Talk:Joe Biden

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jacobmolga (article contribs).

RfC Awaiting Closure ("Allegations of inappropriate physical contact" header)

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

(here following a request at WP:AN/RFC (permalink)) Participants at this RfC were divided between those who supported the addition of "and sexual assault" ("supports") and those who prefer the status quo ("opposes").

Supports argue that including "and sexual assault" more accurately describes the section (because it contains an allegation of sexual assault), that reliable sources refer to the Reade allegation as an allegation of "sexual assault", wording that we should echo, and that alternatives are too euphemistic.

Opposes argue that reliable secondary sources have "given [] little credence" to the allegation, that "inappropriate physical contact" broadly encompasses all of the allegations, that the proposed wording misleadingly implies more than one allegation of sexual assault (because of the plurality of the word "Allegations"), that inclusion of the term "sexual assault" in the header gives that allegation undue weight because the Reade allegation has received much less backing in reliable sources compared with the other allegations presented in that section, and that these flaws constitute BLP problems for the proposed change.

In response, the supports argue that it is undisputed and well sourced that there is an allegation of sexual assault, and the header does not state in Wikipedia's voice that an assault occurred, avoiding NPOV problems.

In closing this discussion, I also incorporated the comments of the previous archived discussion as if they were voiced in this discussion due to how recent that discussion was when this RfC was opened.

Overall, there is no consensus in favor of the proposed change and rough consensus that using the words "sexual assault" in the header, and especially any implication that there were multiple accusations of sexual assault, gives undue weight to the Reade allegation and should therefore not be included. And, as a general matter, in the absence of rough affirmative consensus for the inclusion of a potentially sensitive term on a BLP, principles of caution should apply and we should err on the side of presenting content responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone. Questions about this close are always welcome. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 22:03, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

---

RFC: "Allegations of inappropriate physical contact" header (request made here on 24 August.) petrarchan47คุก 16:50, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

• Note that this RfC is still open. Feel free to uncollapse to leave new comments. petrarchan47คุก 22:53, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Should the header "Allegations of inappropriate physical contact" be changed to "Allegations of inappropriate physical contact and sexual assault"?--Rusf10 (talk) 02:43, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Survey

• Yes (as proposer)- the current heading is misleading as it downplays the sexual assualy allegation made by Tara Reade. The alleged act goes beyond just inappropriate physical contact.--Rusf10 (talk) 02:43, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
• Accusations of inappropriate physical contact and 1993 sexual assault allegation. If in doubt, sacrifice conciseness for precision. The current version in unacceptable, so I would also support Rusf10's proposal. Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:18, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

To be precise, the heading would have to read "Accusations of inappropriate physical contact and one 2020 allegation of sexual assault in 1993." Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:44, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

• No The sexual assault allegation is not that significant overall because mainstream media has given it little credence. Wikipedia is not a WP:CRYSTALBALL that predicts what will become big news stories. Ethically that would be wrong, because it would mean that Wikipedia was pushing what editors found important, rather than what the body of reliable sources found important. TFD (talk) 03:57, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

• Moved to Discussion. userdude 11:05, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

• No - Mentioning sexual assault in the heading of a section surely requires extraordinary proof, otherwise the subject of the article would suffer guilt by association. To me, that's a BLP violation. I really don't know why we are having this discussion yet again. It seems pointlessly distruptive. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:09, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

We have proof that the allegation exists; nothing in policy says we need more proof than that.  There is no consensus for the current version, so we must continue to seek consensus.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 16:47, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Kolya, you seem determined to make sure Joe Biden's article has "sexual assault" in a section heading, even though there is no proof a sexual assault occurred. Surely that is a BLP violation? -- Scjessey (talk) 13:04, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

You haven't addressed my argument. Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:39, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

• Yes because that's what the sources call it. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 15:49, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
• No per all of the reasons laid out by the majority of editors who did not want "Allegations of inappropriate physical contact and sexual assault" in the previous discussion. There should especially be no insinuation that there are multiple allegations of sexual assault; we must exercise caution on a BLP topic. And let me again echo the point first raised by SelfieCity: a link to the sexual assault allegation page already immediately follows the header, and thus this change seems neither necessary nor warranted. RedHotPear (talk) 16:48, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
• No per the reasons given by TFD and Scjessey.Smeat75 (talk) 18:51, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
• Yes #MeToo! 2A00:1370:812C:1186:1D5F:664B:1B27:845C (talk) 01:35, 23 May 2020 (UTC)— 2A00:1370:812C:1186:1D5F:664B:1B27:845C (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• No (and this ↑ one is a WP:SPA) - This is bad idea for so many reasons as I have stated in previous discussions. This relentless effort to add sexual assault to a heading in a biography that spans decades or a public servant's life and career is contrary to several Wikipedia policies, not the least of which is WP:NPOV. - MrX 🖋 02:18, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

I think all you said in the previous discussion was that "allegations" implies there was more than one sexual assault allegation, and you felt the current heading was appropriate to encompass all incidents.[1] The first concern is addressed by using Allegations of inappropriate physical contact and allegation of sexual assault. Your WP:UNDUE argument has nothing to do with the heading. Reade's allegation is in the article, therefore the heading must reflect that. If you believe sticking fingers in a vagina is described as "inappropriate physical contact", you're going to have to provide sources. Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:38, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

No, that's not how headings work. - MrX 🖋 14:17, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

• No There has only been one allegation of sexual assault, and it appears to be very questionable. Putting anything about sexual assault in the section heading violates WP:UNDUE. Samboy (talk) 03:48, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

It's not up to us (or the New York Times) to decide whether the allegation is true. Reliable sources have reported it.--Rusf10 (talk) 04:37, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

It very much is up to reliable sources to guide us in knowing how much weight is due weight. Just because the NYT has an article on flat Earth theories does not mean we have to edit Earth to give it a section on allegations that it is flat, since the NYT article makes it clear flat Earth theories are not true. Likewise, just because the New York Times has articles on the allegations does not mean we need to imply the allegations are reliable or have a section header about them. The New York Times is a reliable source, as is Politico, and they show strong evidence placing doubt on the allegation, which makes putting the allegation in the header a WP:UNDUE violation.  Samboy (talk) 05:37, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Nothing about the specific sexual assault allegation matters except that it exists in the article, and the subheading must encompass that.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 12:34, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Actually, how reliable the allegations are matter when determining whether to give them due weight. There are allegations that the Earth is flat, The New York Times have talked about them, yet Earth doesn’t have a section on “allegations the Earth is flat”—because the allegations are unreliable. Likewise, we shouldn’t have a big section header about the sex assault allegation (singluar, very singular indeed) because it’s not a particularly reliable allegation. Samboy (talk) 18:52, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Flat Earth has a whole article of it's own and the Earth page directly links to it. Shadess (talk) 18:36, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

It doesn’t have its own section, and this discussion was (is?) about a section header. Samboy (talk) 22:30, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

User:Samboy WP:UNDUE doesn’t work that way. A great many RS chose to take it seriously enough to print it. It is WP:DUE a prominence in proportion to its coverage. And to convey whatever they said about it - again, in proportion to the coverage. You would have to look at more than just NYT to get a more general view of what things were said, in what proportion. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 17:04, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

User:Markbassett, is there any new news about this allegation? This discussion is from two months ago. Samboy (talk) 05:55, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

In particular, the only recent reliable discussion about this allegation is from an opinion piece published by The Hill, which states that this a “discredited allegation by a former staffer that more than a quarter century ago Biden sexually assaulted her in the public hallways of a Senate office building.” Is there any recent reliable discussion about this discredited allegation I am missing? Samboy (talk) 06:06, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

User:Samboy Sure, there’s a number of other mentions this month in addition to the zillion over months prior that made it DUE, although there seems not much change this month. They don’t generally call it discredited. Maybe you didn’t try the right search terms or had some unstated filter. Googling just Tara Reade within the last month gets hits, and some examples follow in rough order and chosen to show that it’s remembered/mentioned in diverse places.

a few samples, Cheers Markbassett

8 July Fox talking head mentioning her gofundme page and alleging NYT reporter misconduct 30 June Boston Herald column, ranting on Bidens flubs 9 July Lawsuit filed against University of Delaware witholding access his papers about this. 8 July Same topic 15 July On a photo of Biden and Zoe Baird gone viral as mistaken for Tara Reade 19 July Commentator on why he discounted but now believes her 11 July CBS on effect to his campaign 28 June Politico on Bernie’s student army learning to live with Biden, despite allegations etc 9 July The Independent, that ‘Creepy Trump’ attack ads follow Biden allegations 4 July PBS, what Biden staffers think about it 2 July ABCnews.go Tammy Duckworth, potential running mate, addresses the allegations 16 July Bari Weiss was too good for NYT - commentary makes side mention of Tara Reade Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:02, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Markbassett, that is the weakest collection of references I have ever seen put up for a prominent American Politics article. SPECIFICO talk 00:59, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Specs, that seems pretty silly. First, you’re misguided - they were not a reference they were answering a question that several months later it’s still being put in print. Second, your claim seems absurd - you are calling The Independent, Fox, CBS, PBS, ChicagoSun, BostonHerald, Politico, etcetera “the weakest” makes no sense. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:31, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Back atcha, my friend. SPECIFICO talk 00:41, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

• No per previous discussion, accuracy and the need to maintain NPOV. Volunteer Marek 08:33, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
• No - I agree with what MrX & Scjessey wrote. We should be careful not to violate BLP, "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..." BetsyRMadison (talk) 12:40, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
• Comment - As a reminder, section headings are meant to conform to the same rules as article titles. Per WP:NDESC they should be neutral and non judgmental. Words like "allegation" are meant to be avoided, except where the entire article (or in this case, section) is about a criminal allegation, which this is clearly not. On that basis, "allegation of sexual assault" (or a variation of same) would violate Wikipedia's WP:AT policy, and hence WP:BLP. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:04, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

The entire section is about accusations of inappropriate physical contact and 1993 sexual assault allegation. The entire section is about those things collectively. Sexual assault is a criminal allegation. Tara Reade did file a police report, not that that would be necessary for it to be a criminal allegation. It doesn't matter that the statue of limitations is past. Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:34, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

There is no "1993 sexual assault allegation," and there is no "criminal sexual assault" allegation because Reade never filed any such thing in 1993 or any other time. In fact, there isn't even a 2019 sexual assault allegation. There is an allegation that began in March 2020 alleging sexual assault where reliable sources report that Reade made zero mention of sexual assault, or Joe Biden, or criminal sexual assault in any filed complaint in 1993. So, as of right now, reliable sources have reported an allegation that, according to 5/23/2020 Washington Post [2], has many "inconsistencies" in it. Scjessey is correct as per WP:NDESC headings should be neutral and we should also be very careful not to violate WP:BLP. As a food-for-thought: since April 2017 reliable sources have reported that Donald Trump accuses President Obama of illegally wiretapping; and yet there is no heading that says, "allegations of criminal wiretapping" in Obama's wp page. The point is, just because reliable sources report an allegation of crime against a public figure, does not mean WP editors should violate WP:BLP, WP:NDESC, or WP:NPOV. BetsyRMadison (talk) 10:31, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

"Accusations of inappropriate physical contact and allegation of sexual assault" then. The allegation is already in the article, so there is no new BLP issue created by adding "allegation of sexual assault" to the header. Kolya Butternut (talk) 12:10, 25 May 2020 (UTC)  

• Yes that's what the allegation of Tara is, it is an allegation of sexual assault.- SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 17:21, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
• No I appreciate the rationale for this suggestion and I'd generally agree, and at one point I did agree. However as the circumstances of this accusation have unfolded I've come to agree with editors MrX and TFD who both sum up very well why no changes should be made. Gandydancer (talk) 12:49, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
• No and this seems to be a good idea why this wikipedia should take more time in editing current events, as haste to cover a current event leads to too much backtracking down the road. The "assault" portion of Reade's claim has been effectively debunked. Zaathras (talk) 13:22, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
• No This was just settled after extensive discusssion. The proposed wording, and similar alternatives eagerly put forth, falsely imply that there has been more than the lone allegation of assault. SPECIFICO talk 14:11, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
• Yes Note to closer: Betsy Madison is an SPA and last I checked, has only edited this topic. The RfC question is whether we should actually say what is in the section. Yes, of course. The section includes In March 2020, Tara Reade, who had formerly accused Biden of inappropriate physical contact, accused Biden of sexual assault. The section heading is about allegations, not the result of any investigations finding any party guilty. There has been no formal investigation although Reade has offered to testify under oath and to undergo cross examination, as well as take a lie detector test if Biden does also. For now all we have is media doing a one-sided "investigation" about things that have nothing to do with 1993. Realize that when her lawyer quit representing her, he added that he does believe her allegation to be true. While not providing a reason for leaving, Mr. Wigdor said his decision was “by no means a reflection on whether then-Senator Biden sexually assaulted Ms. Reade,” adding that he was among the 55 percent of Americans who believe her, according to a Harvard CAPS-Harris Poll.* Whether he actually committed the crime or not, the section we are naming is about allegations, that's it. An allegation is not a "judgement". Biden was accused of sexual assault, that is a verifiable fact. WE ARE NOT SAYING HE IS GUILTY, or that she is not an insane fabulist whose been telling a version of the same untrue story for decades and got a bunch of people to lie for her. We do not know this yet, and it is not in our purview as editors to evaluate. But it wouldn't change the fact that the allegation was made, new facts from an independent investigation would simply be added to the article(s), they wouldn't change the fact that the allegation was made. Avoiding use of the term "sexual assault" in the header only diminishes our reliability as a neutral source. It looks like we're trying to whitewash. petrarchan47คุก 01:53, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

@Petrarchan47:That was well said, the header is supposed to actually represent what is in the section which is a sexual assault allegation. We are not making a judgement on whether Biden did it or not. Also I attempted to tag Betsy Madison as an SPA but was reverted three times. First by user:SPECIFICO and then twice by user:Zaathras who also heavily edits Joe Biden articles. If we're going to tag SPAs here (which someone already has) then all SPAs should be tagged, not just ones we disagree with. --Rusf10 (talk) 04:06, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Actually it was at this talk page where I learned SPAs are tagged as a rule. I found it strange to see that is always the case with one exception, and was surprised when my pointing out their SPA history was seen as rude. I thought I was following protocol. petrarchan47คุก 05:17, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I reverted your wrongful tagging, gladly. The user you seem intent on harassing may have a focus on this topic area it seems, but they also have over 300 edits in a month's time. Per the description at the template's page, you were misusing it. It would be in your best interests, I'd say, to focus on the arguments being made and stop trying to score points by Scarlet-Lettering your wiki-opponents. Zaathras (talk) 00:49, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

No, you are completely clueless as to what an SPA is. 258 of that user's 359 edits were to pages with Joe Biden in the title. That's unquestionably an SPA which by the way still doesn't prove that they did anything wrong, but they should be tagged as such so that the closer takes it into consideration when accessing consensus. The proper thing to do is to tag all SPAs regardless of whether they agree with you or not. Since an SPA that agrees with me is already tagged, it is only appropriate. To be clear I want all SPAs tagged in this discussion, whether they agree with me or not. And falsely accusing me of harassment is itself harassment (see:WP:AOHA) so I suggest that you stop.--Rusf10 (talk) 01:46, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

I am quite aware of what the acronym means, your condescension is unnecessary. Anyway, per Template:Spa, "Unless there are multiple new accounts or IPs voicing the same opinion (a typical sign of sock puppetry), there is probably no need to use this template; the user should probably be addressed personally instead." So, why don't you give that a go, Rufs; speak to the user, don't attack. Zaathras (talk) 02:07, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

To petrarchan47 & Rusf10 - For the record, I am not an "SPA." & Petra's statement about me is disingenuous & misleading. On May 26 Petra wrote, "Betsy Maddison is an SPA and last I checked, has only edited this topic." That is false & misleading and the facts show that when Petra wrote that, I had not "only edited this topic." As of May 26, I'd been a volunteer at WP for 32 days. In those 32 days I rarely do any actual "editing" but rather I primarily discuss "current events" on talk pages. If me discussing current events classifies me, in your mind, as SPA, then; nothing I can do about that.

As to Rusf10's comment inferring that the number of contributions to article topics classifies a person as a "SPA," then, ironically Petra is an SPA too. Since April 24, the number of contributions I've made: 250 (not 258) current event articles that mention Biden, out of 357 total contributions. That means 70% of my volunteer time is to current events with "Biden" in the title. During the same period, April 24-May 26, Petra has devoted 79% of her comments toward Biden stories (with 161 comments about Biden out of 204 total comments). So, under Rusf10's theory: Petra is an SPA too.

I feel that if anyone actually takes the time to read wp:spa will clearly see that I am not an SPA in any way, shape, or form. My contributions to WP have been thoughtful, honest, and solely focusing on relaying facts for the WP reader. My contributions show I have no conflict of interest, I am clearly not a sock puppet, and I do not advocate for anything other that truth & facts. I do my best to follow all WP guidelines and I am volunteering my time here just like all other WP editors, and so far, I choose to volunteer my time discussing current events. And until I choose otherwise, that is what I will continue to do in my spare time here, no matter what label anyone tries to on pin me for whatever reason they may have. BetsyRMadison (talk) 15:12, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

I absolutely agree. BetsyRMadison's account does not have the typical characteristics associated with an SPA. I see no evidence whatsoever that this editor exhibits "a legitimate reason for users to question whether their editing and comments appear to be: neutral; reasonably free of promotion, advocacy and personal agendas; aware of project norms; not having improper uses of an account; and aimed at building an encyclopedia," as described at WP:SPA. Therefore, tagging BetsyRMadison's account as an SPA is inappropriate. In fact, I would argue that in this case the act is designed to unduly influence a potential closer of this discussion, which is WORSE than being a niche editor. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:35, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

• Yes - I thought this was already settled in a prior RFC?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Atsme (talk • contribs) 07:07, May 26, 2020 (UTC) Sorry, I voted below, and did not realize I voted here because my sig was different and I didn't spot it. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 23:21, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
• Yes per my reasoning when this issue was discussed 3 weeks ago. I am not sure why that discussion was allowed to automatically archive without being closed. Hrodvarsson (talk) 20:10, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
• Yes-Tara Reade alleged sexual assault and her accusations have received sufficient coverage to warrant inclusion in the section title. Display name 99 (talk) 16:28, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
• No. Violates NPOV and BLP. There was one allegation of sexual assault, not several as the title would imply. The allegation was made by an accuser whose credibility is highly questionable ([3]). Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:35, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

*No The allegations are unclear and by saying that Biden sexually assaulted someone Wikipedia is taking a stance. If there was universal agreement that Biden did sexually assault someone then it would be ok but that's not the case. Smith0124 (talk) 00:25, 8 June 2020 (UTC)Blocked sock. Rusf10 (talk) 20:03, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

• Yes - we include what the sources say, and that is exactly what was alleged. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 15:10, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

• @Atsme: You do understand that we are talking about the section heading, not the text in the article, right? The article already includes the sourced material you refer to. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:33, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

  I do (haven't said those words in decades) but I would also agree with Inappropriate sexual assault and physical contact allegations to make it a tad shorter. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 17:04, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

What is an "appropriate sexual assault" may one ask? Pincrete (talk) 11:18, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

• No , the proposed addition to the heading is almost longer than the text it covers. This seems like an attempt to 'point to' an allegation which has not been taken very seriously and for which few details exist. Not everything in an article needs to be mentioned in headings.Pincrete (talk) 15:25, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
• No per previous discussion, undue weight; also ungrammatical and misleading per Space4Time3Continuum2x. Neutrality^talk 19:29, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
• Yes - by WP:WEIGHT of Google count is Joe Biden and “sexual assault” 19.5 million; “touching” 14.1 million; and “inappropriate touching” only 44,600. Sexual assault doesn’t fit as “touching” anyway. Alternatively, do something else such as a separate section for it or use some other title like “sexual allegations” that can cover both. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 15:33, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
  • @Markbassett: That's a stupid justification, Mark. For example, in the Donald Trump article we use "sexual misconduct" (6.9 million hits), rather than "sexual assault" (39.5 million). Are you suggesting we should change the Trump article? I'm guessing that will be no. Try again. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:52, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
    • User:Scjessey I think one cannot ignore that WEIGHT of coverage is overwhelmingly using “sexual assault” and not “inappropriate touching”, and this article should take note of the cites. (Alternatively find a third phrase or separate into two sections.) If you wish some other article change to better follow WEIGHT, both naming and proportion of content, go ahead and propose it with my blessings. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 16:47, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
      • @Markbassett: But we are talking about a section heading, which is supposed to follow WP:NDESC and be neutral and non-judgmental. The alleged assault is highly dubious and unproven, so it is unreasonable to use a section heading that suggests it because it would essentially be a BLP violation. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:42, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
        • User:Scjessey NDESC actually supports using the COMMONNAAME of “sexual assault”, see

However, non-neutral but common names (see preceding subsection) may be used within a descriptive title. Even descriptive titles should be based on sources, and may therefore incorporate names and terms that are commonly used by sources. (Example: Because "Boston Massacre" is an acceptable title on its own, the descriptive title "Political impact of the Boston Massacre" would also be acceptable.)

Cheers Markbassett (talk) 17:57, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

No, that's complete nonsense. Boston Massacre is not a WP:BLP. Everything in WP:BLP trumps ALL OTHER POLICIES and guidelines for good reason. It means that the section heading in question must ALSO conform to WP:WEIGHT, and given that the allegation against Biden is dubious and unproven, as noted by a preponderance of reliable sources, it would be a WP:BLPVIO to attempt to use a section header to suggest Biden is even associated with an assault. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:12, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

• In 2016, you "strongly opposed" the title "Donald Trump sexual assault allegations" and supported the title "Donald Trump's sexual misconduct allegations".[4] Your [bizarre] rationale at the time was that for something to qualify as a sexual assault, the perpetrator had to be alleged to use drugs and weapons, and there had to be "sexual intercourse". Have you changed your opinion? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:12, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

• User:Snooganssnoogans mmm my are you really unable to debate this one without red herrings? But I’ll play because in addition to WEIGHT all the actual facts relate and show a nuance as to why the RS use the terms of ‘sexual assault’ here and ‘sexual misconduct’ there. Factually Tara Reade has filed with the police about “sexual assault”. And yes, legally that requires force or incapacitation by drugs or threat of weapons. It would be as inappropriate to title the other claims here as “sexual assault” as it would be to label Tara Reade as “inappropriate touching”. And while it’s otherstuff, it would similarly be inappropriate to phrase ‘sexual assault’ for things Donald Trump was alleged to do that did not involve drugging the woman or weapons or force. Of course, the RS already did these determinations so we *could* just follow DUE. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 18:15, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

• The police took no action, Mark. The claim was dubious. It is properly covered in the BODY of the section, and it does not need to be in the title. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:12, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

• That's irrelevant, the police couldn't do anything even if they wanted to, the statute of limitations has expired. [5]--Rusf10 (talk) 20:37, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

• Yes - as it's been sourced. Why wouldn't it be alright here in this article, when something similar is allowed at the Brett Kavanaugh article. Are we gonna follow the lead of CNN & MSNBC news & practice a double standard here? or does the Me Too movement 'only' apply to certain individuals. GoodDay (talk) 14:18, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
• No - Inappropriate contact and sexual assault are 2 very radically different concepts. Better group them under a Controversies section. Alexceltare2 (talk) 19:29, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

• I am starting a formal RFC because even though the previous discussion seemed to come to a consensus, at least two editors don't accept it. A formal RFC will solve that problem. I am pinging all participation in that discussion: @Levivich, Scjessey, PackMecEng, CoffeeWithMarkets, Muboshgu, Kolya Butternut, UserDude, RedHotPear, Hrodvarsson, SelfieCity, Atsme, Petrarchan47, SPECIFICO, and SharabSalam: Note:For transparency, I am disclosing that I intentionally did not ping MrX as per his demands that I not do so.--Rusf10 (talk) 02:43, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

We just got done with this crap. This is just disruptive and WP:POINT. See also WP:SPIDERMAN. Volunteer Marek 02:46, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek:I thought we were done too, but even though the majority plurality of people went with #3 in the last discussion, it has not been accepted. So I encourage you to contribute to this discussion so we can get it right this time, rather than make snarky comments.--Rusf10 (talk) 03:01, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

I do not see how anyone reads "majority," let alone "consensus," from the discussion you linked. There are also many strong concerns about precision and BLP that editors have raised there. And as Selfie City noted, there is a link to the sexual assault allegation page immediately after the heading. Not sure why this is the hill you choose to die on. RedHotPear (talk) 03:12, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

There is no consensus for the current version, so this discussion should continue. Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:17, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Its longstanding existence in the article is evidence of consensus. Consensus can change, but so far that hasn't happened. - MrX 🖋 16:05, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

That's a bad faith argument. First of all, the headers "long-standing existence" means nothing because there was a new allegation made recently, which had been added to the section. Since then, the "long-standing existence" is due to you and others reverting every change to it. This is at least the third talk page thread about this section header, and each time shows no consensus for the existing header. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 16:08, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

No, it's an argument based on how Wikipedia works. I've made arguments previously about why we should not highlight this sexual assault allegation in a heading, when the existing heading already encompasses the concept. As Volunteer Marek correctly points out, "we just got done with this crap." This is just a WP:REHASH, which you appear to admit by acknowledging that this is "at least the third talk page thread about this section header." - MrX 🖋 02:08, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

The first discussion was like 8-3 in favor of this heading, but you reverted my change, now you're saying that discussion following your revert is a "rehash". This is why I say you're not acting in good faith. You won't accept the consensus of the first discussion, you revert the change, then you won't accept any further discussion. This is no way to reach consensus on an article. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 02:15, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

I dispute that there was like 8-3 support in favor of this awful heading, let alone consensus. - MrX 🖋 02:22, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

I listed the 8 and 3 editors when I implemented the change. [6] Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 02:36, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

I was not even aware of the first discussion. Let's see what those people have to say too @SharabSalam, Cbs527, Guy Macon, MelanieN, Samboy, and BeŻet:--Rusf10 (talk) 16:54, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

I unwatched this page because I was unwilling to be fight over such a clear case of whitewashing in an attempt to get Biden elected. There was a recent allegation of sexual assault as well as the older allegations of inappropriate physical contact. The section heading should reflect this instead of pretending that only the earlier allegations exist. We had extensive discussion about what to call this at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joe Biden assault allegation and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joe Biden sexual assault allegation That's all I have to say, and I am once again unwatching this page. I hope that I don't get pinged about this again. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:12, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Exactly, the status quo never had consensus, so enforcing a version that only three people supported in the last discussion is not acceptable. I created the RFC to get more participation.--Rusf10 (talk) 03:22, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Per your insistence on this RfC, I have added my comment. I did notice that you changed your claim from "majority" to "plurality," but I have to note that "plurality" is not true either. RedHotPear (talk) 16:59, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it is a plurality, 6 people wanted this change as either their first or second choice, only 3 wanted to keep things the way it was, that's twice as many people!--Rusf10 (talk) 17:10, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

I still cannot conceive how you are (mis)counting here. RedHotPear (talk) 17:19, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

This is my last comment regarding your evolving characterizations of the previous discussion. Whether your current flavor is "consensus," "majority," or "plurality," your description is disputed and is not an accurate reflection of that discussion. RedHotPear (talk) 17:27, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Then please enlighten me, what method of counting do you use? I really would like to know.--Rusf10 (talk) 17:37, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

To Rusf10 - I cannot speak for RedHotPear, but when I count the votes on the discussion you linked to (above), a plurality of people did not go with #3, but rather, a plurality of people voting went with option #1. The vote tally, using the Rusf10 for the option with the most first-preference votes from those who voted are: 4 votes for option #1, 3 votes for option #2, 3 votes for option #3, 2 votes for option #3, and 3 votes for option #4. I should note here that in that discussion, SPECIFICO did not vote, so the vote tally does not include any vote from SPECIFICO. In the "Plurality Method" of determining the winner, the choice with the most first-preference votes is declared the winner. BetsyRMadison (talk) 13:45, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Since there is not clear majority, you cannot just ignore people's second votes. A consensus should be what is acceptable to the greatest number of people and 6 people found #3 to be acceptable.--Rusf10 (talk) 16:48, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

To Rusf10 - You are not correct. It's not our jobs as WP editors to reinvent how "Plurality Method" [7] is used to determine a winner. In mathematics, "Plurality Method" of determining the winner, the choice with the most first-preference votes is declared the winner (not second, third or fourth preference, but first-preference). Since, Option #1 got the most votes for first-preference; option #1 is the winner. That means, options #1 is the most favored option for first-preference. And, since only 2 people voted for option #3 as their first-preference, option #3 the absolute least favored option, not most favored. BetsyRMadison (talk) 17:38, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Gaining a consensus in wikipedia is not the same thing as voting in an election. People's comments and willingness to compromise must be considered. If someone has a second choice vote, that's a compromise. see WP:NOTAVOTE--Rusf10 (talk) 20:13, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

To Rusf10 - No worries. I was just answering your question above when you asked RedHotPear why the vote in the other discussion is not a plurality for option #3 but, instead, the plurality of voters picked option #1. So, if it's the plurality you were looking for, then option #1 won that vote. As for this current vote count (in the survey above), it still looks like option #1 is the winner with 8 votes to keep "Allegations of inappropriate physical contact" and 3 votes for including additional language. BetsyRMadison (talk) 01:49, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

• I will again propose what I (and SharabSalam) proposed in the previous discussion: a level-four heading "Sexual assault allegation" covering Tara Reade's allegation within the level-three heading "Allegations of inappropriate physical contact". If this were the case, a {{main}} template could be used under the level-four heading as opposed to the current {{see also}} template. userdude 08:11, 22 May 2020 (UTC); edited 08:15, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

But that would still be inappropriately categorizing assault allegations as merely inappropriate contact.  No sources do this.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 12:02, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Assault is technically inappropriate contact. I acknowledge the concern that it may be viewed as euphemistic, but I do not think that it is realistic for a reader to be deceived by "inappropriate contact" if there's a level-four header with the words Sexual assault and a {{main}} wikilink to Joe Biden sexual assault allegation shortly below the level-three header. userdude 10:46, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

You must provide an RS which categorizes sexual assault as inappropriate physical contact.  It's WP:OR for us to decide to categorize it that way when no RS do.  Strangling someone is"inappropriate physical contact too".  We must use the words the sources use.  The wikilink is irrelevant; it has no impact on heading policy.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 13:00, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm saying sexual assault is "inappropriate physical contact" in the same sense that you said strangling is inappropriate physical contact; based purely on the definition "inappropriate" and "[physical] contact". It's inappropriate and it's physical contact. The issue at hand is if "inappropriate physical contact" is euphemistic, and I believe that as long as clarification is quickly provided (in the form of a level-four header, for example) readers will not be mislead. (Compare, for example, Bill Clinton sexual misconduct allegations, wherein a rape allegation and sexual assault allegation are lumped together under "sexual misconduct", but clarified in the lede.) userdude 23:05, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

• Re The Four Deuces: Even if, arguendo, all reliable sources decided Reade's allegation is untrue, is it not still as notable as the allegations of inappropriate physical contact based on the sheer level of coverage it's received? userdude 08:11, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

• No it has received relatively little coverage in mainstream media compared with coverage overall and that is the complaint voiced in alternative media. In fact it took them a full month to mention the case at all after it had become featured in alternative media. Some editors however have confirmation bias. They will pay more attention to negative stories than positive or neutral ones or vice versa. Also, if you want to argue it is better to use the discussion section below. TFD (talk) 23:23, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

• What exactly would meet your criteria of significant mainstream coverage? A rough search shows (currently): 67 NY Times articles, 114 WaPo articles, 49 USA Today articles, 30 WSJ articles. I just took a sample of mainstream RS that had quote search functionality, so I'm confident that these results are representative of most English-language US-based mainstream RS. Sure, mainstream RS were slow in reporting the accusation, but they have certainly given it significant coverage by now. userdude 10:38, 23 May 2020 (UTC); ce 10:52, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Muboshgu, would you add this RfC to Biographies?  I'm not sure how to do that now that it's underway.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 12:48, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

• USA Today ran over 5,000 articles about Biden in the same approx. 6 wk period[8] and of course ran nothing about Tara Reade before. It is difficult to determine what events have lasting significance when they occur. Trump's Access Hollywood tape is perhaps an exception, but it got wall to wall coverage and threatened his nomination and was thought to have ruined his election chances. If there are no consequences to Reade's complaint, then it will always be a trivial detail. If it threatens Biden's nomination or election, then it will be significant. We have to wait and see. No one btw talk's about "Jennifer with a J" which came up during Bush's 1992 run. But it got mentioned at the time. TFD (talk) 19:02, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

It appears to have been done. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:48, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Muboshgu, it's not listed at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Biographies. Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:43, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

“Mentioning sexual assault in the heading of a section surely requires extraordinary proof, otherwise the subject of the article would suffer guilt by association.”

Have you read Brett Kavanaugh’s page? It has a sexual assault allegations header. There is as much proof that his sexual assault allegation was accurate as there is with Joe Biden. Using the excuse that mainstream media isn’t covering the story is horribly disingenuous and honestly sad. Wikipedia should use better standards than the mainstream media. It’s funny that in other subjects the community decides, but in others the mainstream media gets to. WhowinsIwins (talk) 08:02, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

User:WhowinsIwins It looks like sensationalism somewhat overrules that — the *most* hits by Google count goes to Joe biden and “sexual assault”, not “inappropriate touching”. (Caveat lots of mishits there.) Though there is some nuance about like what you say — NYTimes.com seems to not use the phrase in title versus foxnews includes it. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 15:47, 16 July 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.

Joe Biden threatened Germany and France to not give asylum to Edward Snowden

During a segment on "The 11th Hour with Brian Williams" on MSNBC [the same on CNN], Snowden said both Biden and then-Secretary of State John Kerry blocked him from getting asylum. There are articles from 2013 even. https://www.delawareonline.com/story/news/2019/09/17/snowden-biden-blocked-former-nsa-contractor-getting-asylum/2350070001/ https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/06/joe-biden-edward-snowdens-case/313769/ "VP Joe Biden threatened several countries like Germany and France that "if you protect Edward Snowden, if you let this guy out of Russia, there will be consequences". Trump is going to pardon Snowden, that is why the case pending in court for 10 years finaly ended, condemning NSA. Now, that is not an argument -- WP:NOTCENSORED, if it is going to demage Biden, so be it. 91.78.221.238 (talk) 04:30, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Please make a suggestion for improving the article. This seems to be nothing more than a statement about something biographically insignificant. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:28, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, information about Biden-Snowden should be added to the artcle! 91.78.221.238 (talk) 06:27, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

This is still not a suggestion for improvement. It's just a vague statement. It's hard to imagine how Biden's views of Snowden are of any significance to a biography of Biden's entire life. Perhaps on the Snowden article? -- Scjessey (talk) 22:59, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

And even if Biden did convey such a message to Germany and France back in 2013, he would have been doing so per Obama Administration policy. It says nothing about him either good or bad. It does not belong in his biography. Maybe if he were to make a statement of some kind about Snowden NOW, that might be includable, depending how much coverage it gets. (What makes you think that this information would "damage" Biden? Is there some huge groundswell of popular opinion in favor of Snowden? Trump only said, when asked about Snowden, that he would "look into" it. And Snowden himself said in an interview just yesterday that he has not had any contact with American sources or heard anything about a pardon, and that all he wants as a condition to return is to be permitted to defend himself in court - something not currently permitted for trials related to secret information.) -- MelanieN (talk) 23:19, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Senate Foreign Relations Committee

The first sentence in this section currently reads:

Biden was a longtime member of the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations.

I propose:

Biden served on the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations from 1975 to 2009.[1]

Specific information is more informative than a generalized statement. A.T.S. in Texas (talk) 02:30, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

• Support. An obvious improvement. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:33, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Lead sentences

I noticed what I thought was a good copyedit to the lead was reverted by User:JLo-Watson on the grounds that is was the "longstanding" version. Before the revert, the lead sentences read:

Joseph Robinette Biden Jr. (/ˌrɒbɪˈnɛt ˈbaɪdən/; born November 20, 1942) is an American politician who served as the 47th vice president of the United States from 2009 to 2017. He served as a U.S. senator for Delaware from 1973 to 2009. A Democrat, Biden is his party's presidential nominee for the 2020 election, running against the incumbent, Donald Trump.

Sources

To me, this is a better use of language, as it avoids repeating the term "Democratic" twice. It also makes the sentence about his senate career more readable. I don't think that the previous version's "longstanding" status matters, if the same information is being conveyed with better prose. What do folks think? HappyWanderer15 (talk) 00:13, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Personally, I prefer the original version that says "member of the Democratic party" rather than the short form "Democrat" you used. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:36, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Agree with Scjessey; hence why I reverted to the superior long-standing usage. Indeed, for example, Obama and Bush and other politicians use "A member of the ____ Party". JLo-Watson (talk) 11:41, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

I do agree that "member of the _ Party" is more consistent with WP:TONE. RedHotPear (talk) 16:53, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Deaths of family

Do we care that he lied about it for years ? Said the trucker was drunk. That It was his wife’s fault wasn’t as good of a story on the campaign trail. https://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/oct/18/joe-bidens-false-claim-about-drunken-driver-draws-/

So, should it be included in the section regarding the accident that he falsely and publicly claimed the trucker was drunk but those claims have been refuted ? F. L. (talk) 12:46, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

You will need a reliable source for something like this. The Washington Times isn't a reliable source. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:40, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/driver-in-biden-crash-wanted-name-cleared/ F. L. (talk) 16:02, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether we care. Rightly or wrongly, the story has received little attention in mainstream media and hence fails weight for inclusion. TFD (talk) 04:39, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Part 4 of Poroshenko-Biden calls

I will remind you that part 3 showed that Biden was covering for Poroshenko trying a terrorist ecological act against Crimea's russians. Part 4: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q-_YKFAjvn0 (and others) Biden about Trump: "you know, bad dog will chase, chase the car down the road ..." Ahahaha. He is talking about Flynn, lol lol lol. 2A00:1370:812C:DACF:8DE5:FC71:C61B:5344 (talk) 00:45, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Content on the Biden-Poroshenko calls belongs on Russian interference in the 2020 United States elections, not here. Even Fox News points out that Andrii Derkach, who releases these edited calls, has been sanctioned by the Treasury department for being a Russian agent. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:55, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

And Biden modified embassy docs that Shokin is corrupt at least according to Shokin. It is not Derkach talking on the audio, it is Biden. 2A00:1370:812C:DACF:8DE5:FC71:C61B:5344 (talk) 01:03, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Shokin is corrupt and has an ax to grind, so we won't take his word on any accusations he makes against Biden. Derkach has selectively edited the tapes that he has released. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:06, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

No, Shokin arrested Burisma assets in Ukraine after its money was arrested by UK in Cyprus. Shokin also sued Biden. It is a lie that Shokin is corrupt and you know it. Google what selective editing means. It is not cutting the conversation on only important part NOT missing any context. 2A00:1370:812C:DACF:CC7B:D052:9E06:EB83 (talk) 01:23, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Also untrue, I believe. The international community wanted Shokin out because the Burisma investigation was dormant under his watch. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:39, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

You do understand that Burisma is an Cyprus offshore right? What does it mean untrue? UK courts lied you mean? Do you understand how preposterious this sounds? Oh that Burisma assets were arrested by Shokin? It is pubic info. https://web.archive.org/web/20160205092116/http://www.gp.gov.ua/ua/news.html?_m=publications&_c=view&_t=rec&id=168807 Or that Zlochevskiy was under arrest warrant after arrest of his company? Or that Hunter Biden travelled with Zlochevskiy to Monako as we learned in impeachment trial in the Senate? What is a lie? And again. Do you believe the tapes are AI generated? Really? Because that is even more laughable. 2A00:1370:812C:DACF:CC7B:D052:9E06:EB83 (talk) 01:47, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

The only thing that's laughable here is the attempt to turn this into "Hillary's emails". There's nothing here that's biographical about Joe Biden that isn't already covered in the article. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:07, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

I thought we were finished with But her emails! -- MelanieN (talk) 16:34, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Wow, youtube just removed their channel. Hahaha, Streisand effect again? Lol. 2A00:1FA0:42D4:AB9:7896:A82B:BFB9:C657 (talk) 17:17, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Dementia

Hi, I am from Germany. But why his dementia is not mentioned with one sentence?Flk-Brdrf (talk) 08:08, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Because there is no evidence he has dementia. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:27, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, to make that claim you would need a doctor to make that diagnosis and that doctor would have to examine him in person. Similar to Trump it would be good to follow the Goldwater Rule. PackMecEng (talk) 16:29, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

There are not even non-medical (i.e. neutral press) claims that he has dementia. This is only used as a political attack. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:41, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Critique

I came across this critical write up https://www.jns.org/opinion/joe-biden-courts-islam-not-muslims/ by Mark Durie. Wikipedians have too many rules and views, I don't know if Mark Durie views would have any scope, I leave it to wisdom of Wikipedians working on Joe Biden related articles. Bookku (talk) 04:02, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

The relevant guideline is fringe theories: "a Wikipedia article should not make a fringe theory appear more notable or more widely accepted than it is." Since this article has limited space, there's no reason to include islamophobic critiques of Biden. TFD (talk) 04:35, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

As your wisdom!, Sir! :)

Bookku (talk) 06:20, 18 September 2020 (UTC)