Talk:Joe Biden sexual assault allegation/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 → Archive 5

NYT Coverge

The NYT coverage is directly related to the event, and was covered by other sources (Fox News) . JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 22:34, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

The NYT coverage is directly related to the event, but in my view the section focused more on the criticism of the NYT article (tangental) and less on the allegations themselves (direct). — Chevvin 22:54, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Scope of article

Is this article only for the Tara Reade incident or are things like Lucy Flores#Allegations against Joe Biden included? PackMecEng (talk) 00:21, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Right now this page in only about Reade. All "kissing and touching" allegations are in the main Joe Biden article. We have started to discuss whether to move the contents of this page into the Biden article, to move the "kissing and touching" allegations here (which would require a rename) or keep them where they are, but no decision has been made. Might I suggest that we focus on Reade for now because this in in the news and making the decision about kissing and touching after things settle down a bit? --Guy Macon (talk) 00:31, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
Fair enough, if the AFD closes keep perhaps it's something that can be addressed with a move. PackMecEng (talk) 03:07, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Sources

This article involves a BLP and many people have strong feelings about it. All claims must pass the requirements of WP:BLP and all sources must pass the requirements of WP:RS and WP:BLPSOURCES.

I suggest that before you use a source you enter it into the search box at WP:BLPNB and also search to see if it has been discussed at Talk:Joe Biden --Guy Macon (talk) 20:37, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

At the Biden talk page, we have been using Perennial sources. I'm not sure it would be different here. petrarchan47คุก 03:59, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
If a source is listed as generally reliable, it is probably fine for this article, depending on context, however WP:ONUS applies. If a source is listed as "no consensus", then it is probably not usable in this article. WP:BLPSOURCES applies. - MrX 🖋 18:47, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

More unreliable sources

Re this edit:[1]

  • "Use of Business Insider has been questioned before... Business Insider commonly recycles blogs while giving the impression that these are staff articles: obviously unreliable and something to watch out for... any citation to Business Insider should be viewed very skeptically." -- Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 105#Business Insider

This article is about a WP:BLP we cannot use any unreliable or even marginally reliable sources. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:06, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

You've cherry-picked one RS/N section, but in the summary, listed at Perennial sources, we have: There is no consensus on the reliability of Business Insider. The site's syndicated content, which may not be clearly marked, should be evaluated by the reliability of its original publisher. In this case, the original reporting on the criminal complaint (see below) was done by Rich McHugh, former Supervising Producer at NBC Investigates, ABC and Fox. So he is reliable, and the BI is acceptable for this report. petrarchan47คุก 03:55, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
I am going to continue insisting that only use the highest quality sources and avoid any that have even a hint of possible unreliability. However, you are free to go to the RSNB and ask (the format they like is "Is source (link to source) reliable for statement (link to diff of your edit)? Also see discussion at (link to this page). If the consensus at RSNB is that the source is reliable, I will be happy to put it back.
As is says at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons:
"Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page.[a] Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States, to this policy, and to Wikipedia's three core content policies:
"We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source. Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.[1] Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing."
"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; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages."

References

  1. ^ Wales, Jimmy (16 May 2006). "Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information". WikiEN-l (Mailing list). Wikimedia Foundation. Archived from the original on 22 June 2018. Retrieved 22 June 2018. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons.
    Wales, Jimmy (19 May 2006). "Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information". WikiEN-l (Mailing list). Wikimedia Foundation. Archived from the original on 22 June 2018. Retrieved 22 June 2018. If you see an unsourced statement that would be libel if false, and it makes you feel suspicious enough to want to tag it as {{citation needed}}, please do not do that! Please just remove the statement and ask a question on the talk page.
    Wales, Jimmy (4 August 2006). "Archives/Jimbo Keynote". Wikimania 2006. Wikimedia Foundation. Archived from the original on 8 August 2006. Retrieved 22 June 2018. One of the social things that I think we can do is WP:BIO [...] I think social policies have evolved in recent years, I mean the recent months, to actually handle this problem a lot better. A lot of the admins and experienced editors are taking a really strong stand against unsourced claims, which is always a typical example of the problem. [...] And the few people who are still sort of in the old days, saying, 'Well, you know, it's a wiki, why don't we just... ', yeah, they're sort of falling by the wayside, because lots of people are saying actually, we have a really serious responsibility to get things right.
(All emphasis is in original). --Guy Macon (talk) 04:40, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
The related discussion can be found here. petrarchan47คุก 20:51, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Notes

  1. ^ People are presumed to be living unless there is reason to believe otherwise. This policy does not apply to people declared dead in absentia.

"Criminal complaint"

Guy Macon My edit was overturned without an edit summary, so it's not clear what the problem was. Rich McHugh first reported on the police report filed by Reade, and Newsweek followed up on that reporting, both used the term "criminal complaint". Here are segments from that reporting:

A woman who accused Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden of sexually assaulting her when she worked for him in 1993 has filed a formal criminal complaint with the Washington, DC, police about the alleged incident, Business Insider has learned...
Late Thursday afternoon, Reade filed a report of the incident with the sexual assault unit of the Washington, DC, Metropolitan Police Department. Business Insider has obtained a public incident report recording the allegation.
In an interview, Reade told Business Insider that she filed the report in part because she had become a target of harassment after her initial allegations became public last year, and she wanted "to simply have documentation in case anything happened."..."I filed it because I had been harassed so badly last April," Reade, 56, said on Thursday. "I also wanted to make it clear that I would be willing to go under oath or cooperate with any law enforcement regarding it, because it did happen. Even if it was 26 years ago." Reade said she spent 45 minutes telling her story to a DC sex-crimes detective by phone from her home in California.
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.

So, she filed a "criminal complaint", but the evidence of that, seen by reporters, was called an "incident report". I think my edit served to clarify the imprecise language used in subsequent reporting, and in this article. petrarchan47คุก 03:49, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

If you are correct, you should have no trouble finding a high-quality source that supports your claim. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:43, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Twitter as a source

Guy Macon, this is what we have for Twitter as a source. Basically, it is fine to use when the person's identity is not in question, and they are speaking about themselves or on another subject they are qualified to speak about:

Twitter is a social network. As a self-published source, it is considered generally unreliable and should be avoided unless the author is a subject-matter expert or the tweet is used for an uncontroversial self-description. In most cases, Twitter accounts should only be cited if they are verified accounts or if the user's identity is confirmed in some way. Tweets that are not covered by reliable sources are likely to constitute undue weight. Twitter should never be used for third-party claims related to living persons.* petrarchan47คุก 20:24, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
I raised the question at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Twitter as a source in a BLP.
You did notice that I did not remove the content because another source backs it up, right? --Guy Macon (talk) 20:36, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
Absolutely, but I think it's important that we are all on the same page with regard to what constitutes RS. Twitter as a source for one's own words, if from an account known to belong to the purported source, has always been RS AFAIK. petrarchan47คุก 20:52, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
I think the issue here is using a WP:PRIMARY / WP:BLPPRIMARY source when you already have a reliable secondary source that supports the claim. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:12, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Question, per sourcing, of allegation's revelance to political campaign

Other editors' reading of 2ndary sources is to the effect that the issue covered here ought be thought irrelevant to Biden's campaign. Within the heat of the moment sometimes we contributors' thinking can get obtuse. As this is a political topic, I may ratchet up my own polemics/wikipoliticking within expressing observations about what's going on within the editing of a topic in ways I think biased, for which I apologize. I was about to go into some lecturesome obviousisms here, as well. You know, about Wp's being tertiary, simply following where reliable sourcings lead blah blah; but we all know this stuff so what would be the point of it! Instead, let me simply present a three-entry list readily seen able to be added on to exponentially with the hope this might settle the matter presented alone.

  1. "charge comes at a pivotal time for Biden. The former vice president is seeking to unify the Democratic Party behind his campaign" - NYT piece widely cited
  2. "Sexual assault allegation by former Biden Senate aide emerges in campaign" - WaPo piece, as reprinted in the philly inquirer etc
  3. "a sexual assault allegation that threatens to weaken Biden's general election prospects even before the campaign gets started." - Elle, as reprinted by yahoo news/theweek magazine
    --Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 17:37, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes, it's relevant per what sources are saying. I am not saying that the allegations are related or connected to his campaign, I am saying that sources are discussing his campaign when they discuss the allegations. --SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 17:33, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
@Hodgdon's secret garden: I'm not sure what you're asking here. Could you please clarify? - MrX 🖋 18:09, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
Oh, that edit. I don't think that the campaign is a defining characteristics of an allegation of a 27 year old sexual assault. I also don't think it should be piped so it sorts at the top of the category list. - MrX 🖋 19:49, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
I agree with MrX, the category doesn't belong here. Also, please stop making chatty comments on this talk page, HSG. I literally had no idea what you were talking about when I first made my comment..-SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 21:21, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Current allegation's discrepancies from how characterized previously, etc.

Needs to be worked into reactions section.

  1. The Nation .. Reade now says she made claims of sexual harassment, but not assault, to her supervisors in Biden’s office; they vehemently deny hearing any such complaint. She says she was told to find a new job by a supervisor, but she has also changed her recollection of which supervisor it was when speaking to reporters in recent weeks (all of the people she named deny it). The AP contacted 21 former Biden staffers, none of whom remember any Reade complaint against their boss. Reade also claims she complained to the Senate personnel office; there is no record of it. .. .. in his closely documented, almost 50-year career, there have been no other similar claims against Biden. The Times interviewed the other seven women who came out last year to accuse Biden of touching them against their will; none said his behavior crossed the line to sexual assault. .. [2]
    Full disclosure. Altho I'll vote uncle joe, during the primaries I voted bazillionairemayor mike (so draw what conclusions you may).--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 18:34, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
This is an eye-opening analysis. I will be interesting to see how other sources handle it. - MrX 🖋 19:53, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
No, this doesn't belong in the reactions section, the author is talking about the past. Read the whole article. It also sounds opinionative.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 21:28, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
It is as eye-opening as it is when any other woman having the courage to come forward and explain the gory details of a sexual assault...but then, it may well be that we have to sort through the false equivalencies, and perhaps even more closely analyze the male perspective/systemic bias on WP. What I read was the opening statement published by an openly admitted progressive online publication, The Nation: "There is no evidence former Vice President Joe Biden, now the assumptive Democratic presidential nominee, sexually assaulted aide Tara Reade in 1993. There is no evidence he did not. Reade claims he did — specifically, that he pushed her against a wall and digitally penetrated her against her will, when she worked in his US Senate office. Biden’s campaign firmly denies it." Didn't Biden himself say we should believe what women are saying? Atsme Talk 📧 21:58, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
Let's not conflate opinion with reporting information beyond Reade's claim. The fact that there exists evidence that directly contradicts Reade's narrative is important. --WMSR (talk) 23:20, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
When it's not news of a factual event, it's opinion. Atsme Talk 📧 23:29, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
Not really. The article is analysis and it's perfectly appropriate as a reference for this article. It hits on a salient point: "Her allegation against Biden doesn’t stand up to close scrutiny. And bullying by the left or right won’t change that." - MrX 🖋 23:45, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure what the big deal is here? Joan Walsh is rehashing what the AP and NYT have reported. She's then adding her particular analysis from her background in journalism. What the AP and NYT has found is already discussed, isn't it? So what's new and different? The facts are as they are. She's essentially only restating what others have stated (which, to be clear, isn't something that's objectionable or anything, just saying, but then doesn't mean that it's automatically worth using for Wiki purposes). CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 04:50, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Removed: criticisms of media coverage

I disagree with this removal, using the justification: "This material is off-topic and not encyclopedic. Being sourced to the news network of Biden's opponent doesn't help either."

Fox News is considered reliable, and there is no caveat supporting the idea that since they support the GOP, they can't be cited in an article about Biden. Coverage of this incident is not off-topic, and is indeed encyclopedic. petrarchan47คุก 21:03, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree, and thinks this belongs in the article . JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 01:55, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
Fox news claimed that a change was made to the NYT piece after publication.[3] As evidence it gave a link to [4] and [5] and said that the paragraph that starts with "No other allegation about..." was changed. But when I checked the links Fox News provided, the text was identical. So, has someone figured out how to hack the wayback machine and change a snapshot? Or did Fox just make it up and none of the other conservative websites that reposted it bothered to check? Got any theories? Or am I crazy and hallucinated this? Got any theories? --Guy Macon (talk) 21:50, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
I don't know what happened to the Wayback links (maybe they only save one version per day?), but several other people have commented on this, and on the related (and now deleted) NYT tweets that had the same editing and/or deleting, and which included an acknowledgement that the story was changed: https://www.mediaite.com/print/ny-times-deletes-tweet-after-outcry-over-framing-of-report-on-allegation-against-biden/ JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 01:53, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
Yup. Even the NYT says that it changed.[6] I hope we don't have a problem with Wayback putting up a snapshot and then having it disappear, but that's something to be dealt with on some other page. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:33, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
I agree. There should be a section on media coverage and political coverage. The media has been silent for three weeks over this matter while Kavanaugh's accuser was covered while still anonymous. In addition, all the women senators who led the charge against Al Franken are silent on the matter. Patapsco913 (talk) 09:32, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
There will be much written in the following days about the media coverage, as it is a story in and of itself (and likely will become a separate article). The Archive link still works: * petrarchan47คุก 21:11, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
A lot will be written about it in social media and in churn/clickbait media. I doubt serious publications will report extensively on this crazy conspiracy theory about the New York Times and the Biden campaign. - MrX 🖋 14:08, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
This 'crazy conspiracy theory about the New York Times and the Biden campaign' is something the New York Times has already admitted happened. You need to keep up. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 14:49, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
You don't think Reason Magazine is a serious publication?[7][8][9][10][11] The RSNB has evaluated Reason several times and determined that is is a generally reliable source for factual claims with opinion pages that are biased toward Libertarianism. Could it be that you have an unconscious bias in favor of Team Blue? --Guy Macon (talk) 17:01, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
Links please to Reason Magazine being evaluated as generally reliable at RSN? This discussion seems like the opposite of that. - MrX 🖋 00:12, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

The RSNB section you linked to focuses on commentary, analysis, and opinions. We already have a policy that statements of opinion -- from any source -- should always be attributed and considered to only be reliable sources on themselves.

Here is mediabiasfactcheck.com's analysis:[12]

"Editorially, Reason takes Libertarian positions such as low taxes, free markets, low regulations and socially liberal position such as Marijuana legalization and pro-abortion rights. Politically, Reason falls within the Right-Center category based on economic positions (right) and socially liberal positions (Left). These positions often put Reason Magazine at odds with President Trump’s agenda regarding tariffs and free trade."
"A factual search reveals they have not failed a fact check."
"Overall, we rate Reason Magazine Right-Center biased based on story selection that favors Libertarian positions and High for factual reporting due to mostly proper sourcing and a clean fact check record."

--Guy Macon (talk) 16:18, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Mediabiasfactcheck is generally considered unreliable for its stated purpose (fact checking) as it has been found to be highly biased in its analysis of sources based on whether or not those sources adhere to their own specific political leanings. MBFC is not to be trusted with regards to what they say about source reliability. Find a different source to do this sort of analysis. See WP:MBFC. --Jayron32 16:30, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
@Guy Macon and JungerMan Chips Ahoy!: and others: Internet Archive doesn't have a limit of one per day. I don't know what things were like 2 days ago, but there are currently 32 snapshots on Internet Archive dated 12 April (they seem to use GMT). The earliest is this [13] from 09:08:35 GMT which is the same version the Fox News story linked to and is working now. Their other snapshots show the section mentioned seems to change sometime between 11:54:50 and 13:45:26 [14] and [15].
Internet Archive can sometimes be a bit slow at processing and/or temporarily lose some versions and other weirdness. For example recently, I've found it can sometimes be difficult to get a list of snapshots for a day. IIRC, at one stage a few years ago, they lost whole months or even years. And they also had a 6 months embargo at one stage which I think was mostly for copyright and similar reasons but I think was also to do with resource issues.
In case others are confused by this discussion because the link is working now, as the Fox News story and maybe others linked to the Internet Archive story and Internet Archive archives outgoing links in some circumstances e.g. for logged in users who request it, there is an Internet Archive copy of the Internet Archive link, from 23:29:36 12 April [16] showing it was 302 redirecting at the time. I'm 99% sure this was just one of the random things that happens, which you encounter if you use Internet Archive often enough, and not some big conspiracy. I mean unsurprisingly the NYT openly admitted they modified the story when asked, so there was never going to be any big secret.
Note that because Internet Archive does a 302 redirect, many browsers will transparently follow the redirect and update the URL in the browser URL bar. So if you copy the URL from your browser URL bar rather than directly from the Fox News story, you will end up with the wrong URL permanently. The above Internet Archive link from Guy Macon shows it is targeted at 20200413045343 i.e. 04:53:43 13 April or probably at least 17 hours after it changed. So it's never likely to lead to the original version, unless it dies and you end up being redirected to an older version. You need to revisit the Fox News story and use the original URL. (AFAICT from the Internet Archive, Fox News never linked to this version. They always linked to the 20200412090835 version.)
Nil Einne (talk) 14:44, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
thanks for the detailed explanation. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 14:49, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Police report

The NYT article clearly says "On Thursday, Ms. Reade filed a report with the Washington, D.C., police,". Do I need to post a screenshot of it? JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 00:00, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

A tale of two edits

I had removed a claim, sourced to the NYT, claiming "Reade filed charges with the Metropolitan Police Department of the District of Columbia on April 9" after searching the article for "charges", "Metropolitan", and "Columbia". Chips Ahoy! added the claim

"Reade filed charges with the Washington, D.C., police on April 9th.".

which I was able to find by searching for "Washington, D.C."

This still failed to accurately represent the source. Private citizens cannot "file charges", and while it is likely that this was the Metropolitan Police Department, there are several other law enforcement organizations with jurisdiction she could have filed a report with. So I changed the claim to be closer to what the source says:

"Reade filed a public incident report with the Washington, D.C., police on April 9th. The report does not mention Biden, but in an interview with The New York Times she said the complaint was about him."

--Guy Macon (talk) 00:25, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Reade did not file a "public incident report". If the sources are not consistent, we can use the common phrase "police report". The public incident report is anonymized; it is not noteworthy that it does not name Biden. The sources are consistent that Reade states the actual confidential police report was about Biden; it is implied she named him, especially considering that she had a long interview with police about the allegation. To paraphrase The Times: "On April 9, 2020, 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." Are we comfortable with this?  Kolya Butternut (talk) 05:03, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
Guy Macon, thoughts?  Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:31, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
That's better than the version I added. To quote the NYT word-for=word:
"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. Ms. Reade said she filed the report to give herself an additional degree of safety from potential threats. Filing a false police report may be punishable by a fine and imprisonment."
The NYT calls it a police report. You call it a police report. I think you got it exactly right, whereas I did not. The NYT says that the public incident report did not name Biden but says nothing about what is in the police report, which of course they cannot do because police reports are not made public. (can you imagine what would happen if I reported a drug dealer and the police publicized my name?) The NYT asked Reade and Reade said it was about her and Biden, and you reported that. We have zero knowledge about what is in the police report and you wrote nothing about the contents of the police report. And you did not mention a "criminal complaint", which is only sourced to an unreliable source and has a specific legal meaning that clearly does not apply here. Good work! --Guy Macon (talk) 18:17, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
Thanks!  We still haven't reached a compromise at Joe Biden for this language, but it appears that the contents of the talk page disappeared.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:05, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

AOC defended Reade

MrX has removed content about her reaction and Reade response to AOC. MrX said that she is not an expert and her statement is noteworthy. Expertise is not relevant here, noteworthy? It is definitely noteworthy as it is reported in reliable sources.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 14:46, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

  • Here is the content

On April 14, 2020 in an online conversation with The Wing, New York Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez defended Reade and said that the Democratic Party should discuss the allegations against Joe Biden. She also said that not discussing the allegations is the "exact opposite of integrity". In response, Reade told CBS news, "I'm very humbled and honored because she [Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez] is literally the only politician that has spoken up on my behalf".[1]

--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 14:50, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: "It's legitimate to talk about" allegations against Joe Biden". www.cbsnews.com. Retrieved 2020-04-15.
Her opinion is not encyclopedic. She seems to always have something to say about everything that is even a little controversial, yet I'm not aware that she has any special qualifications, experience, or insight that makes her opinions any more import than anyone else's. She says "What you're voicing is so legitimate and real." So, according to AOC, voicing something makes it "legitimate and real"? The last paragraph of the article really sums up why we should stay 1000 miles away from any such opinion in the article. - MrX 🖋 15:08, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
What she said is reported in many newspapers. Your opinion is irrelevant here, since many sources [17][18][19] have reported this. Your removal is unreasonable.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 15:14, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
You cited The Blaze. Are you kidding me? - MrX 🖋 15:46, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
She’s a party leader and her comments are certainly notable and due. Many people look to her for cues about current topics, and I believe the material should be reinstated. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:15, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
Also note that the woman that Joe Biden assaulted has responded to what AOC said and said she is the only politician who spoken up on her behalf. It's definitely noteworthy.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 15:17, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
I think it's newsworthy enough that it's also noteworthy here, and so have re-added it. -Darouet (talk) 15:22, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
That's circular. - MrX 🖋 15:46, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
How is it circular? JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 16:03, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

MrX, your addition here doesn't seem to be reported in the relevant sources. The edit looks like poisoning the well.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 16:33, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Huh? Both sources highlighted AOC's high-profile surrogacy:

Ms Ocasio-Cortez served as one of Bernie Sanders’s highest-profile surrogates during the long Democratic primary, appearing at his rallies well into the contest’s competitive phase. She has yet to endorse Mr Biden, whom some of Mr Sanders’s more ardent supporters are hardly keen on.
— [20]

- MrX 🖋 16:47, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
Sources are not saying this is relevant to her defending a victim of sexual assault.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 17:13, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
First The Blaze, and now this? Surely you know that we have no policy that says a source has to declare something relevant. If that were true, this encyclopedia would be much, much smaller. - MrX 🖋 17:59, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
SPECIFICO, it is not undue it is reported in multiple sources and the fact that the victim said she is the only politician to stand with her, is enough reason to be included.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 17:13, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
I'm saying the WP:ONUS on you is to show why it's essential to the subject of the article. "Only politician to comment" is not a good argument. In fact, it might be used to argue the opposite. What would be more convincing might be if many notable figures commented and her comment were demonstrated to be essential and noteworthy. SPECIFICO talk 17:39, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
SPECIFICO, you said it's undue. It is not. My argument was that the victim herself has responded to AOC comment. That is definitely noteworthy. Also, multiple reliable sources have reported what AOC said.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 17:42, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
As we are speaking, there are reliable sources that are reporting this, like this from few mins ago [21]. Just drop the stick already, there is no reason to remove that.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 17:50, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
You are just repeating yourself, insistently. Don't call her the "victim" -- she is the complainant or the accusor. As with your prevevious comment, your remarks actually work against your viewpoint. Ms. Reade welcoming support from a media figure such as AOC is "dog bites man" -- not unexpected. It does nothing to elevate the importance of AOC's remark. Meanwhile, an editor has reinstated the AOC bit - falsely claiming that he was doing so per consensus on this page. SPECIFICO talk 17:54, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
There is absolutely no valid argument here. STONEWALLING is not productive, if we are going to have endless discussions with no valid arguments we will be here forever. Multiple high-quality sources have reported her comments. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez became the first member of Congress to address the allegations. The victim has responded to the AOC comments. "Dogs bites man" isn't true, the person who is the subject of this article is the person who responded to AOC comments, it's notable.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 18:02, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
Woah there! Let's not pull out the STONEWALLING card so early in the game. I don't see how AOC being the first congressperson to make comments rises to the level of encyclopedic importance. In fact, her comments are pretty shallow and generic. ("What you're voicing is so legitimate and real.") - MrX 🖋 18:16, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

I respectfully agree that AOC's comments are significant. She is a member of congress, and a particularly influential one at that. WP:RS were slow to report on this. She has called that silence "a form of gaslighting". Since she has spoken out, there has been a lot more coverage in RS. There seems to be far too much fighting to exclude any content related to Ms. Reade and her allegations on this talk page, the proposed deletion discussion, and the RfC on Joe Biden. Frankly, I think we should let this article develop. In my view, mention of AOC and her comments is fine, but should be limited in length to remain encyclopedic.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 19:44, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree with SharabSalam, MrErnie and Darouet +me = 4, and following are additional RS that support notable inclusion: Independent, Fox News, CBS (already mentioned above), Yahoo, The Hill, and on and on. Of course her comments are significant. Atsme Talk 📧 19:55, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
WP:NOTAVOTE. Appearing the news of the day does not establish significance. WP:RECENTISM, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:DUEWIGHT... - MrX 🖋 20:05, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
I'm with MrX on this one. Her opinion is not relevant to the issue and is not encyclopedic. --WMSR (talk) 20:22, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
Also, for the avoidance of doubt and for those who may not normally pay close attention to U.S. politics, AOC is not generally regarded as an influential or powerful member of the congress, despite her high profile media visibility. @Daniel Kerrigan: Let's not use that to amplify her rather artfully crafted words on Reade's grievance. SPECIFICO talk 20:33, 15 April 2020 (UTC)fixing ping @Darryl Kerrigan:
Some can't recognize influence on the rise. Her platform and media profile is exactly why she is influential, but that is largely beside the point. Joe Biden is the presumptive nominee, if that remains true, and there does not seem to be any reason it won't, then there is going to be a lot more coverage of this allegation over the next seven months, more if he is elected President. I do not understand the desire to strangle the baby in its crib here. Let's let this article develop. If AOC's words are as insignificant as some here are arguing, there shouldn't be too much argument against removing them in a few weeks time. That is unlikely to occur though. The Republicans and Trump are going to give this story as much oxygen as they can. Like it or not, mention of these allegations are going to appear on Wikipedia. We should just let it be and focus on how to improve the article. A minimal mention of AOC's comments is not going to break the article, and others will join her soon. Has Trump really not said anything about this yet?--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 21:02, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
Pardon me, but can we concentrate on the substance of the article, within the structure of our policies and guidelines, rather than speculate about the persistence and enthusiasm of AOC's claque months out into the future? SPECIFICO talk 21:10, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
We are following the "policies and guidelines". AOC comments are reported in multiple high-quality news outlets and the person who is victim has responded to AOC comments. It is unreasonable to exclude her reaction.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 21:34, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
There's nothing wrong with the quality of the sources. The issue is that her comments are disposable. They offer little of value to readers in understanding the article subject. I can't help but notice when this material was reverted back into the article, the mention that AOC is a Sanders surrogate never made its way back into the article. - MrX 🖋 23:56, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO Absolutely, does your position remain that WP:Due requires that we not include any mention of AOC's comments or Tara Reade's response? Or are we in a position to discuss appropriate wording?--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 21:37, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps editors should use some of the same arguments that gained consensus for the sexual allegations against Trump and Kavanaugh, none of which were undeniably proven, and based entirely on speculation and biased opinion of the circumstances. The precedent has been established and strawman arguments are ... well, straw. We have multiple RS that satisfy WP:V, and the material has been published in several RS which is the basis for what WP requires for inclusion. I do understand that this is not an iVote - this is a discussion and the few who are presenting weak arguments to censor/whitewash the Biden article should probably step back and analyze their position, or at least provide a stronger argument that does not conflict with our PAGs. If the latter seems unreasonable, call an RfC. There are at least 6 months left before November voting. Atsme Talk 📧 21:47, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
If Reade testifies before congress, I'm sure we'll have plenty of RS material for Wikipedia. Right now it's slim pickin's but that changes with time. Don't assume it will stay that way. This could become a big story. SPECIFICO talk 23:33, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
In the case of AOC, unless it turns out she was an eyewitness to something, I would say she doesn't rise to inclusion in this article. But that's ahead of the game. It's also really important you understand she squandered any possiblity of influence within the Democratic caucus in her first term by opposing Nancy Pelosi's election as speaker, among other overreaches. For the time being, she is a media figure with one out of 435 votes in the junior chamber. SPECIFICO talk 23:33, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
Good point. - MrX 🖋 23:56, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

AOC and Sanders voice support

Yahoo AOC Is The First Member Of Congress To Address The Sexual Assault Allegations Against Joe Biden

The Week Sanders says Biden's sexual assault accuser 'has the right to make her claims and get a public hearing'

petrarchan47คุก 22:36, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Ruth Marcus comments

My addition by Ruth Marcus has been deleted and I am restoring it. The reason to delete was that if Sanders was not a reasonable addition then her opinion was not either. I believe that this editor will need to come up with a better reason to delete this information than to connect to Sanders's inclusion here. I have returned the section. Gandydancer (talk) 22:14, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

It is not notable. It is also WP:Undue. This is a statement from a random political commentator trying to call Reade a liar, and trying to smear her based on off topic random statements about Putin. And Yes, if we are going to call Bernie Sanders commenting on this not notable and undue, this sure is.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:20, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
It's her opinion based off of her analysis of other people's reporting. Giving it this much emphasis is completely undue. I also have to say that I find the fact that Putin, of all of the individuals living in the entire world, is somehow going to matter to this page... this seems ludicrous. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 22:33, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) We should not demonize those who question Reade's charge. Marcus looked at all of the information that has been so far published and compared it to what she learned from her extensive research into the Kavanaugh charges for the book that she wrote on the subject. As such she is well able to offer a comment. Most certainly as able as AOC. We'll see what other editors have to say. Gandydancer (talk) 22:36, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
It's not a demonization. Marcus is a political activist coming from an ideological viewpoint that influences her opinion, with her writings on Kavanaugh deliberately made to "put an asterisk" on his career, and she's giving her opinion in terms of her analysis of this allegation in the broader context of her work reporting on these issues. Being an activist isn't necessarily a good or bad thing. It just is. Neither is having an ideology. Neither is coming from a certain working background. Neither is making part of your life's goal representing a certain cause. Doing such things makes one human. Noting such facts isn't an attack any more than saying "Jim is a concert pianist from Utah with brown eyes" is an attack. It's objective labeling. This is her opinion, and it's coming from that place, and that's fine, but taking her opinion as fact and then treating it as gospel such that it's given undue weight in the manner that's being proposed is absolutely inappropriate. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 22:56, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
@Darryl Kerrigan: Ruth Marcus is not a "random political commentator". She is a notable journalist and Harvard Law School graduate. Marcus is commenting on the substance of this allegation. Sanders was ducking a question by responding that an American has a right of free speech, pointedly avoiding any comment at all about Biden, Reade, the allegation, the media coverage, the police document, etc. etc. SPECIFICO talk 22:42, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
The fact that she attended Harvard does not mean anything. So what? There are also many journalists/commentators who have written about this. What makes her especially notable? What makes her inclusion due weight? Should we include a paragraph about every journalist/commentator who writes about this? Just the ones that went to Harvard? Perhaps, every politician? The suggestion that we would include that drivel about Putin and exclude a much more measured statement from a long time, currently sitting Senator and two time candidate for the Democratic nomination is ridiculous. WP:Due requires us to balance perspectives as not to give any prominence. There seems to be a push to silence voices that are supportive or neutral about Ms. Reade and to promote those that are dismissive of her and her allegations. That phenomenon is not a new one. It has been experienced by many women who make such complaints. It is not how we are supposed to work though.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:15, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
Her comments are undue and not notable should not be included. Its an op-ed.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 22:45, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Why is the assumption made that if Sanders' statements are included that therefore there has to be a bunch of other statements added? Why can't every addition be evaluated based on its own merits? This isn't a 'sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander' contest. Personally, I think that neither Sanders' comment nor Marcus' comment should be included. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 22:49, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
    This is definitely undue. Sanders comments are notable and reported in secondary sources. This random person op-ed is definitely not worthy to be included. Sanders comments should be included as he is a notable person and has been reported in multiple sources.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 22:51, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
This is a different discussion so I don't want to rehash Sanders too much, but personally I feel that Sanders' notability as a person doesn't necessarily cross over to every remark that he makes. Even though reported by multiple sources, Sanders' statement was, at its heart, "I don't know". It's not really encyclopedic to edit the article and expand it to include stuff like "by the way, persons X and Y said that they don't know about this topic". CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 23:13, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
I think it is definitely relevant. Sanders is the #2 candidate for the Democratic nomination and just recently supported Biden. There is probably no other person other than former president Barrack Obama whose opinion counts more than Sanders. Patapsco913 (talk) 01:40, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
Patapsco913, what "opinion" do you think Sanders expressed? SPECIFICO talk 02:10, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Giving The New York Times prominence over all other sources

Right now the third paragraph of the lead basically repeats what the NYT reported, and the NYT is cited four times. I would prefer that we not include material that repeats such a large amount of material from a Biden-friendly source (I would say the same about a Biden-unfriendly source like Fox News), but at the very the least it should be taken out of the lead and put in a separate section ("Media response" perhaps?) And if we are going to enshrine the NYT's pro-Biden material, I think we should also mention the many sources that have criticized the NYT's handling of this, starting with Ben Smith's question, published in the NYT;[22]

"I’ve been looking at The Times’s coverage of Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh. I want to focus particularly on the Julie Swetnick allegations. She was the one who was represented by Michael Avenatti and who suggested that Kavanaugh had been involved in frat house rapes, and then appeared to walk back elements of her allegations. The Times wrote that story the same day she made the allegation, noting that “none of Ms. Swetnick’s claims could be independently corroborated. Why was Kavanaugh treated differently?"

Should we put in material from these other sources that criticize the NYT article?[23][24][25][26][27][28]

Glenn Greenwald, who wrote

"Do you think people won't notice that liberal institutions and media outlets spent months maligning Brett Kavanaugh's defenders as misogynistic rape apologists, only to now invoke all their arguments to defend Joe Biden & demean Tara Reade? Do you think people are that dumb?"

is a particularly notable critic.

If we include criticism of the NYT, we should also include these sources that are generally supportive of the NYT;[29][30][31]

As I said at the start, my preferred solution would be to not give the NYT special treatment and and simply delete that paragraph. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:24, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

I think some info on the lack of mainstream media coverage for three weeks definitely should be included especially since accusations against Brett Kavanaugh were reported when the accuser was anonymous while Biden's accuser came out publicly but did not get the same favorable treatment. The NYT is suspect in that they had to unnecessarily mention that she had tweeted favorably about Putin.Patapsco913 (talk) 09:03, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
It is a bit odd that the Biden campaign was able to shape some of the story to paint Biden in a better light - regarding the phrase that was removed - "I think that the campaign thought that the phrasing was awkward and made it look like there were other instances in which he had been accused of sexual misconduct." Is it the usual procedure for these types of stories - like was Kavanaugh allowed to help frame the language used in any of the stories about his allegations? Could be interesting to see if more develops out of that. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:09, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
Previously I was of the opinion that comparing the way the Biden and Kavanaugh allegations were covered was not something we should cover, based upon the argument that there are a bunch of far right wingnut websites screaming about it but no mainstream coverage, but now that the NYT itself is talking about the different way they covered the two, maybe we should cover it? Hard to tell.
Alas, I am seeing three kinds of editors working on this. Those who, like me, don't give a fig who wins the next US presidential election, those who have a keen eye for Blue Team misbehavior while being blind to Red Team misbehavior, and those who have a keen eye for Red Team misbehavior while being blind to Blue Team misbehavior. Many of them are up front about it, saying "My team really is better and the other team really is worse".   :(   -Guy Macon (talk) 14:00, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
Is there a reason why one can't have a strong preference to who wins the presidential election, but think that all misbehavior is bad and should be acknowledged as such?—Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 20:11, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
No, and it is to your credit if you do. Some editors may be even tougher on the team they root for to avoid any hint of unconscious bias. That being said, it is an easily observable fact that some editors (and maybe some newspapers?) take the position that allegations of misbehavior should be carefully checked if they are against one team but reported without scritiny if they are against the opposing team. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:25, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
I think we need to stop invoking Kavanaugh. That's a partisan talking point. If we focus on the substance of the allegation and denial, and leave the contest between big media and little media out of this, we will end up with a much more encyclopedic stub than otherwise. - MrX 🖋 20:27, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
I don't think it is a partisan talking point. Libertarian sources that have equal disdain for Team Red and Team Blue have commented on this and make some excellent points[32][33] --Guy Macon (talk) 22:25, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
I would not consider reason.com a reliable source, and why any source should be affiliated with a political party is beyond me. The parties I was referring to are mainstream media and mini media.- MrX 🖋 14:03, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
The reliable sources noticeboard has evaluated Reason several times and determined that is is a generally reliable source for factual claims with opinion pages that are biased toward Libertarianism. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:05, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
[Edit conflict] I think as editors we are obligated to "edit as if" - since no human is without bias, we are all just faking it. But the PAGs guide us to edit as if we are free of bias, and following them should result in editors whose biases are undetectable.
As for the NYT, I do think this deserves deep consideration. If Fox News was found to be taking talking points directly from Trump, or making stealth edits to diminish negative coverage of the POTUS, the source would surely be demoted in some way. The Times has admitted*,* it made a stealth edit on behalf of the Biden campaign. They removed facts that made the story more balanced. That does not strike me as an entirely reliable source for this story. petrarchan47คุก 20:42, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
The NYT did not "made a stealth edit on behalf of the Biden campaign". They said " I think that the campaign thought that the phrasing was awkward and made it look like there were other instances in which he had been accused of sexual misconduct.". Now maybe they are making editorial decisions because they want to boost Biden, but they certainly have not admitted any such thing, and Fox News is simply not a credible source. Here is one of many reasons why:

Baquet also offered little explanation as to why the Times had waited nearly two weeks to publicize Reade's accusation, while it posted a claim by a woman who accused Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh of misconduct within hours.
— Fox News

The New York Times actually gave a 25 paragraph explanation about why they delayed covering the story. Fox News is once again embellishing the facts to suit their purpose. Let's not follow suit. - MrX 🖋 13:52, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
It isn't just Fox News that commented on low quality of the NYT's excuse. See [34][35][36][37][38]
Glenn Greenwald wrote
"Do you think people won't notice that liberal institutions and media outlets spent months maligning Brett Kavanaugh's defenders as misogynistic rape apologists, only to now invoke all their arguments to defend Joe Biden & demean Tara Reade? Do you think people are that dumb?"
--Guy Macon (talk) 18:18, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
For crying out loud Guy, that's scraping the bottom of the barrel isn't it? Town Hall, Daily Wire, and Reason? What about Breitbart, OANN, and the DailyMail? Surely they can offer some great insights too. - MrX 🖋 00:05, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
So you think Glenn Greenwald is the bottom of the barrel? Your bias is showing.
Reason is a perfectly fine but biased source. Mother Jones is a reliable source that is rooting for the Donkey Team. Fox News is a reliable source that is rooting for the Elephant Team. Reason Magazine is a reliable source that is rooting for the Porcupine Team. (Not sure what reliable source is rooting for the Sunflower Team... Anyone?)
Go to WP:RSPS and try to get them listed as unreliable if you think otherwise, but until you do please stop saying reliable sources are unreliable just because they aren't rooting for the team you are rooting for. We get it. Everyone is well aware of your opinion on this. Saying essentially the same thing over and over will not change how many editors do or do not agree with you.
Full disclosure: I personally have the same low opinion of all US political parties and wish "None of the above" was on the ballot. If I had to choose I might favor a Green or Libertarian on the theory that it is time we were disappointed by someone new, but "none of the above" is my preferred candidate for every US election I have lived through. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:02, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
I'm sure you must know that my comment was not referring to Glenn Greenwald. It was referring the the string of questionable sources that you listed. There is no reason (← see what I did there?), to go to RSN to get a determination on Reason. There is currently no consensus, so anyone who wants to uses such a source has the onus of convincing others that it is reliable for the material being cited. Mother Jones has been determined to be generally reliable (see WP:RSP#Mother Jones), but being a fairly biased source, it's use should be examined in context. Now, can you tell me—where in the world is Aleppo? 🤣 - MrX 🖋 15:28, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
That's funny...[39] Pelirojopajaro (talk) 05:59, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Is this a BLP violation?

SPECIFICO has removed this content saying it's a BLP violation, According to Forbes magazine, "[w]hen Brett Kavanaugh was nominated to become a Supreme Court Justice, the media turned his sexual assault accusation into a daily lead story. Now, most media outlets give little, if any coverage to the same accusations facing a Presidential candidate, highlighting the clear biases that exists within mainstream media outlets."[1] Is this a BLP violation?--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 15:55, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Jones, Zack. "Biden's Election Odds Improve Following Obama Endorsement". Forbes. Retrieved 2020-04-16.
I think it would facitlitate the participation of anyone who chooses to respond if you'd copy my edit summary, which is self-explanatory. SPECIFICO talk 15:57, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
SPECIFICO's edit summary: "Removing BLP violation. Don't post a bloggerbit and attribute it to Forbes, and don't add coatrack bits to this article, no matter how they are sourced."--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 16:01, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
Yes. See WP:RSP#Forbes.com contributors and WP:BLPSOURCES. It's also WP:COATRACKISH. - MrX 🖋 16:04, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
I didn't know about Forbes contributors thing but I disagree that it is off-topic.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 16:54, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
SS, this is not about you. SPECIFICO talk 17:01, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
What?--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 17:14, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
I don't see any BLP violation here - it is media criticism. I offer no opinion on the misattributed sourcing (didn;t check) or coatrack claims, but the BLP claims is specious. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 17:17, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
Using an unreliable source to compare a person accused of a crime to another person accused of a crime is indeed a BLP violation. - MrX 🖋 17:49, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
No it wasn't comparing any person to any other person , it was comparing media coverage of two incidents. You need to reread it . JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 18:30, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
Facepalm Facepalm - "if any coverage to the same accusations facing a Presidential candidate" ←←← That's a comparison of two living people. - MrX 🖋 18:50, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
It appears English is not a language you are proficient in. That is a comparison of coverage of accusations, not people. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 19:03, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
It was comparing "media coverage". It is not BLP violation. SPECICO accusation was totally inappropriate. --SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 17:51, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
This is not the media coverage of Brett Kavanaugh article. No matter how you care to slice it, this material does not belong and in case didn't hear it, you can use that source. - MrX 🖋 18:09, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
We were talking about SPECIFICO's BLP violation accusation against me. Since you changed the subject, I believe you no longer think it is a BLP violation. That section is about the media coverage of Biden's sexual allegation. The compression was about that. In any case, it was poorly sourced. However, I wouldn't tolerate another baseless accusation from SPECIFICO.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 18:21, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
No, it's a BLP violation for sure. - MrX 🖋 18:50, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
How is it a biography of a living person violation? You are making a baseless accusation without providing evidence.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 18:59, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
I agree with Sharab 100%. Much is being written about this comparison. So much so that the NYT included an explanation of the widely-discussed difference when they interviewed themselves. petrarchan47คุก 22:09, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
Regardless, we are talking about an unreliable source making an extraordinary claim about a living person. That's not okay. --WMSR (talk) 22:14, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
It's not making any claim about a person. It is making a claim about newspaper coverage. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 23:01, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
Basically every point there is false. It's not an unreliable source per se. It's an opinion statement from a columnist working for a notable source that's biased but isn't to be dismissed out of hand. It's not an extraordinary claim. It's a perfectly reasonable observation that's rather obvious and has been stated by many: the media coverage is misleading and not at all appropriate when it comes to covering reports of sexual misconduct. It's not a BLP violation. It's perfectly okay. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 23:07, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
As for the actual discussion that we should be having: I don't think that the opinion reported by Forbes is particularly noteworthy enough to be given prominent emphasis on the article. What makes this different than any other column? I'm not sure. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 23:10, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
Opinions may be noteworthy if other reliable sources have taken note of them. While the content in question may be opinion, that's not how it's presented. The source simply does not conform to WP:RS per [[[[WP:RSP#Forbes.com contributors|documented consensus. - MrX 🖋 13:27, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
@CoffeeWithMarkets: Actually it is unreliable. Forbes runs blog material on their website. These "contributors" are specifically disclaimed on the page where they self-publish their views. This is not a columnist working for Forbes in the sense that Hugh Hewitt is a columnist working for the Washington Post. SPECIFICO talk 13:40, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Infobox

U.S. Senate Identification Badge photo of Reade she provided to The New York Times

This article should not have a person infobox. It is not a biography. - MrX 🖋 20:31, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Now, that I think about it. Yes, this infobox is not required and confuses the article. This article is about the allegations themselves, not Joe Biden nor Tara Reade. The way the image and caption were set up before (as set out on the right) was fine for the article. That formatting should be restored.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 20:53, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Sanders comments

Were removed by WMSR. I dont see any reason to remove that sourced content.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 16:59, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Here is the content that was removed:

In an interview with CBS, the first since he endorsed Biden, Bernie Sanders was asked whether he supports his ally Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's assertion that it is "legitimate to talk about allegations against Joe Biden", Bernie responded saying "I think any woman who feels that she was assaulted has every right in the world to stand up and make her claims."[1]

--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 17:04, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ April 16, CBS News; 2020; Am, 8:29. "Bernie Sanders on supporting Joe Biden, allegations against former VP, and the need to defeat "dangerous" Trump". www.cbsnews.com. Retrieved 2020-04-16. {{cite web}}: |last2= has numeric name (help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
It was Sander's reaction to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's reaction, correct? Perhaps you could find some content where it's Sander's reaction to the allegation that Biden sexually assaulted Reade, as opposed to Sander's reaction to someone else's reaction. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 17:07, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
AzureCitizen,
Actually here what the source says:
Dokoupil: Do you think that should weigh significantly in the mind of-
Sanders: I think that she has the right to make her claims and get a public hearing, and the public will make their own conclusions about it. I just don't know enough about it to comment further.
Sanders was talking about the Raeda, not just AOC comment.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 17:13, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
I haven't looked at the source yet myself, but assuming that it puts forth content that Sanders is responding directly to the allegations that Biden assaulted Reade, you could propose a replacement sentence here on the Talk Page that states that plainly and directly, and that should satisfy editor's concerns. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 17:21, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
Well, then it should have been improved instead of totally deleting it. I just added that content and just after few mins it got deleted: Here is a new version:

In an interview with CBS, Bernie said that he thinks Reade "has the right to make her claims and get a public hearing, and the public will make their own conclusions about it."

--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 17:30, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
It would very noteworthy if Sanders didn't hold that view. Stating the glaringly obvious is a waste of ink. - MrX 🖋 17:45, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
I agree with removal. Sanders' off the cuff comment about one of his highest-profile allies is off topic and not at all encyclopedic. - MrX 🖋 17:43, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
First of all, its definitely encyclopedic, Sanders's reaction is worth including in the article. His reaction is about this topic of the article "Joe Biden sexual assault allegation", how is it off-topic??.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 17:49, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
There does not seem to be a good reason for the removal of this content. Sanders response addressed the allegations and how they should be treated. It doesn't matter if he has a close relationship with AOC. What he has to say on the topic is quite notable. The way to balance that is to provide comments from other perspectives, should anyone from the Biden camp or other politicians etc comment on it. What is the next argument? That Bernie Sanders is not an influential Senator. Has he ever got anything done? I think Hillary Clinton once said he had no friends. Where is Vermont anyway? When Trump says something it will be some variation of "Trump is a loud mouth, and compulsive liar. We should not include every throwaway statement he makes." Rapid removal of properly sourced content is not productive. It can get in the way of nature evolution of an article and the building of a better encyclopedia.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 17:59, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
WP:ONUS, WP:CON, WP:DUEWEIGHT, WP:COATRACK, WP:NOTFANDOM, WP:NOTHILLARY, ... - MrX 🖋 18:06, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
No, it's not. His reaction was to AOC's shallow comment. That kind of ephemera does not belong on Wikipedia. - MrX 🖋 18:06, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
He said she, Reade, "has the right to make her claims and get a public hearing, and the public will make their own conclusions about it." How is that not relevant to the subject of the article.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 18:23, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
It's a patently anodyne affirmation of free speech by a politician who doesn't wish to comment on the allegation itself. We editors may be paying a lot of attention to the blow-by-blow of media and internet chatter, but this is not yet a significant news story and very few people in the world seem much to care about it. SPECIFICO talk 18:18, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
So AOC's comment is shallow, eh? That is like your opinion man. Our job is to ensure things are properly sourced and presented in a manner that does not give undue weight to any point of view. That can be achieved by minding how we summarize AOC and Sanders' statements and by including the notable statements of others who have a different or opposing point of view.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 18:26, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
It has been reported in multiple reliable sources [40][41][42]. And his comments are still from one hour ago. It is noteworthy. Also, avoid saying your own personal opinions here.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 18:27, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
Yes, and I explained why upthread. By the way, Newsbusters is not a reliable source. - MrX 🖋 13:21, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

AOC and Bernie Sanders' comments should be included. The statement of Kate Bedingfield (Biden's communications director) should also be incorporated into the article (if it is not already). I am out of NYT free reads, so can't tell if it is her cited in the lede. In any event her statement is cited in The Australian:

Women have a right to tell their story, and reporters have an obligation to rigorously vet those claims. We encourage them to do so, because these accusations are false.[43]

Perhaps, there are other statements I am unaware of that should also be incorporated. Until Biden himself provides a substantive comment on the allegations that is included, the Bedingfield statement (and the others already in the article) provide appropriate balance.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 18:48, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Sanders' comment is not actually substantial or noteworthy and should not be included. This is kind of obvious. He was asked a question. He had to answer. He basically said "I don't know". Volunteer Marek 18:51, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

You have provided no evidence that it is not notable. Sources have reported what Sanders have said. Your own personal opinion is not a valid argument.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 19:01, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
Marek doesn't need to. The WP:ONUS is on you to gain consensus for the content's inclusion. --WMSR (talk) 21:29, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
WP:ONUS is not a veto. Nor is it a licence for WP:OWNERSHIP or WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. We rely on good faith. That requires those opposing content give reasons and where possilble work towards changes that will make the content acceptable. It is appropriate to ask other editors to clearly spell out their objections. Building WP:consensus relies on that.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:13, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
It's not a veto, but it's an important part of the editing process. The default state is to leave material out if it is contested, until consensus is reached for including it in some form. If there is no consensus, nothing stops it from being repeatedly added back into the article, or from being repeatedly removed from the article. That's obviously not very productive. - MrX 🖋 13:18, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
  • I really don't see any reason why we should not include Bernie's comments. They are reported in multiple reliable sources.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 14:56, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
Because you haven't listened. His comments are not relevant to the subject. The subject is not "Anodyne commentary about AOC's shallow online chatter". - MrX 🖋 15:26, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
No, it is relevant. He is talking about the subject of this article. Isn't the subject of this article is Joe Biden sexual assaults allegations? He is talking about that even the source (CBS news) says that in the title.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 02:50, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 14 April 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Clear consensus to keep at the current location buidhe 11:18, 20 April 2020 (UTC)


Joe Biden sexual assault allegation → ? – This discussion about the title of this article was originally started as a request for comment by Guy Macon below. I am converting the discussion format to a requested move, which is the proper format for title change discussions. Mz7 (talk) 04:53, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

  • Comment Hodgdon's secret garden posted a malformed RfC and then moved this to "Joe Biden Senate aide controversy" without waiting to see what the consensus was. I reviewed the comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joe Biden assault allegation and on this page and it looks like "Joe Biden sexual assault allegation" has the most support, so I changed it to that for now and created a properly formatted RfC. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:44, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Joe Biden sexual assault allegation This is how Wikipedia normally names articles and article sections; [Name of person accused] + [Name of Crime (often Sexual Assault or Sexual Misconduct)] + [Allegations, Case, Trial, or (rarely) Conviction]]. Examples:

--Guy Macon (talk) 18:44, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

  • Joe Biden Senate aide controversy Per wp:BLP this article should be moved immediately to Joe Biden Senate aide controversy. At this point in time it would be more prudent and It's NPOV for WP not to take sides as to whether the controversy should be thought more-so Biden's or more-so the media's.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 17:41, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
    Comment - (We normally don't remove people's talkpage comments when we reform them but I'll let that sleeping dog lie.) Which title is better, the current one? or "Joe Biden Senate aid controversy"? At this point we ought to carefully weigh use of Wikipedia's voice to avoid implying that the controversy ought be thought more-so Biden's than it is of the media's and it can be seen that the title I've here suggested successfully skirts this conflict entirely. wp:NPOV: "When editorial bias towards one particular point of view can be detected the article needs to be fixed." Folks, we're referencing stuff that's pretty much a third rail within our society, and appropriately so. But, years after the event, someone filed a statement to the authorities documenting t'hir version of of an actual encounter charged with sexuality between t'him and the person named at the beginning of this article's title (unless it was fabricated out of thin air), characterising it as non-consensual. This allegation's now having garnered serious and more than nomial news coverage, WP is obliged -- if out of fairness to others WP's covered within similar circumstances, if nothing else -- to make mention of it as well; yet, bending over backwards with as much human discretion as possible while so doing I think would behoove us well.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 19:09, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Joe Biden sexual assault allegation BLP does not preclude describing allegation as what they are. And we shouldn't water down allegations of what is either rape or a sexual crime equivalent in severity to rape to mere "sexual misconduct". JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 17:55, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Joe Biden sexual assault allegation It's not just a controversy, it's specifically a sexual assault allegation. The article isn't about reactions to the allegation, it's really about the allegation itself.—Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 18:46, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
    Does the answer given in Talk:Joe Biden sexual assault allegation#Scope of article answer your objection? Nobody suggested another article for the kissing and touching that happened ten years later. What we have discussed (and will discuss further once the smoke clears) is either putting the sexual assault and the kissing and touching together in this article or putting the sexual assault and the kissing and touching together in the main Joe Biden article. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:29, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Joe Biden sexual misconduct allegations Excluding the stories of the other 7-8 accusers not named "Tara Reade" from this page doesn't make much sense. It seems redundant to create a separate page just for the Tara Reade allegation, and another for the other women. 2600:1700:D281:27D0:91FB:9E23:F11A:B31A (talk) 20:07, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
▲ This user is a single purpose account. - MrX 🖋 12:35, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
  • This is a malformed RfC and moreover, it is an improper RfC. It's malformed because the statement has no timestamp, contrary to WP:RFCST; and being boldfaced is not neutral, contrary to WP:RFCBRIEF. It's improper because this is a WP:RM matter, see WP:RFCNOT. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:50, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
    I have attempted to fix this. Mz7 (talk) 04:53, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Joe Biden sexual misconduct allegations is a proper name for it, and it should list all accusations against him. Dream Focus 00:33, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Joe Biden sexual misconduct allegations and expand the scope. This should be an RM, however. Mdaniels5757 (talk) 00:41, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
That would violate WP:V and WP:BLP. There has only been one sexual misconduct allegation. - MrX 🖋 12:35, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
There have been quite a number of accusations. https://www.thecut.com/2020/04/joe-biden-accuser-accusations-allegations.html https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/04/joe-biden-inappropriate-touching-accusations-list.html https://www.vox.com/2020/3/27/21195935/joe-biden-sexual-assault-allegation Dream Focus 16:04, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
I guess you didn't read your own sources because the first two don't refer to "sexual misconduct allegations" and the third one refers to this single allegation. - MrX 🖋 16:03, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Joe Biden sexual assault allegation - This is concise, precise, recognizable, verifiable, and commonly used by sources. Note: There have not been multiple "sexual misconduct allegations", so using such a title would be a brazen violation of our policies, not to mention scope creep. - MrX 🖋 12:35, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Cmt offered as a procedural note - Technically this could be a subsection of an omnibus article but that's an academic question in that no such article exists at present. That said, as it is, this WP article must stand on its own merits. Should there some content not pertaining to Reade that an editor wishes to contribute somewhere but it doesn't fit within a newly created stand-alone (boldly, per wp:Edit) but within such an omnibus, for what it's worth, I'd suggest, also, to simply create such an omnibus. At a future date, such an article by this time existing, it might be suggested for content here to be merged en toto there. (Indeed, Why not!)--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 18:48, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
  • If we're going to have the article (and the AFD is still ongoing), I'd go with Joe Biden sexual misconduct allegations, per Dream Focus and Mdaniels above, as there has been more than one allegation (as noted in Biden's article at present). Robofish (talk) 22:00, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Joe Biden sexual assault allegation. This article is about the Tara Reade's allegation of sexual assault by Biden. We should not water it down to the several other accusations of touching and kissing. Those are not as notable. This should focus on the most notable and prominently covered accusation from Reade. Pushing "misconduct" to the forefront can only be seen as whitewashing. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 03:17, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Joe Biden sexual assault allegation as this is the topic of the article.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 08:43, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Joe Biden sexual assault allegation - As stated above, this is a page about a specific allegation and shouldn't be watered down by throwing in unrelated reports. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 10:44, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge - the Biden article meets the length requirement for forking and our readers are better served by doing it that way. Atsme Talk 📧 15:57, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Joe Biden sexual assault allegation per Guy Macon's reasoning above.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 17:37, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Joe Biden sexual misconduct allegations. Comparable to the Clinton and Trump articles. For one thing, putting "sexual assault" in the title when it only amounts to one uninvestigated claim is a BLP violation. For another thing, under the "misconduct" title you can include the "improper touching" allegations, which nobody has called assault so can't be included here under the current title. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:18, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Joe Biden sexual assault allegation per Guy Macon and every other sexual assault allegation against a public figure. ConstantPlancks (talk) 07:06, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Joe Biden sexual assault allegation. The focus is on Reade's allegation; the other "sexual misconduct allegations" are merely background information. It is irrelevant to the article's notability whether the claims are "uninvestigated", although as it happens, the claim has been repeatedly investigated. It is a BLP violation against Tara Reade to state otherwise. Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:23, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Joe Biden sexual assault allegation per Guy Macon's reasoning above.MagicatthemovieS (talk) 21:01, 17 April 2020 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Joe_Biden_sexual_assault_allegation/Archive_1&oldid=1136359980"