 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. 63.69.65.83 (talk) 21:59, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * No - should include at least the existence of allegation and denial, per WP:BLPPUBLIC. 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 WP:BLPBALANCE the details are going to need both sides covered, and by WP:NPOV the corroberations should get far more content than a quote from NYT as reflecting their greater proportion of WP:WEIGHT.  It's not reasonable to exclude any mention of the allegation until 'later', because clearly 'later' might never arrive.   Cheers Markbassett (talk) 07:20, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * +1. Exactly so. Levivich&thinsp;<sup style="white-space:nowrap;">[dubious – discuss] 07:37, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * No, the area of dispute is the whole thing, because it likely didn't even happen. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:06, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * You need to stop with the BLPTALK violations. Your opinion is interfering with policy goals.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 13:58, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * You have a fundamental misunderstanding of policy, Kolya. -- Scjessey (talk) 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.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 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.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 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? {[tq|the area of dispute is the whole thing, because it likely didn't even happen. - Scjessey}} Oh. Well, WP:OR 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".   petrarchan47  คุ  ก   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. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 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.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:48, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

New coverage
If we do "start again" after a reset, this Vox article 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. -- Scjessey (talk) 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. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 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. Kolya Butternut (talk) 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. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 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. -- Scjessey (talk) 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. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:21, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Now that's interesting. - MrX 🖋 22:11, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Is Kelly currently employed? Is this going to be self-hosted internet video? <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 22:37, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The interview has already happened, but has not been published in full: 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 WP:NOTFORUM 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. userdude 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. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 23:29, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * User:Scjessey 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 Markbassett (talk) 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. Exclusive: 1996 court document confirms Tara Reade told of harassment in Biden’s office Sir Joseph (talk) 03:42, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * please see the court document above. Kolya Butternut (talk) 04:50, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * - that's useful, thank you. Is there anything you want me to do?  starship .paint  (talk) 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. Kolya Butternut (talk) 04:59, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * - 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?)  starship .paint  (talk) 05:03, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 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. Kolya Butternut (talk) 05:17, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * - 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. 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 [Reade], and that she is still sensitive and effected [sic] by it today."  starship .paint  (talk) 05:21, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that; not sure how I missed this. Kolya Butternut (talk) 05:44, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Proposed reset text
I think what 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 undue weight:

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. -- Scjessey (talk) 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. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 13:19, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 *  Option 2  No to proposed text of option 1 . We can achieve the same goal with text which we already have concensus to, and which gives proper weight.  Example:
 * Kolya Butternut (talk) 14:03, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * That is too much unnecessary detail and seems to do exactly the opposite of the intent of WP:UNDUE. 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. -- Scjessey (talk) 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. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 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.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:54, 8 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Support – Keep things barebones in the main bio for now. Curious readers can click to the allegation article. No pun intended, but hey, can't un-write. 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". — JFG talk 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. Gandydancer (talk) 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.)Smeat75 (talk) 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 one: 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   petrarchan47  คุ  ก   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? <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 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.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 21:27, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Utter nonsense. The poll shows nothing of value whatsoever. -- Scjessey (talk) 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. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 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. BetsyRMadison (talk) 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:
 * Cheers Markbassett (talk) 07:17, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Cheers Markbassett (talk) 07:17, 9 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose Current version of this (3rd paragraph in section Allegations_of_inappropriate_physical_contact) 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 [refs]". This is all what should be said. Right now 2nd paragraph is highly repetitive and provides a lot of unnecessary details. My very best wishes (talk) 23:59, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - option 1 BetsyRMadison (talk) 15:38, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Comments
New version May 10 I think this resolves problems. Kolya Butternut (talk) 12:04, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

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. Kolya Butternut (talk) 12:59, 10 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Your current version is this:


 * I would be inclined to edit it just a little bit:


 * 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. -- Scjessey (talk) 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 WP:BLPN that there is no BLP concern with the stable version. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 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. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 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. Kolya Butternut (talk) 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 FiveThirtyEight, which I believe gives us a sufficient secondary RS to characterizes the investigation in WP's voice. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 14:53, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Stop. My edit summary cited UNDUE and lack of consensus.  Please remove this text. Kolya Butternut (talk) 15:02, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * What do you think of the edited version of Kolya's preferred text that I proposed above? -- Scjessey (talk) 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. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 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. Kolya Butternut (talk) 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. -- Scjessey (talk) 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.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 13:02, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay. I guess there was an interim change I was unaware of. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:06, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

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

Oddly enough, I disagree. Guy (help!) 21:23, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
 * It seems like important context to me. How is it undue? – Muboshgu (talk) 21:31, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , these random authors are not experts in the subject also the quotation inside templates to highlight what they said, is giving them undue weight. Cant be included in the article. Also, this is irrelevant to the article, what they are talking about is their (the authors) findings and excuse to why they didnt report the incident, it has nothing to do with the incident itself, its about their lack of reporting the story which isnt even in this article. -- SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 21:36, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
 * They are investigative reporters and they investigated the allegation. Also, that no other women have made any allegations against Biden stands in stark contrast to the cases of Donald Trump, Bill Clinton, and others who have engaged in sexual misconduct. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:51, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The reporters are expert investigative reporters who are thoroughly aware of and dedicated to best practices for such investigation. They also provided a great deal of transparency as to the scope and nature of their investigation -- who they interviewed and some of the substance of those conversations. "Random authors" is really not applicable here. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 21:57, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I do not see anything wrong with noting that NYT did not find any other allegations of sexual assault. That just means that they didn't find any.  There could or could not be more, as we have seen before.  Given the correction by the NYT they should be looked at a bit more skeptically than under normal circumstances.  The statement "The Times found no pattern of sexual misconduct by Mr. Biden" though seems to be undue to me.  This seems to be them expressing an opinion on the entirety of the claims by Reade (and others) and those that could (or could not exist) which we know nothing about (the known unknowns).  The problem with this statement about "misconduct" is that some of the past general allegations of inappropriate physical contact (touching shoulders, smelling hair etc) could be seen as "misconduct", "harassment" or simply inappropriate.  Is the NYT talking about those claims too?  There clearly is a pattern of complaints there.  That is clearly not assault, but could be misconduct, harassment or simply inappropriate.  We are not under any obligation to take the NYT's characterization of those known allegations as the gospel truth.  Sure, they found no pattern of sexual assault... and maybe they don't CONSIDER these other allegations misconduct.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:13, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
 * This article is about Joe Biden, their own findings are irrelevant here, they are making an excuse why they didn't report the story earlier, if we are going to add that quote that we should give the context, which is that the NYT didn't report the allegation for long period of time.-- SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 22:21, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The NYT investigative journalists investigated Biden, so it fits. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:23, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
 * They are not experts or notable. They are only journalists. Their story is interesting but it is undue. Also, giving them a big fat quote template is giving much more undue weight.-- SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 22:18, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
 * "Only journalists".... how dismissive. You realize how much Wikipedia owes to journalism? – Muboshgu (talk) 22:21, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
 * This is a legal matter that involves a BLP. You need real legal investigators not journalists making an excuse why they didnt report the story.-- SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 22:23, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
 * So we can't use the New York Times as a source for articles about legal cases in the news? Then we'll have to delete a lot of articles starting with the Impeachment of Donald Trump. TFD (talk) 23:13, 17 April 2020 (UTC)


 * NYT is generally reliable for non-political subjects. It's important to keep in mind that the Biden campaign is running the NYT's coverage of the Biden campaign, 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. SeriousIndividuals (talk) 01:20, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , no, the Biden campaign is not "running" the NYT's coverage. It is normal for a newspaper to check content with a subject, and equally normal for them to take a conservative approach when the subject has specific objections. Citing right wing media bubble sources such as the Daily Caller as a source for a supposedly factual statement on bias in the mainstream is a problematic position on Wikipedia and I suggest you don't do that.Guy (help!) 11:53, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I included two left-wing bubble sources in my previous comment. It's one thing to take a "conservative approach." It's another thing to forward articles for a campaign's approval before publication. Or in this case, to publish a factually correct story that provided needed context for Tara Reade's allegation by describing previous allegations of sexual misconduct, and then removing the context under the direction of a candidate's PR team. Imagine if the Trump campaign had that kind of control over the NYT? Whoo, boy. SeriousIndividuals (talk) 21:37, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
 * 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. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 21:55, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I provided the links just in case someone here didn't know about what happened. If you don't think the journalists were telling the truth about the actions taken by Kenneth Vogel, Glenn Thrush, and Mark Leibovich, I suggest you voice your concerns with them. SeriousIndividuals (talk) 22:08, 18 April 2020 (UTC)


 * You wrote, . 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.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 12:24, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Due and undue weight says articles are required to "represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." The opinions expressed by the New York Times reporters and other reporters in mainstream media are the most significant viewpoints in that they have received the most prominence in mainstream sources. And the most significant aspect of the story is that the claims are not considered credible. If the claims aren't credible and have received little coverage of course it raises the question of why we should mention them at all. Personally I have no idea how credible they are, just repeating the opinion expressed in reliable sources. TFD (talk) 23:13, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I would support including this, but not as a standout quote. We could paraphrase it to something like "Reade's allegations could not be corroborated with former Biden staff and no other sexual assault accusations came to light during an investigation by the New York Times." The last sentence of the original quote and the attribution are not necessary. - MrX 🖋 00:33, 18 April 2020 (UTC)


 * The current section is fine as is, hopefully with the addition of the criminal complaint once the above RfC concludes. Further details about Biden's mishandling of Reade can be/should be included in Joe Biden sexual assault allegation. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme Talk 📧 00:59, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
 * You say. Meanwhile int he real world there was a long period when people were trying to crowbar this contrent into this article but failed because it had zero coverage in good quality sources, and when we do get coverage in a good quality source (NYT is top tier for reliability), we find that they explicitly state that the allegation is not credible, which explains why it got no traction earlier. In a BLP, that is about as relevant as it gets. Guy (help!) 09:23, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Your statement is a BLP violation against Tara Reade. The NYTimes did not state that. Kolya Butternut (talk) 12:52, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
 * If I understand correctly, K.B., this is the same claim you are making at the BLPN thread you opened. But without links and specifics, I don't think the rest of us are seeing this. Could you provide those? <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 13:24, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
 * You want a link to the NYTs article we're discussing? WP:LIBEL, WP:ONUS. Kolya Butternut (talk) 15:44, 18 April 2020 (UTC)


 * The details of what reporters sought and could not find are superfluous and undue. The noteworthy allegations of sexual misconduct are included in this article, readers can infer no other instances have been found.  If we're going to write about staff members who saw nothing, we're going to have to write about the interns who the NYTs failed to describe as "corroborating" that she abruptly stopped supervising them, and we're going to have to write about what her friends and her brother heard about her experience. Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:33, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Could you provide sources and examples of that kind of additional article content, if that's what you are proposing? <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 01:48, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

It sure seems like many editors here are extraordinarily keen to make sure Biden's biography contains a sexual assault allegation, but not include journalism from one of the world's most reliable sources that casts serious doubt on the allegation. Why could that be? -- Scjessey (talk) 13:36, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think we should be using "the world" interchangeably with "Democrats." 53% of Democrats trust the NYT. 15% of Republicans share that trust. 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. SeriousIndividuals (talk) 21:46, 18 April 2020 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet. -- Scjessey (talk) 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. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:06, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
 * What's your source that says "the world" trusts the NYT? I gave you my source that shows just 53% of Democrats, which the NYT caters to, trusts the NYT. I think it's only fair I see your source. Regarding the "credibility" of Tara Reade's corroborated, evidence-backed account of her experience, it's not up to us to decide if we BelieveWomen or not. That's why three women with no evidence or corroboration for their claims all have hundreds of words describing their stories on Brett Kavanaugh's page. SeriousIndividuals (talk) 22:12, 18 April 2020 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet. -- Scjessey (talk) 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 Wikipedia. Different pages are influenced by different editors and will vary wildly in terms of quality generally and specifically when it especially comes to controversy/criticism of article entities. As somebody who's looked at a lot of articles on Wikipedia about domestic abuse, sexual assault, et cetera, it's the consistent inconsistency that sticks out most to me. "But X isn't presented in Z way, so Y shouldn't be either" isn't really an argument. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 05:22, 19 April 2020 (UTC)


 * I've asked for clarification at the RS/N; given that the NYT made a substantive edit to their piece at the request of the Biden campaign, the article might have limited use for the encyclopedia.   petrarchan47  คุ  ก   03:04, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, Slate addresses the NYT piece:
 * Whether they intend to or not, the explicit framing around the lack of pattern ends up making a statement about Reade’s believability. Not every sexual abuser makes a habit of committing multiple similar assaults in a span of a few years, but in recent years, both readers and reporters have become accustomed to gauging accusers’ credibility by counting their numbers. If an abuser leaves a trail of survivors in his wake, we demand they all make their allegations known to the press if any one of them is to be believed, in defiance of the personal and professional risks. (Reade says she didn’t tell her full story sooner because she was doxed after merely alleging that Biden had harassed her.) We’ve been spoiled, in the worst possible sense of the word, by the proliferation of stories detailing yearslong patterns of sexual violations committed by the likes of Harvey Weinstein, Bill Cosby, Roger Ailes, Matt Lauer, Bill O’Reilly, Charlie Rose, and Donald Trump. We’ve come to expect every abuser to come with an entire fleet of women giving the same details.   petrarchan47  คุ  ก   02:51, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , 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.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:01, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

, we could use more eyes on this section. Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:30, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , 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) – 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)  – 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)  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. Levivich&thinsp;<sup style="white-space:nowrap;">[dubious – discuss] 21:06, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , 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.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 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.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:23, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , 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 WP:ALLPRIMARY and related discussion in the context of academic journals at RSN.) 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 WP:OR. 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. Levivich&thinsp;<sup style="white-space:nowrap;">[dubious – discuss] 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; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 23:15, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , 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.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:26, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I mainly reverted because the main reason you gave for reverting seemed to be that it was somehow WP:OR 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; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 23:43, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , 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.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:53, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * 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. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:06, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , 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. Kolya Butternut (talk) 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. -- Scjessey (talk) 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? I am not a cannibal, hop in <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 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".  Kolya Butternut (talk) 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. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 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".  Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:49, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Please review our behavioral guideline on this kind of repetitive talk page insistence. 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? <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 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?    Kolya Butternut (talk) 06:19, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Editors are using a passage from the NYT article that contains the removal of a disclaimer regarding Biden’s pattern of misconduct (NY Times faces blowback for removal of controversial passage on Biden sexual assault allegation | TheHill) 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.  petrarchan47  คุ  ก   18:16, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , 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: . BTW, I find Jack Shafer's op-ed in Politico this week to be pretty comprehensive in its survey of media coverage of the allegation . Levivich&thinsp;<sup style="white-space:nowrap;">[dubious – discuss] 20:22, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for helping. With regard to media coverage, might I recommend this new piece 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 here, 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 evidenced by 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.
 * [O]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.   petrarchan47  คุ  ก   21:53, 30 April 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 Robertexs (talk) 08:22, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I've opened a straw poll 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:         petrarchan47  คุ  ก   14:58, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * In case it is not clear from my comment above, I object to the use of the wording "The Times found no pattern of sexual misconduct". As we know the original NYT piece said there was no pattern... besides the other allegations of unwanted touching etc.  This was later retracted and changed at the request of the Biden campaign to omit mention of those complaints.  It is not WP:NPOV for us to use this to suggest there was no other misconduct allegations and to downplay the "inappropriate physical contact" that some, myself included, see as sexual harrasment/misconduct compaints.  Reasonable people can disagree whether those amount to "sexual misconduct compaints" or not.  It seems the original writer/editor thought they did at the time.  We should not be saying they do not amount to misconduct compaints.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 18:34, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Trim the campaign section?
I think there is too much granular detail in the paragraphs describing the 2020 course of the primary campaign. I would like to trim it by about half, if others here don't object. IMO we should just have a summary in this biography; the details are in the main articles about his campaign and possibly about the Democratic primary. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:10, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It was the most recent edit to the page that expanded it. I agree with cutting it back. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:18, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed. It has its own article. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:21, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Wilmington theatre sit-in
'During these years, he participated in an anti-segregation sit-in at a Wilmington theatre.'

Even the terminology smacks of invention, with 'these years' instead of a date and 'a Wilmington theatre' (which one?). Sit-ins attracted attention - there would be flyers advertising them and newspaper reports on them. Local media would seek out the views of those who took part, owners of targeted businesses, police and local politicians. Were theatres even segregated in Wilmington in 'these years'? The sentence should be adequately referenced or removed. Forest723 (talk) 12:17, 11 May 2020 (UTC)Forest723
 * To Forest723 Here's what the NYT write, "Mr. Biden has said that he protested a segregated movie theater in demonstrations in Wilmington, Del. at the Rialto Theater in the early 1960s. His account is backed by a former president of the state chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People and a former president of the Delaware A.F.L.-C.I.O." In another paragraph NYT writes, "A 1987 edition of “Current Biography Yearbook,” a magazine that profiles American figures, noted that Mr. Biden had participated in “anti-segregation sit-ins at Wilmington’s Town Theatre during his high school years.” The former NAACP president the NYT refer to as backing Biden's account is Richard “Mouse” Smith who told the Washington Post  that he protested beside Biden at the theater. Smith also wrote an op/ed saying the same thing, "We know Joe as the ally who was there beside us to protest the Rialto Theater’s discriminatory policy to segregate moviegoers based on race."  I hope all that helps you. Regards, BetsyRMadison (talk) 13:27, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Betsy, please see the archived discussion of sources for Biden's claim of sit-in participation, which RS describe as dubious: . This was discussed in great detail, and everything you bring up was mentioned. Consensus was to delete the sentence; please do not restore unless you have a new convincing argument to discuss. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 16:34, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * To Zloyvolsheb - No worries. I had no intention to restore it. If you read my comment, you'll find I was just trying to help Forest723 find the answers to his/her questions. Regards BetsyRMadison (talk) 00:42, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

RfC: Infobox picture
Considering a noticeable age difference between the current infobox picture and now, I think it might be time for an image change. I have a few proposals below. Thoughts? (Originally started by User:Cliffmore but without RfC template. At that time the lead image was his 2013 official portraint. ) Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:19, 8 April 2020 (UTC) Kolya Butternut (talk) 04:04, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

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

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


 * I would support changing it to the second image. <b style=background:#0800aa;padding:2px> <b style=color:white>Nixinova</b> </b><b style=background:#006eff;padding:2px> <b style=color:white>T</b> </b><b style=background:#00a1ff;padding:2px> <b style=color:white>C</b> </b> 07:37, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree. However, over at Hillary Clinton, editors opposed updating her 2009 picture until long after the 2016 election was over on the grounds that Secretary of State was the position for which she was most notable. It reminds me of official pictures of Kim Il Sung, which continued to show him as a young revolutionary until he finally died of old age. TFD (talk) 23:11, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Hard to say, I don't know what's more significant, his current run or his Vice Presidency. At some point his Vice Presidency may become less important than his current run but I don't know when that would switch over or if it already has. Geographyinitiative (talk) 05:36, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I would say that if he wins a few primaries, then a change is definitely needed. There may be a need to change before that, but I'm not familiar with picture-switching policies.Geographyinitiative (talk) 06:04, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * our current pic ~is~ five or six years old. surely someone has something more up-to-date from so famous a person. Cramyourspam (talk) 23:43, 29 December 2019 (UTC)


 * I oppose any change. The official picture is the proper one to use for a former vice-president of the United States.--Rusf10 (talk) 00:09, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose He is the former VP and his official portrait is the proper one to use. What's next? Are we gonna replace Bush or Clinton's official presidential picture as they age? Plot twist, we all age but that doesn't mean we have to change a distinguished politicians official portrait to a more recent pic. By that logic should we change Jimmy Carter infobox image? --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 05:45, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support 2nd one we have changed Bernie Sanders' "official" image. This is not a state department website, we don't need to use so-called "official images". We should use the more accurate (recent) one.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 06:22, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support I would support changing it to the second image. Telluride (talk) 21:26, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support second photograph as best depicting the subject. While VP is the highest office that he's held, I would argue that he is roughly equally notable for his senatorial career, his vice presidency, and his candidacy for president. - MrX 🖋 16:21, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , do you know how to reopen this RfC? I added a new photo too.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 16:51, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The RfC was never closed. - MrX 🖋 16:57, 8 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose #2, Support #3 His face now takes up way too much space in the infobox, it's kind of terrifying. — Goszei (talk) 00:40, 10 February 2020 (UTC).
 * Support any of them, He is relevant now in the political realm and to oppose the change gives anybody ignorant of his current age a wrongful impression. There should be a picture of him when he served as Vice President somewhere in the article to associate with that time period. But arguing that it shouldn't be changed. because he was Vice President makes it sound like his relevancy now is moot. -- EliteArcher88 (talk) 22:52, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support The third image. Also, he is at a healthier distance. This is a really trivial issue. The other two too obviously reveal his beautiful veneers. No sense in provoking an ageist debate on here. -Random person at the City of Camarillo Public Library — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.79.113.210 (talk) 00:09, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Image 3. As his official portrait is unlikely to be reintroduced to the infobox, I would support the third image as his face does not take up much space there. Lochglasgowstrathyre (talk) 20:24, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support 3 It's the best picture; it demonstrates him in action. ~ HAL  333  22:14, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support updated photo. I don't think his VP photo should be used because he is famous at his current age and known now for running for president. I think if he loses and falls out of the spotlight it could go back to his VP photo because that's how he'll be remembered.  Like after movie star dies we can go back to a younger photo from when they were most famous, like an obituary photo.  That being said, I think the three choices aren't very good.  I've found a better one (which is still less than ideal because he's facing to the right and not wearing a suit). Other crops can be made if it's too close.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:19, 1 April 2020 (UTC) Joe_Biden_(48554137807)_(cropped).jpg
 * While my first choice is the fourth photo, my second choice is his official VP photo because the others are so poor. Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:04, 11 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment Why not use one of his offical portraits 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   Spy-cicle💥   Talk?
 * This RfC is precisely discussing whether to change the lead image from his official photo as vice president to something more recent. When this RfC began the lead image was the official portrait from 2013.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:58, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 * We have an official portrait from when he was an officeholder. There is no need to resort to lower-quality images. This is not a difficult choice. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 14:25, 10 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Note I have added his official portrait since there hasn't been an actual consensus in which "recent" photo would be best to replace the official portrait. Seeing that within this week there has been constant changing of the lead image I have placed the official portrait back on the infobox with a note saying that it should not be change until a final consensus on which picture would be best to replace it and hopefully it will stop the constant back and forth. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 09:42, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , please revert. The consensus was clearly against the seven year old photo. I mistakenly reopened this RfC because I had thought an official close was necessary.  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 Kolya Butternut (talk) 10:51, 16 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Support #4 (File:Joe Biden (48554137807) (cropped).jpg; presumably added by ). Biden is now more notable as the presumptive 2020 Democratic nominee than as former VP, so the recent images are preferable to the "official" portraits. Of the three images offered by Cliffmore: in the first, he is looking down; in the second, the crop is too tight and his teeth are distractingly prominent; in the third, his face and eyes are in shadow. userdude 14:42, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Offical Portrait 2013. Where we have a fairly recent official portrait, that is prefereble. He is running for president and the candids, aside from lower visual quality, are inappropriate where the high quality professional alternative is avaliable. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 18:16, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * As I stated in my edit summary, consensus was already acheived against the official portrait. I opened this RfC back up with a new photo.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:36, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * So you're claiming you opened it and then you closed it? Go to WP:AN. Or leave well enough alone and drop it. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 18:41, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Please refrain from incivil personal comments. I did open reopen it, it's easy enough to see that it was at the time of my first edit to the RfC.  I have not closed it.  Please revert and discuss before escalating.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:49, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Nobody is going to "escalate" - AN is where you can request closure by an uninvolved Admin. But if the 2019 RfC was indeed closed, you should have started a new one with new information or alternatives. Closed is closed, unless there's a valid closure review. I haven't been following this, I just saw that a good photo was replaced by the worst alternative of the whole lot, a close-up candid-looking crop that's out of character with the subject. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 19:23, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * We've had consensus for two months against the 2013 photo. Affirmed by .. Please revert to the consensus until this reopened RfC is closed. Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:08, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * You characterized the fourth photo, in this version as the "worst alternative of the whole lot, a close-up candid-looking crop". This comes off as disingenuous.  The other new photos are all candid crops (and you could edit them for a zoomed out crop).  I feel like you may be personalizing past disagreements.  Please don't escalate tensions.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:20, 20 April 2020 (UTC)


 * I'd support the 2013 VP photo as the photo. There is no need to change it. Corky  18:56, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Support official portrait - Yes it is from 2013 but I think it is best to use last official portrait. Similar to Barack Obama. PackMecEng (talk) 18:58, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * ,, did SPECIFICO communicate something to you about this RfC? Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:43, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Ummmm... no. It’s called I saw the change on my watchlist and came to see the discussion. I’ve never liked the idea of removing an official image, especially of a VP or POTUS or top government official. Corky  20:25, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * No, and I am just as confused as you that I would be agreeing with her. Right ? PackMecEng (talk) 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. Meatsgains (<b style="color:#5F9EA0">talk</b>) 15:59, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Support official portrait, which is the convention we normally apply to all politicians. -- Scjessey (talk) 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. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 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 Markbassett (talk) 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. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 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. ToeFungii (talk) 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. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 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) Epluribusunumyall (talk) 03:44, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Support official portrait. It's the best quality picture that we currently have of him. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:43, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Support official portrait per User:Scjessey and User:Epluribusunumyall, and because it's a better photo than the others proposed here. —Granger (talk · contribs) 15:13, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support official portrait per Mx. Granger 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. --Comment by <b style="color:#14866d">Selfie City</b> ( talk about my  contributions ) 15:27, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support official portrait per above. --Wow (talk) 20:39, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support contemporary portrait - He is currently running for president. Readers should see what he looks like now, not have to relive the "glory days" when he was VP.  This was applied at 2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries and should be at 2020 United States presidential election also.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:52, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support official portrait The portrait we use of Donald Trump dates back to 2017, so if we change this one, I'm going to insist that we do the same for the other, and I will keep insisting until it gets done. FollowTheSources (talk) 23:59, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Summarizing the split-off articles
It's been almost a month since Vice presidency of Joe Biden and United States Senate career of Joe Biden were split off from this article, yet none of the prose for those sections has been removed here. If no one wants to summarize those articles, we should just replace those sections with the leads from the respective sub-articles. If that isn't acceptable either, we should undo the splits. We can't just have duplicate content indefinitely. Kaldari (talk) 21:50, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , you are right, but undoing the splits is not the way to go. We really need to start cutting from this article now. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:00, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Cutting it down to the lede from each fork sounds like a good starting point. Once that's done, we can move in a bit more detail, if necessary. FollowTheSources (talk) 22:01, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Can we change the archive period to 3 or 7 days?
Can we change the archive period to 3 or 7 days? --Jax 0677 (talk) 21:45, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I just changed it to 7 days. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:49, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I think that was a mistake. Waaay too short. This talk page just lost a ton of semi active discussions. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:15, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah that went too far. I'm undoing that archive, and I set the archiving to 14 days, and increased the archive size from 80k to 180k. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:40, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

List of federal political sex scandals in the United States
Should that article include Biden? It currently includes Kavanaugh and says that the accusations were not corroborated and denied. Biden's case is similar.— Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 13:39, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * No. And the cases are not similar. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:38, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * In both cases the Wikipedia articles describe them as being supported by some evidence, but not officially corroborated by investigations. They were denied by the people accused and mostly made known by one person (Reade and Blasey Ford), decades after the supposed event. The Biden accusation is not totally investigated yet. The Kavanaugh accusation has been investigated by the FBI and proof was not found, but it was suggested by the accuser that the administration was politically biased against it.— Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 17:04, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Contrary to what Kavanaugh's lawyers claimed, there was NOT an "FBI investigation". -- Scjessey (talk) 17:40, 15 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes, of course it should include Biden on the list. --Comment by <b style="color:#14866d">Selfie City</b> ( talk about my  contributions ) 15:58, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok, but why "of course"? It doesn't seem obvious to me, so perhaps you could explain your reasoning. FollowTheSources (talk) 22:19, 17 May 2020 (UTC)


 * No Biden should not be put on that list at the moment, as is said above the accusation has not been investigated totally yet. Smeat75 (talk) 17:35, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * No - The cases are not similar, at all. And, if Biden were listed, which one of Reade's stories would be included? First of all, Reade's story not only changes year-to-year but, as of May 2020, Reade's story has changed month-to-month. Dr. Ford's story never, never changed. Second: Which one of Reade's stories would be included? <U>Reade's 2018 story</U> where Reade said she willingly resigned because of her unwavering "I love Russia with all my heart" and her disdain for America - or- her March 2020 story</U> where she said resigned because she was 'forced to' after she filed a complaint against Biden -or- Reade's <U>May 2020 story</U> where she said she never mentioned Biden in any 1993 complaint, and never mentioned sexual assault, or sexual harassment. Third, which story about Biden would be included? <U>Reade's 2019 story</U> where Reade writes that her story about Biden "is not a story about sexual misconduct" - or - <U>Reade's 2020 story</U> where she drastically changes her 2019 story from "is not a story about sexual misconduct" to "sexual assault."  Fourth, if Biden were listed, which month in 2020 would be included? <U>Reade's March 2020 story</U> where Reade said: I'll never forget Biden said would you like to go somewhere else -or- <U>Reade's May 2020 story where Reade says I'll never forget he said I want to f%@k you.  Reade has so many conflicting stories that is seems to me WP editors would have to figure which one of Reade's stories would be included before considering using any of Reade's stories about Biden. BetsyRMadison (talk) 21:50, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * No, because there is no parallel with Kavanaugh. With Kavanaugh, there were hearings in Congress to discuss his political appointment, and his accuser's story was considered plausible enough that Congress officially wanted her to testify. With Reade, there is just a private citizen making an unsupported claim and personally demanding that Biden drop out. FollowTheSources (talk) 22:18, 17 May 2020 (UTC)


 * The discussion belongs in the list article not here. Note that there is no deadline on reporting information. We spent weeks discussing whether the allegations should be included in Biden's article when no legacy media had mentioned it and later when it had received one article in the New York Times. We should stop playing crystal ball and have patience. Arguments could be made for or against inclusion, but if we wait say a week we will be in a better situation to know. TFD (talk) 23:46, 18 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I agree with The Four Deuces that this is outside the scope of the talk page, but I feel like this should be said, lest there be accusations of a double standard on Wikipedia: the lead of List of federal political sex scandals in the United States states Politicians' sex crimes are not covered in this particular list, regardless of whether there has been a verdict yet so the Joe Biden sexual assault allegation is outside of the scope of the list regardless. I have boldly removed Biden and Kavanaugh from the list accordingly. userdude 09:23, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Wikilink "47th" in lead?
About a month ago, I wikilinked 47th in the lead to List of vice presidents of the United States (Special:Diff/951520482). At some point since then, someone reverted this edit. I am taking this to the talk page per BRD.

I wikilinked "47th" for consistency with Donald Trump, where there is a weak consensus to keep the wikilink in the lead, but not in the infobox (discussion). Regarding consistency, the ordinal number that the subject held office is currently wikilinked to the list of officeholders in Donald Trump and Mike Pence, but not Barrack Obama, George W. Bush, or Dick Cheney.

Should 47th be wikilinked? userdude 08:33, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Alleged digital rape of Tara Reade
Why doesn't this allegation have much more prominence in the wiki page on Biden? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:A845:CD00:C936:C39D:9B66:8FB5 (talk) 21:11, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * There are a lot of reasons to doubt the allegations. The New York Times has reported that “Antioch University had disputed her claim of receiving a bachelor’s degree from its Seattle campus”, which strongly indicates her claims of sexual assault are not reliable. Samboy (talk) 18:56, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Because [IMO there are some] POV-pushing contributors [who] have arbitrarily chosen not to include the details of the investigation. Really it ought to be covered fairly; read the above discussions to identify the issue. Politics aside, it’s important and even what exists is threatened to be removed from the page. --Comment by <b style="color:#14866d">Selfie City</b> ( talk about my  contributions ) 21:27, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , stick to content, don't discuss other editors. Assume good faith. This page is too long as it is and needs to be trimmed. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:43, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * OK, fair enough, as I can see that my tone might have seemed harsh here. I meant it as written. --Comment by <b style="color:#14866d">Selfie City</b> ( talk about my  contributions ) 21:46, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * That's still a problem. We are not POV-pushing contributors and we haven't arbitrarily chosen not to include the details. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:48, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I’m not referring to you specifically, but the fact that there exist POV-pushing contributors. Let’s take it to my talk page; really I didn’t mean it that way. --Comment by <b style="color:#14866d">Selfie City</b> ( talk about my  contributions ) 21:50, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I’ve adjusted the wording, though, per what you’ve said. Better? --Comment by <b style="color:#14866d">Selfie City</b> ( talk about my  contributions ) 21:51, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * No. I would have preferred it if you struck it entirely. If you want to discuss adding something to the existing content, propose something. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:19, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Given that there is in fact a chance that Biden allegedly raped this girl (digital rape) and could possibly become the President, I believe that needs to be at the top of the wiki article. Women deserve to have that kind of importance in this day and age. Their stories matter.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:A845:CD00:C936:C39D:9B66:8FB5 (talk) 00:48, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * We are not here to right great wrongs. We follow the WP:WEIGHT given by reliable sources, many of which are skeptical of this allegation. BTW, our current president has been accused of sexual misconduct by approximately 40 women, and it's not "at the top" of his article. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:20, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with SelfieCity's answer, and I don't see a problem with giving an honest answer to a direct question. Levivich&thinsp;<sup style="white-space:nowrap;">[dubious – discuss] 15:51, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The OP/IP should have read the talk page. - MrX 🖋 16:07, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * You agree with describing numerous editors as “POV pushing contributors” just because they disagree with someone? I’ll remember that next time you go trying to wag your finger at someone for giving “honest answers”.  Volunteer Marek   08:35, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

New Burisma Recordings
There is new Burisma recordings coming out, I think it should be included because it is obviously important. Sir Joseph (talk) 03:50, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Interesting, give it a couple days but might be something there. Here are some additional sources. PackMecEng (talk) 03:55, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * A heavily edited tape where Biden says exactly what we've all been saying happened in the first place? You want to rush that in? Hunter Biden isn't mentioned. Surely Fox News had new talking points, but it has no weight. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:02, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * No one linked Fox? PackMecEng (talk) 04:04, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Just me being snarky. I'm thinking the story here is foreign interference in the election. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:25, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Ohhh I'll snark you alright! PackMecEng (talk) 04:28, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , our article says "Trump and his allies falsely accused Biden of getting the Ukrainian prosecutor general Viktor Shokin fired" we might need to revisit that. Sir Joseph (talk) 04:30, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , our article says "Beginning in 2019, Trump and his allies falsely accused Biden of getting the Ukrainian prosecutor general Viktor Shokin fired because he was ostensibly pursuing an investigation into Burisma Holdings, which employed Hunter Biden." That statement is correct. It was dishonest of you to edit the quote deceptively. Just like the Ukrainian politician who released that audio of Biden and Poroshenko. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:04, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * You said "Just like the Ukrainian politician who released that audio of Biden and Poroshenko", what do you mean? What did the politician do?-- SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 05:08, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * A Ukrainian politician, Andriy Derkach, leaked edited tapes of an audio call between then-Vice President Biden & then-Ukraine President Poroshenko . This same Ukraine politician, Derkach, has "registered criminal proceedings" with Ukraine's prosecutor general to investigate Biden & Poroshenko, which is what Trump is alleged to have 'been abusing his office & US taxpayer money to force Ukraine to do (investigate Biden) & was Impeached over. A subsequent Washington Post article says, "Ukrainian prosecutor general’s office said Wednesday that it has opened an inquiry on counts of high treason and abuse of power or office based on Derkach’s allegation that the [leaked & edited] tapes point to Biden’s influence on Poroshenko." BetsyRMadison (talk) 13:12, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * And Derkach met with Rudy Giuliani back in December. I wonder what they talked about. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:19, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, Muboshgu - you are correct. And I agree with your comment above "the story here is foreign interference in the election." in May 2019 The New York Times reported on Giuliani's plans to go to Ukraine and wrote, "Mr. Giuliani’s plans [of meeting with Derkach & others] create the remarkable scene of a lawyer for the president of the United States pressing a foreign government to pursue investigations that Mr. Trump’s allies hope could help him in his re-election campaign" - which is what Trump is Impeached for. Last December, after Giuliani met with Derkach, The Washington Post reported that Giuliani was meeting with people in Ukraine to push a story that Ukraine & VP Joe Biden, not Russia, interfered in 2016 elections to help Hillary Clinton. BetsyRMadison (talk) 16:25, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * What should be added is this from Ukraine https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iaE9OZ89bnQ That totaly destroyes Biden. All recordings, so nice. 91.76.22.132 (talk) 17:55, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The tape adds nothing to what is already in the article, that Biden held up a billion dollar loan guarantee until the prosecutor was fired. Putting it in adds nothing. TFD (talk) 19:38, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * No, no. The prosecutor that rearrested Burisma LLC after its money was arrested by UK (remember, Cyprus offshore) and that oligarch was trying to remove arrest on Burisma assets in Ukraine but it failed because of Shokin. Lets tell all details, please. 91.76.22.132 (talk) 19:45, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The sources seem to indicate that this may be something that we would briefly included in the article, if the recordings can be authenticated as being recording of Biden. I would like to see what content is proposed and what section it would go in to. - MrX 🖋 20:29, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Some quotes from Poroshenko-Biden calls
from here from Ukraine prosecutors https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iaE9OZ89bnQ (they talk mostly in Russian and English and a little bit of Ukrainian). About Privatbank and its nationalisation (time code 45:00). Biden: "This is getting very, very close. What I don’t want to have happen. I don’t want Trump to get into the position where he thinks he’s about to buy on to a policy, where the financial system is going to collapse, and he's gonna be looked to to pour more money into Ukraine. That’s how he’ll think about it before he gets sophisticated enough to know details." Oh, my!🤣🤣🤣 91.76.22.132 (talk) 19:25, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * "Oh my"... what? You think this is a smoking gun? Sounds pretty standard. Keep discussion on the recordings in one place, at – Muboshgu (talk) 19:29, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, sounds pretty standard for Biden. Anyway. We knew it for months now. 91.76.22.132 (talk) 19:40, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * TO 91.76.22.132 - Your Youtube link is a news presser for Ukraine politician Andriy Derkach. I feel these tapes would be better within an article about 'foreign interference in US elections' and here's why I say that. The Washington Post report that the audio tapes Derkach leaked, "<I>shed relatively little new light on Biden’s actions in Ukraine, which were at the center of President Trump’s impeachment last year. They show that Biden, as he has previously said publicly, linked loan guarantees for Ukraine to the ouster of the country’s prosecutor general in 2015.</i> The Post describes Derkach as "Derkach has past links to Russian intelligence. He attended the Dzerzhinsky Higher School of the KGB in Moscow. His father served as a KGB officer for decades before becoming head of independent Ukraine’s intelligence service in the late 1990s. His father was fired from that post amid a scandal over a Ukrainian journalist who was kidnapped and murdered."  Reliable sources are connecting Giuliani, Derkach, Russia, and Russian interference in US elections to help Donald Trump. BetsyRMadison (talk) 21:33, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * You do understand that back then when KGB existed Ukraine was part of Russia right? In USSR? Anyway, "relatively little new light" is mostly true, except for some details about Voice [of Soros] party and Biden controlling it (and controlling what it was before it became Voice) and some details about majorities at different periods. What it did though, it has proven "beyond reasonable doubt" . Also, your whole argument about interference is, though open for discussion, is really strange as I am russian, you know. 2A00:1370:810C:FB59:CCD4:C7C5:9198:46FF (talk) 23:21, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Df is “Voice [of Soros]”?  Volunteer Marek   07:29, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voice_(Ukrainian_political_party) About why it is Soros' party you can read using this link and google translate. Thanks god to Google tech. 94.29.3.116 (talk) 17:27, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

You ain't black
I don't know how big a controversy this really is, but I'm surprised it isn't at least mentioned in any of the articles about Biden. It is mentioned here and I'm wondering if anyone objects to my creating a redirect, seeing as how the very long discussion above seems to indicate it won't be in any Biden-related articles. — Vchimpanzee  •  talk  •  contributions  •  19:31, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , yeah, we object. If it's not in the article, it shouldn't be a redirect to the article. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:39, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I mean the redirect is to an article that mentions the controversy.— Vchimpanzee  •  talk  •  contributions  •  19:50, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I may have asked this in the wrong place, but this is the place where I saw why this redirect may be needed.— Vchimpanzee  •  talk  •  contributions  •  19:58, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I didn't realize there is a redirect for that already. If it's on Charlemagne's page, it should redirect there. If it should even be a redirect at all. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:06, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I just created it, but I should probably have asked first. That's why I'm asking here.— Vchimpanzee  •  talk  •  contributions  •  20:11, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * If we were ever to adopt that level of indexing and linking, there would be 10,000,000 new redirects to add. I don't think it is useful <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 21:21, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Okay, well, I found it using a search function so that will work if anyone wants to find it that way.— Vchimpanzee  •  talk  •  contributions  •  21:42, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I didn't list this on WP:RFD because I tried before when I made a mistake and realized once the redirect target gets its own article, the redirect that was a mistake wouldn't be useful, and I couldn't figure it out. If anyone wants to, go ahead, and then we can find out whether to keep it.— Vchimpanzee  •  talk  •  contributions  •  21:54, 29 May 2020 (UTC)