Currently, our Tara Reade section has to be phrased rather awkwardly because the police report doesn't actually mention Biden by name. I edited it to be as clear as possible without being technically inaccurate, but really, I'm not sure why we focus on the police report in the first place. She first came forward with the accusation in a podcast on March 25—surely that should be the key event, and not the police report? Gaelan 💬✏️ 09:25, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
- I agree that the police report isn't necessary. If we are going to add that Reade says she filed an incident report it should be balanced with the sources are also reporting that Biden is not specifically named in the public available copy. CBS527Talk 10:21, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
- The criminal complaint is what was filed. The public incident report is the name of the form used to convey information to media, but keep private information private. From the original report by Rich McHugh*,
- "Tara Reade, who worked for Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden's Senate office in the early 1990s, has filed a formal criminal complaint against the former Vice President in Washington, DC.....While the incident report obtained by Business Insider was anonymized for public release, it states that a subject "disclosed that she was the victim of a sexual assault which was committed by Subject-2 in 1993." Reade confirmed that she was the complainant and that "Subject-2" is Biden. The penalty for filing a false or fictitious police report in Washington DC is a fine and up to 30 days in jail.
- In other words, she risked spending time in jail if what she claimed in the report was found to be a lie. McHugh is a reliable source, and his reporting on this criminal complaint was cited by Vanity Fair as providing the basis for the legacy media reporting that followed*. The criminal complaint is seen by VF as prompting the onslaught of recent reports. As for why, the article states:
- "Reade said she filed the complaint against Biden for "safety reasons," to establish a paper trail of the incident in case anything happened to her. The statute of limitations for the alleged incident has passed..."I also wanted to make it clear that I would be willing to go under oath or cooperate with any law enforcement regarding it"" petrarchan47คุก 20:57, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
she risked spending time in jail if what she claimed in the report was found to be a lie
That's getting into OR and asking for conclusions from unknown premises. Not an effective argument for your position on the matter. SPECIFICO talk 21:21, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
- I disagree with this edit. She came forward to the media months ago, but everyone was ignoring her. The March 25 Katie Halper interview may just have been the first publicly reported interview. The Intercept reported the story earlier. I think the April 9th date is the most important to lead with. Kolya Butternut (talk) 21:14, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
- For example, NBC news says
Thursday evening, Reade filed an official complaint with the Washington, D.C., police. The public incident report — which is one page long and doesn't name Biden — was obtained by NBC News and recounts an assault sometime from March 1 to May 31, 1993. Reade confirmed that she is "Subject-1" in the report and that "Subject-2" is Biden. It is illegal to falsify police reports, and the statute of limitations for prosecuting the allegations has passed
. I don't understand why you removed the police complaint.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 21:26, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
- That was a good edit. The complaint has not been processed. We will soon know the upshot. Meanwhile, the allegation stands, but the complaint adds no information about Biden. A good edit that was not obvious to the rest of us at the time. SPECIFICO talk 21:39, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
- What you just said does not make sense to me, the police complaint adds "no information"? The policy complaint is a the most notable thing here. Since she filled the police complaint, the news started to extensively cover this controversy, before that there only few news outlets reporting this.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 21:47, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Correlation does not prove causation. I could just as easily say that "since Reason Magazine started running stories on this the news started to extensively cover the allegation, before that there only few news outlets reporting it." Just because two things happen at around the same time, that does not mean that one caused the other. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:05, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
- Please don't present your speculation about the timing of the NY Times article. It was apparently in research for weeks and the timing of the police report doesn't confirm any of your insinuation. SPECIFICO talk 22:04, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
- SharabSalam, AP, NYT, and WaPO all state that the claim originated from the podcast, and have all stated that they've been examining the claim since the podcast. (NYT and WaPO mention the podcast first, while AP mentions the police report first.) Gaelan 💬✏️ 22:02, 14 April 2020 (UTC) Second ping because I forgot to sign: SharabSalam
- This is [A] a BLP, [B] a person in the middle of trying to win an election, and [C] a serious accusation that has ruined many careers (many rightly and a few wrongly). We need to be super careful about the sourcing for even small details. I say we should only use the highest quality sources. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:50, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
- WP:BLPPRIMARY is clear on this point
Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person...Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source, subject to the restrictions of this policy, no original research, and the other sourcing policies. Please note that exceptional claims require exceptional sources.
(emphasis original). Information about living people must be sourced to high quality, secondary, reliable sources. — Wug·a·po·des 21:56, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
- I've preveously pointed this out and removed a link to our article on criminal compliants, AKA indictments. This was a police report and should be described, if at all, as such. SPECIFICO talk 22:06, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
- The complaint is significantly reported in high-quality reliable sources. NBC news
Thursday evening, Reade filed an official complaint with the Washington, D.C., police.
CNBC: She recently made an official complaint to police in Washington, D.C.
Washington Post She filed a police report in Washington on Thursday saying she was the victim of a sexual assault
--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 22:16, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
- "Criminal complaint" has a specific meaning:
- "A criminal complaint is a document that charges a defendant with a crime. Complaints serve at least a couple purposes: [1] providing some kind of showing that the government has a legitimate reason to prosecute the defendant and [2] clearly informing defendants of the allegations against them."[ www.lawyers.com/legal-info/criminal/criminal-law-basics/criminal-complaints.html ]
- "An arrest, by itself, doesn’t begin formal criminal proceedings. Rather, the filing of a document in court is required. In most instances in state court, the document is a 'complaint.' Complaints can be either civil or criminal. Civil complaints initiate lawsuits, typically between private parties or a private party and the government. Criminal complaints, on the other hand, are almost always filed by the government. (Some states allow citizens to file criminal complaints or applications for them.)"[ www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/what-criminal-complaint.html ]
- "The complaint is a written statement of the essential facts constituting the offense charged. Except as provided in Rule 4.1, it must be made under oath before a magistrate judge or, if none is reasonably available, before a state or local judicial officer."
- "What will happen after I file a Criminal Complaint? There is a person at the court called the "clerk-magistrate." The clerk-magistrate will schedule a hearing. The hearing is called a "show cause" hearing. The show cause hearing is to see if there are enough facts to show that what happened was a crime."
- "an 'indictment,' an 'information,' and a 'complaint' all serve the same function – they initiate a criminal case and inform the defendant of the charges against him. They also ensure that a prosecutor has sufficient evidence to establish probable cause that a crime has been committed."
- Biden has not been charged with a crime. There was no show cause hearing. It is unlikely that a magistrate judge or clerk-magistrate was involved. It is likely that the report was made to a cop manning the front desk at the police station. It appears that Reade simply reported what happened to the local police. You can report anything to the local police and they will file a police report on it. (Even a report that a dead squirrel told me that John Smith is an evil space alien might be good to know if John Smith gets murdered later). --Guy Macon (talk) 23:53, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
The reason why the wording “police report” is OK is because the AP states that “She filed a police report in Washington on Thursday” and makes it clear it is a police report against Biden. Since this is reliably sourced, I think it’s best we use the same wording as the AP. Samboy (talk) 00:00, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
- Sounds good to me. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:46, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
Volunteer Marek, I don't think this is accurate. The AP states that the police report alleged an "unnamed person" sexually assaulted her. This is inconsistent with Rich McHugh's reporting. Tara Reade told him that she did name Biden in the police report. It was the "incident report" which was anonymized. Kolya Butternut (talk) 06:42, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
- It's accurate. I don't know what Rich McHugh was told or what Business Insider says but more reliable sources explicitly state she did not name Biden in the police report . The assumption that it was the incident report and not the police report is WP:OR. Volunteer Marek 13:46, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
- Volunteer Marek None of the sources say that "she did not name Biden". Both sources say that the report doesn't name Biden. Also, the first source clearly say it's a public incident report. You accidentally used two sources that contradict your assertion.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 14:01, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
- Are you trying to split hairs between "she did not name Biden in the police report" and "the police report doesn't name Biden"? Volunteer Marek 15:44, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
More generally, are there TWO reports - an "incident report" and some other "police report"? Because it looks to me like all the sources are reporting the same thing, which is the incident report which DOES NOT name Biden. What Reade told reporters is a different story. If there are two reports... source please. Volunteer Marek 15:49, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
- WaPo article on Reade's police report: "She told The Post she did so because she is being harassed online and wanted law enforcement to be aware of her claim. A public record of the complaint does not name Biden but says Reade “disclosed that she was the victim of a sexual assault” in 1993." It goes on to say: "Reade told The Post she gave police a long interview describing the alleged assault by Biden. The portion of the police report detailing her allegation is not public." The NYTimes article is similar: ...Ms. Reade filed a report with the Washington, D.C., police, saying she was the victim of a sexual assault in 1993; the public incident report, provided to The Times by Ms. Reade and the police, does not mention Mr. Biden by name, but she said the complaint was about him." She said the reason she filed the report was for additional safety against threats. Imagine the reception news media would have received if they had said a fraction of the things about Christine Blasey Ford that they're implying/saying/publishing about Reade. What happened to believe what the women are saying? Atsme Talk 📧 16:19, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
- Ok, that clears it up a bit but it still seems she did not name Biden in the report, maybe in the interview and then told the press it was about Biden. And please don't try to compare this to the Ford case which was substantially different and is irrelevant to how we describe this case. Volunteer Marek 16:57, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
- Most of the sources, NYT, WaPo, AP,etc are reporting the police report or Public Incident Report does not mention Biden by name, but Reade said the complaint was about him. Crime reports and investigations are not covered by FOIA request in the District of Columbia. The MPD releases a PIR upon request. The term "police report" is a generic term and can refer to a number of documents. "Here's a copy of the most recent PIR" (PDF). CBS527Talk 17:10, 15 April 2020 (UTC) Reminder: Per WP:BLPPRIMARY "Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person." CBS527Talk 17:23, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
At this point it seems to me we have conflicting sources, more purported detail from a weaker source, and lots of OR and speculation among Wikipedia editors. This clearly suggests we should omit this. The report does not of itself add anything to the narrative of her allegation, the failure of media to corroborate it, and the Biden campaign's denial. Those are the core facts we can verify now. SPECIFICO talk 16:50, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
- At issue is whether we state that she didn't name Biden in the report. Volunteer Marek 16:57, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
- I do not think it's verified that she named Biden in the report. I also think it's not important to mention the report in the article. It insinuate that there's an active crime scene. Particularly with the wording that was initially being used here. SPECIFICO talk 17:16, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
- The police report is noteworthy. The AP is the only source which is inconsistent with the others. The Times and WaPo are clear that she reported to police that Biden assaulted her, and they are clear that the information in the police report is not public, unlike the incident report. The AP is generally reliable, not always reliable. Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:14, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
- This is not true. All credible sources say she filed a report but DID NOT name Biden specifically in it. She told reporters that it was about Biden (and maybe she said that to the police but didnt put it in the report). Sources, including AP are consistent on this. The only inconsistent source is the Business Insider. Neither Times nor WaPo say she put Biden's name in the report. AP is more reliable than BI. Volunteer Marek 18:37, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
- That's not true. The AP is the only source which we have discussed which states her police report did not name Biden. WaPo and NYTimes report that Biden's name was not in the public report. WaPo states "Reade told The Post she gave police a long interview describing the alleged assault by Biden", not an unnamed man. The NYTimes is less explicit. Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:16, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
- I am not hearing why her filing a report -- of which any precinct gets dozens a day -- is a noteworthy fact about Biden. Particularly when she stipulates that the report is moot and only for her own sake. SPECIFICO talk 17:18, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
- Please cite sources. Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:57, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
- Simple resolution - quote the NYTimes, add WaPo as a 2nd source and be done with it. Atsme Talk 📧 19:10, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
- I think the simple solution would be to paraphrase: "Tara Reade stated that she filed a police report with the Washington, D.C. police alleging that Biden sexually assaulted her in 1993". If the AP corrects their article we may remove "stated that she". This works? Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:31, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
SPECIFICO, please self-revert this edit. There is no consensus to state that Biden was not named in the police report. My edit, "On April 9, 2020, she filed a police report with the Washington Metropolitan Police alleging she was sexually assaulted in spring 1993.[382] Reade stated that the report was about Biden."
directly paraphrases The Times, "On Thursday, Ms. Reade filed a report with the Washington, D.C., police, saying she was the victim of a sexual assault in 1993; the public incident report, provided to The Times by Ms. Reade and the police, does not mention Mr. Biden by name, but she said the complaint was about him."
The "public incident report" does not of itself add anything to the story of her allegation, and it is not noteworthy. Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:32, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
- I edited it to conform to the cited AP reference. Let's just be very straightforward and pretend we don't know anything except what's in the sources. SPECIFICO talk 01:48, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
- You haven't addressed my comment. 1. Obviously my intention is to cite The Times (but regardless, my edit is consistent with the AP source). 2. There is no consensus for your text. 3. The "public incident report" which does not name Biden is not noteworthy. Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:18, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
- Or to put it simply, we all agree she filed a police report, and we all agree she stated that the report was about Biden. Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:53, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
- It might be a good idea to stop edit warring over this. There is no consensus to include the "police report" either. All of the high quality reliable sources are reporting, in one way or the other, that Reade filed a complaint, the "police report" does not name Biden, and Reade says it is about Biden. We don't cherry pick sources, NPOV requires we present the police report fairly and proportionately as reported by the sources. CBS527Talk 07:17, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
- The AP is the only source which states Biden was not named in the "filed" "police report". There are clearly errors in the reporting because some sources say that she "filed" a "public incident report". My proposed text, "she filed a police report with the Washington, D.C. police alleging she was sexually assaulted in spring 1993. Reade stated that the report was about Biden." is consistent with all the sources. Would could say she "filed a report with the Washington D.C. police". Kolya Butternut (talk) 11:06, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
- Rich McHugh (investigative reporter, more information at the RS/N)
And it’s important to note, it is not accurate to say that Reade did not name Biden in the police report she filed. Neither Reade or Biden were named on the public version of the complaint she filed, for obvious reasons.*
There are two reports in question: one that is private, the "criminal complaint", and one that was released to the public. Journalists haven't done a great job at elucidating this, so it gets confusing. petrarchan47คุก 21:46, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
- Can we get more confirmation of this? It makes sense to me that in their public release, the police may choose to hide the names of the people involved and so when I read someone say this was what happened yesterday I assumed that was what happened and Biden's name was in the police's records. But then today I read our article suggesting that Biden was not named in her report point blank. As I understand it, the public release doesn't even name the complainant and instead talks about subject-1 and subject-2, and I find it unlikely the police don't at least have a record of who subject-1/the complainant is. OTOH, it occurs to me that it may not be clear whether or not Biden was named. Has the complainant clearly said he was? Have the police? I'm guessing the public release probably doesn't say subject-1 and subject-2's name are in the police record. It looks like there is a Washington Post article which may provide some details but I'm lazy to get access. IMO we need to clear this up, as our current wording is potentially misleading. Nil Einne (talk) 23:11, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
- This is the public incident report provided by NBC News. The public doesn't know what the confidential police report says, but the sources all say that Reade said the report was about Biden. The AP, however, gets it wrong. Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:00, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
- Nil Einne
NPR obtained confirmation of the police report from a law enforcement source. A record of the report names Biden. NPR has filed a Freedom of Information Act request for the full report.
NPR petrarchan47คุก 02:29, 20 April 2020 (UTC)In response to the idea that "criminal complaint" language comes only from court documents, that is not so.
- Fox The tides began to shift following Rich McHugh's report in Business Insider on Friday that Reade had filed a criminal complaint against Biden. The New York Times ran its first report about the allegation on Sunday morning as millions of Americans were observing Easter. The Washington Post and NBC News issued their own reports later that day.
- Newsweek Tara Reade filed a criminal complaint with the Washington Metropolitan Police Department...according to Business Insider
- BBC Ms Reade filed a criminal complaint on 9 April with police
- Vox A woman who worked in Joe Biden’s Senate office filed a criminal complaint
We are not obligated to follow other media who chose for unknown reasons to shorten this to "a report". We have proof that the first outlet to diverge from the "criminal complaint" language, the NYT, has edited their article on behalf of the Biden campaign. Such partisan sources or editing choices aren't very useful to an encyclopedia. petrarchan47คุก 21:59, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
- The Times explained its edit of a sentence. That is not uncommon. "on behalf of the Biden campaign" is a misrepresentation. Please don't do that again. SPECIFICO talk 22:37, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
...the edit was made because the Biden campaign argued...*
. I fail to see the problem with my paraphrase "on behalf of the Biden campaign". petrarchan47คุก 18:28, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
Agreed, Petrarchan47. The NYT isn't a reliable source for Biden's sexual misconduct accusers, as they have admitted to tailoring their coverage to please the Biden campaign. Not that the other usual partisan sources are any more reliable, but so far the NYT is the only source that has openly admitted that they are allowing the Biden campaign to tell them how to cover the Biden campaign. SeriousIndividuals (talk) 00:11, 17 April 2020 (UTC) — SeriousIndividuals (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Block sockpuppet. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:47, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
- It's one thing for editors to corroborate a story by finding other independent sources - I've done that with the NYTimes and WaPo above, stating that we should simply quote the corrobated RS and use in-text attribution. It is something entirely different when we dig so deep we're conducting OR in an attempt to satisfy our own expectations, which leads to POV creep. That is not our job - we simply publish what RS say, and when it's an allegation such as this one, we simply use in-text attribution. This is a no-brainer...just follow WP:PAG and we're good to go. If more info develops, we update the article. Atsme Talk 📧 00:27, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
- Can we all agree on this language: "On April 9, 2020, she filed a police report with the Washington Metropolitan Police alleging she was sexually assaulted in spring 1993. Reade stated that the report was about Biden."? This is consistent with EVERY source. "Police report" is consistent with what some of the journalists mean by "criminal complaint", but "criminal complaint" is not correct. An opinion out of Washing D.C. states that "an individual is 'charged' . . . when a criminal complaint . . . and warrant . . . are signed by a judge and filed . . ." A criminal complaint is a court document, not a report by a citizen to police. Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:56, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
- Close, but please take out "Washington Metropolitan Police" unless a reliable source (Business Insider is not reliable) names the specific police department. It almost certainly was the Washington Metropolitan Police, and it would be easy to do some WP:OR and see if that name in on the published incident report, but it could conceivably be some other law enforcement agency (county sheriff's department, capitol police, even the park police have jurisdiction in some places.) Naming the department when we don't have a source in no way improves the page. If I remember correctly the sources use "D.C. Police". We should go with the wording from the best sources, like the AP and NYT (nobody think any NYT bias means that they get basic facts wrong). --Guy Macon (talk)
- This is the public incident report provided by NBC News. Kolya Butternut (talk) 04:55, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
- Guy Macon, is this a reliable source since it is linked to by NBC? Kolya Butternut (talk) 15:58, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
- No. The relevant Wikipedia policy is WP:PRIMARY, which says:
- "Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved. They offer an insider's view of an event, a period of history, a work of art, a political decision, and so on... Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge."
- Being linked to by NBC news makes zero difference. Many reliable secondary sources link to primary sources, but that does not make the primary sources acceptable for anything other than the straightforward, descriptive statements of facts described in the policy. In this case the only straightforward, descriptive statement of fact contained in that public incident report is is "On April 9 2020 some unnamed individual reported a sexual assault by another unnamed individual in 1993". What we can't do is use it as a source for even that statement on any page that talks about Biden of Reade. If another source says it is about Biden, cite that other source. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:16, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
- Proposed text to comply with NPOV:
- "On April 9, 2020 Reade filed a report with the Washington, D.C., police alleging she was sexually assaulted in spring 1993. The public incident report available from the police does not mention Biden. Reade stated that the report was about Biden." Biden's 2020 presidential campaign has denied the allegation."
- (Sources: 1. Lerer, Lisa; Ember, Sydney (12 April 2020). "Examining Tara Reade's Sexual Assault Allegation Against Joe Biden". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 14 April 2020. Retrieved 14 April 2020., 2. Reinhard, Beth; Viebeck, Elise; Viser, Matt; Crites, Alice (12 April 2020). "Sexual assault allegation by former Biden Senate aide emerges in campaign, draws denial". Washington Post. Washington, D.C.: Nash Holdings LLC. Retrieved 14 April 2020.) CBS527Talk 05:35, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
- Those details are both unclear and unnoteworthy. Kolya Butternut (talk) 06:24, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
- @Kolya Butternut: I don't really see how the proposed text is worse than what is currently in the article. We are currently implying that Biden was not named in the report. As you seem to agree, we do not know if this is the case. All we know is he is not named in the publicly released document. IMO the proposed text is decent, and far better than our current version and I would support a quick replacement so we don't continue to mislead. If people want to just remove all mention of that report, I may support this. But it seems harmful to continue to mislead readers while we discuss that aspect. Edit: Sorry I missed your proposal just above cbs527. Is there any dispute over mentioning that Biden's campaign denied the allegations? If not, as I understand it, the dispute is solely over whether to include the line "
The public incident report available from the police does not mention Biden
"? I would support either version with no clear preference. I think the more important thing is we come to some consensus on some version which fixes the current problem where we mislead readers rather than nitpick of whether or not something is significant enough to mention. Nil Einne (talk) 13:38, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
- @Kolya Butternut: -
"Those details are both unclear and unnoteworthy."
It is not clear what you are saying. If you would be more specific it would be helpful. The first line is essentially the same as what you suggested earlier with the change suggested by Guy Macon which I agree with. We can not use the actual PID as a source. I used the sources suggested by Atsme without inline attribution. I have no problem if inline attributions are added and at this point it probably is a good idea. The rest of the text is similar to what is currently in the article which there appears to be a rough consensus to use and, to comply with WP:NPOV. The purpose of this discussion is to try and find a consensus not push our personal POV. CBS527Talk 14:07, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
- Before tweaking any text, we should decide whether there should be any mention of this police document in the article. I oppose it. Please comment in the subsection below. SPECIFICO talk 14:15, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
- This whole section, "Why the police report", was started is to address if the police report should be included or not. As I stated, both in my first comment in this section and in the below section, I feel that it should not be included. That being said, a number of the editors are suggesting it should be. At this point it appears my opinion on whether or not to include it may be a minority view. I have no problem waiting until more people comment on this in the next section. CBS527Talk 16:03, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
- @SPECIFICO: I disagree. Currently, there is a good chance we are misleading readers with our text. As I said in my reply, fixing the section so we do not mislead readers is surely more important than a likely long debate over whether a section which does not mislead, but may be WP:UNDUE belongs. In fact, I am not going to offer any feedback on that issue precisely because I feel we need to deal with the far more urgent matter first and don't want to risk distraction, especially not since you seem to be willing to allow the misleading text to remain. Nil Einne (talk) 18:55, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
{{BLP noticeboard}
Regarding this edit.
Kolya Butternut (talk) 16:48, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
NPR has confirmed that the police report does indeed name Biden: "NPR obtained confirmation of the police report from a law enforcement source. A record of the report names Biden. NPR has filed a Freedom of Information Act request for the full report."
Kolya Butternut (talk) 14:48, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
Is the report noteworthy?
Our article content is about the allegation(s). Tara Reade has acknowledged that whatever documnent she filed with the police is only for her protection and that the statute of limitations on any 1993 misconduct has run out. There is little press coverage of this document relative to coverage of the allegation itself. I fail to see why this document is noteworhty or even related to Joe Biden. As others have pointed out, any of us could file a similar document at any police station and claim e.g. that our neighbor's cat is calling us nasty names when nobody's listening. I would like to hear a simple affirmative case for including this report that Reade has conceded cannot, and she did not intend to, have any official effect. I think it is entirely unrelated to Biden and at worst is only fueling garbled derogatory internet chatter. SPECIFICO talk 12:32, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
- No, I don't think the police report should be included and does not improve this biography. It is far less important than the allegation itself. The vast amount of coverage is about the allegation not the police report. As you pointed out earlier, this is not about the notability of the police report. As of yet, I haven't seen a policy based reason to include the police report. After all, the WP:ONUS is upon those seeking to include it. CBS527Talk 13:31, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
- Maybe not the report itself, but the fact she filed one definitely belongs per DUE. Atsme Talk 📧 15:10, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
- I think there would be a better argument for mentioning the report in the article that deals specifically with this allegation. I don't see any connection between her report -- as she herself later characterized it -- and the bio of Joe Biden. SPECIFICO talk 15:28, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
- I think it is noteworthy and relevant. It's a police report about sexual assault against the subject of this article, Joe Biden who is a public figure. Its a sexual assault report, not "neighbor's cat is calling us nasty names".--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 15:38, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
- Of course this should be in the article. 1. The filing of the police report is about Biden. 2. The police report is mentioned in most of the sources which reported on the allegation. Kolya Butternut (talk) 15:53, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
- The filing of the police report is about Biden. - But that is not what she said. She said it was about protecting herself, whatever she meant by that. SPECIFICO talk 18:05, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
- I'm not sure how to assume good faith with that obviously false statement. Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:08, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
- As I said above, I don't think it's acceptable that this discussion is being use to distract from the fact we had misleading text in the article. I refuse to participate until and unless we have consensus that is is not acceptable to allow misleading text to remain. Nil Einne (talk) 19:08, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
- I support removal of any unsupported text from the bio immediately. petrarchan47คุก 19:40, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
Joe Biden is named in the police report
Domeditrix, please revert your edit .. Biden was named in the police report, as NPR reports. This has been much discussed; it was only the anonymized public report that did not include names. Also, notice that there was an active investigation, which would not have happened without a name. Kolya Butternut (talk) 15:32, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
- Will revert. Domeditrix (talk) 15:34, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
- We have no knowledge as to this "active investigation". It could well be an investigation of Reade's concern about harassment and internet stalkers. And were it not for the statute of limitations having run and Reade's inscrutable statement about her purpose in filing the report, we should note that police do not wait for the name of the alleged perpetrator to launch a crime investigation, if that's what you think is happening. Police do detective work, which sometimes includes identifying an unkown suspect. SPECIFICO talk 15:53, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
- "An active investigation" usually refers to a status of a case and doesn't necessarily mean that any actual investigation has commenced. As SPECIFICO points out we don't know what was investigated if anything. It's a moot point anyway since on April 25, 2020 MPD stated it is an inactive investigation. Additionally, the comment,
"Also, notice that there was an active investigation, which would not have happened without a name"
is a blatantly false statement and is not helpful. One doesn't need to have the name of a perpetrator for a alleged crime to be investigated. CBS527Talk 17:47, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
- That ignores context. The police have stated that they investigated because Biden is high profile. In this case it is unlikely that they would have investigated a 27 year old sexual assault case against an unnamed man. Kolya Butternut (talk) 07:09, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for the update. SPECIFICO talk 17:52, 29 April2020 (UTC)
- We know what was investigated because the public incident report described an alleged assault. And NPR confirmed Biden was named. There's no consensus to include text which states Biden was not named. Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:18, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
- You have a source that tells you "what was investigated"? Could you share? Not clear anything was actually investigated, except by NY Times and WaPo. SPECIFICO talk 17:31, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
- Since the investigation is "inactive", this is all a bit moot, isn't it? The police report is meaningless and should probably be excluded. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:36, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
- From USA Today:
"Earlier this month Reade filed a police report saying she was assaulted in 1993 in order to give herself safety from threats she has received. A record reviewed by AP didn't mention Biden by name. NPR has reported, however, that a record does name Biden and has filed a Freedom of Information Act request for the full report."
So, the AP reviewed one record which didn't name Biden, and NPR reviewed another record which did name Biden, therefore, Biden was named to police. I hope we're not going to now argue that they may have reviewed identical documents and come to different conclusions about whether or not he was named. We already know the "public incident report" was anonymized, and that is the report many sources describe having seen. Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:14, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
- The question you were asked, Kolya Butternut, was whether you have a source that documents what was investigated and if so to provide a link. You have refused to answer. Nothing was investigated. They just filed the report like every other cold case, in the dead report file. SPECIFICO talk 23:25, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
- Please don't make accusations against me because I decided to contribute an update that I found and did not reply to your request. I suggest you do some research yourself instead of engaging in baseless speculation that the police investigation concerned internet harassment. Once you have contributed to the conversation I will provide feedback, then you can accuse me of refusing to provide information. Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:54, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
- The point is this: The police didn't investigate anything. They let her file a report. As has previously noted, anyone is free to file any report -- credible, dubious, or insane, as long as it's not provably and willfully false. She filed something or other and the police didn't act on it. Either it wasn't credible or it was ignored due to its being stale. Your repeated insistence that any investigation occurred is based on either your opinion or on some source you've 3 times refused to provide. OK, fine. SPECIFICO talk 01:01, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
- The title of this subsection is what I'm arguing. This bullying is not collaborative. Kolya Butternut (talk) 07:01, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
The police report was just removed against consensus. Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:35, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
- Support removal of irrelevant police report that relates to an "inactive" case. It's essentially meaningless. Besides, looking at the discussion above it is not clear if there was every a consensus for inclusion in the first place. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:33, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
- Please provide RS which summarize the story and investigation which leaves out the police report (rather than your personal opinion). Please see the related noticeboard discussion which shows consensus. Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:05, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
- This article is the story of Joe Biden's life -- this "report" - per Reade's words - is about herself. It's barely about Biden and in the arc of his life, it's simply insignificant. There is no consensus to include it in this article, hence it is omitted. SPECIFICO talk 02:11, 7 May 2020 (UTC)