The sexual assault allegation section violates WP:BLPBALANCE against Tara Reade. There is only text from the NYTimes in Biden's favor, such as "[no] former Biden staff members corroborate any details of Ms. Reade's allegation",[1] but there is no mention of the other half of the story by the NYTimes which is in Reade's favor: "Several of Ms. Reade’s friends have said she told them about a traumatic sexual incident involving Mr. Biden."[2] Until some balance can be achieved, this non-consensus edit-warred( [3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15]) text should be removed. I've been working on finding text to balance out the section at Talk:Joe Biden#Reade's story corroborators, but for now at least the NYTimes text should be removed. Kolya Butternut (talk) 12:55, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

• Note: this section heading is now void any mention of assault. Whitewashing at its finest. petrarchan47คุก 21:40, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

There's a different between corroborating details of anyone else who happened to be in the same general offices at the time of said allegations to see how details from Ms. Reade's story matched up, and Ms. Reade saying that she told friends about the incidents. Those are not "corroborators" at least to the events of the alleged charges, only "corroborators" to the point that Ms. Reade was making allegations at that time (eg that some have said she's only bringing up these allegations now in the election cycle) That is Ms. Reade's friends corroborate that she did raise allegations issues then, but they are not the corroborates as to the specific incidents of what is being allegated. It's an apples v oranges thing here in terms of arguing BLP balance here. There would be a problem if there was a reliable source (outside Ms. Reade) who corroborated the details of her allegations and WP editors were purposely omitting it. My read of the story is that this does not exist. --Masem (t) 13:24, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Kolya Butternut, balance does not mean the average between high quality sources and tabloids. Biden has authorised release of all relevant material from the official records, which indicates to me a degree of confidence that the underlying facts are as stated: no complaint matching these specifics was made at the time. It is right and proper that we follow the heavyweight media in treating this with enormous caution, and to date the NYT's statement appears to be the most comprehensive and analytical in the mainstream media.

Remember, Wikipedia is not a newspaper. We will often lag behind a developing story. This is by design: the cutting edge of reporting is vulnerable to errors. I suggest you follow Ronan Farrow on the Twitters, though - if he says it's true, that would be a watershed. Guy (help!) 13:30, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Tabloids? My three proposals I linked to are all sourced to the NYTs and WaPo. It doesn't matter what type of corroboration it is, the type of corroboration that Reade's friends have given is what the sources have all been talking about which they say gives her story more credibility. RS decide what's important. Kolya Butternut (talk) 13:57, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes it does matter. Her friends cannot collaborate what happened in the offices, they have no knowledge of that, only that Ms. Reade told them of the allegations she's making now, back then. You're asking about balance, and if the point of balance is to find the challenge to the NYTimes' statement "no one at the office corroborates Ms. Reade's allegations", its certainly not her friends that can counter that because they weren't there. I am sure that there are other media bodies beyond the NYTimes looking into this themselves to get a third opinion, given that there concern of collusion of the Times with Biden's campaign, and assuming that comes from an RS, we'll likely add it whether it agrees or condradicts the Times' statement. --Masem (t) 14:10, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Biden's coworkers cannot corroborate what did or did not happen in a basement corridor while Biden and Reade were alone. I just said the evidence in Reade's favor is sourced to the NYTimes! It is WP:OR for us to decide which evidence is more important. Read about sexual abuse trials; look back to Christine Blasey Ford, but most importantly, read the RS which are reporting on this story. Kolya Butternut (talk) 14:19, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

They can confirm other aspects that were more visible: who else would have been around, office layouts, routines, behaviors, roles, if others experienced the same from Mr. Biden, etc. I don't have any idea what exactly the NYTimes asked but this is what I would take to mean corroborating the story as to see how many of Ms. Reade's details line up with details of those that worked there, which is far more information than Ms. Reade's friends could have. So far, only the NYTimes has done this analysis, and as I noted, I'd expect a second or third media source to be doing the same (checking the story with the former staff) given how big this could be if the allegations are true. But only the NYtimes has done the closest corroboration at this point, so that's the only one that should be included. --Masem (t) 14:31, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

It sounds like you don't have any idea what's in the NYTimes story. Kolya Butternut (talk) 14:34, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Given that the Times states "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." before drawing its conclusions (my bold), I would assume this would include the friends that are in question above, so their point is actually included in the Times' conclusion. Now, I'm fully aware there's question of Times' impartialness at play here due to one change they made early on in reporting this story, and I would agree as an editor that I'd like to see at least one more source also do their own evaluation to add to the Times, but we don't have that yet from any other RS, and until we do, the Times is an RS that we can't throw doubt at outside of adding the attributed statement as currently present in the article. You're basically asking for balance where sources don't exist to make it any more balanced, yet. --Masem (t) 14:48, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

As an act of good faith, I would suggest Steelmanning rather than (perhaps due to carelessness) misrepresenting the sources. You haven't heard me deprecate the NYTimes here, on the contrary, I have said that my proposals cite the NYTimes. You have left out everything else the NYTimes says; you have ignored my mention of WaPo which has done their own extensive investigation; you are ignoring the many other RS which have also investigated. You haven't given weight to the NYTimes quote in my first comment: "Several of Ms. Reade’s friends have said she told them about a traumatic sexual incident involving Mr. Biden", and everything I've cited at Talk:Joe Biden#Reade's story corroborators. You have ignored that the NYTimes found that two interns corroborated that Reade abruptly stopped supervising them in April 1993. When it comes to controversial BLP text, you must steelman the argument which prevents a potential BLP violation. It's probably best to let others weight in because we're not having a productive discussion, but you could revert the edit-warred non-consensus text. Kolya Butternut (talk) 15:37, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Honestly, I believe you are seeing this from the side of being a BLP violation w.r.t. to Reade, but at this point she is not a notable individual (even with coverage of these accusations), and we still have to deal with the BLP issues around Biden, who is a notable individual. This is not at all to dismiss anything about Reade as unimportant, but that the weight of how we succinctly cover the overall situation, given that there's a separate article on it (though I have my own reservations on that, but that's a different matter). We're giving fair time to address that Ms. Reade made an accusation and what it was, that Biden and his campaign denied it, and at this point, the only third party the NYTimes has reviewed via interviews the relevant parties to determine there is no corroborating evidence to support the accusation. To get into the details, that Reade told her friends (which is part of the NYtimes story) is too much details, but its omission is not a BLP issue against Reade as it not misrepresenting Reade's story; the language in the section on Biden's article doesn't bring up the question of whether Reade mentioned those at the time at all. In as far as what RSes have said about this, we have have a section that appears to balance the BLP concerns for Biden and those of Reade. --Masem (t) 16:25, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

I think you have that reversed; it is people who are WP:NOTPUBLICFIGUREs who require more protection. You have not addressed that the text I am asking to be removed has zero consensus. If your concern is that without the existing NYTimes text there would be a BLP violation against Biden, then I suggest you remove the entire story about Tara Reade. Kolya Butternut (talk) 16:36, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Masem, I was not being rhetorial; please remove the Tara Reade story. There is no hurry to include this story if we do not have consensus. The only thing we can do right now is remove everything and hash it all out later; what we have now is a violation of WP:CONSENSUS (and in my opinion a clearly unacceptable WP:BLPBALANCE violation against someone who is WP:NOTAPUBLICFIGURE). Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:59, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Tara Reade is now a public figure. See Wikipedia:Who is a low-profile individual: "Persons who actively seek out media attention are not low-profile, regardless of whether or not they are notable." – Muboshgu (talk) 20:07, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Muboshgu, do you agree the text in my initial comment which I provide edit-warring diffs for is indeed non-consensus? If so would you revert it? Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:02, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Kolya Butternut, the text from NYT? I can say there is opposition to it, I can't say whether there is consensus or not. Consensus doesn't require unanimity. Someone else should judge if there is consensus, I'm too involved. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:12, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Muboshgu, is there an administrator you can recommend? Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:15, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Kolya Butternut, I think Masem is excellent, MelanieN too but I think she may be INVOLVED also. El C, Bradv, 331dot, Jayron32 and Drmies are a few more who know their stuff. Is there a full roster of all of us? If not, there should be. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:10, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Ah there are lists. Wikipedia:List of administrators/Active. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:12, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Ad Orientem is a strong admin who is politically conservative (I believe, correct me if I'm wrong). – Muboshgu (talk) 23:14, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

@Muboshgu: Meh. My politics were conservative in the middle of the 18th century. Regards the modern world I am largely apolitical. To the extent I pay attention to the politics of the moment it is usually for the comedy. Beyond which, I think there are enough cooks in this particular kitchen. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:25, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Ad Orientem, do you still believe in the individual's right to property? And what kind of res can fall under property? Let's hash that out, 18th-c style. Muboshgu, I'm always ready for a good BLP scandal, but this one, I don't know. Drmies (talk) 02:28, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Ad Orientem, fair enough. Re: Biden, I think we need as many cooks in the kitchen as we can get for the next six months. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:53, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps fewer cooks and more restaurant critics. Where’s Craig Claiborne when we need him. O3000 (talk) 00:08, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Apolitical sounds ideal to me. Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:20, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

When you think an Admin is needed, you can go to WP:AN and summon one. That's a neutral sure-fire way to have your request considered. SPECIFICO talk 00:38, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

The BLP violation is the more serious issue, and it's too late now; I can't forum shop. Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:47, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Don't bring me into this mess. You all work this out on your own. I have no interest in getting mud on me here. Maintaining my impartiality as an admin is contingent on me not getting involved in these sorts of intractable debates, and my ability to work safely as an admin without having every move subject to unreasonable objections by people with axes to grind depends on me not taking sides in this sort of thing. --Jayron32 12:28, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps you've hit the nail on the head for why administrators are not taking responsibility here. Folks would rather let policy violations stand than stick their necks out. The easy solution to not creating the impression of taking sides on the content is to remove the text because it had no consensus, and leave us all to roll around in the mud to find consensus. It sounds like you're prioritizing your own safety over the safety of the editors whom you serve. Kolya Butternut (talk) 12:43, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

I serve the encyclopedia, I job I couldn't do if, for example, I stepped in and decided that you were wrong and needed to be stopped. If I did so (and I'm not saying that you are, merely using it as an example of the problem I would face), I cannot forsee you backing down on the matter, but instead seeing me as a now your direct enemy and yet another person for you to do battle with. The same thing would happen if I were to decide to come down in favor of your opponents in this intractable debate. Having to deal with that impedes my ability to do my job. It's not my job to decide which content is correct here. You need to work that out first, then make consensus clear. You haven't established consensus yet, so there's nothing for me to do as an admin. You haven't actually done anything wrong here except to try to argue your case, as those who take the opposing stance have also done. I'm not sure what you want me to do, if not to decide who's version of the article is more factually correct, and again, in my role as an admin, that isn't my job. --Jayron32 18:23, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

There never was consensus to include that specific NYTimes text (only something from the NYTimes, so what you can do is remove it and warn anyone who restore it, if that's the procedure. (Yes I know this isn't the edit-warring forum, but you've been notified about the issue now.) I don't understand why I'm hearing you talk about "facts" and "correctness", when the issue is inaccurate summary of RS, but maybe that's what you mean. I don't make enemies of people I disagree with, just the dishonest ones. In a perfect world I wouldn't have to battle admins on a noticeboard; they could steelman my argument and I could battle against it myself to see if it holds. But as of yet I haven't even heard my arguments represented accurately for what they are.

There's a serious problem on the site with dishonesty, and I can't say anything about you, but I don't know why else it would be tolerated other than people not wanting to stick their necks out. Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:57, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

The problem with intractability is that intractability usually operates in someone's favor—those with the least tenable argument. It is in their interest to extend argument interminably, hence intractably. Bus stop (talk) 18:45, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

I would have thought that's only true when the goal is to maintain the status quo. Kolya Butternut (talk) 04:00, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

There's no BLP violation in regards to Reade here. No statements are being made against her at all, and her accusation is given the appropriate coverage that is due (given the amount of coverage it is getting in the media) and there's clearly consensus to cover this. Removing it is not appropriate either. The overall issue is that at this point it is a yet proven accusation against Biden that Biden has denied. We can't presume Reade's side of the story nor Biden's, so it doens't make sense to drill down beyond the top level. There is no need to go into any significant details beyond acknowledging the basic claims of the accusation of Reade and what has been corroborated by third parties so far. Omitting parts of Reade's side (in this case, that her friends can corroborate she told them her concerns in past) is not a BLP issue, as it doesn't change how the story as currently present reflects on anyone involved given that we're talking a high-level overview. We're not going into the details that Biden's side has presented either for the same reasons. The BLP factor here is that overall we're trying to avoid the excessive blame game on yet-proven accusations to protect both individuals. --Masem (t) 20:11, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Ok, so Muboshgu is you are right on this point that Reade is a public figure, which means Masem was you were wrong when they you stated that Reade "is not a notable individual (even with coverage of these accusations), and we still have to deal with the BLP issues around Biden, who is a notable individual."

How is there consensus over this?? Did you see my initial comment where I include every diff showing how much it has been edit-warred? Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:31, 4 May 2020 (UTC)Kolya Butternut (talk) 21:57, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

I believe there is consensus against adding corroboration that she had made the allegations previously to multiple people. They've told you why here and on the article talk page. You have the onus of gaining consensus to add this information to Biden's article. The corroboration that she previously made the accusation is more appropriate on the accusation article itself. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:46, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

That's not at all what this discussion is about asking for; you're discussing different text. The text that has no consensus is the text that has been edit-warred over which I provided all the diffs for in my initial comment; this is what I'm saying should be removed; the ONUS is on the editors who want to include it. It's frustrating that throughout this long discussion there hasn't been a single acknowledgement of the obvious edit war over this text. Kolya Butternut (talk) 21:00, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

I should have been more to the point. I believe there is consensus against adding corroboration that she made the allegations previously to balance corroborations that review the substance of the allegations. To be clear, I believe there is consensus reviewing both the talk page and this noticeboard that the existing paragraph is properly weighted. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:21, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Edit wars are best reported at ANI. First, we should avoid any hear-say testimony. Nothing reliable can come from that. The Times in this instance is a primary source, and while that in and of itself doesn't necessarily make it a bad source, that should be taken into consideration. I would much prefer a statement like that to come from the authorities. All in all, this is a developing story, and there will be a lot of misinformation, disinformation, and crappy, rush-judgment reporting before this all gets sorted out, so I would just give the bare bones of it for now and wait to add any details after the dust settles. Zaereth (talk) 21:18, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Her friends are not being used to provide hearsay evidence; their statements are not evidence that the allegations are true, their statements are being used to provide evidence that she told the same story decades ago, which gives her credibility; all the RS consider this to be supportive for her story; it is WP:OR to decide that we should summarize the story differently than every single RS. But why are we still talking about text which is irrelevant to this discussion? I am discussing removing existing non-consensus NYTimes text which you state is from a primary source; I'm not discussing adding anything. A "bare bones" telling of the story would be precisely what we'd have if you or anyone else removed the edit-warred text. I cannot bring this to another noticeboard, and it shouldn't be necessary, anyone can revert this text. Kolya Butternut (talk) 21:37, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

It's still hear-say, and I can't speak for everyone but I don't participate in edit wars. I gave you a good argument for removing the text, so my suggestion is to discuss it at the talk page. It's not a BLP violation, but I can see good, non-BLP reasons for removing it. (Hint, primary sources should be backed by secondary sources.) Zaereth (talk) 21:42, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes it is hearsay, but that's irrelevant, you know? It's not being used that way; such evidence would be admissible in court for the kind of evidence which it is, which would not be hearsay evidence, and regardless, this is what the RS include in the summary of the story. I already removed the text with an edit summary that it was primary-source-based original research as well as non-consensus, and it was reverted. I wouldn't be here if we'd made any progress at the talk page; it's been edit-warred for nearly three weeks. Please discuss why you feel it is not a BLPBALANCE violation against Reade, considering that all the RS present balance. Kolya Butternut (talk) 21:52, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

That rings hollow when these bits of friends & family hearsay are being pushed as "corroboration" of her claims by several enthusiastic editors on article talk pages. SPECIFICO talk 21:53, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

That's a misrepresentation of the word "corroboration". As I stated, they corroborate that she told them her story, they don't corroborate that the allegation happened. Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:02, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

The article is not about Reade. BLPBALANCE says we need to be fair to the subject. It doesn't say anything about his accusers. By fair, that means by a preponderance of reliable sources. (ie: views for and against climate change are not given equal space, because that would be a false balance when you weigh all of the sources.) And that you're participating in the edit war doesn't help your case any. When talk pages fail, RFC is the next step in dispute resolution. Then mediation or arbitration. But you may just have to talk it out for a long time. For example, see all the weeks and weeks worth of discussion I had to go through at Talk:Sarah Palin over the "bridges to nowhere". I wish you luck in your crusade, but I would advise avoiding edit warring whenever possible. I hope that helped. Zaereth (talk) 22:04, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

It sounds like you have a misunderstanding of how BLP works; it's irrelevant in which article text occurs; BLP applies to all figures in all Wikipedia spaces. RfCs are not necessary for removing non-consesus text are they? The text should be removed before starting an RfC on which text to include. Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:13, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

I know very well how BLP works. You're trying to rationalize it into something it's not. We do not need to give equal space to unproven allegations. There is nothing there that is a BLP violation against Reade. Not a single word. And while I agree in an ideal world disputed text should stay out until consensus is achieved, it's not an ideal world, nor is it a blatant BLP violation that would allow you to ignore 3RR. Talk page discussion is what is needed to work out the fine details of the other policies that these issues fall under, but as Masem points out below, it doesn't look like anyone is talking over there. RFC is really for when a talk page discussion is going nowhere, and some outside assistance is needed to break the tie. That is often a better format because ideally it's only one comment per person, although even there people will try to sway the balance with quantity instead of quality, the format is much more manageable and easier to determine actual consensus. Now I gave you some good advice for formulating an argument for removing the NY Times part, and you're welcome, so that's all the advice I will give you except this, don't argue with people who are agreeing with you (at least on some points). Oh, except this, there is nothing about a conversation here that prohibits you from reporting an edit war at ANI, except maybe that you might be found guilty of warring yourself. Zaereth (talk) 01:02, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you haven't addressed what I challenged about your understanding of BLP, or much of anything else I said. And as others state, the ONUS is on those who want to include text to discuss it into the article, not on those who don't agree to it to RfC it out. You haven't addressed my response to Masem; there has been much discussion and not much consensus. Thanks anyway. Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:38, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I did. That you don't see that is ... intriguing. That you don't see that I have actually been trying to help you achieve your ultimate goal, that is even more ... intriguing. Argue with me if you like, but I can see why you're not getting anywhere. Oh well, you can lead a horse to water... Zaereth (talk) 02:06, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Ugh, I can't even. I wouldn't have to argue if you didn't say such things. I did not comment on whether you were trying to help.... Kolya Butternut (talk) 04:04, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

• At the risk of repeating myself, I think WP:ONUS is very clear and trumps all: that text, and all text, should stay out until and unless there is consensus established to include it. Editors who reinstate challenged text without consensus should be warned on their talk page and if they still do it, reported at AE. I think that should be the procedure we follow on all sides of this issue. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 23:09, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
  • An issue is that I'm seeing is that there's no discussion on the talk page on the core statement from the NYTimes. There's concern about the text that NYTimes removed. There's concern about additional facets that Kolya's discussing here, there's additional points. But saving for the editing warring listed here, there is no discussion about the actual NYTimes that that I'm easily seeing (I might be missing it, but the talk page is a mess there). Reading around all the other discussions in relations to the NYTimes, I'm seeing consensus, as well as the general principle of BLP and NPOV, that the basic NYTimes story - as both a normally reliable sources, (seemingly) neutral to the situation here, and not involved otherwise with Biden or Reade - is the necessary to include alongside Reade's accusations and Biden's denial, and until anything more can be said, that's just a reasonable amount of information on Biden's page to summarize the situation and let the standalone go into the more nuances. For WP to not include the accusations is not appropriate - there's far too much out there to not talk about them though we do not know until the dust is settled to what degree we'll need to, so this is a suitable summary. The only thing I would do is cut down the Times' quote to the last part, and summarize the rest, eg "The New York Times interviewed staff members from Biden's office at the time, as well as Reade's family and friends who she told about, and found 'no pattern of sexual misconduct by Mr. Biden.'", again leaving the more nitty details on the separate article at this point.
  • Troubling is the fact edit warring is going on on a page that is clearly under AP2 and I don't know offhand if there's any 1RR restriction here but if there are a bunch of hands need to be slapped for edit warring over this. --Masem (t) 00:13, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

This is the basic summary the NYTimes gives for its own story:

"The former aide, Tara Reade, who briefly worked as a staff assistant in Mr. Biden’s Senate office, told The New York Times that in 1993, Mr. Biden pinned her to a wall in a Senate building, reached under her clothing and penetrated her with his fingers. A friend said that Ms. Reade told her the details of the allegation at the time. Another friend and a brother of Ms. Reade’s said she told them over the years about a traumatic sexual incident involving Mr. Biden. A spokeswoman for Mr. Biden said the allegation was false. In interviews, several people who worked in the Senate office with Ms. Reade said they did not recall any talk of such an incident or similar behavior by Mr. Biden toward her or any women. Two office interns who worked directly with Ms. Reade said they were unaware of the allegation or any treatment that troubled her."[16]

This sounds much different than the text which is included. Also remember that this story is from April 12; more witnesses and the Larry King video have come out since then, which RS now include in their summaries, giving more weight to the story corroborators in general. Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:26, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Also, why is it a problem to just remove the story? It's an encyclopedia; people will just assume it hasn't been updated; surely nothing is better than NPOV text. We don't even have a section header yet. Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:30, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

And, the initial comment opening the NYTimes talk page discussion is precisely about opposition to the entire NYTimes quote.[17] If editors discuss particular opposition to one piece of that quote we cannot assume they therefore did not oppose the entire quote. If no consensus is evident we must revert. Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:37, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

I am one of the first editors that would be screaming "NOTNEWS" if there was a problem, and in fact, that's why I think the separate article right now is a problem given the state of the situation. But are the accusations ignorable? Unfortunately no. They're two months old, they have gained a raft of media coverage, they are starting to impact his campaign and other parts of the gov't. It would be a disservice to a reader coming to his page to not briefly mention Reade and the current state of the accusations. But because there's more questions than answers, then per NOTNEWS, BLP, NPOV and a bunch of other policies we should only cover this at the surface level, the who-what-where-when question.

That then begs the question that if we are going to cover, what is the neutral way to cover it, and that appears to be to assert what Reade claims in one or two sentences, what Biden claims in one or two sentence, and because we have it, what the "impartial" NYTimes has determined in a sentence at this point given that the NYTimes embodied the epitome of journalistic ethics in the US normally (the other would be the WaPost) Anything else goes to the point of NOTNEWS - we just don't know enough right now to go into more detail.

But there is the fair question that has not been discussed plainly on the article talk page but instead hedged around: should we be including the NYTimes article at this point given the change they made at the request of Biden campaign? (There was a question of adding additional text to make this clarification that didn't have consensus but that's a different matter). Instead, people edit war over inclusion. As suggested elsewhere, the right action at this point is to start an RFC narrowly around the question if the NYTimes statement should be included at all, does that leave the current summary on Biden's page sufficiently neutral? I don't know though. --Masem (t) 01:50, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

That is not an accurate representation of the talk page discussion I linked to, which I participated in. The question was not about adding additional text, the question was about whether to include the sentences which through this discussion I am also asking to be removed, because there has never been consensus for them, and they have been directly discussed. They remain simply because the edit war has been won in that direction.

A story being noteworthy to readers has no influence over the consensus policy or the BLPBALANCE policy, which I assert is violated. But yes, let's steer towards the solution; we can cover this on the surface level:

In April 2019, Tara Reade said that in 1993, while she was a staffer in Biden's Senate office, he had inappropriately touched her several times on her shoulder and neck. In March 2020, Reade accused Biden of pushing her against a wall and digitally penetrating her while on Capitol Hill in 1993. On April 9, 2020, Reade filed a police report with the Washington Metropolitan Police (MPD) alleging she was sexually assaulted in spring 1993. The case was later described as "inactive" by the MPD [on date]. On May 1, 2020, Biden said, "It's not true. I'm saying unequivocally it never, never happened, and it didn't. It never happened."

(We could even leave the police report bit out for now, but we worked hard for consensus on that.) Or a little deeper:

In April 2019, Tara Reade said that in 1993, while she was a staffer in Biden's Senate office, he had inappropriately touched her several times on her shoulder and neck. In March 2020, Reade accused Biden of pushing her against a wall and digitally penetrating her while on Capitol Hill in 1993. On April 9, 2020, Reade filed a police report with the Washington Metropolitan Police (MPD) alleging she was sexually assaulted in spring 1993. The case was later described as "inactive" by the MPD [on date]. On May 1, 2020, Biden said, "It's not true. I'm saying unequivocally it never, never happened, and it didn't. It never happened." The New York Times reported that "In interviews, several people who worked in the Senate office with Ms. Reade said they did not recall any talk of such an incident or similar behavior by Mr. Biden toward her or any women." "Several of Ms. Reade’s friends have said she told them about a traumatic sexual incident involving Mr. Biden."

Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:28, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

You are making this far more complicated than it needs to be. Certainly, I think you agree that Reade's accusations in her words, and Biden's response in his words, are appropriate; its what is beyond that that you seem to be taking issue with. You are arguing that the statement from the New York Times has no consensus to be there, so either you or others have edit warred to remove it (trouts around for those on both sides here for the editing warring on a AP2 page), or you are asking to add the comment about Reade's friends, to make it neutral before asking about base NYTimes state. You need to ask as an RFC a real simple question about the NYTimes before you can proceed further, otherwise you are confusing issue top issues which as you are arguing consensus is unclear. That's all I'm trying to say. If you can get that "no consensus to include the NYTimes pieces" then we're good and the second facet isn't needed. Otherwise, then you can ask in a second RFC about it. --Masem (t) 05:10, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

It's confusing to hear you say I'm making things more complicated, when you still haven't accurately represented what's happening here. I am simply stating that there is no consensus to include those particular NYTimes sentences. I believe those particular sentences are a BLPBALANCE violation regardless of whether the comments about Reade's friends are added. The edit war has not been to "remove" the NYTS sentences; the edit war has been to add them. I am asking that the existing NYTimes text be removed; adding comments about Reade's friends will not create consensus for those NYTimes sentences. I suggested examples of alternative quotes from the NYTimes above (but which shouldn't be added either until comments about her friends are added). I am not arguing consensus is unclear over those NYTimes sentences; it is clear there is no consensus. We do not need an RfC over whether the NYTimes as a source is acceptable to use, because that is unrelated to whether those particular sentences are acceptable. The issue of the NYTimes editing those sentences at the request of the Biden campaign is not my personal issue; it is over the sentences themselves (although others oppose it for that reason, and that adds to my opposition). It's very simple; there was never any consensus to add those sentences, and not including comments about Reade's friends makes things worse. An administrator should revert the BLPVIO non-consensus addition, and if it's restored this can go to WP:AN/EW. Kolya Butternut (talk) 12:22, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

I understand you're specifically talking on the NYTimes's end conclusion of its investigation, as to the statement JzG added 17 April (the first diff you had linked at the start). And reading from the talk page: It's never been shown to be against consensus. The closest where any of that is discussed is the "NYT on Reade" section started the same day that the specific text from the NYTimes was added; if I were an admin to have to use that discussion to judge consensus, I would have to close that there was favor in general to keep it but not necessarily the full quote. (I mean, there is the ONUS aspect, but there's clearly support to keep it there from that discussion). I can tell you that as it stands this is not a hard-nosed BLP violation that would require immediate admin removal (in contrast to saying, for example "John Q. Smith is a rapist" without sources). So at this point it is a matter of working consensus of what is appropriate to include. You could have an RFC to challenge the inclusion of that statement from the NYTimes but I'm pretty confident that would end with it being included: the New York Times is generally considered the gold standard for this type of coverage, so some statement on their investigative results as they have completed them would be expected to be included; even if you could argue the current version doesn't have consensus, it will need to be eventually put back in as per expected coverage (barring any other third-party doing a similar set of interviews and summary). I fully agree the full quote isn't necessary, and there's a way to paraphrase their article to identify whom all they spoke too on both sides before making their conclusion, for the purposes of a short summary in Biden's article at this time. My advice (and this is only looking at Biden talk page now and seeing where your discussions are going presently) is to try to work on keeping the NYtimes statement in to its barebone core point, that "The Times found no pattern of sexual misconduct by Mr. Biden" on 12 April, and adding the necessary paraphrasing text of a sentence to explain how they concluded this. --Masem (t) 13:30, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you still haven't gotten this right. A consensus to keep the quote in some form is not a consensus to keep the sentences as they have been added, so all of the sentences must be removed until consensus can be found. Yes, there is consensus to include text about the NYTimes conclusion, but not that text. What you have described as the "barebones core point" of the NYTimes is not at all the essential takeaway from their investigation, as it says nothing about her allegations. A good replacement would be the other summary NYTs text: The New York Times reported that "In interviews, several people who worked in the Senate office with Ms. Reade said they did not recall any talk of such an incident or similar behavior by Mr. Biden toward her or any women." But even that should not be added until the BLPBALANCE violation is addressed. Kolya Butternut (talk) 14:34, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

But AN/EW should not be necessary, anyone restoring contentious BLPVIO text which hurts Tara Reade's character should be warned. Kolya Butternut (talk) 13:01, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

What exactly is hurting her character? It is definitely not a BLP violation at all that if a person makes allegations against another and stands strongly by them but sources find no support for those allegations to report that those allegations don't hold, that's nothing against the person's character that we can't help, once this is covered as much as it as in the RSes. That's not's Wikipedia fault when media aren't finding the support for a person's allegations, so that's not a BLP violation. --Masem (t) 13:30, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

If you don't know how that hurt's her character, you should look at what is happening in the media when people mischaracterize the NYTimes' conclusions by taking quotes like the ones added out of context. She is being ruthlessly attacked by people who believe the NYTimes has concluded nothing happened. The NYTimes includes information that supports the credibility of her claims. They say no one at the office knew anything about the assault allegations, and they also say her friends corroborate she told them her story contemporaneously, and they report that two interns corroborate that she had her responsibilities changed in April 1993. We cannot include text that hurts her credibility which is inconsistent with how the RS report the story. Also, the NYTimes is by far the only top-tier RS which has investigated this. Kolya Butternut (talk) 14:34, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Sadly, that is out of our hands. That the media have decided to use the NYTimes against her is not our fault, but to avoid the BLP, we don't have to touch that part of the story (and nor should we). But it is also not our place to try to repair her credibly either by adding more facts that the statement from the NYTimes are you claim address that, or by removing the troubling statement. Again, WP is not involved in this story, we're trying to summarize neutrally the key events. We cannot worry about how other media pieces have taken the NYTimes piece if we are just trying to summarize its conclusion. We simply cannot worry about how a statement by a quality RS like the NYtimes may impact the reputation of those involved if is part of a necessary summary of events to date. Clearly the NYtimes piece (as I read it) is not out to attack or discredit Reade, simply that they found no evidence to support her accusations or other issues of sexual misconduct in Biden's office at the time. That other media is using that to attack Reade is unfortunately not our concern, as long as we aren't repeating those attacks. --Masem (t) 17:32, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't feel like you're hearing me. We have not neutrally summarized the NYTimes. I only discuss the media to illustrate misreporting similar to what we're doing. We don't need to repair her credibility, we need to not misrepresent the source to harm her credibility. Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:10, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

But even then I would argue how off-neutral the two sentence NYTimes statement is is a point of debate. To know why its not neutral requires reading beyond the text in WP's Biden article. (Eg the quote omits Reade's friends but we don't bring them up in the first place). But the level of neutrality concern is very low as to not require such a drastic "we need to fix it now!" response, it's nowhere close to a BLP issue that must be resolved, and the neutrality issue is one that requires consensus discussion. Which is what I'm stressing you need to engage in on the talk page for Biden, to suggest that less quote and more paraphrasing of the Times would be a better summary. --Masem (t) 20:00, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

I've been engaging with one participant on the talk page about how to change the text (but I'm not confident). So you're saying that if the current NYTimes text were very off-neutral so as to harm her, that would be a BLPBALANCE violation, but you don't expect that to be found? It's hard to see it that way. The tone of the current text makes it sound like the NYT has concluded she is not credible at all, whereas her actual story is very credible. Not only are we leaving out all of the evidence which supports her story, we're leaving out all the character evidence about Biden's serious instances of lying (but I doubt that piece has weight yet anyway). Kolya Butternut (talk) 04:17, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

I am trying to read the NYTimes article as a whole, and as that quote (the full quote as used) as with much as an open mind as possible, trying to take Ms. Reade's side here but keeping in mind rules of traditional journalism and how these situations are reported on, and it is really really a hard stretch to say in any way that the NYTimes article or the quote in any way or tone is demeaning to Ms. Reade or doubts her credibility. That they can't back up her claims of what happened in the office is one thing, but they are using what I would almost say is boilerplate language by RS in the media when these types of allegations are found to be lacking anything they can take action on. They aren't saying the accuser is flat out wrong, nor being a liar, nor anything of that sort, and in factor are trying to respect Ms. Reade here as much as they possibly can. Note they never say the allegations are false or the like, and in fact they keep the possibility they still may be true. They aren't dismissing that the truth may be something in between Reade's accusations and Biden's "nothing happened", but can't say which side has more weight from what limited information can be gleaned. This is extremely typical and fair reporting on the situation as a whole and I have squint long and hard to find any start of a direct BLP issue here. It is respectful that Reade may still have been experienced what she did, just that they can't conclude that from the list of people they spoke to. --Masem (t) 06:44, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Compare this hyperbolic quote with a real quote from the NYTimes: "We interviewed two hundred employees and we didn't find anyone who was able to corroborate anything about any sexual assault, nor anything about any behavior out of character with what we know about Biden." vs:

"The former aide, Tara Reade, who briefly worked as a staff assistant in Mr. Biden’s Senate office, told The New York Times that in 1993, Mr. Biden pinned her to a wall in a Senate building, reached under her clothing and penetrated her with his fingers. A friend said that Ms. Reade told her the details of the allegation at the time. Another friend and a brother of Ms. Reade’s said she told them over the years about a traumatic sexual incident involving Mr. Biden. A spokeswoman for Mr. Biden said the allegation was false. In interviews, several people who worked in the Senate office with Ms. Reade said they did not recall any talk of such an incident or similar behavior by Mr. Biden toward her or any women. Two office interns who worked directly with Ms. Reade said they were unaware of the allegation or any treatment that troubled her." [18]

A concise summary of this paragraph is what adheres to BPBALANCE (at the time of this out-of-date story). (And remember, the NYTimes found the interns remember she weirdly was removed from supervising them, and NYTimes leaves that out of both conclusions! That is an example of corroborating her story.) Beyond that, looking at the criticism of the NYTimes piece should illustrate the problem. Interview with Katie Halper who released Reade's original interview, at 45:20. [19]

I don't understant why you don't find a BLPBALANCE issue. The policy states, "Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints". The existing text is a cherrypicked one-sided summary. The paragraph above is BALANCED (if you add the interns' corroboration).

As I have said before, there is no consensus for the exiting New York Times quote. You have found consensus that something from the NYTimes be added, but folks are opposed to this quote, so it should be removed on that basis alone. Please see there is another discussion which may show where consensus is at this point.[20] Kolya Butternut (talk) 14:59, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

The NY Times does not write that the interns remember she was weirdly removed... Facts matter. Also, completeness and context matter. A lot of little misstatements can add up to a significant misrepresentation, so we need to take great care with BLP text. SPECIFICO talk 15:17, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

That's your contribution here?  Pedantics? Or after all of this are you still unfamiliar with the story?   "An intern who worked under Reade, and who asked to remain anonymous, said she does not recall Reade discussing any allegations of assault or harassment. But she does corroborate Reade's claim that she was abruptly relieved of her duties as intern supervisor in April 1993, a move that the former intern found odd at the time."[21] Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:00, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

This board is all about accurate representation of valid sources. That's not "pedantics." If somebody saw your abrupt reply to me and said Kolya Butternut made a weird reply, would you think that was accurate? I see lots of thoughtful comments from experienced editors and Admins in this thread. I hope you recognize them as such. SPECIFICO talk 17:34, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Does this kind of talk usually work on people?  In real life I would normally ignore this, but you haven't been blocked from this website yet, so I have to assume that administrators can't see through you. Do I need to cite a thesaurus?  The intern said it was odd.  We notice you left that part out and cited the word "abrupt" instead, while maintaining plausible deniability by pedantically limiting your focus to the New York Times piece that you referenced while ignoring Business Insider. Next time if you notice something that sounds inconsistent with a cited source, point it out politely but save the lecture.  Superficial civility only works the first time.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:24, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Because you had claimed the NY Times piece said something in loaded and bizarre way, I was just pointing out that your words were a misrepresentation of your cited source. No reference to the Business Insider was at play. More generally, I suspect the NY Times journalist recognized that the "abruptly" is a more or less objective description of a change without warning, whereas "weirdly" even if another intern had said it, would have been a subjective evaluation of staff management, a topic on which a 20-something mailroom intern would have had no credible expertise. SPECIFICO talk 19:18, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

You're still ignoring Business Insider and their use of the word "odd", and you are now changing the subject.  This is about whether the word "odd" misrepresents the story as sourced, not whether it deserves weight.  As I said, if someone cites a synonym for a word which is not contained in the cited RS, point it out, and you will receive a clarification that it came from a different source; no lectures needed.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:17, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

I was making a very narrow specific comment about your misrepresentation of the source that you and you alone cited to support your proposed article text. When I point out that you and you alone have changed the subject, to Business Insider, not cited in your propoal, it's not I who's changed the subject. If you want to explore WEIGHT, that's more a topic for WP:NPOVN. If you're saying that you made a mistake and meant to cite Business Insider instead of NY Times, that is a different matter, but generally folks assume you have cited what you meant to cite. Then they respond according to what you said, not what you later say you should or would or could have said. Anyway good luck. I don't think this thread is going to produce anything new or different for you at this point. SPECIFICO talk 20:49, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

I suggest you focus on the content rather than pedantries about communication. Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:37, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Trying to avoid the elephant in the room, but I feel that the only way that one could take the NYtimes pieces as improperly inbalanced against Ms. Reade is to be starting on the presumption that Ms. Reade's allegations are factual. And we have to be careful in WP in taking that stance. (This doesn't mean by default we're also taking the stance that Biden did nothing, period. As I noted, many times in these cases, the actual truth tends to be something in the middle validating both sides, and that's generally where we have to start in our thoughts as editors). If one starts on the assumption that Ms. Reade's allegations are true, then it becomes "easy" to see the fallacies in the Times story, but that's sorta bad analysis. It's why I'm trying to have viewed this as neutrally as possible and from what her side would have been and from Biden's side would have been to see how far off neutral the Times' article and the quote itself is, and its really hard to see that unless you're coming in with a prejudgment on who is right. That all said, I am glad there's a fresh discussion of the test you pointed out with enough points from here resonating there. --Masem (t) 15:33, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I'm not hearing any comments in response to what I said, instead I feel like I am hearing assumptions about what I am thinking. My argument comes from extensive familiarity with the sources.  And immediately above you can see that the existing New York Times quote misrepresents the story as a whole, because it leaves out that the interns do corroborate part of her story.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:18, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

I am trying to listen to your comments, but you keep going to this position that is a non-starter that expresses doubt to the NYTimes version of its own investigation. I understand the point on the quote, but taking the whole of the NYTimes report, and the overall story, the only way that quote bends the truth is to presume the NYTimes story already bent the truth, which we simply can't start with. Specifico is expressing my same concerns here, above, as well as Zaereth below; I am trying to give as much good faith here to what you said, but you appear to have a singular focus on what this story needs to say instead of coming from how WP normally handles such allegations in the media. Again, its fair to the inclusion of the full NYTImes quote but this I think is more smoothing out some possible wrinkles and not trying to repair any major faults related to BLP and neutrality. --Masem (t) 19:52, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

I have wanted to hear my argument repeated back to me so that I know we're on the same page, because so far I have not heard that you understand what I am saying. You have come close, but it feels like you're dancing around my point.

I am not expressing doubt to the NYTimes' version of its own investigation; I am not saying the NYTimes quote is bending the truth. (The intern bit is just poor phrasing which when taken out of context leads to misinterpretation.)

I am saying that the quote currently in the article does not summarize the piece, and the summary I cited is missing a key detail. Regardless of the missing detail, if we used that summary the BLPBALANCE issue would be mostly addressed.

So, I cited the NYT's own summary of its piece. Using that quote instead (or a truncated paraphrasing) would correct the BLPBALANCE violation. Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:37, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

• I don't believe the entire quote from The New York Times needs to be there. It can be paraphrased down to that no former staff members corroborated the details of Reade's allegation. I don't understand the importance of declaring that there were no other allegations or a pattern or practice of sexual assault and turning the NYT into a primary source. Same with the May 1, 2020 Biden quote. That detail can just be merged into a line that states both Biden and his campaign officials have denied the allegation. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:06, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

There are conspiracy theories all over reddit and twitter about that NY Times thing. I think that Fox and the talk radio guys have mow given up on that, but at any rate, that's why it isn't going away. SPECIFICO talk 01:34, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

"A conspiracy theory is an explanation for an event or situation that invokes a conspiracy by sinister and powerful groups, often political in motivation, when other explanations are more probable. The term has a pejorative connotation, implying that the appeal to a conspiracy is based on prejudice or insufficient evidence."[22] Really? The only thing I heard was that the NYTimes removed some text because they agreed with the Biden campaign's criticism of the awkward phrasing. Good thing we don't have to use direct quotes. Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:48, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

You know, I'm going to try again, one more time because I kind of like you. You remind me of a brother of mine, who will argue with anyone and everyone. Please read these next words carefully: I AGREE! THE DISPUTED TEXT SHOULD GO! That doesn't mean I'll accept your gracious invitation to an edit war. But if you will let go of this tree and take a moment to look at the forest, I graciously gave you an argument you actually have a chance in hell of winning. I gift wrapped it for you, with a little bow on top, and put it right in your lap. Let go of this idea of adding the hear-say. What you really want is removal of the disputed text, right? There is your best argument, right up above in black and white. Use it or lose it, but the rest is up to you. I can't do it all for you. Zaereth (talk) 02:58, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Ok...let's peel back the onion; you said: "The article is not about Reade. BLPBALANCE says we need to be fair to the subject. It doesn't say anything about his accusers." I disagree with that. BLP applies to everyone, everywhere, right? So it applies to Tara Reade when she is mentioned in Biden's article. No need to again get into the argument over whether there is or not a violation, but that is the first point with which I recall disagreeing, which I don't recall you acknowledging. I just offered two stripped-down proposals above, which can be added BOLDly. It baffles me that there is any question that the NYTimes sentences do not have consensus, that not one administrator acknowledges that, and that anyone would suggest shifting the ONUS to me to start an RfC to remove text which never had CONSENSUS. Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:56, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

This is the first time I'm looking at this long-winded and extraordinary discussion, after I've been repeatedly trying to engage Kolya Butternut on the Biden talk page. It seems to me the solution to Kolya's immediate problem is simple: remove ALL mention of the Tara Reade issue until a consensus text has been worked out at Talk:Joe Biden. That way, there can be no argument that any subject is being treated unfairly or misrepresented. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:31, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

@Scjessey: please don't mischaracterize the discussion by suggesting that it is I who am resisting engaging with you, when the opposite is true, but we can discuss this on our talk pages. But yes, thank you for acknowledging that removing all mention of the Tara Reade story is an immediate temporary solution. Although this is an essential story to Biden's bio, that fact does not override other policy. Kolya Butternut (talk) 14:12, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Actually, we don't yet know if this is an "essential" story. BLPs are written from an historical perspective, so the Reade accusation will only remain in the article if it becomes a significant event in the entire life of Joe Biden. With that said, I am glad you agree a temporary removal of ALL material is the way forward. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:25, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Ok, I'll play peel the onion for a moment. I have been working at BLPN for the last 11, almost 12 years. In all that time I've never seen someone so intent on making enemies out of everyone, adversaries and potential allies alike. You brought this case here so people more familiar with BLP could chime in, right? Here we are. Yes, BLP applies to everyone living or recently dead. But there is nothing in the article that is a BLP violation against Reade. We don't say something like "Reade is a murderer or a child molester." Nothing disparaging about her at all. You are confusing fairness for Reade with fairness for her accusations. BLP doesn't cover her accusation as they apply to her. That argument is fallacious as it's a non sequitur. No BLP violation exists here, as many people have told you, and you can leave a million more comments and they still won't change that.

You're trying to argue five different things all at once, when you should be focusing on the one thing that really matters: the NY Times source. All these other things are just confusing both you, everyone else, and the real issue at hand. There is a time to pick your battles, and this is one of them. BLP is not a magical tool that you can invoke just because you disagree with something. The real issue here is WP:RS. The NY Times source in this particular instance is a primary source. If you really want to win this battle, that's the one you need to focus on and forget all the other ones, because they are not helping, but only hurting your case. I seriously hope you can see that. I really do.

It is not fair to the subject to give equal weight to unproven accusations. In the context of BALANCE, "fair" means weight. Now, if you want to win here (which by now I'm not even sure is the case) then you should really forget all the non-sequitur arguments and focus on the NY Times bit as being a primary source. That's an argument you actually have a shot at winning. But first you need to figure out what makes it primary in this particular case, and why that should warrant it's removal. Look it up in policy. Look it up in books. Take some time to study it and get all your ducks in a row, and you will have a good shot at getting it removed. This is very good advice, but only if you choose to take it. Otherwise you're just wasting everybody's time, including your own. Trust me. Drink the Kool-Aid.

Beyond that, I have no desire to help you if you're not willing to help yourself. If you had actually read anything I said, you'd probably be finished by now. We don't enforce consensus here, nor do we deal with edit wars. Non sequitur. This is not a BLP violation by any stretch of the imagination. It's an RS issue. Now I've done all I can to help you. I have a real life, and don't have time for this back and forth nonsense. Drink it. Drink the Kool-Aid if you want to win. I hate politics, so it really doesn't matter to me. Zaereth (talk) 17:16, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

I would ask that you discuss what you and others are doing rather than focusing solely on me. I think part of the problem here is that discussion does not often begin with showing that the initial argument is understood. You characterized me as "so intent on making enemies out of everyone". I am not at all intent on making enemies with anyone. Forcefully refuting untruths and inaccuracies is not a desire to make enemies. I brought this case here so administrators would remove a non-consensus BLP violating addition. You are not accurately assessing my claim of BLP violation. This is why I would suggest that folks engage in empathy (not the touchy-feeling kind) to show they understand the argument, before refuting strawmen. Yes, I am having to respond to too many arguments. I will not ignore inaccuracies, but I agree I should at least structure my responses differently so the focus is highlighted.

RS is not the issue here, as I've explained many times. The simplest issue is that non-consensus text was warred into the article. The simple solution is for an administrator to remove it and administrative action can be taken by anyone who has been warned about warring it back in. You don't deal with consensus and edit-wars here? Regardless of whether this is the forum for that, now that administrators are aware they should take action. But there is a BLP violation.

I have read every word of this discussion. So far I've only read about two comments where I actually felt heard. If you want to help, try to understand my arguments, (and focusing some of your criticism on the other people in the room would be nice). (Please no tone-policing tho.)

Administrators don't take action against years of civil-POV pushing sealions, so something's poison in the Kool-Aid. Dishonesty and abuse by editors doesn't seem to be a priority. Now that's a non-sequitur.

This isn't about winning; this isn't about politics; this is about accurately telling the story that the RS have told about a woman who hasn't been listened to. Feels familiar.... Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:01, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Why am I not surprised. I understand your argument(s). I'm telling you they do not have a snowball's chance in hell of getting you what you want. Listening is a two way street. I am not arguing with you, I'm giving advice on how to achieve your goal (removal of the text you were edit warring over), which I would call winning, wouldn't you? That is it. When people give you advice, it's your choice whether to take it or not, but it's usually a very bad idea to argue with it or you will likely get no more help in the future. And speaking of future help, I'm out. I tried to be your ally, and you've rejected that friendship at every turn. All I can say is I tried. I really did. Good luck, because you're going to need it. Zaereth (talk) 18:15, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

You know, I'm going to give one more piece of advice here, and this is to all of those take this WP:BLUDGEON approach toward achieving consensus. Beating us over the heads with the same old arguments does not increase their validity. We heard you the first time. If what you keep doing keeps getting the same result, try a different approach. This is really universal wisdom, and I couldn't say it any better than this:

"The problem with the original circuit was worsened by additional relays the engineer had added to "compensate" for the apparent fault. We are not inferring that the engineer was incompetent, he had just become too involved with his original logic to look at it objectively. This illustrates the point that all of us occasionally "cannot see the forest for the trees," and should consider asking someone else to take a fresh look at a problem that has us puzzled. There should be no shame in having someone look over your shoulder when you hit a snag in the system you are working on. In this case history, a simple change in the input hardware allowed us to remove the problem, instead of correcting it with more circuitry." --Clarence A. Phipps, Fundamentals of Electrical Control

And understand that we're all wrong at one time or another, and if consensus goes against us, there is a time to accept it and move on with our lives. Consensus is something you have to build, and you really get one shot at the apple before it gets redundant, so make it count, or find a better way. Zaereth (talk) 21:49, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

@Zaereth: I'll ping you just this once.

I have to say that I actually am surprised that I'm hearing you speak to me the exact same way even after what I've told you. When I say that I feel you do not understand my arguments, as I said, I would like you all to "begin with showing that the initial argument is understood" before repeatedly tearing it down when someone tells you they feel unheard. I also asked that you stop talking about how you feel about me, and how you feel about what you're doing, and consider how I am experiencing you all, and what I want. Friendship does not mean repeatedly offering flowers which the recipient has stated they do not want; friendship does not mean calling her a bitch when she's not grateful the third time they were offered; friendship does not mean patting her pretty little head with unwanted words of wisdom. (I hope we can all get over our egos and not pearl-clutch over analogies.) Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:20, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

You know, I'm going to ask you one more thing; why do you think women don't like it here? Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:27, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

I have no idea. Are you a woman? Does that mean I'm supposed to treat you any differently, and walk on egg shells? Don't expect me to make that assumption. I agree that the disputed text needs to go. I see a very clear way to make that happen. If you don't even want to consider it, fine, keep doing what you're doing. Like I said, I'm out. Do it all on your own, because this is a content dispute that otherwise I really don't care to get involved in. Good luck. Zaereth (talk) 17:01, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

What a sexist thing to say.  Typically, a woman appreciates knowing that what they're communicating is understood, or evidence of self-reflection, or just some indication that the other person is listening.  You're still focusing on yourself and your ideas and showing no indication you understand my argument.  if I don't point that out to you nothing is going to change here.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:41, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree, your comment seemed pretty sexist to me too, as the idea of gender never once crossed my mind. I also agree that you seem focused only on yourself, with no indication that you're listening to others. In my experience, when people make comments like yours about other people, they are almost always unconsciously describing themselves. Once again, I wish you luck in whatever it is you are trying to accomplish here, because it obviously has nothing to do with the edit-warred text. Zaereth (talk) 18:50, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

How chivalrous. Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:39, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm not here to be anyone's knight in shining armor. I don't care what your gender is. I can count on my fingers the number of Wikipedians whose gender I know, and it still doesn't matter. I respect them for who they are. My only interest here was in removing the text you all were fighting over. Period. And I don't even need to look at the source for that. It's all right there in the text, plain as day. And I probably would have left it at that along time ago, because that's what I do. I just drive by, drop a comment that I think will help, and go on about my merry way. You're the one intent on dragging this out and making it all about you. I'm sorry, but the martyr thing doesn't affect me much. I'm sorry you're having a bad time and you feel no one is listening to you, but if that were the case you wouldn't have gotten any replies at all, let alone this many. There's no way I'm going over to another political page and getting myself involved in that mess. If you would have asked, I would have told you and everyone else exactly what I see that is so obvious about it, but you can forget it now. It's not a BLP issue thus is irrelevant to this page, so I don't care. Zaereth (talk) 20:57, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

That was sarcasm, i.e., "how magnanimous" /s. We both got offended; I'm over it now. I appreciate your efforts, but I don't want to go in that direction. Back to content: I've made a BLP argument which you feel has no merit. Based on the responses I've received, I do not have the sense that my argument was understood, so I wanted my argument repeated back to me so I would have known we're on the same page. All is forgiven, all is apologized for. Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:39, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Listen, I fully understand you point of view, honestly I do. Repeating them back would be redundant. Isn't it enough that we respond to them? There may in fact be a balance issue here, but I don't have to dig that deep. That would be covered by NPOV. The issue doesn't rise to the level of a BLP violation, which means it's a talk page issue to be discussed through the normal dispute resolution process. BLP is designed to protect persons from harm. Nobody is being harmed by what we have in the article, and if they are, your arguments haven't demonstrated that. I'm sorry. That doesn't mean there aren't issues to be worked out, but I don't see anything there that would rise to the level of BLP. If I'm just not seeing how this is causing harm, then please feel free to enlighten me. Personally, I think any balance issue would be fixed by simply removing the NY Times text, and then any further discussion would be moot. My personal feeling is that it is just too soon to go into any detail yet. Zaereth (talk) 00:03, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

You may understand, but what I'm saying is I don't know that you do. Ideally I would hear a steelman, but that's a lot to ask. I'm not sure what you mean about removing the NYTs text; that's what this whole discussion has been about. I believe it's a BLP violation; I also believe there was never a consensus to add the text. (I also feel like my argument for no consensus has not been addressed.) I see there's an argument that we should use a secondary source which summarizes the NYTs investigation, but that would take a long time, and I also feel like this policy issue should be addressed. The NYTs issued clarifications summarizing their investigation which seem like the obvious text to use (quoted below by Petrarchan47). Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:40, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I have to un-indent, because this is moving so far to the right that it's almost off my screen. I am a steel man. Ask me anything about steel and I'll tell you. (Look at my edit history.) I know that's what this discussion is about. That's what I've been saying all along. You may believe that it's a BLP violation, but that's why us BLP experts like Masem and myself have been trying so hard to explain it to you. That's the wrong argument for the right cause, no offense intended. It just is. To put it simply, the NY Times is not an authority on the matter. Their investigation doesn't count for squat. Simply remove it, and WP:BALANCE is satisfied. To rely on the NY Times for this is like relying on them to give medical advice. Likewise, their clarifications don't mean squat.

Look, if this were not a public figure, we wouldn't even have this info in the article unless/until a conviction was secured in a court of law, per WP:BLPCRIME. Since it is a public figure, this article falls under an exemption to that, called WP:WELLKNOWN. We have to say something about it to let the public know that Wikipedia is aware it's going on, but we can wait for the authorities to do their own investigation and not rush to put some half-ass investigation from a news outlet into the article. Above all, we still have to go into this with a presumption of innocent until proven guilty. That's where BLPBALANCE comes into play. I sincerely hope that makes sense. Zaereth (talk) 01:03, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Oh, and I wish I could help with your argument about consensus, but there is nothing in my power that I can do about it, although I do agree it should be removed until this is resolved. I've stated my opinion, and perhaps that may sway another, who knows. But that is all I can do. And any admin who involves themselves in this discussion is no longer an admin in this case, but just another user. The job of an admin is to (for the most part) stop disruption, page protect, and block people if necessary. When one feels this has gotten out of hand, I'm sure one will step in. Until then, we're on our own. Zaereth (talk) 01:44, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm laughing...not at you, but the absurdity of this situation. I asked you to repeat my BLP argument back to me, or better yet steelman my argument, and your response sounds like you're just stating you understand my argument and it's wrong. I feel like I'm speaking a foreign language.

I'm blocked from editing the text, and everyone else is seemingly afraid to. Administrators are not stopping the disruption or addressing the real problem; it's less controversial for them to just block people who violate clear-cut procedural violations. I got blocked after an involved administrator shared with an uninvolved administrator that I violated 1RR, without also sharing the context of the CIVILPOVPUSHING I was faced with. I was careless and distracted when I made the edits, hoping I was technically adhering to 1RR, but 1RR is rigid. I still think it should be removed immediately per BLPBALANCE. You all keep saying no, but I'm not hearing my argument broken down as I understand it. "Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints". BLP policy does not say how severe the violation needs to be. Only one piece of the NYTimes' conclusions on the story is given space. You could argue that doesn't constitute "viewpoints", but I would argue this does violate the spirit of the policy. The presentation of the evidence does not just effect Biden's reputation; irresponsibly not giving balanced space to evidence which supports Reade hurts Reade's reputation. Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:09, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

• Yes, the sexual assault allegation section violates WP:BLPBALANCE by quoting of only NY Times. The specific NYT words are not significant in effect enough to deserve being quoted, and are not the sole coverage here -- there is missing negative coverage in the corroberation of sources she told. If all details were excluded then it would be just a simple allegation and his denial per BLPPUBLIC. But if the article is going beyond this into details and outside views, then it needs to observe BLPBALANCE to include evidence against Biden, and to follow NPOV in doing so proportionate to the WEIGHT of coverage. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 06:46, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
• Agree with MarkBassett and Levivitch; hat tip to Koyla for their tenacity, and to Jayron32 for saying the quiet part out loud. It strikes me that this experiment in building an encyclopedia by consensus by mob rule is a failure, and Jayron32 points to the reason: enforcement of the policies and guidelines is done by volunteers who can just as easily volunteer to look the other way. It is astonishing that anyone would argue we should use the Biden-camp version of the NYT piece without signaling to readers the history and controvery behind the edit, and tell them what it originally said. We are passing it off, as some Democratic leaders have also done, as an independant investigation and the final word (even though it is outdated by about 3 corrborating accounts).

Arb break 1 (Biden)

The Times gave a summary of their Reade reporting when they cleared up a lie being spread about it from the Biden campaign, as evidenced by leaked talking points. (The Biden camp was mischaracterizing the piece as having concluded that they found "the accusation was not credible".) Their summary of the piece removes all spin and shows only the gist:

[O]ur story found three former Senate aides whom Reade said she complained to contemporaneously, all of whom either did not remember the incident or said that it did not happen...The story also included former interns who remembered Reade suddenly changing roles and no longer overseeing them, which took place during the same time period that Reade said she was abruptly reassigned,” the statement continued. “The Times also spoke to a friend who said Reade told her the details of the allegation at the time; another friend and Reade’s brother say she told them of a traumatic sexual incident involving Biden.

I suggest using a summary of this version, but also include the Washingont Posts List of corroborators. petrarchan47คุก 21:42, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

I knew I read that somewhere but I couldn't find it! I had assumed it was a piece in the NYTimes, but it was a statement the NYTimes made to CNN in your link. Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:53, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Petrarchan47, I can't figure out what's going on with the CNN link; I thought I saw your quote there and now I don't. But it looks like the NYTs issued the same statement to HuffPo.[23] Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:26, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

WaPo has the whole statement which was circulated around the media.[24] Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:37, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

I should stress that from what actual little confirmation or lack thereof that has come out of this for the purposes of an encyclopedia, taking BLP into account but also NOTNEWS factors, the accusation needs mention on Biden's page but little else (the standalone can get into more detail): a statement summarizing what Reade said happened to her from Biden needs to be included, and what Biden and/or his campaign has refuted. Ideally we also want a neutral third party that has done the investigation and the NYtimes' story should be it, normally. The fact that the story mistook and thus created a whole another mess, whether that should be included needs to be determined based on the relevant weight of how much the misuse was covered relative to the original accusations. If only a couple sources picked up on that, then it's probably UNDUE to have in on Biden's page (but okay on the standalone). If it has major weight, then more coverage can be given but I do agree that with the groups grossly simplify the NYTimes story (when the NYTimes was very careful to avoid gross simplifications) as to make Reade look bad, and there's large enough coverage of that, that should be included to reflect the BLP issue towards Reade. What is very clear now is that the Times' quote itself is still fine and not a BLP issue, its the fact groups decided to misquote the Times that's causing the problem, and whether to cover that is a UNDUE evaluation that needs to happen. --Masem (t) 06:15, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

The purpose of using the NYTs' clarification has nothing to do with the distortions reported in the media; the purpose of using (a stripped down version of) NYTs' clarification quote is because it may provide consensus text for the existing non-consensus BLP violating text.

I am hearing your declarative statement that the "Times' quote itself is still fine and not a BLP issue towards Reade, but I have not heard a response to my specific concerns. I feel like we're continuing to dance around the question. Please respond about at my last comment. Kolya Butternut (talk) 14:25, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

The Times' clarification is fine to add, but adding it in full would require adding a bunch of details of what happened with the Biden campaign mis-concluding the original Times' conclusion, and for sake of this still being yet an unproven accusation that hasn't made much effect on anything beyond media time, we still want to be high level about it on Biden's page. Something akin to : The New York Times, after interviewing staff at Biden's office at the time, and th friends, family, and associates of Ms. Reade who she told of the incident, and others, found "no other allegation about sexual assault surfaced in the course of reporting" and "no pattern of sexual misconduct by Mr. Biden". Buzzfeed discovered that the Biden campaign internally concluded from the Times report that the allegated events "did not happen", to which the Times clarified, "Our investigation made no conclusion either way." That would be sufficient fair and neutral to all without getting lost in the weeds of the details of what the issues were behind the situation barring the need to get into it more. --Masem (t) 21:32, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

No the text you've suggested is not based off of the two quotes we've proposed, which are limited to the clarification and the text I first quoted at 00:30, 5 May 2020.

Masem, this post is about BLP. I have not gotten a response to my concerns about why the existing text violates BLP and lacks consensus. I have heard some of your rationale for your conclusions, but those reasons do not respond to my given rationale for why I believe there is a violation. Do you know what my rationale is? I have tried to explain it, but in this very long conversation I have heard no response. Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:33, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

As best as I can make out, you feel the Times' statement as taken in the article presently is too terse and seems to omit any of the corroboration that may have come from Reade's friends even though the rest of the article clearly mentions them and that the Times conclusion includes their input. Hence why shorten it up to explain all whom the Times talked too (including Reade's side) removes that issue. If its the two intern part of the story, that's a huge amount of speculation we shouldn't be touching at all. ---Masem (t) 22:59, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that Times quote is not a summary of their investigation. It is a BLPBALANCE violation against Tara Reade. As the policy states, "Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints". BLP policy does not say how severe the violation needs to be. Only one piece of the NYTimes' conclusions on the story is given space. You could argue that doesn't constitute "viewpoints", but they are "claims" about an event, and I would argue this does violate the spirit of the policy. The presentation of the evidence does not just effect Biden's reputation; irresponsibly not giving balanced space to evidence which supports Reade hurts Reade's reputation. That Times quote should be removed. Removing that quote without adding anything else would leave us with a bare-bones and balanced summary. Or, we could replace it with the Times' quote above, "Our investigation made no conclusion either way." Not only should the existing quote be removed for BLP violation, it should be removed because it was inserted against consensus. There may have been consensus to add something about the Time's conclusions, but there was no consensus on what text to use, and that quote has been repeatedly reverted. These violations can be solved in two ways: remove the quote, or replace it with "Our investigation made no conclusion either way." Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:28, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Masem, this is what I've been asking you to evaluate. If this is not explained then this whole discussion answered nothing. Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:15, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

You're arguing that the quote hurts Reade's reputation. (There, I read it back to you.) I ask, what reputation? This is an unknown person who decided to throw herself into the spotlight during an election cycle. Nobody has ever heard of her before now, and while this has made her a public figure, she is not notable enough to have her own article, and really has no reputation to speak of. The only thing anybody really knows about her are her allegations. Nobody is calling her a liar, but we have to treat these allegations as unproven. That's why we say "alleged" when describing them, not to give any less weight to her accusations but make sure we are not unfairly implicating the subject of this article in something that can be very harmful to him. This is not the place to try this case, and we don't need to worry about balancing the evidence. We just need to make sure the subject of the article is not being unfairly convicted before the authorities have a chance to weigh in. Nothing there is being used to imply that these accusations are true, thus no BLP violation exists. As I've said, it is just a content dispute over normal policies, in this case NPOV. And the source in question falls under RS.

Once again, I have no intention of hurting your feelings, but I think you have a misunderstanding about policy and how it works. BLP policy is not a catch-all for anything that happens in a biography. All other policies apply to that bio as well. BLP is there to cover all the things those policies don't, primarily to protect people from harm. She made these allegations, and that has a huge possibility to cause undue harm to the subject. That she might be thought a liar by some was a risk she assumed, and until the authorities weigh in on the matter, she bears that risk willingly. She does not have the same potential for harm as the subject does, not by a long shot. That's why this does not fall under BLP, but the other policies. Arguing like a lawyer never gets anyone anywhere here. We really have to look at all of the policies as a whole, like one giant equation on some Einstein's blackboard, where each factor must be met to satisfy the entire equation. BLP, although it ultimately trumps all other policies, it still works in accordance with and is modified by those same policies, just as they work with and modify each other. While this may be a problem covered by WP:BALANCE, that is a completely separate thing than WP:BLPBALANCE, which is there to protect the subject from harmful accusations, not to protect the accuser from harm, real or perceived, that they may bring to themselves in the act of making those accusation. She assumed that risk. I only hope that makes sense.

Now, as far as I can see, there has never been consensus for this issue one way or another. I've looked at the talk page, and nowhere do I see a place where consensus was established. An uninvolved admin is likely to lock the page from edit warring on whatever version happened to be there at the time if there is no consensus either way, and whoever gets their toes stepped on just has to deal with it. They can't be seen as taking sides, so it's usually done at random. If you want consensus to either remove or add something, it's up to you to build it --on the talk page, not here-- the only consensus we build here is whether something in a grey area is a BLP vio or not. This is not a grey area in that respect.

Now I hope I have answered your questions. I know it's not what you want to hear, but that's the way it is. I still agree that the quote should be removed, but that is an issue for another noticeboard. Zaereth (talk) 19:16, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

No, I'm sorry but that does not speak to my BLP questions. And your discussion of the consensus issue lacks precision so I am unsure if you have answered the question. I don't know if you're saying there was no consensus for anything about Tara Reade, or if you believe there is consensus for some things about her allegation but not others. You said, "If I want consensus to remove", but no one should need consensus to remove something that never had consensus.

As for BLP, you're discussing too many things unrelated to my question, and not addressing my question. I'm sorry, but because you haven't addressed them I have to break them down into lawyerly yes or no questions:

1. The BLP policy applies to every person, regardless of whether that person is discussed in the article of another, correct?
2. If we misrepresent an RS in such a way as to present an accuser as a liar, that would be a BLP violation, correct?
3. The Times' quotes included in the article do not provide a balanced summary of the Times' findings, correct?
4. The Times' quotes leave out the half of the story which makes Reade more credible, correct?
5. If we include text in an article presenting a person as less credible than the cited RS presents them, when their credibility is essential to their reputation, that is a BLP vio, correct?

I don't think it matters who could get harmed worse; we just have to accurately present the RS so no one is unduly harmed, but your statement that "She does not have the same potential for harm as the subject does, not by a long shot", is shocking. Biden could lose the presidency and carry on as normal, nothing gained, nothing lost from what he had before. Reade could be murdered. Kolya Butternut (talk) 21:03, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Point by point : #1: yes, even to those relatively unknown. #2, yes, on the basis of "if" we did that. #3, arguably, yes, does not paint a complete picture as to whom all the Times spoke to. However, #4 is no, because even though #3 omits parts of the what the full story covers, their conclusion incorporates their interviews with Reade's friends and family and still came to the result of inconclusive of any evidence of the event happening. So the answer to #5 here is no, on the point that #3 is a fixable issue by cutting out part of the quote and doing a better job at summarizing the Times' investigation to support what they concluded for #4. --Masem (t) 22:41, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm hearing you say:

1. Yes.
2. Yes.
3. Yes.
4. You haven't answered this question as it was asked.
5. You haven't answered this question as it was asked.

Ok, I'll start with the simple question, #5. What is "fixable" is irrelevant to my question. #5 is about a hypothetical article; Biden's article is irrelevant. The answer to the question, however, will inform our conclusion about Biden's article.

5. Please answer yes or no: If we include text in an article presenting a person as less credible than the cited RS presents them, when their credibility is essential to their reputation, that is a BLP vio, correct?

I will rephrase #4: Does the following information make Reade more credible: Two people corroborated that in the 90s Reade told them Biden sexually assaulted her. Two other people corroborated that years ago Reade told them of a traumatic sexual incident involving Biden. A 1993 call from Reade's mother to Larry King Live confirms that Reade had told her about a problem in Biden's office at that time which was so serious she considered going to the press. Court documents from 1996 show that Reade told her ex-husband that she had experienced sexual harassment in Biden's office. Two former interns who Reade had supervised remember that she abruptly stopped supervising them within the time frame Reade says she was assaulted. One intern said she thought that was odd at the time. Does this information present her as more credible?

4. Please answer the above, yes or no. Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:12, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

4 and 5 are both no as we would normally handle such cases. For 4, it is normally "no" because the Times already covers all those parts in summarizing whom they talk to, and even if they didn't state that, because of the reputation of the times, it would normally be presumed that they would not make such a conclusion without seeking all parts of the story; the Times is never going to be going out to discredit anyone in reporting these types of stories, because of their reputation, which is something you're asking us to question. But it is only because of the Biden campaign jumping to a conclusion that the Times did not make does it make sense to make sure readers also don't make the same mistake (particularly if they have only heard the Biden campaign side), and thus summarize the list of ppl the Times talked to from the Apr 12 report, and then conclude with the statement made in the clarification from the post-Biden campaign response that they cannot confirm or deny the accusation. With the New York Times, we should not normally have to do that, but this situation that a major player in the events took it out of hand we can use the more direct clarity, avoid the quote that is causing the problem and use the quote that eliminates it. --Masem (t) 03:52, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Do you understand why I feel like you're not listening? (No need to answer and get sidetracked.) I am not "asking us to question" The Times, and that is not an answer to #4. #4 makes no mention of the Times' story. Please do not discuss extraneous inferences that do not help me understand the logic of policy. Please answer #5 as well. (Remember, this question is not about the Biden article either.) Kolya Butternut (talk) 12:43, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

As a fundamental question, except for the part about the interns, everything else about #4 bolsters the credibility of her claims. The interns situation is the type of thing that would need more evidence to confirm what happened. But that all said, this is why we have to recognize that the Times already accounted for all those people related to your question #4 in their article in terms of how #5 is to be answered. A hypothetical case: what if it was the Biden campaign said they talked to the people in the office at the time, and only the people in the office (none of Reade's friends) and found no assault took place? Now your line of questions makes sense to where we'd avoid some language on purpose were we to use the Biden's campaign stance. But again, the NYtimes has made it clear they talked to everyone include all those you're pointing out for #4 that boost Reade's credibility, such that there is no harm to it. If everyone had accepted the Times' result that there was nothing actionable and moved on, with no further statements towards Biden NOR Reade, we'd not be here. Its what's happened since that we know we have to refine a bit of what the Times presented to make sure we present the Times' message clear that there was no evidence either way and no one should be taking Reade's claims as uncredible, just impossible to prove at this point. --Masem (t) 13:10, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

No disrespect, but it hurts your credibility as an expert at policy interpretation when you do not interpret questions accurately. #5 asks nothing about the Reade story. Please do not read into it. Please answer this question: If we include text in an article presenting a person as less credible than the cited RS presents them, when their credibility is essential to their reputation, that is a BLP vio, correct? Kolya Butternut (talk) 13:23, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

There's no inalienable right to be considered "credible". It's really important that we source text to secondary RS summary evaluations, such as Vox and NY Times, rather than have WP editors pore over dozens of disparate sources to cobble our own conclusions. This editing issue comes up in BLP and non-BLP articles all the time. SPECIFICO talk 13:35, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, please stop. I do not want to address the problems with your comments here when I have specific questions for Masem Start a new thread. Kolya Butternut (talk) 14:11, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Kolya Butternut, if what you want is a private conversation with Masem, I might suggest that you have that on your talk page or his. As a public noticeboard where editors are encouraged to participate, I should think any relevant, respectful commentary is well within bounds. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 14:21, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

I'll rephrase that, my question is meant for somebody who's going to answer the question, not make disrespectful comments suggesting anyone is cobbling together sources, when the only piece of information not in the New York Times is the word "odd". Kolya Butternut (talk) 14:30, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

I think Dumuzid and SPECIFICO are introducing static when Kolya Butternut is obviously asking a question of Masem that grows out of an already-developed line of reasoning and argumentation between Kolya Butternut and Masem. Bus stop (talk) 15:05, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

And you are more than welcome to ignore any "static" from me or any other editor. What sticks in my craw a bit is when one editor appears to be ordering others around. If you'd rather not have contributions from the peanut gallery, don't hold your conversation in front of the peanut gallery. That's all. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 16:19, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Please consider the context of this long discussion and critique the other editors as well. Kolya Butternut (talk) 16:54, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

So to be perfectly frank: at the core policy level, you are looking for "yes" to both #4 and #5, which I would agree with as basic policy. But policy has to be applied case by case, and I will disagree that they apply to this case for reasons I have explained numerous times before; it requires a very nuanced view of the Times' end statement of their April 12 story to presume the quote used in the article is discrediting Reade and thus a BLP violation. There is a valid reason to argue to not have that quote in light of what the Biden campaign misrepresented the conclusion and the NYTimes' subsequently clarification (that is: to summarize the investigative points of the Times' April 12 article and quote the clarification), but that's due to this exceptional situation, being aware of the mess created beyond the reliable sources. WP cannot take any more of a preferential treatment towards Reade than what you seem to want, and we are not yet any point where any text in Bidens article is harming Reade's reputation, it's only because stuff external to WP that we may want to be more direct and clear to the point as the NYTimes as had to do so there's no question. --Masem (t) 14:29, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

I keep saying that making inferences about what I want and am thinking and discussing things extraneous to my questions are not advancing the conversation.  I am asking specific questions about policy interpretation.  Right now, the Biden campaign's misrepresentation of the New York Times and the  clarification are extraneous to the questions I am asking.

Ignoring everything else: If we include text in an article presenting Reade as less credible than the April 12 Times article presents her, when her credibility is essential to her reputation, that is a BLP vio, correct?  Kolya Butternut (talk) 15:15, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you provided an specific example with your question. Generally speaking, it would not be a WP:BLP violation to "include text in an article presenting Reade as less credible than the April 12 Times article presents her" provided such text is backed up by reliable source(s) and, is not an opinion of the source. It is not our position to determine the credibility of either Biden or Reade. The reader can review the sources and make their own determination as to the credibility of the party. CBS527^Talk 16:35, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

I've said it before: Wikipedia has no responsibility to "correct" anything that other people do to a source like the NYTimes to misrepresent it, if we ourselves our not including that misrepresentation. We are looking at the NYtimes as a reputable source only, and unless as cbs527 points out that there is severe concern the the NYTimes directly was undermining Reade's credibility, we'd do something about that. But it's not the Times at fault, its Biden's campaign that took the Times at a different conclusion. Technically, we could care less about there, and there is certainly no policy to drive us to correct what external sources that we're not even using have misused, though we can consider an alternative that is a bit more direct to the point like what I've suggested. --Masem (t) 17:01, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

That comment literally ignored everything I just said.  Please let's avoid non sequiturs.  

Ignoring everything else: If we include text from the April 12 Times source in an article to present Reade as less credible than the April 12 Times article presents her, when her credibility is essential to her reputation, that is a BLP vio, correct? Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:23, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

And as I said before many times before, ignoring all else that's happened since, the text incorporated from the April 12 Times articles says nothing to affect Reade's credibility with everything else already there, so there's no BLP violation. --Masem (t) 17:28, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

This is a yes or no question, reading into The question to answer something else derails the conversation.  I need to understand one piece at a time.  Please answer yes or no.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:40, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

KB, it appears that you are starting from the premise that Reade is entitled to be regarded as "credible" and as a consequence that you are concerned that WP accurately citing sources that are sceptical about soome of her allegations might undermine that credibility. If that is your concern, that would not be what our BLP policy is intended to do. It could still be a valid issue for WP:NPOVN. SPECIFICO talk 18:01, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Please refer back to my previous comment.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:26, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

If the question is framed incorrectly, "yes or no" can't resolve it. Ones reputation and credibility are not assets in a vault such that RS reporting of facts can be suppressed as if the reporting were theft or assault. SPECIFICO talk 18:42, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

If the intention of my question is not clear then I'm sure that someone who intends on answering it could ask for clarification.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:51, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

(last attempt) The matter cannot be clarified without discarding the false premise of your questions. They appear to be related to NPOV, not our BLP policy. SPECIFICO talk 18:59, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Masem, I'll clarify: Ignoring everything else, if we only include text from an RS in an article which presents Reade as less credible than that same RS presents her, when her credibility is essential to her reputation, that is a BLP vio, correct? Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:08, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

To that generic question yes.

But one last time this does not apply to the NYTimes quote we are using as, as the quote as taken and in context of our use, does not make Reade less or more credible, so there's no BLP violation at all. --Masem (t) 19:23, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

There is no need to repeat yourself when I am making clear what I want to understand through yes or no questions. We're getting close.

Now, do these two hypothetical paragraphs for the Joe Biden article convey the same level of credibility towards Read?

1. ...The New York Times reported that "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." A friend said that Ms. Reade told her the details of the allegation at the time. Another friend and a brother of Ms. Reade’s said she told them over the years about a traumatic sexual incident involving Mr. Biden. Two former interns who Reade had supervised corroborate that she abruptly stopped supervising them within the time frame Reade says she was assaulted.
2. ...The New York Times reported that "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." Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:51, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, they bear the same level of credibility to Reade, or more specifically, neither impact/reduce the credibility to Reade, which is of the biggest concern. Hence why there is no BLP issue here. --Masem (t) 21:06, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

So we could include all of the evidence from that story which corroborates Reade, and none of the details which corroborate Biden, as long as we keep that Times quote, and there would be no BLPBALANCE violation against Biden? Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:05, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Makes no difference. It is likely to be reverted for other reasons, already discussed on the artilce talk page at some length. SPECIFICO talk 22:37, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Please stop interjecting non sequiturs.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:51, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

A BLP violation can crop up at any time if one is not careful. Everything depends on the specific text in question, the context its in, and how it's phrased. The only thing I've been trying to explain is why this particular text is not a BLP vio. I really don't care bout the rest of it. Policy is designed to be flexible to account for different situations, and Specifico is right that there are far more policies at play here. I won't comment on future texts that haven't been conceived yet. The only thing I will consider is the text under discussion, which Masem is correct, in that it's not a BLP vio no matter how one tries to spin it. Your best bet is to end this discussion here and begin one on the article's talk page, where the building of any real consensus should take place. And there needs to be a real effort there to achieve some sort of consensus. Only when it can be demonstrated that no consensus will be achieved should you resort to RFC, and then you should accept whatever consensus results, whether you agree with it or not. There is no point in taking the BLUDGEON approach where you argue with anyone and everyone who makes a comment you don't like or understand. And foremost, achieving consensus is about convincing others of your point, and gaining support from others, which will never occur if you continue to fight with and insult and try to make enemies out of everyone, especially those who show some support, albeit in a way you didn't anticipate. Now I have nothing further to say, because this entire conversation is circular, and I really think it's time for someone to come along and close it down. Zaereth (talk) 23:18, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

That seems really unfair to interject to ask that the discussion be closed down now that we're so close to finally approaching the questions that everyone has been dancing around for so long. Zaereth, please do not characterize me as trying to make enemies and insulting people; I feel like you're not looking at things from my perspective. I am not bludgeoning, it is that others keep talking about everything other than what my concerns are. If you're going offer criticism solely in my direction and not speak to my concerns then your comments are a distraction. This is a discussion about understanding BLP policy, nothing else (besides the original consensus question, which has been left behind). Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:36, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Masem, I am asking about BLPBALANCE in the other direction, relative to Biden when using the text I described. Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:38, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

BLPBALANCE to add that? No. NPOV to how much the situation is being covered on Biden's page? Oh hell yes. You may now WP:DROPTHESTICK. --Masem (t) 23:50, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

It seems like the confusion is that you are characterizing the Times quote as a conclusion, when it is not a conclusion at all, so Reade's confidants are not summarized by that quote (which appears in the middle of the article). The included text is The New York Times reported that "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." The part about "no other allegation" surfacing is irrelevant to the assault itself, as is whether they found a "pattern of sexual misconduct". So the only piece of the quote relevant to Reade's allegation is "nor did any former Biden staff members corroborate any details of Ms. Reade's allegation", but that is not a conclusion about their investigation. That speaks to what the staff members knew, not what Reade's friends knew, so the basis of your conclusion that there is no BLP vio is invalid. Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:00, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Do you understand that her friends and family cannot corroborate any details of what actually happened in the offices, only that she told them of the allegations in the past? This is the whole point I started with at the top that you're missing. Her friends weren't at the office, they can't speak to how Biden or any of the other people there behaved. The Times would not be asking them those questions of people who weren't in the office at all. You are failing to listen to all these arguments and at this point beating the dead horse about the BLP. There's a valid NPOV concern but not a BLP for the last time. --Masem (t) 00:25, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

You said that her confidants did bolster her credibility. You mistakenly interpreted The Times quote as a summary of their findings, when it was not. You said that quote incorporated Reade's confidants, which it did not. The staff members who knew nothing do not tell us whether the assault occurred any more than Reade's confidants tell us the assault occurred.

You said that BLP policy applies to Tara Reade even in Biden's article, you said that The Times' quotes do not provide a balanced summary of The Times' findings, you agreed that the corroboration of her confidants bolstered her credibility .  And lastly, you agreed that if we only include text from an RS in an article which presents Reade as less credible than that same RS presents her, when her credibility is essential to her reputation, that is a BLP vio. (but you say that would not be true if the NYTimes quote we are using does not make Reade less or more credible).  But your opinion on the Times quote was based on the mistaken belief that it was a summary conclusion.  You stated that Reade's corroborators bolster her credibility, therefore Biden's corroborators bolster his credibility, therefore The Times quote does make Reade less credible, therefore there is a BLPBALANCE violation. Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:30, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

I addressed the BLPBALANCE violation with this version. (This edit was immediately reverted with the false claim that the previous version was "stable"[25]:

In April 2019, former Biden staffer Tara Reade said that she had felt uncomfortable on several occasions when Biden touched her on her shoulder and neck during her employment in his Senate office in 1993.^[1] In March 2020, Reade accused Biden of pushing her against a wall and digitally penetrating her while on Capitol Hill in 1993.^[2] On May 1, 2020, Biden said, "It's not true. I'm saying unequivocally it never, never happened, and it didn't. It never happened."^[3]

While The New York Times was investigating the Reade allegation,  no other allegation about sexual assault surfaced, and no pattern of sexual misconduct was found. ^[4]

I'm not seeking more input; this is just my opinion to conclude this discussion. Kolya Butternut (talk) 12:31, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Please note my edits and their summaries which show the rationale for this proposed text and address this discussion. The first in a series of edits begins here. (The immediately preceding edit removes a new non-consensus edit. Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:32, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Related to the Joey Gibson issue above, my edit to be more WP:NPOV and avoid WP:LABEL in Gibson's group Patriot Prayer has been reverted by two editors,[26][27] and I would like outside people to look at this contentious topic. I remember from the Stephen Miller example that we avoid or deemphasize the far-right label if they do not adopt it.[28] Morbidthoughts (talk) 16:18, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

The label was also reinstated in Joey Gibson's article. [29] Morbidthoughts (talk) 16:23, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

When NBC News directly and factually describes someone as "the leader of a far-right group," The Guardian describes someone as a "far-right leader," KOIN describes someone as "the leader of the far-right group Patriot Prayer," and the Los Angeles Times describes someone as a "far-right activist," it is not in any way a BLP violation to describe either that person or that group as far-right. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:27, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

If you looked at the edits, I didn't remove the label. I put it into the next sentence and attribute it in a more passive voice for WP:NPOV. I also wasn't sure why the bit about other groups who attend their rally was in the lead Morbidthoughts (talk) 16:37, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

The label doesn't need to be attributed, per WP:YESPOV - Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice. Please explain what is contested or controversial about the factual assertion that Patriot Prayer is a far-right group. That is, which reliable sources expressly reject the label and argue that the group is not far-right? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:39, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

I may have conflated Gibson's rejection of the alt-right label with far-right (discussed in his article). However these are not factual assertions, rather they are labels based on political opinion. Morbidthoughts (talk) 16:52, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

None of the sources I cited are opinion sources - they are all standard factual news stories. So no, they're not opinion - they're factual statements made by reliable sources. And Gibson is not a reliable source for factual claims - if it is true that he rejects the label, that is probably worthy of mention, but it does not alter our approach to factual statements made by reliable sources. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:20, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Again, these political labels are subjective depending on where in the spectrum you are.See Fox News News articles are not immune to this either. Gibson has rejected being labeled as such.[30][31] Morbidthoughts (talk) 17:43, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Morbidthoughts, most far-right figures don't want to be called far-right. The obvious solution is to stop being far-right, but that doesn't seem to be an option for some reason. Guy (help!) 18:11, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

JzG, I read Gibson's article and he repeatedly repudiates being far-right and white nationalism and the SPLC doesn't list him or Patriot Prayer, etc. I do understand that you believe the US right is far-right, but just being right wing in the US doesn't mean someone is far-right. I would expect you then to label those on the left, far-left, and expect you to label antifa protesters with the same zeal. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:33, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Sir Joseph, I don't actually believe that the entire US right is far-right. There is a worthwhile distinction to be drawn betyween the two still. But they are getting closer together - damning entire religions and putting children in concentration camps is a bit Hitlery, after all.

A lot of sources identify Patriot Prayer as far-right, including the BBC. That makes sense, given what the group does. I have no specific opinion on Gibson. Maybe a moderate can start a far-right group, I would not know, I have never tried. Guy (help!) 19:57, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

JzG, so Obama is far-right then since the detention centers started in his tenure? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:01, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

You've won the Godwin's law sweepstakes. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:07, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't think that would at all be an instance of Godwin's law, Morbidthoughts. Bus stop (talk) 21:26, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Uhh, okay there. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:35, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

There would be no one who could think "Obama is far-right". I don't think a remark said in a tongue-in-cheek manner would likely be an example of Godwin's law. Bus stop (talk) 22:16, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

I think you're misreading things. Look at how it's indented. Morbidthoughts' joke is not aimed at Sir Joseph. Zaereth (talk) 22:28, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Oh, my mistake. Bus stop (talk) 23:00, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

The Camas-Washougal Post-Record article you linked helpfully explains exactly why it's appropriate for Wikipedia to describe him as far-right. I'd recommend you read it carefully. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:18, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Oh, I read it. How else did I find it? Did you agree with the adopted approach in Stephen_Miller (political advisor) since you participated in that discussion also? I'm trying to understand why using the passive tense is that objectionable if biographical information is supposed to be written conservatively. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:03, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

One concern I have is that the source used to label Gibson as far-right is a left-wing UK source. I would imagine someone can find a source from the US to do so. The Guardian is probably not the best source for US political discourse to label people. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:30, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

What does "far right" translate to here? The article does not mention explicitly neo-fascist or neo-nazi ideology, the leaders of the organization have decried white supremacy, and the extend of biogoted proclamations in the text mostly implies Islamophobia. Not that different from other right-wing organizations. Dimadick (talk) 18:37, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Dimadick, do we care? If that's what RS call the group... Guy (help!) 16:14, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

The problem is the wikilink that attaches to the label. Gibson keeps complaining that the media mischaracterise him so I was curious how academics label him.[32] I learned a new term, alt-lite, which seems to generally describe the group. Morbidthoughts (talk) 17:28, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Morbidthoughts, bluntly, I don't care what he thinks about how the media portrays him. It's very much not our problem to fix. Guy (help!) 22:13, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

WP:SCHOLARSHIP trumps news organization when it comes to reliable sources under WP:SOURCETYPES. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:17, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

A test that I've suggested before: out of the body of reliable sources that discuss the group or the person, how many of those use "far right"? Focusing on when one or two sources use the two is not good for pushing the label. As a completely simplified first pass via google news:

• "joey gibson" gives 4510 hits
• "joey gibson" +"far right" gives 2170 == 48% , reasonably high enough that its fair game as a label without attribution.
• "patriot prayer" gives 7,800 hits
• "patriot prayer" +"far right" gives 3760 = 48% as well, so same result.

Now, I will generally agree that "far right" should not be used in the first sentence of the lede as a label, or at least not until you get past "X is a y" statement. In the case of Patriot Prayer, I would write that as Patriot Prayer is an activist group based in Portland, Oregon. Broadly considered a far right group, Patriot Prayer describes itself as advocating in favor of free speech and opposing big government.... That removes the first sentence problem but gets the wholly appropriate label as reasonably early and in a statement contrasting with their purpose. --Masem (t) 23:27, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Masem—I would disagree that "joey gibson" plus "far right" gives 2170 equals 48%, reasonably high enough that its fair game as a label without attribution. Those Google hits are including instances in which both "joey gibson" and "far right" are found at the same website. No surprise there; they are related topics. In general I don't think we should be tossing around labels willy-nilly. The terms are far from clear. And I think the reader should know right away what entity is applying a term such as "far right". Therefore I think we should err on the side of attribution within the sentence, rather than "without attribution". I think it is less preferable to have the attribution buried in a citation at the end of a sentence where the reader might not see it. Bus stop (talk) 00:26, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

There may be too many to list or credit. That's why I didn't passively attribute the label to a specific source and kept it general in my disputed edits. Masem's suggestion is similar to what was done in Stephen Miller (political advisor), and I agree with his suggestion. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:53, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Let me back up. A label like "far-right" needs sourcing, no question. Most of the time it should be attributed, but we're asking the question here "are there enough sources that consider Joey Gibson/Patriot Prayer as 'far-right' to be able to not have to use direct attribution"? That is, my example of "Broadly considered" is still attribution but not named because my rough news calc shows enough support for its use. I would still source it but make use of the best and most neutral sources. I can find several news (not opinion) articles on the NYTimes for Gibson, while BBC has "far-right" easily for Patriot-Prayer. This is where being aware of even the bit of leftist nature might be a concern eg, I'd not use The Guardian here for this purpose as its a slightly-left paper from the UK. Not that there aren't plenty of sources for either case though. --Masem (t) 01:00, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

The problem, as has been identified in this thread, is that "far-right" is not a meaningful term. I don't even think "right" and "left" are meaningful terms. Is Bret Weinstein "left" or "right"? Labels in general are problematic. A few good examples can be included in an article: according to Entity ABC so-and-so is "far-right". The reader probably already has an opinion of Entity ABC, and that will help them to understand the characterization of the subject of the article as "far-right". 01:16, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

You know, I actually agree with you here, Bus stop. Google hits are not a reliable source, because they don't give an accurate tally of sources. Has anyone ever looked at all 5000 hits to see what they actually say? Personally, I would base any assessment upon the reliability of the sources and the context in which the term was used, and compare that with other sources of equal or better reliability. I'd also keep in mind that how a person defines a label is more than a little dependent on that person's own biases and internal value systems (ie: those who lean far-left may likely see anything two inches to the right as being far-right, and visa versa). I'd also keep that in mind when assessing sources, because these days they often take no steps to hide their biases or even try to appear neutral. Personally, I don't think attribution is a bad thing in any instance, so I don't see why not, but then again I haven't dug too deep. I'd also keep in mind, Bus stop, that your argument here is also a good one to use against you up there in the Kosner section. Zaereth (talk) 01:20, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes I should be clear, that was a simple Google News search. I would definitely recommend a more thorough one that limits to known RS, probably elimininating local sources involved. But the type of analysis should still help determine how frequent the label is applied to the point where attribution-by-named source would be excessive and a broad term should not be too unreasonable. --Masem (t) 01:25, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

A more meaningful article is created when you say that Entity ABC considers the subject of the article to be a far-right activist, or a left-leaning ideologue. Bus stop (talk) 01:35, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

if only a handful of papers or journalists that have written about a person or group in the bulk of reliable sources have only used a label like "far-right", then yes, we want to use that type of language ("Entity XYZ considers this group a far-right group"...) but at that point that language does not at all belong in the lede as that's UNDUE as well. If, with the proper source analysis as Zaereth describes below, the label is frequently used by reliable sources given sufficient coverage of the person, we're not going to spend time naming every reliable source that uses that label in a summarizing sentence; we still need avoid the seemingly factual claim that is "X is a far-right activist" in wikivoice (unless we know they self-associate with the label), but we can allude to the broad agreement in sources with the type of language I discussed, and this can be mentioned in the lede. --Masem (t) 13:41, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Understood, Masem, and I get what you mean. My point is that, I'm one to dig deep into google, never satisfied with the first thing that pops up. Three, sometimes six, seven pages in and it starts throwing whatever it's got at you. It may pick articles that have one word and not the other, and in the bottom corner in small print are the words "missing [search term]" Some hits may not even have the words at all. You'll start to come across the same site or book multiple times, because they apparently use the words more than once I guess. I mean, from my experience, I wouldn't use that as my standard. All I'm saying. Although I do think we need to weigh it all to be fair, but some sources carry much more weight than others, generally speaking. Zaereth (talk) 01:45, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

It appears well sourced. If editors want to take the time to identify the very best sources on the group (high-quality sources with in-depth coverage, ideally from a historical context), then it might be easier to resolve this. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 15:40, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

This is the type of thing that should be done and documented whenever editors agree that a label applies so broadly as to not need direct attribution; this documentation should be to the talk page so that it falls to an archive, so that should an IP/new editor come along and try to edit war the label away, you can point to this analysis section to validate the use. The very slow "edit war" of just trying to justify a label by continuing to add selective sources that use the label isn't the best approach. May be a PITA to do but its once-and-done step that avoids a lot of PITAs in the future. --Masem (t) 16:24, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

• Any objection to implementing Masem's suggested edit with the proper citations over how it's currently worded? Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:46, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello,

A discussion is open whether a footballer who claims having had a great-grandmother from Guinea (or is it Guinea, the wider region?) but having been unable to prove it deserves having his article placed in Category:Martiniquais people of Guinean descent, seen guidelines WP:BLPCAT and WP:EGRS. Additional input would be welcome! Place Clichy (talk) 09:33, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

I would like to add the names of the first nations' territories that artist Jayce Salloum has lived on in the section pertaining to his early life. He usually mentions these locations, too, in his various artist biographies. I added the references and they are viewable here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jayce_Salloum&oldid=956113574 The edit was reverted by @ThatMontrealIP:, who I should note has been super generous and helpful in guiding me through this process. They suggested that I come here for your expertise on this matter. Thank you all for your ideas and thoughts with this—much appreciated! Afterthedisaster (talk) 17:18, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

My thoughts are, that while it's not a BLP violation, it seems extraneous and makes it awkward to read. That information should be, and is, already in the articles about the cities and towns. To an outsider like me it doesn't really mean anything unless I want to know about the history of the area, in which case the proper articles would be those on the cities. I mean, it would seem weird to do that with every town and city in the Americas. It would be like going to the Don Simpson article and reading "he was born in Seattle which was originally inhabited by the Duwamish Tribes, before moving to Juneau founded on Auke and Taku lands, before attending high school in Anchorage in Dena'ina territory." The question I would be asking myself is, why is this important to learning about Simpson? What does any of that have to do with the subject of the article?

If this information is somehow germane to the subject's notability, then it most certainly should be included, but we would need to demonstrate just why that is necessary information. Otherwise it just seems like fluff that is better suited to the city articles. (And keep in mind that nearly everyone I grew up with and almost all of my best friends are Alaska Natives, so I understand the desire to want to use traditional names, but without any context it is just going to be confusing and awkward to the reader. And I'd keep in mind that this sort of thing is not limited to the Americas. We could so the same with say, Britain, originally inhabited by the native Welsh until the Britons invaded, then the Germans and the Scandinavians, the Picts, the Romans, the French, the Romans again, etc.) I hope that helps. Zaereth (talk) 18:28, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

@Zaereth: Thank you! This is helpful feedback. Since Salloum's artistic work deals with the significance of place (and various issues around "home" resonante throughout his practice), if I include a mention to the first nations territory, I will ensure that the relevance is made clear. Afterthedisaster (talk) 18:35, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

What I would do is, instead of trying to work it into his personal life section, rather work into the sections about his art, and how these things influenced it. Now stuff like that is better sourced to secondary sources. His autobios are primary sources, which themselves can be used for certain types of info, and to a limited extent, but you have to be really careful doing that so as not to misrepresent the subject. Good luck, and may the force be with you. Zaereth (talk) 20:16, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Looks like somebody with an axe to grind has got an interest. If I wielded a hatchet on that, it would be a terrible mess. Could somebody (much) more expert in BLPs take a look? Thanks. -Roxy the effin dog . wooF 07:04, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi Roxy. Long time no see. That article is a terrible mess. It is full of the opinions of the author, and misrepresents the sources all over the place. Even the Washington Post source, which has the long "quote" in it, that quote is not found in the source anywhere but is another opinionated bit of editorializing from the author.

Most of the sources are good, but are not always accurately portrayed. The American Conservative sources are all op/ed columns and are not good sources. The one thing I see is that this is a case of being notable for only one incidence, unfortunately his death, and I don't think that is enough to pass BLP1E. I think this article is ripe for deletion rather than trying to fix what is there. It certainly hasn't blown up enough in the media to be a stand alone article about this incident. Zaereth (talk) 07:48, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

If the incident is covered internationally, it may just be renamed to the event to satisfy WP:BIO1E. It really is about an event. Morbidthoughts (talk) 08:04, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

It may be appropriate to rename it "Duncan Lemp killing". Bus stop (talk) 15:28, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

I think using that name may also have possible BLP implications, and there are a lot of living and recently dead people in there still affected by BLP. In looking at how bad the article is in it's current state, I think it's a case of WP:Blow it up and start over, unless anyone wants to go in right now and rebuild it themselves from scratch. I wouldn't just leave it like that. If anyone thinks it's notable enough I'd say they're welcome to come along and try to do it over from scratch, and then we'd have something to discuss, but looking at the sourcing, once we take out the op/ed columns there are only a couple of US sources and one UK, and I still don't think that would pass GNG for a stand-alone article on this event. Every police shooting is not always notable. But if one could find a bunch more RSs and build a decent article out of it they may prove me wrong. Zaereth (talk) 21:18, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

The Lemp incident seems very important to me. One of the lawyers for the case comments on some of the details of the case in this YouTube interview. I realize the YouTube interview is not a reliable source in and of itself, but the facts of the case are pretty unusual, interesting, and relevant to current issues on civilian gun ownership. Bus stop (talk) 22:31, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

But the article is in terrible shape as it is. It reads like the op/ed columns that much of it is based on, far worse in fact. The author has taken severe liberties with their own opinions as well as the facts. Even the good sources are misrepresented to a large extent. If you want to go in and completely gut it, and then rewrite it to reflect the sources, then I would say go for it. By all means. I don't have the time. But the good sourcing is still very meager, and mostly right at the beginning of the event thus none really have their ducks in a row, and I think it will likely fade from public interest before the investigating authorities ever reach a conclusion. I could be wrong, and there may be a ton of other sources out there, in which case this may be able to become a decent article. The question is, are you willing to make that happen sometime very soon? If not, I still say it's in such bad shape as to blow it up and start over. We shouldn't just leave it like that in the meantime. Seriously, either fix it or put the poor thing out of its misery. Zaereth (talk) 00:02, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

"are you willing to make that happen"? Me? I'll see if I get the time. But I was just saying that it seems like a very important subject for an article. Bus stop (talk) 01:21, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

I think the sources should determine the importance in a case like this. If it has blown up in the media like Rodney King, definitely. If this fizzles out shortly after it has begun, then what's the point? All I'm saying is "the effort to fix it dwarfs the effort to start over" (from the afore mentioned essay), as Roxy mentioned above. If we can fix it in a timely manner, then great. If not, there are living people involved (and one recently dead), which includes the cops, and witnesses and everything else. If no one is going to fix it in "a timely manner" then we should nuke it and wait for someone who cares enough to come along and begin anew. When a building is about to fall over you don't wait for it to topple on someone. You load it with dynamite and boom, start over. Zaereth (talk) 01:32, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

This is a weak bio overall: there's not a single reference on the substance of the bio beyond the "Criticism and negative publicity." There, there's three sources in Finish. One appears to be paywalled, one is dead, and one appears to be a police report of disorderly conduct. It's hard for me to make sense of it, but it's all very weak. -Reagle (talk) 14:25, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

It is possible that WP:BLP violations against Brianna Wu are being made on the article about John Flynt, an unverified past name of Wu's, see this edit from April 25. I request that that revision and possible others be deleted. Arbor to SJ (talk) 17:06, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Revdel'd it out. Falls under our deadnaming policy particularly for a figure at the center of controversy like Wu. --Masem (t) 17:22, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Masem, just a quick note that I wouldn't cite deadnaming policy here, because the whole matter, so far as I know, is simply innuendo. Small thing, but I thought worth mentioning. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:28, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Ah, okay. But still. Not appropriate to link that way at all. --Masem (t) 17:43, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Could someone please help me with proposals at Talk:Adam McKay#Help with updating article to correct and update the article about film and television director and writer Adam McKay? He wrote and directed many movies with Will Ferrell, co-founded Funny or Die, wrote and directed The Big Short (film) and Vice (2018 film), and executive produces Succession (TV series). I have a conflict of interest so would request an independent editor review my suggestions. Thank you. Losangeles48 (talk) 20:50, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

There is an ongoing discussion on Talk:Corey_Johnson_(politician) about WP:due of recent comments by Johnson, as well as NPOV, reliable sources, etc. diff Broom Bones (talk) 20:44, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

While I don't see an obvious BLP issue here, other policies are involved, but I haven't gone through the sources. The long version raises some immediate red flags. Anytime I see that many sources, all interstitially dispersed throughout a paragraph, it makes me wonder if there is some synthesis going on. Not saying there is, but if not then why so many? (It reminds me (John 2:4) of Jack van Impe (Mark 24:2) taking bits and pieces (Psalms 6:14) from the Bible (Genesis 2:1) to predict that today is the end of the world (Revelations 6:66), if you know what I mean.) I also agree with Wally that the long version is not really about the subject, at least, not as written on the talk page. I would really limit that to his involvement, and make it clear how it relates to him. The shorter version seems far more concise and to the point. Zaereth (talk) 21:21, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Zaereth. The BLP issues have to do mainly with due/undue weight of a particular event in a BLP, and also with an inaccurate and potentially libelous statement recurring on the talk page. (The inaccurate statement relates to a person/group other than the subject of the BLP.) NPOV is also an issue, but I'm not sure whether that is relevant to this noticeboard. (Your comment re synthesis is the first I've encountered that term on Wikipedia. Is there a policy on that? I just started editing last week, so tips (and patience) are appreciated.) Broom Bones (talk) 19:22, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

See WP:SYNTHESIS. Pretty much, anytime someone throws a policy at you without linking it, ad a "WP:" to it in all caps.

Since you're new, I'll start with the basics. First, it's a good idea to indent your comments, because just how you indent tells others just who you're replying to. In example, you indented above the same as me, but that makes it look like you're replying to the person above me (in this case, yourself). Also people are right about the walls of text on the talk page. It becomes difficult to parse through, because it's hard to tell where one point ends and the other begins. I know it makes sense in your mind, but for the rest of us a few paragraph breaks here or there really helps determine which point is leading to which other point.

The thing to keep in mind is that BLP policy is designed to cover those aspects specific to living people that aren't covered by normal policy. The primary purpose is to protect people from harm that we may cause ourselves. The relevant part of policy that deals with weight is WP:BLPBALANCE, which is really an extension of the NPOV policy. The BLP part says we need to be fair to the subject at all times, but exactly what constitutes "fair" (meaning "weight") is covered under NPOV. It doesn't really become a BLP issue until you can demonstrate how it is unfairly causing harm, otherwise it's an NPOV issue.

Now by "weight" we mean by a preponderance of reliable sources. We need to weigh all the sourcing about this info against all the other sources out there on this person (not just what is in the article, but all sources). Then we need to assign this info an appropriate amount of space that is in direct proportion to that weight in comparison to the size of the article. Does it need a whole section, three paragraphs, one paragraph, a single sentence, or none at all? That's something you all should determine before ever trying to summarize the info.

Once you determine how much space it deserves, then comes the job of trying to summarize it to fit that space. Here, in basic journalistic style, start with the most important info first, and work your way to the broader info. I always start by condensing the whole thing down to a single sentence. If it deserves more, then I can elaborate on what that sentence says with some more critical details, but if you begin by defining the space you have to work with, it's easier to fill it properly than to try and cram it full and cut out what you don't need.

As for any BLP violation, that would be saying he or anyone else did something illegal, without some very good sourcing to back it up. This BLP policy can be held to organizations of people just as well as to individuals, with certain limitations. Editors don't get to make that call just because they may feel it is or should be illegal. We need very good sourcing specifically saying it, and except in the case of public figures, there should be a conviction in a court of law before we ever publish anything about it. The relevant policies are WP:BLPCRIME and the exception to that, WP:WELLKNOWN. For public figures, the info must be very widely sourced, as indicated by the policy, to warrant inclusion without a conviction. For large organizations where the onus is not on any specific individuals, BLP rules may not apply, but we still can't call something they did illegal without very good sourcing.

Aside from that, I don't see any other blatant BLP violations, but it's a very good idea when you come to a noticeboard like this to carefully spell out what you believe are violations so we can see it from your point of view. You may see something we don't, and visa versa. I would say that there is a lot of off-topic conversation about each other. My advice is just ignore that stuff and stay on topic. Personal attacks are usually a sign that you have someone backed into a corner, and almost always are unconscious statements about themselves not you, so take it with a grain of salt. They're just trying to distract you and in the process revealing their own insecurities. I hope that helps. Zaereth (talk) 20:28, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

@Zaereth, that is super helpful. I really appreciate your taking the time to explain all that. Need a little while to process the substance, just wanted to say thanks for laying all that out. Broom Bones (talk) 01:59, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

I’ve started an RfC to get more eyes on the issue.

FWIW, I think there is at least some merit in wondering if some exceptional editing does betray either COI/experience on Wikipedia under former accounts, with such a new account with so few edits. Gleeanon409 (talk) 23:17, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

If that's me you're referring to, Zaereth, I'm genuinely curious about the bona fides of someone who - when I checked yesterday - had 25 edits, total (plus three as an IP), whose first contribution was to insert a section called "Religious Freedom" into the BLP in question, with excellent formatting including references (all interstitially dispersed throughout a paragraph, though), and who apparently knows their way around talk pages, Wikipedia:Third opinion, and this noticeboard. That's not something you normally see in an account that's just over a week old, and I voiced my curiosity. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 23:21, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm not saying anything about anyone in specific, but really that was a general statement to everyone. Is there any reason you infer it as such? There are many reasons a new editor may have prior knowledge of Wikipedia. It's not like any of this is hidden from the public. I was an IP observer for quite a while before I actually opened an account, and even then I picked the most controversial article at the time (one I was somewhat knowledgeable of but didn't really care about) and stuck to watching and participating on the talk page for months before ever deciding to branch out and work on writing article content. If someone is a sockpuppet, they will surely reveal themselves in due time. It's possible for a trained writer to disguise their writing style, but next to impossible for them to disguise their communication style. If you suspect this user is someone else, I'd suggest reporting it to ANI without even confronting them about it, but have more evidence than "they're new and shouldn't be this knowledgeable". Just a suggestion.

Otherwise, I'd call that a good example of a back-against-the-wall argument. In simple psychological terms, deflection. In itself it's an instinctive reaction, but it only works if the opponent falls for it. Otherwise it leaves you wide open, and lets them know you're against the ropes.

Instead of making this a combative thing, perhaps it would be better to all sit down and try to hash this out collaboratively. This is a very short article, so I can't see how this would deserve much space. This is not something he is primarily notable for. I'd ask myself, just how much will this matter in the long run, ten, a hundred years from now. I know Wikipedia changes constantly, but we should still write articles with the idea that they may remain like that forever. Now admittedly I haven't scoured through the sources. I'll leave that all up to you. But as I see it there are two options, 1.) either expand the rest of the article a whole lot so you can have an entire section on this, or 2.) settle for a few lines. That's just my take on the best options, but this is all something you should work out on the talk page. As long as you not asserting anyone did anything illegal, there is no BLP violation here ... yet. Zaereth (talk) 01:08, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

• Bastun and Gleeanon409, I would request that you strike your unsupported WP:ASPERSIONS that the other editor is a sockpuppet without any supporting diffs. Bastun, you are now repeating those accusations for a second time, and you still have provided no evidence for your accusations. That is entirely inappropriate behavior. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 23:41, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Ehh, I don't think anyone actually asserted I was a sock puppet. And if someone wants to call my formatting ~*EXCELLENT*~, there's no way I'm asking for a retraction of that! How 'bout we all go back to Talk:Corey_Johnson_(politician) and discuss the article we're editing? Broom Bones (talk) 03:23, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Extra eyes would be appreciated at My Truth: The Rape of 2 Coreys. The documentary makes serious accusations about living people, and they in turn make serious accusations about Corey Feldman. This version was the state I found it in. This is the version after I removed unsourced and poorly sourced attack content, and trimmed it down to be more like an encyclopedia article and less like a tabloid. After one of the IPs reverted the rewritten version, the article was given semi-protection. I put a BLP banner on the Talk page, responded to the IP on the Talk page, and reverted back. I'd appreciate experienced editors weighing in on whether any of the content or sources I removed should be returned to the article. (Warning: some of the links I removed kicked off a stream of malicious pop-ups when I was checking sources.) Schazjmd (talk) 05:50, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

This article came to my attention because of a user's claims (seem to have some substance at first glance) that it's been the subject of substantial COI editing.

It feels massively overblown, there's use of unreliable sources, and I have concerns it's being used as a promotional page.

I don't understand American politics at all, so I would like to know if we'd normally expect a "Student Member" a "County Board of Education" to be notable?

This article has smothered itself with so many low-quality references, it's hard to tell if he passes GNG, but if we'd assume notability per WP:NPOL, I'd be more relaxed. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:15, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

County Board of Education does not satisfy WP:NPOL. Schazjmd (talk) 14:17, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree. It doesn't look like any other members of the board are notable enough for an article, and I don't see where being a student member with voting powers is novel enough to elevate him to notability. —C.Fred (talk) 16:33, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

• The subject is not a notable politician. In its current state, the article is promotional in tone. (It's also a magnet for vandalism and BLP violations. I've been cleaning some of those up, but that is not a justification for deletion.) Is the best option to just delete the article? If, for example, he gets elected to a state office down the road, a new article can always be created then, once he's notable. —C.Fred (talk) 16:42, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
  • There's a few national RSes (PBS Newshour, The Hill, etc.) that he's mentioned by name and subject of discussion, but as part of a larger protest, and as such, I would agree fails a conservative (the "playing it safe" side definition) side of notability for BLPs, particularly if there's vandalism and other facets being drawn. This isn't like Greta Thunberg where a great deal of singular coverage of her has been made, he's just one voice of many at these rallies. Deletion through an AFD approach would be fair. --Masem (t) 16:49, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
    • I considered nominating for AfD earlier and would support --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 18:09, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
    • Through a Google News search, there seems to be enough coverage of Tinbite and his activism and positions to satisfy the GNG though. Our annoyance at having to cleanup the article is not enough reason to wipe the slate clean. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:16, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
      • Bulk of the sources are local which is where NPOL comes into place. The national sources about his activism are in the article, and not solely about him but the broader issues, which is why this is an issue. --Masem (t) 20:34, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
        • The problem is WP:POLOUTCOMES is not policy or even a guideline, and local news sources are not disqualified from consideration of notability under WP:BIO or the GNG. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:58, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
          • No, but I don't think locals news alone is enough to confer notability for an international encyclopedia. Well, not unless there is something special and inordinate about it. I would expect an article on the senators and governors of Alaska, but not of all the mayors and legislators of Anchorage. I would like to see an article about Mafia Mike, just because of his very colorful and disastrous run for mayor, but while it received a lot of local coverage, nobody outside of town has ever heard of him nor would likely care. Zaereth (talk) 21:52, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

NPOL does state: "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline." Given there is no limitation in geographic scope in WP:RS, the only issue is whether there is enough coverage to support this biography. Not national or international coverage; just coverage. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:59, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

I understand that, I just try to look at these things in the broader scope. This is not specifically a BLP thing, so I like to look at it from the same perspective as if were any other article, like technical or scientific. I generally prefer quality over quantity. If such-and-such a scientific theory appeared in local papers where some scientist lived, we wouldn't give those sources as much weight as if they were published in IEEE or, better yet, some book published by the likes of Springer.

But then this is where things get more complicated, because it's not as black and white as all that. The reliability of a source depends upon the specific information it is giving. This was apparent in the discussion above of a politician who will go unnamed (for fear of starting it back up). Much of the info from the newspaper's report was perfectly reliable, but not the specific quote that people were trying to use. And a source close to the subject may often be more reliable in their facts and in-depth in their coverage. (ie: You can easily show in a local newspaper, in an area where moose are common, that hay and grasses can kill a moose if they're fed it, but that's not as good as if you can find an explanation of why in an animal-biology book.)

Now I don't know the specifics of this case because I haven't dug too deep, and I apologize if I'm getting way off base here, so that's just a generalization of how I would approach any situation. (Got a lot on my plate right now.) I'm just saying that in my experience all sources are not always equal in the weight they carry, which is a big part of keeping things like fringe theories or poor medical info at bay, so I tend to use the same measure to judge other articles including BLPs. It all depends on the specific case, though, so perhaps I'm just thinking outloud. The main question I would ask myself is: is there enough quality information on this subject, right now, to make a decent, full-length article out of it? Zaereth (talk) 00:15, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Should be fairly simple. Is he the subject of multiple incidences of in-depth coverage in reliable sources? I guess we start by deciding if the local coverage, which looks in-depth, is reliable. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 08:54, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi. I'd appreciate if an extra pair of eyes could watch Laetitia Avia's article. She's a French politician with a sudden increase to her "controversies" section, including claims of erasing certain claims from Wikipedia. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 14:14, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

WP:REDFLAG and WP:BLPGOSSIP seem to apply here. I have no idea how reliable Mediapart is but the controversial claims need multiple reliable sources. Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:28, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Jesselyn Radack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Please block User:Rechtsstreitigkeiten on the basis of his (now hidden) edit summary that violated WP:BLP with grossly insulting, degrading, and offensive material. Earlier today he was warned over edit warring at the same article space. Rechtsstreitigkeiten (which means "legal disputes" in German) is obviously not here to help us build an encyclopedia. NedFausa (talk) 19:11, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Looks to me like a WP:Single purpose account with an ax to grind. Might be worth taking a look into it. I'm not an admin though, so I can't block anyone. Many on this page are not, although one may come along and take an interest. For future reference, since this is an issue about editor behavior, the best place to go with these types of requests is WP:ANI or a similar noticeboard. Just for your info, but we'll see what happens here. Zaereth (talk) 19:27, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Naomi Wu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is a Chinese hardware-hacker, YouTuber etc. MrEarlGray has repeatedly has been trying to use one of her recent Tweets (a salty response to an insult from some other tweeter) to assert in the lead that she is a propagandist for the PRC. I reverted him twice, but now I am asking for eyeballs please. BLP, POV, OR, etc. but make your own judgment. Also @GraemeLeggett: who has also mentioned WP:SYNTH in connection with these multiple edits. HouseOfChange (talk) 18:03, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

In response to the claims made above by HouseOfChange. The editor has been purposefully removing any legitimate criticism of Naomi Wu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) since 2017 and has made it a point of note on how they defend her article on their personal bio. This shows favourable bias towards Wu rather than impartiality. Furthermore, the 'salty response' mentioned is not a singular tweet from Wu, but a consistent pushing of misinformation, propaganda and pro-CCP material on her social media feed over an extensive time which has become part of her persona as an 'internet personality'. Given Wu has one of, if not the single largest number of foreign followers outside of the People's Republic of China it is imperative it be considered how her vast reaching impact could shape popular opinion, especially when Wu is complicit in the spreading of misinformation. To ignore this is counter to Wikipedia and its goals. HouseOfChange has made numerous historical edits to Wu's article since 2017 which have been removed due to a spinning of a positive bias. This cannot be allowed to to continue if the article is intended to be impartial, truthful and reflective of Wu's actions as an impactful media personality. MrEarlGray (talk) 19:03, 13 May 2020

Even if I were Darth Vader wearing a hat made out of the fur of baby kittens, our BLP policies would not be altered one bit. HouseOfChange (talk) 18:25, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

My opinion on this is that tweets are a dime a dozen. Wikipedia is not a place for reposting tweets nor making any conclusions about them ourselves. If reliable sources discuss those tweets (ie: as in the case of Donald Trump, for example) and experts draw their own conclusions about their content, then sure, that makes them fair game, but I would avoid pulling tweets from twitter ourselves as evidence of something, because then we're getting into OR (and possible synth, which is part of that policy). And in looking at the revision in question, that looks a lot like synth to me. Zaereth (talk) 18:41, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

HouseOfChange immature response and consistent reversal of any fair criticism shows a bias towards Naomi Wu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). It is worth noting that HouseOfChange's initial edits on Naomi Wu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)'s page were removed due to the exact reasons mentioned prior, with such comments as "She regards "Chinese gadgets" as good as or better than foreign". HouseOfChange has aggressively pushed the inclusion of statements made by Wu on her twitter feed regarding a Vice article. HouseOfChange may be potentially a fan of Wu, which may explain the favoritism. Changes should be continued to be made until a higher level agreement is reached to reach an impartial and fair entry regarding Wu's wider impact. MrEarlGray (talk) 20:04, 13 May 2020

Sounds like a poor plan of action if you ask me. I would rather see you all work together on the talk page to come up with something good and sound, rather than edit-warring on article space over half-assed edits. This is not ANI, so I really don't care about editor behavior. I can say without a shadow of a doubt that the latest edit in question is indeed synth. Zaereth (talk) 19:28, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

(EC) I also hope for input from "higher level" Wikipedians, as MrEarlGray again edit-wars his opinion into the lead of the article. Quite aside from the SYNTH and POV... "this claim contrasts with her social media postings which may be constituting towards the spreading of misinformation"? Please make complaints about other editors at WP:ANI, this is all about BLP. HouseOfChange (talk) 19:31, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

MrEarlGray - this type of analysis of her writings and social media postings[33] is inappropriate original research. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:43, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Ignoring my comment outlining HouseOfChange's consistent edits from 2017 onward shows clear favoritism towards the censorship of this article. The article should be impartial and not omit key information. Myself and others have outlined since 2017 how Naomi Wu is using her social media platform to act as a propaganda machine - yet the evidence being put forward is repeatedly being censored.MrEarlGray (talk) 22:37, 13 May 2020

I am glad to defend my edits at ANI if MrEarlGray wants to have that discussion. On the article talk page, stick to discussing ways to improve the article, as others are trying to do. HouseOfChange (talk) 21:56, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

This is not the place to report editor whose behavior that you think is bad. I am not going through three years of history to try and find what you mean. Most of here are not admins, so we don't deal with behavior. A lot of us are very familiar with policy and how it applies to BLPs. If there is some specific text you want to discuss we can tell you if it's appropriate or not.

I highly doubt there is any censorship going on. I believe you are using the word incorrectly, and I would highly recommend looking up the definition in a dictionary. (It's just a click away.) Claims of censorship are almost always without merit. You cannot put up evidence of something and then draw your own conclusion from it, either stated or implied. That is the definition or WP:Original research and WP:Synthesis. These are violations of core policy. If you have a reliable, secondary source that gathers all this evidence and makes that conclusion themselves, then we can revisit the issue, but until that happens we as Wikipedia editors cannot. It's that simple. This is not the place WP:Right great wrongs. If this continues I would highly suggest someone take it to ANI. Zaereth (talk) 22:06, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

MrEarlGrayYou must not insert your personal opinion or analysis into her article even if they are based on facts. If your additions are removed because of concerns that they do not comply with policy WP:BLPSOURCE, you have the burden of proving that it does before you can readd it. This be a discussion in the talk pages rather than the multiple previous attempts to tweak the content. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:09, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

MrEarlGray's interpretation of tweets definitely falls under WP:OR, as these are tweets by a private individual, not Donald Trump, so any attempt to interpret them into a narrative about political opinion is also WP:SYNTH. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:44, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Whether it is Donald Trump or this BLP subject has zero bearing. We need coverage by a reliable secondary source to draw any conclusions about a Tweet. You can't do this this claim contrasts with her social media postings which may be constituting towards the spreading of misinformation without a source whether it is Donald Trump or Darth Vader or Jesus Christ or anyone. No idea what gave you an impression otherwise. —DIYeditor (talk) 05:07, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

My thinking about trump was about direct citation of tweets, not that OR or synth of trumps tweets is acceptable, sorry for the poor communication on my part. Hemiauchenia (talk) 09:58, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

"...even if they are based on facts" Alright chaps. Keep looking after your social credit scores, but don't kowtow too hard.MrEarlGray (talk) 08:59, 14 May 2020

WP:NOR has been policy before the concept of a social credit score existed in any meaningful form. Before Twitter or even Facebook existed. The 50 Cent Party or whatever you want to call it didn't exist in any meaningful form. (The earliest example mention in our article is well after NOR.) Sky net was I think still just something from Terminator (various sources like [34] suggest 2005 was when it began in a meaningful way) and if you asked someone to list a place with widespread CCTV they might come up with the UK or perhaps the US or maybe no where. Not China. Heck at the time maybe 5% of China's population had access to the internet and China's nominal GDP was below that of and hackerspaces were stuff like c-base; and the RepRap project hadn't started so I'm guessing if you talked about 3D printers costing less than $10000 or maybe even less than $25000, Stratasys and 3D Systems would have laughed in your face; Make (magazine) has probably not even been planned yet, let alone issued and I think Maker Media, Inc likewise did not exist and not because it had gone bankrupt [35]; the AMD K8 hadn't even been released let alone dual core CPUs intended for simple desktop computers, so let's not even think about useful passive cooled multicore ARM SoCs that can fit in a tiny box with USB ports, HDMI out etc. Point being, your comment is silly. Nil Einne (talk) 10:49, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Agree with others. Synthesis of that form is never acceptable especially in a BLP. If other reliable secondary sources talk about what someone has said, then maybe we can too. However we cannot independently analyse someone's views and especially not their Tweets or whatever. I don't know what other problems may or may not have happened with the article in the past, but clearly if someone is adding such nonsense to the article this is a major problem and given their clear lack of understanding of such basic policies here, it's not surprising no one can be bothered looking into their allegations. Nil Einne (talk) 10:13, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

@MrEarlGray: Personally attacking uninvolved editors who object to your edit on policy grounds is borderline WP:NOTHERE territory. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:24, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

• Personal life of Clint Eastwood (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Can someone look over this article and prune out the gossip? It includes such tidbits as "Publicists shaved four years off his first wife's age when Eastwood came to fame. Johnson now openly acknowledges her real age, as evidenced by the year 31 (for 1931) in her Instagram username." and "In the 60-plus years she has known Eastwood, Tunis has never, ever, conversed with the media. The obvious inference of this is that she's fine with being left out of the official narrative." I'll give it a try later if nobody else does. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:01, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

I took a chop and tried to remove OR where I could find it. It's amazing how much gossip has been added to the article since it was first forked.[36] Morbidthoughts (talk) 04:39, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Birthdate is wrong. I know because it is mine. I'm not that old! LOL — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8807:5600:1394:8580:A61D:BFE1:5A2 (talk) 23:10, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

The date has been removed. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:52, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Birth date aside...WP:POLITICIAN? Is there enough significant coverage? Ditch ∝ 06:23, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

There seems to be a lot of coverage throughout her state since 2010. Morbidthoughts (talk) 16:38, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough. I noticed on her election history, that, despite several runs, she has never actually held an elected office, or an appointment of note. I thought about the possibility pointing the article to the pertinent section of the 2010 Louisiana state elections, since it seems her run in the special election for Lieutenant Governor that year garnered the most independent coverage. However, I'm cool with leaving it as is if you think the coverage is significant enough for a stand-alone article. Thanks for taking a look. Ditch ∝ 17:03, 15 May 2020 (UTC)