When the court asked about her credentials, she said under oath (in numerous cases) that she had a Bachelor's degree from Antioch University which doesn't appear to be the case. If her expert testimony is ruled to have been material to the outcome of the case she may have committed perjury. In Washington State perjury in the first degree ("if in any official proceeding he or she makes a materially false statement which he or she knows to be false under an oath required or authorized by law") is a Class B felony like manslaughter or robbery. I would hold off putting anything about it in this article for at least a few days, see what develops. Her pro-bono lawyer, Wigdor, just dropped her as a client, I added that and the link to the updated NYT article. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:36, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
New York Times reporting that Reade's lawyer, Doug Wigdor, has dropped Reade as a client [1]. NYT writes, "His announced departure came a day after defense lawyers in California said they were reviewing criminal cases in which Ms. Reade served as an expert witness on domestic violence, concerned that she had misrepresented her educational credentials in court." Defense lawyers in California may seek to have guilty convictions overturned that Reade testified in if she falsified her credentials to the courts.
With these two new pieces of information, I feel this would be a good time to revisit the creation of a WP article titled "Tara Reade." Reade is no longer a ONEEVENT. Reade has made herself into a PUBLICFIGURE by seeking to have reliable sources interview her, investigate & report on her. BetsyRMadison (talk) 16:27, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
I'd hold off on that, too, until we know whether anything comes of the district attorney's office and the defense attorneys looking into Reade's credentials (I assume they can subpoena whatever credentials she submitted to Seattle University to get into their law school). There was strong opposition to the "Tara Reade" page and to the move request that was closed on May 6. I doubt that that has changed. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:08, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
If these accounts are true that she never received the undergraduate degree, and that she lied about it multiple times under oath or affirmation, then we need to included them in a neutral manner here. It seems they are true. Perhaps, the correct place is in background, or perhaps after the allegations, as some sort of "Aftermath" section. I am less certain about the veracity of some of the cheque fraud reporting, but if that is verifiable I think we need to mention that too. If true, these serious allegations suggest she has a history of dishonesty, and while we cannot suggest a pattern ourselves, it is relevant. I think we need to include these issues briefly, along with brief expansion she has provided (if any).--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 17:34, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
They've already been added to the article, somewhat hidden in the "Denial and response" section for some reason that escapes me. I only noticed because I check the history regularly; I moved the paragraph into the Background section for lack of a better option. Adding anything at all seems premature to me, but that's Wikipedia. It looks as though she didn't have a BA when she was admitted to law school; question is whether the law school didn't notice or waive the requirement. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 19:05, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
Latest comment: 4 years ago74 comments23 people in discussion
Based on weighting of arguments, choice 3 has it. The BLP considerations here outweigh stylistic concerns. There is the possibility for an insinuation that a crime committed by showing the two side by side, and while our BLP policy does not address imagery, the principles of it still apply. No one has provided a good rebuttal on BLP grounds, so choice 3 is the only option on weight of arguments presented. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:07, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion 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.
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 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. SPECIFICOtalk12:13, 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. SPECIFICOtalk13:28, 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. SPECIFICOtalk18:50, 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 SPECIFICOtalk. 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
SPECIFICOtalk - 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
Choice 2 used to work, but both pictures changedBiden'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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.[3]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)
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. SPECIFICOtalk12:40, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
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)
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. SPECIFICOtalk01:20, 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. SPECIFICOtalk15:38, 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. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 23:56, 3 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)
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)
Who is it about, who denied it, who asked the Senate to release what it could, who is the guy in this article's opening Wikilink, who are you kidding? InedibleHulk (talk) 07:15, 22 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)
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 II
Latest comment: 4 years ago10 comments6 people in discussion
The following discussion 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.
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. .."
@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.[1][2][3] An alleged victim of domestic violence,[4] Reade divorced in 1996.[5][6] Her then-husband has denied the domestic violence allegations in part.[7]
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."[8] Describing herself as an educator in social justice, Reade has led workshops on domestic violence prevention[9] and testified as an expert witness in domestic-violence court cases.[10][11]
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)
Addendum 2, despite attempts at censorship last night by some random busybody, spokesperson at Antioch specifically rebutted the claim of a special "secret degree" conferred. Thus, cases in which she testified as an expert witness are indeed being reevaluated. Zaathras (talk) 12:29, 22 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.
_3.jpg)
.png)
![[4]](https://dynaimage.cdn.cnn.com/cnn/c_fill,g_auto,w_1200,h_675,ar_16:9/https%3A%2F%2Fcdn.cnn.com%2Fcnnnext%2Fdam%2Fassets%2F190326201800-joe-biden-anita-hill-split-1991.jpg){kind=link}