Jump to content

Talk:Joe Biden sexual assault allegation

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Needs to have a more neutral tone

I read over this article, and it displays some of Wikipedia's infamous left-wing bias, showing negative attitudes against the accuser, and more positive language surrounding Joe Biden. Klee Bakudan (talk) 19:36, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Klee Bakudan You're both right and extremely wrong. Liberals aren't leftists. But even if we're generous and say that some liberals are leftists, such as Social Democrats, those liberals were against this. Leftists and left leaning liberals believed her, other liberals (neoliberals and such) attacked her, and conservatives used her for their own ends.
Don't act like the right cares about victims, cause it doesn't. Liberals care up to the point it affects them. Actual leftists are the only ones that take them seriously no matter what.
Having said that, this article is horribly biased, and uses Wikipedia's reputation as being credible as a way to lead viewers to believe that it's a "fact" she lied and Biden is innocent. It's blatant. Djengle91 (talk) 20:08, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the correction.
Or maybe not even that. There's just bias. KaleeBR (talk) 20:15, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comments like the above are why I’d never call myself a leftist, although I’m a proud American liberal (in the New Deal Democrat/Cold War liberal tradition). First of all, the right/left distinction is technically alien to the US (it originated in post-revolutionary France and wasn’t even used in an American context until sometime in the 20th century). We’re not France. Second of all, a lot of self-proclaimed leftists these days seem to spend more time simping for Putin, Xi, Maduro and other tin pot dictators than anything. (That is, when they’re not weaponizing movements like #metoo to undermine the rule of law and presumption of innocence in this country).
All this is certainly the case for the above poster, who (prior to entering this discussion) was mostly known for making pro-Putin edits. (Speaking of which, did you read that Reade just defected to Russia?)
In other words, when I say I consider myself a liberal rather a leftist, what I mean by that is I’m pro-democracy. I’m a Biden/Harris/Zelensky Democrat, not a Putin/Reade/Nord Democrat. 2604:2D80:6984:3800:0:0:0:4EFD (talk) 02:50, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
it's pretty obvious to me that she's not a very credible person. The article should reflect that. That's not bias, it's reality. 99.38.19.204 (talk) 23:00, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Poisoning the well

A paragraph in the intro to the article reads "Reade has misrepresented herself and her life experiences on numerous occasions, including lying under oath and in court proceedings. For example, she falsely claimed to hold a bachelor's degree from Antioch University". Would this not qualify as poisoning the well? I don't think that paragraph should be there, as it's not relevant to the case, and seems to exist purely to discredit Reade as a person in order to bias the reader against believing her allegation. Alex the weeb (talk) 22:07, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. That’s the tone of the article as a whole, and I don’t think anything is going to change that, but I agree that this should be changed. SweetTaylorJames (talk) 10:22, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree. I find it jarring and out of line for the lede. Jusdafax (talk) 10:08, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And so is the next paragraph about her previous praise of Biden. This type of information is best presented as something like "her credibility has come under attack because of her record of false claims and her previous praise of Joe Biden." And then you mention what her defenders say, for example that victims (such as those of Weinstein) often continue to defend their abusers. TFD (talk) 10:59, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Alex the weeb I just want to add another voice to this. The intro, and the article as a whole, is overwhelmingly biased against her and clearly intended to make the reader believe that it's a "fact" that she lied.
Why do we keep doing this to abuse Anna harassment victims? Wikipedia at the very least should be able to provide a neutral viewpoint. Djengle91 (talk) 20:02, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"to abuse Anna harassment victims" I don't understand this term. What is Anna harassment? Dimadick (talk) 15:54, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My guess is the person meant to write “any” and it got autocorrected to Anna. In any event, since presumption of innocence is a core principle of US law (as well as a fundamental human right according to the UN), we should _never_ call a sexual assault accuser a “victim” unless and until the accused is proven guilty in a court of law. “Alleged victim” or “accuser” is fine. Just because some social media users want to use #metoo as an excuse to erode the rule of law and start implementing mob justice, doesn’t mean we should. 2604:2D80:6984:3800:0:0:0:4EFD (talk) 02:33, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The existence of "bias" in an article is not bad, unless it's from editors. That must not happen. Personal biases must be left at the door when we enter the article's space. Otherwise, bias is allowed. NPOV requires we accurately describe the facts and opinions in RS, and they are often biased. (Not all bias is bad. We should have a bias for facts and a bias against lies. We should have a bias for RS, and a bias against unreliable sources.)

So the real question is where the bias is coming from. If it's from sources, then it's good. We are required to document it. That will inevitably offend the feelings of her supporters. So be it. It's not our problem. Blame the facts and opinions in RS. Our job is to stay neutral and document them, not neuter or censor them. You may all benefit from reading my essay NPOV means neutral editing, not neutral content. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:24, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Valjean, you are preaching to the choir. We already know that biased sources are necessary for Wikipedia. Per WP:BIASED: "Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject." Dimadick (talk) 15:59, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We three know this. I don't know that Djengle91 or Alex the weeb do. "Neutral" refers to our writing, not the inclusion of sources or material that may lean one direction or the other. We don't provide WP:FALSEBALANCE when one side is favored over the other. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:16, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Muboshgu I'm not going to claim to know Wikipedia rules. I know you people love to use them to hide behind technicalities that let you get away with stuff like this. There is no reason for the last 2 paragraphs in the intro to be included. Readers often don't read much past that and will take it as fact. The choice to include those is so obviously intended to make people believe she's a liar.
and you seems to favor leaving the impression that she is telling the truth no matter what, that include editing this article multiple time to remove content in the name of 'victim blaming' as if libel was a victimless crime Shmget (talk) 20:12, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is laughable anyone could call that neutral. "Well this source said that this person is a liar, so me writing that she's a liar at the top of the article is totally neutral". This is especially disgusting in light of the general treatment of abuse and harassment victims. This is why old white men like Biden and Trump constantly get away with stuff like this.
Oh, sexist, racist and ageist are we ? Shmget (talk) 20:12, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And again, no, I don't know all the rules or anything. That shouldn't be required to voice opposition and you shouldn't use it to hide behind technicalities when it's very obvious what is happening. Hopefully someone that knows the rules and has integrity will see this, or at the least our opposition will be on record here. Djengle91 (talk) 17:48, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Djengle91, everything in the last two paragraphs of the intro is fact. If you're not going to accept the rules of the platform, then you don't have to be here. Reading Wikipedia:Neutral point of view would be a start for you. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:53, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Since this discussion has apparently started up months after I left the initial message, I want to clarify that I'm not stating that Wikipedia should present this case as credible if it isn't, I'm saying that the article shouldn't commit logical fallacies like poisoning the well. Whether Reade has said incorrect things in the past or not does not prove or disprove these allegations, but it is deliberately being used by the article in a way that implies it does. If her allegations are not credible, then Wikipedia must do better than this. Muboshgu, before you tell me I don't know Wikipedia's rules, maybe you should try to understand what I'm actually accusing Wikipedia of doing. Alex the weeb (talk) 18:01, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Alex the weeb, I apologize for lumping you in with someone who has acknowledged they don't know the rules. But, the analysis of Reade's past inconsistent statements was a big part of the coverage of her allegation. You are proposing that we not include it because it "seems to exist purely to discredit Reade"? Is it not WP:DUE based on WP:RS coverage? – Muboshgu (talk) 18:19, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Update

Today, Tara Reade officially defected to Russia, is seeking Russian citizenship, and is working with Kremlin allies to fast-track her citizenship process. I kid you not.

https://sputnikglobe.com/amp/20230530/biden-accuser-tara-reade-my-two-choices-in-us-were-to-walk-into-cage-or-be-killed-1110800326.html

https://www.thedailybeast.com/joe-biden-accuser-tara-reade-claims-she-defected-to-russia-after-sexual-assault-allegations?ref=scroll

This also comes after at least five years of promoting an endless stream of pro-Putin, pro-Kremlin propaganda, and being literally on the payroll of Russian state media outlet RT.

Are we not going to mention this? It is a well-known fact that Vladimir Putin and the Russian government have, ever since Donald Trump launched his 2016 campaign, engaged in influence operations in order to influence United States politics in favor of the Republican Party. Having Joe Biden’s accuser turn out to be a Russian agent takes a pretty big dip into her own credibility—or, really, lack thereof—and I think it very much ought to be mentioned, at least a tad bit.

EDIT: I redact my allegation that Reade is a Russian “agent”. I redact nothing else, though. Mcleanm302 (talk) 20:34, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mcleanm302, please redact your allegation that she is an "agent", and be mindful about that in the future. That's a serious allegation that has not been demonstrated. The other things you said about her Russophilia are valid. It does seem to me that defecting is a significant "further development". – Muboshgu (talk) 22:35, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh my, how the turntables. If we prefer more reputable sources, there are the NY Times and the Sydney Morning Herald. Zaathras (talk) 04:26, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"ever since Donald Trump launched his 2016 campaign, engaged in influence operations in order to influence United States politics in favor of the Republican Party." Wait a minute, there was no Russian influence in the 2012 United States presidential election? I find that hard to believe. Dimadick (talk) 04:53, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

article title

In light of recent developments, I'd like to suggest that at this point we should consider renaming the article something along the lines of Tara Reade sexual assault allegation against Joe Biden, as this article is 100% about her allegation, which has now become increasingly dubious to the point an RfD might even be in order, and a Tara Reade BLP might be considered, as this now appears to be more related to her than to him. The title should not lead with "Joe Biden." soibangla (talk) 06:05, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the idea is worth exploring. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 05:54, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Problematic sentence - "Before Reade could be questioned under oath she defected to Russia."

I think the wording of this sentence in the lede is problematic? She did defect to Russia but the way this sentence is written potentially implies she defected there to avoid being questioned under oath, whereas the source cited next to this statement does not indicate that at all. There's also no indication in any of the reports that she was about to be questioned? On the contrary, the most recent CNN article indicates she WANTED to be questioned under oath:

Quote from CNN article: Reade said she decided to come to Russia following death threats she received this year after she reiterated her accusations regarding Biden and announced on Twitter that she was willing “to testify under oath in Congress if asked.” (Source: Tara Reade: Woman who accused Biden of sexually assaulting her in 1993 defects to Russia | CNN)

I'm as liberal as they come so I have no political agenda here (quite the opposite) but this sentence did strike me as problematic and potentially unbalanced. I think it should be completely reworded. Use the source cited (and the new CNN one I've provided) to indicate she did defect to Russia, but not to avoid being questioned under oath (that we know of). Perhaps don't even mention the oath part - or if it is mentioned, it should also be stated she wanted to be questioned before defecting. 2001:BB6:4E52:7D00:1052:E156:A1B7:1468 (talk) 12:13, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Joe_Biden_sexual_assault_allegation&oldid=1159290590"