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.

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

Should Tara Reade's sexual assault allegation against Biden be included in the article? - MrX 🖋 13:36, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In March 2019, Tara Reade, a former Senate staffer to Biden, said he had inappropriately touched her multiple times during her nine months in his employ,^[1] tweeting in March 2019, "Part of my story, the rest is silenced, ask me".^[2] On March 25, 2020, Reade alleged that Biden had sexually assaulted her in 1993.^[3][4] Biden's campaign released a statement denying the allegations.^[5]

Discussion

• Yes I support including a simple paragraph with the general allegation and rebuttal by the Biden staffers. There are several Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources reporting on this with independent interviews. We should beware of bias in sources, but bias is not an automatic rejection of that source. The Intercept is also a RS, although as the source that broke the story I would not accept on its own without independent backup. The Hill reference is the one that pushes it over the top for me -- as The Hill's news reporting is generally seen as a RS. FOX is a generally reliable source although obviously partisan (and troubling as they jumped on this story while ignoring stories about conservatives), but still also seems to be valid independently sourced material. Some of the other reliable sources behind paywalls (The Times and others) may also further tip the balance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davemoth (talk • contribs) 14:47, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's "The Hill Rising", a webshow on the Hill website, which is hosted by two cranks. It's akin to citing Sean Hannity's show and saying "Fox News is a RS, therefore this Sean Hannity video is a reliable source". Votes by editors who cannot tell what a RS is or who choose to intentionally mislead others about the contents of the sources they are citing should be dismissed by the closer of this RfC. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:08, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Snooganssnoogans Do you have a source for The Hill Rising not being considered as a RS? WP:RS/P Makes no mention about Rising or its two hosts. It only discusses Opinion and Contributor pieces, which this does not appear to be as there are no disclaimers or bylines as I've seen other pieces. Fox has a separate entry for Talk shows that labels them as Opinion.

    You do not seem to take direct issue with the other 2 sources I have listed. There is also Vox and other generally reliable sources as well as several other sources where there is no consensus. Do you question these sources as well? Your later !vote explanation is similar to what I state of a simple allegation and denial, but you do not define "high-quality" sources.

    Your last sentence can be easily seen as a personal attack if I was thinner skinned. The way you have posted this same content several times also seems a bit like a WP:BLUDGEON. You may want to review the tone of your 5 very similar updates and consider removing some and softening others. We should avoid making this personal or heated and stick with policy discussion.--Davemoth (talk) 17:40, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    The Hill Rising is a web series on Hill TV and is not the same as The Hill which is a newspaper. There does not appear to be any consensus in WP:RSN whether The Hill Rising or Hill TV are reliable or not. WP:RSP is a simple guideline for general reliability of a publication or media outlet. That alone is not enough for a source to be reliable. Our policies require that for a source to be reliable the journalist, the publication and the content must be reliable. Content must be fact checked (vetted) and "The Hill Rising". clearly states that it has not been "independently verified". Unfortunately, quite a few of the sources listed in this discussion fail the verifiable policy for a reliable source. CBS527^Talk 21:07, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Numerous editors have made the argument here that as long as their preferred media companies have someone in their employ who clicked "submit" on an article that discusses Tara Reade, then we can include it in this page and then create the broader Joe Biden sexual assault allegations primary article. I haven't seen anything in Wikipedia policy that states "content must be fact checked." In fact, I would be shocked if this is a policy, given that the tales of Christine Ford, Deborah Ramirez, and Julie Swetnick have been vetted, and remain unverified, yet the claims enjoy their own bolded sections in Justice Kavanaugh's biography. There is no evidence or corroboration for these claims, therefore it is impossible to fact check them - very tough to prove a negative. All that matters is that an employee of a reliable source e.g. Fox News, The Economist, Newsweek, or the Huffington Post wrote an article about Reade's story. Which they have. 2600:1700:D281:27D0:A418:E4FA:4CB7:83A (talk) 23:15, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    The last 3 discussions on WP:RSN about The Hill have been after Rising (news show) existed as part of the website. It is billed as a News Show and is Produced/Published (and presumably under editorial oversight) by The Hill news department. There are 56 articles referencing "thehill.com/hilltv/rising" and 10 more for hilltv that support others have used Rising for a source (many for BLP). Per WP:CONTEXTMATTERS (video interview) the article itself seemed a reliable independent source with a solid RS publisher for the fact Reade made an allegation. The argument about "independently verified" is misleading as the larger quote shows that it is in regard to "Reade's allegations" -- which would need further evidence that could not easily be obtained (and which is verified by some of the other independent sources via her brother and another Senate staff person.) I followed my normal process of checking RS and there was no reason I would suspect that Rising was not part of The Hill and considered RS.

    Snooganssnoogans and cbs527 Is there some WP policy, guideline, or precedent that I should be aware of that could help me next time I am reviewing a source? Perhaps one of you could start a RfC at WP:RS/N to remove the implied consensus for Rising.

    BTW, I am in the process of some analysis of sources, policy, and the RfC. As such I am planning to remove my dependence on The Hill rising piece as there are other better sources (such as Vox with newsweek as a supporting (no consensus) source.) If some of my policy questions are ever answered I might even switch my vote to No. Regards --Davemoth (talk) 04:43, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    The reason why I watch Rising — that the hosts have a lot of freedom — is also the reason why I don't think it's reliable for negative claims in a BLP. There is also an op-ed in The Hill which came out yesterday so maybe that could help establish due weight. Connor Behan (talk) 17:27, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• No The most prominent U.S. media can be relied on to cover so significant a story about the presumptive Democratic presidential candidate -- if and when they determine that it is credible. There is no rush at Wikipedia and our readers need to know that our content will be stable and not keep changing with developing coverage in remote corners of the media. While some of the proposed sources are credible and reliable for certain kinds of content, none of them has reporting resources and standards remotely comparable to the major U.S. mainstream news organizations that have declined to cover these allegations. The fog of partisan arguments on this talk page does not change that fact. SPECIFICO talk 15:21, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Why do you only want to include this if it is covered by U.S. media?  Kolya Butternut (talk) 15:46, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Gee willakers. Didn't I just say why? They are aware of it. They are investigating it. It would be big news if credible. We go with their judgment. That's the core of what WP editors do. If you are relying on a media suppression conspiracy theory to justify ignoring Wikipedia policies and guidelines, please take it to NPOVN or RSN or reddit. SPECIFICO talk 16:07, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not sure if you heard me.  I'm asking why sources outside of the U.S. would not meet your criteria.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 16:13, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Time for a chill pill. I did hear you, at least the part that wasn't invisible ink. You did not ask that. Now let others have their say. SPECIFICO talk 16:30, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I won't speak for SPECIFICO, but imho the Guardian does no direct reporting on the allegations. I can't tell for The Times because of their paywall. The real point in that there should be consensus on if they are a RS. Only The Hill, The Intercept, and Fox have consensus as RS, some of those are seen as biased on partisan, so that needs to be considered in the attribution --Davemoth (talk) 16:37, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Vox and Newsweek have also covered the allegations, extensively. We've also got The Times UK, and Law and Crime has done two pieces. It's true the Guardian piece focuses more on the strange silence from US establishment media (and it should be noted that the Fox piece only covers Biden's official response to the allegations). petrarchan47คุก 08:33, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not the establishment media decides to mention this story should not influence whether we write about it on Wikipedia or not. We already have quality sources reporting on the event. BeŻet (talk) 11:32, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• "The most prominent U.S. media can be relied on to cover so significant a story about the presumptive Democratic presidential candidate -- if and when they determine that it is credible." What's the evidence that this statement is really true and not a kind of warm feeling in our hearts? 'Of course they would cover it if it was real! They didn't cover it, so it's not real!' That is a dangerous level of faith in organizations which could EASILY have a political bias. Geographyinitiative (talk) 02:41, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  What do you think the media is, some kind of corporate machine that can play politics? No, it's an unbiased judge of all that's newsworthy. Biden did not kick off his campaign at the home of a Comcast (NBC) executive [19]. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 03:14, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes absolutely per policy, and it warrants more information for our readers, not just the one case. Multiple 3rd party sources have published articles about Biden's alleged inappropriate touching and sexual misconduct, some of which Biden addressed publicly so that also needs to be included. WaPo published the following statement by Biden: When a woman alleges sexual assault, presume she is telling the truth. I included multiple RS in an easy-to-find list above under the section RS and Biden's inappropriate touching & sexual misconduct allegations (but only included 11 RS - there are many more). Also noting that the entire section that was removed today by Volunteer Marek in this edit despite it being cited to multiple reliable 3rd party sources that documented the allegations and/or incidents, including The Union (newspaper), Newsweek, Vox (website), Heavy.com and Fox News. WP:V, WP:DUE and the requirement set forth by WP:PUBLICFIGURE have all been satisfied. For whatever reason, VM's edit summary states no substantial coverage in mainstream sources ("heavy" ain't)). Policy does not specify "mainstream sources", only that they should be reliable 3rd party sources. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 16:20, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  This is not just a question about "mainstream" sources (as some argue). 3 of the 5 sources you reference that were in the info removed by VM are not generally considered reliable (per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources and the 5th is generally seen as partisan. In my opinion this made that section "poorly sourced". As such Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Reliable sources states that "contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion". The RfC is the way to handle this now, but you might want to consider the consensus on what is a RS in your future arguments.--Davemoth (talk) 16:54, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  To clarify, Davemoth, I listed the sources that were cited in the aggregate, not that they were each RS as a standalone. Together they corroborate each other, in context, re: the material that was added. The Union, Newsweek, Vox, and Fox = 4 RS. Verifiability is important, and that requirement was met. Also, we can use biased sources - bias doesn't make them unreliable. See WP:BIASED. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 02:04, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  FYI. Newsweek is listed as No Consensus as a RS. As far as I know, The Union has not been evaluated. So Vox and Fox. If this is added again later RS would be better served to have The Hill and the Intercept as out secondary sources and The Union and Newsweek supporting sources. --Davemoth (talk) 12:59, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  There is no Wikipedia policy requiring that we cover allegations of sexual assault in a BLP. In fact, WP:PUBLICFIGURE says to include it if is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented. The scant reporting suggests that it is not noteworthy and it is certainly not well documented. I would also point out that "When a woman alleges sexual assault, presume she is telling the truth" is not a Wikipedia policy. If our standards for inclusion were that minimal, Wikipedia would have a big credibility problem. - MrX 🖋 18:42, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  You are correct but there is also no policy that says we should not cover it as evidenced by Kavanaugh, Trump, Lauer, etc. What needs to be considered above all is the quote by Biden himself wherein he said, "presume she is telling the truth". Biden is a former VP and current presidential candidate which gives the things he says publicly far more weight/credibility, regardless of the low numbers of left-leaning mainstream news sources that reported it. A substantial number of RS have met the requirements per our PAGs, and the attempts to convince editors that those sources do not meet certain qualifications is not gaining much traction, and is beginning to look more like bludgeoning. At the very least, based on the evidence brought forth in this RfC, it appears we may well have a case for WP:IAR at the very least, and the direction this RfC is headed supports it. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 23:30, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• No - This is simply not ready for primetime. The accuser waited years before changing her story once Biden had become a major candidate for the presidency. The very limited sourcing available is largely a collection of opinion pieces from authors with either a pro-Bernie lean or a pro-Trump lean. The few examples of serious sources mostly regurgitate existing material, with very little new stuff added. Mainstream media in the US, where the claims were made, have been more or less silent on the issue. The Biden campaign has issued denials, but the lack of comment from Biden himself is an indication the allegation isn't regarded with any seriousness. Consequently, inclusion would fall foul of several policies and guidelines, including WP:BLPVIO, WP:WEIGHT and WP:RECENT. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:19, 30 March 2020 (UTC) Qualified Yes - Changing my vote to a qualified yes because of new coverage. I do not support the proposed language, but I do support some sort of inclusion now. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:53, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  If the accused ignores it, that is a sign the claim should not be taken seriously? Some corrections: the accuser did not wait years, nor did she change her story. She immediately went to her immediate supervisor, which was protocol.* This evidence is sealed in Biden's records until after the election.07/11/7d0dd222-a347-11e9-bd56-eac6bb02d01d_story.html * She told a local paper part of her story last April*, after hearing Lucy Flores' complaints. She was smeared, received threats, and was doxxed.*, *, * She feared coming out with the more serious allegation, and went to Time's Up in January 2020. The organization helps women who want to come out with their "me too story" to deal with the challenges of holding powerful men accountable. In February she was told the org could not hep her, and finally in late March, she went ahead without support and told her entire story on a Rolling Stone podcast.* She never changed her story; she tweeted last year that there was more to the story.* Contemporaneous evidence exists: she told others at the time what had happened, and they have confirmed this with several media outlets, including in the seminal piece from The Intercept, and in Newsweek. The claim that mainly opinion pieces and heavily biased media have covered it is also false. petrarchan47คุก 07:31, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  @Petrarchan47: I'm sorry, but pretty much everything in your response is irrelevant to this article. This article is about Joe Biden. It is not about Tara Reade. It is not about who Tara Reade spoke to and when. It is not about Time's Up and Ms. Reade's interactions with that organization. ALL that matters to this article is whether or not a preponderance of reliable mainstream media sources give significant, independent coverage at a level that passes WP:WEIGHT. It indisputably does not cross that bar. In fact, we can even infer from the lack of such coverage that mainstream media organizations aren't comfortable with the claims, at least not yet. There's no hurry. Let the media report the facts as they come out, and if it crosses the WP:WEIGHT bar we will absolutely give it the coverage it deserves. But not before. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:16, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Are you citing WP:WEIGHT?  If so that's a misrepresentation.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 15:43, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  @Kolya Butternut: No, it really isn't. I've been a regular editor of Wikipedia for over 15 years and I've become intimately familiar with its policies and guidelines, including WP:WEIGHT. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:50, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  But the actual policy doesn't matter, Scjessey. The joke's on you. Because now you've been the target of an unsubstantiated allegation, just like Biden. Just as on Twitter and the Intercept, this allegation may now take on a life of its own over the next days and weeks. Duck and cover. SPECIFICO talk 19:04, 31 March 2020 (UTC)  [reply]

  Scjessey, if that is so can you help me understand your interpretation of the policy?  I don't see anything close to your quote; maybe I would find it in a guideline? Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:55, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  My comment is entirely relevant to this RfC; it points out that your !Vote contains numerous inacuracies. This entire line is untrue: The accuser waited years before changing her story once Biden had become a major candidate for the presidency. The very limited sourcing available is largely a collection of opinion pieces from authors with either a pro-Bernie lean or a pro-Trump lean and it makes clear that you have not done little to no research into the topic and the sources available. Further, the ratio of op-eds to serious coverage doesn't nessesarily mean what you think it does. A high number of op-eds could indicate nothing more than the fact that the topic is a heated one.  petrarchan47คุก 19:18, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• No It fails Due and undue weight. For a very high profile person like Biden, only substantial coverage of a story justifies inclusion. The argument that the allegations are serious and credible are arguments that the media should consider when deciding whether or not to cover the story. It could be that they have found the accusations lack credibility or perhaps they are so partisan they chose to ignore them. It really doesn't matter because they establish what is important. I note that a similar discussion came up with many times with Donald Trump, about allegations made by Jane Doe that were not covered in the media. (See for example  Talk:Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations/Archive 4#The lawsuit didn't receive much coverage / Remove Jane Doe?) It was agreed that due to lack of media coverage it should not be mentioned. TFD (talk) 17:33, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes per Atsme and Davemoth Quidster4040 (talk) 17:43, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • This vote cites Davemoth's argument for inclusion. Davemoth's vote gave primary importance to the fact that a purported RS, "The Hill", had reported the allegations. But that's not the case. It was "The Hill Rising", a webshow on the Hill website, which is hosted by two cranks, that covered the allegations. It's akin to citing Sean Hannity's show and saying "Fox News is a RS, therefore this Sean Hannity video is a reliable source". Votes by editors who cannot tell what a RS is or who choose to intentionally mislead others about the contents of the sources they are citing should be dismissed by the closer of this RfC. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:10, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• No - No to the suggested text. Needs to be clearer in regard to the denials. Open to including based on most recent high-quality sources. - As Newslinger correctly pointed out above, the predominate policies that apply to this area are WP:BLPPUBLIC and WP:EXTRAORDINARY. We need multiple reliable, high quality, third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident. Most of these sources discussed do not meet these requirements.

  * Although "The Hill" is normally a reliable source, the "The Hill". cited isn't a third party source and even states that Reade's allegations have not been vetted.

  * "Democracy Now!", "Huffington Post" and Heavy.com are primarily news aggregators and are questionable sources with no consensus on their reliability

  * Almost all the sources mentioned are relying on the "The Intercept" article with no additional reporting and fail the multiple source criteria per "Notability#cite_note-3"..

  A few of source that come close meeting the requirements (although they primarily reference "The Intercept" article they also  have additional reporting) are ""Newsweek""., "FoxNews". and to a lesser extent "Vox".. These sources also bring up some discrepancies in her story.

  Mainstream sources present the prevailing view within the journalism community. If the large majority of mainstream sources are not mentioning this allegation then that presents a wp:weight issue as well. If/until there are higher quality, better vetted sources then what has been mention here, we should not include Tara Reade's allegations. CBS527^Talk 19:31, 30 March 2020 (UTC)modified !vote CBS527^Talk 20:27, 13 April 2020 (UTC) [reply]

• Yes per Davemoth. The Fox News article with the Biden campaign denial formulates ground for inclusion. The allegation does not presume the truth of the allegation, only that the allegation was made. The Biden campaign denial must be included to presume innocence. yunquekabal 21:10, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • This vote cites Davemoth's argument for inclusion. Davemoth's vote gave primary importance to the fact that a purported RS, "The Hill", had reported the allegations. But that's not the case. It was "The Hill Rising", a webshow on the Hill website, which is hosted by two cranks, that covered the allegations. It's akin to citing Sean Hannity's show and saying "Fox News is a RS, therefore this Sean Hannity video is a reliable source". Votes by editors who cannot tell what a RS is or who choose to intentionally mislead others about the contents of the sources they are citing should be dismissed by the closer of this RfC. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:11, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes while this wouldn't have been appropriate enough to include back when most reports were just citing the original Intercept article, the recent Vox and Newsweek articles have added more to the story as they managed to field info from Tara & her friends/family, Time's Up, and the Biden campaign. The reports should be objectively explained followed by the campaign's word on the matter. Geekgecko (talk) 21:34, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  FYI - Newsweek is not a high quality source. - MrX 🖋 22:02, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes. The sourcing has moved beyond The Intercept and mainstream media is now covering it, including the Huff Post, The Guardian, and other sources mentioned above (Vox, Fox, etc). The Biden campaign has also addressed the allegations and responded to them, which RS have included as well. WP should cover major updates that are covered by RS, which this situation applies to. --Kbabej (talk) 21:55, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes. We have sufficient sources -- an entire list of sources, including major newspapers like The Times and The Guardian in the UK. We have The Intercept and The Hill in the U.S., which all meet the standards of Wikipedia's list of perennial reliable sources. It's OK to describe an allegation as an allegation provided that multiple WP:RS exist; that is the policy stated in WP:BLP. There is no requirement that a fact or allegation about Biden be covered by every news organization for Wikipedia to describe it. The Biden campaign has also responded. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 23:39, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Zloyvolsheb, The Guardian source is actually a column hence fails reliable sources, per WP:NEWSORG. But suppose it was reliable. How does an article titled "Why has the media ignored sexual assault and misbehaviour allegations against Biden?" show that this story has been well covered in the media? TFD (talk) 00:42, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Four Deuces, you can read the Guardian article as an opinion column, but it was actually published in the News section under U.S. politics and seemingly as part of women's interest, not in the separate Opinion section of the newspaper. I also initially assumed it was just an opinion column, and it resembles one. But regardless of the classification of this particular article, the very fact of its publication serves as an example of international discussion of the allegation, which addresses the arguments of those saying "undue." Zloyvolsheb (talk) 01:18, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • The test for inclusion is not that someone somewhere in the media has mentioned something but in proportion to its prominence in reliable sources, which does not include opinion pieces. Generally, if there is next to no coverage, it should be omitted. (See Balancing aspects.) Arwa Mahdawi is billed as a Guardian columnist and brand strategist, not a reporter.[20] And note it has been relegated to the feminism section, rather than politics. That's probably because she is writing about how the media ignore sex allegations against politicians they like. But that's an opinion, not an established fact. As I pointed out above, the media also ignored an accusation against a woman who made claims against Trump. TFD (talk) 02:21, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • OK, as I have before stated, for me the remaining question was the due weight of including this, given that the community has already recognized the first sources to have picked up Reade's allegation, The Intercept and The Hill, as WP:RS. We don't need every WP:RS, or twenty or a dozen WP:RS, if we already have multiple WP:RS. A set of reliable sources can pick up a fact or report an allegation that other reliable sources do not mention. Unless there is a contradiction in how something is actually described in different reliable sources, reliable source a omitting something you found in reliable source b does not detract from the argument for including the information according to source b. If that's settled, the remaining element is notability. We know there are dozens of popular, mainstream sources like Newsweek, HuffPo, etc. Among them Mahdawi in The Guardian, a major British newspaper, which proves that the allegation was not just reported reliably in the first place, but is also a subject of sufficient prominence. That addresses due weight. I separate this from reliability, but the reliability criterion was already met with WP:RS like The Times, The Intercept, and The Hill. So your argument looks like "it needs to be in one of or several American newspapers like The NY Times, LA Times, etc. to be worth mentioning." I think that is extremely restrictive, particularly when it comes to merely reporting the existence of an allegation that was reliably reported elsewhere. How many other facts are not reported in The NY Times? Zloyvolsheb (talk) 03:44, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • Why have the policy of weight at all if we can add anything that meets rs? TFD (talk) 04:01, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
            • Because it is applied to separate fringe and minority views from mainstream and majority views when describing things like science vs pseudoscience, or other controversies where we describe opposing views. WP:WEIGHT actually gives the example of Flat Earth, but there are less obvious examples that we come across regularly. Or how about this: suppose we had 3 sources alleging Biden was actually guilty of committing assault and 7 reliable sources telling us he was innocent. Weight again. But we are not presenting that kind of narrative, we are presenting the mere fact of the existence of an allegation, and including Biden's denial. There are no WP:RS denying its existence. In this case the appropriate interpretation for "weight" is notability. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 04:15, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Actually The Guardian lists this "article". as an "Opinion". piece. Per WP:EXCEPTIONAL Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources. Newsweek and Huff Post are hardly "high-quality sources". There is no consensus that they are reliable. The Hill source is a video clip with no editorial oversight and should be treated as equivalent to primary source. CBS527^Talk 05:24, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • OK, The Guardian source is an opinion column and The Hill is WP:RS but a primary source. We take the reliability of many other sources as open to question. That leaves us with at least The Times, The Intercept, and the Fox website from Wikipedia's good sources list as secondary WP:RS. So, again, multiple sources to use for what Reade alleged. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 06:54, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
            • Opinion pieces can be used as RS to report facts.  Here the fact is that Reade accused Biden of assault.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 07:22, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
              • Kolya Butternut, see News organizations: "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." TFD (talk) 21:21, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
                • I interpret that to mean that the opinion itself cannot be used as a statement of fact, but facts reported within the editorial can (at least I thought I read that within some PAGs...). Kolya Butternut (talk) 21:28, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• No - there's a reason why reliable and credible sources have ignored this story. Someone like Biden, who has been a Senator as well as a VP for 8 years, has been vetted up, down and sideways. And the initial allegation was made years ago. The fact that mainstream reliable source are not touching this is a pretty clear WP:REDFLAG. At this point this is nothing but a WP:FRINGE story which does not belong in a BLP. (The guardian and the Huff Po pieces are just opinion columns, which is not enough for a BLP). Volunteer Marek 01:29, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you consider The Times, The Intercept, The Hill and Fox News fringe sources? Zloyvolsheb (talk) 01:32, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes per Atsme. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 01:42, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes, Wikipedia should report the allegations, that is newsworthy and the Biden campaign has responded to them. But No, according to WP:BLP and Wikipedia:Offensive material, we don't need to provide a detailed narrative of an alleged sexual assault. And just because these policies and guidelines have been violated on other articles is not a good reason to allow for that on this one. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:14, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Include if-and-only-if it rises to the level of having electoral consequences. As an allegation standing alone it has insufficient significance in the scope of the subject's life. However, if the subject were to lose either the primary or general election, and if that loss reliable sources attributed that loss to some degree to the allegation, then it would definitely merit inclusion. BD2412 T 02:28, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes – There is more than enough secondary sources with detail to show due weight. This is verifiable and relevant. There is no reason why we should not include. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 03:41, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes per Atsme. Columbia Journalism Review has characterized this as a "notable story".[21] Current Affairs has now vetted the story.[22] Kolya Butternut (talk) 04:16, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes with caveat, and Snow Close Per everything Zloyvolsheb has said. There are no grounds on which to deny adding this to the article, and the idea that specific U.S. media orgs must report on this before it can be included is misguided. This is nowhere mentioned in the PAGs, and reeks of U.S.-centrism. The threshold for sources has already been met. It is being brushed aside, but multiple articles have focused on the shocking fact that these specific media orgs have refused to acknowledge the story, and that is crucial here. CNN, NYT and MSNBC have been called out in these pieces, but these same outlets are being elevated here on WP to a position they haven't earned. 'It must be reported by the CNN's of the world or it didn't happen' is not a policy or guideline, and arguments suggesting otherwise are without merit until a proper RfC at the RS/N to establish this has been completed.

New York Mag What We Know About the Joe Biden Sexual Assault Allegation

The Intercept Time’s Up Said It Could Not Fund a #MeToo Allegation Against Joe Biden

Vox A sexual assault allegation against Joe Biden has ignited a firestorm of controversy

WaPo Sexual assault allegation by former Biden Senate aide emerges in campaign, draws denial

NBC Woman broadens claims against Biden to include sexual assault

Nathan J. Robinson * Evaluating Tara Reade’s Allegation Against Joe Biden

The Economist How to weigh an allegation of assault against Joe Biden

WGBH News Has Media Coverage Of Coronavirus Eclipsed A New Allegation Of Sexual Assault Against Joe Biden?

Fox cable news segment

MSNBC cable news segment

Newsweek Joe Biden's Sexual Assault Accuser Wants To Be Able To Speak Out Without Fear of 'Powerful Men'

Daily Dot Biden’s past comments on sexual assault dredged up in wake of graphic allegations

Yahoo/Refinery21 Joe Biden Faces Sexual Assault Allegations From A Former Staffer

HuffPost Joe Biden Accused Of Sexually Assaulting Senate Aide In 1993

Fox Biden campaign adamantly denies allegation of sexual assault

Democracy Now Interview with Tara Reade

Katie Halper Interview with Tara Reade

The Hill TV Interview with Tara Reade

HuffPost TV Hosts Fail To Ask Joe Biden Questions About Sexual Assault Allegation

Daily Dot CNN accused of ignoring Biden’s sexual assault allegations

The Guardian Why has the media ignored sexual assault and misbehaviour allegations against Biden?

Yahoo/The Week Joe Biden has a #MeToo problem

Fox Biden sexual assault allegation goes unmentioned in another televised interview

Fox New York Times edits Biden sexual assault coverage, deletes references to past inappropriate 'hugs, kisses and touching'

• The allegation should be included in the article immediately. IMO, it should not be limited to three sentences. Language used to describe the assault seems consistent with other articles, but it is too graphic for my taste. It also ignores the rest of Reade's account: being pushed up against the wall, the finger in the face with "You're nothing to me. Nothing.", and the subsequent loss of her job and ability to find another one on the Hill. 06:11, 31 March 2020 (UTC) petrarchan47คุก 00:09, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Limiting an encyclopedia's coverage by predetermining the amount of space allowed makes no sense. Case in point: we already have another sentence that needs to be added. petrarchan47คุก 19:53, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reade filed a criminal complaint with the Washington D.C. Police on April 10 over the alleged sexual assault.^[1][2]

• I disagree with the reason for hatting the NYT discussion below. !Votes that depend largely on the premise that the NYT specifically can be seen as gold standard for RS, to the point it is a requirement, has no basis in policy, and further ignores relevant, indisputable facts. petrarchan47คุก 21:39, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Not now Yes Update 2020-04-12, it’s in The New York Times so, as promised, I am updating my vote. These accusations are very serious accusations, and before we include them in the Wikipedia article for such a public figure, we need to wait for them to be extensively discussed across multiple top-notch sources, such as The New York Times, which covered the less serious touchy-feely accusations last year. The fact that these accusations are very popular with a small, loud spoken minority who think Sanders will become the nominee if they can get these accusations to stick means that it will be extremely difficult to maintain any neutrality with them. If they get a prominent mention in The Washington Post or The New York Times, I will change my vote (2020-04-12: Front page of New York Times, vote now “Yes”) Samboy (talk) 08:09, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes a short paragraph of 2-3 sentences is appropriate. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:48, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• No. BLP directs us to use caution, and rely on the best sources when reporting scandalous or inflammatory content. Here, the majority of sources offered are subpar. Two are from the post-2013 Newsweek, which is a lower-quality source (see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Newsweek (2013-present)). One is to an obscure, low-circulation Nevada newspaper. One is from Heavy.com, which is a clickbait source. And this last one is from Fox and focuses on the Biden campaign's denial. These are not sufficient sources to stick a serious criminal accusation in a BLP, nor do they demonstrate due weight. The large majority of mainstream sources are not mentioning this allegation, so we must follow suit. If this gets mentioned in the Associated Press, Reuters, New York Times, Washington Post, or Wall Street Journal, or similar, we can reevaluate. Most of the "include" comments here should receive no weight or low weight because they are based on the incorrect assumption that the existence of some sources repeating an allegation "guarantees inclusion," when our policy is the opposite: that a source exists does not guarantee inclusion. Neutrality^talk 15:54, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Not now Neutrality's arguments are persuasive. This specific allegation has been given some (not much) coverage in some (not many, and not mainstream) sources. The coverage at this point does not rise to the level that WP:BLP calls for. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:17, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A few days ago, you said "I think the existing paragraph is OK - appropriate to the amount of coverage and non-sensational". Neutrality's argument uses false assertions. The low-circulation paper from Nevada is used to support the fact that Reade came out with her story last year, to the only paper that would air her story, her local paper. The source isn't being used to show weight, and it's low-circulation status is irrelevant here. That Heavy.com is a "clickbait source" is also irrelevant when it is only being used to support the fact that she tweeted something last year, nothing more. It's fine to question sources, but they must be viewed in context. N's argument does not look at context and therefore misinterprets the sources s/he doesn't like, whilst avoiding any mention of sources like Vox and The Intercept. Interestingly, those two sources specifically were the two used to initially add Blasey Ford's claim to Kavanaugh's bio. petrarchan47คุก 19:20, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your views will be better received if you don't couch them in terms of disparagement or aspersions against another editor. SPECIFICO talk 19:31, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any aspersions here, SPECIFICO. Yes, petrarchan, I did say that a few days ago. The fact that the story has not expanded since then into the mainstream - that it is still a small amount of reporting in a few, mostly not mainstream outlets - is what has pushed me into "Not for now". Apparently the vast majority of high-quality journalistic outlets have decided that this is not worth reporting. If this later gets more prominent coverage from more significant sources, to the point where the weight of coverage is sufficient for inclusion, then I will change my vote. Wikipedia is all about coverage. It is not about what we personally think of the material, or of the person. It's not about us. We reflect what is published in Reliable Sources, but not everything that is published; we publish according to weight, namely the amount and duration of coverage and quality of sources. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:49, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MelanieN, I meant this kind of stuff: Neutrality's argument uses false assertions..Not helpful. Discussion on this matter is (with a few exceptions) policy-free arguments against experienced editors who are trying patiently to explain the issue to less experienced editors who could easily read the policies and guidelines so as to engage on a more substantive and detailed level that might actually improve the article. SPECIFICO talk 20:23, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Are you accusing people of sealioning? I feel that good faith less experienced editors are raising good questions while the experienced editors are not explaining policy nuance. Kolya Butternut (talk) 21:15, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It appears there may be a bit of confusion over WP:RS and what qualifies as a 3rd party RS for citing a WP:PUBLICFIGURE. Petrarchan47 did an excellent job of clarifying it. I, too, encountered a similar bit of confusion at RS/N regarding "in context" and what exactly constitutes a reliable 3rd party source. For one thing, to be reliable, the source doesn't necessarily have to agree with us. We also have to consider WP:V and the fact that Biden is subject to a slightly different set of rules in our policy as a public figure; therefore, some of the more stringent aspects of BLP do not apply here. It also appears that consensus is moving in the direction to include the well-sourced material and the arguments are strong ones suupported by multiple RS. Biden's behavior is not new or recent - it has been written about in the media for over a year. Arguing back and forth about the reliability of sources that consensus has long determined to be reliable is a weak position in this RfC. The unfriendly banter and unfounded allegations back and forth also need to stop, as does the badgering of editors over their iVotes. Let the process continue unhindered, and take the discussion below to a separate section. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 22:05, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Biden's behavior is not new or recent - it has been written about in the media for over a year. Wrong. What has been written about is that he has been touchy-feely in a way that made women feel uncomfortable. Hugs, pats, standing close. He admits that has been a lifelong pattern of his, and including it is not controversial. But nobody, up to now, has accused him of actual sexual assault; this is a whole new type of allegation. That would be a crime, a whole different kettle of fish from kissing someone on the back of the head. Biden is subject to a slightly different set of rules in our policy as a public figure; therefore, some of the more stringent aspects of BLP do not apply here The BLP policy is very explicit: if you are accusing a public figure of a crime, you need excellent sourcing - multiple reliable sources. We do not have anything approaching excellent sourcing at this point. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:24, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The issue I have with this line of argument is the black-and-white nature of arguing being done here. There is not some invisible line with some sources being automatically being “unreliable” on one side of the line, and sources automatically being “reliable” on the other side. There are shades of gray. The Intercept is generally a reliable, if opinionated, source, but in the case of an extraordinary claim, they are not sufficient. For a claim this extraordinary: That Biden raped someone 27 years ago (even though his sexual conduct was extensively discussed last year, with no rape accusations coming up) we need multiple sources of the highest quality: Sources like The BBC, Reuters, Assosciated Press, The New York Times, Washington Post, and The Wall Street Journal. And, yes, MelanieN is right: This rape accusation is a very different kettle of fish than the improper touching accusations. Samboy (talk) 22:54, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The mentioned sources have already been through screenings at RS/N, and they meet the qualifications as RS that can be cited per PUBLICFIGURE. There is nothing I've seen in our PAGs that specify "mainstream media"; rather it states that multiple 3rd party RS must have reported it, and the latter has been satisfied. MelanieN, it appears you misunderstood me because I am not wrong. The allegations about his sexual misconduct are not new. You appear to be focused on the one victim who recently came forward with the courage to describe the behavior she was subjected to using stronger language but his overall misbehavior is not new. There are multiple 3rd party RS available online - 3rd party does not equate only to "mainstream", it equates to "independent"; i.e., An independent source is a source that has no vested interest in a given Wikipedia topic and therefore is commonly expected to cover the topic from a disinterested perspective. Independent sources have editorial independence (advertisers do not dictate content) and no conflicts of interest (there is no potential for personal, financial, or political gain to be made from the existence of the publication). There is probably some level of bias in all online media sources because of the paradigm shift to clickbait. Regardless, there are several sources that verify the long standing sexual misbehavior allegations against Biden such as: USA Today, April 5, 2019; NPR, April 2, 2019; and WaPo that calls into question the position Biden took in the Anita Hill case; The Independent April 2019, etc. Biden denied Lucy Flores's sexual misconduct allegations, not unlike all the others who were accused of it, except maybe for Lauer who made a public apology, but still denied the descriptions. As editors, we now have a precedent on which to gage the allegations, including what happened to Kavanaugh, Weinstein, Trump, Lauer, Cosby and so many others. Our job is simply to evaluate what the sources say and include all significant views, not censor them. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 23:56, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

These "comparisons" make no sense. Cosby and Weinstein were convicted of multiple felony crimes. Lauer was fired from his job. Kavanaugh's accuser gave sworn testimony before Congress. Trump was accused by 23 women over a period of years. All five had far more extensive coverage than is the case here. You are also wrong to suggest that there is "nothing" in policies and guidelines that "specifies 'mainstream media.'" Wikipedia:Verifiability says that "Other reliable sources include: ... Mainstream newspapers." At various points, Wikipedia:Reliable sources refers to "material from high-quality mainstream publications" and "well-established news outlets." In any case, this is not a question of what sources exists; it's a question of WP:WEIGHT and WP:BLP. Neutrality^talk 00:32, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The question is not whether the accusations from last year of improper touching should be included here (and, again, those allegations are not rape allegations, and just like there are shades of gray with the reliability of sources, there are also shades of gray with physical misconduct). The question for this section is very specific: Should Reade’s rape accusation be included here (no, touching someone on the neck is not "rape"). The very specific claim that Reade was allegedly raped by Biden (again, touching a woman’s genitalia is very different than touching her arm or neck) does not have the support from multiple top-level reliable sources required to merit its inclusion in a high profile Wikipedia article. Samboy (talk) 00:39, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Neutrality, of course they make no sense if you compare them using hind sight, and no I am not wrong. To begin, we are still only at the allegation stage for Biden whose position as a presidential candidate warrants the scrutiny, not censorship. "Other reliable sources include:..." does not say they "must be" mainstream newspapers. Besides, we are dealing with digital publications on the internet and as such, you should be looking at WP:NEWSORG. You can make it into whatever you want but facts are facts and the allegations are real, verifiable and published in multiple 3rd party RS per the guidelines for inclusion. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 00:45, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I should be able to point out flaws in an argument without being accused of casting aspersions, which is a very serious claim with serious consequences.

The story of this allegation broke last Tuesday in an article from Ryan Grim for The Intercept. There are certain media outlets that haven't covered the allegation or Biden's official response to it. This has been viewed by many journalists as notably strange. That fact is ignored by arguments claiming certain outlets must report on this for inclusion here.

It is being asserted that The Intercept cannot be used for this type of allegation, however:

• "Intercept reporter Ryan Grim... broke the news of the letter detailing allegations against Brett Kavanaugh"*
• "Her story leaked anyway. On Wednesday, the Intercept reported that Feinstein had a letter describing an incident involving Kavanaugh and a woman while they were in high school and that Feinstein was refusing to share it with her Democratic colleagues."*

This WaPo article citing the Intercept shows that it considered highly reliable for such claims, and indeed it was the piece that all media used as the basis for their coverage. Ryan Grim received praise for his work (you can see that here, and the newer version that popped up after he reported on Biden). In this early version of the Kavanaugh allegation, you can also see that Heavy.com was used, showing that we appear to be applying double standards as the same source is being rejected on its face now. Articles like Why has the media ignored sexual assault and misbehaviour allegations against Biden? show that the media we love to trust might have a bias that is showing up now, and that it is time to rethink the notion that we can completely trust any media without double checking their motives and facts. Media has been accused of being partisan; we can't ignore that it is a possibility, and that it could easily effects our attempt at NPOV. Maybe the noted silence from establishment media is indicative of partisanship rather than irrelevance. petrarchan47คุก 00:55, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that this rape allegation has not made the pages of The New York Times, The Washington Post, or The Wall Street Journal is a big red flag indicating that the claim may be suspect. As per official Wikipedia policy “Surprising or apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources” are suspect and should not be included in Wikipedia articles. Samboy (talk) 01:15, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that leaves out the fact that reliable mainstream sources have covered it, and no one has come out debunking it, and that Biden himself took it seriously enough to respond. Those media outlets that failed to report on his reponse at the very least should be considered suspect in this case. That is why so much has been written questioning their silence on this particular matter. petrarchan47คุก 01:21, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's just not accurate. Of the few reliable sources weighing in (and they very definitely FEW), they are mostly just regurgitating what was said in The Intercept and mostly doing it in opinion pieces. As for Biden's response, of COURSE he denied it. Any man falsely accused of sexual assault would deny it. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:42, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sources are covering Grim's piece because he broke the story, just as they did when news about Kavanaugh's accuser broke. The fact that Biden's response isn't surprising has no relation to whether it is encyclopedic fodder. It is, and was covered by MSM. I disagree that "mostly" op-eds covered the Intercept piece. Can you provide evidence for that claim? petrarchan47คุก 01:54, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Surprising or apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources are suspect and should not be included in Wikipedia articles". That's not what the policy says. What it says is that they should "prompt extra caution". Caution taken. Aziz Ansari was all over cable news after Babe.net, who no one's ever heard of, broke the story. I think what we should be questioning is the reliability of mainstream sources rather than the reliability of the sources which actually do cover the allegation they don't want to believe. Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:01, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, what the policy says is “Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources”, and we should be cautious with “Surprising or apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources”. The claim that Biden raped someone 27 years ago is surprising, it’s important, but it’s not being covered by The New York Times, it’s not being covered by The Washington Post, it’s not being covered by the Wall Street Journal. If this claim was reliable, it should be “all over cable news”, but it’s not. It directly contradicts Wikipedia policy to be “questioning is the reliability of mainstream sources”. It’s not about whether an editor believes the claim since “Editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong on Wikipedia”. Samboy (talk) 06:33, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reade's claim that Biden violated her 27 years ago is surprising and exceptional. However, the claim that Reade alleged he did is also surprising, but clearly not in the same universe of exceptional claims as that. Obviously, the first claim has not been verified as true, but the second has been, by multiple sources, and also covered in dozens of other mass media articles, opinion columns, etc. It's not astounding that sources closest to Biden in political orientation might opt to not publish an alleged claim about something from 27 years ago, a claim that is essentially impossible to verify at this point. It's still relevant to Biden that it was made, and it is covered by multiple reliable sources, as repeatedly pointed out. It warrants a brief mention, accordingly. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 07:11, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Samboy while quoting WP said: "It directly contradicts Wikipedia policy to be questioning is the reliability of mainstream sources. It’s not about whether an editor believes the claim since Editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong on Wikipedia".

This is exactly my point and makes me question why are you (and other editors) questioning the reliability of The Intercept, The Hill, Vox, and Fox? Each did independent reporting (interviews) and Per Wikipedia:Verifiability each of those is a mainstream RS. We therefore have multiple (4) mainstream third party reliable sources and many other sources which can be used supporting this. We should beware of Bias and Partisan sources, but they are not excluded (Fox is arguably the most partisan in the sources and they were the first to publish Biden's staffer's denial).--Davemoth (talk) 12:59, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The issue I have with this line of argument is the black-and-white nature of arguing being done here. There is not some invisible line with some sources being automatically being “unreliable” on one side of the line, and sources automatically being “reliable” on the other side. There are shades of gray. The Intercept is generally a reliable, if opinionated, source, but in the case of an extraordinary claim, they are not sufficient. If this was an deletion discussion, I would be singing a very different tune. But, for this accusation, the bar for reliability is far higher. Samboy (talk) 15:04, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• yes the story has been covered in multiple mainstream sources. We have a specific policy that covers this exact situation. Accusation made. Accusation denied. Story covered in multiple reliable sources. ResultingConstant (talk) 18:56, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  "Multiple mainstream sources" is factually inaccurate. Lots of editors have been making this false claim. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:42, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Fox News. Salon. The Hill. Newsweek. Vox. The Intercept. Democracy Now! Washington Times. Washington Examiner. The Week. RealClearPolitics. Biden camp has issued a statement. What's your minimum of sources before it becomes "multiple"? 2600:1700:D281:27D0:E8D5:F7CE:5E45:8F0F

  I think you need read the language carefully. Wikipedia:Verifiability specifically does not define “mainstream”. As such it is logically implied that any RS source can count. Therefore “multiple mainstream sources” literally can mean “2 or more sources that consensus views as reliable.” In this case we have the Intercept for initial reporting and The Hill, Vox, and Fox that have each done some independent reporting and interviews.--Davemoth (talk) 03:44, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Don't forget Current Affairs. Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:56, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Whatever language one wants to use is fine. There are multiple mainstream sources reporting on Tara Reade's powerful story. There are multiple reliable sources reporting on Tara Reade's powerful story. Any assertion to the contrary has no basis in reality. 2600:1700:D281:27D0:E8D5:F7CE:5E45:8F0F (talk) 04:00, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes There are reliable sources covering the allegation.VoxRealClear Politics ~ HAL333 21:45, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• No Maybe later. WP:BLP and WP:Recent apply here very well. Only if, at some point later in time, multiple reliable sources discuss the topic in depth, the content should be added to the article. Things could be easier if the issue was not so sensitive due to the coming election. Ktrimi991 (talk) 22:59, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Obviously The problem with these "how many liberals/conservatives can I bring to this page" type polls is that it creates the illusion of objectivity and neutrality, which very few people still bother to pretend exists here. Christine Ford (can't remember a thing other than Kavanaugh "pushed her" and "laughed", best friend doesn't believe it and was pressured by the FBI to lie and say she did, no evidence or corroboration), Deborah Ramirez (someone said someone "pushed" Deborah's hand into Kavanaugh's weiner, Ramirez doesn't know if it was Kavanaugh's, no evidence or corroboration), and Julie Swetnick (said Kavanaugh ran a gang-rape trafficking ring when she was in college and attending drunken high school parties, repped by Michael Avenatti, no evidence or corroboration). They all have their own SECTIONS on Kavanaugh's page. Tara Reade is the 9th woman to bravely come forward to tell her harrowing story of her attack at the hands of Joe Biden. Yet, people are clamoring for reasons to hide it from his page. Why? Occam's razor. 2600:1700:D281:27D0:E8D5:F7CE:5E45:8F0F (talk) 03:23, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Maybe if it's a single sentence which doesn't name names. Something like "one of the women elaborated on her story a year later to describe a sexual assault which the Biden campaign denied". I'm surprised the Salon article has not ben discussed more since it looks like the best one we have so far. Also, please ignore the people who derail the discussion about WP:WEIGHT by claiming that the accusation itself is suspicious. Connor Behan (talk) 03:48, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Notably, the Salon article explains why the claim is questionable from a journalistic perspective. It’s not a question of not believing the woman; it’s a question of not making a strong negative claim against Biden without more solid evidence (as described in the Salon article). Samboy (talk) 06:45, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Salon is "generally unreliable". There is no consensus on the reliability of Salon. Editors consider Salon biased or opinionated, and its statements should be attributed. We need to stick to the highest quality sources for this material, as has been argued ad infinitum.  petrarchan47คุก 15:43, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  No, Salon is not generally unreliable. There is no consensus on the reliability. Those are two different things. - MrX 🖋 18:21, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  The Hill critiques the Salon story.[23]. Kolya Butternut (talk) 16:45, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • That's not "the Hill". "The Hill Rising", a webshow on the Hill website, which is hosted by two cranks, that covered the allegations. It's akin to citing Sean Hannity's show and saying "Fox News is a RS, therefore this Sean Hannity video is a reliable source". Votes by editors who cannot tell what a RS is or who choose to intentionally mislead others about the contents of the sources they are citing should be dismissed by the closer of this RfC. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:14, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• No - If I had to guess, this is probably an Eventually, but for the reasons put forward by Neutrality, TFD, et al., it's not enough yet. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:55, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes but not in the form as presented. It should be shortened, given the current low prominence in reliable sources, not directly quoting her 2019 tweet, just saying she modified her story, and it should be sourced only to the more reliable sources reporting it (namely Vox, which is mislabeled currently as Newsweek), not Fox News. It's gotten enough coverage to be worthy of inclusion, and WP:BLPVIO privacy concerns have little weight for me due to Biden's extreme prominence as a public figure. Sdkb (talk) 06:48, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  "Modifying" would be an innacurate way to describe what happened. She tweeted 'there is more to the story, ask me'. She expanded her story, she didn't change it in any way. In spring 2019, Reade considered telling her full story, says Halper, “but she was doxed and smeared as a Russian agent. There are now witnesses to the story…her brother and close friend recall her telling them about the incident at the time,” said Halper.* petrarchan47คุก 01:05, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• YesNo - Given the seriousness of the accusation, the low-to-middling quality of the sources, and the lack of independent investigation by high quality sources, this is not appropriate per WP:NOTSCANDAL, WP:BLP, WP:RS and especially WP:DUEWEIGHT. That the nexus of this story is two Bernie fans raises a huge red flag:

Last week, podcaster Katie Halper, an avid fan of presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders, released an episode of her podcast containing a shocking accusation:... At the same time, Ryan Grim of The Intercept — a publication which has been strongly supportive of Sanders and critical of Biden — published a story...
— [24]

If this is important, multiple high quality sources will pick it up. High quality sources would be the ones we predominantly use in this biography and similar biographies: The New York Times, The Washington Post, Politico, CNN, CBS News, ABC News, NBC News, NPR, Los Angeles Times, The Hill, BBC, The Wall Street Journal, and so on. Absolutely no opinion articles or bloggish sources should be used for this type of content.

I also agree with the arguments put forth by Cbs527, Neutrality, Volunteer Marek and other editors who echo similar concerns. WP:PUBLICFIGURE is not met because there is a dearth, not "a multitude of reliable published sources". It's imperative that we adhere to the policy principles that BLPs must be written conservatively; that 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; and that the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This shocking content with its shaky sources does not pass any those tests. - MrX 🖋 12:30, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to Yes. There has now been sufficient coverage in reliable sources to warrant including a brief mention of this. The wording in the RfC is poor and mostly sourced to low quality sources, so a version that adheres to the major points of the best sources is what should go into the article. - MrX 🖋 12:27, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Intercept endorsing Sanders is not any more relevant than The New York Times endorsing Warren / Klobuchar. By all means prioritize coverage in the latter, but do so on the basis of reliability, not aspersions. Connor Behan (talk) 13:41, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I said nothing about The Intercept endorsing Sanders. I did however provide a source that reflects the common knowledge that The Intercept is a biased source with respect to certain subjects. It should be treated accordingly. - MrX 🖋 14:28, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick note about The Hill. Tara Reade bravely chose to give an interview to The Hill and shared the details of the attack and her ordeal[25]. We have The Hill covered. It's not Wikipedia's fault that CNN, New York Times, and other far-left sources have chosen to ignore Reade and have devoted little time to the other eight women who have come forward to discuss Biden's alleged misconduct. Readers shouldn't have to read an incomplete biography because of journalistic malfeasance. 2600:1700:D281:27D0:951A:49BB:1F4F:EECE (talk) 14:58, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You should review This Salon Article. They lay out a case that media bias is very unlikely in regard to reporting on this allegations. As your IP address has not submitted in anything other than this article, you are by definition a single purpose account. As such you need to be careful in your phrasing and citations. In my opinion, your discussion about "far-left" sources makes this sound like a fringe argument and is more detrimental to your supporting the argument that the allegations should be included. For myself, I was the first to vote Yes but I am starting to be swayed by arguments such as yours that are ignoring the big picture and claiming malfeasance.--Davemoth (talk) 15:36, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Hill critiques the Salon story.[26]. Kolya Butternut (talk) 16:45, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes - the argument regarding "low quality sources" is moot as there is plenty of sources reporting on it, and there is absolutely no doubt that the accusation has happened. Whether the accusation is true is a different story, but since it is a serious allegation, it should be included. BeŻet (talk) 12:51, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes - at least one sentence, it is/was big on social media and has been reported in detail in reputable outlets such as Vox, and also in Salon, Fox News, and Daily Caller. Danski14^(talk) 12:55, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes - the content is relevant, notable, and sourced, just keep it minimal unless it becomes a bigger issue. --Waters.Justin (talk) 14:05, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes - notable issue covered in sufficient reliable sources. Can and will be expanded as this develops. ɱ (talk) 14:40, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes - sufficiently covered, as per Davemoth. The Verified Cactus 100% 18:40, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • This vote cites Davemoth's argument for inclusion. Davemoth's vote gave primary importance to the fact that a purported RS, "The Hill", had reported the allegations. But that's not the case. It was "The Hill Rising", a webshow on the Hill website, which is hosted by two cranks, that covered the allegations. It's akin to citing Sean Hannity's show and saying "Fox News is a RS, therefore this Sean Hannity video is a reliable source". Votes by editors who cannot tell what a RS is or who choose to intentionally mislead others about the contents of the sources they are citing should be dismissed by the closer of this RfC. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:11, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - anecdotally, I have seen on Twitter major bot activity that is certainly one of the reasons this story was trending a few days ago on the platform — accounts spamming identical or extremely similar replies and tweets with hashtags about it. This does not mean it is not a notable story that should be here (I am not experienced enough with notability to really have a certain opinion), but if one reason you are thinking it might be notable is that you saw it all over Twitter, remember that at least part of the reason for that is some very clear bot activity. Probably similar things are true on other social media platforms. DemonDays64 (talk) 20:46, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  It does not look like Twitter has been used as direct source anywhere here. We should not be looking at Twitter for notability as it is a self published micro-blog platform. I have not seen any significant or serious entries in this talk page using twitter as more than a passing reference to this background.--Davemoth (talk) 21:05, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  @Davemoth: true, it just seemed like something that could be subconsciously influencing people that they saw it trending. DemonDays64 (talk) 21:40, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Not yet I don't believe that the media coverage of this allegation at the moment is sufficient to meet due weight; it looks like most of the US media do not want to touch the issue. I find neutrality's argument to be very persuasive. buidhe 22:56, 1 April 2020 (UTC) Yes, brief mention After additional coverage I think it has become DUE to mention, along with Biden campaign's denial and former staffers' comments that they do not recall the alleged incident. buidhe 22:02, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• No Due to lack of strong and reliable sources. Idealigic (talk) 23:03, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes - I don't understand the NOs. The allegation exists in the form of video and audio interviews. Therefore, we don't need a mainstream outlet to verify that the allegation itself exists. Add to this that it has been reported on my mid-tear (if not top-tier) outlets AND the fact the campaign deemed it important enough to respond to. Add to this, furthermore, that the Biden campaign's own response acknowledges and "encourages" that the story be told.
• All that needs to happen is that the allegation and official response be acknowledged. Perhaps even include that mainstream outlets have not covered it since these mid-tier outlets have voiced this very thing. This way the article will acknowledge this truth about lack of mainstream coverage which is of main concern to the NOs here. The allegation exists in video/audio form.
• The outlets that gave coverage to the allegations have wikipedia pages which can be linked to to provide readers perspective on status of said outlets and any particular leanings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nandofan (talk • contribs) 01:13, 2 April 2020 (UTC) — Nandofan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • The position of the Nos is not that question whether Tara Reade made the accusation but whether it has received sufficient coverage in the media to be included. It's not that one requires verification from the major news outlets, its that if it has not received any coverage by them it means it is insignificant to this article. According to policy that is the criterion for inclusion. By comparison, I could probably find a source for the name of Biden's grade three teacher, but would not add it unless the body of news reporting about Biden considered it important enough to report. Whether or not the media are doing a good job in reporting is a good question, but we can't second guess them without changing policy first. Note that an allegation against Trump of the rape of a minor has been excluded from his page for similar reasons. TFD (talk) 01:47, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    "According to policy that is the criterion for inclusion." I disagree - policy does not list "major outlets" and states that we need multiple mainstream sources. Mainstream is not defined and it can be implied that it means sources that consensus consider reliable. If any of those are biased or partisan we should beware of them, but not automatically exclude them. In this case we have multiple (Intercept, Vox, The Hill, Fox) sources that are all considered reliable. There is absolutely nothing that either defines or requires major outlets. I obviously can't speak for all the Yes votes, but some of us (to steal your statement): The position of the Yes votes is not that question whether Tara Reade made the accusation but whether it has received sufficient coverage in the media to be included. The difference between the Yes and No is that we believe it has actually received sufficient coverage and has received (other than statement by Biden's staff) no contradiction from any significant source.--Davemoth (talk) 03:16, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes - Biden has come out forcefully in favor the the Me Too movement, there are multiple reliable sources covering the topic, and the alleged victim is out publicly with her story under her name giving her credibility. It should perhaps be worked into his position on sexual assault/Me Too movement stating his position as well as the fact that he has been accused of sexual assault.Patapsco913 (talk) 01:35, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes - Given the huge number of media sources mentioning the allegations. Earlier editors argued that there were no mainstream media coverage but now there is from Fox News, The Guardian and Washington Times. That the reporting may be damaging to Joe Biden's presidential campaign is not a reason to leave it out of the article. ImTheIP (talk) 06:37, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes - I support a reasonably brief mention, including Biden's team's response. Considering Biden's history with false or misleading statements, we shouldn't ignore an allegation based on his or his team's denial. Further, the allegations are fairly consistent with the others we include, so there's no reason to wait for pro-Biden media such as CNN to cover the claims to consider them noteworthy. For balance, we should include a note of Reade's stated political allegiances, and let the reader decide who to believe. UpdateNerd (talk) 10:41, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• No It's been almost ten days since this report was released to the media and neither the NYT or WashPo has responded. Wikipedia does not report breaking news in our BLPs. When and if these outlets report this extremely serious charge of sexual assault we should report it as well per our policy to include negative information if it is well-sourced. Gandydancer (talk) 18:30, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Literally only those two outlets, or any national newspaper? Magazines like The Economist are not sufficient? Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:18, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    One salient quote from the Economist: The most striking thing about Ms Reade’s story may be the silence with which it has been greeted. Most of the coverage mentions this. petrarchan47คุก 03:11, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    It's worth pointing out that like CNN, the NYT has a proven track record of favoring certain political candidates in their reporting. You can't expect them to report fairly when they run articles like "Why Biden Is the Change Candidate". UpdateNerd (talk) 11:18, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @UpdateNerd: Once again, you are confusing EDITORIAL/OPINION pieces with REPORTING/JOURNALISM. While it is true an organization such as the New York Times will indulge itself in editorial endorsements and give column inches to opinion writers, it keeps those aspect separate from straight reporting. It is one of the reasons the organization is treated as a "paper of record" by most of the world. The same is true of most reliable sources. Some organizations, like Fox News for example, seem unable to separate these two aspects; consequently, they are seen as less reliable. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:51, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I wasn't confused, but you raise a good point. Nevertheless, the bias is undeniable whether left- or right-leaning. UpdateNerd (talk) 12:56, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    It's not undeniable because he just denied it. Unbelievably, there are still many who believe that DNC propaganda teams like the New York Times, CNN, and the Washington Post are "fair, objective, non-partisan, and neutral." A better word to describe the corruption and bias may be "irrefutable," since I have never seen a convincing argument to back up this ludicrous "no bias in the media except conservative-leaning media" thesis. 2600:1700:D281:27D0:811:1608:C616:17D3 (talk) 14:24, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Well it depends on the reporter, no matter the outlet. I want to say "propaganda" is too strong a term, but it hasn't been true this election. I've seen the NYT & CNN promote their favored candidate, even against other Dems, to a classical level of bias. It may be the most transparent in opinion pieces, but it bleeds into their "reporting" on the election, as well as what they choose *not* to report on. UpdateNerd (talk) 16:41, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • I don't have a subscription to The Economist, but from the first couple of paragraphs it looks like yet another source that just recycles the original interview. Sources that repeat the same thing are not providing the kind of verification we are looking for. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:37, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Maybe this has been discussed, but I believe that we only need sources that verify the allegation took place, because we are not stating in the article that the assault actually happened.  So, whether to include the allegation in this article is really a question of WP:Weight not verifiability.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:43, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, that would be an oversimplification. And frankly, this has been a significant problem with the way this RfC has developed. Almost all of the "sourcing" comes from the original interview. There's been no independent verification by any mainstream media sources beyond the standard denial by the Biden campaign. In fact, what we would consider the "normal" mainstream media sources have largely steered clear of the claim, which is telling. The fact is, if this claim is not gaining mainstream media traction, it strongly suggests the claim may be viewed as dubious. If that is the case, it fails to meet the WP:WEIGHT standard, because it does not rise above the "noise" level you expect with notable figures who are on the receiving end of what turn out to be spurious claims. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:49, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • But again, the fact that an allegation has been made is verifiable; we can all see the interview ourselves and any sources who have rehashed the story have surely seen the interview themselves. So... verifiability has been established through several RS. Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:59, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
            • That's an absurdly low bar to pass. Literally anyone with an axe to grind could give an interview accusing any public figure of anything, and by your standards we would have to include it here. Obviously that is not the case, which is why we look for significant coverage in a preponderance of mainstream reliable sources. Can you explain why so many of the usual mainstream reliable sources have ignored this story, despite it being a week old? -- Scjessey (talk) 20:07, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
              • Yes, if the allegations gains media traction and are noteworthy enough they should be included. Tara Reade's allegations passes both bars and hence should be included. For example, the allegations have been covered by economist. The mainstream sources CNN, MSNBC, and The New York Times, which have not been covering the allegations may be ignoring them because they don't want to hurt Joe Biden's presidential campaign.

              The deciding factors are whether the allegations are noteworthy and have been covered by verifiable sources. In this case they have and therefore they should be included in the article. ImTheIP (talk) 04:12, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

        Scjessey I don't think your statement above is accurate. By my count The Hill, Vox, and Fox (for generally reliable sources) and Newsweek (less reliable) have done at least 1 independent interview with Reade and/or with Biden staff. They rightly reference The Intercept (broke the story in reference to the podcast), but each have done independent verification.--Davemoth (talk) 20:11, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

        I feel like you're not hearing me.  The allegation is readily verifiable, RS who have rehashed the story have verified that the allegations simply exists, so what we have to determine is whether to give it weight.  WP:V has been met.  Has WP:Weight?  Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:17, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

        And you are not hearing me. It has received very little mainstream media coverage. It is not to be found on MSNBC, CNN, CBS News, ABC News, or any of the big newspapers like NYT, WaPo, WSJ, Chicago Tribune, LA Times, SF Chronicle, or a bunch of others. This LACK of coverage CONFIRMS that it doesn't pass WP:WEIGHT, which says that in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources. It cannot be said to be prevalent at all. I'm frankly mystified that this isn't blindingly obvious. Again, I ask you why do you think so many mainstream reliable sources have ignored the story? -- Scjessey (talk) 20:25, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

        Sorry, that was a rhetorical question. So I hope we now agree that this passes WP:V, and we can focus now on WP:WEIGHT.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:27, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

        Oh, to your question: I think it's pretty obvious that those mainstream news sources are not good RS for stories like this; I think they have a demonstrated record of bias in favor of corporate Democrats  Kolya Butternut (talk) 21:12, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

        Petra, this Salon article sums up my position quite well. [27]Gandydancer (talk) 06:22, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

        I think a source like Salon, which has not earned WP's stamp of reliability, deserves a bit of investigation before it should be trusted. In this case, the reporter who broke this allegation story, the esteemed Ryan Grim (who also broke the Kavanaugh story), caught the Salon writer fabricating one claim in the article that resulted in a smear of the accuser (see thread). This piece by Hill TV is a good, thourough assessment of that particular article (watch here). petrarchan47คุก 15:48, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

        • Salon was forced to amend the article. petrarchan47คุก 16:34, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Not yet There has been some coverage from reliable sources but not enough to warrant inclusion at this stage. It's similar to the Trump Jane Doe case in terms of coverage right now. Worth revisiting if that changes.LM2000 (talk) 21:42, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Jane Doe case is different because she was anonymous.[28] Tara Reade has given several recorded interviews. Jane Doe RfC Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:59, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Roe v. Wade was anonymous too. TFD (talk) 04:11, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • I was referencing the Doe case to compare the coverage, not the nature of the cases themselves.LM2000 (talk) 06:43, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Economist magazine now has an article on the incident.

• "How to weigh an allegation of assault against Joe Biden - Democrats who thought Brett Kavanaugh should not be on the Supreme Court are ignoring Mr Biden's accuser". The Economist. April 4, 2020. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patapsco913 (talk • contribs) 02:52, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes The claim seems more credible than the ones made against Brett Kavanaugh that we allow multiple paragraphs on here. There are plenty sources that discuss it and even ask why the mainstream media is ignoring it[29] even though its not apparently the only time he's behaved inappropriately [30].--MONGO (talk) 05:29, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • With respect, if mainstream sources are "ignoring" it, that's precisely why we wouldn't include it in the article. We don't discuss fringe material and we don't right great wrongs. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 05:33, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I guess different people understand what "mainstream sources" are in different ways. Mainstream media outlets should never dictate what should and should not be included on Wikipedia. Each media outlet has an agenda. The story has definitely been reported in big media outlets (Newsweek, Fox News, Huffington Post etc.) but has not been reported by "mainstream" "liberal" media (like CNN or MSNBC), who are so far ignoring the story completely. BeŻet (talk) 12:36, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not sure why this has to be constantly be repeated, but perhaps it is necessary. Newsweek is a poor source since it ceased being a newspaper. Fox News is not a reliable source in the Real World. Huffington Post is a news aggregator that, like Newsweek, is a clickbait site. Where's WaPo? Where's NYT? Where's WSJ? We need proper, reliable mainstream media sources. Also, allegations against other individuals being mentioned here as "justification" for violating WP:WEIGHT had massive coverage across all sources, which this absolutely does not. Why is this still up for debate? Madness. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:20, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • There is plenty of other news right now for all news to report on but I concur that we are not beholdened by what is offered or not offered by hypocritical left of center new sources. There are more than adequate sources to support this short mention as it also includes the Biden campaigns denial, which is of course to be expected. Scjessey, FoxNews IS deemed reliable by Wikipedia as shown by multiple Rfcs.--MONGO (talk) 14:39, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

        WRONG. Fox News is only reliable for what Fox News says, but it is not reliable for anything else. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:41, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

        Then draw up a new Rfc and see if you can succeed in getting it disqualifed.--MONGO (talk) 14:45, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

        • Scjessey, there is no policy that says we must wait until a few certain sources carry information before we can include it. There is only WP:RS. There is no WP:BUTONLYTHESERS. If the burden of DUE is overcome by other RS not including WaPo, NYT, or CNN, then we can freely include it here. Wikipedia collects knowledge from a broad spectrum, not simply just 3 US news organizations who can't and don't cover everything. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:06, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • @Mr Ernie: There's no policy that says we must wait for certain sources; however, we do expect BLPs to be based on the prevailing view in a preponderance of reliable sources. As I have stated before, the fact that almost none of the usual mainstream reliable sources that cover politicians have covered this allegation is very telling. In fact, one could reasonably state that the absence of coverage indicates the skepticism on the part of the mainstream media. Sufficient time has now passed that one would have expected these better sources to have covered the story, but they haven't. Why do you suppose that is? Why do you suppose only low quality sources associated with Biden opponents have covered it? -- Scjessey (talk) 17:58, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
            • Yes, that is a good point and I do not know why. This seems to be a departure from the multitude of the "believe all women" articles that were run alongside the Kavanaugh allegations. Both the Biden and Kavanaugh accusations were both a bit short on verifiable facts, but stemmed from the credibility of the accusations themselves. What makes Reade any less credible that Blasey Ford? I don't know the answer to that. But with Kavanaugh we also saw that two of the claims, one on that boat and the other in Colorado, were falsehoods. What is different about the Reade claim and the Blasey Ford claim? What facts are WaPo, NYT, et al party to about the Reade claim that weren't there with the Blasey Ford claim? What's the main difference between the two men? I think the main outlets are doing us a disservice by not reporting why they don't think the Reade allegation is notable enough to report about, when other RS have found that it is. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:13, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment MONGO says: "The claim seems more credible than the ones made against Brett Kavanaugh". Complete nonsense. You have a source which says this or are you just making stuff up? Volunteer Marek 18:06, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would say the claims are quite similar. Both are nearly impossible to verify and both were denied by the alleged offending party. However one received near universal coverage and the other didn't run in the major US outlets. One was corroborated by witnesses at the time and the other denied by the witnesses at the time. Is that an issue with the allegations or with those that cover such stories? Mr Ernie (talk) 18:13, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whether or not the claim is true is irrevalant here (no, I’m not going to post to that Medium piece again. Nor even the Salon piece) What does matter is how reliable sources discuss the claim. The Kavanaugh accusations (which should not be brought up as per WP:OTHERSTUFF) have been discussed in The New York Times, The Washington Post, Reuters, Wall Street Journal, etc. The Biden sexual assualt accusion (which is different than the sexual harassment allegations from last year) has not had coverage from any of these top-level sources as of today. Samboy (talk) 21:33, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - a minor pause to acknowledge the obvious concerns stemming from what appears to be confusion over RS and the material we are allowed to include. See WP:NEWSORG, since that is what we are dealing with now rather than scholarly sources written with retrospect. With relevance to WP:PUBLICFIGURE and NEWSORG, our guidelines say we can...:

  1. [take] information from opinion content, the identity of the author may help determine reliability. The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint.[notes 2] If the statement is not authoritative, attribute the opinion to the author in the text of the article and do not represent it as fact. Reviews for books, movies, art, etc. can be opinion, summary or scholarly pieces.[7][8]
  2. The reporting of rumors has a limited encyclopedic value, although in some instances verifiable information about rumors may be appropriate (i.e. if the rumors themselves are noteworthy, regardless of whether or not they are true).

  ...resume the usual banter, please. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 18:40, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • None of the opinion pieces are presented are by recognized experts. As policy says, Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact. If recognized experts like Alan Dershowitz or Laurence Tribe write about the case, it would be rs. TFD (talk) 20:14, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  What part of the above or the following is not clear to you, TFD - If the statement is not authoritative, attribute the opinion to the author in the text of the article and do not represent it as fact.? We include it - we just don't say it in WikiVoice as fact. It is an allegation, not a fact, and the author is simply quoting what someone else said, not expressing their own opinion. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 00:33, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I did not say anything was not clear to me. If you cannot understand what other editors say or what policy or guidelines say, I don't understand what you are arguing about. TFD (talk) 03:33, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  As someone who feels 4 Deuces has a better argument than Atsme here (For something as WP:EXTRAORDINARY as this rape allegation, we need mainstream coverage, not just coverage from otherwise reliable sources), and as someone who understands the frustration with being cooped up, please assume good faith and please do not make it personal. We need to stay calm and collected here and not make things a personal mudfest. Thank you. Samboy (talk) 04:56, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes. It is important we mention this significant event. There are sources, and Wikipedia covers other allegations just like this one. But it is important we describe the allegation in an unbiased manner. Ma nam is geoffrey (talk) (talk) 18:21, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment the personal opinions of users as to whether these allegations are truthful or credible are immaterial and should be ignored by the closer as they do not meet the standard of a policy-based argument. Wikipedia should include information published in WP:RS in a way that is mediated by WP:DUE and WP:BLP. It is a fact that these allegations exist; we're discussing whether to mention these allegations, not whether they are true. Your personal thoughts on whether said allegations are true are irrelevant.Jancarcu (talk) 19:00, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• WGBH-TV makes the very plausible argument that perhaps media coverage of coronavirus has eclipsed the recent allegation of sexual assault against Biden. UpdateNerd (talk) 16:47, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Perhaps the CV has created busy newrooms such that in-depth investigative reporting on this allegation must wait, however mentioning the verifiable facts that the allegation was made, and that Biden has denied it (which is all we are proposing to include here) was no problem for many outlets such as Vox, The Economist, Huffington Post, The Intercept, Fox News, and others. WGBH segment asks why Biden has yet to "face scrutiny", which is different from reporting simple facts amid the CV crisis.

  It's not a bad piece, except it contains a few errors. She never said she wasn't wearing underwear, rather that she had no pantyhose on. She didn't "change her story", she always said there was more to it but wasn't ready to come out until last month.petrarchan47คุก 18:36, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  This is not because of COVID. Just do a Google news search for Joe Biden to see all the frivolous pieces published by the more popular media over the past two weeks. Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:42, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes There seems to well be enough coverage, not just Fox but Newsweek, Vox, The Guardian etc. Vox even states that it has "ignited a firestorm of controversy". I think it would be an odd editorial stance to leave this completely out of the article. --Pudeo (talk) 12:21, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral. If there's reporting by high-quality RS, then yes. If it's to be included with this low-quality sourcing, then it should be added as one sentence to the preexisting section in Biden's article on his inappropriate touching. The sentence could say: "In 2020, Biden was accused of sexual assault by a woman; the Biden campaign denied the accusation." I will also expect the numerous editors who would usually staunchly oppose adding similarly poorly sourced content on the pages of conservative politicians to consistently apply their newfound principles to future content disputes on pages related to conservatism. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:30, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Not "a" woman. Eight.[31] Eight brave women have come forward to speak their truth about their experiences with Joe Biden. That doesn't include any of the children in this report[32], who Joe Biden is seen massaging, stroking, and attempting to provide with unwanted kisses. As for the application of "newfound principles" to "conservative politicians," one can only note that Christine Ford, Deborah Ramirez, and Julie Swetnick all have their own bolded sections on Justice Kavanaugh's page, and none of them have any evidence or corroboration (only contradicting statements) to back their claims. But hey, it's on TV and in the newspaper, so it must be true. Really though, at this point, Joe Biden sexual misconduct allegations should not be in red font. 2600:1700:D281:27D0:C58B:4E79:1EDD:8409 (talk) 04:27, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  And the article already mentions "inappropriate touching" of women and children. While I accept that not everything on TV and in the newspapers is true, those are the sources we use. "Verifiability, not truth." TFD (talk) 13:14, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Not Yet - not enough WEIGHT at this time. It seems recent, so maybe in another few weeks. Googling I see 146 Million hits for Biden, and adding sexual assault Reade only 176 thousand show up. Only a 0.1% prominence doesn’t feel DUE coverage. Biden and sexual assault is showing 7.8 M hits though so may be something there. While the story is being presented by major outlets (e.g. CNN, Guardian, Newsweek, etc) as are mentions of other women (Lapps and Flores)... this particular one does not seem enough WEIGHT at this time. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 06:03, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes - Should've been done a long time ago. And to wait for MSM to cover stuff that makes "their" candidate look bad is like waiting for end of time. It looks like a clear consensus is made in favor of including the sexual assault, and it's time to wrap this up. Beatitudinem (talk) 13:42, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Any !votes based on the claim the mainstream media is in the tank for Biden, rather than based on Wikipedia policies, should be ignored by the closer of this RfC. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:59, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree with you that this should be about policy. I don't think Beatitudinem (or few other Yes !votes) has based their vote on that. I think their point is more that waiting for each editor's 'perfect' sources is a fool's errand.--Davemoth (talk) 16:03, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  If people just claim that top-tier sources are silent because of their bias as a blanket statement then I agree. But in this case, that hypothesis is made in some of the mid-tier reliable sources we have. Therefore it can be connected to policy. Connor Behan (talk) 17:27, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, include at least a short paragraph describing the allegation, Biden's response, and at least some aspect of the public and media response (e.g. noted by Pudeo above). -Darouet (talk) 16:37, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes Limit to to about three sentences, describing the allegations and the Biden team's denial. There is no real concern over the sourcing per Davemoth's analysis here. As to WP:WEIGHT, as Current Affairs ([33]) and others have noted, this accusation fits into a pattern of allegations of inappropriate touching. It is not our place as editors to exclude the assault allegation simply because it appears to be a step up from what was reported in Apr 2019. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 22:59, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • • This editor again cites Davemoth's poorly based rationale for adding the content, which includes the false claim that a webshow hosted on the Hill website (by two cranks) is a RS. Current Affairs is an avowedly pro-Bernie Sanders website and has published a slew of downright embarrassing articles - not a RS or an indicator of notability. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:14, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Even discounting the webshow previously claimed to be hosted on The Hill, there is still Vox and "a slew" of other RS per Atsme. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 23:35, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Alyssa Milano has explained why Time's Up refused to fund Reade's claims.[34] She said the allegation was insufficient to launch an investigation and said that if the claims were credible then mainstream media would cover them. She pointed out that she had waited before publicly commenting on allegations against Harvey Weinstein and Brett Kavanaugh until they received substantial coverage. (I am using Fox News as a source for her comments because it is the only major news media to cover them.) If this article is to be fair and balanced, her comments should be included, as well as those who criticized her and her reactions to these criticisms. We can't just say that accusations have been made and denied, because it leaves the reader with no criteria with which to decide how credible the claims are. TFD (talk) 12:05, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • So, in other words, you don't think the allegation merits inclusion at all despite multiple WP:RS, but if included would require balancing with a celebrity's opinion because it aligns with your perspective? Zloyvolsheb (talk) 15:46, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, I am saying that if we decide a topic ignored in mainstream media (except Fox News) meets weight, then we have to provide the same weight to the topic as the alternative sources we use. And they all have cited Milano's interview as part of the story. Milano is treated in the media as a de facto spokesperson for "Time's Up." which was founded by celebrities. You will note that the Me Too movement arose after allegations of sexual assault against Hollywood executives. Hollywood employs celebrities. Milano originally coined the Me Too hashtag. It's important to understand what alternative media have written about the case and to have a general understanding of Me Too and Time's Up when deciding what should be in the article. TFD (talk) 04:18, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not personally a fan of Fox, but to be fair it is seen as "generally reliable" by the Wikipedia community per WP:RSP. So is The Times, also mainstream, among other sources. But speaking of Alyssa Milano and Fox, would you like to include Rose McGowan, who's also weighed in on Biden? [35] Zloyvolsheb (talk) 04:53, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • In the Intercept article it was explained clearly that Time’s Up told Tara they couldn’t help her because they feared loosing their tax exempt status. It’s not clear why Milano would make this up when anyone can prove her wrong in seconds.
        • From ‘’Law and Crime’’ “While we were engaged with her, we informed Ms. Reade that our 501(c)(3) precluded us from funding [public relations] and associated legal fees for her. That status mandates a strict and absolute prohibition on participating in electioneering or political campaign activity, and in this situation, we were dealing with the involvement of a candidate and close proximity to primary elections. Ms. Reade said she understood our position–and publicly confirmed this in an interview with Rising on March 26. Ms. Reade continued to engage with us in trying to find attorneys who might provide her assistance not contingent on our funding, until our conversation with her on March 2 after which we have not heard from her. We maintained then–as we do now–that we are willing to continue to try to find Ms. Reade legal assistance; we simply cannot fund any fees associated with that activity.” petrarchan47คุก 05:33, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • That's what they say but other sources say that was a cover. Following your paradigm, we need to publish all interpretations. And the story just got bigger as Rose McGowan called Milano a fraud. Meanwhile no mention whatsoever in ABC, CBS or NBC News or the New York Times or USA Today, although a brief mention was made in the Washington Post. TFD (talk) 23:57, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
            • What "other sources" are you considering RS for this ""cover" conspiracy?
            • Tara Reade today tweeted, Any attempt to say my case was not accepted in an effort to defame or smear me will not stand. I have 20 emails. Retract your defamatory statement immediately @Alyssa_Milano petrarchan47คุก 02:14, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes, one to two sentences should be suitable to cover the controversy. I know that this is already a big article, but this has been given plenty of mainstream media coverage and does deserve maybe two sentences. Worldlywise (talk) 16:26, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes, I believe a few sentences would be sufficient. However, do be wary as this is still a developing situation and although may be unrelated, an edit to Me_Too_movement should be looked at as well now that it seems to be gaining traction. Elli21486 (talk) 18:28, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes. This allegation has showed up in enough publications that I was surprised when I came to this article and found zero mention of it, even in the multi-paragraph "Controversies" section. Einsof (talk) 19:34, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Canvassing. A subreddit comprised largely of fringe kooks of one sort or another is directing people towards this RfC. The people on that subreddit generally have Wikipedia editing experience (usually Wikipedia editors who are disgruntled that content on Wikipedia doesn't reflect their warped views of the world), so there may be experienced accounts in this RfC who have been drawn here solely due to that reddit thread. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:23, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Assuming the speculation above is true, which ironically is in solid NOTAFORUM territory, it shouldn't make a difference outside of normal disruption housekeeping concerns. For the purposes of this RfC, it doesn't matter how many editors come to the page or whether you feel that their worldview is "warped." What matters is if Tara Reade's powerful story is covered in what Wikipedia believes to be reliable sources, which it is. As Muboshgu wisely pointed out today, RfC results aren't determined by a count of !votes from each side. There shouldn't have been an RfC or full page protection here for such a cut and dry content addition, but now that there is it should clearly have been wrapped up within days of its opening. 2600:1700:D281:27D0:190D:415B:22E4:83C0 (talk) 20:52, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Snooganssnoogans, which subreddit? I imagine the RfCs closing admin will want to know where comments (like the above) originated from. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:00, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh, I forgot to link to it: https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiInAction/comments/fuduz7/how_a_handful_of_media_outlets_shape_wikipedia/ Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:25, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  So fix it: Wikipedia:Centralized discussion. But beware of the Streisand effect. Calling them "fringe kooks of one sort or another" isn't very becoming of the Wikipedia ideal, which is to edit with a neutral mindset. Their opinions may not be mainstream, but they hardly seem crazy. And if we're not counting !votes, numbers shouldn't matter. wbm1058 (talk) 22:50, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Fixed - added to centralized discussion on April 8, 2020. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 18:55, 8 April 2020 (UTC) [reply]

  This is my first time coming across that subreddit, and ugh, it's existence is infuriating. Discussions about Wikipedia should take place on Wikipedia, where if you start to do something like canvassing, you can be held accountable. There's no accountability on that subreddit for posts like the linked one, and no way to tell how many of the !voters here were canvassed there. If we can identify the accounts posting there to reprimand them, or take other action to try to shut it down, we absolutely should. And regarding WP:CENT, this really shouldn't have to go there since it affects only a single article, not anything project-wide, but it may be necessary to clog it up now to combat the canvassing. (Or this discussion should just be closed, since it's had plenty of participation and there's little left unsaid.) ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 19:25, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  There are many, many places all over the Internet where discussion about Wikipedia is taking place. You could ask Reddit and other tech companies to "shut down" any speech involving this website, but I don't know how much success one would have. As others have stated, whether or not anyone was canvassed here is fairly irrelevant unless overt disruption is occurring. The reasons behind the votes is what the closer must weigh, which essentially comes down to: "Is Tara Reade's powerful story covered in The Reliable Sources?" This question of course has already been answered, so we're all just waiting for the RfC closure and subsequent unlocking of the page so that we can update the article. 2600:1700:D281:27D0:16E:24F:DC8B:C531 (talk) 20:48, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes. I disagree that we should not include controversies and allegations unless they have 'sufficient coverage'. I do not believe that political bias is the reason behind the lack of media coverage; it is likely because of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. Another allegation of sexual assault is simply not important enough to report on at this time. It is, however, notable enough to include as a brief entry on a public figure running for office. MassAffected (talk) 14:04, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• No, not yet, per the reasons provided by MelanieN and Neutrality. Aoi (青い) (talk) 14:13, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes a few sentences would be sufficient should be suitable to cover the controversy as it is sourced in the The Economist and The Guardian amongst others.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:46, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes It should definitely be included as it is being published by a variety of news sources and is surprising to see it not included on this page. A few sentences should suffice - no need for a large article on the subject. Also - the fact is that she is accusing him of sexual assault and his campaign has responded which makes it noteworthy enough to be included in this article. (NOTE - Multiple reliable sources have covered that his deputy campaign manager Kate Bedingfield has denied these claims - so although the allegation itself isn't documented well - it has been documented that his campaign has responded and denied the allegations. ^[1][2][3][4] - Must include per WP:BLPPUBLIC)willydrach^talk 18:06, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• You lost me when you cited The Daily Mail as a source. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:49, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  At this point it should be clear to any honest editor that Tara Reade's experience, along with those of the other 7-8 women who have come forward to share their highly credible allegations, should be documented in this article as well as a separate Joe Biden sexual assault allegations article. There are simply too many allegations of misconduct, covered in reliable sources, to ignore. I understand the administration's predicament. If an admin closes the RfC in favor of "include," they risk losing their liberal card and possibly even their admin powers as retaliation for not doing their part to help "defeat the most dangerous president in our history." If an admin closes the RfC in favor of "exclude," they lose all credibility and any pretense of this being a neutral, objective, non-partisan encyclopedia. It's a tough spot, but someone needs to step up. It's been over a week. 2600:1700:D281:27D0:74EB:63F2:9FA7:AD33 (talk) 18:57, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  While I do think the allegations are noteworthy and should be included in this article, I am not sure if I agree on the need for whole page on the subject. I do hope and trust that editors alike can put aside political bias and adjudicate this RfC accordingly based on WikiPedia rules for the benefit of the readers here. ^talk 9:59, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

  I hope so too, but I'm not holding my breath given precedent. Also I wasn't advocating for a separate page just for Tara Reade, rather all eight women. Bill Clinton sexual misconduct allegations was created with just four credible allegations. Brett Kavanaugh's sexual assault allegations isn't its own page, but there are 10(!) paragraphs devoted to Christine Ford's claim (for which there is no evidence or corroboration, which her best friend says is false and revealed that she was pressured by the FBI to falsely corroborate), and two other claims of which there is no evidence or corroboration that have their own paragraphs. Joe Biden has had eight women come forward, and many of the allegations are on videotape. The allegations should have their own article. It's just too much to ignore. 2600:1700:D281:27D0:74EB:63F2:9FA7:AD33 (talk) 00:54, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe after you get more experience than just editing this RfC you will realize that this in not how we do things here. We're not here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. - MrX 🖋 11:11, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not one of the sources you listed is acceptable for such material, and WP:BLPPUBLIC does not require us to include anything. WP:BLP has to be taken as a whole, and WP:DUEWEIGHT requires that we don't amplify something with sparse coverage. - MrX 🖋 11:11, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes I'm British and so have no partisan interest in this; I'm just here because it's listed at WP:CENT. The newspaper which I find most reliable and respectable is The Economist and they have some coverage of the matter. If we consider other recent high-profile cases such as Alex Salmond and George Pell, we see that the allegations are covered in their Wikipedia articles, even though they have both been acquitted. We already have a section about other similar allegations in Biden's article and so it seems reasonable to include a brief mention of this one too. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:59, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - If ya'll are waiting for CNN & MSNBC to cover this story? It's gonna be a long wait. GoodDay (talk) 22:22, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Long wait indeed. The story is now being covered by Britain's The Independent [36], Spanish TV Channel Antena 3 [37] and Czech Public Radio [38]. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 22:34, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• The article in The Independent is not "coverage" — it is a piece in the "arts and entertainment" section about one celebrity attacking another celebrity on Twitter for her support of Biden, and referencing the allegation in her tweet. That is what you're choosing to hang your hat on? Neutrality^talk 20:49, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I am choosing to hang my hat on the combined coverage across multiple sources: first and foremost would be sources like The Intercept, The Times, Vox, and Fox News - all sources which the community has accepted, and the additional coverage in dozens of other sources, which has now gone worldwide. Some of the additional coverage reflects the split among the Me Too figures Milano and McGowan over supporting Biden or Reade. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 21:31, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per User:petrarchan47. The plethora of RSs as demonstrated show that this is worthy of inclusion and is WP:DUE weight. Furthermore, it passes WP:REDFLAG as multiple RSs have described the topic in detail. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 00:42, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• No BLP says to use caution on stories that are this outlandish and still evolving. Wikipedia is also not a tabloid and this is still a questionable story. Also I see quite a few new accounts supporting its addition. That also raises more questions. ContentEditman (talk) 01:35, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I checked and didn't find more than 1-2 newish accounts on the Yes side. Really? Zloyvolsheb (talk) 03:06, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Not yet There is a reason why these allegations have not yet been reported in mainstream media - they have not been properly fact-checked. Until that happens they should not be mentioned in the article per BLP. P-K3 (talk) 11:08, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Most of the "yes" votes suggest "a very brief mention", "two or three sentences", etc. How can you mention in a biography of a living person that they were charged with a sexual assault very briefly in less than three sentences? You can't. I don't believe that this charge should be included until it has been investigated, which would result in extended coverage by all the major media outlets. If we decide to include it at this stage we must at least cover it with the full information that we have so far, not a couple of sentences. Gandydancer (talk) 13:45, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Which, BTW, makes it a Catch 22 in which by reporting it at length with a full recounting of what has transpired, we add weight to the charge and make it to seem to be a major episode in his life. ...best to leave it out for now and wait to see what develops, if anything. Gandydancer (talk) 13:58, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes At least something should be added as many news sources have begun to pick up the story. The intercept has a very good article covering why Times Up lawyers did not take the case. In a later update to the article, they claim to have reached out to Tara's brother and friend who confirmed that she did indeed relay the same events right after it happened in 1993.^[1]

(edit conflict) It already is a pretty big episode in his life. If my memory serves, supporters of then candidate Trump didn't think the salacious allegations against him warranted inclusion and the same for Kavanaugh during his appointment - but they were included, and separate articles were eventually created as more allegations were published. It's not about truth - it's about verifiability. And then there is perspective, which is why we have RfCs. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 16:11, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"It's about 'verifiability.'" — Well, no, it's also about WEIGHT. WP:V: "Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion." Neutrality^talk 20:46, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Not now, although Reliable Sources will surely further investigate this and probably have more to say in the future. We will almost certainly have a clearer picture by the time this RFC closes.
  Given the overwhelming level of coverage of Biden it is a redflag that almost none of them report it, and most of the coverage that does exist is mostly reporting that it is not being covered. They often giving good reasons why reputable sources are being cautious. Per BLP we have to be cautious. Our job is to determine whether RS say it belongs in a biography, and (so far) they are largely saying no. Alsee (talk) 15:53, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes. Just looking at UK sources because those are the ones I'm more familiar with, we have coverage in The Times, The Independent, The Guardian, and The Economist. All of these are absolutely mainstream sources, considered generally reliable, and they cover a variety of political positions. the wub "?!" 20:21, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• This is a distortion. These are, by and large, not "coverage" of the allegation. The Independent post is in the "arts and entertainment" section and about one celebrity attacking another celebrity on Twitter for her Biden support and referencing the allegation in her tweet. The Guardian post is a "Comment is Free" op-ed blog post. The Economist is a meta-piece opinion piece entitled "How to Weight an Allegation of Assault Against Joe Biden" that appears to be primarily mostly about media/political reaction, not the merits of the allegation. The Times of London mentions this allegation extremely briefly, it is not the focus of the article, nor is it mentioned in the first three paragraphs. This is basically cherry-picking. It is certainly insufficient to shoehorn a salacious claim into a BLP. Neutrality^talk 20:46, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• User:Neutrality Do you consider the various articles from Fox, DailyMail & The Huffington Post on his deputy campaign adviser responding to the comments "insufficient" as well? His campaign obviously took the time to address the allegation which is noteworthy.^[2][3][4][5] --willydrach^talk 22:13, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Those are low-quality sources (the Daily Mail has actually been formally deprecated), but even if they were "reliable" this would fail the UNDUE and BLP tests. Just because a claim is denied doesn't mean it is noteworthy. Neutrality^talk 22:20, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes per Davemoth and the wub.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 20:37, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes: Supported by multiple reliable sources. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Media blackout#Contemporary. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:44, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Is there a place where someone is keeping track of the reliable sources that have covered Tara Reade's brave decision to come forward and reveal her heartbreaking story of her experiences with Joe Biden? We have another one, that I haven't seen yet. The American Prospect wrote a piece detailing Reade's story, and the media's decision to largely ignore it.[39] The American Prospect, it should be noted, is not just a liberal news site - it describes its mission as "to advance liberal and progressive goals." In other words, their primary goal of the moment is to defeat Donald Trump. Yet they're still reporting it. I think we've exceeded a dozen reliable sources now. And this RfC is still open, and the page is still admin-only. Unfathomable. 2600:1700:D281:27D0:A488:2795:3925:B70B (talk) 05:27, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I think the list of sources is no longer being updated and newer ones are just scattered throughout the comments above. By the way, we now have two more. These are stories about the campaign and they still think Reade's allegation has enough weight. Connor Behan (talk) 19:04, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes - with the usual caveats it is notable, but any coverage we give needs to be due, and should not dwell on prurient content or allegations that are only there for the scandal value. Biographically this event is currently very minor, but as it evolves may become more significant and as such we then may expand the coverage. Koncorde (talk) 07:21, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes – The basic criteria of WP:BLPPUBLIC has been satisfied. We have multiple, major publications acknowledging that the allegations exist, and they are well-documented. Biden's camp has even responded with denial, which has also been reported. Both should be mentioned per the example given at this policy excerpt. Arguments against, which cite WP:EXCEPTIONAL, are misguided. This is not about the content behind the allegation or the likelihood that they're true/false. This is about the existence of allegations and their relevance to the subject, neither of which should be considered exceptional given the number of sources, both major and minor. It should also be taken into account the number of mainstream sources reporting on this outside of the US, some of which are even left-leaning (The Economist, The Guardian, etc.). The level of impartiality and objectivity from left-leaning, mainstream sources in the US could be compromised on the subject. After all, it's their leading presidential candidate. #WP:WORLDVIEW --GoneIn60 (talk) 08:50, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes But something does not feel right about the text. Its sources by I am unsure about the exact wording.Slatersteven (talk) 08:52, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Not yet Yes with rewrite Wait for WP:RS to cover it directly and not in op-eds. If there's something to this, reliable sources will follow. Let's give time to vet. Ratatosk Jones (talk) 10:48, 10 April 2020 (UTC) Good thing that we waited, since we now have reliable sourcing from the NYT. Obviously we can't use the text above (and we need to ditch weak sources like Newsweek and Heavy), and it needs to be rewritten in the light of the NYT article. Ratatosk Jones (talk) 05:39, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not in op-eds? They are abundant. Just to name a few: Newsweek, HuffPost, Vox, Current Affairs, International Business Times --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:22, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Not yet Echoing the concerns of Alsee. If it is to be included, we must be very careful not to give undue weight to it, and I think a preceding sentence would be necessary detailing a) the previous allegation, n) the Biden campaign's response, and c) that Alyssa Milano has given a response detailing why Times Up did not take the case forward. However, first and foremost I urge caution, a principal we must follow on such topics with WP:BLP. I also worry about the effect of this RfC being directly linked in a popular subreddit, as Snooganssnoogans noted. Domeditrix (talk) 11:35, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes There are reliable sources (listed by others above) reporting on this. Some1 (talk) 21:39, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes its no different than the allegations that are on trump's page, and others. as stated above, the sources need to be better than the ones in the post and there are others posted above. hes the presumptive democratic nominee, the allegations are public, are newsworthy, but his response definitely must be included as well. ToeFungii (talk) 06:22, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Business Insider has run a story regarding the newly filed criminal complaint here. Surely a criminal complaint against a presidential nominee is notable. Mr Ernie (talk) 10:46, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I saw this article also. For me, this elevates the matter into the same realm as the Stormy Daniels story with Trump. I'm still opposed to inclusion because of the lack of coverage in the more mainstream sources, but it has now reached the point where I find the lack of coverage somewhat perplexing. I can only conclude it's because of a lack of credibility, but I feel we're already past the point where that should matter. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:38, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In no shape or form is Tara Reade's brave decision to come forward and reveal her harrowing experience "in the same realm" as two consenting adults having an encounter (which Trump denies even happened). Really disturbing that in 2020, someone would view sexual assault as suddenly "being elevated into the same realm" to consensual sex, but only after the victim files a criminal complaint. And no, it's not because of a "lack of credibility" that the pro-Biden media has largely ignored the story. It's because they're pro-Biden, as numerous editors have explained to you here. 2600:1700:D281:27D0:748C:E7F1:4144:831C (talk) 15:37, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Being in the "same realm" policywise is different from being in the same realm morally. Please WP:AGF. Connor Behan (talk) 15:58, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Mr. Ernie "criminal complaints" are filed all the time. This is not an indictment, just somebody taking her apparently non-notable grievance to the cops. Your "surely notable" opinion is Original Research and irrelevant. SPECIFICO talk 14:30, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Criminal complaints are filed against presidential nominees and written up in Business Insider all the time? Connor Behan (talk) 15:58, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think there's already consensus that publication in Business Insider doesn't meet the bar for automatic inclusion in the article. SPECIFICO talk 20:09, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I specifically asked about Business Insider at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Media blackout#Contemporary and the consensus at the relkiable sources noticeboard was that it was not reliable. It's worth reading that discussion to see what sources were considered reliable. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:10, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with User:Scjessey and User:SPECIFICO. We need better sources other than Newsweek, Daily Mail and Business Insider which are not the most reliable. This is a breaking news story. We should use caution in what we include. At a minimum we should at least have reliable reporting that MPD has acknowledged that a complaint has been received. Since the Statue of Limitations expired over 12 years ago on the alleged incident, which Ms. Reade has acknowledged, what purpose is served in filing a report? IMO we should wait and see what develops on this. CBS527^Talk 16:09, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes, with caveats: As much as I would prefer, above all else, coverage in the major United States newspapers, the criminal complaint and the overall weight of the sources (including British ones, but also The Hill, Current Affairs, etc.) altogether necessitate my vote for inclusion at this time. Naturally, we must be exceptionally careful about how we describe this claim; and a few sentences, at most, should be enough to detail it. — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 19:00, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

From the New York Times, this morning: "Examining Tara Reade’s Sexual Assault Allegation Against Joe Biden" — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 14:52, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes per above. The story has been reported in several RS. Davey2116 (talk) 21:27, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes – multiple quality RSes have now reported on this, eg NYT, Economist. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 22:09, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes At first I was hesitant and had intended to vote no, as it hadn't been covered widely. But its now been picked up by the "big boys", like the NYTimes. I read their piece on it, and its clear that they did some exceptional journalism. We have the best sources talking about it, time to follow their lead. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:55, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes agree with what levivich said, multiple high quality sources like the NYT, Economist, NBC newsWashington Post etc. have reported this. This is also a public figure.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 21:55, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes. NYT and many other reliable sources have reported this. I would modify the proposed language by adding the recent NYT article as a source for the claims. Mdaniels5757 (talk) 21:49, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed closure

• Proposed Closure At the moment, this RFC has been open 10 day and is over 20,000 words. Since the issue is a contentious one it will require an excessive amount of time for a single closer. I propose that we request a multiple, non-involved administrator close. Thoughts? CBS527^Talk 17:08, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  RfCs usually run a lot longer than just 10 days. Typically they run at least twice as long as that, and often as long as a month. Given that we apparently have a canvassing issue with an off-wiki website, it would be prudent to let this run a bit longer. Fortunately, we are in no hurry. Wikipedia is not a news website and with something so controversial, we can afford to let everyone have their say. It will also give time for some of the more respected mainstream media sources to have a chance to weigh in. Now that Biden is the presumptive nominee of the Democratic Party and all eyes will be upon him, the abundance of coverage (or lack thereof) will likely decide this issue anyway. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:53, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  What was the amount of time between Christine Ford's evidence-free accusation was pushed out by the media and the first of ten detailed paragraphs were written in Brett Kavanaugh's biography? Was it more than an hour? I don't think it was more than an hour. I think it was less than an hour. No "admin-only" page protection either, after a cursory review of the edit history. 2600:1700:D281:27D0:A488:2795:3925:B70B (talk) 05:21, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  SPA says what? -- Scjessey (talk) 11:40, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Huh. You didn't provide the amount of time that had elapsed. That's odd. I thought for sure you would know the answer. Either way, you get the point. 2600:1700:D281:27D0:A488:2795:3925:B70B (talk) 14:32, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  14 September 2018 (no time listed) Accusation published in The New Yorker. [40]

  18:57, 14 September 2018 Accusation added to Brett Kavanaugh page.[41]

  If anyone can figure out the exact time the New Yorker published, please post it. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:36, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  The New Yorker allegation was reported by AP, picked up by the Guardian(19:14 BST),[42] CNBC (11:50 AM EST)[43] the New York Times,[44] Vox,[11:60am EDT)[45] BBC[46], CNN (Updated 4:10 PM ET,[47] USA Today (1:45 pm ET)[48] - and that's just the first page of a google search for Sept. 14.[49] The sexual assualt allegations were added to Kavanaugh's page at 18:47 UTC (2:47 pm EDT),[50] So the story was not added to the Wikipedia article until it had been widely reported in major media. I would have objected to including the story had it not been reported in major media. TFD (talk) 18:19, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  So in other words, the same day. We've had mainstream sources for two weeks (noted near the end of the discussion section above if you need some examples), and yet sourcing is still being brought up as a potential obstacle to inclusion. I understand that updating the source list at the beginning of the RfC isn't ideal, but perhaps we need to create a new "Source" section below, where a complete list of the most significant can be compiled for all to see at quick glance. Such a list should exclude tabloid and questionable sources, of which too many have snuck into this discussion so far. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:42, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  GoneIn60, the difference is that the Biden allegations were virtually ignored by mainstream media although they reported the Kavanaugh ones the same day. An editor was trying to show that Wikipedia editors had added the information to the Kavanaugh article before it hit mainstream news (i.e., when it had only appeared in the New Yorker.) In fact it had already been covered by them. My point was that if it had been ingnoreded by ABC, CBS, CNN, NBC/MSNBC, the New York Times, USAToday, the Washington Post and most other legacy media, I would not have supported inclusion. I have in fact made the same arguments in articles about Donald Trump, Tulsi Gabbard, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren and many other subjects. TFD (talk) 20:46, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • The arguments presented bring up a major dispute in the interpretation of policy. Can something that has been covered in alternative media but has virtually no coverage in mainline media be considered to have received substantial coverage in the body of sources? In the past this has not been a major problem because generally the coverage has come from conservative sources, but this story has been covered in alternative progressive media as well. So for example we would not have added to Obama's article accusations that he was a socialist, not an American citizen, Muslim terrorist until mainstream media had paid attention to them and we had informed opinion about their credibility. So it might be helpful to get a clarification of how weight applies to this type of situation first. TFD (talk) 19:54, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm still monitoring this page, and I'm willing to close it or help close it when the time comes. I think a team close would be a good idea, but it doesn't look like there's a clear consensus yet so I would prefer to let the RfC run longer, especially given the points TFD brings up about wider policy considerations. — Wug·a·po·des​ 20:32, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would support a team close with non-involved, experienced admins, known to be apolitical and ideally from outside the U.S. I was thinking of people such as Thryduulf, who served on ArbCom. This is highly contentious, and I think not a good fit for newer admins (but what do I know?).

  TFD includes a misstatement in his assessment above. "virtually no coverage in mainline media" is provably false. It would be more accurate to say that about U.S. media, specifically. (But it's already on Fox cable news.) petrarchan47คุก 21:16, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  The word "virtually" means "almost entirely: NEARLY" (Merrian-Webster).[51] While Fox covered the story, the other four major networks - ABC, CBS, CNN, NBC/MSNBC - did not. At issue is whether something that appears only in Fox could be said to be covered in the body of cable news coverage. That's important because there are lots of stories that are only covered in Fox News. I would like to preemptively state that this is not an issue of reliability, but of weight. Fox News is a reliable source, per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. 03:32, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

  So, only U.S. media counts? Is it possible in your view for these outlets to be partisan? I think consensus holds that Fox supports Republicans, but I see very little acknowledgement on this TP that the "other four major networks" have any bias whatsoever. I also see no acknowledgement that, as RS has put forth, COVID19 coverage is to blame (whilst none of them suggest the story is unworthy of coverage in any way). So, during the wall-to-wall coverage of the virus, "weight" is less applicable. petrarchan47คุก 22:32, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm happy to be part of team closing this, but only when it is ready for closure and I see no immediately obvious reason to close it early. I wont be paying close attention to this page though, so please ping me again at the time if you still want my input. Thryduulf (talk) 21:43, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  This is most appreciated. I don't believe there is any consensus for closing it now; I understood this section to be focused on who and how it would be closed. The argument that it's getting too long or involved, and should be closed for that reason, is not upheld by policy AFAIK. 22:56, 9 April 2020 (UTC) Upon re-read, OP is not suggesting we close early, only that this requires a team. Struck. petrarchan47คุก 23:05, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is that a joke? There has been overwhelming consensus to include the allegations for roughly a week. No team is necessary. One admin can and should close this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1012:B142:18D3:D120:889F:B8EC:10F4 (talk) 21:47, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm ok with closing it now and having a current/prior Arb close it. The trust level doesn't get any higher than ArbCom...even if/when I don't agree with them all of the time. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 22:09, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Snow Close. By my count, the RfC is currently 47 "Yes", 19 "No" or "Not Yet". The RfC has been open for 10 days, and there were 17 comments in the last 24 hours. I say wait until at least 14 days and fewer than 3 comments in the previous 24 hours. I Support Admin Closure, preferably more than one admin, simply because this is so likely to be appealed otherwise. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:24, 10 April 2020 (UTC) Changed per [52] --Guy Macon (talk) 15:59, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Now at 50 "Yes", 21 "No" or "Not Yet". --Guy Macon (talk) 16:01, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  @Guy Macon: This is irrelevant. With so few mainstream reliable sources to rely on and the current reliance of poor quality sources and opinion pieces, the weight of argument is more than enough to trump the weight of numbers. Coupled with the off-site canvassing on anti-Biden forums, we need WAY more time for this to play out. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:31, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Scjessey, I agree with you on the strength of numbers vs strength of argument. For me, I have not seen any definition for "mainstream" in any WP Policy or Guideline. Are you aware of any definition or precedent that? To me this just seems that many of the No voters are cherry picking what RS sources they want to consider. As a Biden supporter I would be happy to change my vote to No if this was covered somehow when the policy was defined (or later).--Davemoth (talk) 21:27, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  @Davemoth: It's subjective. I've looked at all the sources listed here, and three things bother me:

  1. None of the "regular" US reliable sources are included. For example, MSNBC/NBC, CBS, ABC, NPR, NYT, LAT, Chronicle, Trib et al. I don't buy this bullshit that they are focused on the virus, because we are talking about the presumptive nominee for the presidency.
  2. The sources we do have a mostly of low quality, and for a variety of reasons. They are largely opinion pieces, or stories written by pro-Trump or pro-Sanders people, or simply repeat what was originally run (like news aggregators), or are only writing about it because it sounds sensationalist. Many editors here are talking up these sources as if they are high quality, but they just aren't.
  3. The convention on BLPs (and no, it is not written into any policy I'm aware of) is for controversial content to only be included if it is well sourced in a preponderance of reliable sources, and yet this is absolutely not the case. You'd expect to see it in several of the sources I listed as examples in my first point.

  I'm also deeply bothered by the off-site canvassing, which is entirely anti-Biden, so is completely skewing the RfC in favor of inclusion. This whole thing stinks, frankly. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:16, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  For the nth time, RfC's aren't simple vote tallies. There's nothing to "skew." If the closing admin finds that Tara Reade's heartbreaking story is printed in reliable sources, which it is, then that admin will unlock the page and allow us to update the article. If not, then the RfC is closed and Tara Reade's story gets swept under the rug. This idea that "Oh well they're talking about Wikipedia on some other website, so we should take that into account" just rings hollow. These continued attempts to influence closing admins by muddying the water with "canvassing" allegations, well-founded or not, are disruptive. 2600:1700:D281:27D0:A488:2795:3925:B70B (talk) 00:38, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm an experienced closer. You are definitely wrong - it is absolutely appropriate to raise concerns and evidence of canvassing for the closer's attention. WP:CANVASSING is one of Wikipedia's official WP:Policies and guidelines. One memorable RFC I closed had a vote tally of 10 vs 20. Almost all of the 20 votes had been canvassed, and I found a clear and overwhelming consensus in favor of the 10. The fact that this RFC was canvassed in favor of including the content actually makes it more likely for the content to be excluded. If the degree and effect of canvassing is unclear the closer may have to issue a No Consensus result. That would exclude the content, unless and until non-corrupted discussion reached a consensus to include. Alsee (talk) 13:18, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose close for now. Scjessey makes a good point. Given the issues with off-site linking, the relatively short duration (even if it has attracted a lot of attention) and the lack of a clear consensus, I'd propose waiting a few more days to give other experienced editors the opportunity to weigh in. It's still clearly attracting a lot of attention—12 new responses in the last 24 hours alone—there's absolutely no harm in letting it ride. Domeditrix (talk) 11:57, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose early close - This is still an active thread with additional editors continuing to arrive. It should run at least a month and then let's see whether the new particpation has run its course. I don't think it's helpful to post vote numbers as if this were going to be the measure of consensus. There are an awful lot of SPA's, collinear opinions ("yes per XYZ") and arguments against policy. Vote counts are irrelevant. SPECIFICO talk 16:22, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose close - I agree with the above, there is no rush to close this RfC. I say let it run the full course of a month as normal (so 20 more days should be sufficient) willydrach^talk 17:02, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Early Close Now that this has been by the New York Times, The Washington Post, NBC & AP I see no reason to keep this RfC open. This has been covered by numerous RS and there is no reason to debate this any further, as the reliability of previous sources was a concern with including this piece earlier. willydrach^talk 20:41, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose close - Should run for 30 days. We don't snow close BLP stuff, especially given the issues of canvassing (a notably non-zero number of !votes from IPs or from accounts with very few edits and/or making their first edit for a significant time). Black Kite (talk) 18:51, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Team Close - More Yes or No votes are not changing the strength of the arguments. And support it soon. The policy is basically boiled down to "multiple mainstream sources" need to have reported on the allegations. As far as I can tell, this is not defined in any WP Policy or Guideline. It doesn't matter if the RfC has votes that are even, 2-1, 3-1, or 4-1 in favor of inclusion because it is not a popularity contest. Instead it is a question of the strength of the arguments. The question for the closing team comes down to: Do sources (that per WP:RSP have consensus as Generally Reliable for American Politics and/or BLP) such as Vox, The Intercept, etc. count as mainstream sources? If the answer is No, then the closing team should define what sources count so that if we get multiple of those something should be included.--Davemoth (talk) 19:57, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, but now there is a criminal complaint which changes the tenor of the issue - The lady has filed a formal criminal complaint with the DC police, so including the item should be proforma now. There's greater coverage now of this issue. ToeFungii (talk) 08:04, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  You are incorrect. I just checked and all of the sources for that are unreliable; Daily Caller, Daily Mail, Sun, WND., etc. Per WP:V and WP:RS You need to wait until you see it in a reliable source like The Guardian, The Intercept, The Los Angeles Times, etc. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:56, 11 April 2020 (UTC) Changed per [53] --Guy Macon (talk) 16:01, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, now that The New York Times has reported on Tara Reade, I think we have consensus to include. Kolya Butternut (talk) 10:41, 12 April 2020 (UTC) Now consensus is clear; Support. The only objection was that there may be an objection. There hasn't been one today, and all objections in the !votes above have been addressed. Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:29, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I have changed my vote from “Not now” to “Yes” now that this story is on the front page of The New York Times. I make a motion to close this RFC, include the allegation in the article, and to reduce the protection level for this page. Samboy (talk) 12:03, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support early closure. The story is now in The New York Times, so it has become notable enough to include in Biden’s biography. Like other reporting of the story, The New York Times is very skeptical of the claim: None of the other women who made claims of inappropriate touching said that Biden committed sexual assault against them; none of Reade’s then co-workers recall anything even hinting at sexual abuse by Biden; and co-workers who Reade claimed to talk to about her discomfort (if not the alledged assault) do not even remember Ms. Reade. But this is not a discussion of how to describe the allegation; this is merely a discussion about whether to include it at all; with it being in The New York Times, the answer is an unqualified “yes”. Samboy (talk) 12:13, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no consensus to do anything. The NYT actually did the most investigation to date into Reade's  allegation. The Times concluded:

The Times began reporting on her account and seeking corroboration through interviews, documents and other sources. The Times interviewed Ms. Reade on multiple days over hours, as well as those she told about Mr. Biden’s behavior and other friends. The Times has also interviewed lawyers who spoke to Ms. Reade about her allegation; nearly two dozen people who worked with Mr. Biden during the early 1990s, including many who worked with Ms. Reade; and the other seven women who criticized Mr. Biden last year, to discuss their experiences with him. No other allegation about sexual assault surfaced in the course of reporting, nor did any former Biden staff members corroborate any details of Ms. Reade’s allegation. The Times found no pattern of sexual misconduct by Mr. Biden, beyond the hugs, kisses and touching that women previously said made them uncomfortable.

The discrepancies and contradictions in her story have been reported not only by NYT but Fox, Vox, etc. I have no doubt there will be more reporting forthcoming on this story and we should wait to see what comes out before this is closed.  CBS527^Talk 13:51, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have "no doubt" that more reporting is forthcoming but believe "we should wait". This is interesting. This RfC is simply about mentioning the allegation, not necessarily digging into its details and validity. Wikipedia is not an investigative wing of journalism. To wait further ignores the RfC's purpose and all the "No" and "Not yet" votes above that are based on the absence of an NYT or LAT mention, which we clearly have now. The SNOW will surely become an AVALANCHE. Let's not complicate it or move the goal posts. --GoneIn60 (talk) 14:24, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• We don't wait for the conclusion of an investigation to report on a case; the NYT is not doing the investigation, it would be done by the D.C. Police. petrarchan47คุก 18:52, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support early closure: The unofficial newspaper of record has reported on it; notability is now clearly established, regardless of the veracity of the allegations at hand. As Samboy correctly notes: 'this is not a discussion of how to describe the allegation; this is merely a discussion about whether to include it at all; with it being in The New York Times, the answer is an unqualified “yes”.' I concur. — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 14:55, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Noting that the New York Times was not necessary for inclusion, and it concerns me that it would even be considered so. They are simply another news source per WP:NEWSORG which is what helps determine what gets included in WP. There are plenty of 3rd party RS cited above that have published the allegation; however, I agree that it's time to close this RfC and has been for a while now. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 15:35, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

100% agree with Atsme, The New York Times was not necessary for inclusion, and it concerns that it would even be considered so. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 16:55, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:41, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It’s not a question of the NYT per se as much as it’s a question of it being reported in tier-one media sources. I would had done the same thing if it was in The Wall Street Journal, in The Washington Post, or even on the front page of CNN. The fact that a writer for the notorious Chapo Trap house (NYT link) as well as Donald Trump don’t like the NYT means they are doing something right. Samboy (talk) 19:06, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's unsettling to watch the NYT hold so much sway over this encyclopedia. They waited 2.5 weeks to report on this story and should be lambasted, not honored with the power to determine when we are allowed to mention it. As I stated in my !Vote, the NYT was caught lying in a way that exonerated Bill Clinton and smeared the accuser during the Epstein reporting. Worse, it did not correct the piece after alerted by Newslinger. Their Reade coverage has problems too. They've already whitewashed it. Note the caveat "beyond" has been removed altogether:

This No other allegation about sexual assault surfaced in the course of reporting, nor did any former Biden staff members corroborate any details of Ms. Reade’s allegation. The Times found no pattern of sexual misconduct by Mr. Biden, beyond the hugs, kisses and touching that women previously said made them uncomfortable.*

Now reads No other allegation about sexual assault surfaced in the course of reporting, nor did any former Biden staff members corroborate any details of Ms. Reade’s allegation. The Times found no pattern of sexual misconduct by Mr. Biden.*

They also falsely claim no former staff members corroborate any part of Reade's story, yet they also say (quoting Ryan Grim), "Tara Reade said that in retaliation for her complaint, she was moved off of managing interns. The Times found the interns, and they confirmed she suddenly stopped overseeing them". petrarchan47คุก 18:52, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No original research please WP:NOTAFORUM Excuse me, but The New York Times is more reliable than the thoughts of random Wikipedia editors. There are a lot of possible reasons why they decided to reassign Reade 27 years ago. Samboy (talk) 19:12, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It can be closed at any time as long as enough comment has been received that consensus is reached, or until it is apparent it won't be per Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Duration. The 30 days limit is just when Legobot assumes the discussion has been forgotten. No need to wait for that. --Pudeo (talk) 15:41, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose early closure - People are still commenting and a new source has been cited. We can wait until the discussion becomes idle for at least a few days, or 30 days as per standard practice. - MrX 🖋 15:58, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support early closure - by my count, we have a 3 to 1 ratio of Yes votes. Wikipedia is not a democracy, however we seem to have a strong consensus that this information should be included. People opposed to inclusion keep repeating the same argument about how major sources haven't mentioned this. But they have (NYT being a notable example), so this point is moot. It is unclear what would satisfy such people, and hence it's slowly becoming a situation that's getting close to being WP:CENSOR, which is a bad look. BeŻet (talk) 17:02, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Absolutely not. The story in the NYT appears to strongly suggest Ms. Reade's allegation is likely false, in which case adding this to the article would be unfair to Joe Biden in that it would unreasonably associate him with an assault that likely didn't happen. It's stunning that editors here are claiming the NYT story somehow vindicates a disturbing and relentless push to shove this material into the article. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:20, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  We are not stating whether the assault happened, but whether the accusation has happened. I don't care what NYT think about it, of course they will be defending Biden. It's stunning that a minority of editors here wants to censor this information. BeŻet (talk) 12:01, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We are simply stating the the allegation was made, a report was filed, and Biden's team responded. petrarchan47คุก 18:58, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support early closure per BeŻet. The fact that the NYT has now dedicated an article to the controversy only reinforces that it should be mentioned with due weight in the article. If they say the allegations are false, that should be the focus of the final prose. We should also acknowledge that most of the votes against including Reade's allegation were based on arguments that outlets like the NYT had yet to report on it. UpdateNerd (talk) 18:23, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support close our job isn't to adjudicate the case but to report. Many RS have reported on the case and it's just our job to report if the RS reports it, with Biden's denial. As time goes on, if there is more information, we can include it. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:29, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support close Given that most "no" votes have been satisfied as per above. petrarchan47คุก 18:58, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment regarding the new NYT piece. I agree that it's not some seismic event that two NYT employees, Lisa Lerer and Sydney Ember, decided to publish an article on their WordPress website. Carlos Slim doesn't own Wikipedia, and he shouldn't get to dictate what's written here and what's not. I appreciate that some of those who voted against inclusion are now changing their votes, but "my favorite website/TV station is now talking about it" is probably the worst possible reason. What's more, the main purpose of the NYT article is to try to discredit Reade and cover for Biden. Angry liberals also have immense sway over what is or isn't said in their articles - they've already gotten them to shut up about Biden's unwanted "hugs, kissing, and touching"[54], and this isn't the first time that The Times changed their story at the behest of Twitter: [55], [56]. It's very dangerous to allow one media corporation have such an immense control over Wikipedia, especially when the corporation is only trusted by one political party and ideological persuasion. 2600:1700:D281:27D0:2C42:DCA4:F0C6:C463 (talk) 20:14, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, this is a massive cover-up on the part of the corporate leftist media elite. I mean, you did cite Mediaite, so I guess we're done here. - MrX 🖋 20:47, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, I would never insinuate that the media would try to influence politics with their coverage. I think we can all agree that media companies are our friends, and their employees are objective, non-partisan, and just want to give us the facts. Here's the link to a few of New York Times' own tweets, since you don't trust the ferociously left-wing Mediaite website: [57][58]. 2600:1700:D281:27D0:D976:4355:8684:E49A (talk) 20:53, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support early closure – The New York Times article means that the dam has broken on this story. There is no concern of undue weight anymore. There is no reason to wait longer. Consensus is clear. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 00:37, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support early closure not because I think that Wikipedia has a policy to not include material if the NYT doesn't cover it, but because that's the essence of many of the no !votes which pretty much made that exact argument. What I don't see is any chance that a couple of thousand more words will change the result. So, do we have a team of uninvolved and experienced closers ready to evaluate the consensus? The closing comments should be carefully crafted, because there are certain to be bitter complaints no matter which way it goes.   :(   -Guy Macon (talk) 01:50, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• It's on the front page of the New York Times and the Washington Post, which settles it. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 05:38, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I kind of agree with this now, although the proposed text is unacceptable. Better coverage in higher quality sources with proper (rather than sensationalist) reporting has rather exceeded the need for the RfC now. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:58, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - It's even on MSNBC now. BeŻet (talk) 16:00, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Its everywhere now, so we better get our ass going. Now, we're talking about early closure, but do we have some closers? Perhaps put a note on WP:AN to ask for a quick team close? Putting it on the closure request board is not gonna be fast enough, things go there to die. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:02, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]