Talk:Joe Biden sexual assault allegation

RfC: "... alleged that Biden pushed her against a wall and penetrated her with his fingers" in the lead

In this edit, AzureCitizen removed details of the allegation from the lede with the edit summary Returned the start of the lead to a prior version from earlier today. The more explicit details about the wall, penetration, and fingers should be included in the article, but in the body (not the front of the lead). 1) BLP advises us to write conservatively about crime allegations (as opposed to a post conviction fact pattern), and 2) Triggering can occur for some readers with sensitivities when you put something right up front like that. Need Talk Page consensus for this please.

This appears to be a clear violation of WP:NOTCENSORED. Also, "sexually assaulted" can be misinterpreted to mean many things including vaginal rape with a penis. The lede is supposed to give enough information to stand alone as a good summary. Without clearly stating that the allegation is that Biden put his finger in Reade's vagina, the reader is left with inaccurate picture. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 07:43, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

AzureCitizen is correct. There is no value in having this insignificant detail in the lead, especially for such a short article. If the allegation were proven to be true, perhaps it would be relevant, but since the allegation is of questionable credibility, it would tend to violate WP:DUEWEIGHT. WP:NOTCENSORED is possibly the most misunderstood principle on all of Wikipedia. It's purpose is not to clear the way for any content for any reason, and it almost never at risk of being violated. Our other policies and guidelines are still in effect, and good writing style is still a thing. - MrX 🖋 11:39, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

This article is about the allegations. How does what the allegation is not have DUEWEIGHT in the lead of the article about the allegation? That makes no sense. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 22:07, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

The essential fact is that she feels she was sexually assaulted. No matter how detailed an allegation she might have made, the lead of an encyclopedia article is always going to exclude some of the detail. I don't see that this detail is the focus of the RS coverage. The central allegation is that she was sexually assaulted, as opposed to being touched inappropriately in a non-sexual way. Detail should go in the article body. @Coffeeandcrumbs: I don't see any reason to think that readers will misinterpret "sexual assault" either in the cited sources or in our article. SPECIFICO talk 23:16, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

How can we dedicate an entire paragraph in the lead to the NYTimes coverage of the allegations and not say what she actually accused Biden of doing? --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 23:30, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't think that paragraph is in very good shape. The timing of the Times article doesn't belong. It should state that the Times conducted an extensive investigation. Let's do that and then reassess the sense of the entire lead. SPECIFICO talk 23:34, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

"pushed her against a wall and penetrated her with his fingers" has made it's way back into the article against consensus. - MrX 🖋 12:47, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

RfC (alleged that Biden pushed her against a wall and penetrated her with his fingers)

Question: Should the lead include the fact that the allegation is that Reade says that Biden "pushed her against a wall and penetrated her with his fingers"? --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 14:08, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Survey (alleged that Biden pushed her against a wall and penetrated her with his fingers)

• Yes – This article is about an allegation. The lead should clearly state what the allegation is. It is not as simple as "sexually assaulted". Reade alleges very specific form of assault. It make no sense to have an article about an "allegation" and not state what the allegation is in the lead of the article of said allegation. Concerns of "triggering" the reader is immaterial. So is any other concerns of BLP because this has been covered by multiple RS. As long as we make clear that these are still unproven allegations, we have no BLP issues in stating what RS state about a WP:WELLKNOWN person. Every single source that reports on this allegation includes details about what the specific allegations are. There are no DUEWEIGHT issues because nothing in this article has more DUEWEIGHT than what the allegation is. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 14:08, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
• Comment – Are there any articles in existence on Wikipedia or any other encyclopedia in which the graphic details of sexual assault allegations or sexual misconduct allegations are included in the lead of the article as opposed to being discussed and expanded upon in the body of the article? AzureCitizen (talk) 15:17, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment, not an allegation, but a good example anyway: "Grab them by the pussy" We could say "digitally penetrated" to sound less graphic. Kolya Butternut (talk) 15:23, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

That's not an example for WP in WP voice mentioning graphic details of an alleged sexual assault in the lead, it's a direct Trump quote from the tape the page is named after. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:53, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, this seems typical of the restrained language used, e.g. Brock Turner. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 14:32, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

People v. Turner (Brock Turner) is not an allegations article, and the first sentence of that article's lead says "Turner was convicted by jury trial of three counts of felony sexual assault." Later, "digitally penetrated" appears in the context of the California legislature adding that to the legal definition of rape. AzureCitizen (talk) 03:16, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

• Not necessary - Describing the allegation is enough. It doesn't have to be explained in detail within the lead. Compare with the sexual misconduct allegations against Bill Clinton and Jimmy Savile, where graphic details aren't in the leads either. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 17:53, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

  That is not true. The Bill Clinton article says: "accused Clinton of exposing himself to her in 1991 as well as sexually harassing her; and Kathleen Willey accused Clinton of groping her without her consent in 1993." (emphasis added) Jimmy Savile is not comparable since there are hundreds of victims and it is not known what he did to each. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 23:29, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

To make "exposing himself" graphic in words, it would need to be written somewhere more along the lines of "exposed his erect p**** to her" (example only); similarly, a graphic depiction of "groping her" might be "groped her b*****" (example only). This is because the basic descriptives "exposing" and "groping" do not graphically tell us what was exposed, or what was groped. Here on this article, you're advocating that the lead must state that she was shoved against a wall and penetrated by Biden's fingers; you must admit that is more graphic than "exposing himself" and "groping her." AzureCitizen (talk) 00:08, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

At the very least, we can say "digitally penetrated". There is only one way for a man to expose himself. Groping also means breasts in most instances. However "sexual assaulted" can mean many things including vaginal rape with his penis or anal rape with his penis or oral rape etc... --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 00:53, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

In theory, a man could expose himself in other ways (if he dropped his pants and bent over to "moon" someone, would we say here on Wikipedia that he "mooned" or he "exposed"?), and a woman could be groped by unwanted touching of the breasts, buttocks, or genitals. However, you seem to be moving in the direction now of suggesting that we need to include in the lead that Biden allegedly digitally penetrated her in order to protect Biden from being mistakenly thought by our readers to be a rapist, and perhaps your argument here should be interpreted as being in favor of Biden's protection instead? Point taken, but then how would you square that with the way the article is written at Roy Moore sexual misconduct allegations? At that article, the lead says only that Moore allegedly "sexually assaulted" the three victims. It doesn't explain what the assaults were, yet in the body of the article the alleged assaults are fully described in terms of fondling of the breasts and genitals (alleged victim L.C.), fondling of the breasts (alleged victim B.Y.N.), and fondling of the buttocks (alleged victim T.J.). No raping (vaginal or anal) or oral sodomizing is alleged to have taken place, yet the lead just uses the term "sexually assaulted" and that article has been through hundreds of edits and over a hundred different editors over the last couple years. Would you mind comparing and contrasting that with the situation in the RFC here? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 01:48, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

I was going to respond to the original objection, but then AzureCitizen summed up things perfectly. Thank you. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 16:45, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

This article is about one sexual assault, not three, so it is simple to summarize the assault allegation by saying "digitally penetrated" in place of "sexual assaulted".  I'm not hearing any substantive arguments against the more informative summary.  Why do folks think the Roy Moore lead is superior?  An WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument still needs justification.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:07, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

The Moore allegations article lead allays concerns others might have about saying "alleged sexual assault" without explaining it was not a more serious sexual assault (e.g., rape). Taking a look at similar articles and gathering examples helps editors get perspective on what the usual editing norms are. With regard to substantive arguments, I'm not aware of a policy reason why a lead could not contain more descriptive details of an alleged sexual assault. Of course, there is no policy based reason why a lead must contain specific descriptions of what an alleged sexual assault was either. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 16:02, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

• Not sure that it is necessary in the lede - The specific allegations need to be included in the prose of the article, if only out of fairness to Reade, Biden and the reader. I am not sure whether they need to be in the lede though. The lede is supposed to be a summary. That said, it is far too short in its current form and needs to be expanded.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 01:05, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes - Thankfully, since I originally voted the lede has been expanded. It now contains earlier allegations that Biden touched her neck and shoulders in ways that made her feel uncomfortable. With this coming immediately after mention of "sexual assault", it makes it sound like THAT is the alleged assault we are talking about. So, I now think we need to be clearer in the lede that we are talking about an allegation that he penetrated her with his fingers, or digitally raped her, or some other language that more clearly summaries the specific act that is alleged. I am not sure whether the term "digital rape" has made it into common parlance. As an aside, I am shocked that Urban Dictionary seems to have a better definition than I can find on this project, even if that definition suffers from the usual informal language one would expect from that site.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 20:00, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

• Partly yes - per WP:LEAD The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents. A summary form, something like 'digitally penetrated' would seem better, as the People v. Turner article does. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:33, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Just noting that People v. Turner is a court case article (the defendant was convicted, and lost his appeals too) as opposed to an allegations article; the "digitally penetrated" part appears later in the context of the California legislature adding "digital penetration" to the legal definition of rape, while the lead starts with "Turner was convicted by jury trial of three counts of felony sexual assault." Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 16:02, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

User:AzureCitizen The 'digitally penetrated' is just restrained language. In TALK at Brock an unspecified 'sexual assault' was tossed as misleadingly interpreted as meaning rape or worse, and graphic descriptions are too graphic, so -- just a restrained language. If you want an example in an allegation, try Devon Mathis (politician). Cheers Markbassett (talk) 06:49, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Devon Mathis? It doesn't mention an alleged sexual assault in the lead. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 03:21, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

• No, the lede should not include: Reade says that Biden "pushed her against a wall and penetrated her with his fingers." Primarily because that is not her only allegation. If the lede is to include that allegations; then Reade's 2019 allegations and 2020 allegations should be included.

In 2019 Reade alleged Biden touched only her hair and shoulders and that she never felt "sexualized" by Biden. In her 2019 interview with the Union, Reade said Biden treated her as an inanimate object, and she did not feel “sexualized” by anything Biden said or did to her. Then in 2020, Reade changed her allegation from not feeling “sexualized” by Biden and from Biden only touched her hair and shoulders to much more.

Therefore, if anyone wants the lede to include the allegations; then naturally both Reade’s 2019 allegations and 2020 allegations would have to be included. But since both are already covered in the “Allegation” section; there is no need duplicate them in the lede.

Also, the lede for Christine Blasey Ford does not go into the graphic allegations because they are covered in the “Allegation” section. Same should apply in the lede for Reade’s allegationsBetsyRMadison (talk) 12:47, 26 April 2020 (UTC)Betsymadison — BetsyRMadison (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

"It’s very reasonable to fear that talking to the wrong reporter will produce a damaging misunderstanding. One criticism that has been made of Tara stems from an interview she gave last year in the Union newspaper. In that interview, the reporter characterized (but did not directly quote) Tara as saying that the acts Biden performed on her did not make her feel “sexualized” but instead merely objectified. But Tara, in her interview with Katie Halper, says and the reporter seemed to be pressuring her to say the acts in question—inappropriate touching—weren’t sexual. Tara says that the (male) reporter’s questions made her reluctant to open up further, which is why she didn’t go into more detail about the alleged assault in addition to the unwanted neck and shoulder rubbing. The Union report is now used to suggest Tara is lying."[1] Kolya Butternut (talk) 05:22, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

• No - There is no value in having this insignificant detail in the lead, especially for such a short article. If the allegation were proven to be true, perhaps it would be relevant, but since the allegation is of questionable credibility, it would tend to violate WP:DUEWEIGHT. WP:NOTCENSORED is possibly the most misunderstood principle on all of Wikipedia. It's purpose is not to clear the way for any content for any reason, and it almost never at risk of being violated. Our other policies and guidelines are still in effect, and good writing style is still a thing. - MrX 🖋 13:35, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

*Yes, this whole point of allegation. Maybe allegation true, maybe false. But you need to describe the allegation itself in article on allegation!--KasiaNL (talk) 05:41, 27 April 2020 (UTC) (banned sock puppet - [2] GizzyCatBella🍁 19:36, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

You're absolutely right, we need to describe the allegation itself in an article on an allegation. The article's body describes the allegation in graphic terms (have a look at the "Allegations" section); the focus of this RFC is whether or not that should be in the article's lead too. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 16:02, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

To Kolya Butternut -- It looks like you replied directly to me (in green) as opposed to adding your comment below the last entry in the discussion. Since I’m new here, I’m not sure if I should reply to you under your comment to me or reply below the last entry in the discussion. So to be safe, I’m going to reply below the last entry in the discussion.

I’m not sure what the point of your reply to me is; but, if your point is that you want to include Reade’s allegations in the lede; then, as I said before, both Reade’s 2019 allegations and 2020 allegations would have to be included. But since both are already covered in the “Allegation” section; I see no need duplicate them in the lede. BetsyRMadison (talk) 17:56, 27 April 2020 (UTC)betsymadison

I replied under your vote, so typically you would reply there.  You may move your comment.  Clearly the quote contradicts what you said. What would you have written in your vote taking into account the quote? Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:14, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

To Kolya Butternut -- I disagree with you. The quote you gave does not "contradict" what I wrote. I wrote facts and those facts are: In 2019 Reade alleged Biden touched only her hair and shoulders and that she never felt "sexualized" by Biden. In her April 3, 2019 interview with the Union, Reade said Biden treated her as an inanimate object, and she did not feel “sexualized” by anything Biden said or did to her. Then in 2020, Reade changed her allegation from not feeling “sexualized” by Biden and from Biden only touched her hair and shoulders to much more." Those are absolute facts and your quote does not contradict those facts.

I'll go step further and more facts:

Three days after Reade's April 3, 2019 (on April 6, 2019), Reade published a blog where she describes Biden treating her as an inanimate object, not feeling sexualized by anything Biden said or did to her and she wrote that Biden touched only her shoulders and neck. In the same blog titled “A Girl Walks Into The Senate" posted at Medium, Reade writes:

“Senator Biden would touch me on the shoulder or hold his hand on my shoulder running his index finger up my neck during a meeting … What started with promise and possibility, ended because some prominent Senator decided that he liked my legs and objectified me.

On December 13, 2019: Reade tweeted a promotional tweet directing people (and linking people) to her April 6 blog.

Therefore, the facts are: between April 3 2019 - December 13, 2019 Reade’s allegation was that Biden touched only her hair, shoulders, neck, and Biden treated her as an inanimate object, where she did not feel “sexualized” by anything Biden said or did to her.

So, for whatever reason, that facts are that: between April 3 2019 - December 13, 2019 Reade’s allegations never included anything beyond: Biden touching only her hair, shoulders, neck, and never included anything beyond Biden treating her as an inanimate object, where she did not feel sexualized by anything Biden said or did to her.

In 2020, for whatever reason, Ms. Reade's story changed from not feeling “sexualized” by Biden and from Biden only touched her hair and shoulders to much more.

So, like I said before, if someone wants to include Reade’s allegations in the lede; then, naturally both Reade’s 2019 allegations and 2020 allegations would have to be included. But since both are already covered in the “Allegation” section; I see no need duplicate them in the lede.BetsyRMadison (talk) 18:58, 27 April 2020 (UTC)betsymadison

Please try to be much more concise; do you see how incongruent your style is from everyone else's?  And no need to repeat what you have said in other comments (or within the same comment!).  Please provide quotes and link to sources to support your assertions.  Do you have a direct quote from her where she says she didn't feel sexualized?  Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:14, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

To Kolya Butternut - Yes, I do. And if you read my so-called "incongruent style" you will see that I was "concise" and did give you the direct quote from Ms. Reade where she wrote in her April 6, 2019 blog that she felt "objectified" (not "sexualized") and wrote Biden only touched her hair, neck and shoulders. And you would also see that on December 13, 2019 Reade promoted her April 6, 2019 blog and included a link to it. Both of which confirm that between April 3, 2019 - December 13, 2019 Ms. Reade's allegation only included Biden touching her neck, shoulders, hair, she felt "objectified" (not sexualized).

But, since you missed Reade's quote I provided, I will put here again for your convenience.

4/6/2019 Reade writes:

“Senator Biden would touch me on the shoulder or hold his hand on my shoulder running his index finger up my neck during a meeting … What started with promise and possibility, ended because some prominent Senator decided that he liked my legs and objectified me.

Here is link to her April 6, 2019 blog (see paragraphs 12 and 15) [3]

Here is link to Reade's December 13, 2019 tweet promoting her April 6 blog [4]

Finally, I feel that attempting to belittle someone by insulting their writing style is not productive. BetsyRMadison (talk) 20:01, 27 April 2020 (UTC)betsymadison

Twitter and blogs are not WP:RS (I acknowledge they have value in directing our research), and you have not provided a direct quote from the woman herself in an RS where she says she did NOT feel sexualized. Being objectified is usually a form of sexualization; the Union piece may be the only RS which characterizes her objectification as non-sexual, but there is no direct quote from her in that piece is there?

I am trying to be patient with you and honestly tell you what I feel, which is that your writing is anything but concise, and I find it somewhat disruptive. Most concerning now is that you do not appear to be acknowledging it, and are instead accusing me of attempting to belittle you. This is a discussion that is more appropriate for one of our talk pages, however. Kolya Butternut (talk) 21:32, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

To Kolya Butternut - I disagree with you. Tara's writing about her allegations are absolutely direct quotes from her. What the heck else would you call them? Tara writes that Biden did not touch her beyond her hair, neck, shoulders, and she felt objectified. Her direct words. Honestly, I'm actually stunned that you think Tara writings are not direct quotes from her; they are.

Trying to belittle someone and silence someone by insulting their writing style just because you don't like what they say, is not productive.BetsyRMadison (talk) 21:51, 27 April 2020 (UTC)betsymadison

Cut it out Kolya. For a brand new editor Betsy is doing very well when one considers that this is a very difficult first time article. Your repeated attempts to bully this editor are not acceptable. Also, statements such as "Being objectified is usually a form of sexualization" makes no sense and yet you seem to see yourself as an expert here. I generally try not to comment on other editors but in this case I am only following your lead. Gandydancer (talk) 22:00, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Gandydancer, please do not cast aspersions by accusing me of repeatedly trying to bully her. If you feel I am being insensitive or not constructive, please yourself demonstrate constructive criticism.

Betsy, please provide examples of direct quotes of Tara's from WP:RELIABLESOURCES where she says she did NOT feel sexualized. You have not provided them. Objectification can be either sexual or nonsexual, so the quote needs to be FROM HER saying she felt she experienced nonsexual objectification. Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:34, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

To Kolya Butternut -- Tara Reade’s self-published blog may be used as a source of information about herself, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, (see: Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves in at WP:RELIABLESOURCES )

Therefore, as I’ve told you over and over again, in Reade’s April 6, 2019 blog Reade alleges Biden touched her hair, shoulders, neck, and she felt objectified, like an object, not sexualized.

4/6/2019 Reade writes:

“Senator Biden would touch me on the shoulder or hold his hand on my shoulder running his index finger up my neck during a meeting … What started with promise and possibility, ended because some prominent Senator decided that he liked my legs and objectified me. [5]

On December 13, 2019, Reade tweeted a link to her April 6, 2019 blog. Therefore, facts show that between April 3, 2019 - December 13, 2019, Reade's allegations were Biden touched only her hair, shoulder, neck, and felt objectified (not sexualized). Then, for whatever reason, in March 2020, Reade changed her allegation from not feeling objectified nor sexualized by Biden and from Biden only touched her hair and shoulders to much more.

Therefore, if anyone wants the lede to include the allegations; then naturally both Reade’s 2019 allegations and 2020 allegations would have to be included. But since both are already covered in the “Allegation” section; there is no need duplicate them in the lede.BetsyRMadison (talk) 00:38, 28 April 2020 (UTC)betsymadison

BetsyRMadison, please read my comments more carefully; I feel like we are talking past each other. As I said, "Objectification can be either sexual or nonsexual", so when she says in her blog that she felt objectified, we can not infer from that that she also did not feel sexualized. As I said, we need a quote "where she says she did NOT feel sexualized". Do you understand what I am saying? Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:06, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

To Kolya Butternut - We already have a quote of Reade saying she did not feel sexualized, in The Union. Tara Reade did not say "Objectification means sexualization or any sex." You are not Tara Reade and you cannot infer that when she told The Union she felt like an object, a “lamp” and “not sexualized” that she meant sexualized. And you cannot infer that when Reade wrote she felt “objectified” that she meant sexualized. Finally, Reade does not deny that she told the Union reporter that she did not feel “sexualized” so why do you insist on continuing on with this little song & dance?

But since you do insist, and without any inference at all, the facts you and I know are:

April 3, 2019 in a Union interview

1. Reade alleged her expulsion was because she refused to do an assignment from her immediate boss to serve drinks at a function.
2. “Reade said she did not consider the acts toward her sexualization.” (a quote Reade does not deny making.)
3. Reade alleged Biden touched her shoulder and neck and she felt Biden treated her like an inanimate object, a “lamp.”
4. Reade’s friend said that in 1993 Reade told her Biden touched Reade’s shoulder and neck and that Biden treated her like an inanimate object, a “lamp.”

April 6, 2019 Reade reiterated her April 3 interview in her blog where Reade alleged Biden touched her shoulder and neck and wrote she felt objectified not sexualized.

December 13, 2019 Reade directed people to read her April 6 blog where Reade alleged Biden touched her shoulder and neck and wrote she felt objectified not sexualized.

Therefore, the facts we know: between April 3, 2019 - December 13, 2019 Reade alleges Biden touched her shoulders and neck and she did not feel sexualized by anything he said or did to her. Also, between April 3, 2019 - December 13, 2019 Reade's friend says in 1993 Reade told her Biden touched her shoulders and neck and she did not feel sexualized by anything he said or did to her. Then, in March 2020, for whatever reason, Reade’s allegations changed from Biden touching only her hair and shoulders and not feeling sexulized to much more.

Do you understand what I am saying? Tara Reade did not say "Objectification means sexualization or any sex." You cannot infer that when she told The Union she felt like an object, a “lamp” and “not sexualized” that she meant sexualized. And you cannot infer that when Reade wrote she felt “objectified” she meant sexulalized. And, Reade does not deny that she told the Union reporter that she did not feel “sexualized.” BetsyRMadison (talk) 05:06, 28 April 2020 (UTC)betsymadison

One point at a time. You wrote: 2. "Reade said she did not consider the acts toward her sexualization." That is not a quote by Reade. So sticking to the facts, the fact is that we do not have a quote of Reade's saying she did not feel sexualized. If you can't acknowledge that you hurt your credibility. Kolya Butternut (talk) 06:00, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

• Yes per nom. It's clearly WP:DUE (the lead needs to be expanded overall), and some of the "it's too graphic" !votes here go against WP:NOTCENSORED. "Digitally penetrated" is overly technical (I remember I didn't know what it meant the first time I came across it), whereas "pushed her against a wall and penetrated her with his fingers" is suitably direct. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:18, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

*Yes, "digitally penetrated" now appears to be more common in RS. It uses dry, non-sensationalist language. This is a more informative summary than "sexual assault". Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:30, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

If the decision is between "digitally penetrated" and "penetrated with his fingers", that is an editorial style decision. RS have used both. "Digitally" is a more medical, dry, and professional word, whereas "fingers" is common speech but more graphic (which is not necessarily a bad thing). If we used the word "digital" we could provide the wikilink to Fingering (sexual act). Kolya Butternut (talk) 21:14, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

• No Undue and not essential. Too much detail for the lead. We've all read a ton of RS and non-RS coverage of the incident. Such coverage and internet discussion does not routinely repeat the allegation in digital detail. It belongs in the article section that details the course of Reade's various allegations and other statements. It does not belong in the lead. We simply need to tell the reader she alleges she was sexually assaulted. SPECIFICO talk 22:01, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
• Yes per Sdkb. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 23:02, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
• No To say "sexually assaulted" in the lead is preferable. I don't know for sure but I'm guessing that other articles about a sexual assault don't go into details in the lead such as "penis into vagina", "coke bottle into vagina", or "fingers into vagina, and such. Perhaps the worst suggestion of all is "digitally penetrated" with a link: Fingering (sexual act). Gandydancer (talk) 00:26, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Gandydancer, why do you feel that is the worst suggestion of all? Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:59, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

• No, seconding SPECIFICO and Gandydancer. RedHotPear (talk) 01:19, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

  No, the lede does not need info of such detail. ToeFungii (talk) 02:37, 28 April 2020 (UTC) Sock vote striken. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 16:34, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

• No, not necessary for the lede, the article can detail the allegation EdJF (talk) 02:52, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
• No, since it is an allegation, no need for such extensive details. Idealigic (talk) 06:56, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
• Yes – Since it is the core of the allegation. The Bill Clinton sexual misconduct allegations, for example, reads "exposing himself to her". Pretty graphic. . XavierItzm (talk) 15:51, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
• Yes - It's literally the whole point of the article. Why would it not be in the lead? It feels like some people might to "sanitize" the lead for reasons that don't comport with WP:NPOV. Ikjbagl (talk) 16:35, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
• No at this point in time seems WP:UNDUE (and gross as well). Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:51, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

If it appears "gross" to you and yet you wish to hide it, you are minimizing the ordeal the alleged victim went thru. To play down the victims is not a good look. XavierItzm (talk) 06:45, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

• Yes Considering that the mentioned article is concerning an allegation, (and the current lead's size seems to be small [and presumably incomplete]), as a result, including the mentioned sentence (of: "the allegation is that Reade says that Biden "pushed her against a wall and penetrated her with his fingers") can be more helpful in the lead. On the other hand, including this statement can also be regarded as "a part of the gist of the subject". Ali Ahwazi (talk) 09:36, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
• No -Unnecessary, Undue, and Unprofessional; doesn't belong in the lede, for all the reasons already stated. Manannan67 (talk) 01:00, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
• Yes. I was actually leaning toward no, but fact that a straightforward, explicit description of the act has led to a talk page section titled just "Ugh. Seriously?" makes it clear to me that people are mentally self-censoring the word "sexual assault". Apparently we need to be explicit here. Einsof (talk) 21:12, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
• Yes per nom. ~ HAL333 20:17, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
• Yes, the current wording fails WP:NPOV. -- Netwalker3 (talk) 06:27, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

• Also, one of the main reasons to visit this article is to find out what the allegations actually are. That should be in the lede, not all the irrelevant stuff that is currently there. -- Netwalker3 (talk) 11:38, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

• No per MOS:INTRO Editors should avoid ... overly specific descriptions – greater detail is saved for the body of the article. Also per BLP considerations per WP Manual of Style: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article. Thirdly, Reade has given differing accounts of the alleged assault, none of which have been verified one way or the other. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:44, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
• Yes This is what seperates this incident from all the plethora of other overly-close[6], uncomfortable[7] touchy-feely incidents[8], [9] that Biden has been documented performing. Noting that under FBI guidelines this accusation if true constitutes Rape[10].--MONGO (talk) 14:05, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
• Yes For clarity, as "sexually assaulted" can mean a number of things. Readers should not have to read the entire article to ascertain what is meant by the "sexual assault" in the title. Additionally, the current vague wording followed with the specific detail of the April 2019 allegation that "Biden had touched her neck and shoulders in ways that made her feel uncomfortable" may mislead readers into thinking the neck and shoulder touching was itself the sexual assault allegation. Hrodvarsson (talk) 22:35, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
• Yes It's the essence of the assault and distinguished it from the allegations of hair sniffing and groping allegations. ConstantPlancks (talk) 05:45, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
• No This is a key detail but not necessary in the lede, which should provide an introductory overview. It is enough to basically explain there was an allegation of sexual assault made in 2020 involving Biden and Reade in 1993. The fingers-in-vagina detail of that alleged assault is not necessary for the lede, the reader can explore that by continuing to read on. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 06:54, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

They can find the fingers-in part, but no sign of a vagina, it's for their own good. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:13, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

• YES per Einsof (talk · contribs) and Coffeeandcrumbs (talk · contribs). If this article was just about Joe Biden, then the details of such an assault allegation would not be appropriate in the LEDE. This article, however, is about sexual assault allegations made against Joe Biden. Some detail, not all, should be in the lede regarding the subject of the article, which is: sexual assault allegations made against Joe Bide. This can be included just due to the very subject nature of the article. Censoring all details from the lede is unnecessary, undue, and unprofessional; some detail belongs in the lede, for all the reasons already stated. GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 13:07, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
• Yes - The title of the article is "Joe Biden sexual assault allegation"; it would be bizarre to not describe the alleged sexual assault in the lead. "Sexual assault" is OK for the title but it's too vague to repeat in the lead; it can mean many different things. "Pushed her against a wall and penetrated her with his fingers" describes the sexual assault that is being alleged. Whether the allegation itself is true or false, this description is neutral and it's how the sources describe it. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 16:34, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Further discussion (alleged that Biden pushed her against a wall and penetrated her with his fingers)

I noted she said he "touched her vagina", mainly to accompany the existing "touched her neck and shoulder" in the secondary story. I trust "vagina" is less offensive than the robot porn proposed above. It's a short and common word, at least. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:01, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

And it's already been called "bad writing", with two sarcastic Seriously?'s. Yes, seriously. How to improve without getting scientific or sleazy? InedibleHulk (talk) 20:51, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

It makes the article look ridiculous and you should wait for the outcome of the RfC. Volunteer Marek 20:54, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

I put it in the body, where everything except which part was "penetrated by his fingers" is already clear. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:43, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

For the historical record, it revanished hours later. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:20, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Lead images

Choice 1: Biden (left) and Reade (right)

Choice 2: Biden (left) and Reade (right) in 1993

Choice 3: Tara Reade's U.S. Senate identification badge photo

Should we use the current one (top) or the one I'm proposing (bottom) which has Biden from the year the incident is alleged to have occurred. The only issue is the quality for Biden's picture is a bit poor, obviously more so when compared to the cropped 2013 one, but I think it'd help if we had a photo of Biden from when this might've happened to give better perspective. Thoughts? MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 07:33, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

• Choice 2 – The choice at bottom is better because both are contemporaneous. You don't put a photo of baby Stalin next to a gulag, to give an example. XavierItzm (talk) 10:29, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
• Choice 1 – Top choice is better. This just happens to be the only free image of Reade we have. This is a 2020 scandal, so let's use accurate depictions. For those worried about the depiction of Biden, see Stormy Daniels–Donald Trump scandal and Alleged Libyan financing in the 2007 French presidential election as precedents. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 11:56, 29 April 2020 (UTC)(talk) 10:29, 29 April 2020 (UTC); Edited 12:32, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

• See Choice 2a below. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 21:18, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

• Choice 3 - I reverted the two-person image yesterday and restored the prior photo of Reade from her senate ID. An editor quickly reinserted a two-person versi≥on. I believe that any two-person image is inappropriate. The visual impact powerfully conveys an association between Biden and Reade which is not verified. NPOV tells us the only such association is verified by Reade's narratives and may exist only in her consciousness. This article, based on the currently available sources, is about Reade and her statements. We do not yet know whether it's about Biden or only about Reade's statements about Biden. To couple them with side-by-side photos is a BLP violation and elevates Reade's narratives beyond any factual evidence currently available. If there were a 1993 photo of the two of them together, that would document a real-life factual event. But Wikipedia editors cannot cobble together a montage that links them and visually will seem to verify the alleged connection between them. That facutal connection has not been verified by Reliable Sources. SPECIFICO talk 12:13, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

• That's ridiculous. See Stormy Daniels–Donald Trump scandal and Alleged Libyan financing in the 2007 French presidential election. There is no issue with listing these two together! It doesn't elevate any allegations nor is it a BLP violation. If you were so worried, try proposing to rename the article so that "Joe Biden" isn't in the title. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 12:32, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

• Yeah, I agree. You can't just let Trump's allegations do it one way and Biden's another, and since Trump's does it like this, we should too. Don't throw any whataboutism accusations at me either, this is just being evenhanded. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 12:42, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

• 1. Trump had a verified relationship with Daniels. 2. Whataboutism? That would not be an accusation at you, that would be a valid concern about the photo mashup. 3. Renaming the article is a separate discussion. We could discuss that, if anyone wishes to propose it. SPECIFICO talk 13:28, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

• That implies Biden had no relationship with Reade whatsoever, which would be false as its true she did work for him during that period of time. Whether it is a valid concern is debatable, as you're making the assumption two individuals side-by-side imply an admission of guilt on behalf of Wikipedia that Biden did commit the crime. There's just nothing to support that argument, unless you could? MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 13:37, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

• I object to the reinstatement of the dual photo illustration. @XavierItzm: - The longstanding version was the single Tara Reade photo. The dual portrait version was only added a day and a half ago. I reverted to the stable version and then we had a user violate 1RR twice in less than 24 hours to keep this new two-person version on the page. It is a smear on Biden to create this Original Research association between them with the big lead image. As I said previously -- if we had a 1993 photo that actually showed the two of them together that would arguably be illustrating the fact that she worked in his office. Otherwise this is promoting a narrative that she was closely associated with him, at the least. We virtually nothing about their association. SPECIFICO talk 18:50, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

• How does the placement of two photos side-by-side each other constitute a "smear"? They had a working relationship with each other in 1993, the photos are of both of them in 1993. It gives perspective, it doesn't give a verdict. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 19:07, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

• Choice 2 - As the original proposer, I was obviously more in favor of the contemporary photos as it presents both individuals in the year the incident is alleged to have occurred. It just makes sense. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 12:42, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
• Choice 3  :*I agree with SPECIFICO talk. Prior to April 2019, everything that I have read that is written by Reade, about Reade, does not convey an association between Biden and Reade. P.S. Sorry about the above unsigned comment; I hit publish instead of show preview...oops. BetsyRMadison (talk) 13:18, 29 April 2020 (UTC)betsymadison

• SPECIFICO talk - makes excellent points. Reade's writings illustrate that she worked primarily with other interns and her immediate boss. Reade's writing also show she met Biden one time during her interview when he walked past, said a few words, and walked away. In her interviews she said he'd be at intern meetings & that's where she alleges he touched her "neck & shoulders." BetsyRMadison (talk) 20:48, 1 May 2020 (UTC)betsymadison
• WP:VOTE. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 13:13, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
• There definitely is an association, though, that Reade did work under Biden for the period of time in 1993. Alleged accusations aside, that is irrefutable. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 13:29, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

• Choice 2 used to work, but both pictures changed Biden's looks like '73 and Reade's like '83, but still less jarring than shifting from the digital age back to the Kodak moment. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:00, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Your opposition has been noted. Biden's has since reverted, though Tara's is presumably due to stay so as to prevent possible copyright claims from photographing another photograph. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 19:48, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, but I'll stay abstained, on account of Reade's new deathly pallor and lowered eyes. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:52, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

• Choice 2. It's helpful to see both as they looked closer to the alleged incident in question. Rreagan007 (talk) 15:48, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
• Comment – @MrX: Don't make edits like so while a discussion is ongoing. Thanks. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 17:53, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

I did not know the images were being discussed. - MrX 🖋 18:30, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

That was irresponsible behavior, MrX. This talk page, and in turn the article itself, has descended into utter chaos because of reckless editing like this. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 18:37, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

• Choice 3 - It is only alleged that Biden is a party to this accusation. Including his image is misleading, and arguably a violation of WP:BLP. - MrX 🖋 18:33, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

• I don't really understand how including his picture is misleading. His name is in the title of the article. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:26, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

This is not a biography, or a gallery. Someone should not have restored a Biden photo without obtaining consensus. - MrX 🖋 17:14, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

• Choice 2 - It is best the photos demonstrate what they looked like at the time. If there is a Joe Biden photo which is closer in time to the date the events in the allegations are said to have occurred, we should use that image. Obviously, if we begin to include the other allegations against Joe Biden in any detail, it would likely be best to remove this from the lede and put it in a section that discusses only Reade's allegations.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 19:08, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Alternatively, Choice 2a - But I would reconsider if a better contemporary photo of Biden is available.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 20:47, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Question - Is there a reason we have Biden on the left in these options and Reade on the right? I note that the article itself has her on the left and Biden on the right. Does it matter?--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 19:13, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

A user changed them during the brief chaotic period when someone changed the article title to "Tara Reade sexual assault allegation" without gaining any concrete consensus. I'm personally not touching it to avoid further warring. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 19:15, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Support side-by-side with Reade badge photo and a color photo of Biden closest to 1993. Kolya Butternut (talk) 04:22, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

• Comment We should use a color photograph of Biden from close to 1993, such as in this article:[11]

  

  Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:20, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

I could certainly see to changing that, as all the editors here in favor of Choice 2 have stated their support was for accuracy in relation to the year and not for the currently proposed photo in particular. Any idea when this was taken exactly so we could add to Choice 2's description? MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 19:25, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

I prefer any regular headshot over a politician smugly cocking/copping/cradling his fist in his office. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:39, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

We can crop it. Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:55, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Wouldn't be a terrible idea, if the main complaint related to the Biden photo is of the hands themselves. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 19:56, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, 75% the hands, 20% the office, face is arguably just trying to smile. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:07, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

My only concern is that this portrait is undated. I've tried looking for the year it was taken, but couldn't find anything. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 19:57, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

We could use this one dated from 1987, which is only six years separated from 1993. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 20:00, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

I think it's important to not make him younger, because part of her experience was the age difference and how she saw him as a father figure. The undated photo is more recent when he is a few years older. That photo was used in this story.[12] Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:21, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Six years difference between the picture and the alleged event, but he looks quite similar to his 1993 portrait. I think this is the we should choose if Choice 2 is the top pick. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 21:16, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Choice 2a: Biden (left, 1987) and Reade (right, 1993)

Proposing Choice 2a as the final alternative. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 21:18, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

In this version, Biden should probably pose on the right, apparently liking what he sees offscreen. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:40, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

He looks much younger without any gray; look at him in 1991:[13] Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:29, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

It's not the grey Skeletorizing him in that shot so much as the shiny white exposed dome, kind of screams "NO!", I find. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:53, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

• This is a fair compromise. I support it. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 08:12, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

• Agree, good compromise.--KasiaNL (talk) 10:04, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

We cannot, as editors, concatenate two photos to elevate controversial or unsubstantiated allegations that a living person committed a crime. The single image of Reade was stable in the article from its early days until the substitution of the side-by-side images within the last couple of days. I am again going to remove the dual image and reinstate the status quo single image. The dual image is a BLP violation and should not be reinserted. To help think about this, consider: Would we use side-by-side images of Bernie Sanders and Vladimir Putin alongside article text that says intelligence agencies believe Putin supported Sanders in the Democratic primary? Would we put side-by-side images of Melania Trump and a caged immigrant child in article text about her visit to the US/Mexico border? Would we put side-by-side images of a women's health rights activist and an aborted human fetus in a Wikipedia article about Roe v. Wade? I have previously asked both of the editors who inserted this Biden/Reade illustration to remove it and reminded them that the "longstanding" version is the single Reade image. They have declined to do so. It's a false dichotomy to suggest in this thread that we choose between a legitimate illustration of Reade and a BLP violation. I'm removing the dual illustration now per BLP and restoring the longstanding status quo Reade photo. SPECIFICO talk 12:40, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Your analogy to Roe v. Wade is so left-field. Again... look at Alleged Libyan financing in the 2007 French presidential election and Stormy Daniels–Donald Trump scandal. Writing a paragraph and adding a subsection header isn't going to prevent the fact that consensus is being reached for Choice 2a as a compromise. Stop removing content when a discussion is ongoing. You can't just cry BLP over and over while being disruptive; it ruins actual future concerns about BLP violations. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 12:44, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, its a shame some editors can't be more cooperative with others and decide it best to edit the article without acknowledging their dissent. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 13:03, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

To SPECIFICO talk - excellent points! BetsyRMadison (talk) 20:41, 1 May 2020 (UTC)betsymadison

• Choice 3 Per Specifico's reasoning. Placing the two side-by-side is suggestive of some sort of relationship or association, when at this point the story is merely about an allegation. The image of Reade herself is plenty. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:22, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
• Examples of sources using side-by-side: Current Affairs, Business Insider, The Intercept Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:53, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

This is irrelevant. Wikipedia has our own style and standards and policies. If we ever do emulate other publications, I'm sure we will set the bar higher than those. SPECIFICO talk 01:20, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

You're missing my point. The "style" that sources use is indeed irrelevant, but I am referencing what sources communicate with their photographs, i.e., I am addressing your concerns above where you claim the side-by-side photos are a BLP violation. We can communicate photographically what the sources communicate photographically. Kolya Butternut (talk) 04:11, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

• Choice 3 Specifico is correct. It is not clear how many supervisors a staff assistant worked with, nor how much contact with any of the senators she would actually have had. The side-by-side looks like a combination tabloid pic/mug shot and implies the same. Manannan67 (talk) 02:45, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
• Choice 2a – An image of both persons most associated with the article is appropriate. It is helpful to the reader and does not imply guilt or innocence. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 09:12, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

• Choice 2a, we clearly need side by side photos, one of the accused and one of the accuser if we are going to maintain any semblance of balance in this article. The only possible alternative is to have Biden's picture alone since he is the most notable person in this story.EdJF (talk) 20:54, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Currently we have a majority opinion in favor of Choice 2 (and/or) 2a and yet select editors take it upon themselves to continue their own preferred placement of images. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 19:06, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

We do not count votes. We do not override BLP policy no matter what happens on article talk pages. And, just as an example, have a look at the articles on Anita Hill and Christine Blasey Ford. Note that there is no photograph of the men there, let alone one with the man and the women joined in a single compound image. Could editors please leave any additional thoughts today, and I will request an Admin review the thread to evaluate for the outcome. Meanwhile, the article should retain the status quo ante, which was the single image of Reade that was in place from the first few days of this article. SPECIFICO talk 15:38, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

"Joe Biden" is in the title of this article, not in the other two articles. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 17:35, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Whereas "Anita Hill"/"Christine Blasey Ford" are biographies-of-living people, ours is of a historical event, therefore the historical-event articles subentries Clarence Thomas Supreme Court nomination#Allegations about sexual comments"/"Brett Kavanaugh Supreme Court nomination#Sexual assault allegations" could conceivably make for better comparisons. I'm not so concerned what images appear in the article but just would like to point this out.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 18:14, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

• Choice 4 [new]: No lead image. Include image of Reade in Background -> Tara Reade and initial allegations; include image of Biden from Option 2 under Background -> Joe Biden. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:56, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

• Choice 3 Per SPECIFICO. Would also support the option 4 proposed above as a logical position. --Yaksar (let's chat) 02:49, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

• Choice 3 Per SPECIFICO. Gandydancer (talk) 02:58, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

• Choice 3 because other images imply or essentially make the statement that the allegation was true. My very best wishes (talk) 02:44, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

• None of the above. This is not a biography, it's an event. A photograph of the event (e.g., like this one] would be appropriate in the lead; portraits of the people allegedly involved in the event are not. On top of that, the captions underneath choices 2 and 3 are wrong. That's Reade's ID pic from her internship at the House of Representatives, and that was after college and before she "worked on campaigns" (her words), i.e., probably in the 80s, definitely not in 1993 or 1992. As for choice 1, it's POV to put a current photograph of one person next to a photograph taken 30–35 years ago. Might as well label them "the old lecher and the young innocent." Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 20:39, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

There's no precedent to not put photographs of the people involved, allegedly or otherwise, in articles concerning events. See Stormy Daniels-Donald Trump scandal as just an example. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 13:27, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

You need better examples than that. A full-blown scandal, involving admitted consensual extramarital sex in 2006 between a porn star and Trump, resulting in the payment of hush money and in campaign finance violations just prior to the 2016 election, is not on a par with this solitary accusation. of the people involved - we don't know that Biden was involved. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:45, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

We don't know if Biden was involved in the alleged 1993 assault. But we know he was involved in the reported 2020 allegation, this article's event. He's in the lead and has his own section, also mentioned everywhere. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:07, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Actually, Biden was not "involved in the reported 2020 allegation" -- only Tara Reade is "involved" in reporting that allegation. BetsyRMadison (talk) 22:36, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

• Choice 2a - The article is titled "Joe Biden sexual assault allegation", it would be a surprise to the reader if the lead image was a picture of someone other than Joe Biden, without a picture of Joe Biden. A side-by-side does not "imply the allegation was true" (WTF is that logic?); it does imply that there was a relationship or connection, and there was one: she worked for him, and she accused him of sexual assault. 2A shows both of them; it's in color; and depicted as they were around the time. It's the choice that gives the reader the information they need: a visual image of the person making the accusation and the person being accused. BTW I think Reader should be on the left and Biden on the right. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 16:39, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

RfC: Should a separate section be included that lists people who have been told by Reade of her allegation, under a heading 'Corroborating statements', 'Witness statements', or similar?

RfC: Should a separate section be included that lists people who have been told by Reade of her allegation, under a heading 'Corroborating statements', 'Witness statements', or similar? - MrX 🖋 17:26, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Proposed content

The following is a list of people who have stated that Reade had talked to them about details of the alleged incident prior to March 2020. Collin Moulton, Reade's brother, initially told The Washington Post that she told him in 1993 that Biden had touched her neck and shoulders. He said there was "a gym bag incident", and that Biden "was inappropriate". Several days after that interview, Moulton told the Post that Reade in the early 1990s told him Biden put his hand "under her clothes." Moulton was also interviewed by ABC News, which he told Reade told him about "harassment at work" by Biden, but only heard about the assault in 2020. Hours after the interview, he added he had heard from Reade in 1993 that Biden had "more or less cornered her against the wall" and "put his hands up her clothes". Lynda LaCasse, Reade's former neighbor, told Business Insider that Reade told her in 1995 or 1996 about the alleged assault. LaCasse told ABC News that she recalled that Reade told her Biden allegedly “kind of put her up against a wall. And he put his hand up her skirt." Lorraine Sanchez, Reade's former co-worker, told Business Insider that Reade told her in the mid-1990s that she was fired after being harassed by her former boss in Washington, D.C. Anonymous friends (those reported in different publications may be referring to the same people) One friend initially did not describe any assault allegation when interviewed by Associated Press in 2019. After Reade made the assault allegation, this friend stated in 2020 that Reade told them about the alleged assault at the time of the incident. This friend also stated that they previously told Reade not to allege an assault due to negative remarks directed at Reade after she alleged about harassment by Biden. Another friend told Associated Press that Reade in 2007 or 2008 alleged suffering sexual harassment from Biden, with no mention of assault. One friend told The New York Times that Reade told her in 1993 about the alleged assault. Another friend told The New York Times that Reade told her in 2008 that Biden had touched her inappropriately. In addition, Reade and Moulton have claimed that she told her mother, Jeanette Altimus, about the incident. Altimus had died by the time Reade went public with the allegation. The Intercept found a 1993 video clip from CNN's Larry King Live, where a female caller stated that her daughter had left Washington D.C "after working for a prominent senator, and could not get through with her problems at all, and the only thing she could have done was go to the press, and she chose not to do it out of respect for him." Reade claims that the caller is her mother. The caller was identified on-screen as being from San Luis Obispo, California; CNN verified that Reade's mother lived in that city at the time of the call.

Sources

---

• Yes, as the corroborations are well sourced and key to the accusation. They are a notable difference to the Kavanaugh accusations, as there were zero corroborations from the alleged time window. Mr Ernie (talk) 17:29, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
• Yes, well sourced and centrally important to the allegation. I'm not sure about using Forbes as a source for something this contentious though. I have no issues with the rest of the sources. CJK09 (talk) 17:40, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
• Yes, support inclusion - good sourcing from The Washington Post, Forbes, ABC News, Associated Press, and CNN. XavierItzm (talk) 17:47, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
• No I'll just note that this is a proposal about how to structure information, not whether it is WP:V, so references to proper sourcing are really not at issue here. The substance of this proposal is essentially to violate WP:NPOV by presenting a one-sided paragraph on the allegations, simply including "corroborating information." The article needs to present a balanced overview of the allegation. If this were a formal crime article, we wouldn't have a section presenting "evidence for conviction" or "evidence against defendant." We also wouldn't have a section presenting counterweighing information. This is not how an article should be structured. The underlying material can be integrated throughout the article, but it should not be grouped together in this manner. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:50, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
• Yes, well sourced by many reliable sources. If we include those supporting Biden, why would we censor these Reade-related statements? Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 17:53, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Note the proposed inclusion of the recording of the 1993 Larry King Live episode. It was previously removed though a consensus was building for its inclusion. Another editor went out of their way to propose the file's deletion despite the ongoing discussion. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 18:04, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
• Comment How ever many editors decide to vote for inclusion, it really doesn't matter, because we cannot include a section that violates [[WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. The arguments here have nothing to do with the relevant factors. The underlying information that was included in the paragraph whose removal prompted this RfC is not necessarily unacceptable. It can be incorporated into various sections of the article, like "Investigations," "Reade's account," "Responses," etc. The question is whether we should create a separate paragraph that groups together all information tending to support Reade's account and then present it all in one place without any context or other explanation. The only reason to do this would be to make the case that the allegations are true, not to present a balanced overview of all available information. The latter is what we are required to do per a fundamental pillar of WP. The former is absolutely prohibited. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:00, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

• It speaks volumes when you're one of few who view this as a BLP violation. That's my point. These statements have been reported by far too many reliable sources. They don't damage Biden's reputation, they just confirm that Reade had told certain people certain information prior to 2019. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 18:04, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

• Excuse me? Speaks volumes about what, exactly? Do not make personal attacks or personalized criticisms. This also completely misunderstands the problem. The underlying information being verifiable is not at issue. The BLP/NPOV violation is to structure the article in a way to push a particular narrative. Corroborating information can be included, but it is meant to be integrated into the article along with all other context, not presented separately to "make the case" against the subject or for a set of accusations. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:10, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

• Not even a personal attack, so stop saying that... its a baseless threat at this pint. There's a whole separate subsection for Biden and his team's response, why not for Reade's camp? Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 18:15, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

• Yeah, suggesting that another editor's opinion "speaks volumes" is a personalized criticism. Reade's account and corroborating information, her "camp," is included under her account. We don't need another section to bolster the accusation, nor do we need a section to bolster anything. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:47, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

• From what I just read, it's not a personal attack. My point is that not everyone sees it as a BLP violation. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 18:57, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Find another example where Wikipedia compiles "corroborating" or "incriminating" information and presents it in that fashion. No? That's because we don't use WP pages to push a narrative. Proposals suggesting we should push a narrative because it's "well-sourced" misunderstand a fundamental pillar of WP. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:13, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

• No About half the text is unverified and BLP violations. Presenting a lot of unrelated and even contradictory content on the friends and family plan section title is POV and obscures the 50% of the content that both relates to the topic of the article -- the new 2020 allegation -- and is verified by the sources. A separate section title should not be used to elevate tenuous interpretations of third party statements by people who are not witnesses. Please refrain from calling NPOV, V, and BLP "censorship" - it only weakens any editorial reason that might support the separate gallery of Corroborators. SPECIFICO talk 18:01, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
• Yes - Er, yeah. It's sourced from many reliable sources. If there's similar content corroborating the other party's position, that should also be included. AP2 is still Wikipedia. Cjhard (talk) 18:10, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

You mean people never leaving Biden's side 24/7 for all of 1993 or all of spring of 1993 or whatever? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 08:33, 2 May 2020 (UTC) If you have a specific time and place you might be able to produce witnesses or records to disprove an accusation but that's not the case here. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 08:37, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

• Yes, as long as it is RS. The section from earlier today listed some items not sourced at all.EdJF (talk) 18:11, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
• No, against inclusion in this manner. The presentation and implicit editorializing here violates NPOV; err on the side of caution for a BLP. Much of this material can and should be presented, but it must be integrated with the rest of the article. Whether RS or not is met should be determined per individual statement, but echoing Wikieditor19920, this method of delivery is grossly inappropriate. We must not move forward until we find a reasonable consensus for this information. RedHotPear (talk) 18:31, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
• No, Most of this is very poor quality. If anything can be retrieved it (such as Moulton) it should be worked into the appropriate place in the article. These people can only speak to what they understood she told them; it doesn't go to the actual truth or accuracy of her statements. She says the Larry King caller was her mother, maybe yes, maybe no; but the caller doesn't reference what the "problems" were. Being seen as a bar server? Comments from anonymous friends are singularly useless and vague. An anonymous friend told me this was a move by disgruntled Bernie supporters.(sarcasm). Manannan67 (talk) 18:41, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

There are no sourcing problems, and we aren't here to judge, only to reflect what RS says. We can simply summarize this https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/04/29/sexual-allegations-against-joe-biden-corroborators/ petrarchan47คุก 19:07, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

• Yes - it's significant and relevant information from multiple reliable sources, but it is undue to present the content in that much detail and format, summarize in prose in a paragraph. Isaidnoway (talk) 18:59, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
• Yes (Struck earlier comment below as a misunderstanding of the RfC question, which is not whether to include the information, but how.) These stories of friends from the past are all being referred to as "corroboration" or "partial corroboration" by all sources I am reading, so I don't see how an argument to refrain from using the word "corroboration" in the article can stand (though it has, thus far, based on a small vocal minority). I do think a separate section is the norm, and now that we have up to 10 accounts to cover, bullet points would be helpful. Right now the material is covered in two or three paragraphs, some are overly detailed, others receive a mere mention. petrarchan47คุก 17:42, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

• Buzzfeed News "Subsequent reporting has corroborated elements of Reade’s story."
• NYT "And in large part, she corroborates the story that Tara had told me."
• WashingtonPost "List of Corroborators"
• NPR "Former Neighbor Corroborates Tara Reade's Account Of Sexual Assault By Joe Biden"
• Fox News "AP report: Two more sources corroborate Tara Reade's allegations"
• NY Mag "New Sources Corroborate Timeline of Sexual Assault Accusation Against Biden"
• Nation "...Business Insider published this account, corroborating Reade’s prior testimony"
• TIME "Friends and family of Reade’s have corroborated parts of her account"
• FORBES "...corroborated parts of Reade’s story"

Yes - Snow Close The removal of this material is a BLP violation. I have taken the issue up here as I believe this is an emergency situation per WP:BLP. petrarchan47คุก 19:05, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

@Petrarchan47: This comment apparently misunderstands the meaning of BLP, or this is a bad-faith citing of that policy. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:11, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Uh... what? Removing potentially defamatory material is a BLP violation? In what universe? This is exactly ass backwards. Volunteer Marek 20:26, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Also, your link goes to a disambiguation page about people and fictional characters named "Liz". Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 08:25, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

As a courtesy, I have fixed the link. starship.paint (talk) 11:04, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

• Yes, support inclusion - Undecided about whether that should be in its own section or simply in the prose of another section.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 19:21, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

• FYI, this discussion is about whether to have a separate section. So "yes" means yes you have decided to have its separate Corroborator captioned section. SPECIFICO talk 19:58, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

WP:CRIT: In most cases separate sections devoted to criticism, controversies, or the like should be avoided in an article because these sections call undue attention to negative viewpoints. Articles should present the prevailing viewpoints from reliable sources fairly, proportionately, and without bias, whether positive or negative. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:25, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, yes I am well aware. If the materials can be appropriately presented in a section that is not wholly devoted to criticism/ controversies, we should do that. As I have regularly stated on the talk page, my view of WP:DUE and WP:NPOV is that we must include relevant, WP:RS content from different perspectives that exist. Where possible, these should be presented next to each other to allow for balance and to maintain a neutral and encyclopedic tone. I feel I must be CLEAR that the content must remain though, as content regarding some perspectives has been repeatedly removed. WP:POV sections are not the answer (regardless of the POV), nor is scrubbing reliable content that is not flattering to Mr. Biden or to Ms. Reade.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 19:41, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

• No I don't mean to be sarcastic but every time I read that list I can't help but think of a Wikipedia article about a film or a novel where we list the cast of characters - and it makes me chuckle. Anyway, I believe that we usually work these names into the article rather than make a list of them. Gandydancer (talk) 19:57, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
• Yes A list would make the info easy to grasp on a visual level.MagicatthemovieS (talk) 19:58, 1 May 2020 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS
• Yes I think this makes good organizational sense and it would make the information stand out. Lechonero (talk) 20:05, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
• Obviously NO - it's a very clear violation of WP:NPOV and WP:SYNTH. It's trying to convey something to the reader which is simply not in the sources. And as User:Wikieditor19920 points out WP:BLP is non-negotiable. You don't get to override site consensus by local consensus. Reminding everyone that RfC are not votes, this RfC is actually irrelevant. Volunteer Marek 20:28, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
  • WP:CRYBLP is probably more applicable here. The corroborations have been reliably sourced to impeccable sourcing (notably WaPo, NPR, and the NYT). I understand the concerns about NPOV and SYNTH, and think those are more pertinent than BLP. NPOV is satisfied because we don't say the corroborations are correct or not, only that they occurred and were investigated and confirmed to have occurred by RS. SYNTH doesn't apply because the corroborations come directly out of individual RS pieces. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:48, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

They come out of "individual RS pieces" kind of gives away that this is WP:SYNTH. If there's a source which discusses all the corroborations together in context (and evaluates them) then maybe we could use that, though that still doesn't necessarily justify having a separate section. The closest we have to that right now is the USToday op-ed... but I don't think that's what the people who want to include this stuff have in mind, since it basically says it's all sketchy ah. Volunteer Marek 20:51, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

This is more along the lines of how it should be done, although that text still has POV problems (by omitting crucial info) - though it does avoid the SYNTH issue. Volunteer Marek 20:55, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

• No - Framing these statements as "corroborating" is problematic, especially since most do not actually pertain to the alleged assault. These statements, which back up parts of Reade's story, can be included in the chronology without being framed as something they aren't. --WMSR (talk) 23:16, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
• No - This sounds like Wikipedia is building a case. Not our job. Let us be patient. WP:NPOV WP:SYNTH O3000 (talk) 00:15, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
• No, hearsay is not corroborating evidence. Sectioning it like this is giving the false appearance that the statements are factual. Zaathras (talk) 00:31, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
• Shouldn't be in its own section - Incorporate the information into the rest of the article as normal. As has been stated above, it's odd to have everything bunched up together like this. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 01:04, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
• Yes - per Cjhard. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 03:16, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
• Yes There are reliable sources. ~ HAL333 20:13, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
• Yes – It is relevant and reliably sourced. It is an important aspect of the subject and should be covered. I do not like the list format. Both this and those on Biden's side should be presented as prose. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 01:52, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
• Not exactly - there should be a separate section for other involved parties, including the people who say they earlier heard from Reade, but also it must include others in Biden's office (e.g. Kaufman, Toner, Baker, who said that they did not receive complaints from Reade). This would be wider than Corroborating statements. Witness statements is a no-go, no one witnessed it. I would not support a separate section which does not include the others in Biden's office. starship.paint (talk) 07:15, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
• No - There are multiple problems with this material:
  1. The section heading "Corroborating statements" is misleading, inasmuch as it implies that there were witnesses who corroborated Reade's allegation, rather than what she allegedly told them at the time. We are required to write from a neutral point of view, especially in section headings. "Witness statements" is even more misleading, and actually fails verification.
  2. Starting a section with "The following is a list..." is poor writing style.
  3. "(those reported in different publications may be referring to the same people)" is poor writing style and WP:OR.
  4. Citing "anonymous friends" is a potential red flag as to the reliability of their accounts.
  5. This, from the AP article, casts doubt on the credibility of one of the anonymous accounts: "The person, who requested anonymity because of the sensitivity of the situation, didn’t mention the assault allegation during an initial interview with the AP last year, but confirmed those details after Reade went forward with them."[14]
  6. "In addition,..." is poor writing style.
  7. Combining these mixed accounts of what Reade told other people into a level 2 section brushes up against WP:SYNTH and improperly elevates their importance (WP:UNDUE). By listing so-called corroborating accounts, while omitting the accounts of Biden' staff (CNN, AP), the material is very one sided.

About half of this material should be discarded, and the rest should be woven into the article in a narrative style, making sure not to duplicate anything or add these any of these vague/inconsistent accounts to the lead. Appearing in reliable sources is the minimum requirement for inclusion, not a free pass for regurgitating disposable information into an encyclopedia article. - MrX 🖋 14:12, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

• Yes - but not necessarily in list form. We can include all the information as prose. The title may need tweaking as well, as some are only partial corroboration or second-hand witnesses. Nevertheless, the basic information should absolutely be included. This article currently isn't particularly long, so we have no real reason to be cutting out potentially significant and well-sourced details like this. Worldlywise (talk) 11:23, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
• Yes, as the existence of the corroborations have WEIGHT in many RS. The text should also show the Refs at LaCasse and Sanchez, for inline V, and some of the other RS could be added. (I generally like BBC, so here, or The Guardian so this). Cheers Markbassett (talk) 13:43, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

  No - This would just seem to unnecessarily expand the issue when it could be contained within what I'd call one can. ToeFungii (talk) 17:58, 6 May 2020 (UTC) Sock vote stricken. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 16:47, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

• Not in this form per most of User:MrX's points. Should be summarized and woven into prose as appropriate, not presented like a list of evidence for one side. —Granger (talk · contribs) 15:02, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
• No. It violates WP:BALANCE and WP:IMPARTIAL by prominently presenting one side of the arguments. The material, if reliably sourced can be integrated into the text in other ways. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:49, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
• No per most of the above. It's undue, and it's a misuse of "corroborate" and of "witness", and it's indiscriminate, and various other problems. The key parts of the material could be worked into the rest of the article, but we certainly don't need a section for a list of this stuff.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:53, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
• 'Yes-ish - the article is giving whole sections to NPR commentary or to NYT commentary that predates much of this, so for BALANCE and for chronology, there should be a equivalent prominence hence section, detailing the corroborations. And placed later as items that showed up later than and not seen by the NYT or NPR. I actually do not think the NYT or NPR or these are all needed to be sections, but since they are in RS at that prominence and were put in as sections, then this should also be a section. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:06, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
• No - The content should definitely be included in the article, but I think it's better to weave it into the prose of the historical narrative, rather than as a separate section. A separate section listing corroborators is too dossier-like, as if we were building or analyzing a case... here's the "pros" section, here's the "cons" section, etc. I agree it's too much like listing characters in a fictional work. The reader's understanding will be improved by learning about the various corroborations in the surrounding context. For example, some corroborations came at the time (30 years ago); others came today. It's helpful for the reader to know, e.g., that some corroborations happened before she went public, some after the first time she went public but before she made more-serious accusations publicly, and some only in recent months. I don't see a reason to separate corroborations out from the other events of the timeline - the whole story should be told in a narrative, prose form. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 16:47, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Discussion (should a separate section be included that lists people who have been told by Reade of her allegation)

Please see the related discussion which highlights sources for the corroborators: Talk:Joe Biden#Reade's story corroborators Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:09, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Needs a media controversy section

A fact not so much to be adjudicated by WP but passively made note of, is that reliable sources consider the topic of this article to encompasses as well a media controversy. See for example:

1. this from TheNewYorker: "Given that Reade’s claim will not be heard in a court, the Senate chamber, a campus disciplinary proceeding, or even a human-resources department, it has so far fallen on journalists to investigate and report on it. But, as Ben Smith wrote in the Times, mainstream television outlets have dragged their feet in hearing Reade out on camera, in a replay of how Juanita Broaddrick wasn’t heard out on her 1999 allegation that Bill Clinton had raped her decades earlier."
2. this from NPR: "NPR Public Editor, with Pooynter's Kelly McBride: NPR Was Too Slow On Tara Reade's Story"

• &alia.
  --Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 17:35, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

  A WP:CONTROVERSYSECTION impairs the NPOV of any article. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:42, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose a "media controversy" section. People in the media complaining about other media, and making fallacious comparisons to other sexual assault allegations is not suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia, and it's not relevant to the alleged sexual assault. - MrX 🖋 17:46, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. That is the least productive thing we could do at this time. There is too much media chatter, intramural media criticism, and advocacy bloggers inflating media issues into controversies larger than the allegation itself. With respect to Reade's scarcity on the telly, it has been her choice, and it is her right, to avoid the additional distress such appearances might bring. That is not a media controversy, just a woman keeping what's left of her privacy. SPECIFICO talk 17:50, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose for the same reasons as MrX 🖋 & SPECIFICO & Muboshgu. BetsyRMadison (talk) 18:26, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
• cmt - A narrow focus is being brought to this subject but more than one article can be written pertaining to various aspects of a subject being covered (see wp:SUMMARY). We'd do well to fork off a companion article with broader focus. This allegation doesn't exist in a cultural vacuum but is emblematic of ethical issues arising from the moment's cultural ferment, coverage of which might involve citing certain on-point commentaries (for example TheNewYorker piece cited also "raises the question of whether it makes sense that Biden may receive the Democratic nomination for President, while a student or professor who engaged in the same conduct would be disciplined on a campus reformed under Biden’s efforts" . . . "while offering cold comfort to Franken, or to Reade, #MeToo is evolving, as are its imperatives, toward possibly fairer ends. What is emerging unmistakably from this Biden episode is a later-draft, more refined #MeToo, in which “Believe women” stands for the imperative to listen respectfully and investigate thoughtfully. It is not about a right to be believed, much less automatically vindicated, but essentially a right to be heard and to have one’s claims examined with care." . . . ).--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 18:57, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support - there has been a significant WEIGHT of the story on the media difficulties and differences in handling among this story and other stories of sexual assault, that in lieu of a court it will only be a trial by press, and on Tara Reade's distrust of media handling. I'm thinking it is controversial and some mention of that is reasonable, if difficult. Though I would suggest a more restrained word than 'controversy'. Maybe just ‘media coverage’ or ‘public handling’.

FiveThiryEight How The Media Has — And Hasn’t — Covered Tara Reade’s Allegation

Vox The agonizing story of Tara Reade

The Hill New York Times calls on DNC to investigate Tara Reade allegations

NY Post Joe Biden nets unlikely defenders amid Tara Reade allegations

Reason Why Are the Mainstream Media Ignoring Tara Reade's Sexual Assault Accusation Against Joe Biden?

Mother Jones Sexual Assault Advocates Are Grappling With the Allegations Against Joe Biden

NY Times The Times Took 19 Days to Report an Accusation Against Biden. Here’s Why

TheHill NY Times faces blowback for removal of controversial passage on Biden sexual assault allegation

Medium The NYT Article on Tara Reade is a Masterclass on Journalistic Sleight of Hand, How popular media can bury survivors

FoxNews New York Times reporter mocked for justification of Kavanaugh, Biden allegations being handled differently

FoxNews Timeline shows media, Dems' different approach to Tara Reade accusation after Kavanaugh free-for-all

NPR (op) NPR Was Too Slow On Tara Reade's Story

Jacobin The Media Had a Formula for Reporting Sexual Misconduct. Then Joe Biden Was Accused.

Vanity Fair Fox News’ Rabid Tara Reade Coverage Is a Far Cry From Allegations Against Trump

The Atlantic How Uncertainty Became a Weapon in the Tara Reade Story ('complete exoneration' the Biden campaign declares NYT exonerates them)

Daily Mail Joe Biden accuser Tara Reade says she 'lost total respect' for CNN's Anderson Cooper and other TV news anchors when they failed to ask the presumptive presidential nominee about her sexual assault allegations during interviews

Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:04, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

{ping|Markbassett}} All that kind of stuff is UNDUE here, but would fit nicely in the newer Tara Reade article. Consider adding parts of it there, if you agree. SPECIFICO talk 22:41, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Sinc the media controversy only exists because it is Joe Biden sexual assault allegation - I think it belongs here, as a part of this story and to provide full disclosure that the media cites we use were having issues. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 22:51, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Oppose for reasons given above. There seems to be a presumption that various networks are obligated to give someone airtime. That would likely be problematic if the broadcaster had reservations concerning the accuracy of he material. They've been burned before. Manannan67 (talk) 04:39, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Support There has been a lot of talk in the media about the way things have been handled, and I think it is inappropriate for us to attempt to make judgement on whether this controversy is justified or not, as expressed by some editors above. We need a neutral approach to this: if this has gained attention in the media, and has been discussed a lot, clearly it is notable, and our personal judgement regarding how we feel about said discussions is completely irrelevant. Talking of "making fallacious comparisons" is expressing an opinion (MrX) - it is your opinion those comparisons are fallacious, it's not an objective fact. Regarding SPECIFICO's argument that it was Reade's choice to not appear in an interview on television: this is partially false. She initially complained that she has only been contacted by Fox News to do an interview, and only after that complaint has surfaced she got contacted by two other media outlets, which she then rejected in order to do one with Megyn Kelly. BeŻet (talk) 11:20, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Please don't misrepresent things with gender-loaded words like Reade "complained". Really? She has a right to cancel her Fox appearance, without being accused of "complaining" about this or that. Fox is a news organization. Megyn Kelly's twitter account is a self-published video platform. Big difference. The public face of this matter has taken a very unfortunate turn. Whether this is because numerous news and media outlets have found Reade's positions untenable and unworthy of reporting -- that we do not fully understand now. But the public forum is turning into a conspiracy theory/blog/tabloid event and there is little new reporting in the mainstream media -- except about this shift. SPECIFICO talk 11:43, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

"Gender-loaded"??? I am simply correcting a false statement you have made and putting it in context. She was only oferred a Fox News interview, which she rejected due to safety concerns. It would be helpful for these discussions to not include ridiciolous arguments, like calling a word "gender-loaded" or claiming that this article has nothing to do with Joe Biden. It will help the discussion move forward. BeŻet (talk) 12:21, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

A rejection is not a complaint. If I reject your complaint, am I complaining or rejecting it? SPECIFICO talk 12:26, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Support part of the story is the media's coverage or lack of coverage as evidenced by all the coverage about just that. Patapsco913 (talk) 16:35, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose A mishmash of media outlets guttersniping at one another is about the last thing that should be touched by this article. Zaathras (talk) 16:38, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. No, I do not think that bringing accusations and counter-accusations about media in an article about allegations with respect to someone else is a good idea. My very best wishes (talk) 18:29, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Oppose per MrX. RedHotPear (talk) 21:52, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Support. The strange response of the media is indeed a huge part of the history of Reade's allegation; the allegation emerged soon after Biden became the frontrunner in the Democratic primary, and was completely ignored by mainstream sources like The NY Times and CNN. Maybe just a coincidence, perhaps they needed a long time to investigate. During that time other reliable sources picked it up and noted that silence. As soon as Biden's opponent Sanders withdrew from the primary, the allegation went mainstream. The reader should have some awareness of that. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 08:41, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Oppose per MrX. Volunteer Marek 08:51, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

• Support but I would call it "media coverage" rather than "media controversy". The media coverage of the allegation is, itself, a notable and significant part of this topic, and should be addressed, and that should be in a separate section than the primary historical narrative that provides the timeline of events. The whole "was it a blackout?" controversy would be a glaring omission if it weren't included. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 17:02, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 7 May 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Consensus to keep at the current location. (non-admin closure) AzureCitizen (talk) 14:28, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

---

Joe Biden sexual assault allegation → Joe Biden sexual misconduct allegations – Per WP:CONSISTENT and per previous move discussion. This is in light of at least the Lucy Flores allegations in 2019. Such information should be moved from Joe Biden considering that we now have a page related to sexual misconduct by Joe Biden. Multiple editors had proposed such a move and to add or merge relevant information. 2600:100C:B24F:7C9A:C181:F5BD:251F:FB73 (talk) 21:06, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose because the subject of this article is the allegation made by Tara Reade. No other women, including Lucy Flores, have accused Biden of "sexual misconduct". There are no other allegations included on this page other than Tara Reade, so that implies you want to expand the focus of this page. That appears to me to be an attempt to create a page on par with Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations in an effort that would make Karl Rove proud with the "attack the strength" playbook. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:39, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

So you say "unwanted touching", "smelling of hair" or "kissing the back of a womans' head" cannot be sexual misconduct or harassment?--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:14, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

To Darryl Kerrigan To be clear; Lucy Flores (of whom you reference) said that Biden's action toward her do not approach the sexual assault or harassment [15]. So, it's best we stay calm and avoid attributing "sexual allegations" to people who have said no such thing. Respectfully BetsyRMadison (talk) 22:37, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

To be clear, I am not only talking about Lucy Flores. There are a number of women mentioned in this section which I already linked to below. To be even clearer, you are misquoting that source:

Flores said she recognizes that Biden’s penchant for invading personal space is not as serious as what Franken allegedly did, nor does it approach the sexual assault and harassment allegations that have been lodged against Trump by 17 women. Still, she said she has been stunned by the response to her claims.

I am puzzled by editors approach here. Simple words and comments on their own can amount to sexual harassment or misconduct. One of the things Franken did was posing in a photograph in explicit gesture, he didn't touch Tweeden who was sleeping at the time. But few had a problem calling that sexual misconduct allegations, we have it included in such a section on his bio titled as such.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:13, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

@Darryl Kerrigan: The Franken section title is "Allegations..." Nobody believes Franken's behavior was "sexual misconduct". Your post says the section is titled "sexual misconduct" That's false and a BLP violation and you should simply link the actual title with no easter egg pipe. Please take care of that. SPECIFICO talk 23:40, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Don't be obtuse. The proposed title includes "allegations" as well: sexual misconduct allegations. Are you really confused about that? Some editors seem to be suggesting it is inappropriate to even label these "sexual misconduct allegations". As in, Joe Biden sexual assault allegations. I think these allegations clearly relate to sexual misconduct. You are free to disagree, but there is no need for us to debate whether allegations are true or not. That isn't our job, and I am not interested in doing so.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:59, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

I thought my post made clear I was saying you misrepresented the content of the Franken article, which does not conclude or state in WP's voice that his action was "sexual misconduct". Your link misleadingly took the reader to a section that is captioned "allegations" of that behavior, not simply "sexual misconduct". I'll again ask you to fix the misleading link w/o the pipe. I hope you will do the right thing. That's all I'll hve to say about this. SPECIFICO talk 00:56, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, you clearly ignored the point. I wasn't misleading anyone, and I suggest you withdraw that accusation. BetsyRMadison questioned whether it was appropriate to refer to these as allegations of a sexual nature or harassment (in reference to me suggesting that if they were true, they could be misconduct). We were always talking about allegations and have always been talking about allegations. Both the proposed title and the existing title specify these are allegations. I am not sure what part of this is so hard for you. The part we were discussing and there was an issue about was the "sexual misconduct" part. That these were allegations has always been a given, but I have "fixed" this for those who have difficulty following a discussion.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 02:02, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

To Darryl Kerrigan - Other women are not accusing Biden of "sexual" anything. It is not the job of WP editors to write a fictitious article about Biden and falsely accuse him of things women have not accused him of. BetsyRMadison (talk) 02:19, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

We don't have to accuse him of anything. We simply summarize the allegations and let people make up their own mind whether the facts are true and if they are what they amount to. Flores said she felt "uneasy, gross, and confused". She talks about how they made her feel inferior, ie not like an equal. These are the sorts of things that are often termed sexual harrassment. Because smelling a woman's hair, kissing the back of her head, touching her without consent etc. can be the sort of things that make workplaces toxic for women. And whether it is done for sexual gratification or with the misguided intention of making someone feel comfortable these sorts of behaviours have been termed sexual harrassment complaints before. It seems Flores would rather just explain what happened and how it made her feel and not suggest that Biden was acting "sexually" towards her. It can't be easy to come forward. Did every woman who said Frankin took an uncomfortable photo whith them, inappropriately touched them, use the words "sexual misconduct"?--Darryl Kerrigan (talk)

Sexual advances constitute sexual misconduct per the respective article, which, provides, in part,

Sexual misconduct is any misconduct of a sexual nature that is of lesser offense than felony sexual assault (such as rape and molestation), particularly where the situation is normally non-sexual and therefore unusual for sexual behavior, or where there is some aspect of personal power or authority that makes sexual behavior inappropriate. A common theme, and the reason for the term misconduct, is that these violations occur during work or in a situation of a power imbalance. It is a legal concept to frame offenses which are non-criminal but nevertheless violating of another person's personal boundary in the area of sexuality and intimate personal relationships.

2600:100C:B24F:7C9A:C181:F5BD:251F:FB73 (talk) 22:22, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

The women themselves have generally opposed terming Biden's behavior as "sexual misconduct". And to conflate all of the hair sniffings with an alleged rape is problematic. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:24, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

We are not conflating unwanted touching or hair sniffing with rape. Some of the allegations against Trump and Clinton were not "rape" they were gropings, exposing oneself (flashing), looking up a woman's skirt, trying to kiss a woman... etc. Sexual misconduct is a broad term that does not necessarily mean criminal behaviour. Biden has been accused of a lot of unwanted touching, a forced Eskimo kiss, smelling hair, unwanted kissing of the back of a woman's head... etc. These are the kinds of things that can make up sexual harassment/misconduct complaints. Most of the women who are making these allegations, seem to be trying to give Biden the benefit of the doubt that he didn't mean to harass them or make them uncomfortable. Of course, as our article makes clear sexual harassment does not require the intent to make the victim feel uncomfortable. The perpetrator may be completely unaware that his or her behavior is offensive or constitutes sexual harassment. Why are we happy to suggest these thing are sexual misconduct when Bill Clinton or Donald Trump does them, but not when Biden does?--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:52, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

We are not in a position to decide for a woman what she considers sexual misconduct. While one woman may be upset with an "Eskimo kiss" another might laugh and enjoy it. Etc. I would laugh. Gandydancer (talk) 23:38, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

We're not deciding for anyone, we're deciding within the broader context of semantics. One can describe actions that constitute an action without explicitly naming that action. If I deliberately set fire to your house, it's arson even if you wanted the house demolished. It seems unreasonable that a term that semantically describes what happened doesn't apply until the victim chooses that specific terminology. PurpleSwivel (talk) 16:57, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

To PurpleSwivel - Actually you are trying to deciding for others. For one thing, deliberately burning a house down is not always arson, so you are not correct about that. Second, the women do not claim to be "victims" of Biden's hugs and, hugs are not sexual misconduct when people say they did not feel sexualized by the hugs. So Gandydancer is correct, "we are not in a position to decide for a woman what she considers sexual misconduct." BetsyRMadison (talk) 18:23, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

But I didn't say "deliberately burning down a house is always arson". I said if I were to hypothetically commit such an act, it would qualify arson irrespective of whether or not you or I described it as arson. Are you refuting that point? And, if so, under what conditions would it not qualify as arson? Your second point was already addressed by my first comment and this one as well -- I understand what they didn't say. That doesn't address the question of whether or not what they're describing, as they described it, qualifies as sexual misconduct. 'Lappos, a small business owner and Democratic political activist, told the Hartford Courant in April 2019 that Biden "put his hands behind my head and pulled me close and I thought, 'he's going to kiss me,' or a separate accusre relating "Biden had rested his hand on her thigh even though she squirmed to indicate discomfort." Then I would argue that "sexual misconduct" is a legitimate designation, based purely on the definitions of the word. Your argument seems to hinge on whether or not these women said it was sexual misconduct, but completely skirts around the broader question of whether or not it's a semantically applicable label, which was the crux of my point. Perhaps we could rename the page "Joe Biden unwanted touching and sexual assault allegations", but it seems a bit longwinded PurpleSwivel (talk) 19:18, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

To PurpleSwivel- Yes, I am refuting your ‘arson point’ because you are not correct. Using your analogy (above), ‘if a homeowner is planning to demolish their house, then burning it down is not always arson. Arson is a legal term describing certain criminal acts. Burning down a house is not always arson because burning down a house is not always a criminal act. This WP article would be more accurate if it were titled, "Tara Reade’s sexual assault allegations” since that’s exactly what it is. Not only have Reade’s stories changed yearly, now her stories are changing monthly. For instance:

1. (yearly) Reade changed her 4/17/2019 story about Biden from “this is not a story about sexual misconduct” to her 2020 story, “sexual assault;”
2. (monthly) Reade changed her story to saying “I’ll never forget he said ‘I want to f@#k you’ on 5/8/2020 from saying "“phrases that always stuck with me” was “do you want to go somewhere else, I heard you like me.” in her 3/25/2020 interview.

The women are describing Biden’s hugs, etc., the women say they do not feel it was sexual misconduct. So it is not. More often than not, people get hugged (willingly or not) and it is not sexual misconduct. As a matter of fact, in the same 4/17/2019 Reade essay (above) she writes that her brother died right before she started working for Biden. We all know Biden is very compassionate, extremely compassionate, to people who have lost loved ones. Reade writes, “Right before I came to Biden’s office, my brother died. Joe Biden has faced the loss of not one but two children and others close to him. He has had unimaginable.” Knowing that, it would be within his character to rub her shoulders and neck, if he really ever even did those things. The NYT writes that "Two former interns who worked with her said they never heard her describe any inappropriate conduct by Mr. Biden or saw her directly interact with him" NYT also writes, "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." BetsyRMadison (talk) 21:45, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

This particular thread isn't a debate over the veracity of Tara Reade's claims or renaming the article based on how credible you personally find her. Many of the assertions you're making seem to have no direct bearing on the specific topic we're discussing. It's hard to not see many of your comments here and elsewhere as deliberate injections of tangential talking points into the discussion, which makes the points you make that are on-topic difficult to extricate and address. At this point I'm not sure it's worth attempting to continue a meaningful discourse with you in regards to the content of the article. PurpleSwivel (talk) 22:32, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

To PurpleSwivel - Actually, this is thread about renaming this WP article based on our opinions. In fact, you suggested a new name for this WP article in your comments based on your opinion. My comments to you (above) is me answering questions you directly asked me about your “arson point” and me addressing your attempt to convince WP editors to decide for a woman what she considers sexual misconduct. As I told you above, Gandydancer is correct, "we are not in a position to decide for a woman what she considers sexual misconduct." BetsyRMadison (talk) 00:41, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

"We all know Biden is very compassionate, extremely compassionate, to people who have lost loved ones" demonstrates bias and agenda on your part. I didn't suggest a new name for the article, I was making a blatantly obtuse example of what the article shouldn't be named. I have not "attempted to convince WP editors to decide for a woman what she considers sexual assault", I argued that terms like "sexual misconduct" have an established meaning that transcends whether or not anyone uses that specific terminology to describe something, which seems to elude you because you keep reiterating someone else's talking point without actually supporting it. Lastly, the notion that "the women say they do not feel it was sexual misconduct" is to some degree a falsehood and completely a generalization; while some women have stated things along those lines of what you are claiming, some of them simply have not vocally disqualified their experience as sexual or sexual misconduct, and one specifically described his actions as "perpetuating harm". Another thing to consider is that most articles that list Biden's accusers generally include Tara Reade. It's true that Tara Reade's allegations are an outlier compared to the others, but they're still categorically and topically similar enough to exist in the same article. PurpleSwivel (talk) 04:27, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Seems folks are missing the label change from sexual assault to the wider sexual misconduct. There are nine individuals reporting Sexual misconduct, and one of those is also reporting an incident of Sexual assault. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:47, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

9 people are not reporting sexual misconduct. Starting March 2020-today: there is one (1) person, Tara Reade, alleging 'sexual misconduct/assault' (not 9). And, interestingly enough, between 4/3/2019-3/2020 no one, not even Tara Reade alleged "sexual misconduct/assault." On 4/6/2019 Tara Reade wrote that her story about Biden "is not a story about sexual misconduct." and she did not change her 2019 story until 3/2020 BetsyRMadison (talk) 17:09, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose as per User:Muboshgu.--Ortizesp (talk) 21:44, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per Muboshgu. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 21:50, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Tara Reade has accused Joe Biden of sexual assault. Other women have called attention to Biden's inappropriate touching, which is not "sexual misconduct" per se. This title is consistent, concise, and accurate. We just finished another move discussion and we really don't need to go through this whole rigamarole all over again. CJK09 (talk) 21:51, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support - The scope of this article should be ALL notable sexual misconduct allegations made against Joe Biden, not just those made by Tara Reade. We should incorporate all of the allegations summarized in this section of his article, and others that have received significant coverage in reliable sources. That would also be consistent with the articles about Bill Clinton and Donald Trump. I will also say that I find the suggestion that "unwanted touching", "smelling of hair" or "kissing the back of a womans' head" does not potentially rise to the level of sexual harassment or misconduct one that we should reject.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:10, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

• The women whom Biden made uncomfortable by touching them are the ones who have characterized the touching as non-sexual. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:33, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose Tara Reade is the only person accusing Joe Biden of sexual misconduct.
  

* If any title change, then the title should be: "Tara Reade's sexual assault allegation"; since this really is Tara Reade's allegation. BetsyRMadison (talk) 22:23, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Comment: That would be the the very first time such a title would be used. The focus of the article is Joe Biden, not Tara Reade. Secondly, while some of the women may say it wasn't sexual harassment, some did, and their voices matter. 2600:100C:B24F:7C9A:C181:F5BD:251F:FB73 (talk) 22:31, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

To 2600:100C:B24F:7C9A:C181:F5BD:251F:FB73 - Nothing in your comment changes the fact that this is Tara Reade's allegations; not Biden's. And, whether or not you want the title to reflect that fact, doesn't change the fact that it is still a fact. BetsyRMadison (talk) 22:43, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Also, there was a move request to have the title at this title closed as not moved just yesterday after a clear majority of people rejected it. It’s not happening.--69.157.252.96 (talk) 22:37, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. This article is (and should be) about the sexual assault allegation made by Reade. None of the other complaints about Joe Biden's "touchy-feely" style rise to the level of sexual assault or sexual misconduct, and thus don't belong in this article. Rreagan007 (talk) 23:20, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose I agree with those editors that believe that we need to stick to Reade's charge of sexual assault. Gandydancer (talk) 23:38, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose A criminal complaint was filed by Reade against Biden for Sexual Assault. This is an encyclopedia; call a thing what it is. -- Sleyece (talk) 23:50, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

The allegations against Clinton and Trump also include allegations of sexual assault. Yet, we use "sexual misconduct allegations" in the titles of those articles.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 00:25, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Because those articles also include non-assault allegations as well. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:29, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

And this one could too if we included any of the allegations from his bio. They were included here for a time, but have now been removed.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 00:43, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

There are no other sexual assault or sexual misconduct allegations against Biden. The other women who have described Biden touching them in a way that made them feel uncomfortable characterized the touching as non-sexual. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:14, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose: I am, for the moment, unaware of other cases, like this one alleged by Ms. Reade, which could be commonly described as "sexual assault". In short, oppose per Muboshgu. — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 00:09, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per Muboshgu's well-articulated points. --WMSR (talk) 00:38, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose and SNOW CLOSE - There is only one sexual assault allegation, so the title proposed by the SPA IP is impossible according to WP:TITLE, WP:V, and WP:BLP. - MrX 🖋 01:40, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
• Not vague enough Should be 2020 Washington scandal. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:13, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. The topic, even though it is currently buried in the body of the article, is an allegation of sexual assault. -- Netwalker3 (talk) 03:39, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support list - I think there should be a list article as more the norm for cases of multiple people, e.g. Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations, Bill Clinton sexual misconduct allegations, Roy Moore sexual misconduct allegations, Harvey Weinstein sexual abuse cases. It also seems more the norm for redirects, e.g. Matt Lauer sexual misconduct allegations, Russell Simmons sexual misconduct allegations, Sexual misconduct allegations against Brett Kavanaugh, etcetera. It also seems better if the Joe Biden article section on Allegations of inappropriate physical contact could point at an article for the subtopic rather than just pointing to one allegation. Such a list-level should then greatly reduce the detail from the 9-screen detail this accuser-specific article has. I could also see if things wind up making a list article and just leaving this article as a sub-article to that one. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:33, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per most points articulated above. BeŻet (talk) 08:14, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
• It depends If we are going to include all 8 women [16], then it should be renamed. However, if this is page about accusations only by Reade (as it seems to be), then one should keep the current title or better rename it to include her name in the title. My very best wishes (talk) 15:46, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - The content of the article doesn't support any such title. It would support either Tara Reade or Tara Reade controversy. SPECIFICO talk 15:55, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. There is one allegation of sexual assault, and zero allegations of sexual misconduct. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:23, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per many of the reasons laid out by other editors. RedHotPear (talk) 21:53, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - these move requests are becoming a time sink. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 13:14, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Per above arguments. There is no article on Biden's history of being "handsy" over the years, and this is the only credible allegation that holds any significant weight at the moment. KidAd (talk) 22:33, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RfC: Should we use the word "corroborate" to describe accounts that align with parts of the allegation?

Does WP:RS support use of the term "corroborate" when covering Reade's family, co-workers and friends' accounts in this article? petrarchan47คุก 21:48, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

WP:RS

NYT "Five friends, former co-workers and family members have come forward to corroborate that Ms. Reade told them of an episode of either assault or harassment." Buzzfeed News "Subsequent reporting has corroborated elements of Reade’s story." NYT "And in large part, she corroborates the story that Tara had told me." WashingtonPost "List of Corroborators" NPR "Former Neighbor Corroborates Tara Reade's Account Of Sexual Assault By Joe Biden" Fox News "AP report: Two more sources corroborate Tara Reade's allegations" NY Mag "New Sources Corroborate Timeline of Sexual Assault Accusation Against Biden" Nation "...Business Insider published this account, corroborating Reade’s prior testimony" TIME "Friends and family of Reade’s have corroborated parts of her account" FORBES "...corroborated parts of Reade’s story" The Nation "...corroborating Reade's claim"

• Related discussion some editors have opposed use of the term "corroborate" with regard to friend's accounts that are covered in the article

• RfC this RfC focuses on a proposed special section and its heading

---

Survey B

• Yes As proposer, per WP:RS, WP:NPOV and per WP:BLPBALANCE:

  Given their potential impact on biography subjects' lives, biographies must be fair to their subjects at all times

Sources use corroborate unabashedly when covering the accounts of Reade's associates since 1993, so arguments that we should refrain from doing so here are based in nothing but WP:OR. Currently, the only use of the term found on the page is in the references section, and in the article, referring to an AP piece, "they could not corroborate her accusations". petrarchan47คุก 21:53, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

• We should avoid using "corroborate" - This is not an issue of sources. The issue is that we may not want to say in our voice that Reade's allegations are true (or untrue). We do not want to take a position on that at all. I believe WP:NPOV and WP:BLPBALANCE require us to stay out of it. The term "corroborate" can just mean "supports" (ie suggests might be true), but it can also mean "proves" or "confirms" (as in definitively decides the issue). I do not think we can do that. We also should not say any account or evidence discredits her, disproves her version or rebuts her etc. Biden has denied the allegations, but we can't comment on the truthfulness of his version either.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:18, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

If any readers confuse "corroborate" with "prove" or "confirm", that's on them. Dictionaries are nearer than ever. No excuse for misunderstanding any common word. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:40, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes but clearly it could be an unknown known—the ones they don't know they don't know and they might think they knew when they actually didn't know and so did not look it up. Gandydancer (talk) 14:24, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

They're overbored and self-assured, have been since 1991. Some think albino means white person, or mulatto means black person. Some call a mosquito a bug, some call a dildo a libido. With the lights out at Simple English Wikipedia, it's less dangerous. Those feeling stupid and contagious might go there now and entertain this. And yes, I'm "being curt here", but also frank, cocksurely. I've been to murder allegation articles where gut-trusters didn't know what "murder" or "allegation" meant. Now some of them know better, because encyclopedias are designed to educate, not enable. It's a good system, just highly fallible when used on people who hated high school back when "ignoramus" meant "cool". InedibleHulk (talk) 21:38, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

• Yes. Merriam-Webster says "corroborate" is to "support with evidence or authority" or "make more certain". When describing things that "support [the accusations] with evidence" or "make [them] more" likely to be true, we should feel free to use that word. Mdaniels5757 (talk) 02:56, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
• Yes, when the sources use the word. The sources say that Reade's confidants "corroborate" that she told them her story; not that they "corroborate" that the allegation happened. Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:04, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
• No -It implies more than what most of them said. Wikipedia is not in the business of having to sell content by eye-catching headlines. Manannan67 (talk) 05:43, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
• Yes as a simple unassuming word, Sweet Jumpin' No as an eye-catching headline. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:39, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
• Yes-ish - Yes, RS use "corroborated” and is OK to use. But also is fine to say it other ways - the meaning of told instead of witnessed might be clearer if explicitly phrased 'confirmed she had told them'. I think *do* just say it some of the time, but also don’t mandate using it all the time. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 07:54, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
• No - From the comment above giving Merriam-Webster definition of the word “corroborate” her brother and friends have not corroborated Reade’s stories, they’ve provided no evidence and they have changed their story in sequence with Reade changing her story.

Example: On 4/6/2019 Reade wrote that her story about Biden, “is not a story about sexual misconduct.” Reade wrote that in her essay (published at The Union [17]) as a follow-up to her 4/3 Union interview. On 4/3/2019 Reade told The Union [18] Biden touched only her neck and shoulders. At that time, Reade’s friend’s stories matched Reade’s story and they told The Union that Reade told them Biden touched only her neck & shoulders. Then in 2020, Reade changed her story from "not a story about sexual misconduct" to ‘sexual assault’ and her friends then changed their story too. Most notable and glaring is that in 2020 her brother changed his story in a matter of days. First he told the Washington Post [19] that Reade told him Biden touched only her neck and shoulders (which is her 2019 story). Several days later he texted the reporter and changed his story to match Reade’s new 2020 story saying his sister told him she was ‘sexually assaulted.’

So, by definition they have not corroborated, they’ve provided statements with no evidence, no nothing, just words to repeat whichever story Reade is saying at the time. Therefore, the word “statements” should be used instead of “corroborate.” BetsyRMadison (talk) 13:59, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Statements can be a type of evidence, see Testimony. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:11, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

• Yes - it clearly fits the definition: confirm or give support to (a statement, theory, or finding). The argument above is using original research. BeŻet (talk) 14:05, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Note that the original research policy states: "(This policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources, such as deletion discussions or policy noticeboards.)". BRM is outlining her thinking on how she came to a conclusion that corroborate would not be appropriate to use in this case. Gandydancer (talk) 14:41, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

To BeŻet - I think you are mistaken. I do not think my example is original research and here's why, in the “example” I give use quotes from reliable sources used within this WP article. In my example, I point out that the RS used within this article report statements given by Reade’s friends & family change to match whatever story Reade is telling at the time. And those changing stories, by definition of Webster’s definition of “corroborate” (given above by Mdaniels5757 ) are not “corroboration” but are “statements.” Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying we should devote a subheading to highlight the changing stories Reade's friends & family. I'm merely saying that from RS used within this WP article, the word "statements" is an accurate term to use rather than "corroborate." BetsyRMadison (talk) 15:00, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

I labelled it as original research, because contrary to the wording used by a lot of sources, you are arguing that said people did not corroborate, based on your own research. I think this discussion should be all about what the sources say, not what our opinions are. BeŻet (talk) 19:31, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

To BeŻet - I understand you think I did my own research, but you are mistaken. I did not do my “own research” All I did was read this WP article to get the quotes I used in my example (above) and to get the description of Reade’s friends & family changing their stories when Reade changed hers. And, the questioner (above) is directly asking us to give our opinion, which is what you did & I did & everyone answering is doing. BetsyRMadison (talk) 20:32, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Well, I disagree. You have performed synthesis of sources to draw a conclusion that the sources do not state; that generally counts as original research. The opinion we are supposed to give here is whether we should use the word corroborated or not, not whether we personally think they have actualy corroborated the story. BeŻet (talk) 21:57, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

To BeŻet - I feel that if you re-read my example (above) and read this WP article, you see that you are mistaken, I did not synthesis of sources. I used direct quotes from within this WP article and everything I said about Reade's family & friends changing their stories as Reade changed her story are found within the text of this WP article. If, after reading the two, you can point to anything specific within my example that differs from this WP article, let me know. The questioner did ask us for our opinion as to whether "corroboration" is the correct word to use base off each of our individual opinions as to whether we think they actually "corroborate" Reade's story - which is exactly what you did when you answered, what I did, & what everyone answering is doing. BetsyRMadison (talk) 23:11, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

I have read your comment and you clearly are saying that, for instance, her brother "changed" his story. The source you provided does not say he changed his story; unless you made a mistake and referenced a different source by mistake. Moreover, you are incorrect in saying that the editor was asking us whether we personally think the individuals corroborated Reade's story. BeŻet (talk) 12:07, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

To BeŻet - You are still mistaken. Perhaps you misread this WP article so, for your convenience, I will detail for you here to show you that this WP article highlights that her brother changed his story in a matter of days to match Reade's new 2020 story (as I wrote in my example above). And, you will see that I used the exact same Washington Post article sourced in this WP article.

1. From my example (above): Most notable and glaring is that in 2020 her brother changed his story in a matter of days. First he told the Washington Post that Reade told him Biden touched only her neck and shoulders (which is her 2019 story). Several days later he texted the reporter and changed his story to match Reade’s new 2020 story saying his sister told him she was ‘sexually assaulted.’

2. From this WP article: Collin Moulton, Reade's brother, initially reported to The Washington Post that Reade told him in 1993 that Biden had touched her neck and shoulders. He said there was "a gym bag incident", and that Biden "was inappropriate". Several days after that interview, Moulton told the Post that Reade in the early 1990s told him Biden put his hand "under her clothes."[9]

3. From Washington Post (source used in this WP article): "In another recent interview, Reade’s brother, Collin Moulton, said she told him in 1993 that Biden had behaved inappropriately by touching her neck and shoulders. ... Several days after that interview, he said in a text message that he recalled her telling him that Biden had put his hand “under her clothes.”

As you can see, I used text within this WP article and the source this WP article used that shows that within days Reade's brother changed his story from 'Biden touched only her neck and shoulders' (which is Reade's 2019 story) to match Reade's 2020 story, 'sexual assault.' And, by Webster's definition (above), that's not her brother "corroborating" anything, it is her brother repeating whatever story Reade is telling at the time. Finally, the only reason you gave your opinion (above), and I gave mine, and everyone else is giving their opinion on whether to use "corroborate" is because the questioner asked us for our opinion. And, in order for you, me, and everyone else to form our opinion, we have to determine if we personally think the individuals corroborated Reade's story 'or' if they change their story & repeat whatever story Reade is telling at the time. From text within this WP article, Reade's friends & family change their stories to match whatever story Reade is telling at the time, (not corroborating). BetsyRMadison (talk) 14:11, 10 May 2020 (UTC) (opps forgot to sign when posted, sorry )

• No per Darryl Kerrigan. Indeed, there is nothing certain in this case. This is because she significantly changed her story and because of other suspicious details like her refusal to unilaterally use lie detector [20]. Any honest accuser would agree to do it. Nothing has been corroborated except a few secondary details. My very best wishes (talk) 16:07, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
• Yes No Rather than look at the numerous examples offered by the proposer my thinking led me to believe that Wikipedia, an encyclopedia, need not use the same terminology as individual journalist's reports. But before I made my final decision I wanted to look at the Vox report from May 7 which I had found to be the best and the most complete report to this time. Reading McGann's article I found that she freely used the term as she referred to various individual's statements throughout an extensive time period. That she was not hung-up on any strict meaning of the word influenced me and led me to decide that it would make sense to use it here as well. Gandydancer (talk) 17:45, 9 May 2020 (UTC) After reading many other posts I have changed my mind. When writing so little on the entire alleged assault using the word corroborated, while not incorrect, does seem to imply a suggestion that the information given was factual. Gandydancer (talk) 14:50, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

(comment) Very Well said Gandydancer - I take a different position than you, but what you said, you said very well. BetsyRMadison (talk) 01:01, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

LOL, you need to read my "Best diff ever" section on my page. . Actually I was ready to vote No till I read her article again. I decided to go with an experienced journalist rather than do what seemed to make sense to me. Gandydancer (talk) 04:28, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Gandydancer: Are you talking about this article? McGann, who clearly sympathizes with Reade, uses corroborate/corroborating in connection with Reade exactly six times, and each time also clearly felt compelled to use a lot of modifiers, ifs, and coulds:

1. I returned to her many times in an attempt to get more information to help me find more corroboration.
2. The story that both she and her corroborating witnesses are telling has changed dramatically.
3. A recently uncovered tape of her mom on Larry King Live appears to corroborate Reade’s claim that she was struggling in Biden’s office in 1993, but does not include an assault allegation.
4. If Reade had told a consistent story and shared all of her corroborating sources with reporters, if those sources had told a consistent story, if the Union piece had shaken loose other cases like hers, or if there were “smoking gun” evidence in Biden’s papers,
5. Reade herself says the complaint didn’t include the assault accusation, so finding the complaint — or failing to find it — would neither corroborate nor debunk the most serious allegation. The complaint could corroborate Reade’s claims of sexual harassment, which Biden also denies.

If you compare these to the two other times McGann uses the word corroboration, about the Me Too movement in general and about the Charlie Rose case, the contrast is striking:

1. But the acts of journalism that have driven the [Me Too] movement forward have been built on extraordinary amounts of evidence: They usually include not just consistent corroboration but oftentimes multiple stories, stacked on top of each other.
2. Charlie Rose: built on accusations from eight women, three on the record. Carmon and Brittain found consistency across the women’s stories and strong corroboration of each account Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 08:33, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

It seems to me that the problem lies in the meaning of the word "corroborate". It has nothing to do with "truth". Two people can both be lying and yet corroborate each other's false story. A murderer at trial might say he could not have done it because he was 500 miles away visiting his mother and she might corroborate his story. (though this is not to say that I'm certain that I'm right on this call - see RHP's remarks below for example that make a lot of sense as well) Gandydancer (talk) 16:44, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

• No per Darryl Kerrigan. There is no reason to use words or phrases that can be construed as editorializing when there are less controversial, NPOV ways to present such information. RedHotPear (talk) 21:58, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
• Yes-ish, as long as our explanation of those witness statements clearly defines what aspects of Reade's story they corroborated. ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 05:01, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
• No. Does WP:RS support use of the term "corroborate" when covering Reade's family, co-workers and friends' accounts in this article? This is not an issue of sources or reliability of sources, it's an NPOV issue: A neutral characterization of disputes requires presenting viewpoints with a consistently impartial tone; otherwise articles end up as partisan commentaries even while presenting all relevant points of view. ([21]} Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 08:36, 10 May 2020 (UTC) The initial description indicates something quite different than the RfC statement itself. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 09:06, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

• Yes. That's what the word means. Where only one aspect of the story is corroborated, that should be made clear. -- Netwalker3 (talk) 12:34, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
• Yes - per common sense. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 13:16, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
• No-ish — it depends on context - We cannot say that someone corroborated Reads's story but we could say that someone corroborated that Reade told them her story. WP:WEASEL, and specifically WP:SAY apply. We should never use the word "corroborate" to imply that Reade's story might be true given what has been reported in reliable source. We also cannot used the word corroborate/corroborated as part of a heading for the same reasons, except that the reasons are even more important in that case per WP:NPOV, WP:HEADING, and WP:TITLE. Mdaniels5757 gives a particularly strong argument against using this word in the article. - MrX 🖋 15:59, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
• False dilemma - We really don't have any statements that corroborate the sexual assault allegation. I'd like to read which statements editors feel should be characterize as corroboration, then we can make concrete decisions. SPECIFICO talk 16:08, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

  I'm just asking why I'm running into problems adding RS to this article. Gold-standard WP:RS such as the New York Timesuses the term without hesitation. For example, the NYT latest:

  Five friends, former co-workers and family members have come forward to corroborate that Ms. Reade told them of an episode of either assault or harassment. petrarchan47คุก 19:02, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

  To petrarchan47 - The NYT article you quote is dated May 8,2020 where, within the paragraph you pulled that quote, the NYT authors link to their "updated May 8, 2020"[22] original NYT article where they say they did not interview Reade's brother, NYT writes, "Ms. Reade said she also told her brother, who has confirmed parts of her account publicly but who did not speak to The Times." Also, as I said in my comment above, Reade's friends & family change their story to match Reade's story every time Reade changes her story; and that's not "corroboration." BetsyRMadison (talk) 04:26, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

• Yes per above ~ HAL333 21:58, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
• No (for the most part) - Friends confirming that Reade reached out to her are corroborating only the fact that she reached out to them, not the underlying facts of the allegation. We are bound to RS, but also to the definitions of words. --WMSR (talk) 23:21, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
• Depends, No "made statements which corroborated" or simply "corroborated" or "corroborating", Yes "made statements to corroborate" or "offered corroboration". The former use could imply that the statements did in fact support what they intended, whereas "to corroborate" implies only that the intent of the statements were to corroborate. Because this word can be used either to state a fact or an intent we should paraphrase things in a way that avoids the impression that the corroboration proves anything unless an RS or the preponderance of RSs are very clear that that is the case. For example the statement that a tape appears to corroborate something is about the level of certainty we would want to use, based on an RS. M-W lists the synonyms for corroborate as "argue, attest, authenticate, bear out, certify, confirm, substantiate, support, validate, verify, vindicate" so again it can either be an intent or factual. We should be very careful about which we imply based on which statements in an RS. —DIYeditor (talk) 20:53, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
• Yes In the absence of any specific examples, I would say that corroborate isnt weaselly per se. Obviously, there could be examples where corroborate shouldnt be used, but a blanket prohibition is ridiculous, especially when the RS's do so. Bonewah (talk) 12:07, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
• Yes-ish - it's OK to use it, it's OK to use it, IT IS OK TO USE IT. Should be used at least once just to get over this. But it shouldn't be a mandate that have to say only that or that it must be used everywhere on each such detail or where awkward. Feel free to use 'confirm' or 'match' or simply 'said she told them'. Haven't we beaten this enough times to jusput 'corroborate' in and be done already ? Cheers Markbassett (talk) 22:57, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
• Yes when sources use the word, no when sources don't use it. We follow the sources. We don't decide for ourselves what words we editors think is most appropriate. I'm kind of surprised this question is debatable; it seems like basic WP:V policy to me. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 16:59, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Reade check fraud charge

This is such a contentious article I want to get a consensus before adding information. Fox News is reporting Reade was charged with check fraud days before leaving her job in Biden's office. What are editors thoughts? --Kbabej (talk) 22:57, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Townhall, which also reported on the check fraud here, states, "...the timing may raise questions about both the timeline of events, and Reade's credibility." Inquisitr also reported on the check fraud here. --Kbabej (talk) 23:05, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

I would be very reluctant to put something like that in this article without multiple reliable sources establishing relevance to the sexual assault allegation. Townhall and Inquisitr are not reliable sources. - MrX 🖋 23:42, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Can you point to a policy stating Townhall isn't an RS? Per WP:RSPSOURCES there's no consensus on that. And, regardless, Fox is a RS per WP:FOXNEWS. Information that can help readers better understand a situation and covered in RS should at least be considered for inclusion. --Kbabej (talk) 00:10, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

'No consensus' at RSP is a good indication that a source is of questionable quality, which happens to be supported by the summary. BLP content must be sourced to high quality sources per WP:BLP ("Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources."). Townhall has been routinely rejected at every American politics articles where I've seen it mentioned as a potential source. - MrX 🖋 01:48, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Updates at the bottom of that article indicate that the nature of the case has been addressed by Reade's lawyer. PurpleSwivel (talk) 04:32, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree with MrX. Policy for public figures at WP:BLPPUBLIC literally states "If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out." If Reade is a public figure, there you go. If she is not, we should be even more cautious about sourcing than we would with public figures, not less. Fox is a WP:RS per WP:RSP, but we would at minimum need more than one RS. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 02:40, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Of interest, Reade told this to Megyn Kelly about her not having been a public figure at time of her initial (public) "reveal": "If you’re not a known[...]person, you don’t necessarily get a platform[...]."[23] --Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 16:55, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

• Probably do not include, unless better sourced. Fraud is a serious accusation, more details should be published. Her allegations, however, do look like a deliberate smear campaign against Biden, which follows simply from the logic of the events. For example, as described here, "She first brought complaints of harassment against Biden in April, 2019, in her local newspaper, claiming that, in 1993, while she was working in Biden’s Senate office, “he used to put his hand on my shoulder and run his finger up my neck.” These accusations squared with complaints by seven other women, including the Nevada legislator Lucy Flores, who accused Biden of kissing her on the back of her head without her consent at a 2014 campaign event. In a video, Biden apologized for his behavior, explaining that he had only ever sought to create an environment of connection. “I will be more mindful about respecting personal space in the future,” he said. Then, in March of this year, Reade appeared on the podcast “The Katie Halper Show,” coming out with the more serious allegation [the subject of this page]". This is the way to present it. My very best wishes (talk) 00:38, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
• I would be against including this information for now, until more sources show a clear connection between any relevant events. BeŻet (talk) 10:12, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

I would oppose trying to draw the connection -- that's not our job. But, to be fair, it does seem relevant on the surface. If she left due to being caught committing check fraud, that has to be taken into account. FollowTheSources (talk) 20:39, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

• Include - for the reasons mentioned above. This was even mentioned by Fox! [24]FollowTheSources (talk) 20:40, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
• Not yet. Wait for mainstream coverage. Chances are the biggies are currently doing their own reporting, and if they confirm this, we will hear about it. For now we need more information, and we need Reliable Sources stating both 1) there was a check fraud issue and 2) it was the reason for her departure from the office. As noted above, we shouldn't include it without a direct connection to her departure - which she has suggested was a voluntary resignation brought on by her discomfort with the office situation. If the charge and connection are not better established, adding it would be WP:SYNTH and an attempt to impugn her credibility via unrelated charges. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:21, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Fox says the misdemeanor charge, and the dates, are confirmed by documents, and says her lawyer has confirmed the charge while insisting it had nothing to do with her departure from the office. This is helpful but we need more. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:27, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Just how much more?

This right-leaning source [25] says "There is no evidence that her departure from Biden's office was connected to the criminal charge, but the timing may raise questions about both the timeline of events, and Reade's credibility." Note the second part.

By tying the fact that she was charged for a crime to her credibility, the article connects the dots for us, avoiding any "synth". And, like Fox, this is a sympathetic source, so it's hard to claim that they have it out for her. FollowTheSources (talk) 23:13, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

I've never seen her suggest she left voluntarily. She's either said she was fired or pressured to resign. Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:10, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

To Kolya Butternut - Don't know if you've seen this, but The Washington Post[26] reports that in both 2018 & in 2009 Reade wrote that she left voluntarily, the Post writes, "In late 2018, she wrote that she left Washington to pursue an acting and artistic career, turned off by what she called the U.S. government’s “xenophobia” toward Russia. In a 2009 essay that noted Biden’s work on the Violence Against Women Act, she discussed moving from Washington to the Midwest to be with a boyfriend."

• In Reade's 2009 essay mentioned by the Post Reade writes, "I received an offer to work on a Governor’s race in California and I almost accepted. Tate kept me up that night, pleading with me to go with him while he managed the Congressman’s campaign. I agreed..."
• In Reade's 2018 essay, mentioned by the Post, Reade writes, "I resigned my position and took myself out of the Washington DC beltway. Why? First, I started as an actor in classical theatre, an artist and writer before Washington DC. This work in the arts has always been my first love and best vocation. Second, I saw the reckless imperialism of America and the pain it caused through out the world. Third, I love Russia with all my heart." BetsyRMadison (talk) 14:46, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Whoa. That Russia stuff surprises me, mostly because none of it is mentioned in the article, yet it seems relevant. Can we fix this? FollowTheSources (talk) 14:53, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

And before that the 1996 documents from her ex-husband show that she told him she left because of sexual harassment.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 15:13, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

To Kolya Butternut - you are mistaken, Reade's exhusband did not say she told him she resigned because of sexual harassment. In fact, in the 1996 court documents, Reade's exhusband did not say "why" she left and he only said, "she eventually struck a deal with the chief of staff of the Senator's office and left her position." Notice, he did not mention 'why' any deal was struck. And, if you add together his 1996 document to Reade's 2009 then one logical conclusion is she struck a deal so she could resign, without penalty, to move out west with her boyfriend. A second logical conclusion when adding together his 1996 document with Reade's 2018 writing is she struck a deal to resign to: pursue acting, held disdain for "imperialism of America," and her love of Russia. And, a third logical conclusion when adding his 1996 document with the check fraud, is Reade struck a deal to resign because she was being prosecuted for check fraud.

Regarding the "sexual harassment" her exhusband spoke of. Tara Reade told Current Affairs that she & her mother defined "sexual harassment" as Tara being told to dress in a less "provocatively."

Reade said, "she [her immediate boss] took me inside and sent in an assistant and said, we want you to wear different clothes. You need to button up more. You should wear longer skirts… And she goes, try not to be so noticed or too noticeable. The other person was more awkward about it. She was just like it’s not coming from me, but they’re telling you to wear longer skirts and button up more and you’re a little too provocative. Right. Whatever. So, and I was like, Oh, this is, this is weird. So I told my mom that, and she goes, that’s retaliation. They’re trying to retaliate. You need to document everything. And my mom was very adamant. I was like, mom. And my mom even said, you march in there and you tell them this is sexual harassment and you don’t take it. I’m like, you don’t march into Ted Kaufman’s office, and you don’t do that."

So, as you can clearly see, according to Reade "sexual harassment" meant being told to dress less "provocatively."  BetsyRMadison (talk) 15:54, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

It is clear from the 1996 document that she told her ex that her departure from Biden's office was related to sexual harassment.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 16:03, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

TO Kolya Butternut -I have 4 questions for you

1. Can you please give the exact quote that supports your claim, "she told her ex that her departure from Biden's office was related to sexual harassment."

2. Are you saying that you think Reade's exhusband said Reade resigned because her immediate boss told her to wear longer skirts and button up more and told Reade you’re a little too provocative. (which is how Reade defined "sexual harassment" to Current Affairs.)

3. Are you saying Reade was being dishonest in 2009 when she wrote that she resigned because she agreed to move out west with her boyfriend?

4. Are you saying Reade was being dishonest in 2018 when she wrote she resigned because she "started as an actor in classical theatre, an artist and writer before Washington DC. This work in the arts has always been my first love and best vocation. Second, I saw the reckless imperialism of America and the pain it caused through out the world. Third, I love Russia with all my heart." BetsyRMadison (talk) 16:33, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't have anything to add beyond what I've said. Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:26, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

The check fraud charge is questioned:  [27]  Gandydancer (talk) 15:51, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

That is a very interesting article you posted Gandydancer - it raises so many more questions. Four things jumped out at me: 1) The Court sent Reade official communication informing her that an unspecified criminal charge had been purged from Reade's record, 2) Reade does not deny the criminal charges were check fraud, 3) Reade can't remember how the checks in the check fraud charge got paid, and 4) Reade's lawyer said Ryan Grim did not report truthfully about his conversation with Grim. Salon writes that Wigdor said, "I wouldn't say that I could confirm it or that my client could confirm it, because my client doesn't have a recollection," Wigdor continued. "She's not denying it — maybe it did come in and she paid it back — but she does not recall this happening." BetsyRMadison (talk) 18:44, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, very interesting. New information keeps coming out. We should not add this for another day or two at least, not until we think we have all the relevant information. In any case we should not go into all the exact details about what she said to whom when. We need to be able to summarize while being sure that our summary is accurate and well documented. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:34, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Salon confirmed the charges of check fraud in a new article, stating "San Luis Obispo District Attorney Eric J. Dobroth confirmed the 1993 check fraud charge against Tara Reade". --Kbabej (talk) 22:54, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

It should not be included unless we get better sources, and it is in someway linked to the allegations. Seems pretty irrelevant based on the reporting we currently have, but perhaps it's a way to sell newspapers (or get clicks anyway).--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 20:44, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Trumper lawyer Lawyers' connections with Trump and/or Russia

I noticed Trump's name came up in the references, as an article entitled "Prominent lawyer, Trump donor representing Biden accuser". [28] Despite this, there is no mention of the lede's point in the article. AP is not the only one reporting this fact as notable. For example, Time[29], Al Jazeera[30], and even the right-leaning Hill[31]. That's just four: there's plenty more where that came from. FollowTheSources (talk) 15:01, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

And, in another odd coincidence, The Week's article on her lawyers[32] points out that:

Reade's other new lawyer is William Moran, who "previously wrote and edited for Sputnik, a news agency founded and supported by the Russian state-owned media company Rossiya Segodnya," AP reports.

This is being reported as relevant to the matter, so we should mention it. FollowTheSources (talk) 15:03, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Wow! Thanks for that information FollowTheSources - I just can't figure out why Reade would hire a Trump top donor and a former employee of Putin's state-run-media, Sputnik. This brings to the forefront that in 2018 Reade wrote that she resigned from Biden's office to pursue acting, and because of her disdain for "imperialism of America," and because of her love of Russia. Now this. Wow! I remember sometime in February Bernie Sanders said that in January 2020 US intel told him Putin was trying to interfere in Bernie's campaign CNN reported, "Sen. Bernie Sanders said Friday that his campaign was briefed about Russian efforts to help his presidential campaign, intensifying concerns about the Kremlin's role in the US presidential race...The revelation comes a day after it was reported that the US intelligence community believes Moscow is taking steps to help President Donald Trump win." There is so much to digest here. BetsyRMadison (talk) 16:19, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

It's certainly food for thought, but it's also above my pay grade. It's not my job to fully understand why the woman going after Biden has all of these connections with Trump and/or Russia. It's not even my job to decide whether it's notable. Instead, we have reliable sources that have decided it's notable, so we have to reflect them. FollowTheSources (talk) 16:29, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, you make excellent points & I agree with you. And, I'll add, this food for thought sure is a lot to digest. BetsyRMadison (talk) 16:44, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

This is addressesd in New York Magazine, "Tara Reade’s New Lawyer Represented 6 Weinstein Victims". Kolya Butternut (talk) 15:20, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Actually, that article is about Douglas Wigdor, who's a Trumper but apparently has no connections with Russia. The article I posted is about Bill Moran, the one who worked for Sputnik. His name only shows up in a comment to the article you linked to:

Oddly, this piece does not mention Tara Reade's other attorney is a former employee of Sputnik, the Russian government’s English-language propaganda arm

Bill Moran, who works at a law firm in Columbia, Maryland, previously wrote and edited for Sputnik, a news agency founded and supported by the Russian state-owned media company Rossiya Segodnya.

A January 2017 report released by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence on Russia’s interference in the 2016 campaign said Sputnik was part of “Russia’s state-run propaganda machine,” which “contributed to the influence campaign by serving as a platform for Kremlin messaging to Russian and international audiences.”

Reade herself has faced questions about her past writing praising Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Just to be clear, I don't suggest that we use this comment as a source. We have plenty of other, more reliable, sources that discuss this. FollowTheSources (talk) 17:04, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

The AP seems to be the only source for Bill Moran, and it's not clear his representation is official.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:35, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

To Kolya Butternut - Did you see that Time Magazine is reporting that Reade's pro-Trump lawyer, Douglas Wigdor, said Reade got connected to William Moran through Katie Halper? Time Magazine writes, "Wigdor said Reade told him she was connected to Moran through Katie Halper." Even though Time does not say if Halper is connected to Moran through Halper's years of working on Russia's state-run television, Russia Today; from what Wigdor told Time, it sounds like William Moran's representation with Reade is official. BetsyRMadison (talk) 17:55, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

If that's true it will be reported in other top-tier sources.  Kolya Butternut (talk)`

To Kolya Butternut - Other top tier sources are reporting it. The Washington Post[33], New York Times[34] report the same thing. Both the NYT & Post write, "Wigdor said Reade told him she was connected to Moran through Katie Halper." Again, even though the NYT, The Post, & Time do not say if Halper got connected with Moran through Halper's years of working on Russia's state-run television, Russia Today; from what all three news outlets report that Wigdor said, it sounds like William Moran's representation with Reade is official. BetsyRMadison (talk) 19:21, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

The AP is more than enough here. FollowTheSources (talk) 19:26, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

All of the sources are just the same AP story.  This doesn't deserve weight yet.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:55, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

You are mistaken in this regard. FollowTheSources (talk) 20:15, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Which is that? I had two points. Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:10, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

By my count, you had somewhat fewer than that. The fact that AP reports this is important, but the fact that other prominent sources repeat it means that it's notable. I don't see any counterargument offered to this. FollowTheSources (talk) 23:15, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Sources always pick up AP stories. It's a few sentences in a story about Wigdor. If Moran is noteworthy we will see more coverage. Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:32, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

We have seen more coverage, more than enough to justify inclusion. FollowTheSources (talk) 00:47, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

• Support We should include the names & background of all Tara Reade's lawyers in this WP article. Right now, regarding Reade's lawyer, this article lists Douglas Wigdor and includes his background. Four reliable sources report that William Moran is one of Reade's lawyers so his name and his background should also be included. BetsyRMadison (talk) 20:50, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

What four? The AP story is the same story in many sources. Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:10, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

• Support in general, but this is not just a "Trumper lawyer". Cited source [35] tells:

Over the weekend, another attorney, William Moran, told the AP he was working with Reade. Moran, who works at a law firm in Columbia, Maryland, previously wrote and edited for Sputnik, a news agency founded and supported by the Russian state-owned media company Rossiya Segodnya. A January 2017 report released by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence on Russia’s interference in the 2016 campaign said Sputnik was part of “Russia’s state-run propaganda machine,” which “contributed to the influence campaign by serving as a platform for Kremlin messaging to Russian and international audiences....There is no evidence to suggest Reade or Moran worked at the behest of Russia with respect to the Biden allegation."

My very best wishes (talk) 21:31, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, the section heading is outdated. One lawyer is a Trumper, the other is more of a Putiner. At least that's what our sources say. Given that Putin supports Trump's candidacy, I'm unsure of whether it's a distinction that makes any difference, but that's not my call. I just go by what my name says. FollowTheSources (talk) 21:36, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

• Support if other Reputable Outlets pick up the AP it's because they recognize the AP as a RS. - And yet according to Reade none of the attorney's on the list Time's Up gave her would touch the case; and there's always Gloria Allred who doesn't shy away from publicity. Curiouser and curioser. Manannan67 (talk) 07:24, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - Its nice to see the activists have come out of the woodwork to restructure this article, alongside several other prominent articles related to Democrats nationwide. We have political hacks throwing words around like "Trumper" and "Putiner" and you expect me to accept their proposals? Get lost. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 04:13, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Please see WP:NPA, WP:NOTAFORUM and discuss content not editors. Volunteer Marek 08:44, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose clearly irrelevant to this topic. Adding it to the article to suggest something is BLP violation.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 09:02, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support Background info on accusers and their associates is clearly relevant. Much hay was made about Michael Avenatti as he represented Stormy Daniels. Zaathras (talk) 12:21, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose what relevance does someone's lawyer's personal views have? Including this would seem to have Wikipedia insinuate that there was some sort of political motivation behind the scenes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr Ernie (talk • contribs) 07:22, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Adding a bunch of conspiracy talk degrades the legitimacy of the article. EdJF (talk) 08:03, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Good source

We do mention The Nation's[36] article, but only use it slightly. There's a lot of good material in it. FollowTheSources (talk) 19:33, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Good for what, beside bonus Joan Walsh commentary? InedibleHulk (talk) 02:31, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Good for avoiding synthesis. We aren't allowed to tie things together and draw inferences. She is.

Good for putting this in context, starting with the origins of the accusation (with Halper's role).

Good for pointing out that Reade's story has changed repeatedly.

Good for mentioning that AP contacted 21 Biden staffers, none of whom could confirm Reade's story.

Good for pointing out that the friend who says Reade told her about the assault contemporaneously remains anonymous.

Good for pointing out that her brother confirmed being told about the allegation but changed his story, too.

Good for pointing out Reade's Russophilia, including that pro-Putin essay.

Good for pointing out the lack of sexual assault claims against Biden in the course of 50 years.

Good for all of that, I'd say. FollowTheSources (talk) 03:47, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Better to find all that in a hard news source, says the spirit of WP:YESPOV (which I echo). Some of those points must be in something factual for a talking head to have learned as much. At least, one might assume. That said, in practice, this article is already a "shit sandwich". Maybe in context, "good enough" really is good enough, give it a shot! Or just replace her "doesn't stand up" snippet with your preferred point. Maybe rotate the top five daily. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:59, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

We can find each of these facts in other reliable sources, but we can't attest to their significance, much less string them together to tell the story. That's what this source does for us. FollowTheSources (talk) 05:37, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Stringing things together is stringing readers along, just lay out the facts in chronological order, as in nature. This is not a complex series of events, and can be told in five easy chapters. The only confusing one should be Commentary, because opinions are nuanced. Facts are basic, precise and concise, regardless of bias (written or read). The whole clusterfuck about whether the story "changed" or "grew" and where one story ends and another begin is purely a matter of interpretation, not fact. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:03, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

That the story changed is a matter of fact, but it would be synthesis for us to point out the change, unbidden. It's not synthesis to allow a reliable source do draw a line between the dots. FollowTheSources (talk) 13:59, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Well, I like this info from the source. In an op-ed posted on Medium in 2018, Reade wrote, “President Putin has an alluring combination of strength with gentleness. His sensuous image projects his love for life, the embodiment of grace while facing adversity.”... She claimed that she quit working for Biden because she loves “Russia with all my heart” and was sickened by “the reckless imperialism of America”. So, that is why she quit working for Biden, not because of the alleged attack. My very best wishes (talk) 16:28, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that's very interesting and belongs in the article. We can definitely use primary sources to confirm that she wrote all this, but we still need to use secondary sources (like that Walsh article) to show that it's notable. In other words, we're not here to research everything Reade said and did, just to repeat what others have found. FollowTheSources (talk) 17:13, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree. However, as cited source tells, "Respecting Putin does not discredit her; again, her changing stories here hurt her credibility.". My very best wishes (talk) 18:46, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

See, some pundits say her story changed, some say THE story or her STORIES did. Others say she told one story last year, then added another this year. Neither this article or this talk page notes which part of which story, in fact, changed. Just people saying one or both did, without evidence. I'm not even touching the Russia thing, everything made in America about Russia is inherently suspect, especially when tied to Trump. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:37, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

To InedibleHulk We can see with our own eyes that Reade changed her story. In 2019 Reade wrote an essay (published at The Union [37]) as a follow-up to her 4/3 Union interview. In that 2019 essay Reade wrote that her story about Biden "is not a story about sexual misconduct." Then in 2020, Reade changed her story from "not a story about sexual misconduct" to ‘sexual assault’ BetsyRMadison (talk) 19:26, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

If I understand correctly, the change is that she used to say that someone on his staff "harassed" her by telling her to wear more professional clothing, and now she's saying that Biden sexually assaulted her, which is a whole 'nother thing. FollowTheSources (talk) 00:46, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, a whole 'nother thing. Meaning a fresh, new thing. Like if you accuse someone of lying, then check fraud, then loving Putin. You're not wishy-washy, you're just not retelling the first story. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:54, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

It would be strange to say you were the victim of sexual harassment, explaining that it was about being treated differently ("cover up, girl") for being a woman, when you coincidentally were harassed through sexual assault. It's a story that grew with the retelling, not an unrelated matter. FollowTheSources (talk) 01:08, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

The news story (and resultant article) grew, but if you follow the Halper and Robinson sources, that's because Reade told a whole new story, about her vagina. Still related to Biden and Reade, but not necks, lamps, drinks, clothing or harassment. And yes, people are strange, as are their motives, especially when they're strangers. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:24, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

The old story is that she left the job because of various reasons, such as her love of Russia, but nothing about sexual assault. Many years later, her new story is that she was sexually assaulted.

That is important to this article, because the contemporaneous "corroborations" about sexual harassment were not about assault, just what she perceived as less than equal treatment of a woman. FollowTheSources (talk) 01:36, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Waiting for a friend to let the rape cat out of the bag before corroborating it to the entire world is just good manners. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:43, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Imagine you sent me to the store to buy something for you and I came back angry. You asked why, and I explained that they mugged me and I'm never going back. You asked me to explain what I meant by that, and I said that they overcharged me unscrupulously.

Years later, I announce that the store had literally mugged me back then, at gunpoint and all. As proof, I ask you to confirm that I once told you that they mugged me. Is that corroboration? FollowTheSources (talk) 01:48, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Not even similar enough to imagine my answer, sorry. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:58, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

And I'll add that we should believe women! When Reade said she really, really loves Russia, we should believe her. It explains so much, from why she left Biden's staff to why she's making this accusation now. And, fortunately, we have reliable sources to point this out. FollowTheSources (talk) 01:38, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Russia has nothing to do with US elections, at least relative to American voters' simple binary preferences. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:47, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

• Why did she quit working for Biden? One time she said that's because he harassed her. Then she said he attacked her. Then she said she quit because she loves “Russia with all my heart” and was sickened by “the reckless imperialism of America”. Wow! This is changing the story - according to the cited source. I am sorry, but all of that is such an obvious fabrication/nonsense that I have lost any interest here. My very best wishes (talk) 02:14, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Her leaving story may have changed, I've never been interested, deferring to you. But when you say things like "her story", most people probably think you mean the sexual assault story, not tangential ones. I quit my last job for four reasons, not surprised. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:41, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

What changed is that she added a claim about sexual assault, entirely without evidence. FollowTheSources (talk) 02:42, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, added. Added another story. Further to the old, unaltered one. Plus one, new wrinkle, and so on. No retractions or replacement, right? Just reframing and reviewing? That's the media story. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:46, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Right, so when I said they mugged me, I meant it both ways. That seems credible, right? FollowTheSources (talk) 02:51, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

As I said, I can't grasp this analogy firmly enough to even begin answering truthfully. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:56, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

FollowTheSources, you seem to have a vested interest in discrediting Reade rather than simply reporting the facts in a Wikipedia-friendly manner. It seems inappropriate at best.--Pokelova (talk) 03:56, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

You're mistaken. We're absolutely permitted to have our own opinions. What matters is whether we edit to reflect those opinions or our reliable sources. FollowTheSources (talk) 14:45, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Over the past few days I've noticed an uptick both here and elsewhere of political goons feeling empowered to not even try and mask their political agenda whilst editing political pages. I've already seen this user use words such as "Trumper" and "Putiner" as a description already on this talk page alone, and other familiar faces backing him up who've made less than respectable proposals elsewhere, but I digress. I doubt much will come of it anyhow, as much of the hierarchy doesn't seem too bothered by it. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 04:20, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Wow, I sure hope you're not calling me a "political goon". That would not be civil. In fact, it would be a personal attack. Don't you agree?

I used those terms as shorthand for people who are supporters of, aligned with, or employed by, those two politicians. I stand by what I said. FollowTheSources (talk) 14:45, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Unlike Russian cybernetic brainwashing hornets, the uptick in unabashed political thuggery and buggery is a perfectly normal and extremely embarassing part of every old man's blossoming into a potential presidential opponent. It will only get worse until November, then back to ragging on the incumbent for three more years. The Cabal has seen elections, "they" know such bother is fleeting. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:35, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, political thuggery is terrible. You should definitely avoid contributing to it. FollowTheSources (talk) 20:31, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Nobody here knows whose side I'm on, that's the important thing. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:24, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Well, I'll you what side I'm on; the side that the sources support. FollowTheSources (talk) 23:44, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, loudly and clearly. But it's the words you don't say that matter now. Did you want to "tell" me how impartial you are, or "show" me? InedibleHulk (talk) 01:13, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Neither. I'm not interested in talking to you about me. I'm not the topic here; this claim against Biden is. So let's stick to that instead of, say, browbeating contributors, capiche? FollowTheSources (talk) 03:07, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Whatever, you're the one who offered to blank me which side you're on. I'll quietly assume you meant "tell". But loudly and kindly decry your butchery of "capisce", too! InedibleHulk (talk) 03:39, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Whatever. I'm speaking English, not Italian, and "capiche" is a perfectly cromulent spelling in English. Google it.

It's a semi-polite way to ask whether you understood. You did understand, but you effectively proved my point by pretending you didn't, and instead refocusing on me, even though I am not the topic here. I think we're done here. FollowTheSources (talk) 03:53, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

What ain't cromulent is refusing to admit you omitted a key verb in your earlier public statement. "I'll you what side" naturally raises questions, and "neither" in response even more. Just belatedly acknowledge you made a typo and fix it, then we're done. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:00, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

We use the source to the extent it is needed. We don't need to echo Democratic Party talking points and interpretations at all. A lot of your "points" are quite biased (e.g. the "Russophilia" one) and we should stick to the cold facts and not talking points that have been digested multiple times by Biden apologists. BeŻet (talk) 21:37, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

To BeŻet - Two things: 1) Please explain who and what "Biden apologists" are and is. 2) Regarding "Russophilia" - I'm not sure if you know this but, according to wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russophilia Russiophilia is "Russophilia (literally love of Russia or Russians) is admiration and fondness of Russia."

Given that definition of "Russophillia" and given the fact that Tara Reade wrote several essays professing her unwavering "love" of Russia (Russophilia) and her disdain for America, the term "Russiophilia" correctly describes Reade. In one essay [38] Reade wrote, "I love Russia with all my heart” and Reade was sickened by “the reckless imperialism of America.” In another essay[39] Reade wrote, "President Putin has an alluring combination of strength with gentleness. His sensuous image projects his love for life, the embodiment of grace... President Putin’s obvious reverence for women...is intoxicating to American women" Therefore, it is clear that FollowTheSources was "sticking to the cold facts" (as your correctly say we should do) when FollowtheSources appropriately described Reade's self-professed love of Russia as "Russophilia." As you can see, describing Reade's love of Russia as "Russophilia" is not at all bias, but rather, "Russiophilia" correctly describes Reade. BetsyRMadison (talk) 11:17, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

@BetsyRMadison: "Biden apologists" are people who are desperatly trying to defend Biden by reiterating Biden's campaign's talking points rather than waiting for facts and due dillegence to happen. I have a question for you, why on Earth is it relevant to mention "Reade's Russophilia"? If she wrote articles about Portugal or Belgium instead, would we be so keen to mention that? By answering this question you might reveal some internalised biases you may have. BeŻet (talk) 11:43, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

To BeŻet - Your definition for "Biden apologists" is vague. Can you be more specific? Also, can you specifically tell me what "Biden's campaign's talking points" are? And, can you tell me who is "desperatly trying to defend Biden by reiterating Biden's campaign's talking points?" Regarding your question about Tara Reade's "Russophilia" - Yes, Tara Reade's "Russiophilla" is very pertinent to Reade's 2020 allegations. In fact, Reade's "Russiophilla" is tied directly to her 2020 allegations and I will explain. In 2018 Reade wrote an essay saying she "resigned" from Biden's office for three reasons 1) she had an acting job, 2) her disdain for America, and 3) her unwavering love of Russia.

2018 Reade wrote, "I left that political work behind a few years ago. I resigned my position and took myself out of the Washington DC beltway. Why? First, I started as an actor in classical theatre, an artist and writer before Washington DC. This work in the arts has always been my first love and best vocation. Second, I saw the reckless imperialism of America and the pain it caused through out the world. Third, I love Russia with all my heart." OK, so Reade wrote that in 2018.

Then in March 2020, Reade changed her reasons for resigning willingly and began to allege she was "force out" for: dressing too provocatively and for alleged retaliation for allegedly filing a 1993 formal complaint against Biden. Also in March 2020, Reade told Current Affairs that she and her mother defined "sexual harassment" as Reade being told to "dress less provocatively." Then, in May 2020 of Reade told the Associated Press that her 1993 complaint does not mention sexual assault, or sexual harassment, or Joe Biden's name. Also, in May 2020, Reade's lawyer, Douglas Wigdor, confirmed Reade hired Bill Moran who is a former employee of Russia-State-Run-Media, Sputnik.

As you can see, since this is an online encyclopedia, and since Reade's "Russiophilla" is directly tied to the reasons Reaade said resigned willingly from Biden's office, it is an extremely important piece of information the WP reader have when they are reading Reade's other 2020 allegations of allegedly "forced out."

And actually BeŻet, I can think of no reason to hide or to keep Reade's Russiophilla from the WP reader, can you? BetsyRMadison (talk) 18:03, 17 May 2020 (UTC)~

Yes I can: it has nothing to do with the accusation at hand. We already mention Russia as the reason she left (first paragraph in first section). There's nothing more to add. BeŻet (talk) 18:22, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

To BeŻet - You are 100% wrong. Reade writing that she willing resigned from Biden's office due to her disdain for America and for her unwavering love of Russia has everything to do with Reade's current, contradicting, accusations. Plus, Reade hiring Putin's former employee, Bill Moran, who helped coauthor Russia-State-Run-Media "disinformation" is also relevant to Reade's current accusations and there is no reason to hide any of those facts from the WP reader. The first paragraph of this WP Article is, at best, a partial-truth. I feel that anyone who actively tries to hide Reade's unwavering "Russiophilla" may be acting on their own bias as opposed to responsibly relay whole-truths to the WP reader. By the way, you did not answer my question to you: Your definition for "Biden apologists" is vague. Can you be more specific? Also, can you specifically tell me what "Biden's campaign's talking points" are? And, can you tell me who is "desperatly trying to defend Biden by reiterating Biden's campaign's talking points?" BetsyRMadison (talk) 19:32, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

This is wild, conspiratorial thinking. I don't understand why I keep needing to explain this to you, but there is no logical, undeniable, obvious connecyion between her apparent love of Russia and her accusing Biden of sexual assault. Don't you understand that this connection is a subjective matter, based on biases you may have formed yourself? If a reliable source can show and explain this connection - be my guest, include that information. Otherwise you're doing speculation, based on several personal assumptions, and there is now room for that on Wikipedia. BeŻet (talk) 20:05, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

To  BeŻet - Calling facts "conspiratorial" makes me think you don't understand the definition of the "conspiratorial" [40] [41] so you should look it up. Also, you're accusing WP editors who present facts with "conspiratorial thinking" is a WP:PA personal attack, an ad hominem. So you should try to avoid such wild attacks against other WP editors.  Since you appear to be new at the English language, it makes sense that sometimes the translation may throw you for a loop. I notice a similar situation in a different comment of yours (above) where you attacked WP editors in an attempt to dismiss their legitimate points by falsely accusing them of using "Democratic Party talking point of blaming Russians for everything, from lost elections to inconvenient accusations." Not only did you personally attack a WP editor, you also went off-topic, and you appear to be very under-educated on that topic.  It is a fact that Russia interfered in the 2016 election in order to help Donald Trump win. To become educated on that topic, it would benefit you tremendously to read the 2017 US Intel's declassified document [42] where US intel conclude that, at the direction of Vladimir Putin, Russia interfered in 2016 US elections to help Donald Trump win.

The fact you attack WP editors who state facts, and try to discredit them by accuse them of using "Democratic party talking points about Russia" and then, to attack even further, you call facts 'conspiracies' means you really believe those things. And that's sad. I feel sorry for you because since you really believe those things that indicates that you may be letting your bias get in the way of seeing things clearly.  Your bias is causing you to attack instead of listen and causing you to dismiss others with ad-hominems instead of hearing. Tara Reade wrote her connection to Russia and Biden when she wrote that she resigned willing because of her 'love of Russia with all her heart.' That's a fact, not a conspiracy and not a talking point.  Reade doubled-down on her connection to Russia and Biden when she wrote that she hold great disdain for American, not disdain for Biden, but disdain for America.  I think you'd be happier if you take time to listen and to hear WP editors and stop attacking WP editors. BetsyRMadison (talk) 00:29, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

I understand English perfectly, and nobody called facts "conspiracies". Somebody said interpreting and/or echoing facts about Russia and Reade, as if there were some unstated connection to Biden or Trump or the election, is "conspiratorial thinking". You explain she writes about Russia, but don't even try to explain how Russia or her love for it is about Biden or sex or assault, just rant at length about connections to other stuff you read somewhere. The idea that Reade is an unpatriotic lustful liar and that Russia (as opposed to the DNC scandal, the DNC or the candidate's robotic image) made Clinton narrowly lose are Democrat talking points, that's not an insult, it's widely self-evident. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:43, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

To InedibleHulk - Very interesting that you answered my comment in first person, as if I were talking to you, when I wasn't. hmmm... Anyway, I actually do 'explain how Russia [and] her love for it is about Biden or sex or assault are connected. So, instead of WP:NPA personally attacking me, use your 'perfect English' skills and re-read my comments above & then, if you have clear eyes, you will find, that Tara Reade, herself, makes the connection between her 'love of Russia with all her heart,,' plus her disdain for America, and her hiring of Putin's former employee, Bill Moran, and her 2020 allegations against Biden. Oh, and one more thing, you and BeZet, have both gone off topic, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Off_topic over a topic that you both seem to be very under-educated about. Those comments of yours & BeZet belong on a different talk page, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_interference_in_the_2016_United_States_elections Remember, when you go off-topic, and when you personally attack other WP editors, you disrupt this talk page, so it's best to avoid doing both. ~Regards BetsyRMadison (talk) 11:44, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

But you are not explaining anything. You just list things and say "they are connected". Even calling Moran a "Putin former employee" is an extreme exaggeration considering he simply wrote and edited for Sputnik, and not literally worked for Putin. Until you justify the inclusion of any of this, this conversation is completely pointless and is going nowhere. BeŻet (talk) 12:13, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

As InedibleHulk pointed out, stating that she once expressed her admiration of Putin is one thing, but trying to somehow connect it to her sexual assault allegation is another. The latter is conspiratorial thinking. As I've said plenty of times before, Wikipedia is NOT a tabloid, and we are not supposed to list "uncomfortable facts" that you, PERSONALLY, think are related to the accusation. If this is how Wikipedia worked, I would have gone to the Joe Biden article and started listing all the uncomfortable "facts" about is health and mental well-being. I would have gone to the Democratic Party article and started mentioning all the uncomfortable "facts" about how the primaries had widely different results between exit polls and final official totals. Do you understand that mentioning of "facts" needs to be justified in the context of a given article? There is no undeniable connection between Putin and Reade's accusations, therefore, we are not in a position to write about it. Do you understand now or do we need to keep explaining? BeŻet (talk) 09:47, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

To BeŻet - Heads up, Your off-topic personal attacks on Joe Biden and the Democratic Party are disrupting this WP talk page. You should post your attacks on the WP talk they belong on, not here. Now, back to the topic: All of the reasons Reade has said she resigned are connected to her resignation. Every single reason Reade has said she resigned, are directly connected to Reade's resignation (Let that fact sink in). Obviously, in any language, all of the reasons Reade has said she resigned are directed connected to her resignation. How could they not be, right? Reade, herself, wrote that she willingly resigned because "I love with Russia with all her heart" - let that fact sink in.  Therefore, you are mistaken, Reade did not simply "once express admiration for Putin" -- she literally resigned from her job willingly because she is "in love with Russia with all her heart." and because she holds great disdain for America. In 2018 Reade did not write that she resigned because of Biden, no, it was two years later that she said anything like that. To admit Reade's love of Russia & her disdain for America is why Reade wrote she resigned, is not a conspiracy, it is a fact. In this WP article, the WP editors have an obligation to list all of Reade's self-stated reasons she resigning, including, but not limited to, her love of Russia and her disdain for America. 

Also,  WP editors have an obligation to list all of Reade's lawyers, including Bill Moran, who is a former employee of Putin's State-Run-Media Sputnik [43], where Bill Moran cowrote and edited Putin's "dezinformatsiya" propaganda. Wikipedia writes that "Sputnik is frequently described as a Russian propaganda outlet." There is no legitimate reason to hide the fact that Reade hired a former employee of Putin's state-run-media. None, zero, zilch. And, there is no legit reason to hide all the reasons she says she resigned. Hiding facts is a form of "disinformation" and "propaganda" and people who do hide facts, are working from their own bias, which is not what WP editors are supposed to do. ~Regards BetsyRMadison (talk) 13:09, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

But we already mention both the fact that her feelings towards America and Russia were one of the reasons she left, and also we mention that William Moran is working for her. So what are you getting worked up about? BeŻet (talk) 14:32, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

To BeŻet - I am so glad you finally see the connection! Excellent! I am proud of you BeZet and I am happy I could help you understand the connection. ~Best BetsyRMadison (talk) 15:10, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

This may surprise you, but it does appear as though Russia has preferences with regard to who runs America. According to these sources, its leaders would prefer someone other than Biden.

Now, it would be a bad idea for me to try to draw these connections myself. Fortunately, we're not doing anything of the sort. Instead, reliable sources like Joan Walsh are drawing them and we're reporting on what they said. FollowTheSources (talk) 16:31, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but this is ridiciolous. We can't base Wikipedia content on wild conspiracy theories. What makes Joan Walsh "reliable"? What makes the source "reliable"? Moreover, the article itself doesn't even draw the conclusions you are presenting. It's your own internalised biases BetsyRMadison (talk) 19:32, 17 May 2020 (UTC)and opinions. There's nothing "sober" in this. BeŻet (talk) 17:35, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

You're confusing articles. The "sober, mainstream" one was NBC [44] FollowTheSources (talk) 17:40, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm not confusin anything, neither of these sources don't support the conclusions you presented. BeŻet (talk) 17:46, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Excuse me, but these aren't my points. They're all taken directly from a reliable source that synthesized them and are confirmed by other reliable sources. If you think they're "biased", go find a different reliable source to counter it with. As for political bias, you'd be surprised by where it may be found.[45]FollowTheSources (talk) 21:40, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

When you select choice items from a menu, are they the restaurant's food, or is there an unwritten social understanding that you intend to pay for your decisions later? InedibleHulk (talk) 01:19, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Let's allow all the sources their place. FollowTheSources (talk) 03:07, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

The article you are so in love in with is an op-ed that is presenting a series of opinions and interpretations that belong to the author of said article. Believe it or not, several of these statements are not "facts" but specific opinions. For example, saying that her brother "changed" his story is an interpretation of the sequence of events. Another example is the "Russophilia", which does not belong to this article at all, unless you want to stick to the Democratic Party talking point of blaming Russians for everything, from lost elections to inconvenient accusations. Op-eds can be used as sources for presenting someone's opinions, or to reiterate factual statements that are backed up by other sources. Therefore, this is definitely not a "good source" as you described it - it's merely an acceptable source in certain situations. If in doubt, consult Wikipedia:Reliable sources. BeŻet (talk) 11:38, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

To BeŻet - Firstly, I feel you are getting upset at some WP editors on here for pointing out the fact that in 2018 Reade wrote that she "resigned" willingly from Biden's office due to her disdain for America and her unwavering love of Russia. Her 2018 stated reasons for resigning willingly from Biden's office are as equally as important to the WP reader as her 2020 allegation of being forced out so obviously should be included in this WP article. I can think of no reason to hide Reade's "Love" of Russia a reason she said she resigned willing, can you? Secondly, I think it's very unbecoming of a WP editor to ignore a 2017 US Intel declassified document concludes that at the direction of Vladimir Putin, Russia interfered with 2016 US elections and helped Trump win. I also think it's very unbecoming of a WP editor to ignore the 2020 US Senate Intel Committee report that also concluded Russia interfered in 2016 US elections and helped Trump win. You uttered a false claim when you incorrectly accused people who state absolute facts that yes, Russia interfered in 2016 election of using "Democratic Party talking points." Therefore, it might be beneficial for you to learn the topic and read the 2017 US intel report [46] so that when you talk about it, you won't sound so under-educated on the topic. Thirdly, by definition of the word, "change" - Reade's brother did, in fact, change his story. During his interview, he told the reporter that Biden touched only Reade's neck and shoulder. Several days later, Reade's brother texted the same journalist and changed his story to: "sexual assault." BetsyRMadison (talk) 18:32, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Reade's love of Russia, as I pointed out earlier, explains her departure from Biden's staff and offers motivation for her current stance. That's not my opinion, it's something brought up in sober, mainstream news articles.[47] I can't imagine why you might think it's ok to suppress this. FollowTheSources (talk) 16:36, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

How does it explain her departure, and how does it offer motivation for her current "stance"? BeŻet (talk) 17:35, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

To BeŻet - you asked how does Reade's love of Russia explains her departure. I will tell you how: Reade wrote it. Reade wrote that her "love of Russia" and her disdain for America, and acting is why she willingly departed Biden's office. I'm actually a little stunned that you don't know that fact by now. BetsyRMadison (talk) 19:37, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Uh, no, it's not my job to speculate in this direction. It's my job to stick to the sources. FollowTheSources (talk) 17:40, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

What are you even saying right now? Which source is showing any of the things you have suggestes? Which source shows a clear and undeniable connection between her "love of Russia" and anything that we are talking about in this article? BeŻet (talk) 17:46, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

I realize this confuses you, but you just need to read the sources.

There was also the odd occasion of Reade's 2018 posting to Medium -- since deleted -- in which she publicly praised Vladimir Putin, who has poured so much time, energy and money into electing Donald Trump. She wrote, in part: "To President Putin, I say keep your eyes to the beautiful future and maybe, just maybe America will come to see Russia as I do, with eyes of love."

She rationalizes that “having a peculiar regard for Vladimir Putin does not make her a liar.”

No, professor, but it could indicate that Reade’s personal elevator doesn’t go all the way to the top floor. Other observers have noticed that her tweets on the subject appear to have been written by a native speaker of Russian, which she is not: “I am avid NPR listener. Super-disappointed NPR editor decided not to air recorded interview of my friend (who is verified) that I told at the time that Joe Biden sexually assaulted me.”

Reads a bit like Natasha, the cartoon spy on the old “Rocky and Bullwinkle” show.

Elsewhere, Reade’s ever-changing stories, trial lawyers point out, would make her a cross-examiner’s daydream. “The first thing that comes to mind…,” writes former federal prosecutor Michael J. Stern in USA Today, “is that Reade’s amnesia about specifics makes it impossible for Biden to go through records and prove he could not have committed the assault, because he was somewhere else at the time.”

I could go on, but I don't want to exceed the bounds of fair use. FollowTheSources (talk) 17:57, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

This doesn't answer my question at all. Once again none of this shows anything you are concluding, nor does it state there is any connection between this and the accusations. Wikipedia is not a tabloid. We don't present "facts" for readers to draw "their own conclusions". BeŻet (talk) 18:04, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Here's another quote which shows the source drawing the connection.

As recently as 2017, she was regularly posting tweets in praise of “my old boss” Joe Biden, specifically for his efforts combating sexual assault.

By 2018, she had a new hero: Vladimir Putin. “President Putin,” she wrote in an opinion column, “has an alluring combination of strength with gentleness. His sensuous image projects his love for life, the embodiment of grace while facing adversity. … President Putin’s obvious reverence for women, children and animals, and his ability with sports is intoxicating to American women.” Waxing passionate, she wrote that “like most women across the world, I like President Putin … a lot, his shirt on or shirt off.”

Up to this point, I've taken your confusion at face value and tried to address it, but I'm done now. Either you'll understand or you won't, but that's not really important. FollowTheSources (talk) 18:07, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

How on Earth does that show any connection? You are seriously confusiing opinions with facts. BeŻet (talk) 18:22, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

TO BeŻet - The "connection" is actually very obvious. Reade says and writes that her unwavering love of Russia (a.k.a "Russiophilla") is 100% directly connected to why she willing resigned (departed) Biden's office. Reade wrote it. Reade wrote: I resigned because "I love Russia with all my heart" - and - because she held great disdain for America (not disdain for Biden, but instead disdain for America). Let that sink in. Things to Notice: in 2018 Reade wrote she willingly resigned from Biden's office for 3 reasons and none, zero, zilch of those 3 reasons had anything to do with "sexual assault," or "sexual harassment," or being "forced out." (Let that sink in.) Then, in 2020 she drastically changed her reasons for resigning, left out her love of Russia with all her heart, left out her disdain for America, and left out her acting job. So, all those things combined: Reade writing her 'love of Russia with all her heart' is directly connected to her resigning, plus what she changed her reasons to in 2020 are "connected" - which means - all those things combined are the "connection." The connection gets even stronger when you add to that the unbiased fact that Reade recently hired Putin's former employee, Bill Moran. BetsyRMadison (talk) 20:19, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

This is what I'm trying to get to: are you suggesting Reade is a Russian agent trying to, for some odd reason, target Biden? (Let that sink in) What is it that you want to add to the article? Your interpretations and theories? What would you like to add specifically that isn't in the article yet. BeŻet (talk) 22:40, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

You're completely missing the point. It doesn't matter whether I think that Reade is a Russian agent; I don't even have an opinion on this matter. It matters that she said she's been accused of this. We don't need to determine the truth, we just need to report what our sources say. In this case, the statement came right from the horse's mouth. FollowTheSources (talk) 22:46, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm missing the point? Everything you add to the article matters. We have already mentioned that she left her position because of her opinions about America and Russia, which is relevant. What is more to add here? If we want to mention that she liked Putin at some point, why? There is no reason to do this. Every addition needs to be justified, and you still haven't explicitely defined what it is that you want to add. For some reason you thought that simply saying that the article you like is a "good source" would be enough to get some activity going... Just say what exactly is it that you want to add and we can discuss it. BeŻet (talk) 22:53, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't think I can help you at this point. I can only lead the horse to water. FollowTheSources (talk) 18:28, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Here at Wikipedia, we don't achieve anything by being smug and condescending, but presenting clear arguments. What is that you want to include in the article, is it connected to the allegations and is it an opinion or a factual statement? This is really simple. So far you're just attempting to show Reade's alleged "love" of Russia, but nothing that directly related to the topic at hand - her sexual allegation. You have implied that this somehow "offers motivation for her current stance", which is wild speculation that isn't even directly referenced in the sources provided. So see, here's my trying to "lead the horse to water" by attempting to explain the basics of how Wikipedia works and what content is appropriate here. BeŻet (talk) 19:59, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Here at Wikipedia, we don't ask questions and then ignore the answers. I made a good-faith effort to explain, but it somehow did not penetrate. At this point, it's on you to try harder. FollowTheSources (talk) 20:03, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

You haven't explained anything. You just kept posting the same things and then presenting your opinions about the matter, not adressing anything I said. Until you clearly present what do you want to add to the article and why, there is no point in continuing this discussion. BeŻet (talk) 20:07, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Given how difficult multiple people have found communicating with you to be, it's a very good thing that convincing you is not a prerequisite for making changes to improve the article. FollowTheSources (talk) 20:27, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

And here we are, still not sure what exactly is that you want to change. BeŻet (talk) 22:40, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Fine, you want me to make changes, and I did. Let's see what the reaction is, and then we can look at including more material about Reade's highly-relevant political views, including her support for Russia and Bernie. The fact that she endorsed the candidate who ran against Biden seems relevant.

We also need more of a summary in the lede, making the status of the allegations clear. FollowTheSources (talk) 23:26, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

OK, what the hell is "their status"? InedibleHulk (talk) 03:24, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

I had to partially revert your changes, because they were not factual. BeŻet (talk) 09:53, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

I did not revert your changes, but I did make other changes in the area, in response. The more important one was sticking to a very close paraphrase of one of our sources, instead of artificially cutting it short. FollowTheSources (talk) 15:07, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Tara Reade article merger, what is WP:DUE and WP:UNDUE

Well, the Tara Reade article was merged here by AzureCitizen following the AfD discussion there. Azure says the merger was a "rough cut" and "needs editors to go over this material carefully to decide what is DUE and UNDUE in the context of this article". There were previous discussions about some of this content (perhaps those should happen again in light of the AfD discussion, maybe not). There has yet to be discussion about some of the other content. It will be a large task, but will need to be done.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 04:50, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Local consensus had already established that there should only be facts relevant to the article topic "Joe Biden sexual assault allegation". I suggest just restoring the article to it's pre-merge state. I struggle to see anything in the section being on-topic. Cjhard (talk) 12:31, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

What parts do you consider irrelevant and why? FollowTheSources (talk) 14:32, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

It's hard to respond to this question without sounding like an ass. To be clear: I think everything but "Tara Reade, (née Tara Reade Moulton) (born February 26, 1964) is an American blogger and nonprofits' employee.[8] From December 1992 to August 1993, she worked for then-Senator Joe Biden as a legislative assistant in his U.S. Senate office." is irrelevant to the topic, because none of the other biographical facts have any connection to the topic of the sexual assault allegation against Joe Biden. Cjhard (talk) 21:39, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

That's your opinion, but not that of our sources. They do see a connection and point it out, so we have to follow their lead. FollowTheSources (talk) 21:44, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

You keep saying that, but don't produce sources that make a connection between "As a young adult, Reade studied acting and worked as a model and actor." and the sexual assault allegation against Joe Biden. Cjhard (talk) 22:04, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

FollowTheSources, where is the source making the connection between Reade's study of acting and work as a model and actor to her allegations of sexual assault against Joe Biden? Cjhard (talk) 02:27, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Cjhard, yes that is the problem. Merge may not have been a great result. Some of those arguing against the deletion of the Tara Reade article, took the position that article was needed to cover background that was need to understand Tara Reade but not directly relevant to the allegation or this article. Content not relevant to the allegation or this article is going to have to be paired down. My reading is that the Vladimir Putin blogging was seen as irrelevant. I will remove that. There will be other content we need to consider, and the section will need to be re-writen as not to be a biography within an article.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 17:15, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

As it turns out, you are mistaken about this. Her views about Russia were considered relevant by reliable news sources, so we have to go with their judgment on this, not our own. FollowTheSources (talk) 17:39, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Actually, I wasn't. We discussed this and had reached a consensus against. See the section below.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 17:42, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

How about moving the background to later in the article? It's about the allegation, so we should focus on that, not bury it. FollowTheSources (talk) 14:50, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that turned out well. I also made an attempt to avoid controversy about her brother's statements by using his own words, straight from the articles. FollowTheSources (talk) 17:36, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Her words.

I ran into these two primary sources.[48][49] They match the quotes used in various secondary sources, of course, but I think the context helps to understand them better. FollowTheSources (talk) 05:19, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a blog or a forum. The talk page is used to post specific suggestions or concerns regarding the article, not posting links for no reason. BeŻet (talk) 12:17, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

So having access to the primary sources referenced by our secondary sources doesn't help us edit this article? I don't understand your thinking. FollowTheSources (talk) 14:31, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

This is the second time you created a thread here with just a link and no concrete action points. Wikipedia editors are not researchers, we don't need anything for "context". We report relevant information that's backed up by reliable sources. BeŻet (talk) 12:14, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks FTS, I agree that they are helpful. I read them sometime ago so they must be referenced somewhere in the article, though perhaps by a link in one of the sources we are using. Gandydancer (talk) 14:21, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Totally agree: we should only bring them in when they're referenced by secondary sources. We're not here to do original research. FollowTheSources (talk) 14:49, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Vladimir Putin again

So I removed this content about her blogs, which was recently added back in due to the Tara Reade merger. We had previously reached a consensus not to include it. FollowTheSources just added it back in because sources have covered it. Guess we have to discuss this again. I suspect there are going to have to be a lot of discussions like this to restore consensus which has already been reached here, or to revisit it. Unfortunately, this merger ignores the debates and consensus which had already been reached here.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 17:41, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

That was more than two weeks ago and the story has moved. As the consensus said, "This can be visited if better sources connecting the topics arise", and here we are. FollowTheSources (talk) 17:45, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps. Perhaps, not. If you want to obtain consensus to include it, feel free to discuss. But the current consensus, is to exclude it.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 17:49, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Let me remind you of why it belongs by copying a comment from that prior discussion:

cmt - "Much of the ensuing coverage by left-leaning and mainstream publications .. allegation as fact — has included descriptions of Reade’s past Putin flattery and emphasized her support for Bernie Sanders’s primary candidacy .." .. "Reade claims, the Biden campaign dug through her private Instagram account and scoured her years-old online writing, in which she praises Russia and Vladimir Putin, and sent the results to the New York Times in order to cast doubt on her allegation. She also alleges that the campaign used bots to spread the narrative that she was a Russian agent. NATIONAL REVIEW was unable to confirm either accusation." [50]

We can't suppress the fact that, according to her, she was accused of being a Russian agent. And this makes little sense except in the context of her various statements about much she loves Russia and Putin. FollowTheSources (talk) 18:00, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Actually, let me point out that she not only claims to have been called a Russian agent, but insists that this is a secret attack by Biden's campaign using Twitter bots! That's not something we can suppress. FollowTheSources (talk) 18:02, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

It is not helpful picking one comment out of that discussion and ignoring the others. That is why I linked to the entire discussion. The closing comment was "Consensus is to omit such information. This can be visited if better sources connecting the topics arise." So we can certainly revisit it, but consensus was against inclusion.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 18:09, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

And here we are, revisiting it, so I'm bringing up one of the points that was never addressed. FollowTheSources (talk) 18:11, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

We can revisit it sure, but the consensus is against. If you want to convince your fellow editors we should disregard or change that consensus, the WP:ONUS falls on you. I do not see any reason to deviate from the previously achieved consensus against inclusion.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 18:22, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Except that I pointed out the reason: it was weeks ago, things have changed, not the least of which is that the bio article is gone. FollowTheSources (talk) 18:26, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

It is not enough to say, that consensus it old maybe it has changed, so I am going to assume it has. Maybe it has, maybe it hasn't. We don't know until others sound off. What we do know is that until expressed otherwise the consensus is against. You can't just ignore the past consensus because you don't like it. And if you want that material included you need to convince others it should be, per WP:ONUS.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 18:30, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Good thing I'm not saying that. As I've explained a few times now, the consensus to keep some material in the other article cannot survive merging with that article. FollowTheSources (talk) 18:33, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it can. It certainly needs to be discussed, but it is not appropriate to completely dismiss it as you are doing. There was no consensus to merge the Tara Reade article back into this one. There was consensus against it existing on its own, and a lack of consensus to delete all of its content (not consensus to merge it, or to include its content here). That doesn't create a consensus to include it now, and it doesn't override the preexisting consensus. It just means we need to talk about it. And if we are going to deviate from the old consensus we need to do better than "well that was awhile ago" or "there has been a merger without consensus". We need to point to what has changed, new sources a broader discussion etc. Without that, there is not consensus to include. For someone, that joined Wikipedia less than a week ago, you seem to be very certain of your interpretation of WP:POLICY.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:11, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Irrelevant to the topic of the article. It seems strange that FollowTheSources is against including prior crimes of Arbery in the shooting of Arbery article yet here s/he is supporting the inclusion of irrelevant content that is not directly relevant to the article topic. Per WP:OR everything should be directly related to the article. Adding irrelevant political views etc in order to demonize the victim of sexual assault is absolutely unacceptable.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 18:51, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

To SharʿabSalam▼ - you've gone off-topic by bringing up a completely different WP article which is disruptive to this page. It's important to stay on-topic WP:ROC ~Thanks BetsyRMadison (talk) 01:59, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree, it's entirely irrelevant because it's not comparable. Arbery is dead and can't speak for himself. Reade is alive and chose to become a public figure by demanding that Biden drop out. FollowTheSources (talk) 19:01, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

BetsyRMadison, it is not disruptive. It's a fair comparison. There is no confirmation that Tara's political opinion is relevant to the article about her sexual assault against Joe Biden. You should actually read what that eassy WP:ROC tells you. It tells you stay on the topic of the article when you are writing in the article. Do you have a confirmation that Tara's political opinion has anything to do with her sexual assault allegation against Joe Biden? No? Then it should not be included. We don't poison the well here. The political opinion of Tara might be relevant in an article about Tara's biography but this article is not about Tara's biography, it's about the sexual assault against Joe Biden.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 02:11, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

To SharʿabSalam▼ - Yes, you went off topic when your brought up an entirely different WP article. Yes, when an editor goes off-topic it is disruptive. Yes, there is confirmation (see my above comments & other's) that Tara Reade's political essays & opinions have everything to do with her allegations against Biden. For the record, I said "yes" not "No?" So please do not answer questions that are directed at me, for me. I answer my own questions. Thank you. And yes, since there is a direct connection to Reade's political essays and to Reade's allegations against Biden, yes, they should be included within this WP article. BetsyRMadison (talk) 02:48, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

BetsyRMadison, the only disruptive behaviour is coming from you. You have just made a BLP violation by claiming that there is a connection between Tara's political opinion about Russia and her sexual assault allegation against Joe Biden. BLP violations are not tolerated here and if you continued this then I predict a topic ban.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 02:54, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Ladies and/or gents, lets all get back to discussing content. And try to build a better encyclopedia, eh?--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 03:00, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

To SharʿabSalam▼ - Look, I understand this is a topic that is passionate for some and because of that it's easy to be blinded (for lack of a better word) by passion and be not be able to see things clearly. You and I are both here trying to make this article better by using facts. It is not a BLP to include Reade's political essays, that are directly connected to her allegations against Biden. For example: Let's take Reade's resignation: Along side Reade's other alleged reasons for resigning, Reade's written 2018 political essay where she writes "why" she willing resigned should be included. Reade wrote that she resigned because of her disdain for America (not Biden) and because of her unwavering 'love of Russia with all her heart.' (her words). That's just one example. There are more. So as you can see, Reade herself connects her resignation to both her 2018 political essay and to her 2020 allegations. So, naturally that should be included. BetsyRMadison (talk) 03:12, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

You said "It is not a BLP to include Reade's political essays, that are directly connected to her allegations against Biden." Yes, it is a BLP violation. You have provided no confirmation or proof that it is directly related to her allegations against Joe Biden. This is the second warning. Do not make unsubstantiated accusations against a living person in Wikipedia. I cannot be more clear about this. Everyone has the right to love Russia. That has nothing to do with a sexual assault allegation against Joe Biden. Please think twice before you make a biography of living person violation again. Bring a confirmation that there is a relationship between her political opinion and her allegation against Joe Biden or don't make allegations against a BLP again, OK?.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 03:31, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

To SharʿabSalam▼ - I think I finally understand the point you're making & believe it or not, I think you and I have been saying the same thing but saying it in different ways. I believe you're saying that it is fine for WP editors to include Reade's political writings as expressed in writing by reliable sources; but it violates BLP if WP editors include within the article something like 'Reade's political writing are connected to her allegations' (which is not written within our reliable sources). And, if that is what you're saying I absolutely agree with you and I apologize for myself not being more clear in what I've been trying to say. You see, when I've been saying to include 'Reade's political writing because they are directly connected to Reade's allegation, I did not mean for WP editors write it in those exact words within the WP article. I meant the same thing you do: include Reade's political writings where relevant and as sourced, and definitely without including the words because they are directly related because no source that. My usage of those words was simply to illustrate to you and other editors a connection, not to conclude or editorialize a connection. Again, I apologize for not being more clear in what my intentions were/are regarding Reade's political writings. ~Regards BetsyRMadison (talk) 11:04, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

This has been covered in plenty of previous discussions: there is no consensus to include her opinions about Vladimir Putin in the article page. As explained countless times before, her opinions regarding that person are completely irrelevant to the topic at hand, despite some news outlets deciding to bring it up. If there are still any doubts regarding this, I recommend reading What Wikpedia is not: it's not a tabloid, it's not a soapbox, not a crystal ball, not a forum for free speech. If you somehow think that Reade made accusations against Joe Biden because she likes/liked Putin, thats your own opinion that you are entitled to - that doesn't mean we need to bring it up in an encyclopedia. Until there is at least a tiny bit of evidence that this is in fact the reason she acused Biden, this information simply does not belong here. Please consult Wikipedia regulations and guidelines. BeŻet (talk) 12:03, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Reade's political views

Similar to the discussion above, there seemed to be resistance to inclusion of Tara Reade's political views generally. I have removed this for that reason, but anticipate it will almost immediately be added back in. So is it WP:UNDUE for us to include Ms. Reade's political views in this article?--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 18:06, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

You anticipated correctly. The political views of someone who calls for a political candidate to drop out are highly relevant, as shown by their repeated inclusion in mainstream news sources. FollowTheSources (talk) 18:10, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

In case I didn't make this clear, any consensus about what belongs in this article as opposed to her bio must be revisited in light of the fact that the two have been merged. You can see this in the case of BetsyRMadison, who only opposed after it was pointed out that this information can go in the bio, not here. FollowTheSources (talk) 18:13, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

So FollowTheSources has added this back in. There does not appear to be a consensus to include this unless others sound off and say it should be included. Just because we can WP:VERIFY something does not mean that we must include it. In fact, AzureCitizen has charged us with determining what is WP:DUE and WP:UNDUE. It is not an answer to that question to say something exists in WP:RS. Whether it is due and balanced to include it is a separate question. One that we are going to have to discuss further. If you want the material to be included here, you are going to have to convince others that it is relevant and balanced to do so.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 18:18, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Uhm, no, I'm not saying we should include it just because we can verify it. I'm saying we should include it because it keeps getting brought up by reliable sources as a relevant piece of background. You need to make an argument against those sources, not me. FollowTheSources (talk) 18:20, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

The previous argument against was that her political views were irrelevant and WP:UNDUE. Several editors had expressed that concern. If the content is going to be included you need to establish a consensus to do so. Per WP:ONUS, The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is upon those seeking to include disputed content. If there is no consensus, it is excluded.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 18:27, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

That's not an accurate summary. What actually happened is that it was decided that this biographical material was best suited to her biography, not this article. With the merger, that's out the window. But I've explained this repeatedly, so I am not sure why you keep repeating the error. FollowTheSources (talk) 18:29, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

It is not out the window, and that is not an accurate summary. The "BIO" content was removed before the biography article was created. Many here expressed that Tara Reade was not notable enough to have her own article. There was never an agreement to move that content over to a biography. That is simply false. Otherwise a merger would not have happened. We have now been charged with deciding what from the merger is due and undue. That is a process that must happen, and it is going to be informed by the previous consensus that was reached here and by discussion, and yes those wanting to have material included are going to have to establish consensus to include it.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 18:40, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

• I think including her political views is important, but only if they are clearly relevant to the subject. For example, including that "She claimed that she quit working for Biden because she loves “Russia with all my heart” and was sickened by “the reckless imperialism of America” [51] is clearly relevant to the subject and should be included. However, the edit in question inserts something which is not directly relevant to Biden or to the story. I would be inclined not to include it. My very best wishes (talk) 18:37, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

  Thank you for your feedback. I also don't want to insert random facts without context.

  If you look above, there's a quote from an article which says, "Much of the ensuing coverage by left-leaning and mainstream publications ... has included descriptions of Reade’s past Putin flattery and emphasized her support for Bernie Sanders’s primary candidacy".

  I believe that this is how we should contextualize the information. How do you feel about that? FollowTheSources (talk) 18:43, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

  I think we should include any information about her political views which has been published in reliable secondary sources because this article is fundamentally related to politics. —DIYeditor (talk) 18:50, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, one could argue the materials in question (diff) might be included just because they were mentioned in RS on the subject. However, what is the relevance of this to the subject here, exactly? My very best wishes (talk) 18:54, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Ok, then the next step is to write up what the proposed change would look like. I can do that, but not right this minute. FollowTheSources (talk) 18:59, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Well I don't want to speculate too much about this as I have admonished another user for their speculation. I think what is relevant about this is that it may speak to bias one way or another, since it relates to the current election cycle and the topic of this article is closely tied to conflicting narratives of bias and interference in the election. So that she supported Warren or Sanders (Biden's opponents) is just as relevant as sympathies to Russia. —DIYeditor (talk) 19:13, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! OK, it was not obvious to me. Yes, this is definitely important, but then we should frame it more explicitly, i.e. as described in this source: "The story originated on the left, just about three weeks ago, when diehard Bernie Sanders supporter Katie Halper hosted Reade on her podcast, and encouraged her to tell her story publicly for the first time in 27 years. My very best wishes (talk) 20:06, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

• Yes including Reade's political views & views on Russia in so-far-as they relate direct to her actions surrounding her 1993 internship, why she resigned, and Reade's differing allegations should be included in the WP article. For example, Along side Reade's other alleged reasons for resigning, Reade's written 2018 reasons for "why" she willing resigned should be included: her disdain for America (not Biden) and her unwavering 'love of Russia with all her heart.' Also, Reade hiring top-Trump donor is, in and of itself, political so that should be included. And Reade hiring a former employee of Putin's State-Run-Media, Sputnik (which reliable sources [52] say is a "Russian propaganda outlet") is, in an of itself political as well, for three reasons. 1) because in 2018 she said her 'love of Russia with all her heart' is why she resigned, 2) because reliable sources [53] report in January Bernie Sanders was told by US intel that 'Russia is trying to help Bernie Sander's primary campaign against Joe Biden,' and 3) because reliable sources[54] report that 'Intelligence officials warned Congress that Russia is interfering in the 2020 election to help get President Trump re-elected' Therefore, Moran as her lawyer should be included. Now, none of this means that Reade is working with Russia or for Russia; and none of this means that I think any of those things. These are just facts that should be included because they are facts. BetsyRMadison (talk) 20:01, 18 May 2020 (UTC) — BetsyRMadison (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Her political views should only be brought up when clearly relevant. We should not be doing any original research or "detective work" trying to identify any agenda Tara may or may not have, or include any information randomly without any reason. That would be a violation of WP:NPOV. BeŻet (talk) 12:08, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

What to keep or remove from her biography article, which was merged in.

To avoid repeating myself, I'm opening this section to discuss what our thinking is in terms of keeping what was merged. I've removed some material, such as the infobox, because it seemed inappropriate outside of a bio. However, there were a few orphaned sections about Reade's political views that were removed. They can't go anywhere else and our reliable sources say that they belong on Wikipedia, so we have to discuss what to do with them. Let's. FollowTheSources (talk) 18:36, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

So, here is the link to the merged page. I would say almost everything from her bio belongs here. Something like info about her political blog posts needs to be rephrased to make sure it is relevant to the subject of this page (see my previous comment here). My very best wishes (talk) 18:49, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

I disagree. There was consensus against including the Putin related blog posts. We can revisit that, but consensus was against. There was also resistance to including her political views/beliefs. If I remember correctly, there was also some concerns expressed about some of the history of domestic violence, but I don't think we reached any consensus on that. I am not sure where she was born, that she had a child long after the allegations, her work with non-profits afterwards, or her political views generally are relevant. There was some pretty forceful resistance to including personal details which were not directly relevant to the allegations. In any event, I think we need to discuss these things individually, and can't just blanket endorse the entire batch of content that was merged.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 19:00, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

As I've pointed out repeatedly, that turns out not to be the case. The decision was that the information belonged in her bio, not here. Her bio is gone, so here it is. FollowTheSources (talk) 19:03, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

What are you talking about? There was never any agreement that all of this content should be moved over to a biography. When one was proposed, editors discouraged the creation of such an article. It was created anyway, and thus the AfD discussion occurred. Can you point to any discussion for your suggestion that it was agreed that all of this content belonged in a Tara Reade biography? There was discussion that much of it was irrelevant, doxxed her, and that as she was not notable enough on her own for her own article, ie. it shouldn't exist anywhere. We can certainly discuss it and consider it for inclusion now, but please do not suggest there was some consensus to include those materials in a biography when that consensus never existed.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 20:29, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

I do not see consensus in the linked discussion, and the discussion was on a different subject. As cited source tells, this has nothing to do with Putin. This is about her changing the story. How exactly this should be worded is a different question. Probably this should not be in her bio/background. Also, the infobox for her subsection is fine. One can use several infoboxes on a page. My very best wishes (talk) 19:08, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

We had an edit conflict, so you posted your comment about the infobox before I broke out a new section. If it's not too much trouble, could you please respond below? As for location, I agree that the best place for this is not in her bio as a random factoid, but integrated into the discussion of her claims. FollowTheSources (talk) 19:12, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

@My very best wishes, I assume you are referring to me and consensus about the Putin comments. This is the discussion about that, which I linked to in the above section about that. Unfortunately, we seem to be bouncing around a lot.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 19:39, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

The discussion was about this: Should Reade's political views be included in her background? ... I believe if it included, it should not be phrased in a way to allege that she is a "Russian agent" or whatever else sort of speculation.... Yes, I agree with others: this should NOT be included like that because the cited source does NOT say "she is a Russian agent", among other things. Source tells this is just one of several examples how she changes her stories (I fully explained this above already). One time she said she quit working for Biden because she disagreed with him ideologically (about loving “Russia with all my heart”, being sickened by “the reckless imperialism of America” or whatever - as source tells). Another time she explained why she quit very different. That is how this should be described (i.e. exactly per the source), and apparently NOT a as a part of her bio. My very best wishes (talk) 19:52, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't think anyone wants to call her a Russian agent in this article, especially not in wiki-voice. Our sources only say that she accused Biden's campaign of secretly spreading that accusation about her. This says a lot about her credibility, although we should be careful not to include any judgements not directly attributed to reliable sources. But we shouldn't exclude this. FollowTheSources (talk) 19:56, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

That discussion was not just about calling her a "Russian agent". Yes, one editor mentioned that, but the bulk of the discussion was opposed to mentioning the Russia/Putin views at all. I am not going to cite parts of the arguments made there, and by whom. Editors can read the entire discussion for themselves. The consensus at that point was against including those views at all, not some silly allegation that she was a Russian agent, suggesting so misconstrues or misrepresents the discussion.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:23, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

No, we can't do that, because Reade accused the Biden campaign of spreading rumors about her being a Russian agent. She brought this weird topic up, so we have to cover it. FollowTheSources (talk) 22:26, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

For an example of an article that brings these issues up in context, try this.[55] FollowTheSources (talk) 19:58, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Bio Infobox

I removed the infobox that was pulled in from the biography because I didn't think it was appropriate for an article that's not primarily a biography. Yes, there's a biographical section, but we don't usually have boxes like that for sections, at least from what I've seen. Unfortunately, this has led to something of an edit war.

Look, I don't want to invoke 1RR and all that. I just want us to discuss it here and come to some sort of consensus. Can we please do that? FollowTheSources (talk) 19:10, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

This is something obvious. We have several infoboxes on many pages. Therefore, having an additional infobox, specifically for her subsection is fine. It does not mean this is a biography article. You can add another infobox for whole page if you wish. My very best wishes (talk) 19:15, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't have a strong opinion on this. FollowTheSources (talk) 19:44, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

I also removed the infobox after it was restored the first time, and I object to its restoral. This is not the Tara Reade biography. She wasn't considered notable enough for her own biography page, and - as other editors have also pointed out - the decision to merge the content of that page into this one doesn't mean we have to keep the entire content of that page. Most of the content of the biography content came from this page originally anyway and had been edited and/or deleted by the time of the merge. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 07:02, 19 May 2020 (UTC) Just to be clear, we should keep/include what's relevant to the assault allegation, and that includes anything that's relevant to the accuser's credibility. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 07:05, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Who needs consensus? Let's just delete the whole thing!

At least that I imagine they were thinking with this edit.[56]

However, they're mistaken. There is no consensus to remove the entire biographical section that was merged in.

Revert yourself. FollowTheSources (talk) 22:18, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

I took this to ANI. FollowTheSources (talk) 22:39, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) There was never any consensus to include it. We need to discuss each piece to determine whether it is WP:DUE or WP:UNDUE as AzureCitizen asked us to do. If editors think content is relevant and due, the need to say why. I tried to do this methodically separating out individual pieces for discussion but you quickly accused me of WP:1RR, so that didn't get us very far. I see another editor also thinks there is no consensus to include much of the content. I suggest you focus on convincing others that that material is relevant and due in this article instead of questioning Cjhard's motivations. I know you are a new editor, so if you would like any advice, be sure to ask.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:44, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

To be clear, I accused you of 1RR violation because you were guilty. FollowTheSources (talk) 22:47, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

And, to be clear, this was the consensus:

The result was merge to Joe Biden sexual assault allegation.

Merge, not delete. What Cjhard did was to delete the whole thing, even though we are clearly in the middle of a discussion on which parts to keep. FollowTheSources (talk) 22:49, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

The RESULT was move merge. There wasn't consensus for that result, it was essentially a no-consensus close. There was consensus against keeping it, but "no consensus" for deleting it thus merge (not consensus for merge). Some free advice, as a new editor you should familiarize yourself with our policies and guidelines. I see you have raised this at ANI, so I guess we will have to deal with this there. If you are not familiar, you should also be aware of WP:BOOMERANG. Hopefully, we can work this out, and being focusing on improving the article.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:58, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Uhm, no, I quoted from the result, above. Which I found at the page you linked to. It was merge, not move.

Why are you trying to gaslight me? FollowTheSources (talk) 23:02, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Please try to WP:AGF. Sorry, that first mention of "move" should say merge, as is indicated in the rest of my comment. The point is, the RESULT being merge does not mean there is consensus for that material to be included. The closing comment itself says there is "not consensus to delete it", that is absence of consensus (not consensus). The distinction is important.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:08, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree that the content shouldn't have been wholesale deleted, but FTS, the way you are going about making the case for its restoration is not productive. Please don't make accusations against other editors. --WMSR (talk) 23:15, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

The only accusation I'm making is that they deleted the entire merged section (but for the first couple of sentences). This accusation is true. FollowTheSources (talk) 23:21, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

I for one agree wit the large chop, though it doesn't preclude the restoration of some material if deemed useful, it would be easier to start small then build rather than take the big bio from the old article and prune. This article is not a biographical article about Tara Reade, it is about a sexual assault allegation made by this person. Where a non-notable person went to school, where they grew up, horse sanctuaries, the bar exam, etc... all of this means, pardon, fuck-all, to the subject of the assault allegation.

Why don't we work on a summary of her life, 5-6 sentences and see how that looks? Zaathras (talk) 23:42, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

I think there's some context you may have missed. FollowTheSources (talk) 23:59, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

As you have now been told at ANI, I recommend we try to focus on discussing what specific content should be in the article and take up the task of determining what is relevant and due to be included here.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 00:08, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't think I've missed context at all, dear heart, as I participated in the deletion discussion, and am thus well-aware of the matter. The result of the discussion was to merge the content of that article here, but that does not dictate exactly what is to be merged, that is what we decide here. As this is not a Reade biography, biographical content about her should be minimal. The reader is being informed of the sexual assault allegation, not Tara's favorite horsie. Zaathras (talk) 00:15, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Please don't patronize me with such terms of endearment. FollowTheSources (talk) 00:17, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

You belittled me in your first response, insinuating that I didn't know what was going on re: the subject matter, so I tossed that back in your face. Don't dish out what you cannot handle in return, friend.

Now, to other editors, are there opinions about something that is actually important, rather than picking nits? I'm looking through the deleted text there's very little that really seems important. Perhaps the parts about her ex-husband's alleged DV, and the part later on about "poke favorably about her time working for Biden", as they give a little context to her anti-Biden claims. Zaathras (talk) 00:26, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

So much for AGF. The civil response to "you missed something" is not to insult me, but to call my bluff by asking me to specify. So I'm going to pretend you did.

The answer is that the people calling for the removal of biographical information have edit-warred and violated 1RR to remove the sections mentioning Putin and Bernie, even though these are strongly supported by the sources. That's the context. Thanks for asking instead of attacking me. FollowTheSources (talk) 00:28, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Your attempt to insert errata about Reade's Putin admiration, trying to paint her as some sort of Russian plant, was rightly reverted. Editors should follow the example that Mr. Biden himself has set regarding this entire situation, as it is good advice - lay out the facts, take her seriously, don't attack her personally. Zaathras (talk) 00:37, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Look, you're allowed to disagree with me, but let's not mischaracterize my actions. I did not insert anything that wasn't already there. I just restored what was deleted without discussion. And it was there in the first place because it was brought up in our reliable sources.

Reade herself opened the door to this by claiming Biden's campaign used bots to spread the (false) rumor that she's a Russian agent. This seems unlikely -- the part about Biden's secret slander -- but she did go on record repeatedly about loving Russia and Putin. FollowTheSources (talk) 00:45, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

• I think almost everything about Reade, and especially her own contradictory comments, belong to this page, merely because she is an accuser, and it is therefore important for a reader to know how trustworthy she might be. This page is a lot more about her and her claims, rather than about anything else. For example, that story now belongs to this page. My very best wishes (talk) 03:08, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

  I can only agree, but it seems very clear that some editors are opposed to anything which might be unflattering towards Reade. While Wikipedia does not exist for the purpose of sharing such information, that's also not something it shies away from when our sources insist. Our sources insist. FollowTheSources (talk) 05:33, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

  FollowTheSources, i highly recommend for you to assume good faith on other editors. We can't really have a productive argument if you think this about us. We are against poisoning the well without any proof of relevance. This article is not about the biography of Tara. This article is about the sexual assault allegation against Joe Biden. Her political opinion has not been proven to be related to the sexual assault.

  MVBW, no, we don't do original research here. The trustworthiness has nothing to do with whether the allegations are true or not. The only content that should be included is the one that is directly related to the allegation of sexual assault against Joe Biden. This is per WP:OR.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 05:43, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Nobody here is talking about "original research". We're talking about reliable news articles on the subject of the allegation that see fit to share relevant details about the accuser, such as her stated reasons for leaving her job (including her great love of Russia), and her political support for Biden's opponents. It would be original research for us to ignore the fact that our reliable sources considered this information relevant.

As for assuming good faith, I am not impugning anyone's motives. Rather, I am correctly summarizing their displayed behavior, which has ranged from removing specific biographical details without cause to deleting the entire section. Good faith does not mean ignoring what's in front of me. FollowTheSources (talk) 05:48, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

FollowTheSources, you said "it seems very clear that some editors are opposed to anything which might be unflattering towards Reade." and you also said without evidence that you are "correctly summarizing their displayed behavior, which has ranged from removing specific biographical details without cause to deleting the entire section." I quote from WP:AOBF "Avoid accusing other editors of bad faith without clear evidence in the form of diffs. Making such claims often serves no purpose and could be seen as inflammatory and hence aggravate a dispute. Without clear evidence that the action of another editor is actually in bad faith or harassment, repeatedly alleging bad faith motives could be construed as a personal attack." So be careful. You have already repeated the accusation against other editors without any proof.

I am going to repeat what I said there is no proof from sources that any political opinion of Tara is relevant to her accusation against Biden. Sources are only providing a biography of Tara that they don't even say it is related to the allegations against Joe Biden. We are a Wikipedia. We can add the biographical content that sources are not saying it is relevant to the allegations against Joe to an article about the biography of Tara. We cant add it to this article when there is no proof that it is relevant to the allegations against Joe Biden.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 06:05, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

• "there is no proof from sources ...Sources are only providing a biography of Tara that they don't even say it is related to the allegations against Joe Biden." What? How come, if multiple sources claim exactly this. Consider that one (there are many more). Is it exactly on the subject of this page? Yes. Does it explicitly say that statements by Tara Reade, including ones made by her in political blogs, are directly relevant to this case? Yes, it does! It would be very strange if her own statements did not matter, and especially on her alleged reasons why she quit working for Biden. My very best wishes (talk) 17:19, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Except that I've never accused anyone of bad faith; that's just your misinterpretation. People can, entirely in good faith, believe that unflattering information is inappropriate. They're mistaken, of course, because Wikipedia is not censored. But that's an error in understanding policy, not any sort of nefarious motives.

The fact that reliable sources consider these details to be relevant is the proof that they are. We don't get to ignore our sources. FollowTheSources (talk) 06:12, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

I think I have warned you and I think you should at this point stop making inflammatory comments.

Secondly, there is no confirmation Tara's past political opinion is relevant to the sexual allegations. Sources don't claim that it is relevant. Period. I believe what I am saying is very clear.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 06:19, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

FollowTheSources, I also note that you have started 2 discussions in this talk page both of the sections headers are not neutral. One is "Trumper lawyer" and the other is "Who needs consensus? Let's just delete the whole thing!". I am seeing problematic behaviour from you in this article. Please read the talk page guidelines.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 06:13, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

You're a liar FollowTheSources, you accused me of bias toward Biden simply due to me not wanting material included that alluded to Tara Reade asking to get sexually assaulted due to the way she dressed. I quote, "We are going to follow the sources, not your hostility towards Biden." MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 07:49, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Actually, nobody is suggesting she was asking to get sexually assaulted. Rather, in her own words, the extent of the original "harassment" was that she was asked to wear appropriate office attire. It is only decades later that she went public a new claim, which added sexual assault. This is particularly relevant in that her brother acted as if he was only familiar with the initial claim, not the new one, when asked to corroborate. To his credit, he changed his story the very same day. FollowTheSources (talk) 14:53, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Don't misdirect, I'm only refuting your claim that you "never accused anyone of bad faith". Now good day. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 17:46, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

An RFC is probably necessary to determine what biographical information to include. It should stay out until a consensus is determined. Mr Ernie (talk) 07:05, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Could be a good idea. However, we should first have consensus about how to write the RfC. What I am suggesting that we also have Biden's women complaints (the women who said Biden made them uncomfortable) because sources also mention this. So any RfC should also have this, if Tara's past political opinions are relevant because sources mention them then Biden past women complaints are relevant because sources also mention them. We should not have double standard in Wikipedia. Am I right? IMO, both are irrelevant but if we are going to include Tara's past political opinion and old issues then we should also do the same for Biden.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 07:23, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Biden's background, including other women, is already in a standalone article, a Wikilink suffices. Maybe hold an RfC on that, if you want, but separately. Nothing botches a question like asking an opposite question on top of it, even if garbled to make a third fair point about equality. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:51, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, proposing to add equally undue 'counter-evidence' to the article is not the solution to this proposal. Truth be told, I think enough eyes are on this article that the undue Reade biographical content won't get consensus for inclusion. Cjhard (talk) 07:58, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

That's not what I said. I suggested that if there is a RfC, Tara's background and Biden background inclusion be one option and removing both should be another option. InedibleHulk argument that Biden has an article and Tara doesn't is absurd and claptrap. There is no reason to include one side background and remove the other that's if we are going to include. In any case, I have said my opinion, none should be included.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 08:07, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, doubling a simple choice between A and B to quandary about A through D. I also like None. We'll discuss whose trap is clapping later, deal? InedibleHulk (talk) 08:27, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

• cmt - (Full disclosure: I haven't read this thread). My own understanding of the guidelines are these. There being no consensus to delete the Tara Reade's blp as well as there being, as of yet, neither the consensus to include it here', it's able to be restored @ the Tara Reade namespace as a placeholding measure until when or if consensus emerges to contribute its essentials elsewhere (or else, of course, have essential content from here merged to there).--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 17:13, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Also, this article was too long with the added material.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 17:17, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps, but "there is a consensus that [Tara Reade] should not exist as a stand alone article" in that discussion. Not sure, restoring all of the content there two days after that close is a great idea, as opposed to discussing what should be included here, as we have been tasked to do.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 17:47, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

wp:Merging: .. if there is no consensus[. . .]and you don't believe that it is appropriate to merge the pages, then please remove the merge proposal tags[. . .]. ..--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 18:14, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Sure, they can be un-merged, but it isn't a good idea when there was consensus against that stand alone article. What we should be doing is having more meaningful discussions about what content can be incorporated here. Not reversing the outcome of AfD that is not but two days old.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 18:36, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

That doesn't apply when the consensus is the result of an AfD discussion, in the same way as you can't simply restore a page that has been deleted in that manner. You don't get to unilaterally override that. I have restored the redirect, I hope I don't have to protect it. Black Kite (talk) 18:43, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

• Once again, her biography is highly relevant to this subject and therefore should be included. Why? Because most RS on this subject do just that. For example, that very recent article by CNN: "A complicated life and conflicting accounts muddle efforts to understand Tara Reade's allegation against Joe Biden". The title speaks for itself. My very best wishes (talk) 03:38, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

It sure does. As an encyclopedia, not a CNN political desk, we want to not muddle efforts to understand this topic. If recent headline is reliable and complicated life and conflicting accounts do muddle such, they're counterproductive here. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:19, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Deletion Review: Tara Reade

A deletion review has been initiated at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 May 19 concerning the recent recent AfD and merger of that article into this one.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 20:09, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

How extraordinarily ill-informed of a decision that was. Zaathras (talk) 02:15, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Which decision, user:Zaathras? The close of the AfD? Or filing for a formal review in order to ascertain what the default in this case should be (in light of the fact that its hoped-for merger is proving untenable -- per such reasons as you allude to below, where you argue , ".. because this article is not a biography of Tara Reade ..")?--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 16:27, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

CNN Re Reade's "Growing up in the Midwest and a tumultuous marriage"

https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/19/politics/tara-reade-biden-allegation/index.html Where to put this citation? --Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 17:30, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

I guess that would depend what text we were using it as a WP:RS for.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 17:33, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Claims Reade's hemline-lengths/degrees of unbuttoning inappropriately provoked attention

1. WaPo[57] - dismissed her concerns, told her to wear less provocative clothing
2. LATimes[58] - was told she dressed too provocatively
3. Megyn Kelly interview - [Reade]: ".. I felt like it was my fault. Like, that I did bring it on. And the reason, when after the whole serving-the-drinks-thing happened, things got really tense for me. And it's like my supervisor kept finding all of my work-- Like, all of a sudden: I was doing things wrong, all of a sudden. And, then, she took me aside and sent in an assistant and said: We want you to wear different clothes. You need to button up more. You need to wear a longer skirt. Like, in other words, she-- And, she said: Don’t look so sexy. Shoes, like [inaudible]. And, she goes: Try not to be so noticed. You're too noticeable. The other person was more awkward about it. She was just, like: It's not coming from me but they're telling you to wear a longer skirt and button up more. You're a little too-- Provocative was the word she used. ..
4. Reade[59] - ".. I am the alpha in the room too. Again, I like to be the one who chooses who enters my space and in what way. We are sexual beings and we are all trying to figure out how to express this aspect of ourselves at work and home lives, it is a journey our society is on right now. .."---Alexandra Tara Reade, the Nevada County Union, April 17, 2019
5. PBS.org/NewsHour[60] - ".. Reade has claimed a supervisor admonished her for the way she dressed and asked her to be more modest. She has claimed this was a baseless criticism and retaliation for her complaint about sexual harassment from Biden. A woman who worked with Reade, but who spoke to the NewsHour on the condition she not be named, said she remembers Reade mentioning that she was scolded for her attire and that Reade asked her if it was a legitimate complaint. That coworker and two other staffers who worked with Reade said they believe she was not appropriately dressed for work. .."
6. TheNewYorker[61] - ".. [Megyn] Kelly expresses herself in eyebrow raises; she enjoys the performance of asking what appear to be uncomfortable follow-up questions. 'Were you wearing underwear?' she asked, responding to Reade’s description of the assault. When Reade said, evasively, that she was wearing 'lingerie,' the eyebrow went up again.[. . .]Did he push the underwear to the side, or was that not an issue?' One could sense that Kelly was searching for the headline—and yet, for all her combative style, she failed to extract specifics. .." (Megyn Kelly[62] - Original; TheFederalist[63] - "Full Transcript: Megyn Kelly’s Interview With Tara Reade")
   --Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 19:25, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

To Hodgdon's secret garden - Here's a few more regarding hemlines & dressing provocatively.

1. Current Affairs [64]: ( Reade tells Current Affairs that Reade & her mother both defined "sexual harassment" as Reade being told to dress less proactively.)

"..she [her immediate boss] took me inside and sent in an assistant and said, we want you to wear different clothes. You need to button up more. You should wear longer skirts… And she goes, try not to be so noticed or too noticeable. The other person was more awkward about it. She was just like it’s not coming from me, but they’re telling you to wear longer skirts and button up more and you’re a little too provocative. Right. Whatever. So, and I was like, Oh, this is, this is weird. So I told my mom that, and she goes, that’s retaliation. They’re trying to retaliate. You need to document everything. And my mom was very adamant. I was like, mom. And my mom even said, you march in there and you tell them this is sexual harassment and you don’t take it. I’m like, you don’t march into Ted Kaufman’s office, and you don’t do that."

2. Washington Post [65] (Reade tells Washington Post that her biggest criticism in 1993 is that Joe Biden did not help her enough with her co-workers)

"In the Post interview last year she [Reade] laid more blame with Biden's staff for “bullying” her than with Biden. “This is what I want to emphasize: It’s not him. It’s the people around him who keep covering for him,” Reade said, adding later, “For instance, he should have known what was happening to me. . . . Looking back now, that’s my criticism. Maybe he could have been a little more in touch with his own staff.” The Post goes on to write, "Reade was referring to alleged bullying, not alleged sexual assault. And Reade clearly gives the impression that Biden himself is not the person responsible for whatever wrongdoings she allegedly suffered." The Post continues, "Reade said that in 1993 she filed a complaint with a congressional human resources or personnel office but did not remember the exact name. Her complaint dealt only with the alleged harassment, not the assault, she said.

BetsyRMadison (talk) 21:10, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Keep this victim blaming garbage off the article. I'm not going to grant this trash anymore attention than it deserves. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 06:37, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

No, because our sources do not confirm that Reade is a victim of anything. Believing women is great, but it's not a suicide pact. Multiple news outlets listened to her story and dismissed it because they could not find verification. We are going to follow the sources, not your hostility towards Biden. FollowTheSources (talk) 14:35, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

You got some gall accusing me of bias with the way you've been conducting yourself on this talk page. Don't you dare start making this a political battle. Now I stand by my position this proposition is that of a degenerate, toxic attempt to smear Reade of an allegation neither of us are aware of, so don't you even try to make me out to be the one assuming guilt. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 07:42, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Any relevant information that has RS support merits at least consideration for inclusion in the article. I am not sure what your personal assessments of "victim blaming garbage," "trash," and "degenerate, toxic attempt to smear Reade" have got to do with it; let us aim to instead discuss content based on sourcing and relevance. RedHotPear (talk) 17:23, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

1. CNBC - Senate office to dress more conservatively and told 'don't be so sexy
2. Vox - says she was blamed and told to dress more conservatively
3. NYmag - admonished her for dressing inappropriately at work
4. NYmag - claim that a supervisor admonished her for dressing inappropriately at work
5. theGuardian - reported Biden's conduct to superiors and was told to dress more conservatively

Questions Re the timeline:
- Alleged incident (When? On a warm spring day, her wearing lingerie-with-no-stockings, as she intends to meet her boyfriend later)
- She was told by Biden's decades-long executive assistant (she told Megyn Kelly: "I was called in actually, to the office by Marianne Baker") to "dress more conservatively"?
- At some point, she'd filed a request for counselling with the Senate personnel office, citing some factors from among the constellation mentioned above or hereafter that had resulted in her feeling uncomfortable within the office.
- Of course, somewhere or another, Reade's having remarked to others in the office how his touching her shoulders, neck and hair during meetings was uncomfortable fits in, too.
-Then, lastly (in July), her processing of constituents' mail having been complained of, she's shown the door (remaining paid into the month of August)

1. WaPo - she was reprimanded by Marianne Baker
2. TheHill[66] - ".. Marianne Baker, an executive assistant. All three have gone on the record to say that Reade did not confront them .." [About the alleged incident? Or about having been asked to serve drinks and/or not to dress so daringly?]
   --Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 19:11, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Reade's assertion that being told to "button up" constituted sexual harassment certainly deserves mention, and does not strike me as victim-blaming. --WMSR (talk) 12:08, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

I dunno. Is a woman-to-woman talk about how-one-has-been-perceived-coquettish "sexual harassment"? Possibly. In any case, of course, Reade has by now also complained about her allegedly having been molested by her boss. With regard to her original complaint, however: Yes, Reade, who didn't believe herself to have been overly coquettish, was there being told that she had been thus perceived. However, per Reade's own interpretation of the verbal exchange, what she'd been told was about her boss's complimentary assessments with regard to her looks along with an invitation for her to be eye candy, after hours.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 18:05, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

In any case, regarding the issue of Reade's (shoulder/neck/hair's?) allegedly being touched, according to her attorney, these occurred on occassions where Biden "met with the interns, some formal, some not."[67]--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 19:41, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Why TF has Reade's biography gone AWOL!

RSes (CNN[68], the NYT[69], USAToday[70], Politico[71], TheHill[72], Salon, Business Insider, DailyBeast...) mention her ex, Dronen, for example. Then, within cases of more minor associates within her life history (Politico[73], CBS[74], etc.), numerous citations refer to a Ms. Hummer of a central-California coast horse sanctuary. Etc.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 20:06, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

You are entitled to propose that the entirety of content that was included in her biography is included here, but that may not be a very successful way to accomplish that goal. We were tasked with considering what specific content was due and undue for inclusion here. I think the most methodical and productive way to do that would be to have separate discussion about separate content, and why (or why not) that content should be included. Possible discussions topics could include the Putin comments, other political beliefs (ie politicians she supported since), history of domestic violence, her family/child, non-profit work, etc. I suspect we will get further discussing specific material and WP:RS as opposed to trying to tackle all the content together as a package deal.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 20:24, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Every content should be directly relevant to the topic of the article. Reliable sources also mention Biden history of inappropriate touching yet it is not included here.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 22:55, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Because...this article is not a biography of Tara Reade, an otherwise unnotable person outside of this story? Zaathras (talk) 23:18, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Please see if there are any recent discussions on the topic you're asking about before starting another section about it. Cjhard (talk) 02:33, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I actually already knew these answers. As is understandable, with this page already so long, its wp:OWNers must resorted to Procrustean measures such as narrow readings of wp:DUE WEIGHT and more-Catholic-than-the-pope extensions of wp:PSEUDOBIOGRAPHY as apply it to even a biographical sub-entry.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 16:16, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Some inclusion warranted It seems like quite a stretch to claim that information about a person making the allegation is irrelevant to an article about an allegation. No, I do not think all of the content that was in her biography is warranted in this article, but the current version errs on the side of far too little. We should go back, condense, and aim to include the most relevant and well-sourced information. Having a more-developed "Reade's background" section in the beginning of an article with other, much longer sections does not nearly constitute a biography or pseudobiography. RedHotPear (talk) 17:36, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Legislative assistant

The given sources—and all other sources that I have read—do not say that Reade worked as a legislative assistant. (If anyone wants to take a look at the job description of a legislative assistant to a member of the house, here's a link to a page where you can download a sample description.) Mostly the sources just say that she worked for Biden or for his congressional office. As for the actual work she did, she initially oversaw the work of two interns who said that she was reassigned abruptly, and she worked in the Biden mailroom. Her former co-worker there said that she was "fired for her poor performance on the job, which he witnessed," and that she "had been mishandling a key part of her job and an essential office task — processing constituent mail."[75] That probably involved logging and classifying incoming mail but that's pure conjecture on my part. Sticking to the sources, we should leave the job description at "worked for Biden." Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:13, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

"Working for" someone sounds to me like being employed, hired or overseen by them. How about "processed Biden's mail" or "worked in Biden's office"? Both seem sourced and fairly accurate (I think "legislative assistant" could work, too, paraphrasing is fine if it's reasonably close enough and your link says they answer constituent mail). InedibleHulk (talk) 14:59, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

-->"staff assistant."--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 16:19, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

• I googled "Tara Reade legislative assistant" and got these results at the top of the search results:

• One "junior aide" ([76])
• Four "staff assistants" ([77], [78], [79], [80])

I also googled "staff assistant" and found this job description for a staff assistant position at Alaskan Senator Lisa Murkowski's senate office. Sounds like your typical entry-level job. I'd suggest this version: "She was a staff assistant at Biden's U.S. Senate office from December 1992 to August 1993." Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:49, 21 May 2020 (UTC) And here's the job description of a legislative aide, also at Senator Murkowski's office — definitely not working in or from the mailroom! Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:55, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

I stand corrected, carry on. Maybe "in" the office, though. "At" seems...off. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:01, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

I changed it to "in" but "at" sounds pretty normal to me when referring to an organization like a Senator's office that has a number of offices, as in rooms. In the mailroom, 'though :). Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:22, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Forever in debt to your priceless advice. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 17:29, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Hey, wait! They do say "another day at the office". In the Navy, at least, sorry again, proceed with Plan B. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:50, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

RfC II

Ought "Joe Biden sexual assault allegation's" sub-entry biography of Tara Reade include her having been "a longtime expert witness in Monterey County domestic violence trials"^{montereycountyweekly feature article}

".. was born in Monterey and grew up in Wisconsin and Georgia. After her time in D.C., which included a stint interning for then-U.S. Rep. Leon Panetta and then working on Biden’s staff, she came back to Monterey County in the mid-2000s and worked at local nonprofits.

"From 2006 to 2007, she was the legal services coordinator at the YWCA Monterey County; in that job, she assisted domestic violence survivors with long-term safety plans, court-issued restraining orders, cease-and-desist letters, divorce orders and child custody paperwork.

"Even before her time at the Y, though, she reached out to the Monterey County District Attorney’s Office and offered her expertise on domestic violence. She had testified about the topic in front of the Washington State Legislature, worked as a victim’s advocate for the King County Prosecutor’s Office in Washington and as a community services manager at the Snohomish County Center for Battered Women.

"Reade brought vast experience working with victims, says Monterey County Deputy District Attorney Elaine McCleaf, who handles domestic violence cases. Listed as Alexandra McCabe, Reade appears on a roster of possible expert witnesses that prosecutors send to the defense in domestic violence cases. .."^{Monterey County Weekly}

Note: further citations include:

1. nytimes - as an expert witness in court .. an advocate for domestic violence survivors
2. chicagotribune - testifying as an expert witness in court
3. nymag (Reade, to Megyn Kelly) - I'm an expert witness on domestic violence, as you know
4. spectator.us - 'testifies in criminal cases as an expert witness
5. usatoday - an advocate for domestic violence survivors
6. sanluisobispo - has identified herself as a domestic violence survivor and victim’s advocate
   --Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 18:02, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Discussion II

@Hodgdon: this RfC is confusing, I cant understand what you are proposing (while the list of sources is nice). Suggest to rephrase or pull this RfC and redo it. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:04, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Inasmuch as we're to submit possible contributions to "Joe_Biden_sexual_assault_allegation#Reade's_background" for community consenses, this initial one's about whether we ought to succinctly mention, within Tara Reade's history, details about her becoming/serving as a domestic violence advocate and expert witness. Rough cut to some possible text:

Reade has changed her name for protection due to domestic violence in her past. An alleged victim of domestic violence, Reade divorced in 1996. Her then-husband has denied the domestic violence allegations in part.

She was featured in Seattle University School of Law's alumni magazine within its Summer 2009 feature article "Escaping Abuse, Law School Helped Domestic Violence Survivor Start a New Life: Alexandra McCabe Arrived in Seattle with a New Name, A Young Daughter and $40." Describing herself as an educator in social justice, Reade has led workshops on domestic violence prevention and testified as an expert witness in domestic-violence court cases.

References

--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 18:32, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

@Hodgdon's secret garden: what is your brief and neutral statement? The statement above (from the {{rfc}} tag to the next timestamp) is far too long for Legobot (talk · contribs) to handle, and so it is not being shown correctly at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies. The RfC will also not be publicised through WP:FRS until a shorter statement is provided. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:42, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Are you proposing to have an RfC for every line of Reade biographical content without making prior attempts to get consensus to include? Cjhard (talk) 01:48, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

• Exclude Irrelevant personal errata. Zaathras (talk) 02:09, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

• Addendum. Appears that Hodgdon's secret garden may have jumped the gun a bit, as Reade's lies about her credentials may lead to court challenges of cases where she was called as a DV "expert" - Convictions could be challenged as defense attorneys question Tara Reade’s credentials. Zaathras (talk) 03:08, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Should Title Mention Tara Reade and be more general?

One, this is the only allegation of its type and Reade's name is in the title of most of the stories about the allegations. Moreover, she made a string of allegation, starting with sexual harassment claims. Seems like it isn't just the assault. I would suggest something like Tarra Reade's allegations against Joe Biden. SOmething like that. Casprings (talk) 18:21, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

This has been discussed at length in this and this move discussion. If you want to start another move discussion you are entitled to do so, but in my view it is unlikely to have any greater success. A suggestion that it be moved and the scope enlarged to deal with the other allegations of sexual misconduct (or as some would prefer "inappropriate touching") was met with similar resistance. Perhaps the mood has changed, but I would be surprised.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 18:30, 21 May 2020 (UTC)