User:Davemoth/sandbox

Analysis and Discussion

It seems that political RfC can take a long time to find a closer and get a response. We are now over a week since this was opened (and over 2 weeks since the story broke) and discussion and voting seems to be drying up although some !votes are still trickling in. I wanted to put out my analysis and offer others a chance to offer theirs as well. There are also some unanswered questions, which may sway some to change their !vote (myself included). The intention is that this can assist the eventual closer with weighing the votes and merits of the arguments.

The basic question seems to be not whether Tara Reade made the accusation but whether the allegation and response has received sufficient coverage in the reliable media to be included. Both sides are arguing that WP policy and guidelines support their position. The RfC question is specific about only the allegation and denial. As such anything off topic (such as the media response) will be noted, but not considered for inclusion in this biography without separate consensus.

Some arguments are based on the block of text and sources that were last removed from the article and are listed in the RfC immediately after the question. The potential text and sources will be discussed in a subsection below.

Vote Analysis

This is considering the quantity and my interpretation of intention of votes and not the merits of the arguments. This is analysis primarily is made in relation to the basic question above.

No votes - 17 - Primary arguments are either there are not enough sources or the sources are not prominent/quality.

Not prominent/quality: 13 (Mark)

Not enough: 3

Yes votes - 32 - Primary argument is that there are multiple mainstream reliable sources.

Sufficient: 31 (Carad)

Other votes: 1 No/1 Yes/1 Don't count

Only include if electoral consequences (count above as No)

maybe - single sentence (count above as Yes)

Obviously - WP:SPA IP editor with a !vote and rants in this thread only (don't count or count as Yes)

Neutral - if included should be one sentence and denial. (don't count)

Outstanding Questions

Are there WP Policies, Guidelines, or precedents that defines multiple "high-quality" or "mainstream" sources?

Policy and Guidelines referenced

The following were mentioned in the discussions in the RfC. Some had rationale why the editor cited them. I've tried to note the rationale if it was stated clearly enough for me to figure out:

WP:V/WP:RS/WP:RS/P - source must be verifiable; mainstream not defined

WP:BIASED - bias doesn't make a source unreliable

WP:BLP/WP:PUBLICFIGURE/WP:BLPPUBLIC/WP:BLPRS/WP:BLPVIO - don't include material that is not noteworthy or well documented; remove poorly sourced contentious material; no need for allegation to be covered by every news org

WP:REDFLAG/WP:EXCEPTIONAL/WP:EXTRAORDINARY - RS can be shades of gray ; we need multiple high quality sources

WP:FRINGE - should not question reliability of mainstream sources

WP:NPOV/WP:WEIGHT/WP:DUE/WP:DUEWEIGHT - don't include until there is enough weight ; weight is applied to separate fringe views

WP:NEWSORG - opinion piece evaluated separately

WP:BALASP - include based on proportion to prominence in RS

WP:OM - leave out the details

WP:SNOWCLOSE - speedy close as process was abused

WP:5P - leave out personal experiences

WP:OTHERSTUFF - allegations in other BLP not relevant

Passing reference:

WP:IAR

WP:NOTSCANDAL

WP:RGW

WP:RECENT

WP:NOTABILITY

Suggested Article Text and Sources

The following should be considered a Work in Progress. There appears to be some consensus that (if included) the statement should be the minimum necessary.

Sexual assault allegations

In March 2020, Tara Reade, a former Senate staffer to Biden, said he had inappropriately touched her multiple times during her nine months in his employ, tweeting in March 2019, "Part of my story, the rest is silenced, ask me". On March 25, 2020, Reade alleged that Biden had sexually assaulted her in 1993. Biden's campaign released a statement denying the allegations.