Talk:Joe Biden/Archive 9

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


 * I agree. I would also mention that the Current Biography Yearbook relies in part on the subjects themselves for their information. Since Biden has fabricated considerable amounts of his biography (in fairness he is not the only candidate to do so), I would remove the Yearbook as a source and delete any other information that cannot be reliably sourced. TFD (talk) 22:55, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I also agree. This sounds like a reasonable change given where this information comes from. BeŻet (talk) 18:05, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

The issue is not whether we as editors believe that the subject of a biographical article is credible or believe a specific factual claim included in a BLP. The issue is whether the fact presented in the article is supported by appropriate reliable sources. Biden's claim about having participated in two anti-segregation protests, and the attestation of the retired NAACP official who recalls him attending an anti-segregation protest at the Rialto, are covered in multiple, major media sources. The claim of the Intercept article cited above, "Although King was unable to produce conclusive proof that Biden did not protest outside the movie theater, he highlighted obvious contradictions and errors in the former vice president’s at times confusing account of his activities in the 1960s which leave plenty of room for critics inclined to disbelieve him.", is not the same as repudiation. Arllaw (talk) 19:59, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , thanks for weighing in. Which reliable sources, specifically, describe Biden as having participated in a sit-in while he was a student at Archmere Academy, as stated in Wikipedia's own voice in this article? So far the only source found to support that claim has been the Current Biography Yearbook 1987. This is a dubious source because Biden backtracked on his claims during his campaign for the 1988 Democratic nomination. This is indeed not a matter of my beliefs, but a question of reliable sources. It's possible that Biden did at one point participate in a desegregation protest of some sort (I actually can imagine that), but there is no reliable source I am aware of. (If a "major media source" did report that Biden claimed to have participated in a sit-in while in high school, we would have to write "Biden claimed to have..." as that would still be a claim made by Biden, only attributed to him by someone else.) Have you located any good sources? Zloyvolsheb (talk) 21:09, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I have found mention in a variety of major news articles, including the New York Times, that Biden participated in a couple of anti-segregation protests in his youth. But the issue here does not appear to be that those sources don't exist, but that some editors don't believe that the events described in the articles occurred as described. If you can demonstrate that Biden says that he never participated in any such protests, that's the source that would be helpful to resolve this question, not innuendo based upon other claims Biden has made. Arllaw (talk) 06:29, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , could you actually list here some of the "variety of major news articles" you are saying you have found, so I can take a look at them? Given that Biden himself conceded that he was not an activist, I am skeptical you have those sources. Again... if a source reported that Biden claimed to have participated in X, we would have to write "Biden claimed to have..." as that would still be a claim made by Biden, only attributed to him by someone else. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 15:49, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I would like to point out that Zloyvolsheb has helpfully provided sources above that Biden protested the cinema while he was in high school and in 1962 (when the protests occurred). Since Biden finished high school in 1961, at least one of these facts is false. REDFLAG and WP:BALASP apply. It's an extraordinary claim that requires better sources and it's not significant enough to include. TFD (talk) 22:43, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * It's certainly possible that Biden also did some kind of "sit-in" while in high school, say in 1960, before the actual documented protests (pickets) in 1962-1963, sure. But there's no source except the problematic Current Biography Yearbook 1987. Biden may have verbally claimed he was involved in desegregation during high school, in college, that he finished in the top half of his law class, that he was arrested in South Africa trying to see Nelson Mandela on Robben Island, but we clearly need to find reliable sources before asserting any such statement in our own voice. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 23:50, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The retired NAACP official who describes being present with Biden at the Rialto protest indicated that the date discrepancy was a product of trying to recall events from fifty years before. That's right in The Intercept article that is being presented as a basis for removing the claim from the article. It is not the job of editors here to investigate claims that we don't believe are credible and change articles based upon our independent research. If some reliable sources state that an event occurred and some suggest that it did not, it is appropriate to present both sides rather than choosing sides. Arllaw (talk) 06:29, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * As per WP:RS and WP:SECONDARY, the retired NAACP official is not a reliable secondary source, so we don't care what he says, only what reliable secondary sources tell us. It's up to the people who write secondary reliable sources to determine if Richard Smith is credible. It's not up to Arllaw or Zloyvolsheb. You claim that you have media sources confirming Biden took part in desegregation. Can you list the sources? Any links, maybe? Article titles to type into Google? Zloyvolsheb (talk) 16:02, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * If there is confusion about the dates, we can't say that Biden did this when he was in high school. TFD (talk) 17:27, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The NAACP official is quoted in the article that is ostensibly the basis for making this change, even though that article asserts that Biden's youthful participation in desegregation protests has not been disproved. So we have media coverage of Biden's claims, confirmation of the claims from Biden's campaign, a corroborating witness, and a later statement from the witness stating that the controversy over the date of a specific protest may be an error of his memory fifty years after-the-fact. If it is the case that some people are intent upon performing independent research, disregarding what the sources they offer in support of their position say, and removing material that is in fact supported by reliable sources, that's not a battle I'm interested in waging against them -- but that's not the proper role of a Wikipedia editor.Arllaw (talk) 18:03, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * No, the NAACP official is not the basis for the proposed change. The basis is the insufficiency of reliable sources for the sit-in claim in the article as it is written now. I am well aware of the statements by Biden, his campaign, and his friend Richard "Mouse" Smith, the NAACP official. That's why I included them as background for other editors at the beginning of this discussion. Notably, the reporters do not repeat these claims themselves, except as reports of Biden's statements. Now, let's take a look at the sentence I proposed removing. It states, in Wikipedia's voice, that Biden took part in a sit-in during his time as a student at Archmere Academy. We know Biden graduated from Archmere Academy in 1961, so any of Biden's or his campaign's or his friend Smith's claims about participation after 1961 are irrelevant to the change I have proposed.
 * As per The Intercept, Biden's campaign now states he took part in desegregating one theater. (He previously claimed it was at least two.) The Biden campaign stated he took part in desegregating the Rialto Theater in 1962. As The Intercept states, Richard "Mouse" Smith met Biden in 1962, when Biden took a job at the swimming pool. Biden graduated from Archmere Academy in 1961. The Joe Biden Wikipedia article states he took part in a sit-in during high school. So the article effectively states he participated in a theater sit-in before 1962, but his campaign claims he took part in "protesting" against one theater in 1962. You may want to include Biden's other claims (we can agree to disagree on that), but do you agree that the sentence about a sit-in during Biden's time at Archmere Academy has insufficient sourcing for inclusion? Would you agree to removing this specific sentence? Zloyvolsheb (talk) 19:02, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * This is the same thing as the sexual assault allegations. We don't know how credible either story is, because they have not received scrutiny. REDFLAG and NEWSORG both tell us to ignore them, but instead we throw out the policy and replace it with whatever individual editors find important. The problem is that we all have different views of the world and therefore could never agree on what is important. TFD (talk) 23:17, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , these are both allegations that can be discussed as allegations. The difference is that Tara Reade's allegation and Biden's denial of it can be discussed in the space of 1, or maybe 2-3 sentences. The allegation of Biden's participation in desegregation protests, in light of the contradictions as, for example, noted in The Intercept, in addition to his own public backtracking from the claim of having been a civil rights activist in 1987, his omission of it in his autobiography, etc. would require much more space to explain objectively. We could do that, but it would overwhelm the article, so it's a WP:DUE WP:BALASP issue (as you noted). Zloyvolsheb (talk) 00:25, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
 * TFD, no one has suggested we include any mention of whether the sexual allegations are credible, and certainly Blasey Ford's hadn't received scrutiny when we added her allegation either. Are you in doubt that the allegation was made, or that Biden responded to it, or both? Because that is all we need sourcing for, since we are simply stating these two things occurred using ample, high quality RS. WP:NEWSORG is satisfied: News reporting from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact.*, *    petrarchan47  คุ  ก   00:56, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
 * When allegations are mentioned there is always the implication that they have some credibility, otherwise one would not mention them. Certainly the people who reported these comments believe they have some credibility. Only a gossip repeats stories about people when they have no idea how credible they are. BTW Biden has not denied the allegations. Politicians don't deny allegations against them that have not been reported in major media. And the Brett Kavanaugh accusations did receive scrutiny. Reporters in all major media read them and decided they were credible enough to publish. TFD (talk) 02:42, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
 * OK, but the allegation you're coming back to has been reported in some major media. Biden's campaign denied it. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 05:09, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Balancing aspects says, "An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news."

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

TFD (talk) 06:23, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
 * TFD, please don't assume. I am not a Republican voter or a libertarian, and it shouldn't matter if I were anyway.
 * It's tiring to have to return back to Reade over and over. I'm glad that we at least agree as far as the sit-in; we'll have to disagree about Reade. Again, I feel that the reader is best informed by being given all relevant information about a subject. For BLPs that means including allegations for which multiple WP:RS exist, as stated in policy. At the same time we want to follow good writing principles and not edit an article in an unbalanced way (as outlined in WP:BALASP). I feel that 1-2 sentences about Reade would not disrupt the flow, balance, or structure of the article, or prejudice the reader against either Reade or Biden.
 * But I believe it would take paragraphs to inform the reader about Biden's claims on desegregation protests in light of the many contradictory statements made by Biden himself. So I don't think we can include entire paragraphs discussing Biden's dubious claims of having been involved in civil rights protests, not because they are unproven claims -- and to the very best of my knowledge, they are unproven claims that WP:RS do not accept -- but because, given the many contradictions involved, it would create an unbalanced article if we were to devote multiple paragraphs to a minor controversy. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 07:31, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
 * While it may be that some want to include or exclude a claim for political reasons, that's a separate issue from adding or deleting material based upon one's own subjective belief as to its veracity or based upon an editor's own independent research. A 'balancing aspects' objection to the inclusion of a minor event from the high school activity of the subject of a BLP is a separate issue, and one that is far more compelling in the present context than an objection along the lines of "I don't believe it so it shouldn't be included." Arllaw (talk) 16:35, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I am not sure what you are arguing regarding independent research. No one has the right to add information based on their own independent research, however all editors have the right to investigate and discuss sources to decide if they are mainstream, reliable, and correctly interpreted when summarized or rephrased within an article. That kind of "independent research", if it may be so called, is encouraged, and we have talk pages to discuss it among ourselves. I believe your second point regarding "balancing aspects" agrees with my own. I believe it's time to request a protected edit to delete the sentence in question, given that three out of the four editors who have weighed in support doing that and you are also coming around as well, if I understand your last statement correctly. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 23:05, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 11 April 2020
Requesting to delete the sentence "'During these years, he participated in an anti-segregation sit-in at a Wilmington theater.[20]'" from section Early life (1942–1965).

I already opened a talk page discussion concerning the problematic nature of this statement and its source on April 1, 2020. Discussion attracted a total of four participants. Two others, TFD and BeŻet, expressed support. The only other participant (Arllaw) appeared opposed but seems to have acknowledged the problematic nature of including the statement. Whether that amounts to 3/4 or 4/4, consensus clearly supports removing this sentence. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 19:31, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done I have removed the sentence &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:43, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

New pages: Tara Reade and Joe Biden assault allegation
FYI, the following pages were recently created: --Guy Macon (talk) 18:18, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Redirect: Tara Reade
 * Article: Joe Biden assault allegation

Joe Biden - Covid19 Plan To Safely Reopen America?
Possible addition? => '''On April 12, 2020, former vice-president Joe Biden proposed a plan, published in The New York Times, to safely reopen America. ''' - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! Drbogdan (talk) 19:38, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

If it looks like stonewalling
The RfC above re: Tara Reade allegations includes citations/links to multiple independent RS that satisfy DUE, and it has been going on for 2+ weeks now with more RS being added - all of which clearly warrants inclusion, and perhaps even a separate article like those created for other high ranking politicians. It may turn out that if an article is created, it will end-up as a redirect like what happened with Bob Filner (noting that I was unable to find any trace of a discussion/RfC for that redirect). Regardless, my concern now is that the apparent weaknesses of the "no" arguments in opposition to inclusion based on DUE and adequate RS makes it appear that there may be some stonewalling involved. It appears even worse when coupled with the current level of PP - one wherein a single admin determines what can or cannot be added - and while there is nothing apparently wrong with the process, well...it just doesn't look good and adds to the level of concern when it should be having an opposite effect. I am certainly open to considering all legitimate reasons for censoring the material and keeping it out of the article despite WP:PAG. Perhaps a request to close at WP:AN is the way to go considering the controversial nature of this BLP? Atsme Talk 📧 17:56, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Agree completely. The full protection is unnecessary and even at the time was uncalled for. With the story from the NYT today many "No" editor concerns are satisfied. Close the RFC and end the page protection, inclusion is clearly warranted. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:01, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Mr Ernie, you're free to request a close at AN at any time. I'd be surprised if it happens anytime soon, but there's one way to find out. Meanwhile, the need for page protection is not affected by the Times coverage. In fact, we are going to have another extended discussion about the article text -- if any -- given the fact that the Times coverage, when it came, was not exactly the narrative some editors here anticipated.  SPECIFICO talk 19:10, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Assuming that we are all here to write a credible encyclopedia, we should not be in a rush to insert potentially harmful material into a BLP. It is important to get it right. This is not a place for breaking news. Given the canvassing and other concerns, I would like to see a team of admin evaluate and close the RfC after participation was sufficiently declined. - MrX 🖋 19:38, 12 April 2020 (UTC)


 * , it might be time to check back in here. Most of the opposes rested on arguments akin to "Unless it's reported by the NYT, we can't report it here". The NYT published their article today, so many editors are suggesting a snow close. Atsme above raises further related issues I thought you might consider.   petrarchan47  คุ  ก   18:08, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * That’s now how I see the discussion. I changed my vote because of the The New York Times coverage. I probably would had done the same if Washington Post or CNN published a front page story on it.  I haven’t seen anyone else change their vote I have only seen one other editor, Guy Macon, change their vote.  I’m flexible enough to change my opinion when facts change, and I think the Wikipedia does better when we wait for prominent coverage from a source which carefully fact checks an allegation instead of engaging in scandal mongering.  Samboy (talk) 18:36, 12 April 2020 (UTC)


 * As has been explained above, there is disagreement whether a story can be considered DUE when it has been ignored by almost all major media since due requires "a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject." There is nothing stopping you from creating an article about the incident, since its coverage establishes notability. The issue is whether or not it is a significant story for this article. The degree of coverage in both conservative and progressive alternative media will no doubt cause mainline media to pay some attention to it. I noticed that today the New York Times published an article about the case. It may reach critical mass that justifies inclusion in this article, particularly if the Trump campaign makes it an election issue. But that hasn't happened yet and there is no reason why this article should give the story greater prominence than it has received in mainstream media. The purpose of articles is to summarize what mainstream sources consider important not to reveal information that they find unimportant. TFD (talk) 18:22, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , what are your precise standards for inclusion? Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:03, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * For well known people, I would expect to see ongoing news coverage in all major publications. We got the with the unwanted touching, Trump's E Hollywood tape, Warren's claims of Indian ancestry, the Dean scream and Gary Hart's affair. TFD (talk) 04:27, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * So you will not support any mention of Tara Reade in the article if anything less than precisely ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS, NPR, CNN, MSNBC, FOX, BBC, The New York Times, USA Today, The Washington Post, The LA Times, The WSJ, The Boston Globe, The Chicago Tribune, The San Fransisco Chronicle, Reuters, AP News, The New Yorker, Time, The Atlantic, The Economist, each report two stories? Three stories? Kolya Butternut (talk) 09:08, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I would expect ongoing reporting in those sources for the main article. Bear in mind that Biden has been a senator for 36 years, VP for 8 years and a presidential candidate three times. He is now in the news every day. "[D]iscussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news." When that happens we will see her accusations included when the media does summaries of the unwanted touching allegations against Biden. In the Trump article for example, the accusations of rape of a 13 year old were virtually never included in reporting of alleged victims of sexual assault. Regardless of the credibility of the claims, they could become significant if Trump chooses to talk about them. As edit we need to ask ourselves how significant is the coverage paid to this accusation relative to overall coverage of the subject. Per WP:CRYSTALBALL, we cannot anticipate how the media will cover any story. TFD (talk) 17:21, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * That doesn't answer my question. We need a precise answer to know whether your criteria has been met, because it appears to be evolving.  We could place the Tara Reade story under, as it's now one of the biggest stories of his campaign.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:54, 13 April 2020 (UTC)


 * I see a discussion above proposing an early close that does not have a consensus in favour of that (actually slightly opposed if anything). Accordingly I will not be early closing this. Thryduulf (talk) 18:53, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * We’ll probably get more coverage by the time this discussion is closed and the article is unprotected. Samboy (talk) 19:09, 12 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Thryduulf, please look again. Since The New York Times reported on Tara Reade, the !votes have been 100% for an early close. I myself opposed an early close then changed my !vote. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:11, 13 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Washington Post, April 12, 2020 - Sexual Assault Allegation By Former Biden Senate Aide Emerges In Campaign, Draws Denial. That adds to the numerous other sources along with the recent addition of The New York Times. I refer to this section title. Atsme Talk 📧 04:36, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * This thread has been created in BAD FAITH. The accusation of "stonewalling" is unacceptable. Please retract your statement and close this thread. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:55, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I disagree per SPADE. This article has been fully locked for days and days, for the sole purpose of keeping out reliably sourced information that’s got a clear consensus on the above RFC. We ought to be able to speak freely and openly about what appears to be going on. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:00, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * There's no excuse for bad faith, and there's especially no excuse for creating a whole thread based on the premise fellow editors aren't editing in bad faith. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:05, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is insulting to be told that I'm stonewalling. I can accept that editors that feel that this information is long overdue to be included, that it should have been in the article weeks ago, are giving their best estimate of what needs to be done here. But I see the situation quite differently and I should not be told that that I am being politically dishonest or disruptive. I've arrived at my opinion by constantly reminding myself of the power that we hold over the people in our bios and our responsibility to guard against doing any harm by the words that we add here.  Reade says that it took her almost 30 years to report that Biden sexually assaulted her so a few more days to decide how to use this information will cause no great harm to her.  On the other hand, Biden's reputation is at stake here and we need to take the time to make every effort to abide by WP's high standards for what we include in our bios.  Gandydancer (talk) 16:08, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The length of time it took Reade to report her allegation is immaterial to our decision; our decision is not based on how this affects her. Biden's reputation will not be effected by our edit, because this has already been widely reported.  Wikipedia is not a news cite, but we do need to keep up.  This information is extremely relevant to the 2020 election, which means it is extremely relevant to Biden's bio at this present moment.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 16:20, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * We don't know if the information is extremely relevant to the 2020 election, because we don't have a WP:CRYSTALBALL. So far it hasn't been. It is not our role to tell readers what is or is not important. The seriousness or credibility of the accusations are not the criteria for inclusion, but the degree of coverage in reliable sources. Their writers decide what is or is not important, not us. TFD (talk) 17:43, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The sources certainly describe it as extremely relevant to the 2020 election. Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:56, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I think you may be surprised at how many people actually do take our articles as accurate. As editors we know that in many cases that is not true and as Petra has already pointed out, the NYT does not really always print the truth either.  Nor does WashPo or any of the major news sources who no longer do much of any fact checking. For my part I refuse to accept anything but very high standards about what we print here and refuse to print anything until I feel we have vetted it to the best degree that we can. Until the NYT did an investigation I was not ready to discuss inclusion of this sexual assault charge.  I am now open to discussing what we should/should not include. Gandydancer (talk) 01:10, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Full protection
I have requested temporary full page protection with the contentious material excluded until the RfC is concluded. We cannot have an edit war over an alleged sexual assault allegation. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:38, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I have fully protected the page until this matter is resolved in order to enforce the policy on biographies of living people. Because the page was semi-protected indefinitely, I didn't want the 30 days to expire and then the page have no protection which is why the full protection is indefinite. Please ping me when this RfC is over and I will lower protection back to semi protection. Editors who wish to continue making changes unrelated to this RfC may make an edit request using FPER and an administrator will review it. — Wug·a·po·des​ 01:26, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I do not see evidence this was warranted. I see no edit war. The talk page is peaceful. When sections were removed recently without consensus, we discussed it. No one tried to add them back. The version presently locked in place is not the consensed version. It was never discussed at all, and ignores the work of the community. Why should editors spend hours working on this talk page only to have all their work erased in a drive-by edit, and then locked for no reason? Please restore the previous version, and kindly explain why it is locked.   petrarchan47  คุ  ก   10:55, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , I agree full protection is overkill. The allegation has proper sources, so it isn’t really a BLP concern at this point, but more of DUE. Mr Ernie (talk) 11:58, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * There is no hurry to include the content here. There are real issues with the allegations, and they have not been thoroughly investigated at this time.  We can with 30 days—or longer—for there to be more coverage of this allegation before making edits can can potentially violate BLP.  Samboy (talk) 12:14, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Full protection was needed because editors were appearing out of nowhere to revert the material back into the article, without regard to the RfC and related talk page discussions in which multiple editors pointed out that the material is mostly being carried by low quality sources. When protecting a page because of a content dispute, administrators have a duty to avoid protecting a version that contains policy-violating content, such as vandalism, copyright violations, defamation, or poor-quality coverage of living people. - MrX 🖋 12:19, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * It's not that much damage if a sourced allegation is inserted and reverted a few times before a stable consensus emerges. That type of stuff happens all the time as part of the normal editing process. Biden's running for president and editors ought to be able to freely update this page as we get closer to the election. Mr Ernie (talk) 12:57, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. We had a legitimate edit warring concern, where the same VIOLATING material was being added and removed multiple times per day. This was the best solution, and editing in other areas can continue via WP:EREQ with little difficulty. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:11, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I endorse the adding of full protection. Because the material was being edit warred in and out, this is a classic case of an article that needed it. I also endorse keeping the full protection in place until the RfC is resolved, since edit warring was going on despite the presence of an active RfC -- MelanieN (talk) 19:02, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * An edit war is more than a series of reverts in quick succession, and I protected because this page has been undergoing a slow-moving edit war for multiple days prior to and during this RFC. Starting at an arbitrary point in the history:
 * Petrarchan47 adds content related to allegations 26 March c. 22:30
 * MrX reverts those additions 26 March 00:55
 * Maccaheartney adds content related to allegations 28 March c. 01:07
 * YouCanDoBetter adds additional content 28 March 01:09
 * SPECIFICO reverts the previous two additions 28 March 01:40
 * Bobtinin adds content related to allegations 28 March 19:09
 * The content is reworked for about 12 hours in what looks to me like normal editorial processes
 * Mr Ernie and Scjessey remove a chunk of that content 29 March c. 13:00
 * Volunteer Marek removes the remaining content 30 March 05:15
 * This RfC is started on 30 March at 13:36
 * Quidster4040 restores content removed by Marek 30 March 17:09
 * Scjessey reverts the addition 30 March 17:33
 * Wugapodes fully protects the page 31 March 01:22
 * Because this article is a BLP, it is subject to discretionary sanctions which allow any uninvolved administrator to "impose on any page or set of pages relating to the area of conflict page protection, [...] prohibitions on the addition or removal of certain content (except when consensus for the edit exists), or any other reasonable measure that the enforcing administrator believes is necessary and proportionate for the smooth running of the project." While I considered simply prohibiting addition of the content without consensus, I'm not interested in playing whack-a-mole on a highly viewed BLP of a US presidential candidate (see principle 1 of the BLP arbitration case). The alternative is page protection, and since the page was already semi protected and multiple editors engaged in the dispute are extended confirmed, full protection is the only effective protection level. Immediately after this page was protected, I logged it as an arbitration enforcement action. It can be appealed as such at arbitration enforcement or the administrator's noticeboard. — Wug·a·po·des​ 19:50, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for explaining that. It was the correct thing to do. TFD (talk) 21:13, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I just don't see an edit war. It looks like normal editing, with the exception of the removal of the entire section we had worked and agreed on through good faith efforts on the TP. The removal of consensed material without so much as a note on TP was improper, starting an RfC that locks the section for 30 days without discussing the idea first on the TP was also improper. Locking a non-consensed (or even discussed) version is akin to telling editors that gaining consensus and presenting arguments on the TP to determine content, as we are asked to do, is not actually how things work around here. "We had a legitimate edit warring concern" means that we didn't actually have any war, only a concern, which is not an emergency.   petrarchan47  คุ  ก   01:14, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Let it go, Petrarchan. Maybe you "don't see an edit war" but that call is not up to you. It is up to an administrator, someone who knows an edit war when they see one and has been entrusted with the power to act on it. I am also an administrator, although I usually function at this page as a regular editor, and I also know an edit war when I see one. Wugapodes did the right thing. If you want to challenge it, there are other boards designed for that kind of thing, but arguing about the full protection at this page is a waste of bytes. -- MelanieN (talk) 03:24, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * It's a dozen or so edits across 5 days. That's hardly disruptive - now the page is entirely locked. That is not normal. Mr Ernie (talk) 07:46, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Mr. Ernie, . Ernie, you are not in the Twilight Zone. It's been explained in detail above. BTW, do you think page restrictions do not apply to the article talk page? If they do, you just violated both page restrictions, 1RR and the 24-hour BRD sanction, with your recent edits.  SPECIFICO talk 17:48, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

The votes are 33 Yes and 16 No. Has consensus been reached yet? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1012:B113:AB8A:7C0B:CE86:6AB4:157 (talk) 18:27, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Consensus is based on more than simply tallying votes. It requires a thorough assessment of the arguments on both sides. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:32, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Edit request
Add"In April 2020, news organizations published articles about allegations by Tara Reade that Biden had sexually assaulted her when she was a Senate aide in 1993.       A Biden spokesperson said the allegation was false. On April 11, Reade reported the alleged 1993 incident to the Metropolitan Police Department of the District of Columbia. After Reade's allegations surfaced, additional reported incidents of inappropriate touching with Biden were reexamined, including from former member of the Nevada Assembly, Lucy Flores and former staffers."--Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 20:08, 12 April 2020 (UTC)


 * You will need to wait for consensus to be determined in the RfC above. - MrX 🖋 21:12, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

This is clearly a case of moving goal posts. People said, don't include until it's in the NY Times. Now that it's in the NY Times, they're looking for other excuses. A few editors motivated by bias to abuse their power and keep important content out of the article, undermining Wikipedia's credibility. Velva.kilb1983 (talk) 16:15, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * You're not off to good start here. - MrX 🖋 16:47, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The New York Times article certainly gives the complaint the coverage it needs to put it in the article, but the NYT article also suggests the complaint is likely without merit. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:52, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * It was evident from the outset that this would happen at some point. A persistent elevation of the complaint via social media and various internet sites ensured that at some point the mainstream media would report on their investigations into the complaint and those who are promoting it. Because it has not been covered as a credible claim, the article text that may ultimately be agreed is not going to look like the first edits that put it in the article before the page protection.  SPECIFICO talk 17:03, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree 100%. This is the world we live in now. It's depressing that garbage media, social media and Russian bots have so much power over the agenda. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:14, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Actions set precedent. And unfortunately the precedent that was set during the Kavanaugh hearings was that facts aren’t needed to establish a credible claim. There’s more corroboration to Reade’s allegation than any of the Kavanaugh allegations, as those she told at the time confirmed she reported it, despite all of the named Kavanaugh witnesses denying the event. It’s an unfortunate circumstance we find ourselves in, but nonetheless once allegations are reported by mainstream RS they are suitable for inclusion into Wikipedia BLP’s. The difference in coverage between the two situations, despite their unverifiable similarities, is striking. I can’t understand why that is the case. Mr Ernie (talk) 17:40, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * That is a BLP violation to misrepresent the others as having "denied the event". Please remove it and be more careful in the future.  SPECIFICO talk 18:19, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * It's a BLP violation against Tara Reade to say it has not been reported as a credible claim. Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:23, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Please remove that remark. I was not addressing you and you have no right to suggest that I have impugned Ms. Reade or anyone else.  SPECIFICO talk
 * Nonsense. It’s a BLP violation to say any witness corroborated the Kavanaugh claims. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:28, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * You know I didn't say that any witness corroborated the claim, so I'll ignore that. Nobody "denied" the alleged evant in the Kavanaugh case. They said they had no memory about it. Frankly, if you don't understand the difference between those, you should not make such statements. If you do understand the difference -- now -- I think you should redact the smear against the witness.  SPECIFICO talk 18:50, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * No one said don't include until the New York Times had reported it, they said that if the mainstream media had not reported the case it failed weight. It's like saying, "You can't say he's rich, he doesn't even have enough money to pay the rent." That doesn't mean if he raises the money to pay the rent, he is ipso facto rich. TFD (talk) 19:26, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Anyone who has suggested that Ms. Reade's claims are not credible or have been reported as not credible, please strike your comments; they are a WP:BLP violation. Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:19, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree. It's also irrelevant. TFD (talk) 21:07, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The same goes for the smears against Christine Blasey Ford. SPECIFICO talk 21:12, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * According to the New York Times the claims by Reade don't appear to be credible . I quote: "'The Times interviewed Ms. Reade on multiple days over hours, as well as those she told about Mr. Biden’s behavior and other friends. The Times has also interviewed lawyers who spoke to Ms. Reade about her allegation; nearly two dozen people who worked with Mr. Biden during the early 1990s, including many who worked with Ms. Reade; and the other seven women who criticized Mr. Biden last year, to discuss their experiences with him. No other allegation about sexual assault surfaced in the course of reporting, nor did any former Biden staff members corroborate any details of Ms. Reade’s allegation. The Times found no pattern of sexual misconduct by Mr. Biden .'" Underline is mine. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 02:39, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * That is the implication, but the article doesn't actually say that. So it's moot. We cannot say she was not credible, only say what the NYT says. And they don't say she lacked credibility either. Besides, the amount of attention we pay to a claim has nothing to do with credibility, only the degree of coverage it gets. TFD (talk) 03:58, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * We cannot say it in the article, but yes, we can say it on the talk page if it comes up and is pertinent to the discussion. It's not a BLP violation by any stretch.  Volunteer Marek   06:46, 16 April 2020 (UTC)


 * There's an interesting NY Times article in which they analyze their own reporting on this story. -- RoySmith (talk) 04:08, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I would suggest we use a more impartial source which also discusses The Times' own self-analysis, if we end up discussing the reporting. Kolya Butternut (talk) 04:32, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

It really doesn't matter whether NYT thinks the allegations are credible or not. BeŻet (talk) 22:06, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * There was no pattern of sexual misconduct by Kavanaugh, either, and no proof regarding the allegations against Trump in the Steele dossier but that information was included and became a separate article, even after the Mueller Report. In this case, we have a single news source claiming "no pattern" and that opinion can be cited with in-text attribution. It isn't a statement or conclusion drawn by professional law enforcement investigators but even it was, not seeing a pattern proves nothing. We don't know how many women are afraid or embarrassed to come forward, if there are any. During the many discussions about the Steele dossier memos, it was determined by consensus that if something cannot be disproven, it belongs in the article. I see no difference in the allegation that is being proposed for inclusion now. <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 📧 14:14, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Reminder: This is not the place to discuss other articles, or right great wrongs, or even the score. Please let's stick to discussing edits to this article based on reliable sources and established Wikipedia policy. This is not a discussion forum. - MrX 🖋 14:24, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Reminder noted - I was not aware that attempts to reach consensus during a consensus building discussion was an inappropriate place to discuss prior RfC/keep-delete discussions in similar articles with similar circumstances - my apologies, if that truly is the case. Please provide a link to the policy or guideline that supports "This is not the place to discuss other articles..." I find it interesting that WP:AADD uses arguments from prior cases as examples to demonstrate what has or hasn't worked in the consensus building process. I wouldn't think it mattered what type of keep or delete discussion is involved, be it AfD or any RfC - results from prior cases establish precedent, which makes them good guides to follow. I was also not aware that any editor here was trying to RGW or "even the score", as you put it. That is a pretty hefty allegation, MrX. Please provide a diff that supports it. <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 📧 22:37, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:TALKOFFTOPIC, WP:REHASH, WP:OTHERCONTENT,, . - MrX 🖋 12:43, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Biden and Social Security
For decades, Biden has advocated cuts to Social Security, yet there is nothing about this long held position in this article. i checked the talkpage archives and i see that this information was once in this article but was removed in 2013. Now that Mr Biden intends to run for President again, this information should be restored. 173.85.194.197 (talk) 17:56, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Thats an issue position and on the Biden 2020 Precedential page. You can read here. ContentEditman (talk) 19:26, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

"American Christian Zionists"
Christian Zionism is a specific thing. As far as I can tell, Biden has only said he's a "Zionist" in the context of being generally pro-Israel. The category "American Christian Zionists" does not belong in the article. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:46, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * He has said he is a Zionist, that category is for Christians who are Zionists. "Zionist" has a specific meaning, it doesn't just mean "generally pro-Israel".-- SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 01:54, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * No. "Christian Zionist" relates to a particular set of people, none of whom is Joe Biden. Please undo your reinsertion. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 02:36, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * It would help to be very specific here. According to our own Wikipedia article, a "Christian Zionist" is someone who believes that it was the fulfillment of Christian biblical prophecy that the Jews established the state of Israel in 1948.  I haven't done any research on Joe Biden in that regard, but is that what he believes?  If reliable sourcing can be found to that effect, then the category is applicable, and if cannot be found, then the category is unsupported and should be removed.  Fair enough?  Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 03:02, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Biden said he was a Zionist a long time ago. More recently he said he would be a Zionist if he were Jewish. Whatever the truth, he is not significant enough in the Zionist movement for inclusion. The point of categories is to help readers navigate to articles that tell them more about the topic. Including 95% of of the 520,000 elected U.S. officials doesn't help. 03:24, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

I took it out on BLP grounds. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:30, 22 April 2020 (UTC)


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

Nomination
With the withdrawal of Bernie Sanders from the 2020 US presidential election, Joe Biden has been nominated by the Democratic Party as its presidential candidate. The article however still shows him as the presumptive candidate so I will go and edit the article in a few minutes CityOfSails2 (talk) 09:46, 23 April 2020 (UTC)


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


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


 * I agree that "presumptive Democratic presidential nominee" is the correct way to term things, as stated above. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 19:00, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

He hasn't been nominated by the Democratic Party as its presidential candidate. That statement is false. If you are in doubt, please consult the United States presidential primary and Democratic National Convention articles. BeŻet (talk) 22:42, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Sanders endorsed Biden
I added the following to the article, through full protection and without asking for consensus first. On April 13 Sanders endorsed Biden in a live-streamed discussion on split screens from both of their homes.

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


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


 * I would shorten it to "On April 13 Sanders endorsed Biden." That's all the information that is necessary for the main Joe Biden article. TFD (talk) 00:08, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * See my comment above. That would be BLP violation and not accurate. The relevant source mentions at the top that Bernie supported Biden "candidacy" and Bernie didn't say he endorse Joe Biden, he said "I support your [Joe Biden's] candidacy"-- SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 00:12, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * That's an endorsement of his candidacy. The rest of your objection is projecting your personal opinion of the situation onto the individuals in question, and does not in any conceivable way rise to a WP:BLP violation. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 19:12, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

I am opposed to virtually any edits to the article until the RfC is closed, but especially edits that add current news. Adding Bernie's endorsement to the article would be prioritizing favorable news over unfavorable news. Both stories are facts, both stories should be included. Wait until the RfC closes before adding any new news please. Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:18, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with TFD - all that is needed is "On April 13 Sanders endorsed Biden." That is a fine example of a neutral, obvious, and uncontroversial edit. Of course adding "split screen" from homes is also uncontroversial and a sign of the times (perhaps useful for posterity). However, I don't think it is wholly necessary to attribute a motive such as "uniting the party". That might not be the only motive. Another possible motive is that it is important for a segment of the population to simply defeat Trump - whether it is a ham sandwich or Joe Biden. So, let's not worry about motives because there might be a dozen of them. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 02:13, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Although the edit struck me as being uncontroversial when I saw it, Steve Quinn's comments above have me thinking that maybe it isn't such a good idea for an admin to edit a protected page as opposed to putting in an edit request like the rest of us have to do. If this had been an unprotected page, Steve could have simply edited it as he suggest above, which I believe is an improvement. So my conclusion on this one is: "Sorry, this edit was not uncontroversial enough. It should have been discussed in an edit request" while still allowing completely uncontroversial edits to protected pages by admins. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:47, 14 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose including mention of support by Sanders because it is purely promotional, and not encyclopedic in the sense that it will have any long lasting encyclopedic significance. Under the current circumstances, inclusion would be noncompliant with NPOV because it appears to be an attempt to boost the Biden candidacy in an election year. Matter-of-factly Sanders is going to fade away as an unsuccessful two-time presidential candidate, and his only historic/encyclopedic significance as a political figure will be his accomplishments as a US Senator, not as a twice failed presidential candidate, much less his endorsement of Joe Biden, who is facing several sexual assault allegations. <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 📧 04:02, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Neutral, factual, non-controversial, and reported by The New York Times, Reuters, Washington Post, CNN, Politico, etc. Samboy (talk) 04:42, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Now that the article is no longer fully protected (which seems to have been the main objection), I've BOLDLY gone ahead and re-added the sentence (with slightly tightened language). Gaelan 💬✏️ 06:53, 14 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes, of course this should be included, along with Obama's endorsement. MelanieN's edit was uncontroversial, but since this is Wikipedia, controversy ensued anyway. - MrX 🖋 20:17, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose, but support including in the Campaign article this is an obvious case of WP:RECENT, try the ten years test and see if it would be relevant in this biographical article. I would support including in the Campaign article, if you try the 10 years test there it would make sense.-- SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 20:24, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , the campaign discusses his primary battle with Sanders over several paragraphs. The Sanders endorsement seems like the obvious "end" to that story, and IMO leaving it off makes our discussion of the primary incomplete. Gaelan 💬✏️ 22:01, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I have a different opinion, the campaign story ends by stating that Biden won and that Sanders left the race. The endorsement addition would be off-topic/coatrack and recent (see WP:TOPIC).-- SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 22:23, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , 12 years later, Hillary's endorsement of Obama is still relevant. The candidate endorsing their rival is not off topic at all. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:28, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Obama was the current president during Hillary's Campaign. "The candidate endorsing their rival is not off topic at all", that's not aan accurate way to represent what I said, I said it is off-topic in this article, you should have said, "The candidate endorsing their rival is not off topic at all in the candidate biographical article", I disagree, its off-topic.-- SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 22:35, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * - no. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 22:49, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Support More than enough coverage to justify a short sentence. --RaiderAspect (talk) 03:50, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Support — Incredibly silly in my opinion that something so uncontroversial (but factual, clearly notable, and obviously appropriate to end a primary-season section on) be omitted from this article. 's rationale "Under the current circumstances, inclusion would be noncompliant with NPOV because it appears to be an attempt to boost the Biden candidacy in an election year" — respectfully, I think you're reading way too much into it. Not only is endorsing the successful candidate common practice, but surprise, surprise, it typically occurs during an election campaign and to boost the other candidacy. With that said, if you're accusing editors of not adhering to NPOV, perhaps find a better example than editors highlighting a rather innocuous practice. —<b style="color:#E22">Mel</b><b style="color:#F20">bourne</b><b style="color:#F73">Star</b> ☆ <sup style="color:#407">talk 10:34, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Since you pinged me and for the sake of clarity, my response is simply because this article was recently under full PP resulting from edit warring to keep Reade's unflattering RS material in/out of the article, yet flattering material was important enough to add it unconventionally over PP - the timing, rush to add it and how it was initially included made it seem more promotional in nature than encyclopedic. <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 📧 18:24, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay, so we're clear: you're drawing a comparison between adding something obviously controversial and (at the time) possibly in violation of BLP  to  adding something that is so mundane, part of a process, and uncontroversial that if circumstances were different –Biden losing to Sanders/Biden endorsing Sanders– we'd probably mention that here too. Apples and oranges. —<b style="color:#E22">Mel</b><b style="color:#F20">bourne</b><b style="color:#F73">Star</b> ☆ <sup style="color:#407">talk 03:51, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
 * You are entitled to believe whatever suits you. I'm done here so stop pinging me. <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 📧 09:53, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
 * If you're unable to back your comments, especially regarding other editors and NPOV – that's not my problem. Thanks, —<b style="color:#E22">Mel</b><b style="color:#F20">bourne</b><b style="color:#F73">Star</b> ☆ <sup style="color:#407">talk 11:18, 17 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Obvious support. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:46, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Support No-brainer. KidAd (talk) 23:47, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Support, but... - It could be expanded to say Biden has been endorsed by all his Democratic primary opponents, including Sanders. But I'm happy as it is too. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:31, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Obvious Support - this is truly one of the most ludicrous arguments that I've seen on Wikipedia to date. The edit itself is short, well-written, neutral, and backed by sources, and shouldn't have been controversial in any way. If this page wasn't fully protected, I sincerely doubt that most editors would've given it a second thought. Including it would be a net positive for the article, so I don't see what the problem is. OhKayeSierra (talk) 02:58, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
 * the problem is that it is not providing context. Bernie has said that he had to choose between Trump and Biden and he choose Biden implying that the endorsement is only to defeat Trump. It is currently without a huge context.-- SharʿabSalam▼  (talk) 03:05, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia isn't in the business of determining what people are implying, and that is especially true for a BLP. Either way, that interview would be a primary source and wouldn't warrant inclusion in the article, anyway. OhKayeSierra (talk) 03:23, 18 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Support - I also can't believe this is controversial. --WMSR (talk) 04:02, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I can, I concur with Atsme. Just promotional fluff, like saying Trump was endorsed by Cruz if this was 2016. Utterly nonsensical but only there to make Biden look good. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 09:15, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Sexual Assault allegations
Why is there no sexual assault allegation section? Kavanaugh has a section even though he was falsely accused by political agendists. No evidence at all. Biden has legitimate witnesses with evidence and there doesnt seem to be a mention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.125.92.151 (talk) 20:56, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * See Joe_Biden and try to keep your POV and false equivalencies out of talk page comments. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:06, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * There are credible accusations against Biden including evidence from a phone call to Larry King by Reade's mother in 1993; I request that you be nicer to people who have opinions and understandings different from your own. I have added the CNN clip to the page. I do not plan to make any further changes or additions for the sake of protecting my account; if you all have to delete what I added then that's up to you. As far as I can see, I have made a legitimate edit consistent with BLP and Wikipedia's no censorship policies. I request users to not contact me on the issue, but just delete the information outright or discuss it amongst yourselves- I added a CNN report my friends. Yes, it does technically make the sentence preceding it from the New York Times look hideous, but that's where the facts lie as far as I can see; perhaps the reliability of the New York Times on this issue should be examined. Geographyinitiative (talk) 03:01, 28 April 2020 (UTC) (modified)
 * , comparing the Kavanaugh coverage to the Biden coverage is a false equivalency. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:56, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * No it isn't, it is a legitimate complaint of how democrat's are held to a different standard in Wikipedia, just look at them with an unbiased eye.
 * I don't want to get myself permabanned from Wikipedia for comments on a pretty sensitive topic about a US presidential candidate and hence cannot directly respond to comments from a long-time Wikipedia editor that seem to contradict the spirit of my edits. It would be like an egg (me) running into a wall (Wikipedia admins). I will not make any further posts concerning this edit, regardless of whether or not the edit is reverted on the main page. I again assert that I have made a worthwhile and legitimate Wikipedia edit as I understand it and I hope that others will build on what I have done so far create a better article on Mr. Biden, even if that means removing what I added today. Geographyinitiative (talk) 05:06, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , don't worry about voicing a valid opinion. These BLP issues get repetitive and I can forget to explain that reliably sourced coverage is what determines the weight everything gets in an article, and each article needs to be discussed in its own talk page and not compared on others. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:32, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * An article by RealClearPolitics, which I’m not sure is considered an RS but is an important political news source in the U.S., is criticizing our comparative lack of information about the Biden assault claims compared to Kavanaugh’s. --Comment by <b style="color:#14866d">Selfie City</b> ( talk about my  contributions ) 11:45, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Buzzfeed lists a statement that the NYT DID NOT COME TO ANY CONCLUSION on the Reade accusation, Please remove from the article that they did. It seems a few democrats have read this article and are quoting it, that the NYT's exonerated Biden. https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/rubycramer/joe-biden-tara-reade-talking-points-campaign-defense 173.172.158.168 (talk) 05:08, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

RS and Biden's inappropriate touching & sexual misconduct allegations
This issue is obviously well-sourced and should be handled the same way we have handled other highly notable politicians per WP:BLPPUBLIC, & WP:BLPRS. The removed material should be restored. <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 📧 16:32, 29 March 2020 (UTC) <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 📧 16:32, 29 March 2020 (UTC) Kolya Butternut (talk) 16:44, 29 March 2020 (UTC) Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:41, 31 March 2020 (UTC) Kolya Butternut (talk) 10:53, 31 March 2020 (UTC)  Kolya Butternut (talk) 16:22, 31 March 2020 (UTC)  Kolya Butternut (talk) 16:48, 1 April 2020 (UTC)  Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:38, 12 April 2020 (UTC)  Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:33, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The Guardian
 * Daily Dot
 * The Intercept
 * The Hill
 * KCTV-5 News
 * Newsweek
 * Vox
 * NPR
 * Time
 * WaPo
 * Fox News
 * The Times (See quote above.)
 * Current Affairs
 * The Week (Opinion piece is RS for the fact that there is an allegation)
 * Salon (Investigates Reade and discusses media controversy)
 * The Hill's critique of the Salon story..
 * Current Affairs attempts to debunk Tara's story
 * Current Affairs references: "Prof. Anthony Zenkus, an expert on sexual violence at the Columbia School of Social Work, shocked by [Salon's] Marcotte’s doubting of Reade’s sexual assault claim because she 'changed' her story over time, explains in an op-ed why the apparent contradiction is no contradiction at all"
 * Please consult the talk page before creating a new section with the same information already being discussed in previous sections. - MrX 🖋 16:54, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I did review the TP, and saw no organized list of diffs like this one. Please AGF before making accusations like you did above. If there is such an organized list, then provide the diff that points to it. List form makes it much easier for editors to see there are multiple RS available to support inclusion without further concerns of DUE and BALANCE, as what some of the arguments above have alluded to as reason to exclude. <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 📧 18:14, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
 * All of these sources were listed above. You should have commented there rather than opening a new section. I'm all out of good faith today, but I do have some bubblegum. - MrX 🖋 20:58, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Atsme, what was removed?   petrarchan47  คุ  ก   00:16, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
 * As of today, all of it. <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 📧 15:13, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
 * It looks like it was removed because the citations didn't include these reliable sources. Maybe it can be restored.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 15:16, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

The reliability of many of the above sources is questionable in regard to the Reade allegations:
 * The Guardian - n/a - piece appears to be an Opinion piece about the media coverage and little about the allegations directly.
 * The Daily Dot - poor - rehashing Biden's past statements and repeating the Halper podcast info with no new reporting on the allegations.
 * The Intercept - ok - first reporting by a generally RS publcation. 3/24: mostly about Times Up. 3/26: added reference to Halper interview.
 * The Hill - good - RS - conducted their own brief interview reporting on allegations.
 * KCTV-5 - poor - rehashing quotes from other sources
 * Newsweek - good - no consensus as RS - conducted their own interview reporting on allegations.
 * Vox - good - RS - conducted their own interview reporting on allegations.
 * NPR - bad - from April 2019
 * Time - bad - from April 2019
 * WaPo - bad - from Sept 2018
 * Fox - ok - direct reporting on Biden campaign denials. rehash of allegations from Reade. Troubling partisan angle on reporting.
 * The Times - unknown - this is behind a pay wall and I could not determine if it was a rehash or independent reporting

I see only 2 good sources and 2 ok sources in your list. In my opinion this is enough for a simple statement. It is difficult to see if there is consensus about including it at all and there is now an RfC.--Davemoth (talk) 16:22, 30 March 2020 (UTC)--Davemoth (talk) 16:22, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The Times piece is only partially about the allegation and it is just reporting what other sources have said. What about Columbia Journalism Review?. Kolya Butternut (talk) 21:30, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
 * You can check sources that have already been discussed yourself at Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources. CJR does not appear at that list so there is no established consensus. In any case the article you point to only rehashes and references other articles and does no independent reportings, so I would list that as a poor source.--Davemoth (talk) 01:41, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * It's a professional media analysis magazine published by Columbia, so I wouldn't dismiss it just because it hasn't been discussed there. They're not reporting the Reade story, they're reporting on the reporting of the story.  They describe it as a "notable story".  Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:51, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * CJR regularly runs opinion pieces about under-reported stories (and used to do so through a regular feature, authored by Steven Brill). It's a fair question to ask, why this story has not gained the attention of mainstream, reliable media sources, although beyond directing readers to an editorial that speculates about possible reasons that's not a question that CJR attempts to answer. Arllaw (talk) 23:11, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Mainstream RS: Tara Reade
The Economist, "How to weigh an allegation of assault against Joe Biden" Kolya Butternut (talk) 16:19, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * So here is another opinion piece in a conservative publication complaining that major news media are ignoring this story. The problem is that Wikipedia's policy means that if stories are ignored in major news media they lack weight for inclusion in articles about people who are extensively covered in the news. There are many known facts about Biden - books have been written about him. Editors of any encyclopedia, whether Wikipedia, Encyclopedia Britannica, Conservapedia or any other must determine which of these many facts must be included. That is determined by editorial policy. That policy could be that what editors consider important should be included. However, the policy we are obliged to follow until it is changed is Balancing aspects: "strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject."
 * Can you explain why - citing policy or guidelines - this article should contain information that major news media ignore? If you think policy is wrong, then you are welcome to get it changed.
 * TFD (talk) 16:36, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * This is a mainstream source and you're mischaracterizing it. Kolya Butternut (talk) 16:44, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The "perennial sources" guide says nothing about The Economist being partisan. It has: "Most editors consider The Economist generally reliable. The Economist publishes magazine blogs and opinion pieces, which should be handled with the respective guidelines."
 * The story was not "ignored by major media", but it was ignored by some. Editors suggest this means the material fails WP:V, while many journalists writing for mainstream outlets say this lack of coverage says nothing about the allegation but rather, highlights questionable journalism, and probable partisanship. The Salon piece is the only one defending media silence as journalistic integrity, however that source is not RS.   petrarchan47  คุ  ก   17:29, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I can explain why using your own Balancing aspects. The balance/weight of the treatment in the body of "reliable, published material on the subject" of the allegation is heavily (100% except for Biden staff denial I think) in favor of the allegation. Other than the semi-official denial, I could find no published sources outside of social media (RS or not) that is disputing the allegation. I think the policy is correct and that it argues in favor of inclusion.
 * Opinion: Using single policies can be manipulated to say what any editor wants them to say. I believe that looking at the whole of all WP policies and exactly what they say and don't say that the allegation should be included.
 * Can you explain (citing policy or guidelines) that Fox, Vox, The Hill, and The Intercept are not "major" or "mainstream" RS? --Davemoth (talk) 16:59, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Since you asked: There’s a Medium post which argues against the allegation (that’s light red over at WP:RS/P), and, as mentioned above, that Salon article which explains why this hasn’t gotten mainstream media attention (which is yellow over at WP:RS/P). This Economist article is using the same thought process used in other conservative opinion pieces about this allegation (e.g., one at Reason.com): If we gave the Brett Kavanaugh accusations mainstream media attention, why are we ignoring this Biden accusation.  Point being, everyone agrees this accusation isn’t getting mainstream media attention, and I say we should not include it in the Joe Biden article until when and if it does get mainstream attention.  The mainstream media has no problem reporting on sexual abuse or sexual harassment accusations again notable people, no matter who is getting the accusation, as long as they feel the accusation is credible.  Samboy (talk) 17:26, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * No, the only reason it is not being given the Kavanaugh treatment is because WE KNOW WHY. The bias of Wikipedia editors who are higher up and can disappear editors and source material they are biased against.  Has happened to me.  POINT IN CASE Just because the LIBERAL "Reliable Source" news media that the "Editors" accept do not cover a story, does not mean it is not true.  It took over 5 months for the liberal "Main Stream" sources that Wiki editors will accept (even though they are constantly having to correct their biased stories) to actually acknowledge the love child of Senator John Edwards, with many of them poo pooing the story as being a right wing conspiracy.  Yet the same "Reliable Sources" will immediately accept any accusation against a Republican, not vet that story for 5 months, and they certainly won't hold off if the Republican denies it or wait for 5 months for them to admit it.  https://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/08/10/edwards.coverage/index.html And wikipedia's editorial POV gets thrown right out the window against Republicans. 173.172.158.168 (talk) 19:46, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * "Medium is a blog hosting service. As a self-published source, it is considered generally unreliable and should be avoided unless the author is a subject-matter expert or the blog is used for uncontroversial self-descriptions. Medium should never be used as a secondary source for living persons."*   petrarchan47  คุ  ก   17:36, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I asked if you can cite WP policy or guidelines about the 4 sources I list. Instead you non constructively list other sources where is no consensus as a RS. I will give you the benefit of doubt and ask again in a reworded way: Is there any WikiPedia Policy or Guideline that would exclude The Hill, Fox, Vox, or Intercept as either mainstream or major Reliable Source?--Davemoth (talk) 18:07, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I think it was very constructive to reply to your request: “I could find no published sources outside of social media (RS or not) that is disputing the allegation”. In response to a request for non-reliable sources disputing the allegation, I gave one non-RS and one questionable-RS published source disputing the allegation, and I made it clear the sources were not reliable when giving those links.  To accuse me of being non-constructive for directly addressing a request for non-reliable sources stretches the assumption of good faith we need to have, and it converts a discussion which should not be personal into a personal one.  To answer your question: WP:REDFLAG means that an extraordinary claim has a higher bar of evidence than an ordinary claim, which means it has to be in “multiple high-quality sources”, i.e. mainstream media.  Would it be helpful for me to list reliable sources (green at WP:RS/P) which make a point that this story has not been discussed by mainstream media? Samboy (talk) 20:14, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I apologize for the aspersion above and should not have addressed it in that manner. I was frustrated as I had only asked for discussion on WP policy and guidelines and was mainly referring to the lack of an answer to what I asked. I had found your counterpoints to my arguments to be thoughtful.
 * As for the content: I find that Medium piece to be a hit piece talking many of Reade's tweets out of context. I could take most of those tweets with a sarcastic angle and see that Reade could have been condemning Biden and not praising him. Even the conclusion weasels out of an accusation and they say they want to "ensure that the public has as much information as possible to make an informed decision." I should have left out that "RS or not" phrase. As for the Salon piece, I agree with it: Media bias and Times up have no place in the Biden article (points 1 and 2) and the crazy conspiracy stuff about Reade is unlikely (points 3 and 4). The conclusion (point 5) is all really opinion, but is calling out that politicizing things like this have made the problem worse and the story should have been vetted better while acknowledging that Reade allegation is credible while Reade herself has troubling background. As for your final question, we already have that list at WP:RS/P and I have reviewed it many times.
 * This brings me back to my original question and your answer regarding WP:REDFLAG, regarding “multiple high-quality sources” - we have multiple (at least 4) such sources (The Hill, Vox, Fox, and the Intercept.) I don't want to put words into your mouth, but I assume either these aren't good enough or there aren't enough of them. Can you list a WP policy or guideline that those 4 are not good enough? Can you list the same for what "multiple" means in this context?--Davemoth (talk) 21:52, 2 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Starting additional sections on a topic that is undergoing an RfC AND covered in discussion if multiple sections already is probably not the best way to handle this. I would have suggested a new subsection under the oldest section.--Davemoth (talk) 17:05, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed. In fact, I think starting yet another top level section is highly disruptive. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:24, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Highest profile mainstream RS

 * New York Times: "Examining Tara Reade’s Sexual Assault Allegation Against Joe Biden"
 * NBC News: "Woman broadens claims against Biden to include sexual assault"
 * Washington Post: "Sexual assault allegation by former Biden Senate aide emerges in campaign, draws denial"
 * ''Chicago Tribune via NYTs: "Examining Tara Reade’s Sexual Assault Allegation Against Joe Biden"
 * Associated Press: "Former Senate staffer accuses Joe Biden of sexual assault"
 * ABC News via AP: "Former Senate staffer accuses Joe Biden of sexual assault"
 * MSNBC, Kasie DC via ''NBC News: "New reporting about a sexual assault claim against former Vice President Joe Biden when he served in the U.S. Senate in the 90's"
 * San Francisco Chronicle via AP: "Former Senate staffer accuses Joe Biden of sexual assault"
 * Boston Globe via AP "Former Senate staffer accuses Joe Biden of sexual assault"
 * Die Welt: "Belästigungsvorwurf gegen Joe Biden sorgt für Streit in Me-Too-Bewegung" ("Allegation of harassment against Joe Biden causes dispute in me-too movement")
 * Le Parisien: "Présidentielle américaine : le démocrate Joe Biden accusé d’agression sexuelle" ("US Presidential: Democrat Joe Biden Charged With Sexual Assault"
 * The USA Today via AP: "Former Senate staffer accuses Joe Biden of sexual assault"
 * Los Angeles Times: "Former senate staffer accuses Joe Biden of sexual assault. His campaign says 'it did not happen'"


 * Kolya Butternut (talk) 10:30, 12 April 2020 (UTC) Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:40, 13 April 2020 (UTC) Kolya Butternut (talk) 16:05, 13 April 2020 (UTC)  Kolya Butternut (talk) 16:23, 13 April 2020 (UTC)  Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:25, 13 April 2020 (UTC)  Kolya Butternut (talk) 21:01, 13 April 2020 (UTC)


 * This is not helpful for article improvement. "High profile source" is not found in our policies. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 16:32, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * And yet that is the standard that has been set in the RfC. Kolya Butternut (talk) 16:35, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * That's not correct, and at any rate it's a complaint, not an argument.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 16:38, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I have changed it again, now to "Highest profile mainstream RS", per WP:REDFLAG: "Red flags that should prompt extra caution include: Surprising or apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources" (Personally I think "mainstream" here refers to scientific opinion, not mere news reporting.) Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:37, 13 April 2020 (UTC) Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:39, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Section header
has removed the section header of "Allegation of sexual assault" from the article saying it is undue at this time. I don't think that's true. NBC, NYT, WaPo and many other mainstream media have reported the allegation. It is definitely due to have its own section header. SPECIFICO came to my talk page saying that I have previously made a revert saying that this edit in which I removed the word "strongly" because it's editorial, is a revert. I didn't revert anyone, that was my own bold edit to improve the sentence. Revert means to return back to the previous version or wording etc., yet the sentence has been from the time that it was added with the word "strongly".-- SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 18:36, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Not that this is the place to discuss 1RR violation, but that edit was recently added, so it was indeed a revert rather than a bold edit of longstanding content. At any rate, the section subheading is UNDUE -- there are half a dozen more notewothy events in the campaign that don't have subheaders. It should be removed. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 18:57, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * You have a wrong definition of revert, the revert should restore a version or wording that existed sometime previously. My edit was my own bold wording of the sentence. Also, no the subsection is not undue. It is reported in all major news outlets and it is still being reported, like this article in CNBC from 2 hours ago -- SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 19:49, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * No, is correct. Per  "An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert."   CBS 527 Talk 20:48, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The rule is correct and SPECIFICO is wrong, per that rule I didn't make a revert the rule says "undoes other editors' actions. What I did was not undoing other editors' action, it was bold wording of the sentence.-- SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 21:05, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * This is a complex story and will require extensive text in order to present all angles. The header seems correct. TFD (talk) 19:02, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * There's no problem with a header when it is commensurate with the text. Whatever it "will require" remains unknown.
 * When you removed the header you also removed some copyedits I made. I presume that was inadvertent, so I'd appreciate it if you would restore them. Thanks. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 19:08, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * This was more than re-adding the header. It moved it from the "Allegations of inappropriate physical contact" section to the "Campaign" section. It should be in the appropriate section with the other allegations of inappropriate physical contact. It has nothing to do with the campaign. I see no problem with "allegations of sexual assault" as a sub-header.  CBS 527 Talk 20:11, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * It was in the Campaign section before I re-added.-- SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 20:14, 14 April 2020 (UTC)


 * I agree with moving the content to "Allegations of inappropriate physical contact" section. However, since the allegations now include sexual assault, we should include 'and sexual assault' in the header.-- SharʿabSalam▼  (talk) 20:14, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm okay with the move to "Allegations of inappropriate physical contact" and adding 'and sexual assault' to the header.  CBS 527 Talk 20:31, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Removing the heading and shortening the paragraph as much as possible could be seen as an attempt at hiding the information. I would recommend being cautious. BeŻet (talk) 22:00, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed. This one sexual assault allegation does not warrant its owns section. It should be merged with the section heading, “Allegations of inappropriate physical contact and sexual assault.” Amorals (talk) 22:38, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree the sexual assault allegation should be with the allegations of inappropriate non-sexual physical contact. In the interests of neutrality, we need to make it clear that, unlike the non-sexual allegations, there is only one allegation of sexual assault, and it is less widely supported than the non-sexual contact allegations from last year.  I have seen at least one Wikipedia editor incorrectly equate the widely supported non-sexual allegations with the single sexual allegation, and that’s an error.  Samboy (talk) 23:48, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Sexial assault has been edited into the article with no resolution to this discussion. It should be removed pending resolution. . <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 23:53, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The wording currently in the article is a consensus wording we agreed on earlier. I agree we shouldn’t put “sexual assault” in a heading, but I also, in the interests of bowing to consensus, agree the phrase “sexual assault” reflects what reliable sources have to say on the matter: “She filed a police report in Washington on Thursday saying she was the victim of a sexual assault” “Tara Reade’s Sexual Assault Allegation” Samboy (talk) 00:06, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Huh? Why would we not have "sexual assault" in a heading?  Tara Reade's allegation is not accurately described is "inappropriate physical contact".  Either it gets its own subsection or this subsection's title has to change.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:15, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
 * To place “sexual assault” in a heading places undue weight on a single allegation which is nowhere as reliable as the allegations of inappropriate non-sexual touching. There is pretty much universal agreement that Biden engaged in inappropriate non-sexual physical contact.  There is much less agreement that Biden has engaged in sexually assault, since there is only one allegation, and reliable sources appear to be skeptical about the allegation.  Samboy (talk) 00:20, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
 * We're not evaluating reliability we're evaluating notability noteworthiness . Regardless, what title would you suggest? Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:03, 15 April 2020 (UTC) Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:14, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
 * "Allegations of inappropriate physical contact and 1993 sexual assault allegation"? Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:13, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Please Kolya Butternut, this has nothing at all to do with either notability or notability. If you are not contributing to these discussions within the framework of Wikipedia policies and guidelines, your efforts will be wasted. It really will be worth your time to learn the policies and guidelines for editing WP articles. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 01:19, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
 * "Non-sexual"? I think the multiple women who have come forward to describe unwanted touching, hugging, and kissing would probably take issue with that characterization of their experiences. These should all be placed under the banner of "Allegations of sexual misconduct." 2600:1700:D281:27D0:95A5:2580:6F2A:B67A (talk) 03:54, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
 * You may be right, but we need a source which characterizes his behavior as sexual misconduct. Kolya Butternut (talk) 04:30, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry I didn't realize I was logged out. Not sure how much we can rely on the NYT these days, since they admitted today that the Biden campaign is essentially quarterbacking their coverage of the latest allegation, but they reported on Lucy Flores' initial allegation with the headline "Biden’s Tactile Politics Threaten His Return in the #MeToo Era". The article included a quote from Gloria Steinem, saying "Our bodies and voices belong to us — that should be the first step in democracy." Flores told CNN "It was shocking because you don’t expect that kind of intimate behavior, you don’t expect that kind of intimacy from someone so powerful.” Do we really need a source to use the phrase "sexual misconduct" to characterize non-consensual kissing and touching as "sexual misconduct"? SeriousIndividuals (talk) 04:44, 15 April 2020 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:48, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I would say so. Some of the accusers even specifically state it was not sexual, while others do characterize it as sexual, especially by comparison with his behavior towards men.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 05:06, 15 April 2020 (UTC)


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


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


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


 * "Allegations of inappropriate physical contact and sexual assault" is fine. at one time it was buried under "Campaign". --Guy Macon (talk) 18:20, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
 * It was not "buried" -- it was located under "campaign". I agree with but I would go farther. This is all about the campaign. That's the context in which it all arose. If any of the allegations develops into anything more serious, we can start a new section. Right now it's another one of the many issues and narratives that's arisen in Biden's campaign, and there has been nothing reported that would require its own subheading on this page. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 18:23, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Agree with those above, "Allegations of inappropriate physical contact and sexual assault" is fine, for now. Obviously this depends on how the story unfolds. I also think if we are to diverge from how similar material is handled on, say, Republicans' biographies, the community would need to hear the argument for how this is NPOV.   petrarchan47  คุ  ก   21:39, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , the header keeps being changed against the consensus we had come to, to something I think most of us would disagree with, so I'm hoping we don't need an RfC.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:35, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I hate to say this, but I think we need an uninvolved administrator to step in and deal with what is happening on this page. I won't name names but we have some really good editors who are working heard at treating a difficult topic according to Wikipedia policy, and some who appear to care more about who wins the election than whether this is a good article. I am going to unwatch this page rather than getting caught up in the shitstorm which I believe is coming. :( -Guy Macon (talk) 19:12, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * "Allegations of inappropriate behavior" seems like a good section heading. It's an accurate summary of the range of behaviors that Biden is alleged to have engaged in. Like article titles, section headings should be concise. - MrX 🖋 19:33, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Clearly there was never consensus for the former section title. I agree with MrX as to NPOV heading language, "Allegations of inappropriate behavior" .<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 20:31, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * (This comment is supposed to be under the "Section header" section; something's broken on this page.) The heading has been stable for two weeks; that's a lot for this story.  Please find a source which categorizes the assault allegation as "inappropriate behavior", if you think that fits. , could you recommend any admins to ping?  If that doesn't work I assume the next step is to go back to BLP/N.  I'll let you alone after this.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:05, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Re: "could you recommend any admins to ping" the admins I work with tend to focus on pseudoscience. I don't hang around politics pages enough to know who is helpful. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:53, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Admins may be summoned at WP:AN, though it's hard to see an urgent need here. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 23:46, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * No idea why an admin is needed., 13 days ago you changed the heading from 'Allegations of inappropriate physical contact to 'Allegations of inappropriate physical contact and sexual assault'. That was challenged 12 days later. You changed it back to your preferred version the next day, apparently in violation of a page editing restriction that says: "If an edit you make is reverted you must discuss on the talk page and wait 24 hours before reinstating your edit." Based on this discussion, and counting the editors who have reverted the version of the heading that includes the phrase "sexual assault", I think I can confidently say that there is no consensus and 12 days does not make for a "stable" version. - MrX 🖋 00:09, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Please revert to the longstanding consensus header then, which is "Allegations of inappropriate physical contact." Please find a source which categorizes the assault allegation as "inappropriate behavior"; I haven't seen any sources which categorize sexual assault that way.  Was my reversion back to my edit against the page restriction?  My edit was not reverted back to what it was before; I felt like the "inappropriate behavior" header was a bold edit in the BRD cycle.  There is certainly no consensus for this title, so the consensus should be restored.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:27, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * That's not a reasonable demand, as there is no consensus either way as I previously explained. Forgive me for assuming that you have already reviewed the sources. There are at least two strong sources already in the article that refer directly to "inappropriate behavior". - MrX 🖋 14:40, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , you did not actually respond to what I said.  I asked you to revert to the last consensus, the header which has been there for at least a year, which I quoted above, which is not the same as my preferred header as it does not include "sexual assault".  Please do not revert to your preferred header without discussing first.  It is irrelevant whether sources "refer" to "inappropriate behavior", please show me sources which categorize sexual assault as inappropriate behavior. Kolya Butternut (talk) 15:12, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I misunderstood. I would agree to do that. - MrX 🖋 15:24, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:SKYBLUE Sexual assault, like other crimes, is inappropriate behavior. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 15:29, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * That's ridiculous; is that how we categorize Bill Cosby's or Harvey Weinstein's or Ted Bundy's behavior?  Please do not cite my request that the longstanding header be restored as a reason to revert in the future.  This article clearly needs admin attention.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 15:52, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * No. What's ridiculous is that you should equate a dubious claim of assault from a person who has changed their story multiple times to convicted sex offenders and murderers. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:17, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * That is a strawman argument.  Murder falls under the description "all other crimes".  That's why that rationale is absurd. Please stop calling her allegations dubious; that is s BLP violation.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:28, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * It is absolutely NOT a BLP violation to say Ms. Reade's claim is dubious. It is, in fact, a well supported assertion. And you can't claim I'm using a strawman argument based on your own absurd comparison with convicted criminals. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:33, 29 April 2020 (UTC)


 * By my read of this section, the majority agree with "Allegations of inappropriate physical contact and sexual assault", which was the header on the article for nearly two weeks, so I have restored it. I'm counting myself,, , , , , , and the IP in favor, with , , and opposed, and I'm not sure where , , and  stand on it. Apologies if I've gotten anyone wrong here. Levivich&thinsp;<sup style="white-space:nowrap;">[dubious – discuss] 20:12, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * This does not look like a consensus to me. - MrX 🖋 18:08, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Are your Flinstones glasses broken? :-) OK I'll make it a formal proposal. Levivich&thinsp;<sup style="white-space:nowrap;">[dubious – discuss] 19:38, 30 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Allegations of inappropriate physical contact is best. It includes the sole allegation of assault and also comprises the well-docuemnted "too-close" conduct that -- importantly -- Biden has acknowledged and discussed. The other header in the plural is false and misleading -- there is only a single assault allegation -- and it elevates the least credible allegation, Reade's somewhat kaleidic account. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 16:59, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Are there any sources that categorize sexual assault as "inappropriate physical contact"? If not neither should we.  I find your characterization of Reade's allegation to be a BLP violation against her.  Please stop.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:22, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Are there any sources that confirm Biden committed sexual assault? If not, we should not use that inflammatory language in a section header, which is supposed to be neutral, because that would be a BLP violation against the subject of the article. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:34, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * KB previously asked that same question, and I answered her, above in this thread. KB, please see WP:CRYBLP<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 17:48, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * We don't need a source saying he committed sexual assault in order to support a section heading that says "allegations of sexual assault". That's a straw man argument. It's not "inflammatory", it's how the sources describe the allegation. Here's NPR, today, for example: . Levivich&thinsp;<sup style="white-space:nowrap;">[dubious – discuss] 19:38, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * We don't need to legitimize a dubious claim when a perfectly acceptable neutral title is available. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:43, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * This has nothing to do with "legitimizing" a claim. Another straw man argument. I'm disappointed you reverted with an edit summary about "POV pushing", and yet you are the one who is here expressing a POV (that the claims are "dubious" and shouldn't be "legitimized"). This is about describing the allegations in the way the sources describe it; it has nothing to do with the merits of the claim, and it's not for us to decide whether or not the claim is dubious or legitimate. Anyway, we can continue this discussion in the formal proposal section I'm about to post below. Levivich&thinsp;<sup style="white-space:nowrap;">[dubious – discuss] 19:58, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

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

Splitting Proposal
One of the issues that has been discussed in the GAR discussion, despite not being part of the criteria, is the article's size. The article's prose is currently 88 kB, which means it likely should be split. The combined prose size of both the sections I am proposing splitting is 54 kB. As Joe Biden continues his presidential run and the 2020 election happens, there may be much more to write about, thus causing the prose to possibly top 100 kB. Due to these problems, I propose splitting the aforementioned sections to the aforementioned titles. Pinging GAR participants: Username6892 17:22, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Joe Biden→Senate career of Joe Biden
 * Joe Biden→Vice presidency of Joe Biden
 * Support This strikes me as a good idea with precedent (Vice presidency of Al Gore, United States Senate career of John McCain, 2001–2014, United States Senate career of Hillary Clinton). – Muboshgu (talk) 17:59, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - per Muboshgu. It is an excellent idea. Thank you, Username! <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 📧 18:13, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Support as part of a general move toward summary style, which is almost always essential with especially significant politicians. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:26, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Great idea! Its always a challenge keeping these big articles at a reasonable size, so anything helps us meet our summary style goal. CaptainEek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 21:12, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Support – Nice work, Usermane. —<b style="color:#E22">Mel</b><b style="color:#F20">bourne</b><b style="color:#F73">Star</b> ☆ <sup style="color:#407">talk 03:12, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per Username6892. Perhaps we should start discussing the prose to remain in this article? userdude 04:05, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The usual way of doing this is for the prose in this article to essentially be a copy of the introduction of the new article, since both are meant to be a summary of the new article's body. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:12, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Support obviously this is for the betterment of the article and to cut down on the main article's flab. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 06:20, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Notable senators have a dedicated page about this. I believe Joe Biden is one of them. Stay safe, EditQwerty  (talk) 15:56, 25 April 2020 (UTC)EditQwerty
 * Support - Considering that Biden's Senate and VP sections aren't likely to get much heavy editing anymore but are taking up a lot of room, it makes perfect sense to me to break them off into their own articles. --Woko Sapien (talk) 16:02, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Telluride (talk) 07:34, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. Seems reasonable. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:27, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - This appears consistent with past precedent, which is good. I agree. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 19:37, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Prose to keep
It's been about 2 days since I opened this discussion and it appears highly likely to be split, but what prose should be left in this article? I personally find that putting a lead-style summary would probably make the early life section seem extremely detailed in comparison with other sections. I am currently of the opinion that the Senate section should be reduced to about 10 kB of prose in this article (It's currently 33 kB), similar to that of John McCain's pre-2000 congressional career and Hillary Clinton's Senate career. I'm not sure about the VP section yet. Username6892 21:26, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * As I said above, the usual solution is that the prose "left behind" is basically the introduction of the new article, since they are both intended to be summaries of the same thing. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:50, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I'll get the ball rolling on the Vice presidency of Joe Biden article. Please feel free to add content to it. --Woko Sapien (talk) 14:34, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * As Woko split off the vice presidency, I just split off the Senate career to United States Senate career of Joe Biden. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:09, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The whole point of splitting the article off into sub-articles is to get most of the text from those sections out of the main article. The sub-articles should be where the bulk of the information resides and the main article should just contain the summary of what is in those sub-articles. It's pointless to split up an article into sub-articles if the you are just going to duplicate the majority of the content that is still remaining in the main article. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:08, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I think the idea is to eventually reduce the amount of information in the main article down to a minimum so that bulky stuff is only in the sub-article. --2603:3005:D04:5C00:315D:65B2:DB82:7864 (talk) 20:25, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

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

Larry King call-in
This was recently added to the article:

I don't think it belongs in the article per WP:UNDUE, WP:NOTNEWS, and WP:BLP. It unduly bolster's the allegation against Biden. - MrX 🖋 13:22, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Although the clip appears to be legitimate, it's WAY too much into the weeds for this biography. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:38, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * This is UNDUE. There's nothing in the factual reporting to tie this to the 2020 allegation that is the subject of this article. Lord knows what could be found in the Larry King call-in archives of many years. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 14:52, 28 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Reliable sources would disagree. https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2020/04/joe-biden-tara-reade-business-insider/ ResultingConstant (talk) 19:58, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

I know this is not suppose to be here, but, is there a list page on wikipedia that I can reference for a list of reliable news sources? It would be helpful, that way you can refer to it when you write something that someone wants to censor because it goes against their personal bias and can be used in your defense if they have a higher edit position for your arbitration. 173.172.158.168 (talk) 05:21, 30 April 2020 (UTC) ResultingConstant (talk) 22:12, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/04/28/joe-biden-sexual-assault-allegation-what-we-know-tara-reade/3039909001/
 * https://www.newsweek.com/new-biden-accuser-tape-cnn-silence-stir-discord-among-sanders-democrats-1500235
 * https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-election/tara-reade-joe-biden-sexual-assault-claim-larry-king-video-a9487001.html
 * https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/04/video-tara-reade-mother-joe-biden-larry-king.html
 * https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2020/04/25/biden-accuser-mom-called-larry-king-live-1993-over-assault-advice-mj-lee-vpx.cnn
 * https://reason.com/2020/04/27/tara-reade-mother-larry-king-joe-biden-sexual-assault/
 * https://www.huffpost.com/entry/joe-biden-vp-tara-reade_n_5ea86f02c5b66d8003aac14f
 * https://www.commondreams.org/news/2020/04/28/demand-grows-biden-address-tara-reade-allegations-democrats-wrestle-metoo-hypocrisy
 * https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/04/joe-biden-sexual-assault-unnecessary-witnesses.html
 * https://www.salon.com/2020/04/28/two-women-corroborate-elements-of-tara-reades-sexual-assault-allegation-against-joe-biden/
 * https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/04/biden-should-release-his-papers/610801/
 * https://www.chicagotribune.com/election-2020/ct-nw-joe-biden-tara-reade-sexual-assault-allegation-20200428-fpiury2sijc6hff3bblczor6a4-story.html
 * That is what I figured, all liberal and have to retract stories all the time, the same exact reason that conservative sources are not allowed. So you admit that Wikipedia editors only allow liberal sources. Oh well. 173.172.158.168 (talk) 06:05, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Not really. Just a google list, as far as I can tell from reading the few more journalistic articles there. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 22:30, 28 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Exclude The policy is the degree of coverage it has received rather than its relevance. Some editors have decided that one article about Tara Reid in CNN is the equivalent of 700 articles about Christine Blasey Ford. It doesn't matter whether her claims are credible or not, true or false. So far it has received minimal coverage. We can wait to see if Trump makes it an issue and if it gets coverage. TFD (talk) 03:38, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Who decides when it has received substantial coverage? By all accounts it is well-covered, with the sources cited above as an example. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 04:24, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Us editors decide. We don't just count sources. Please have a read at WP:NPOV, WP:CON, WP:ONUS, WP:BLP, and WP:NOT. - MrX 🖋 13:44, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * No. Reliable sources are what we use, no matter what the circumstances or what we personally think. Otherwise, Wikipedia becomes an opinions website and not an encyclopedia. Please let's at least pay attention to the long list of reliable sources given in this thread. --Comment by <b style="color:#14866d">Selfie City</b> ( talk about my  contributions ) 15:27, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Are you responding to my comment? I never suggested that we don't use reliable sources. I said that we also use editorial discretion, consensus, and neutral point of view. By the way, about half of those sources are not usable according to our standards. - MrX 🖋 18:48, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken, determing whether something has received substantial coverage requires common sense on the part of editors. When CNN published 700 stories about Ford's accusations against Kavanaugh, a little know judge, that was substantial. When they publish one article about Reade's accusations against Biden and no articles about the phone call among many articles they publish about him every single day, it isn't substantial relative to overall coverage. TFD (talk) 23:50, 29 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Include – it's widely covered by RS, per the links above (and there are others). Levivich&thinsp;<sup style="white-space:nowrap;">[dubious – discuss] 19:28, 29 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Include as stated above. ShadZ01 (talk) 23:56, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Include it's relevant to the nature of the allegations and it's has been reported upon in mainstream reliable publications (ie. the atlantic) Epluribusunumyall (talk) 03:38, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Include and add NPR to the list as well. https://www.npr.org/2020/04/29/847840765/new-information-emerges-around-biden-sexual-assault-allegation Sir Joseph (talk) 04:34, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Exclude - it's ridiculous to try to include it in this high level article. Clearly violates NPOV and UNDUE. It belongs in the dedicated article on the subject.  Volunteer Marek   04:39, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Include - it's more ridiculous to not include it. If you think this violates NPOV you're being ridiculous, this has been widely-reported on and is intrinsically linked to understanding the article's subject. Excluding this is doing nothing but covering-up information. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 08:10, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Include even if some of our editors want to ignore it. Some people think that they can include ten paragraphs of insults on one candidate and then ignore RSes for someone else who’s accused of the same thing. I support per NPOV. --Comment by <b style="color:#14866d">Selfie City</b> ( talk about my  contributions ) 11:13, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Exclude. We are not going to through every new aspect related to the accusation in the main bio article, and list the corroborating and conflicting aspects. For comparison, the Trump main article contains two short concise paragraphs about the sexual assault allegations against him. Just as it would be inappropriate to recite the details of each credible allegation in that article, it is inappropriate in this article. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:01, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Interesting. However, President Trump has far more controversies to list in that article than Joe Biden, having been president for over three years, so I think comparing the coverage of these two is like comparing apples and oranges, unless Joe Biden gets elected in November. --Comment by <b style="color:#14866d">Selfie City</b> ( talk about my  contributions ) 14:44, 30 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Exclude - I don't think it belongs in the article per WP:UNDUE, WP:NOTNEWS, and WP:BLP. It unduly bolster's the allegation against Biden. About half of those sources are unsuitable for BLP content. - MrX 🖋 15:03, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Which ones in particular? I can see the Reason and CommonDreams ones falling into that category, however they are only two and you claim its "about half" so can you elaborate? MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 15:15, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Also Newsweek, Slate, Salon, and Huffington Post. - MrX 🖋 19:42, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * How is this no more than news? It is an important development in the allegations. --Comment by <b style="color:#14866d">Selfie City</b> ( talk about my  contributions ) 16:16, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * What makes it important? "The [mother]/woman does not mention sexual assault or harassment, nor does she describe in any detail what "problems" she might be referring to. Her daughter's name and Biden are also not mentioned." - MrX 🖋 19:42, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I think this may be UNDUE for the main BLP, but certainly applicable at the allegations article. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:24, 30 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Exclude Absolutely not appropriate for this article.  Seems appropriate for the split article.  Gandydancer (talk) 15:36, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Exclude There is no connection whatsoever to Reade's allegation of Biden trumping her. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 17:11, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * There clearly is; the interview took place with her mother. --Comment by <b style="color:#14866d">Selfie City</b> ( talk about my  contributions ) 18:39, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Whoever that was that Larry King spoke to -- not selected for an interview, it was call-in bingo night at Larry King Show -- that caller did not describe what later became Reade's 2020 allegation. Tens of thousands of people call in to talk shows every year.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 21:47, 30 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Include If you are going to include one writer from the New York Times' glowing praise that "The New York Times reported that "No other allegation about sexual assault surfaced in the course of reporting, nor did any former Biden staff members corroborate any details of Ms. Reade's allegation. The Times found no pattern of sexual misconduct by Mr. Biden."" in this article, which is essentially the Democratic Party organ saying "we support Joe" and not a real journalistic assessment, then I recommend you not cover up real facts, that is, the CNN clip that has been reported on by CNN and Fox News, especially when Fox News directly calls out the New York Times as covering up the whole incident. It's quite clear to me at least that the New York Times is not a reliable source on this issue: party organ. Geographyinitiative (talk) 00:10, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Removed Geographyinitiative (talk) 00:14, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:FALSEBALANCE, etc. You're comparing a statement about the allegations in general with a specific detail. This isn't a game of balancing positive and negative; it's about how to properly summarize the sources in various articles. This is the main article, and therefore should include a summary of what we have a whooollle other article about. &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 00:28, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I tried to help you make Wikipedia a credible resource rather than the mouthpiece of the NYT, but you all have failed us. This is a political campaign season people, OF COURSE the NYT may say have a motive to not do the investigative reporting that would turn up, I don't know, something like a video from CNN in 1993 and just sweep it all under the rug. Oh well Geographyinitiative (talk) 00:34, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * You're right, but Wikipedia fails in this particular regard by perpetuating this false illusion reliable sources cannot hold biases themselves, and often some editors with bad faith take advantage of this; not making any explicit accusations, of course. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 05:12, 1 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Exclude - This specific detail absolutely should be included in the article about the allegations. The job here is to summarize what reliable sources say about the allegations and link to that article, not to include the various details here, too. If this turns out to be a major factor in how this story plays out, then it might wind up making sense to include in the summary, but at this stage it doesn't seem like it. &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 00:28, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Exclude This is Joe Biden's bio, an anonymous call made to a talk show 27 years ago, with no proven link to Biden or the allegations, does not belong here. Whether or not it belongs on other Biden-topic pages is debatable on their respective talk pages. Zaathras (talk) 00:35, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * First include that her friends and family said she told them what happened to her at the time. Kolya Butternut (talk) 06:01, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Stephanie Carter
, please take that bit about Stephanie Carter out of the article. What you put in is sensationalist violating WP:NOTNEWS and an incomplete account of the story. Carter denied it was anything. If not, someone else take this out. I'm at 1RR for the day. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:46, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you ! – Muboshgu (talk) 02:58, 1 May 2020 (UTC)


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


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


 * Actually, it isn't. Peruse WP:UNDUE in your free time. Zaathras (talk) 03:08, 1 May 2020 (UTC)


 * You are conflating inappropriate touching with sexual assault, just the same narrative that fringe media is attempting. Be better than that. ValarianB (talk) 03:13, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you agree it was "inappropriate touching." I certainly wasn't trying to imply it was an assault. EdJF (talk) 16:20, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The section is about both. PackMecEng (talk) 03:15, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes it is, so hold on the moral grandstanding you're demonstrating here. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 05:15, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The section heading for that section also seems to be conflating inappropriate touching with sexual assault. Would you agree that it needs to be changed? Clementina1989 (talk) 14:47, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

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

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