Talk:Joe Biden/Archive 10

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5 ← Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 → Archive 15

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

Liz, why did you want to remove the specific allegation in favor of the vague language "sexual assault"?[1]  Brett Kavannaugh's article, for example, includes the allegation.[2]. 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)
Please cite policy.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:37, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
WP:NPOV, WP:NOTSCANDAL, WP:BLP. Now you cite a policy that says we must use salacious detail in our articles. - MrX 🖋 20:48, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
It seems that the more appropriate Kavannaugh analog at this point is the Ramirez allegation surfaced by the New Yorker. There, rather than describing a non-descriptive "assault", we see an explicit description of Kavanaugh having "thrust his penis against [Ramirez's] face" [3]. This statement was not made was made under penalty of perjury. Seems like the consistent thing to do would be to include the actual description. Mienkoja (talk) 17:54, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
Mienkoja made a good point. I think it should be included if it was included in Kavanaugh's article.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 19:00, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
My view is that we don't need the graphic details of who did what to whom where. And I feel this way no matter whose article we were talking about, it could be about Kavanaugh or Harvey Weinstein, I haven't looked at those articles. What is important is that allegations of sexual assault were made which can be supported with reliable sources and then state what the Biden's campaign's response was, the article doesn't need details about where on her body she was molested. I think providing a narrative of an assault is gratuitous and doesn't add any value. This is a large article and multiple allegations have been made about Biden in the past, we don't have to detail every one of them. Liz Read! Talk! 19:13, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
Well, I agree. I think this is unnecessary graphics. The problem is that it was also unnecessary in Kavanaugh's article but it was added anyway. Wouldn't Wikipedia be accused of biased and politicization of sexual allegations?. Especially that one is republican and the other is democrat.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 19:28, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
The level of detail will depend on the degree of coverage of the story compared to coverage of Biden in general. In the cases of Weinstein and Kavanaugh, the sexual allegations propelled their names into public discussion. Their name recognition would be far lower without them. TFD (talk) 19:26, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
[edit conflict] My view is that we need to stay consistent, otherwise it can be easily claimed that WP editors are biased. Here is the detail from Blasey Ford in the Kavanaugh article:
"According to Ford, Kavanaugh pinned her to the bed, groped her, ground against her, tried to pull off her clothes, and covered her mouth with his hand when she tried to scream. Ford said she was afraid that Kavanaugh might inadvertently kill her during the attack, and believed he was going to rape her."
It also cannot be argued that we must not go into more detail "until this receives wider coverage" while simultaneously removing the fact that the lack of coverage is actually being called out as strange, as become part of the story, and is the focus of yet another article today. I think this information is relevant given the coverage and plan to reinsert it, hopefully without needing to resort to RfC.
It is glaringly obvious that media has become partisan, and that is troubling for editors since we seek to write NPOV article using politicized sources, but it's all we have.
This isn't just another complaint of groping, this is a claim of rape. Forgive me for stating the obvious, but we must cover it exactly as we would similar claims against a Republican. petrarchan47คุก 19:34, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
The level of coverage for the Biden inclusion is there. Either we remove all graphic sexual allegations from all political articles or we include them - the former being at the risk of WP:NOTCENSORED. Perhaps a community-wide RfC is in order to address that very point. In the interim, we add what RS say and use inline attribution for anything likely to be challenged. See the list of RS below and feel free to add more. Atsme Talk 📧 19:36, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
Yes. Removing the detail is a violation of WP:NOTCENSORED. And writing that he allegedly "penetrated her with his fingers" is giving no more weight to the story than writing that he allegedly "sexually assaulted her". When information is controversial we should include direct quotes from the primary source as reported by the secondary sources. We may also report the analysis and characterization of the secondary sources. I don't think we're ready for a month-long RfC though. This story is still unfolding. Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:18, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
Feel free to take that to the not censored noticeboard. Meanwhile, the WP:BLP policy is clear: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. - MrX 🖋 20:54, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Editorial decisions at the Kavanaugh article have no bearing on this article. This discussion needs to stay focused on improving Biden's bio. - MrX 🖋 20:44, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Descriptions of sexual assault are not pornographic, i.e., titillating.  Please further explain your understanding of the policy and the editorial decisions at the Kavanaugh page.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 21:10, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Leave out the graphic stuff. Our job is to soberly relate what has been widely reported, WITHOUT sensationalism. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:46, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

RE Either we remove all graphic sexual allegations from all political articles or we include them - That is completely wrong, and counter to everything we do here. Not all "graphic material" is treated equally, not all allegations are alike; as with everything else, we reflect the coverage. We include graphic details only if the story was major - reported everywhere for multiple days - including that the details themselves were very widely reported. One allegation is NOT like another. We include graphic details about Bill Clinton and Lewinski, because the allegations were described in minute detail in a special counsel investigation and discussed at length in an impeachment trial for heavens sake. We include some graphic details in the Kavanaugh case because they were a front-page story for days and were part of a Senate public hearing. In this case, the specific allegation is reported in a few sources, and the generic (non-specific) allegation in a few others. If becomes front page news we could consider it. It's not at that level now. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:59, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
MelanieN, is there a past policy discussion that would help me understand this?     I see that the definition of sensationalism is "(especially in journalism) the use of exciting or shocking stories or language at the expense of accuracy, in order to provoke public interest or excitement." The intention here is precision and accuracy. Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:56, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
Relevant policy has already been quoted to you, several times. To recap, at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (which is POLICY) we find Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page.[a] Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity Also Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. See also the examples at WP:PUBLICFIGURE. And please see my explanation directly above, about why the fact that we SOMETIMES report the graphic details does not mean that we must ALWAYS report the graphic details. At Wikipedia, how much coverage we give something is based on how big a story it is - how much and how detailed the reporting on it was. With Kavanaugh and Clinton we reported all the details because they were thoroughly hashed out in very public forums. That does not mean that every such allegation needs the same amount of detail. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:38, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
Yes, I have read this; I was hoping for more of an analysis. Based on the definitions I have described I do not believe that stating the allegation precisely is sensationalist or salacious. Some may find a dispassionate description of a sex act to be titillating, but that is not the intention and removing sexual language to avoid potential titillation would be censorship. We have already agreed to include this story, so the privacy policy does not seem to apply You stated that "We include graphic details only if the story was major." What policy is this based on? Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:40, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
We have already agreed to include this story. That is not, in fact, the case. There is currently no consensus for inclusion; moreover, there is insufficient coverage in a preponderance of reliable sources to really consider it. That may change if the story gains traction beyond the anti-Biden press, but we are not there yet. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:26, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
I'm of the mind that we simply adhere to our PAGs and write what the sources say by applying WP:INTEXT. There is also WP:NOTCENSORED to consider; therefore, arguments that align with WP:DONTLIKEIT along with concerns about quoting graphic language are not viable arguments for exclusion. We haven't yet reached any semblance of consensus about what we should or shouldn't include. Now that we have an RfC in progress below, let's see where the chips fall. Atsme Talk 📧 20:55, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
This isn't a matter of WP:DONTLIKEIT, which is an essay, not policy.
  • According to WP:BLP, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment.
  • and Wikipedia:Offensive material, which says Material that could be considered vulgar, obscene or offensive should not be included unless it is treated in an encyclopedic manner. Offensive material should be used only if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available. Liz Read! Talk! 02:10, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, Liz but I actually did know that DONTLIKEIT is an essay. I respect and understand the opinions you and MelanieN have expressed, and if it turns out that consensus agrees with you, I will certainly abide by it. Having said that, I will probably try to recruit you for a bit of collaboration and help in cleaning-up the vulgar, obscene and offensive material at Brett Kavanaugh sexual assault allegations and Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations. As editors we just need to know where the line is drawn in order to maintain consistency throughout our articles. There actually are multiple RS that have published Reade's allegation, including Vox, wherein it was reported that during an interview with Katie Halper, Reade said Biden sexually assaulted her, "pushing her against the wall and penetrating her with his fingers." I quoted with intext attribution in a manner that is encyclopedic. It is the unwanted act that is vulgar, not the description of it. Yahoo reported it a little differently..."pressed her up against a wall and digitally penetrated her" which may be better suited for the pedia. It isn't sensationalism to quote a victim of sexual assault. Our job is to provide our readers with the information that was published and supported by the cited RS. This particular allegation has gained traction in the media, which makes it highly relevant and notable because this particular BLP is a former VP and the Democratic front runner in the 2020 presidential election. Atsme Talk 📧 04:05, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
Liz, not writing the specific accusation is "less informative...or accurate", so WP:OM does not apply. As for the "sensationalist" concern, I still have questions about that for MelanieN which I have written above. Kolya Butternut (talk) 04:26, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
Include The allegations may be included, per WP:PUBLICFIGURE, now that the NYT has covered it. Before then, I would have voted no. They can also be described exactly as they are in the sources. If that description is somewhat graphic, so be it. There is no WP:CENSORSHIP here, so long as the description is factual and reliably sourced. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 21:06, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
I'm not sure if you meant for this to be a formal !Vote, but there is an RfC over this matter a few sections further down the page... ping petrarchan47คุก 23:20, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

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

Tara Reade sexual assault allegation: specific text.

Geographyinitiative, I created a new section which appears to have created an edit conflict.[4] We may not have consensus on the text detailing the assault. Kolya Butternut (talk) 04:48, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

I hereby plan not to make any further edits on this page. I want to protect myself and my account as much as I can. I tried to write this edit as objectively as I could. If you all remove the new material I added, that's fine with me, but I think that I have made a valid Wikipedia edit. I will not respond to any further inquiries here. Geographyinitiative (talk) 04:53, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Samboy, I think the text before your edit was better.[5]. When you say she had "previously alleged", it could be interpreted to mean she changed her story. My text simply states that she had alleged inappropriate touching the year before, and gives the context that she had come forward among other women. Kolya Butternut (talk) 05:57, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Koyla Butternut (and others) How about “one of the women who in 2019 alleged Biden inappropriately touched her”. It’s more awkward, but I feel more neutral while describing the facts. Samboy (talk) 06:27, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
I liked Samboy's edit which has now been changed[6] to remove the context that Reade was known as one of the women who came forward with Flores in the spring of 2019. Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:36, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
Agreed. I have updated the article to have the older version of the wording, because we have some rough consensus that this is acceptable wording. I have no issue with including the criminal complaint police report, since the complaint report is reliably sourced. Samboy (talk) 23:56, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
Where is it reliably sourced? "Criminal complaint" has a specific meaning: A criminal complaint is a document that charges a defendant with a crime. A police report is not a criminal complaint. A complaint to the local police is not a criminal complaint. Criminal complaints are almost always filed by the government. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:02, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
Here is the current wording in the article: “On April 9, 2020, Tara Reade, a former aide in Biden's U.S. Senate office and one of the women who in 2019 alleged Biden inappropriately touched her, filed a police report alleging that she was sexually assaulted in 1993; Reade later stated that the report was about Joe Biden. The Biden 2020 presidential campaign has denied the allegation.” (emphasis added) The wording “police report” comes from the AP so is reliably sourced with a top-level media organization which is a “green” source at WP:RS/P. Samboy (talk) 00:10, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Apologies - new user. The quote from May 1, 2020 interview is incorrect and missing a "never": "It's not true. I'm saying unequivocally it never, never happened, and it didn't. It never happened".— Preceding unsigned comment added by Johannesepke (talk • contribs) 14:44, May 3, 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Johannesepke, I've made the correction. - MrX 🖋 16:56, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Which photo of teenager Biden should we use?

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

  • Option 1
    Option 1
  • Option 2
    Option 2
  • Option 3
    Option 3

Which one should we use? I prefer Option 3 because it's taken professionally. It has a good background and good lighting. The other photos have Biden's shadow behind him. FunnyMath (talk) 03:37, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

  • I feel like option 2 shows more detail, but option 3 is probably marginally better, as it was a professionally taken photo as opposed to a candid picture. The background/shadow on option 2 is also a little distracting. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:25, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Support 3 - I agree with the above arguments. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 19:35, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 2 - 3 is a washed-out low contrast scan from a damaged original. Unless somebody can do some restoration work to darken, spiff up, and remove the scratches, that one is a non-starter. Just leaves the impression that he was a teen ager before photogrpahy was perfected. SPECIFICO talk 20:04, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
@SPECIFICO I found a higher quality for 3 in a New York Magazine article. Perhaps we can use that? It's not perfect since you can see the texture of the paper that the photo is printed on, especially on Biden's face. Maybe someone can do a retouch. FunnyMath (talk) 23:10, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Much better - good find, but he's looking away from the reader in 3, whereas in 2 he is looking at us. So I would still favor 2. SPECIFICO talk 23:38, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
I was able to find 2 more yearbook photos of Biden. Now, I strongly believe that option 3 is the best. It would make the 3 yearbook photos harmonious. FunnyMath (talk) 03:55, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
Where did you see those other two images at? CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 04:07, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
I put the sources in the image description. I made sure that they are in the public domain. FunnyMath (talk) 04:08, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
Okay, thank you. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 04:16, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
There's some ambiguity with the third one, but it seems to be {{PD-US-not renewed}}. I started a discussion on Commons for those interested, and hopefully those with more copyright knowledge will be able to help. — Wug·a·po·des​ 00:26, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 2 - Only cause he's facing the camera, either option 2 or 3 would be fine in my honest opinion. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 18:43, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Weak preference for Option 2, with option 3 as second choice (1 would be confusing, since readers don't know which is him). Both need some retouching (2 seems a little too soft and is washed out, whereas 3 is a little too hard with details of the paper visible), but I think his smile and overall appearance seems more genuine in 2, whereas 3 looks very posed. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 19:25, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Support 3 Better quality but number 2 is not awful either. Just 3 stands out a little better and seems more professional. ContentEditman (talk) 23:18, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 2, but recrop it from option 1 because the luminance levels are wrong. Option 3 is inferior because the subject is somewhat less recognizable, the shadow is too prominent, and because he is looking away from the camera. - MrX 🖋 00:30, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
Note: I have uploaded a new version of option 2, cropped from the original image. - MrX 🖋 20:13, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
I would also support option 4. In fact, it's slightly preferable to option 2. - MrX 🖋 01:23, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment - If we do go with "Option 2", we ought to re-crop it, as stated above. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 06:15, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
Option 4
Option 4 (re-cropped)
Option 4 (re-cropped 2)
  • Option 4 – I re-cropped Option 2 and posted it as Option 4 to the right. I think it's an improvement, not sure if others will agree. Option 2 is my second choice. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 20:06, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Option 4 is cramped. I've attached a file with the same dimensions and more head room. --Wow (talk) 21:06, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
I agree that option 4 looks much better. If we don't go with option 3, then 4 would be my second choice. The extra head room is better as well. However, I think that there should be more room around Biden's left shoulder (i.e. right side of the image). FunnyMath (talk) 21:23, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
I posted my preferred image as "Option 4 (re-cropped 2)" FunnyMath (talk) 21:35, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
Option 4 re-cropped is fine, but option 4 re-cropped 2 with the Virgin Mary's fingers at the edge of the frame is a "no" for me. - MrX 🖋 22:14, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
Would it be ok if we edit out the fingers? FunnyMath (talk) 22:36, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Support either Option 4 (re-cropped) or Option 4 (re-cropped 2), then Option 2, followed by Option 3. --Wow (talk) 21:32, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

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

That text is in the article now, two weeks later, and at least that part seems stable enough, though I admit I only looked at a few samples from the article history. At any rate, it's pretty much split down the middle, on political lines it seems (I'm shocked!); there are acceptable arguments on both sides. I'm going with "close as no longer necessary", for practical reasons; if edit warring starts over this, a new RfC should be started. Drmies (talk) 17:20, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Should the following be added to Joe Biden's BLP? petrarchan47คุก 19:16, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

In March 2020, Reade accused Biden of pushing her against a wall and digitally penetrating her on Capitol Hill in 1993. Reade filed a criminal complaint over the alleged assault on April 9 with the Washington D.C. Police.[1][2][3][4][5]


Sources

  1. ^ McHugh, Rich. "Former staffer files criminal complaint against Joe Biden over 1993 sexual assault allegation". Business Insider. Retrieved 17 April 2020.
  2. ^ North, Anna. "A sexual assault allegation against Joe Biden has ignited a firestorm of controversy". Vox. Retrieved 17 April 2020.
  3. ^ "Biden campaign denies ex-aide's sexual assault allegation". BBC. Retrieved 17 April 2020.
  4. ^ Palmer, Ewan. "Joe Biden Sexual Assault Accuser Tara Reade Files Criminal Complaint". Newsweek. Retrieved 17 April 2020.
  5. ^ "Biden accuser Tara Reade files criminal complaint over 1993 allegation". Business Insider Aus. Retrieved 17 April 2020.

Discussion.

  • No, per the NYT: No other allegation about sexual assault surfaced in the course of reporting, nor did any former Biden staff members corroborate any details of Ms. Reade’s allegation. The Times found no pattern of sexual misconduct by Mr. Biden. Why would we include a futile criminal complaint made after the statute of limitations has expired and rejected so completely comprehensively by the NYT? Coverage of this allegation - which has not been viewed as credible enough to repeat by people who normally comment on such things, such as Ronan Farrow - is greatly excessive in this article already. We are not a tabloid. Guy (help!) 19:22, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
McHugh was Ronan Farrow's partner in the Weinstein investigative reporting. The filing has been included in every related article since it happened one week ago, and has been added to earlier articles, like from Vox. The accuser has stated her reasons for filing a futile report, but the reason we include it is because RS has done so. Reade states she filed the complaint against Biden for "safety reasons," to establish a paper trail of the incident in case anything happened to her. The statute of limitations for the alleged incident has passed..."I also wanted to make it clear that I would be willing to go under oath or cooperate with any law enforcement regarding it"
Wikipedia is not a mirror of routine news reporting. Our task is to separate the wheat from the chaff. This is not wheat. - MrX 🖋 21:04, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
The NYT piece is problematic for use by an encyclopedia as they have admitted to making an edit that removed factual information on behalf of the Biden campaign. petrarchan47คุก 19:34, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
Guy has added it as big quote and I reverted, its undue and irrelevant to the article of Joe Biden. Also, the authors are not experts or notable. --SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 19:48, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes (As proposer) Rich McHugh is a reliable source, and his account has not been questioned. Some subsequent reporting has shortened the "formal criminal complaint" to "a (police) report", however I don't find that change encyclopedic. petrarchan47คุก 19:23, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes widely reported and reliably sourced.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 19:43, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
  • No. Far too excessive (undue weight); we are not a tabloid and this is not a newspaper. The argument for inclusion is simply "well, X and Y ran news stories about it, and X and Y are reliable sources, ergo we must include it" - but that is not the standard for inclusion. Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion, and nor are we an indiscriminate collection of information. BLP heightens these considerations. Absent some substantive new development, this doesn't belong here. (The proposed "criminal complaint" text is also misleading: a "criminal complaint" is a charging document, akin to an indictment, issued by prosecutors, whereas this was an individual's complaint to police.)  Neutralitytalk 19:48, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
Neutrality, this RfC is not over the specific text.  We can decide to call it a " police report" rather than "criminal complaint". Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:44, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
SharabSalam, it's not about censorship, it's ab out giving undue weight to an allegation about which you don't want the reader to know "No other allegation about sexual assault surfaced in the course of reporting, nor did any former Biden staff members corroborate any details of Ms. Reade’s allegation. The Times found no pattern of sexual misconduct by Mr. Biden". In point of fact, the allegation of censorship is an unusually reliable indidcator of POV-pushing on Wikipedia. Guy (help!) 21:27, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes - it meets the requirement for DUE, complies with WP:V and BLP:PUBLICFIGURE, and has more than adequate RS. Exclusion could be viewed as whitewashing or censorship in favor of a political candidate. My concern is focused more on our readers and keeping them here reading our articles. We should provide all the information most will be seeking rather than risk losing them to other sources - worse yet, to fake news sources. Atsme Talk 📧 20:03, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
  • No - We're not here for the clicks (hopefully). Elevating this futile action in a high-profile biography would give far too much WP:WEIGHT to something that has no real effect. Based on the relatively sparse coverage in reliable sources, Reade's allegation should occupy a small amount of space in this article, basically acknowledging that she made the allegation and that Biden denied it. Also, why are editors still proposing content sourced to Business Insider and Newsweek? I thought we were past that. - MrX 🖋 20:18, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes Per Atsme above. Didn't we just get through with an Rfc about this here?--MONGO (talk) 20:22, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
  • No I don't think the article should be ahead of the curve by giving proportionately more coverage to the story than mainstream media. Per weight, matters that have received little coverage, particularly things currently in the news, should not be mentioned at all. Editors need to put aside their personal views about the candidate or whether or not they find the complaint credible. TFD (talk) 20:50, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
Agree on all counts, except that what I (and others) have noticed is that this report is mentioned in every single article on the subject written since the filing. The Vox article written just after Reade came out was updated to include it. The idea that it should be included here came from this observation. petrarchan47คุก 05:49, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes Per Atsme above. It is more than appropriate to note that she filed a complaint. We of course must also include his campaign's denial. With both of those perspectives, its inclusion strikes the right balance.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 21:01, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment If this is getting added, then there should also be a note on how the trustworthiness of the allegation in general has been questioned by the sources. This is a serious issue and there should be context. On the other hand, WP:UNDUE is a serious problem here. The section on this already significantly longer than the similar section in the Donald Trumps article. Dead Mary (talk) 21:41, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
  • No This document is not noteworthy for Joe Biden's biography. The allegations are significant, but not this docuemnt. The article already relates Tara Reade's allegation, so the report adds no facts about Biden. Reade has said that she knew the statute of limitations had already lapsed. She said that filed the report to give herself "an additional degree of safety from potential threats." So how is it relevant to Biden's biography? The central fact for his biography relates to the allegations themselves, not the document Reade gave the police. SPECIFICO talk 23:50, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
She didn't give anyone a document, she reported the alleged assault over the phone in a 45 minute conversation with D.C. Police. According to sources, such as Vanity Fair, it was the filing of this criminal complaint that led to the widespread coverage that happened on Easter. After Rich McHugh reported on the report for Business Insider on Friday, the Times, the Post, the AP, and NBC News all followed* petrarchan47คุก 05:49, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

*Yes Extremely well sourced and one of the most important pieces of the sexual assault allegation. SeriousIndividuals (talk) 01:08, 18 April 2020 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet account. SPECIFICO talk 12:25, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

A brand-new account with a grand total of 1 mainspace edits. Please familiarize yourself with our policies and guidelines before participating in RfCs. Neutralitytalk 00:34, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
I finally created an account after editing without one, at the urging of several people. I'm familiar with the basics, but it doesn't take a seasoned veteran to know that a woman coming forward to report a highly credible allegation of misconduct (the 9th woman to do so) and filing a criminal complaint against a presumptive presidential nominee is a "big fuckin' deal," to quote the subject of this page. EDIT: I stand corrected. She filed a police report, not a criminal complaint. SeriousIndividuals (talk) 02:08, 19 April 2020 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet account. - CBS527Talk 15:03, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
Filed a police report, not a criminal complaint. A criminal complaint is a written document filed by a state or federal prosecutor that alleges a person committed a crime, sets out the basic facts and charges and is filed with the respective criminal court.[8] It is the first step on the path to a criminal trial. A police report is a written document created by a police officer after someone reports something (often a crime but it could be anything) so that the police have a record of it. The one source that says that a criminal complaint was filed is unreliable. The reliable sources call it a police report. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:39, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
The type of report filed is called a criminal complaint. There is now an open investigation. If the phrasing is wrong as you suggest, McHugh would have been corrected and discredited for sloppy reporting. petrarchan47คุก 05:49, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for pointing out the distinction, I included a note about that since it's important to be precise with the language, although my opinion on this remains the same. SeriousIndividuals (talk) 19:00, 19 April 2020 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet account. - CBS527Talk 15:03, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Weak no - It seems undue and trivial given the fact that it has no legal effect. The impact that the actual report has on Biden will be nonexistent. I agree with other editors who have said that the actual allegations are more important than the document. --WMSR (talk) 04:09, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
It has an effect, there is now an open investigation into Biden per Rich McHugh: Update: while it is typical for a criminal complaint filed out of statute--like the one Tara Reade filed against Joe Biden--to be closed/archived, DC Metro Police confirmed to me, 11 days later, "This is an active investigation..."* petrarchan47คุก 05:49, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
  • This RfC is pointless – The article already includes "police report". I have no idea what the point of this RfC is. As a resident of Washington D.C., "criminal complaint" makes no sense to me. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 08:27, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
    RfCs are intended to help come to consensus on something, such as whether to cover something in an article. If this RfC comes to a consensus against mentioning the police report, then it should be removed as with anything without consensus. The fact that something is currently in an article doesn't mean it has consensus to stay that way forever. Nil Einne (talk) 19:33, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
    If the question is "Does the police report have due weight to remain in the article?", then my !vote is a clear and unequivocal Yes. The fact that she has filed a police report has been covered by major RS. It is also what brought the whole thing to a head. It is a necessary context and aftermath that requires mentioning. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 00:31, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Weak yes now that people seem to have stopped trying to add misleading text to our article, it seems fair enough to discuss this. I say a weak yes mostly because I think even a short mention of the allegation seems incomplete without mentioning the police report. However it shouldn't be overly detailed, probably just along the lines of she made the police report and the Biden campaign rejected the allegations. (The only other thing that might be worth mentioning is that the allegations appear outside the statute of limitations of any alleged crime.) It's also quite hard to make a judgment at this time as all this is still very new, especially the police report. If over time, most refs which mention the allegation don't mention the police report, then nor should we. But we don't really know at this time, we can only get some idea from how refs clearly written after the police report, cover this. From what I've seen most do mention the police report although it's also true many such refs are covering the police report or related issues. I do agree we should say police report and not criminal complaint. Nil Einne (talk) 19:33, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Mention the complaint / Keep things as-is - As of right now, the article contains the text:
    • In March 2020, Reade accused Biden of pushing her against a wall and digitally penetrating her on Capitol Hill in 1993. On April 9, 2020, she filed a police report with the Washington Metropolitan Police alleging she was sexually assaulted in spring 1993. Biden's 2020 presidential campaign has denied the allegation.
  • This appears to be reasonable and encyclopedic to me. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 05:28, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes, for the same reason our article on Brett Kavanaugh hax an entire section entitled "Sexual assault allegations", We have an NPOV ethic here and that means if we give massive article space to allegations made against Justice Kavanaugh which were found unpersuasive by the Senate during his confirmation, then Tara Reade's accusations deserve that sort of detail and space.
We should read Brett_Kavanaugh and devote just as much space to Tara Reade's accusations as we have to Christine Blasey Ford's accusations. Either that, or stop pretending WP:NPOV is one of the project's core values. We have no business doing WP:PROMO for either large political party. --loupgarous (talk) 17:17, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
  • NPOV is about neutral representation of RS narratives within a page. It is not about comparisons between articles, Kavanaugh vs. Biden. SPECIFICO talk 18:41, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes (agreeing with Nil Einne on the details). It's an important part of the story, and the story is an important part of the article. A sexual assault allegation against the subject of a biography is pretty transparently noteworthy in a biography, and the fact that a police report was filed as of just recently is pretty transparently noteworthy to the sexual assault allegation (which is why it was covered in multiple places). Loki (talk) 06:43, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
  • The mere statement that it's noteworthy is not a convincing rationale as to why it is noteworthy. We do not just count votes, so any convincing arguments should be presented in enough detail to support your conclusion. SPECIFICO talk 21:20, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
  • No it is UNDUE and trivial. It does not contribute significantly to this issue or this article. The allegation is not inherently noteworthy, there is no such thing as inherit notability, and no such thing as inherited notability. The issue has already been appropriately verified and placed in the article as part of that process with appropriate WEIGHT already applied. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 18:45, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
  • No - It would be redundant, and undue weight. It's also troubling to see off-wiki forums pushing this content again. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:12, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
  • After some indecision, yes. However, the footnote currently in the article (According to Reade, she did not share the entirety of her story earlier because she had faced backlash following her 2019 statements due to her previously expressed support of Putin.) is an attempt at bypassing WP:UNDUE, but should still be removed. Readers looking for context on Reade's actions can go to Joe Biden sexual assault allegation.
    It is not true that the media have consensus that Biden does not have a pattern of committing sexual abuse, but even if it was true, it would not undermine the due weight of this specific allegation. Petrarchan47 quotes an excellent passage from Slate below which is relevant (beginning Whether they intend to or not, the explicit framing around the lack of pattern ...). The specific police report is significant due to its media attention and its implications of the seriousness of Reade's complaint, regardless of whether it is true and regardless of whether it is an isolated complaint. — Bilorv (talk) 22:53, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
  • No this is UNDUE per above. Only support including a one or two sentence summary that links to further detail on the other sexual allegations sub article. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 11:58, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes this is not undue, we should treat this as we did Donald Trump's allegations and not continue handling Biden's with kid gloves as we currently are. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 06:17, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes a police report, a criminal complaint, has been filed against a former vice president of the United States and the presumptive democratic party nominee for president in 2020. The "sexual assault" article notwithstanding, this certainly belongs in Biden's biography.EdJF (talk) 01:53, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes Trump's page mention it. It has entered the public awareness and is a subject of political debate. If presented accuratly and in all reserves considering the truth or falsehood of the allegations, it ought to be there, especially since his opponent's page mentiones similar allegations. Francis1867 (talk) 09:24, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes – per RSes. In pretty much every summary of this allegation written by RSes, "filed a police report" is mentioned. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 19:33, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Conditional Yes - Widely covered in the sources, but explicitly "police report" as per most of the sources, and not "criminal complaint", which is unnecessarily loaded. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 23:12, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes. She has filed a formal police report about the alleged incident. It should at least be mentioned in the article. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:41, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes Widespread coverage in RS, meets DUE. Hrodvarsson (talk) 22:22, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes per discussion ShadZ01 (talk) 21:28, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes - widely noted and the phrasing is suitably restrained. Could reduce the overcite though, maybe just BBC and Newsweek ? Cheers Markbassett (talk) 14:00, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Accusation of sexual assault

It is not merely inappropriate physical contact. Mr X has reverted the accurate section heading. Which version has consensus? petrarchan47คุก 18:27, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

There is already a discussion further up the page about this. Did you miss it? The current and longstanding wording that I restored is accurate, since sexual assault is indeed a type inappropriate physical contact. - MrX 🖋 18:34, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
I would not call rape a type of inappropriate physical contact. Would you? She says she was raped and that is the charge. Gandydancer (talk) 19:10, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
You don't think rape is inappropriate? I certainly do. I assume we at least agree that it's a type of physical contact. - MrX 🖋 19:35, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
Another pointless, POV-pushing thread. I've changed the BLP-violating heading of this thread as well as reverting a similar violation in the article. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:37, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Well Petra, so here we are...it's ok to call rape "inapropriate physical contact." This idea really sucks and it pisses me off. Gandydancer (talk) 20:32, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

It's definately interesting what passes for arguments around here. petrarchan47คุก 02:48, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
It's a BLP violation to suggest a living person committed a "rape" when there's no evidence such a thing occurred. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:04, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
I'm not suggesting anything and certainly not that Biden raped anyone. But Reade is saying that Biden raped her. Never in my life have I seen rape defined as merely inappropriate physical contact. Wikipedia must not make up their own definition of rape that in this case would certainly make it sound much less than the physical assault that it is. Rape leaves a mark on a woman that she never completely gets over. Gandydancer (talk) 21:35, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
Wait—I've read a lot of sources about this subject, but I have yet to come across one in which Reade says that Biden raped her. Cite please? - MrX 🖋 00:38, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Entirely varies by locale. According to this , D.C. falls in the "does not legally define rape; classifies all forms of sexual penetration as the same crime" category. Zaathras (talk) 00:52, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
"it was my former boss, Joe Biden, who raped me," Reade told Fox News." [9] Gandydancer (talk) 03:23, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
New Rasmussen Poll shows people are paying attention to this, and that only 24% believe Biden did not do this. Seems most of those 24% are the upper level editors here based on how hard it is for them to accept this without using ONE SOURCE that exonerates him! But they say that same source is not biased! [1] 173.172.158.168 (talk) 23:18, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
New Politico poll shows "more than a third of voters believe Democrats should abandon Biden as their nominee over the recent claims from the former Senate aide".
The legal definition of rape was updated by the DoJ in 2012:
“Forcible rape” had been defined by the UCR SRS as “the carnal knowledge of a female, forcibly and against her will.” That definition, unchanged since 1927, was outdated and narrow. It only included forcible male penile penetration of a female vagina. The new definition is: “The penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.” petrarchan47คุก 02:48, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

New allegation from Eva Murry

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

On the same day [1 May 2020], another women came forward alleging in an interview with Law & Crime that Joe Biden complemented her breasts when she was 14 years old at the First State Gridiron Dinner & Show in 2008, adding that she felt his comments "were verbal sexual harassment".
Current sources:

I am expecting another argument about "mainstream media not talking about it" (i.e. The New York Times or some other very specific outlet), so just wanted to kickstart a discussion around when will this be ready to be included. Thanks. BeŻet (talk) 13:46, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

As I explained, this fails WP:WEIGHT and WP:BLPSOURCES. This is not a breaking news page. It's a biography of a high profile person. - MrX 🖋 13:54, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
How does it fail WP:BLPSOURCES? BeŻet (talk) 13:59, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
I'm not sure if Law & Crime counts as a reliable source here. An opinion column from the Washington Examiner seems rather poor by comparison. Fox News is better than those two, but after looking at the article it appears to center around merely repeating what Law & Crime has asserted. We can talk about inclusion when we get better sourcing. A predictable thing to say, I know, but that really is where our guidelines put us. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 15:21, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
Neither Washington Examiner nor the tabloid-style blog Law and Crime are RS for a BLP. Anything of significance will have been reported by more credible sources. SPECIFICO talk 15:35, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
It will be ready for inclusion when there is ongoing discussion in all mainstream news outlets and Biden has been questioned about it on cable news networks. TFD (talk) 16:55, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
Actual reliable sources would need to be found for this to be even considered, although I seriously doubt this will ever get into the article. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:53, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
It's better to avoid slander than to apologize for it. Right now, it looks like this allegation isn't holding up to investigation. [10]
“After reviewing my files of the dinner which included attendees and the show itself, I can conclusively say, Senator Biden was not at the dinner,” Murphy said in a letter dated Saturday.
The allegation was reported by Law & Crime, but the news outlet quietly removed the story from its website after it was widely shared.
The truth has put its shoes on. 68.197.116.79 (talk) 20:53, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Those three sources are not RS, especially for a sensitive BLP matter. -- Valjean (talk) 05:50, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
  • User:BeŻet - there are further sources mentioning it, but at the BLP level the norm is more to say a summary form, such as 'nine women alleged sexual misconduct' (e.g. eight last year listed in the cut or Business Insider plus this one). Give it a further 48-hour waiting period and see if actual WEIGHT of coverage and further details develop, but I suspect a specific line for it is just going to be too much. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 07:12, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Neither sources says 9 women alleged sexual misconduct. TFD (talk) 17:14, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
And those cites were prefaced by ‘eight last year listed in’. A cite saying “nine” would be *this* year, since #9 just recently showed up. For example here “As of now, nine women have accused Biden of harassment.” Eight before plus one addition equals nine. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 15:10, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

Source: Biden asks secretary of Senate to locate Tara Reade complaint

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

  • Meh. No edit proposed, none worth making. Biden could have been told no such record exists before he made such a statement, and Reade's statements say they're not much anyway so ... it's all meh. And response has been “The most transparent thing Joe Biden did this morning was admit that he is hiding documents so they can't be used against him,” said Emma Vaughn, Florida press secretary for the Republican National Committee. (Politico Search for Tara Reade complaint threatens to backfire on Biden) None of either seems BLP significant or enough WEIGHT to get any mention at the BLP level. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 07:21, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
Vaughn's comments don't make any sense in this context. She's complaining that he's hiding documents when, in fact, he's calling for any relevant documents to be made public. 68.197.116.79 (talk) 14:33, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
Vaughn is highlighting that Biden is denying access to his own office archives. That he should open his own internal records re the firing of her back then, instead of an empty gesture. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 07:50, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
See also The Guardian here Steve Guest, rapid response director for the Republican National Committee, wrote in an email: “Joe Biden’s attempt to offer faux transparency ground to a screeching halt this morning.” It’s interesting to watch the support from Trump or attempts to deflect without *appearing* to ignore it, but in the end there was no edit proposed here and none seems worth making at the BLP level. Maybe going into the details at the allegation article, but not here. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 13:53, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
We should not care what the rapid response director of either the RNC or DNC says. Their jobs are to spin. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:10, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
And "spin" is a generous characterization. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:14, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
Empty posturing by Joe was met by empty posturing by Republicans, plus denial by Senate. Again, no edit was proposed and none worth making. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 15:15, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Have we discussed that he will not release his Delaware Senate papers? He's only approved of records being released from a different location. Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:13, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
  • No reason to discuss the Delaware Senate papers because they have absolutely no relevance whatsoever. These are private papers held by the university, as is customary with public officials, for posterity. Information contained within them will only be accessible once Biden has left public life, and any classified material contained therein is declassified. The call to have them released is a fishing expedition by Biden's opposition. It's "but her emails" bad, in fact. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:22, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
  • The RS have reported it as relevant (although I don't recall which sources). Any personnel papers would be there. If there were instructions for her responsibilities to change, etc. Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:17, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Did you read any sources? Who has claimed that Senate personnel records are in the personal files of a Senator? To save time and attention, please link to claims about sources when a content edit is being discussed. SPECIFICO talk 18:24, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Save you time. I just said that I wasn't sure; you could use that information as you like. I Googled it for you: "Now there’s a focus on his refusal to commit to opening up his archived papers at the University of Delaware — a trove of documents that critics suspect might house Reade’s complaint."[11] I don't know yet how much weight that deserves, but it's part of the story. Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:03, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
  • So you fell for the same trap Politico did. "That critics suspect" is the problem here, because "critics" mean political opponents. Personnel files are NOT in those documents, and no reliable sources would suggest otherwise. Like I said, Biden's opponents want to see the files because they hope they can dig up dirt. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:08, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Please stop with the personal comments. Please do not dismiss things without comment on the sources or providing new sources; this unfairly puts the onus on me to do that work for you.

    "Biden said in a statement that the university [of Delaware] would not have the relevant documents, and that they could only be found at the National Archives. 'The National Archives is where the records are kept at what was then called the Office of Fair Employment Practices,' Biden said, and called for the records to be released. But the Archives told Insider that such documents wouldn't be kept there, and it's not entirely clear where the records would be. Documents from the Senate's Office of Fair Employment Practices are governed by a Senate resolution that bars their release for 50 years.[12]

His "critics" say he should allow access to both locations of records because nobody knows where they are -- simple.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 13:47, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

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

Should the section header "Allegations of inappropriate physical contact" (permalink) be changed?'

  1. No, leave it as is, "Allegations of inappropriate physical contact"
  2. Yes, to "Allegations of sexual assault"
  3. Yes, to "Allegations of inappropriate physical contact and sexual assault"
  4. Yes, to something else (please specify)

Please indicate your ranked preference.

Survey

  • 2, 3 – (as proposer) #2 is my first choice; #3 is my second choice. I'm open to something else (#4) if it's proposed, but opposed to #1 (keep the same). The most serious, most recent, and highest-profile allegation is that he inserted his fingers into someone else's vagina without their consent. This allegation is most accurately described as "sexual assault", not "inappropriate physical contact". "Sexual assault" is also what the sources call it, e.g.: NPR, "New Information Emerges Around Biden Sexual Assault Allegation"; NYT, "Democratic Frustration Mounts as Biden Remains Silent on Sexual Assault Allegation"; WaPo, "Pelosi says she remains ‘satisfied’ with Biden’s response to sexual assault allegation, praises his ‘integrity’"; NBC, "Woman broadens claims against Biden to include sexual assault"; CBS, "Pelosi says she is "satisfied" with Biden's response to sexual assault allegations"; ABC, "At women’s event, Biden navigates around lingering sexual assault allegation"; AP, "Former Senate staffer accuses Joe Biden of sexual assault"; Reuters, "Democrat Biden faces calls to address sexual-assault allegation"; USAToday, "Former staffer Tara Reade says Joe Biden sexually assaulted her in 1993. Here's what we know."; Forbes, "A Timeline Of Tara Reade’s Sexual Assault Allegations Against Joe Biden"; The Economist, "How to weigh an allegation of assault against Joe Biden". I'm ok with #3 because the section isn't only about sexual assault, but it's inappropriately-euphimistic to label a sexual assault allegation as an "allegation of inappropriate physical contact". Finally, the section header should match the main article, which is Joe Biden sexual assault allegation. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 20:03, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
    • I also support reversing the order, "Allegations of sexual assault and inappropriate physical contact". Levivich [dubious – discuss] 16:05, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Abort - Let's finish the discussion about whether or not any of this should be included first. This survey may turn out to be a complete waste of time. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:06, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
    When you say any do you mean any of these section headings or anything about the assault in general? PackMecEng (talk) 21:14, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
    @Scjessey: I have the same question as PME. To what discussion are you referring? Levivich [dubious – discuss] 15:58, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
    I had thought there was an RfC on inclusion for any of this allegation, and I am surprised to learn there is not. Based on the lack of evidence, the lack of reliable witnesses, the extraordinary amount of time that passed between the alleged incident, and the suspicious timing of the allegation, I suspect this will turn out to be a false claim. If that is indeed the case, I will expect most of the material will be excluded and coverage to only exist as a footnote of some kind. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:29, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
    Until then, what do you think the section header should be? Levivich [dubious – discuss] 16:38, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
    1 - "Allegations of inappropriate physical contact". -- Scjessey (talk) 16:40, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
    @Scjessey: There was a RFC on if the Reade stuff should be included here. Looks like you were a part of it even, unless I am misunderstanding which RFC you mean. PackMecEng (talk) 18:55, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
    @PackMecEng: Aha! I knew I wasn't going crazy. Thank you for pointing it out. I had thought it was still active, but I guess I missed the close. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:42, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
    Oh good, I thought I was missing something there! PackMecEng (talk) 20:43, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 2 - I'm open to using different wording, but we need to avoid euphemisms here. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 17:17, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
    • This equates unwanted shoulder rubs with sexual assault. That's a nonstarter. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:00, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
  • No to option 2 No final opinion other than this, but the "inappropriate touching" of shoulder rubs and hair sniffing are not sexual assault, and it would be a horrendous BLP violation to put "inappropriate touching" under a section header of option #2. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:00, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
    • #1 would be a non-starter for exactly the same reason. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 02:11, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 1- This is the broadest description that would encompass all the incidents, and most closely describes the large majority of the incidents. It is most compliant with WP:HEADING and WP:NPOV. Option 2 is not possible because there has only been one allegation of sexual assault. If it made its way into the article, it would be quickly removed per WP:BLPREMOVE. - MrX 🖋 01:19, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 3 I am not sure if I see opposition to this option. This option avoids mischaracterizing the less severe and more severe allegations. Perhaps "allegations" of inappropriate physical contact is not ideal? The acts are on film, so they're not alleged to have happened, they are not allegedly inappropriate, the accusation is that they are inappropriate. Therefore, the even more unwieldy but perhaps more precise, "Accusations of inappropriate physcial contact and 1993 sexual assault allegation". Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:00, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
  • #4, my suggestion which is to have a level three section called "allegations of misconduct"(examples of sections that have the same name) and two level four sections below, one is called "Allegations of inappropriate physical contact" and the other is "Allegation of sexual assault". If not, then I think #3.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 03:28, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
  • 4- Allegations of sexual assault and inappropriate touching- (also support 3 or 2 as alternative)- I think the most serious allegation should go first, but either way leaving it as just "inappropriate touching", is very misleading since what he is being accused of by Tara Reade clearly falls into the definition of sexual assault.--Rusf10 (talk) 16:51, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 Not possible - There is only one allegation of sexual assault. Any attempt to add this to a heading would result in a prompt WP:BLPREMOVE. - MrX 🖋 12:58, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
Whatever option gains consensus here will not be removed and anyone trying to overrule consensus by crying BLP would be answering for it at AE. So please stop. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 14:06, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
Local consensus cannot override community-wide consensus. If anyone attempts to put "allegations of sexual assault" in a heading in this article, I guarantee it will be removed, by me or any number of other editors who understand and respect our policies. - MrX 🖋 14:31, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
Seriously, making threats doesn't help reach consensus. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 16:05, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
You mean threats like "... anyone trying to overrule consensus by crying BLP would be answering for it at AE. So please stop."? - MrX 🖋 16:51, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
Yes, exactly. As you can see, threats beget more threats; it's a vicious cycle. So please stop. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 16:54, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
Wouldn't the "unwieldy" one I suggested above solve the problem?  Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:36, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
There are allegations, plural, of sexual assault and inappropriate touching in that section. Using the singular allegation would either be a misrepresentation of the content, or an implication that the sexual assault is alleged while the inappropriate touching is established fact. Hrodvarsson (talk) 23:44, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
@MrX:If you have a sincere belief that sexual assault allegations is a BLP violation then why don't you have it removed from Brett Kavanaugh (a page you have edited)?--Rusf10 (talk) 15:41, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
I didn't say that, and don't ping me again. - MrX 🖋 15:52, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
Hey Rusf, where are you getting this plural assault allegations thing. Have you been following the sources and the talk page discussion. If you have any sort of basis for that, it really needs to be cited here. Because nobody else has mentioned more than a single such allegation in RS publications. SPECIFICO talk 23:45, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
Who says its more than one allegation of sexual assault? "allegations of sexual assault and inappropriate touching", it has to be plural because there is more than one thing. There is an allegation of sexual assault AND allegations of inappropriate touching.--Rusf10 (talk) 23:56, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
  • 4: My !vote is a hard no to option 2, as "allegations of sexual assault" indicates there have been multiple sexual assault allegations, constituting a BLP violation. Softer no to option 3, as it can easily be misinterpreted as meaning there have been multiple sexual assault allegations. I agree with SharabSalam's idea of a level four section below, but I don't like their proposed section three heading—"allegations of misconduct" is too broad and could include things like his plagiarism accusations. I propose "allegations of inappropriate behavior" instead. Or alternatively, a level three heading of "allegations of inappropriate physical contact" and a single level four heading of "allegation of sexual assault"; however, as Levivich pointed out, "inappropriate physical contact" (while technically including sexual assault) may be too euphemistic. userdude 19:00, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 1 per MrX. Simple, encompassing, and neutral. RedHotPear (talk) 19:05, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
  • "Inappropriate physical contact" gives the impression of a personal foul in basketball, rather than the content discussed in the section. Considering the multitudinous RS using the 'sexual assault' wording, it would be appropriate to inform readers of what the section is about. I support option 3, or the current section header (which is "Allegations of sexual assault and inappropriate touching" at the time I am writing this). Hrodvarsson (talk) 21:52, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
  • 3 per others. It’s not perfect, as others have pointed out, but I think it’s the best reasonable choice. As others say, #2 is problematic. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 23:15, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
  • 1. I did not see that a link to the sexual assault allegation(s) page is included immediately after the heading, making a mention of it in the heading unnecessary. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 18:33, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
  • 2 - unwanted touching with sexual overtures is an assault and we should not treat it as if it was nothing more than a wolf whistle. Atsme Talk 📧 01:58, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
  • 3 For now, "Allegations of inappropriate physical contact and sexual assault" is the best, albeit sloppy, option we have. I agree with others that the use of plural is messy since there is only one assault allegation, and it isn't right to use language so imprecise a reader could assumt there are more. A cleaner, more precise version would involve the use of a separate subsection for the non-rape innapropriate contact allegations, and one for the Tara Reade rape allegation. IMO, they cannot be lumped together, either as "assault" or as "Biden's just a bit of a hugger". There is a legally defined distinction. petrarchan47คุก 02:48, 6 May 2020 (UTC)


Off topic comment. - MrX 🖋 20:44, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

In ALL mainstream media outlets? Seeing how the overwhelming majority of journalists are liberals https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/what-media-bias-journalists-overwhelmingly-donated-to-hillary-clinton

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

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

Discussion

  • I haven't added an RFC tag to this section. I'll leave it to someone else to decide whether that should be done. I think the other sections discussing this on this page should be closed to focus discussion here, but I'll also leave that to someone else to decide. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 20:03, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Call it what it is. Has anyone denied he was accused specifically of “sexual assault”? No. We aren’t labeling it properly in the article, and this is pitiful. All readers know about the allegation, and when they see Wikipedia’s mealy-mouthed, inaccurate labeling of the allegation as “inappropriate touching”, they will rightly question our reliability. And if they venture to Kavanaugh’s BLP, they will have no question that Wikipedia plays favorites and should not claim to be neutral. petrarchan47คุก 13:56, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Yet again, meaningless comparisons are being made to a different article about a different person with different circumstances. What happens at another article has no bearing on what happens here. If you are unhappy with the way the Kavanagh article is being edited, go there and make a case to change it. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:34, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Well I see that you completely skipped over the central part of Petra's argument to the Kavanagh comparison part that you could quite easily call not sound thinking. Petra is absolutely right. If we decide to call sexual assault (in this case rape) merely inappropriate contact we can kiss good bye to any ground we have made in our efforts to "womanize" Wikipedia . Women will read this article and use it as proof that Wikipedia is indeed written by and for male editors. Over the years I have worked especially hard on my woman-related articles and I see this as a sad day and a step backwards. Gandydancer (talk) 17:39, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Which comment are you referring to? It is unclear from your threading. If you are responding to my comment, you are making a straw man argument that has little to do with what I said. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:00, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
  • The immediate problem here is just how to caption the section so that it takes account of Reade's allegation without suggesting that Biden's other acknowledged behavior (that was inappropriate or some better word but not assault) was also alleged assault. Is there a way to accomplish that without diminishing the seriousness of Reade's allegation? SPECIFICO talk 18:44, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
  • 2 is a BLP violation. There's only a single allegation that has been called "assault." 3 could easily be misinterpreted to say there is more than one assault allegation, so that one is not good. SPECIFICO talk 01:25, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
It is good to see someone working toward a good and reasonable solution. As I have said already, we must not group rape with the other allegations and Petra, who as much as said women and others who work to educate the public would chalk this one up to typical male superiority issues that exist on WP, said as well. SPECIFICO, do you have any suggestions? Gandydancer (talk) 02:02, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
Specifico actually makes a good point, some but not all of the allegations against Biden rise to the level of sexual assault. Option 2 probably isn't the right way to go.--Rusf10 (talk) 16:55, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
Rusf10, I believe only one allegation against Biden could be termed a "sexual assault". – Muboshgu (talk) 17:05, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
  • "Allegations of inappropriate physical contact and 1993 sexual assault" "Accusations of inappropriate physical contact and 1993 sexual assault allegation" is the most precise and clarifies that "sexual assault" is singular. Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:55, 2 May 2020 (UTC)Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:26, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Non-starter 1993 is also an allegation. SPECIFICO talk 00:12, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
Yes that was the intention, but I see how that changes how it sounds. How about Sexual assault allegation and unwanted physical contact. Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:46, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
Please read WP:TPG. Even with strikerthrough etc you should not completely reverse the meaning - or attempt to, anyway - after there has been a reply. This is making the thread unintelligible or too hard to decipher for other editors. Please undo your ex post and make a separate suggestion, properly sequenced, if that's what you're trying to do. SPECIFICO talk 20:38, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
It just looks odd because you haven't responded to my new suggestion which addresses your complaint. You can fix that; I haven't found a policy reason to undo my edit. Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:53, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Atsme, you said unwanted touching with sexual overtures is an assault and we should not treat it as if it was nothing more than a wolf whistle. I agree. Which of Biden's alleged (and obvious) unwanted touchings have had sexual overtones? I think thus far only Tara Reade has suggested anything like that. There are otherwise reports of people saying "he hugs everybody". As far as I'm aware, there's one alleged sexual assault. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:04, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
My apologies if my tone is matter-of-fact - it is the dreaded pragmatist in me - but rape has different meanings when describing how a woman may feel about a sexual violation/penetration, and it doesn't necessarily have to be sexual intercourse. We are having intercourse right now in the form of communication - no big deal - it's a word, and we are supposed to be wordsmiths. What Reade alleged happened to her could be described as digit rape. Our job as editors is to present all significant views in our own words to avoid copyvio, and that includes the POV from a violated woman's perspective based on what is verifiably published in RS. We should not make the pedia a mirror of those RS or limit what we include to a single perspective, especially that of the alleged perpetrator. Vox addresses the controversy and shines a little light on the terminology that was used by the women who had the courage to come forward and speak out against a very powerful politician. Lucy Flores said he kissed her on the back of the head, and that she couldn't move or say anything but wanted him to get away from her. That is what I call an assault that was sexual in nature. Kissing, rubbing noses, rubbing the back of someone's neck, forcing yourself on them to where they cannot move...such behavior could be referred to as sexual advances rather than, say, a simple handshake or hug, especially when it is not reciprocated and the woman feels trapped. Also, see The Cut for a published list of the women who spoke out about his alleged "inappropriate touching" which instinctually could be considered unwanted sexual advances, or using legalese we'd say assaults or being politically correct, we say unwanted physical contact that made those women feel uncomfortable. In Reade's case, I think "alleged sexual assault" is far more neutral than "alleged digit rape". I hope that helps, and that we do our best to present the information matter-of-factly without censorship but with strict adherence to NPOV and BLPIE. Happy editing! Atsme Talk 📧 16:35, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Why the police report?

Currently, our Tara Reade section has to be phrased rather awkwardly because the police report doesn't actually mention Biden by name. I edited it to be as clear as possible without being technically inaccurate, but really, I'm not sure why we focus on the police report in the first place. She first came forward with the accusation in a podcast on March 25—surely that should be the key event, and not the police report? Gaelan 💬✏️ 09:25, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree that the police report isn't necessary. If we are going to add that Reade says she filed an incident report it should be balanced with the sources are also reporting that Biden is not specifically named in the public available copy. CBS527Talk 10:21, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
The criminal complaint is what was filed. The public incident report is the name of the form used to convey information to media, but keep private information private. From the original report by Rich McHugh*,
"Tara Reade, who worked for Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden's Senate office in the early 1990s, has filed a formal criminal complaint against the former Vice President in Washington, DC.....While the incident report obtained by Business Insider was anonymized for public release, it states that a subject "disclosed that she was the victim of a sexual assault which was committed by Subject-2 in 1993." Reade confirmed that she was the complainant and that "Subject-2" is Biden. The penalty for filing a false or fictitious police report in Washington DC is a fine and up to 30 days in jail.
In other words, she risked spending time in jail if what she claimed in the report was found to be a lie. McHugh is a reliable source, and his reporting on this criminal complaint was cited by Vanity Fair as providing the basis for the legacy media reporting that followed*. The criminal complaint is seen by VF as prompting the onslaught of recent reports. As for why, the article states:
"Reade said she filed the complaint against Biden for "safety reasons," to establish a paper trail of the incident in case anything happened to her. The statute of limitations for the alleged incident has passed..."I also wanted to make it clear that I would be willing to go under oath or cooperate with any law enforcement regarding it"" petrarchan47คุก 20:57, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
she risked spending time in jail if what she claimed in the report was found to be a lie That's getting into OR and asking for conclusions from unknown premises. Not an effective argument for your position on the matter. SPECIFICO talk 21:21, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
I disagree with this edit.[13] She came forward to the media months ago, but everyone was ignoring her. The March 25 Katie Halper interview may just have been the first publicly reported interview. The Intercept reported the story earlier. I think the April 9th date is the most important to lead with. Kolya Butternut (talk) 21:14, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
For example, NBC news says Thursday evening, Reade filed an official complaint with the Washington, D.C., police. The public incident report — which is one page long and doesn't name Biden — was obtained by NBC News and recounts an assault sometime from March 1 to May 31, 1993. Reade confirmed that she is "Subject-1" in the report and that "Subject-2" is Biden. It is illegal to falsify police reports, and the statute of limitations for prosecuting the allegations has passed. I don't understand why you removed the police complaint.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 21:26, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
That was a good edit. The complaint has not been processed. We will soon know the upshot. Meanwhile, the allegation stands, but the complaint adds no information about Biden. A good edit that was not obvious to the rest of us at the time. SPECIFICO talk 21:39, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
What you just said does not make sense to me, the police complaint adds "no information"? The policy complaint is a the most notable thing here. Since she filled the police complaint, the news started to extensively cover this controversy, before that there only few news outlets reporting this.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 21:47, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Correlation does not prove causation. I could just as easily say that "since Reason Magazine started running stories on this[14][15][16][17][18] the news started to extensively cover the allegation, before that there only few news outlets reporting it." Just because two things happen at around the same time, that does not mean that one caused the other. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:05, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
Please don't present your speculation about the timing of the NY Times article. It was apparently in research for weeks and the timing of the police report doesn't confirm any of your insinuation. SPECIFICO talk 22:04, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
SharabSalam, AP, NYT, and WaPO all state that the claim originated from the podcast, and have all stated that they've been examining the claim since the podcast. (NYT and WaPO mention the podcast first, while AP mentions the police report first.) Gaelan 💬✏️ 22:02, 14 April 2020 (UTC) Second ping because I forgot to sign: SharabSalam
This is [A] a BLP, [B] a person in the middle of trying to win an election, and [C] a serious accusation that has ruined many careers (many rightly and a few wrongly). We need to be super careful about the sourcing for even small details. I say we should only use the highest quality sources. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:50, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
WP:BLPPRIMARY is clear on this point Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person...Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source, subject to the restrictions of this policy, no original research, and the other sourcing policies. Please note that exceptional claims require exceptional sources. (emphasis original). Information about living people must be sourced to high quality, secondary, reliable sources. — Wug·a·po·des​ 21:56, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
I've preveously pointed this out and removed a link to our article on criminal compliants, AKA indictments. This was a police report and should be described, if at all, as such. SPECIFICO talk 22:06, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
  • The complaint is significantly reported in high-quality reliable sources. NBC news Thursday evening, Reade filed an official complaint with the Washington, D.C., police. CNBC: She recently made an official complaint to police in Washington, D.C. Washington Post She filed a police report in Washington on Thursday saying she was the victim of a sexual assault--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 22:16, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
"Criminal complaint" has a specific meaning:
  • "A criminal complaint is a document that charges a defendant with a crime. Complaints serve at least a couple purposes: [1] providing some kind of showing that the government has a legitimate reason to prosecute the defendant and [2] clearly informing defendants of the allegations against them."[ www.lawyers.com/legal-info/criminal/criminal-law-basics/criminal-complaints.html ]
  • "An arrest, by itself, doesn’t begin formal criminal proceedings. Rather, the filing of a document in court is required. In most instances in state court, the document is a 'complaint.' Complaints can be either civil or criminal. Civil complaints initiate lawsuits, typically between private parties or a private party and the government. Criminal complaints, on the other hand, are almost always filed by the government. (Some states allow citizens to file criminal complaints or applications for them.)"[ www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/what-criminal-complaint.html ]
  • "The complaint is a written statement of the essential facts constituting the offense charged. Except as provided in Rule 4.1, it must be made under oath before a magistrate judge or, if none is reasonably available, before a state or local judicial officer."[19]
  • "What will happen after I file a Criminal Complaint? There is a person at the court called the "clerk-magistrate." The clerk-magistrate will schedule a hearing. The hearing is called a "show cause" hearing. The show cause hearing is to see if there are enough facts to show that what happened was a crime."[20]
  • "an 'indictment,' an 'information,' and a 'complaint' all serve the same function – they initiate a criminal case and inform the defendant of the charges against him. They also ensure that a prosecutor has sufficient evidence to establish probable cause that a crime has been committed."[21]
Biden has not been charged with a crime. There was no show cause hearing. It is unlikely that a magistrate judge or clerk-magistrate was involved. It is likely that the report was made to a cop manning the front desk at the police station. It appears that Reade simply reported what happened to the local police. You can report anything to the local police and they will file a police report on it. (Even a report that a dead squirrel told me that John Smith is an evil space alien might be good to know if John Smith gets murdered later). --Guy Macon (talk) 23:53, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

The reason why the wording “police report” is OK is because the AP states that “She filed a police report in Washington on Thursday” and makes it clear it is a police report against Biden. Since this is reliably sourced, I think it’s best we use the same wording as the AP. Samboy (talk) 00:00, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:46, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek, I don't think this is accurate.[22] The AP states that the police report alleged an "unnamed person" sexually assaulted her. This is inconsistent with Rich McHugh's reporting.[23] Tara Reade told him that she did name Biden in the police report. It was the "incident report"[24] which was anonymized. Kolya Butternut (talk) 06:42, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

It's accurate. I don't know what Rich McHugh was told or what Business Insider says but more reliable sources explicitly state she did not name Biden in the police report [25] [26]. The assumption that it was the incident report and not the police report is WP:OR. Volunteer Marek 13:46, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
Volunteer Marek None of the sources say that "she did not name Biden". Both sources say that the report doesn't name Biden. Also, the first source clearly say it's a public incident report. You accidentally used two sources that contradict your assertion.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 14:01, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
Are you trying to split hairs between "she did not name Biden in the police report" and "the police report doesn't name Biden"? Volunteer Marek 15:44, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

More generally, are there TWO reports - an "incident report" and some other "police report"? Because it looks to me like all the sources are reporting the same thing, which is the incident report which DOES NOT name Biden. What Reade told reporters is a different story. If there are two reports... source please. Volunteer Marek 15:49, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

WaPo article on Reade's police report: "She told The Post she did so because she is being harassed online and wanted law enforcement to be aware of her claim. A public record of the complaint does not name Biden but says Reade “disclosed that she was the victim of a sexual assault” in 1993." It goes on to say: "Reade told The Post she gave police a long interview describing the alleged assault by Biden. The portion of the police report detailing her allegation is not public." The NYTimes article is similar: ...Ms. Reade filed a report with the Washington, D.C., police, saying she was the victim of a sexual assault in 1993; the public incident report, provided to The Times by Ms. Reade and the police, does not mention Mr. Biden by name, but she said the complaint was about him." She said the reason she filed the report was for additional safety against threats. Imagine the reception news media would have received if they had said a fraction of the things about Christine Blasey Ford that they're implying/saying/publishing about Reade. What happened to believe what the women are saying? Atsme Talk 📧 16:19, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
Ok, that clears it up a bit but it still seems she did not name Biden in the report, maybe in the interview and then told the press it was about Biden. And please don't try to compare this to the Ford case which was substantially different and is irrelevant to how we describe this case. Volunteer Marek 16:57, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
Most of the sources, NYT, WaPo, AP,etc are reporting the police report or Public Incident Report does not mention Biden by name, but Reade said the complaint was about him. Crime reports and investigations are not covered by FOIA request in the District of Columbia. The MPD  releases a PIR upon request. The term "police report" is a generic term and can refer to a number of documents. "Here's a copy of the most recent PIR" (PDF). CBS527Talk 17:10, 15 April 2020 (UTC) Reminder: Per WP:BLPPRIMARY "Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person." CBS527Talk 17:23, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

At this point it seems to me we have conflicting sources, more purported detail from a weaker source, and lots of OR and speculation among Wikipedia editors. This clearly suggests we should omit this. The report does not of itself add anything to the narrative of her allegation, the failure of media to corroborate it, and the Biden campaign's denial. Those are the core facts we can verify now. SPECIFICO talk 16:50, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

At issue is whether we state that she didn't name Biden in the report. Volunteer Marek 16:57, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
I do not think it's verified that she named Biden in the report. I also think it's not important to mention the report in the article. It insinuate that there's an active crime scene. Particularly with the wording that was initially being used here. SPECIFICO talk 17:16, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
The police report is noteworthy. The AP is the only source which is inconsistent with the others. The Times and WaPo are clear that she reported to police that Biden assaulted her, and they are clear that the information in the police report is not public, unlike the incident report. The AP is generally reliable, not always reliable. Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:14, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
This is not true. All credible sources say she filed a report but DID NOT name Biden specifically in it. She told reporters that it was about Biden (and maybe she said that to the police but didnt put it in the report). Sources, including AP are consistent on this. The only inconsistent source is the Business Insider. Neither Times nor WaPo say she put Biden's name in the report. AP is more reliable than BI. Volunteer Marek 18:37, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
That's not true.  The AP is the only source which we have discussed which states her police report did not name Biden.  WaPo and NYTimes report that Biden's name was not in the public report.  WaPo states "Reade told The Post she gave police a long interview describing the alleged assault by Biden", not an unnamed man.  The NYTimes is less explicit.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:16, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
I am not hearing why her filing a report -- of which any precinct gets dozens a day -- is a noteworthy fact about Biden. Particularly when she stipulates that the report is moot and only for her own sake. SPECIFICO talk 17:18, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
Please cite sources.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:57, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
Simple resolution - quote the NYTimes, add WaPo as a 2nd source and be done with it. Atsme Talk 📧 19:10, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
I think the simple solution would be to paraphrase: "Tara Reade stated that she filed a police report with the Washington, D.C. police alleging that Biden sexually assaulted her in 1993". If the AP corrects their article we may remove "stated that she". This works? Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:31, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, please self-revert this edit.[27] There is no consensus to state that Biden was not named in the police report. My edit,[28] "On April 9, 2020, she filed a police report with the Washington Metropolitan Police alleging she was sexually assaulted in spring 1993.[382] Reade stated that the report was about Biden." directly paraphrases The Times, "On Thursday, Ms. Reade filed a report with the Washington, D.C., police, saying she was the victim of a sexual assault in 1993; the public incident report, provided to The Times by Ms. Reade and the police, does not mention Mr. Biden by name, but she said the complaint was about him." The "public incident report" does not of itself add anything to the story of her allegation, and it is not noteworthy. Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:32, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

I edited it to conform to the cited AP reference. Let's just be very straightforward and pretend we don't know anything except what's in the sources. SPECIFICO talk 01:48, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
You haven't addressed my comment. 1. Obviously my intention is to cite The Times (but regardless, my edit is consistent with the AP source). 2. There is no consensus for your text. 3. The "public incident report" which does not name Biden is not noteworthy.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:18, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
Or to put it simply, we all agree she filed a police report, and we all agree she stated that the report was about Biden. Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:53, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
It might be a good idea to stop edit warring over this. There is no consensus to include the "police report" either. All of the high quality reliable sources are reporting, in one way or the other, that Reade filed a complaint, the "police report" does not name Biden, and Reade says it is about Biden. We don't cherry pick sources, NPOV requires we present the police report fairly and proportionately as reported by the sources.  CBS527Talk 07:17, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
The AP is the only source which states Biden was not named in the "filed" "police report". There are clearly errors in the reporting because some sources say that she "filed" a "public incident report". My proposed text, "she filed a police report with the Washington, D.C. police alleging she was sexually assaulted in spring 1993. Reade stated that the report was about Biden." is consistent with all the sources. Would could say she "filed a report with the Washington D.C. police". Kolya Butternut (talk) 11:06, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
Rich McHugh (investigative reporter, more information at the RS/N) And it’s important to note, it is not accurate to say that Reade did not name Biden in the police report she filed. Neither Reade or Biden were named on the public version of the complaint she filed, for obvious reasons.* There are two reports in question: one that is private, the "criminal complaint", and one that was released to the public. Journalists haven't done a great job at elucidating this, so it gets confusing. petrarchan47คุก 21:46, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
Can we get more confirmation of this? It makes sense to me that in their public release, the police may choose to hide the names of the people involved and so when I read someone say this was what happened yesterday I assumed that was what happened and Biden's name was in the police's records. But then today I read our article suggesting that Biden was not named in her report point blank. As I understand it, the public release doesn't even name the complainant and instead talks about subject-1 and subject-2, and I find it unlikely the police don't at least have a record of who subject-1/the complainant is. OTOH, it occurs to me that it may not be clear whether or not Biden was named. Has the complainant clearly said he was? Have the police? I'm guessing the public release probably doesn't say subject-1 and subject-2's name are in the police record. It looks like there is a Washington Post article which may provide some details but I'm lazy to get access. IMO we need to clear this up, as our current wording is potentially misleading. Nil Einne (talk) 23:11, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
This is the public incident report[29] provided by NBC News. The public doesn't know what the confidential police report says, but the sources all say that Reade said the report was about Biden. The AP, however, gets it wrong. Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:00, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
Nil Einne NPR obtained confirmation of the police report from a law enforcement source. A record of the report names Biden. NPR has filed a Freedom of Information Act request for the full report. NPR petrarchan47คุก 02:29, 20 April 2020 (UTC)In response to the idea that "criminal complaint" language comes only from court documents, that is not so.
  • Fox The tides began to shift following Rich McHugh's report in Business Insider on Friday that Reade had filed a criminal complaint against Biden. The New York Times ran its first report about the allegation on Sunday morning as millions of Americans were observing Easter. The Washington Post and NBC News issued their own reports later that day.
  • Newsweek Tara Reade filed a criminal complaint with the Washington Metropolitan Police Department...according to Business Insider
  • BBC Ms Reade filed a criminal complaint on 9 April with police
  • Vox A woman who worked in Joe Biden’s Senate office filed a criminal complaint

We are not obligated to follow other media who chose for unknown reasons to shorten this to "a report". We have proof that the first outlet to diverge from the "criminal complaint" language, the NYT, has edited their article on behalf of the Biden campaign. Such partisan sources or editing choices aren't very useful to an encyclopedia. petrarchan47คุก 21:59, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

  • The Times explained its edit of a sentence. That is not uncommon. "on behalf of the Biden campaign" is a misrepresentation. Please don't do that again. SPECIFICO talk 22:37, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
  • ...the edit was made because the Biden campaign argued...*. I fail to see the problem with my paraphrase "on behalf of the Biden campaign". petrarchan47คุก 18:28, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
Agreed, Petrarchan47. The NYT isn't a reliable source for Biden's sexual misconduct accusers, as they have admitted to tailoring their coverage to please the Biden campaign. Not that the other usual partisan sources are any more reliable, but so far the NYT is the only source that has openly admitted that they are allowing the Biden campaign to tell them how to cover the Biden campaign.[30][31][32][33] SeriousIndividuals (talk) 00:11, 17 April 2020 (UTC) — SeriousIndividuals (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Block sockpuppet. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:47, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
It's one thing for editors to corroborate a story by finding other independent sources - I've done that with the NYTimes and WaPo above, stating that we should simply quote the corrobated RS and use in-text attribution. It is something entirely different when we dig so deep we're conducting OR in an attempt to satisfy our own expectations, which leads to POV creep. That is not our job - we simply publish what RS say, and when it's an allegation such as this one, we simply use in-text attribution. This is a no-brainer...just follow WP:PAG and we're good to go. If more info develops, we update the article. Atsme Talk 📧 00:27, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
Can we all agree on this language: "On April 9, 2020, she filed a police report with the Washington Metropolitan Police alleging she was sexually assaulted in spring 1993. Reade stated that the report was about Biden."? This is consistent with EVERY source. "Police report" is consistent with what some of the journalists mean by "criminal complaint", but "criminal complaint" is not correct. An opinion out of Washing D.C. states that "an individual is 'charged' . . . when a criminal complaint . . . and warrant . . . are signed by a judge and filed . . ."[34] A criminal complaint is a court document, not a report by a citizen to police. Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:56, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
Close, but please take out "Washington Metropolitan Police" unless a reliable source (Business Insider is not reliable) names the specific police department. It almost certainly was the Washington Metropolitan Police, and it would be easy to do some WP:OR and see if that name in on the published incident report, but it could conceivably be some other law enforcement agency (county sheriff's department, capitol police, even the park police have jurisdiction in some places.) Naming the department when we don't have a source in no way improves the page. If I remember correctly the sources use "D.C. Police". We should go with the wording from the best sources, like the AP and NYT (nobody think any NYT bias means that they get basic facts wrong). --Guy Macon (talk)
This is the public incident report[35] provided by NBC News.[36] Kolya Butternut (talk) 04:55, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
Guy Macon, is this a reliable source since it is linked to by NBC?  Kolya Butternut (talk) 15:58, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
No. The relevant Wikipedia policy is WP:PRIMARY, which says:
"Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved. They offer an insider's view of an event, a period of history, a work of art, a political decision, and so on... Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge."
Being linked to by NBC news makes zero difference. Many reliable secondary sources link to primary sources, but that does not make the primary sources acceptable for anything other than the straightforward, descriptive statements of facts described in the policy. In this case the only straightforward, descriptive statement of fact contained in that public incident report is is "On April 9 2020 some unnamed individual reported a sexual assault by another unnamed individual in 1993". What we can't do is use it as a source for even that statement on any page that talks about Biden of Reade. If another source says it is about Biden, cite that other source. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:16, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
Proposed text to comply with NPOV:
"On April 9, 2020 Reade filed a report with the Washington, D.C., police alleging she was sexually assaulted in spring 1993. The public incident report available from  the police does not mention  Biden. Reade stated that the report was about Biden." Biden's 2020 presidential campaign has denied the allegation."
(Sources: 1. Lerer, Lisa; Ember, Sydney (12 April 2020). "Examining Tara Reade's Sexual Assault Allegation Against Joe Biden". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 14 April 2020. Retrieved 14 April 2020., 2. Reinhard, Beth; Viebeck, Elise; Viser, Matt; Crites, Alice (12 April 2020). "Sexual assault allegation by former Biden Senate aide emerges in campaign, draws denial". Washington Post. Washington, D.C.: Nash Holdings LLC. Retrieved 14 April 2020.)  CBS527Talk 05:35, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
Those details are both unclear and unnoteworthy.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 06:24, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
@Kolya Butternut: I don't really see how the proposed text is worse than what is currently in the article. We are currently implying that Biden was not named in the report. As you seem to agree, we do not know if this is the case. All we know is he is not named in the publicly released document. IMO the proposed text is decent, and far better than our current version [37] and I would support a quick replacement so we don't continue to mislead. If people want to just remove all mention of that report, I may support this. But it seems harmful to continue to mislead readers while we discuss that aspect.
Edit: Sorry I missed your proposal just above cbs527. Is there any dispute over mentioning that Biden's campaign denied the allegations? If not, as I understand it, the dispute is solely over whether to include the line "The public incident report available from the police does not mention Biden"? I would support either version with no clear preference. I think the more important thing is we come to some consensus on some version which fixes the current problem where we mislead readers rather than nitpick of whether or not something is significant enough to mention.
Nil Einne (talk) 13:38, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
@Kolya Butternut: - "Those details are both unclear and unnoteworthy." It is not clear what you are saying. If you would be more specific it would be helpful. The first line is essentially the same as what you suggested earlier with the change suggested by Guy Macon which I agree with. We can not use the actual PID as a source. I used the sources suggested by Atsme without inline attribution. I have no problem if inline attributions are added and at this point it probably is a good idea. The rest of the text is similar to what is currently in the article which there appears to be a rough consensus to use and, to comply with WP:NPOV. The purpose of this discussion is to try and find a consensus not push our personal POV. CBS527Talk 14:07, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
Before tweaking any text, we should decide whether there should be any mention of this police document in the article. I oppose it. Please comment in the subsection below. SPECIFICO talk 14:15, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
This whole section, "Why the police report",  was started is to address if the police report should be included or not. As I stated, both in my first comment in this section and in the below section, I feel that it should not be included. That being said, a number of the editors are suggesting it should be.  At this point it appears my opinion on whether or not to include it may be a minority view. I have no problem waiting until more people comment on this in the next section.  CBS527Talk 16:03, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
@SPECIFICO: I disagree. Currently, there is a good chance we are misleading readers with our text. As I said in my reply, fixing the section so we do not mislead readers is surely more important than a likely long debate over whether a section which does not mislead, but may be WP:UNDUE belongs. In fact, I am not going to offer any feedback on that issue precisely because I feel we need to deal with the far more urgent matter first and don't want to risk distraction, especially not since you seem to be willing to allow the misleading text to remain. Nil Einne (talk) 18:55, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

{{BLP noticeboard} Regarding this edit.[38] Kolya Butternut (talk) 16:48, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

NPR has confirmed that the police report does indeed name Biden: "NPR obtained confirmation of the police report from a law enforcement source. A record of the report names Biden. NPR has filed a Freedom of Information Act request for the full report."[39] Kolya Butternut (talk) 14:48, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Is the report noteworthy?

Our article content is about the allegation(s). Tara Reade has acknowledged that whatever documnent she filed with the police is only for her protection and that the statute of limitations on any 1993 misconduct has run out. There is little press coverage of this document relative to coverage of the allegation itself. I fail to see why this document is noteworhty or even related to Joe Biden. As others have pointed out, any of us could file a similar document at any police station and claim e.g. that our neighbor's cat is calling us nasty names when nobody's listening. I would like to hear a simple affirmative case for including this report that Reade has conceded cannot, and she did not intend to, have any official effect. I think it is entirely unrelated to Biden and at worst is only fueling garbled derogatory internet chatter. SPECIFICO talk 12:32, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

No, I don't think the police report should be included and does not improve this biography. It is far less important than the allegation itself. The vast amount of coverage is about the allegation not the police report.  As you pointed out earlier, this is not about the notability of the police report. As of yet, I haven't seen a policy based reason to include the police report. After all, the WP:ONUS is upon those seeking to include it. CBS527Talk 13:31, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
Maybe not the report itself, but the fact she filed one definitely belongs per DUE. Atsme Talk 📧 15:10, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
I think there would be a better argument for mentioning the report in the article that deals specifically with this allegation. I don't see any connection between her report -- as she herself later characterized it -- and the bio of Joe Biden. SPECIFICO talk 15:28, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
I think it is noteworthy and relevant. It's a police report about sexual assault against the subject of this article, Joe Biden who is a public figure. Its a sexual assault report, not "neighbor's cat is calling us nasty names".--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 15:38, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
Of course this should be in the article.  1. The filing of the police report is about Biden.  2. The police report is mentioned in most of the sources which reported on the allegation. Kolya Butternut (talk) 15:53, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
The filing of the police report is about Biden. - But that is not what she said. She said it was about protecting herself, whatever she meant by that. SPECIFICO talk 18:05, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
I'm not sure how to assume good faith with that obviously false statement.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:08, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
As I said above, I don't think it's acceptable that this discussion is being use to distract from the fact we had misleading text in the article. I refuse to participate until and unless we have consensus that is is not acceptable to allow misleading text to remain. Nil Einne (talk) 19:08, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
I support removal of any unsupported text from the bio immediately.  petrarchan47คุก 19:40, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Joe Biden is named in the police report

Domeditrix, please revert your edit .[40]. Biden was named in the police report, as NPR reports.[41] This has been much discussed; it was only the anonymized public report that did not include names.  Also, notice that there was an active investigation,[42] which would not have happened without a name. Kolya Butternut (talk) 15:32, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Will revert. Domeditrix (talk) 15:34, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
We have no knowledge as to this "active investigation". It could well be an investigation of Reade's concern about harassment and internet stalkers. And were it not for the statute of limitations having run and Reade's inscrutable statement about her purpose in filing the report, we should note that police do not wait for the name of the alleged perpetrator to launch a crime investigation, if that's what you think is happening. Police do detective work, which sometimes includes identifying an unkown suspect. SPECIFICO talk 15:53, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
"An active investigation" usually refers to a status of a case and doesn't necessarily mean that any actual investigation has commenced. As SPECIFICO points out we don't know what was investigated if anything. It's a moot point anyway since on April 25, 2020 MPD stated it is an inactive investigation. Additionally, the comment,  "Also, notice that there was an active investigation, which would not have happened without a name" is a blatantly false statement and is not helpful. One doesn't need to have the name of a perpetrator for a alleged crime to be investigated.  CBS527Talk 17:47, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
That ignores context.  The police have stated that they investigated because Biden is high profile.  In this case it is unlikely that they would have investigated a 27 year old sexual assault case against an unnamed man.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 07:09, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the update. SPECIFICO talk 17:52, 29 April2020 (UTC)
We know what was investigated because the public incident report described an alleged assault.  And NPR confirmed Biden was named. There's no consensus to include text which states Biden was not named.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:18, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
You have a source that tells you "what was investigated"? Could you share? Not clear anything was actually investigated, except by NY Times and WaPo. SPECIFICO talk 17:31, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
Since the investigation is "inactive", this is all a bit moot, isn't it? The police report is meaningless and should probably be excluded. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:36, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
From USA Today: "Earlier this month Reade filed a police report saying she was assaulted in 1993 in order to give herself safety from threats she has received. A record reviewed by AP didn't mention Biden by name. NPR has reported, however, that a record does name Biden and has filed a Freedom of Information Act request for the full report."[43] So, the AP reviewed one record which didn't name Biden, and NPR reviewed another record which did name Biden, therefore, Biden was named to police. I hope we're not going to now argue that they may have reviewed identical documents and come to different conclusions about whether or not he was named. We already know the "public incident report" was anonymized, and that is the report many sources describe having seen. Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:14, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
The question you were asked, Kolya Butternut, was whether you have a source that documents what was investigated and if so to provide a link. You have refused to answer. Nothing was investigated. They just filed the report like every other cold case, in the dead report file. SPECIFICO talk 23:25, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
Please don't make accusations against me because I decided to contribute an update that I found and did not reply to your request. I suggest you do some research yourself instead of engaging in baseless speculation that the police investigation concerned internet harassment. Once you have contributed to the conversation I will provide feedback, then you can accuse me of refusing to provide information. Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:54, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
The point is this: The police didn't investigate anything. They let her file a report. As has previously noted, anyone is free to file any report -- credible, dubious, or insane, as long as it's not provably and willfully false. She filed something or other and the police didn't act on it. Either it wasn't credible or it was ignored due to its being stale. Your repeated insistence that any investigation occurred is based on either your opinion or on some source you've 3 times refused to provide. OK, fine. SPECIFICO talk 01:01, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
The title of this subsection is what I'm arguing. This bullying is not collaborative.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 07:01, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

The police report was just removed against consensus.[44] Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:35, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

  • Support removal of irrelevant police report that relates to an "inactive" case. It's essentially meaningless. Besides, looking at the discussion above it is not clear if there was every a consensus for inclusion in the first place. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:33, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
Please provide RS which summarize the story and investigation which leaves out the police report (rather than your personal opinion). Please see the related noticeboard discussion which shows consensus. Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:05, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
This article is the story of Joe Biden's life -- this "report" - per Reade's words - is about herself. It's barely about Biden and in the arc of his life, it's simply insignificant. There is no consensus to include it in this article, hence it is omitted. SPECIFICO talk 02:11, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
  1. ^ https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2020/few_think_biden_telling_truth_about_sex_charge
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Joe_Biden/Archive_10&oldid=1136337222"