Jump to content

Talk:Joe Biden/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10

Remove "comments on Pres. Trump" section?

The entire "Comments on President Trump" section seems based on editors' Original Research judgment as to the significance of various events, anecdotes and statements on the subject. There are some good reliable sources and some rather weak sources. If there is to be such a section, it should be sourced to some reference that provides an overview of the subject, not content cobbled together by WP editors from the thousands of news clips and sound bites related to the subject. I think the section should be greatly reduced or removed from this article. It might be the basis for a separate article relating to Biden's post-VP years, campaign statements, or views on Trump. But this is his biography article. SPECIFICO talk 13:51, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, I'm getting a strong WP:NOTNEWS / WP:UNDUE / WP:10YT vibe. Much of it is outdated. In October 2018, Biden opposed impeaching Trump. Well, things sure changed in 2019, didn't they? – Muboshgu (talk) 17:47, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

The assertion that a terrorist was assassinated is absurd. Especially since the same term was not used when Obama killed Osama Bib Laden. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1C0:4380:6260:880D:ACDF:73FB:9F7F (talk) 04:10, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Biden family corruption allegations

Is there a Biden family corruption allegations article? Seems we could not put all these allegations on this article due to WP:BLP but we could add it to a family page if it existed. Please feel free to ping me response, as I dont follow this article. NYPost has a nice expose on this today. Should be plenty of other allegations on the Hunter affair as well. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:31, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

That is not RS. SPECIFICO talk 10:23, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
But The Guardian and The Intercept are RS. And the New York attorney and law professor Zephyr Teachout, author of Corruption in America (2014) and Break 'em Up (2020), is an academic anticorruption expert:
Multi-generational scams like the one Biden has used to enrich family members break slowly, Politico is now revealing corrupt land deal Involving Joe Biden and his family:

Is he still the frontrunner after losing in Iowa?

Betting markets, which do embody public sentiment to a certain extent, are showing him below Sanders. I don't think Sanders has a convincing enough lead to be considered the frontrunner, but it seems to me like there's no overall frontrunner at this stage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.125.229.118 (talk) 22:48, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

I've edited that sentence in the lead. SPECIFICO talk 23:26, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
We report respected polls and commentary, not betting markets. As of February 7 he was still the frontrunner in national polls.[1] -- MelanieN (talk) 19:34, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Request for Comment invitation

Please participate in the Request for Comment about a change proposal for the infobox for caucus results. Xenagoras (talk) 21:46, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

"CornPop" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect CornPop. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. feminist (talk) 18:39, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories

This has been roundly rejected with citation to core Wikipedia policy, and I don't think there's anything left to be said. Neutralitytalk 22:46, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
Closing this again after it was improperly reopened by the original poster. Just to make this perfectly clear: WP:BLP applies on article talk pages. The general idea proposed was roundly rejected. We customarily close discussions "when further contributions are unlikely to be helpful" especially "when further responses are likely to result in little more than wasting everyone's time by repeating the same widely held view." We are also not an Internet forum for personal musings based on individual editors' watching of video clips. Don't re-open this. Neutralitytalk 16:32, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

I think the discussion on his mental decline warrants a mention. It has been discussed by Washington Post https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/03/11/age-related-mental-decline-is-real-issue-both-biden-trump/, Intercept https://theintercept.com/2020/03/09/it-was-democrats-and-their-media-allies-who-impugned-bidens-cognitive-fitness-yet-now-feign-outrage/, Japan Times https://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion/2020/03/11/commentary/world-commentary/biden-obviously-dementia-withdraw-race/ amongst other (less reliable) sources.

Withholding this discussion from his page would be a grave misrepresentation of his person and presidential campaign, not in line with Wikipedia’s standards, and is potentially dangerous given that surely some voters absorb Wikipedia writings and it would manifest at the ballot box. GGLLFFP (talk) 17:04, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Opinion articles are mostly unsuitable to biographical content. If you want to propose something that is based on objective reporting and analysis, or medical sources, I would be open to including it in some form. - MrX 🖋 17:20, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
It is certainly not meant to be a direct reference, but rather mentioned speculatively. GGLLFFP (talk) 10:17, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Sometimes opinions achieve significance in which case we might include it. This happens when news media start to report them. While withholding this discussion may be a grave misrepresentation, Wikipedia articles are not supposed to provide information that is ignored in mainstream media but to reflect what mainstream media reports in proportion to their coverage. TFD (talk) 18:50, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
I understand where you’re coming from, but I feel there are two problems: firstly, this arbitrary notion of “mainstream media start to report”... it has been mentioned in some mainstream outlets as I have shown, it’s not complete radio silence. At what point do you say the media has started reporting on it? Must it be dominating the news cycle (which is not only too strict but is also arbitrary)? Should it be said by a specific person or class of people? Secondly, it is certainly possible that slowly but surely many reports are made. But the overall news narrative is not controlled by an individual journalist. How can we expect to not mention this at all when it becomes clear that it is an issue but the powers that be decide there are other things they’d rather cover?GGLLFFP (talk) 10:17, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
There's almost no discussion of this outside of opinion pieces and the Twitter feeds of passionate individuals on the political extremes. We would surely need to see significantly better sourcing. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:33, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
And that is quite the shame. I have indeed mentioned some mainstream media articles about this, however. And, if Google Trends is any indication, this has been a highly searched-for topic over the past few weeks. GGLLFFP (talk) 10:17, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
I should also mention for the record that I am not on twitter or anything... I have come to this idea simply from watching Biden speak. GGLLFFP (talk) 16:05, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
We don't include unverified nonsense about the physical and mental health of BLPs. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:46, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
”We” being? The Joe Biden fan club? It is surely not nonsense.
Including opinions pieces such as these would substantially violates many of our policies including WP:BLP, WP:NOTSPECULATION and WP:UNDUEWEIGHT. No physician who has actually examined Biden has made any such claims. The American Psychiatric Association mandates that mental health professionals not comment nor speculate on people who they have not personally examined. There have been long discussions about this at Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton and the consensus is not to include unsubstantiated opinions such as these. IMO it would be a  "grave misrepresentation" to do so. CBS527Talk 20:15, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
It is quite alarming that this discussion has been so quickly and aggressively locked down and dismissed as a conspiracy theory (despite it not meeting those criteria). This is not only discouraging to discussion but it would also discourage people from introducing this topic in the future. This certainly goes against the free-and-fair ethos of Wikipedia. GGLLFFP (talk) 10:17, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
@GGLLFFP: You asked for something that would violate one of Wikipedia's core policies (WP:BLP) and there was a broad consensus that you can't do that, so the discussion was quite rightly closed. Then you piped in with your "Joe Biden fan club?" comment, which rather suggests a purpose other than contributing to the Wikipedia project in good faith. By all means make suggestions about improving the article, but please don't get all pissy when your suggestions are not met with the response you desired. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:10, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
I understand why my suggestion was not taken up. It’s more alarming that it was simply dismissed as a “conspiracy theory”. And hear me out about the fan club thing: admittedly it was in poor taste but it is certainly not meant as a jab, it is a sarcastic quip. And surely you would agree with me when I say that fellow calling my suggestion “unverified nonsense” was unnecessarily harsh a judgement. GGLLFFP (talk) 16:05, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
All three of your sources were clearly opinion pieces, which are unacceptable as reliable sources, particularly for biographies of living persons. That is Wikipedia policy and all of us must adhere to it. Unless you can provide reliable sources, i.e., actual news reports, there is nothing to discuss. While I cannot speak for any else, I certainly have striven to maintain the same standards for politicians across the political spectrum. I agree btw that it is not a conspiracy theory, just speculation, since it does not presuppose an all-knowing, all-powerful and totally evil cabal See Hanlon's razor: "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." TFD (talk) 15:15, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Well, it is fine that it was rejected, I think it was at least useful to have a discussion about it. But as I have said, my suggestion is not to outright say “Biden is daft and old, see these opinion pieces”, but rather “Frequent gaffes have lead some in the media have speculated upon Biden’s mental state on the campaign trail... xyz person wrote in the abc outlet “quote”...”. Rather, it is seemingly undue weight which disqualifies my suggestion given the eerie silence of the media over this situation. GGLLFFP (talk) 16:05, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 February 2020

Joe Biden's name description includes a disruptive and negative connotative nickname used by his opponents to insult Joe Biden.

E.G. Joseph Robinette "Sleepy Joe" Biden Jr. Edd0001 (talk) 22:08, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

It's been fixed and the user was given a warning. Danski14(talk) 22:11, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Liz, why did you want to remove the specific allegation in favor of the vague language "sexual assault"?[2]  Brett Kavannaugh's article, for example, includes the allegation.[3]. Kolya Butternut (talk) 15:25, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

I am not Liz, but in my opinion the details of the assault are over the top until we have much wider coverage. It would also help if the allegation was made under penalty of perjury. The Kavannaugh allegation was made under oath in the senate hearings and thus has more weight--Davemoth (talk) 16:46, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
But why is "sexual assault" preferable to the actual allegation? She was not under oath for any part of her statement. I don't understand what is "over the top" about it; it simply is the uncensored allegation. Is there a wikipolicy you can direct me to? Kolya Butternut (talk) 16:51, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, leave that out. It's sensationalistic and adds no encyclopedic value whatsoever. - MrX 🖋 16:52, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 March 2020

BEFORE: Biden spent 28 years as a junior senator due to the two-year seniority of his Republican colleague William Roth After Roth was defeated for re-election by Tom Carper in 2000,

AFTER: Biden spent 28 years as a junior senator due to the two-year seniority of his Republican colleague William Roth. After Roth was defeated for re-election by Tom Carper in 2000,

NOTE: If you can't tell, there's a missing period after "William Roth" Koiyoto (talk) 20:45, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

 Done. Thank you for finding that error. Aoi (青い) (talk) 21:00, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 March 2020

The word "primaries" is misspelled in the sub-section heading "clout in the primaries". It currently reads, "clout in the primraies". Taguchit (talk) 19:54, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Taguchit, fixed by J. M. Thanks for pointing it out! – Muboshgu (talk) 21:48, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 March 2020

There is a missing letter "n" in the word "seen" in the quote in the last paragraph of section 3.2 Brain surgeries. 91.139.85.179 (talk) 20:30, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for pointing out this typo. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:50, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

"Frontrunner" in the lead

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

I was thinking the same thing. With Biden's 4th-place finish in Iowa it's certainly an open question, too open and complex for the lede. I am going to remove that sentence. pbp 16:06, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
If you'll please look at the section immediately above this, you'll see that I addressed this concern with my edit of the lead content. The text you've now deleted was entirely appropriate, accurate, and informative and reflects the text of the article. Please undo your removal and explain why you think the mention of his initially being considered the "frontrunner" should not be mentioned. SPECIFICO talk 17:13, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
I also disagree with removing this sentence from the lead. Biden still leads in the national polls.[4] Even if he now falls out of first place, we can't just erase the fact that he has been considered the front runner for all of 2019 - basically from even before he declared his candidacy. And if he now falls out of first place, that can be reflected in the sentence - something like "He was considered the front runner until..." -- MelanieN (talk) 19:24, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
I have restored it, pending further discussion. And SPECIFICO, I changed your "upon entering the race" to "throughout 2019." I'm open to other ways of portraying the fact that he has been considered the front runner up to now. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:31, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
@MelanieN:, I think yours is an improvement - there was much speculation before he announced that he was/would be the frontrunner. SPECIFICO talk 20:44, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
Oops, re-pinging SPECIFICO. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:39, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
  • @MelanieN: @SPECIFICO: I continue to believe that having a frontrunner sentence right now is a bad idea. We may have to re-write the sentence in 2-3 days if he loses New Hampshire. As for calling it "sourced content" to restore it, the sources may very well be out of date, and therefore I'm not comfortable with the claim above that the sentence I deleted was "entirely appropriate [and] accurate". Who's the frontrunner before the election isn't particularly lead-worthy unless they continue to be frontrunner during and after the election. There's even an argument to be made that declaring pre-election frontrunners runs afoul of WP:CRYSTAL. pbp 20:10, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
THere's nothing "crystal" about it. There is no prediction involved. It is simply reporting the results of polls at the time. I grant you that early polling is notoriously inaccurate in predicting the actual outcome (remember President Giuliani? How about President Jeb?), but it is a widely reported part of the story. And yes, the information may/will have to be modified (not removed) if/when the situation changes. But the fact that the person was considered the frontrunner for a full year is an important part of the historical record. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:46, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Biden Is Not The Front-Runner Compared to Clinton's lead over Sanders in 2016, that merits a front-runner status on the lead, now that Biden is slipping in the national polls -> Sanders 25% to Biden's 17% and Sanders leads Biden in delegates and popular vote I think having the "Throughout 2019 he was the front-runner" is good, but reword it to like "Throughout 2019, Biden was seen as the front-runner, in the aftermath of the primaries however, he faced challenges from Senator Bernie Sanders" or something along those lines. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 09:39, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
  • If Biden doesn't win in New Hampshire, we should move the frontrunner sentence from the lead to the body of the article. Poll performance in 2019 is not significant when early primaries/caucuses tell a different story. - MrX 🖋 12:38, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Biden was FIFTH, and sorry @MelanieN: @SPECIFICO:, but I'm seeing an emerging consensus against currently classifying him as the frontrunner. Also note that a recent NPR article is now calling Bernie the frontrunner pbp 04:54, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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


Proposal

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

Throughout 2019 Biden led in the national polls and was widely considered to be the frontrunner in the primary race.[1][2] However, after disappointing showings in the Iowa and New Hampshire primary contests, he fell out of first place.[3]

Sources

  1. ^ "NBC/WSJ poll: Former Vice President Joe Biden frontrunner in race for Democratic nomination". NBC News. December 19, 2019. Retrieved 10 February 2020.
  2. ^ Silver, Nate (January 10, 2020). "Biden Is The Front-Runner, But There's No Clear Favorite". FiveThirtyEight. Retrieved 10 February 2020.
  3. ^ Oprysko, Caitlin (February 10, 2020). "Biden plummets in new national poll, ceding top spot to Bernie". Politico. Retrieved 12 February 2020.

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

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

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

Frontrunner back in lead?

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

Campaign

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

If we have "Trump Derangement Syndrome", what do you call your condition, where you believe fake news? Biden bragged about getting a corrupt prosecutor fired because he wasn't investigating Burisma. Getting the prosecutor fired put Hunter Biden at a greater risk, not less. Also, Biden delivered that threat to the Ukrainian government on behalf of the entire Western world. It wasn't him acting on his own. You are misinterpreting what Biden is bragging about having done. The sentence "President Donald Trump and his allies falsely accused Biden of getting the Ukrainian prosecutor general Viktor Shokin fired because he was ostensibly pursuing an investigation into Burisma Holdings, which employed Biden's son, Hunter." is factually correct, though it could be written in a clearer fashion. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:49, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
You left out the rest of the sentence. Trump did not falsely accuse Biden of asking for the prosecutor to be fired, he falsely presented the reason. TFD (talk) 07:03, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
This is all perfect except for the fact Shokin rearrested Burisma Holdings, LTD, Cyprus assets (cars, houses, not all money as they are in Cyprus) a weak before (on 2nd February 2016 by Peterchsky court) he was fired by Biden. First result in google https://nv.ua/ukraine/events/gpu-soobshchila-chto-imushchestvo-eks-ministra-ekologii-zlochevskogo-snova-pod-arestom-95375.html official statement from Shokin https://web.archive.org/web/20160205092116/http://www.gp.gov.ua/ua/news.html?_m=publications&_c=view&_t=rec&id=168807 2A00:1FA0:208:5755:C157:F517:29BF:24C (talk) 04:40, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 8 April 2020

x: current profile photo featured on page infobox. y: changed to (Redacted) as it is more aesthetically pleasing. RollyColly (talk) 16:37, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:42, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
And this photo is a copyright violation and will be deleted soon. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:06, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 8 April 2020

change from 2020 presidential candidate to 2020 presumptive democratic nominee. RAZ (talk) 18:00, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Could you clarify precisely what you want changed? this edit has already been made. If there is something more that needs to be done, could you quote the current version of a sentence you want changed and what you want it changed to? ~Awilley (talk) 20:54, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
 Done. I presume this is the requested change. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:05, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
I added "presumed Democratic nominee." Important to say "presumably nominated" by whom or whom. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:58, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 8 April 2020

We need added into the Navbox, that Biden is the 2020 Democratic presumptive nominee for President of the United States. GoodDay (talk) 20:31, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Here's the current Navbox. Could you edit that with the changes you'd like made? ~Awilley (talk) 21:00, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
You mean "Infobox", not "navbox". We don't need to add that. There's enough in the infobox already.  Not done: – Muboshgu (talk) 21:02, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
The Navbox, at the bottom of the page. It's in the bios of all presidential & vice presidential nominees, going back to the 1700s. GoodDay (talk) 21:32, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
GoodDay, that's for nominees. Biden isn't the nominee until/unless the convention nominates him. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:36, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
Merely add presumptive. That's how it's done on Hillary Clinton's page, where Biden is shown as the next Dem prez nominee. GoodDay (talk) 22:00, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 9 April 2020

Need to add him as the presumptive nominee for the Democratic Party for President of the United States in 2020 on the "Offices and distinctions" section at the bottom of the page with him succeeding Hillary Clinton. Dylansh99 (talk) 18:11, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

 Done with this edit. Courtesy ping Muboshgu. I acted on this request; between editors here and at Hillary Clinton, there seems to be a rough consensus that the presumption is strong enough to include in the "Offices and Distinctions" template at the bottom of the page. — Wug·a·po·des​ 20:49, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
Wugapodes, thanks for the ping. I didn't see the followup, forgot to check. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:54, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 9 April 2020

Please restore the longstanding lead image[5] which was changed before the RfC[6] closure. Kolya Butternut (talk) 04:32, 9 April 2020 (UTC) Kolya Butternut (talk) 04:32, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. While the RfC was never formally closed, consensus there is clearly against using the official photograph. See WP:RFCCLOSE for more information on handling unclosed RfCs. — Wug·a·po·des​ 21:03, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Protected edit request on April 9, 2020

Visiting this page and reading the lede, particularly "when he became the sixth-youngest senator in American history," I became interested in seeing how he stacked up against other senators. It took me a bit to find this article List of youngest members of the United States Congress. Even then I wasn't quite sure if it just included present Congressmen and if it was just the House. I propose that we link sixth-youngest senator in American history to that list. Thanks! ~ HAL333 23:49, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

 Done This request has been here for more than 24 hours without comments and seems fairly uncontroversial. I've added the link in the main body rather than the lead though. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:17, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 10 April 2020

Could someone replace that butt ugly picture with an earlier one? preferably one of his official VP pictures? The current one makes him look demonic and demented.Arglebargle79 (talk) 10:37, 10 April 2020 (UTC) Arglebargle79 (talk) 10:37, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Compare that pic with the one on his presidential campaign website: https://joebiden.com/ . Basically the same. That you think it is ugly is not a reason to change it. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:22, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:25, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 11 April 2020

In the first paragraph of the lede, change "Biden is the presumptive nominee for president" to "Biden is the presumptive Democratic nominee for president". The current wording is inaccurate, because he isn't *the* presumptive nominee for president—Trump is also a presumptive nominee. Gaelan 💬✏️ 23:42, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

 Done – Muboshgu (talk) 23:51, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

"Bdien" listed at Redirects for discussion

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

2020 presumptive nominee

Given that the page is currently under full protection, please add the following to the section "Campaign", under "2020 presidential campaign":

Thank you. — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 15:58, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, the lead should also say it. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:00, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
 Done as uncontroversial. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:43, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Ember, Sydney (April 8, 2020). "Bernie Sanders Drops Out of 2020 Democratic Race for President". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved April 8, 2020.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)

That would read better as "...Biden thus became the presumptive presidential nominee". GoodDay (talk) 20:21, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 March 2020

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

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

to the following:

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


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

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

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

New sexual assault allegations

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

Those are not good sources for controversial BLP content. See WP:BLPSOURCES. - MrX 🖋 01:04, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
Paste Magazine may not be a good source for this. The Intercept does not contain any more perceptible bias than mainstream news sources. A disgruntled readers' feelings that there is bias does not make it so. YouCanDoBetter (talk) 02:35, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
The Intercept does not meet the Verfiability Standards WP:SOURCE to publish controversial content without confirmation. 2601:601:8000:9B0:E130:8887:C8F9:77A7 (talk) 02:23, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Tara Reade

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

It is unsupportable and will be taken to the proper noticeboards if this happens again. petrarchan47คุก 22:15, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
The content in question is not supported by RS and should be removed ASAP. There is one RS: A Business Insider piece that briefly mentions her in a piece that mentions every allegation against Biden. Petrarchan47 has violated the 24-hr BRD restrictions on this article by immediately restoring the challenged content. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:27, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
I did not "wholesale restore" the content as you claimed on my talk page, I improved some sources, which was your less-than-informative edit summary claiming all sources were insufficient. And why did you remove Biden's longstanding rebuttal? This feels like a careless act, your wholesale removal of an hour's worth of my work. Please take your time and comment on each complaint/source/removal so that I can address them. petrarchan47คุก 01:46, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
Can someone show several impeccable sources to demonstrate that this meets WP:DUEWEIGHT. We need to seer very clear of sources like Paste Magazine and the Intercept, in my opinion. We also need to adhere to what sources actually write. If this worth including, it should trivial to find good sources. - MrX 🖋 01:03, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
[edit conflict] Can you explain why you think The Intercept fails WP:RS? You can search the NB archives for a section supporting your stance, otherwise I would open a new thread on the matter. To my knowledge it is considered highly reputable.
Here is an article on Yahoo from Refinery29 quoting addressing your question as to whether sparse mention in media is equivalent to a lack of due weight (or encyclopedic importance): Reade’s accusation has opened up discourse on social media about why the mainstream media is ignoring the story. “I don’t understand why the extremely serious sexual assault allegations against Joe Biden are not getting significant attention outside of left media,” tweeted Vox Senior Correspondent Zack Beauchamp.
We have the proper sources and enough of them to support the mention of this case and the new developments. The sources meet RS requirements, and it is a violation of WP:NPOV to block the addition of (some form of) this material. petrarchan47คุก 01:46, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
Petrarchan47, The Intercept has a clear pro-Bernie bias. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:01, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
Yes, and an anti-establishment bias. Their political articles tend to have an invective tone, and often promote marginal viewpoints. - MrX 🖋 02:18, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
If you want to play this game, we can sit here all day and talk about pro-establishment Fox, anti-establishment Huffington Post, pro-establishment CNN, etc. It does not matter what slant you think you perceive. It is reliable. YouCanDoBetter (talk) 02:32, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
Someone sort it out. It's unacceptable that an assault charge - explicitly laid out in a verifiable interview - that details behavior tangibly different than previous harassment charges is not included. Here are the sources, find consensus on what is considered "reliable". And let me be the first to put my vote against turning away The Intercept as an unreliable source.

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

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

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

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

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

Those are not mainstream RS references. When the story has been vetted and published in mainstream RS, please show us the relevant links. SPECIFICO talk 01:43, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, Specifico, The Intercept and The Hill are considered mainstream and more importantly, reliable. As are Democracy Now and Law and Crime. It is on you to prove your claim to the contrary. Has this been established at the RS NB? petrarchan47คุก 01:48, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
It's not "on" anyone to prove BLP material is unsourced. It's on the editor advocating BLP content to demonstrate the highest level of Reliable Sourcing. Intercept is nowadays more or less an angry and often childish anti-American blog. The Hill is RS for some of what it publishes, but it also runs a lot of right to far-right nonsense in the mix. If these are solid accusations -- I have no opinion -- there will be numerous mainstream RS references you'll be able to cite. It's not necessary to root around for truffles in the muck. Good content is easy to source. If the material is valid, there will soon be many uncontroversial sources with the details. SPECIFICO talk 02:10, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
Your opinions on The Intercept being an anti-American blog (dubious and and not relevant, to put it bluntly), are not the point. Those are two reputable sources. And much more importantly, we can and should not require "mainstream" sources, as the entire drive of that logic is to silence marginalized voices. Full stop. I'm with Petrarchan47. YouCanDoBetter (talk) 02:27, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
The Hill article is unsuitable for including such an allegation in this bio. It may suitable for including something about Time's Up refusal to provide financial support to Tara Reade in her bio. The Intercept is not a mainstream news source. - MrX 🖋 02:36, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
Does not need to be. YouCanDoBetter (talk) 02:43, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
YouCanDoBetter, and the Washington Post? New York Times? You know, any reliable source? Guy (help!) 11:30, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

The issue here is not Sanders. It's about Biden, and Biden only. The question is not "why the same authors", the question is when a woman accuses a powerful politician of rape, why don't corporate-owned (mainstream) sources take notice, especially those who historically support him, and why are these mainstream sources the only valid ones when it's this situation? Because if it wasn't a powerful politician being accused, The Hill would not be being challenged, nor would "mainstream" sources be required. Everyone here knows that. This is silencing, pure and simple. YouCanDoBetter (talk) 02:51, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
According to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, Wikipedia's consensus so far regarding The Intercept has been that The Intercept is generally reliable for news. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 06:20, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And now we have editors breathlessly adding this to Joe Biden 2020 presidential campaign as well. - MrX 🖋 11:26, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Do not add I feel very strongly that considering that since we are all anons with no credentials what so ever we must be committed to the WP guidelines that have been set up to avoid destroying reputations. A charge of rape that went unreported for years must not be added to this article until after it is reported in the major news sources including the NYT and Washpo, AND we must keep to guidelines that discourage adding WP:RECENT information that is hardly more than "breaking news"--we certainly must NOT add it so early that Biden has not yet even responded. Gandydancer (talk) 14:56, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Do not add Fails weight, since not covered in major news outlets. Even if they do mention it, it will depend on the degree of coverage. TFD (talk) 23:44, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Why did you say that I made an edit that your link shows was made by Volunteer Marek? I started a discussion about an unprecedented move by a U.S. Senator in the midst of a Supreme Court confirmation, and listed five national sources in addition to The Intercept. You have listed Vox and IBTimes. - MrX 🖋 20:16, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
Oh, my mistake. I've removed that. I have listed Vox, IBTimes and Fox in addition to the many sources I used in the article and that are already listed in the section above. You make it sounds as though only 2 sources support the material. Please don't make comments that clearly misrepresent the facts, and I will try to do likewise. petrarchan47คุก 20:30, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

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

Leave any conspiracy theorizing at your own talk page, not here. If you have comments about a particular source, please identify it so we can respond. Blanket claims don't help much. Thanks, petrarchan47คุก 20:32, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
This is just grasping at straws. Ryan Grim, the Intercept, etc. only point up the fact that the best quality mainstream journalists are not touching this. They are quite aware of it and they do not consider it "fit to print". That's really all we need to know. Call back when this is presented as a credible claim by mainstream RS reporting. SPECIFICO talk 20:37, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
Indeed. For something as potentially serious as this, we would expect to see coverage in a preponderance of high quality, mainstream media sources. This is a BLP, so cast-iron sourcing is expected for what is potentially defamatory. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:41, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
We can't include the Reade allegations unless there is widespread coverage in mainstream media per weight. It might be tempting to listen to Reade's interviews and read what reputable people say about them and say it should be in the article because it is significant to the topic. But editors don't get to determine what is significant but must follow what mainstream sources do. While one may debate why this policy exists, we would need to change it before adding this story. TFD (talk) 20:52, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
Fox News has reported on this. Given that "mainstream" has become code for "news sources that I like", I don't know if this is going to be good enough for most people. But I think this should settle it, and maybe by a narrow vote we may have consensus. https://www.foxnews.com/politics/biden-campaign-denies-false-allegations-of-sexual-assault

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

The Fox News article does not verify anything. It regurgitates The Intercept and then covers the denial by Biden staffers. It's clear the story doesn't clear the WP:WEIGHT and WP:BLP hurdles it would need to in order to be considered for inclusion. Wikipedia should not be giving credence to dubious claims of sexual assault by notable people without high quality sourcing, and so far there is none to be seen. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:33, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
Hey so I'm new here and not familiar with how Wikipedia politics works or whatever but I would like to say it's ridiculous there's still no mention of this for all the reasons others have already spelled out. If the handful of corporate news sources you guys like continue to ignore what should be a massive story that's on them. Is there anything I can do to help get this included? Utility fish (talk) 23:06, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
Please read Due and undue weight. Wikipedia is not an alternative encyclopedia but shows the same importance to issues as you would expect to find in corporate news sources such as ABC, CBS, FOX and NBC news. Articles will summarize the main points they find important. If you don't think the corporate media is doing a good job covering issues, complain to them. If you think that Wikipedia policy is wrong, get it changed. Alternative encyclopedias exist. Conservapedia for example has a lengthy section on this issue in its Biden article. Readers who want their particular emphasis on the Joe Biden story are welcome to read it. TFD (talk) 23:29, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
I don't see anything in Due and undue weight that pertains to this issue. If you don't think this holds due weight, could you explain your reasoning in specific terms? Whether or not you believe the allegations, a serious, credible claim of sexual assault against a frontrunner for the US presidency holds a lot of weight in my view and many others'. I am not going to complain to the corporate media because the corporate media do not answer to me or the general public. I am not going to start using Conservapedia because I am not a conservative or a fundamentalist Christian. Neither are many other people who would nonetheless be interested in this topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Utility fish (talk • contribs) 23:58, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
A serious, credible claim of sexual assault against a frontrunner for the US presidency holds a lot of weight in my view and many others'. Except it's not a serious, credible claim. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:00, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
Any claim of sexual assault is serious by definition. And it's as credible as any such claim given years after the fact can reasonably be expected to be (obviously there were no witnesses but Reade's brother and others have confirmed that she told them about it at the time and she has tried multiple times now to draw attention to her story starting almost a year ago). Do you not consider any of these allegations serious or credible enough to warrant inclusion in Wikipedia, or do they suddenly become serious and credible once they've been filtered through CNN? Utility fish (talk) 00:19, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
That's absurd. Spurious claims are made against high profile individuals all the time. Given the details I have read in the sources provided above, it would not surprise me at all if this didn't turn out to be just such a claim. The timing of the claim is incredibly suspect, and the fact that sources are predominantly pro-Bernie and pro-Trump does not feel right either. While your throwaway comment about CNN is obviously intended to be sarcastic, there is a ring of truth to it. I would expect to see extensive coverage in mainstream media (CNN, MSNBC, Fox News Channel, NYT, WaPo, WSJ, etc.) before even considering adding material to the biography of a public figure. We hold the same standard with every such figure, because otherwise Wikipedia descends into a cesspit of false allegations. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:35, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

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

If there was a significant body of allegations with good sourcing, then perhaps that could be considered. But right now it would basically be a WP:POVFORK. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:02, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
I don't think there are sufficient sources. There is no way for a neutral reader to determine the credibility of the accusations. There has been no independent verification for example that Reade ever worked for Biden. TFD (talk) 00:58, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
"Employment documents provided by Reade show that she worked in Biden’s office from December 1992 to August 1993." https://www.theunion.com/news/nevada-county-woman-says-joe-biden-inappropriately-touched-her-while-working-in-his-u-s-senate-office/ Utility fish (talk) 01:07, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
It also needs to be taken note of that dismissing the Fox News source because of it being taken from The Intercept is a logical fallacy. There are two separate discussions - weight in the media, which is where Fox comes in, regardless of where their sources come from, and then the issue of reliability. And The Intercept and The Hill have NOT been challenged as unreliable sources in any academic way in this entire thread. So not only are they still considered reliable, but more importantly the Fox News dismissal was an OT fallacy. YouCanDoBetter (talk) 01:14, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
I agree it doesn't matter where a story originates but the degree of coverage it receives. Fox News on its own is insufficient. in the article about Tulsi Gabbard, some editors wanted to insert false claims about her that were reported in NBC news, but no other news source had covered them. In the Donald Trump article, some editors wanted to include claims of sexual assault that the media had almost entirely ignored because they lacked credibility. Utility fish, someone providing employment documents is not independent verification. TFD (talk) 01:39, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
I agree with The Four Deuces that this is a question of due weight, not a lack of reliable sources. The Intercept and The Hill are reliable sources, as previously acknowledged. The question is what weight should currently be assigned to this given that the story has been picked up by these and now multiple other sources, but not the newspapers of record like NYT, Washington Post, or LA Times. Perhaps there's no obvious answer that would satisfy everyone. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 02:01, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
That's well put, and I understand, I don't mean to be aggressive. I am just worried that the width of coverage of a charge can be erased if it is not chosen to be covered by the big corporate news sources. Huffington Post has now reported on this, so now it's not just a major news source (Fox News) from the right, but not a fairly major one from the left. Is this, combined with an appropriate mention of Biden's denial, good enough yet? YouCanDoBetter (talk) 02:49, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
You're making a good argument, and I don't think you're being aggressive. I really don't think there's anything obviously wrong with putting Tara Reade's allegation into the article. It's notable enough to be discussed by several reliable sources, and since it can be reliably sourced the episode can be mentioned without any violation of BLP policies. On the other hand I see it's also not widely recognized as one of the most important things in Biden's life, given that the story is omitted by the leading newspapers, so in the end I'm fine with either. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 03:21, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
How else would you verify that she worked for him then? Utility fish (talk) 03:07, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
Utility fish, I'm not a PI. I assume that the Capitol would have records of who worked there. Of course no one has questioned whether she worked there. If the story gets reported in major media, then I expect the Biden campaign will check that out if they have not already. At present however their best course of action is to say as little as possible since even if they were able to disprove the allegations, drawing attention to it would be damaging. TFD (talk) 19:58, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

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

Vox and HuffPost have both made articles on the story. Don't think or know if it's sufficient enough but just want to put it out there.Geekgecko (talk) 02:09, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
Joe Biden is such a high profile person that unless some aspect of his life has extensive coverage across the media, it's not worthy of inclusion. TFD (talk) 04:15, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
Joe Biden had some comments on these types of allegations a year and a half ago - from WaPo - link. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:34, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Current sources

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

YouCanDoBetter (talk) 04:40, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
Agreed. Also I'm still not entirely convinced that the due weight thing is even a relevant argument here. The example given to demonstrate that policy is the omission of the flat earth theory from the earth article. A viewpoint like "the earth is flat" isn't at all comparable to the viewpoint we're discussing including, which can be summarized as "Tara Reade has accused Joe Biden of sexual assault." That's not even a minority viewpoint; no one is denying that she has made the accusation, only its content. Utility fish (talk) 05:43, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

Yeah, it points out the Ms. Reade changed her story. Originally, she stated "he used to put his hand on my shoulder and run his finger up my neck. I would just kind of freeze and wait for him to stop doing that." Now that Biden is a candidate for president, her new story is one of sexual assault. Meanwhile, every single source seems to point back to the interview she gave The Intercept, so there's been almost zero corroboration by other journalists. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:28, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
although they reference the Intercept it appears that both The Hill and Newsweek have independently interviewed Reade and staffers on the Biden campaign. --Davemoth (talk) 16:49, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
So what is the consensus? The previous votes do not take the new articles into account, and has been established the arguments do not hold up for keeping it off the article anyway. It seems the consensus is shifting toward inclusion, people need to speak up one way or the other. YouCanDoBetter (talk) 17:03, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
I'm not opposed to including a couple of brief sentences about this after a few major news organizations report on it. Remember, Wikipedia does not lead on publishing information. If this is important, high quality sources will pick it up. High quality sources would be the ones we predominantly use in this biography and similar biographies: The New York Times, The Washington Post, Politico, CNN, CBS News, ABC News, NBC News, NPR, Los Angeles Times, The Hill, BBC, The Wall Street Journal, and so on. Absolutely no opinion articles or bloggish sources should be used for this type of content. - MrX 🖋 17:13, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
All these references have been rejected, so there's no point repeating them. If this matter is ever reported in the sources MrX has listed, you are likely to be disappointed that the narrative is going to be calling these allegations questionable and unsubstantiated. Of course they may later be substantiated, but we have no idea about future developments. Please don't keep citing the same rejects and suggesting that editors need to reply "no" each time you repeat them. SPECIFICO talk 17:20, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
Mr. X just listed The Hill.  obviously the belief here is that the mainstream corporate media are protecting Biden.  That does not change our requirement for reliable sources, but we do have reliable sources.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:13, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
There are now not only multiple sources reporting it that are commonly used as reliable sources, but the fact that the Biden campaign acknowledged it should make this grounds for inclusion. How do we establish that we have a consensus? entropyandvodka (talk) 18:31, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
You can propose some text and start an RfC. - MrX 🖋 19:11, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
RfC is not the next step in dispute resolution. You listed The Hill as an RS, so hasn't your standard been met? Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:14, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
No, my standard has not been met. By the way, an RfC is an appropriate step because there is still no consensus, yet people continue adding this material. - MrX 🖋 00:40, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

The Times has now reported "Tara Reade, an assistant to the likely Democratic presidential candidate when he was a senator in 1993, claimed that he forcibly penetrated her with his fingers. She was among a group of women last year who claimed that Mr Biden had behaved inappropriately." [7]. Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:34, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Audio interview of Tara Reade by Katie Halper
  • I think these recent allegations are a fact, covered by multiple news sources, that need to be acknowledged (the fact that there are allegations, not whether they are factually true). I think the current coverage in the article is sufficient. I think the fact that the news broke during a national health crisis is the only reasons that they haven't received even further coverage. They are at least as credible as the accusations against Trump or other high-profile individuals. But we shouldn't provide a narrative of these experiences which seems sensationalistic. Liz Read! Talk! 23:52, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
I think the allegations against Time's Up though are a red herring and are in dispute. Times Up said that their PR firm has nothing to do with their individual financing decisions and, really, why would they? Also, even though Times Up have provided advice and support to thousands of women who have brought allegations to them, they have only financially supported about 200 cases. I'd remove this latest edit but I have already removed content today. Liz Read! Talk! 00:16, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
Support Inclusion of a simple paragraph without salacious details. At least 7 of sources now reporting on this are generally considered WP:RS. Some are consider biased or partisan, but that does not automatically disqualify them. At least 3 of those sources apparently interviewed Reade directly and a few got direct statements from Biden staffers.
Oppose inclusion of media bias and Times Up. This is still a breaking story and many of the MSM sources might be working on reporting and fact checking. Media Bias in 2020 could probably be a whole different article. It goes across political ideologies. Many of the sources pointing out the Reade allegtions were silent (or defensive) when Kavannaugh allegations initially broke. We can wait for more of this to shake out. --Davemoth (talk) 17:09, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
Support Inclusion per sufficient evidence of mainstream coverage. I see that the story is now not just covered by The Intercept, The Hill, and others like Newsweek, National Review, Fox News, and The Guardian. It made it into the World Edition of The Times. That actually happens to be one of the English-speaking world's newspapers of record. In this case WP:BLP instructs: "In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." That said, I would prefer to keep the description short and simple, as generally reported. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 05:46, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose. At least until it's included in high quality reliable sources. And we'd do the same if it was Trump. The Grauniad is the closest we have, and paints it in a different light - so we need more sources to establish a consensus view of the issue. The Intercept is not robust enough for a claim like this on a WP:BLP, and the rest of the sources mentioned are dross. Guy (help!) 11:32, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Consistency in treatment of salacious individual claims

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

BD2412, why is the Kavanaugh allegation by Swetnick, which is (Redacted) featured so prominently in his BLP? These standards should be universally upheld, or not at all. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:55, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
Mr Ernie, please remove this BLP violation.  It is slanderous to accuse Swetnick of making a false allegation without providing evidence.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 21:20, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
No I will not. Her accusation is the BLP violation. Mr Ernie (talk) 21:23, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
Ernie, get a grip. She swore an afadavit and presented it to a congressional committee, not a Wikipedia article. Anyway Chmn. Grassley referred her and Avenatti for prosecution. How did that turn out? SPECIFICO talk 21:31, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
Mr Ernie I've redacted the clear BLP violation in your comment. Feel free to revert this, and I will happily take this to ANI if need be. Thanks, —MelbourneStar☆talk 03:21, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
I think this is relevant for the article since Biden has championed the MeToo movement that a women should be believed. Larry Sinclair was an ex-con without a shred of credibility; Jennifer Fitzgerald was an alleged affair and not a sexual assault; Katie Johnson is not the accusers real name and she never came forward publicly. Reade on the other had is public and out there with her accusation (she gave a one hour interview) Patapsco913 (talk) 21:36, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
Biden stands against sexual assault with lady Gaga
Biden states that any woman’s public claims of assault should be presumed to be true
  • @Mr Ernie: The Kavanaugh allegation by Swetnick is prominent because it was the subject of the Senate hearing that determined the vote on Kavanaugh's confirmation to the Supreme Court. The Senate is, of course, free to call a hearing on the allegation against Biden, if they consider the claim credible enough to justify such a step. Having testimony given under oath would certainly raise the profile of this matter. BD2412 T 21:51, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
BD2412, I appreciate your suggestion, but we currently already have a policy formula for BLPs, and this talk page is not the best place to discuss changing the BLP policy. WP:BLP states "In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." That would cover situations with one allegation, provided there is sufficient reliable sourcing. Due weight may be a separate issue for some. If some happen to disagree with the policy itself, the place to discuss changing the policy would be at that policy's talk page. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 22:23, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
It may well be that the general understanding is that allegations of this sort, as with that of Katie Johnson, are undue for inclusion. BD2412 T 00:54, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Troubling editorial behavior

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

What is in there now is ok for the time being, I think. A short paragraph is all that is currently appropriate, until move coverage develops. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:51, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
I disagree. I would at least remove the part about how much mainstream media coverage it has received. As with the bit about TimesUp, it has nothing to do with Biden and is thus not biographically relevant. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:56, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
I agree, and I've removed that part. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:59, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

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

The Reade stuff has been removed wholesale by user:Volunteer Marek, which seems to be against the consensus formed here. VM - can you please re-insert the short paragraph in the subsection with the other allegations? Mr Ernie (talk) 08:27, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
I see no such consensus. Better to leave it out during discussion. SPECIFICO talk 08:59, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
Agreed. As with any BLP, we must leave out contentious material until a solid consensus for inclusion has been established, and even then it must be based on significant coverage in a preponderance of reliable sources. Neither condition has been satisfied. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:24, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
To me it seems that there is very rough consensus for a minimal statement and response based on this being reported in several RS perennial sources. Without that we are just going to get edit warring. Unfortunately a RfC will take too long during a rapidly changing current event. Hmmm, maybe the real solution here is we should take this out of the Biography article with a reference to a different article. Of course if this becomes a major story (related to Bio, not 2020 run) then it may be appropriate.--Davemoth (talk) 13:40, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Remember, only liberal sources are allowed. And since they are engaged in an obvious cover-up, it is not a notable allegation. Our venerable sources have authority because they have authority. They have no bias because they have no bias. Authority, bias, and credibility can never change despite how obvious they are. It's the way of Wikipedia. Even though the allegation has more evidence than the Kavanaugh stuff, Biden's friends in the mainstream media don't want to talk about it, so it never happened. Even though Biden told WaPo, one of the indisputably venerable sources, that "all women should be presumed to be telling the truth" (unless they are talking about him.). It's okay though, the complicity is part of the reason they continue to lose. Let them continue their Orwellian ways. If they had something good to offer the American people they wouldn't have to take part in the cover-up.JimmyPiersall (talk) 21:18, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Joe_Biden/Archive_7&oldid=1223766616"