Talk:Joe Biden sexual assault allegation/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Bernie Sanders quote

Can we re-add Bernie Sanders' comments to the article?MagicatthemovieS (talk) 00:15, 18 April 2020 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS

We have discussed this in a previous section and there is currently no consensus to do so, with slightly more editors opposed to it than supporting it. - MrX 🖋 00:21, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I tend to think Bernie Sanders' comments should be included as well, but some editors have taken a hard-stance against. Based on what they have said there, I do not see them changing their minds. That said we do not seem to be applying our inclusion criteria very uniformly (ie AOC, Gretchen Whitmer, Ruth Marcus).--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 00:39, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

We could post an RfC to formalize consensus and possibly get a few outside editors to weigh in. - MrX 🖋 00:56, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Darryl Kerrigan, I think that editors have clearly differentiated the considerations relating to the Sanders quote from those that argue for inclusion of, e.g. Marcus. SPECIFICO talk 01:00, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

MrX, that's not true. 5 with including while three not include.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 01:18, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

SharabSalam, are you sure? Please show me where I erred in my counting. - MrX 🖋 01:49, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

I am not really sure and I don't really want to count right now. I think I might have counted another discussion.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 02:52, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

This is getting crazy. We don't need to update the pages of everything Bernie Sanders has an opinion on. He is neither an expert on the subject of sexual assault nor an expert on Joe Biden. His being a high-profile figure means relatively little; lots of high-profile figures have lots of opinions, and they are mostly unencyclopedic. --WMSR (talk) 03:39, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

In addition to that, his comment was just about "I don't know" without there being any particular content. I agree. Sanders' statement shouldn't really be added. Just because it's gotten reported by different sources doesn't mean that it's actually helpful. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 18:33, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

brother is a public figure

brother collin, a comedian,[1] [2] [3] is a public figure

1. Current Affairs
2. WaPo (noting inconsistencies) - "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. Their mother urged Reade to contact the police, Moulton said, adding that he felt 'ashamed now for not being a better advocate' for his sister. 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.'"
3. NPR
   --Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 18:17, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Verifiability violated

Mr Ernie You just restored WP:SYNTH and violated the WP:VERIFIABILITY policy in the same edit. Please self-revert. - MrX 🖋 17:54, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Mr Ernie's version was correct. Yours was not.

When someone goes into a police station and says "I want to report a crime", the desk sergeant writes it up as a document called a "police report". That document is what NPR confirmed the existence of. They also confirmed that it names Biden, which means that the person who reported the crime named Biden. The only thing that would fit the description of "A record of the report" would be the publicly available incident report, which (as is usual on incident reports) did not name the person who reported the crime or the person they named as the one who committed the crime. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:07, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

No it wasn't. Shall we go to WP:NOR so that other editors can point that out to you? By the way, defending WP:OR with more WP:OR tends to undermine one's credibility. - MrX 🖋 18:25, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't necessarily agree re: SYNTH, but I updated the wording to better reflect the source. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:09, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

It was. The "confirmed" piece is still WP:OR as I pointed out on your talk page, but at least the core information is not mangled. - MrX 🖋 18:25, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

We really have no idea what is in the "report". There have been half a dozen Original Research theories floated on various talk pages. We will have verified facts soon enough. Meanwhile there is no rush to say anything about the document. Moreover, from Reade's statements about it being out of date and for her current safety, it's quite possible that the report was about her feeling harassed online and that the Biden allegation is incidental to the actionable subject of the report, online harassment. SPECIFICO talk 18:50, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Your theory that she reported online harassment is inconsistent with the the public incident report, which says "Subject-1 disclosed that she was the victim of a sexual assault which was committed by Subject-2 in 1993." It says "sexual assault" not "harassment". Also nobody was harassing her in 1993. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:30, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

It's not a theory so much as an indication of how much we don't know at this time and why we should not be putting our interpretations of conflicting and incomplete information into the article. But everything you say is consistent with the interpretation I presented. She is currently feeling harassed, adn she feels she was previously assaulted, the disclosure of which led to her currently feeling unsafe and filing the report about her current situation. I hope that statement was more clear. SPECIFICO talk 19:38, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

My problem is with the claim "We really have no idea what is in the 'report'." (Why the scare quotes? Every reliable source calls it a police report.) We do know some things that are in the report, because reliable sources (all of the sources that quoted the public incident report and NPR which reported what a police source told them). From these source We know that the report was made by Tara Reade. We know she reported a sexual assault. We know it was in 1993. We know she named Joe Biden. All we have to do is to use the wording NPR used in [4]: "NPR obtained confirmation of the police report from a law enforcement source. A record of the report names Biden. NPR has filed a Freedom of Information Act request for the full report." No more, no less. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:33, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, You stated that "We really have no idea what is in the 'report'". Are you saying that we don't know that in her April 9, 2020 police report she "disclosed that she was the victim of a sexual assault" in 1993? This is what the sources say that the public incident report says. What are you seeing different? Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:39, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Consulting/management work for non-profits?

1. Monterey County Weekly: Reade (McCabe) "legal services outreach coordinator" for local YMCA.
   --Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 17:19, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
2. "Reach Out to Horses": "About the author: Tara [Edited: Reade---hodgd..] McCabe has a law degree from Seattle University School of Law and has worked as a former Executive Director of animal rescues and as a legislative aide. She has one grown daughter, five cats, two dogs and soon, a horse named Charm. Tara founded Gracie’s Pet Food Pantry (named after her beloved dog Gracie) Gracie’s provides pet food to those low income, senior and homeless pet owners in need." --Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 17:41, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Reactions?

There's a section called "reactions" that contains no reactions. Instead, it's just picking people who have said something like "I think it's ok to discuss this". — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:36, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

The more significant reactions were deemed not notable or somehow WP:Undue. The substance of AOC's comments are more significant than we have included here and of course were among the things that caused some more mainstream outlets to actually start reporting it.

What you're voicing is so legitimate and real. That's why I find this kind of silencing of all dissent to be a form of gaslighting.

Not discussing allegations is the "exact opposite of integrity" the congresswoman said, adding that it is "not okay" to prioritize beating Trump over discussing sensitive #MeToo issues like these because they are "very legitimate thing[s].

She is calling out those who would rather not talk about these allegations pretty harshly comparing it to gaslighting and saying it lacks integrity. If we included the more meaty statements she made or those more neutral ones from Sanders there certainly would be reactions.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk)

I agree with what Darryl has to say.MagicatthemovieS (talk) 13:16, 20 April 2020 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS

Still, none of these are reactions to the allegation. They're reactions to reactions to the allegation. If anything, these should just be included in the media coverage section. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:03, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

According to google, the reaction is "something done, felt, or thought in response to a situation or event." I think this definition fits what is inside the section.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 19:01, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

...? Yes, they meet the definition of "reaction." Reactions to what is the question. To be in a "Reactions" section, they need to be reactions to the subject. That's not what they are. They're reactions to coverage of and/or reactions to the subject. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:10, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Should we put the reason for the media criticism of the NYT in the lead?

Right now it lists the Biden campaign-approved NYT quote, "The Times found no pattern of sexual misconduct by Mr. Biden," rather than the original quote with context: "The Times found no pattern of sexual misconduct by Mr. Biden beyond the hugs, kisses and touching that women previously said made them uncomfortable." In other words, the Times found no pattern of sexual misconduct allegations except for the multiple allegations of sexual misconduct. So we have the naked afterthought in the lead: "The handling of the reporting by the media has been criticized by various commentators," but it doesn't summarize the content of the article, specifically the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Biden_sexual_assault_allegation#Media_coverage section. I thought this is a pretty cut-and-dry addition, but JzG apparently disagreed ([5]). Is there a reason why we shouldn't explain why the NYT was skewered for cleaning up their coverage under the direction of the Biden campaign? Also, why are we singling out the New York Times at all, as if their "investigation" is some kind of definitive debunking of the experiences of the women? They're a for-profit company, not a law enforcement agency. — Sockpuppet comment of a community banned user

As we know, this allegation will never be adjudicated by a court. The investigation by the Times and its documentation of its sources and methods is the best currently available. If you're saying that we should concentrate on RS reporting of the allegations and not on matters of journalism (at least not until we have commentary by experts on journalism) then I agree. SPECIFICO talk 23:36, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

No, I'm quite certain we can find a source that doesn't take its marching orders from presidential campaigns. We had many reliable sources, many of which were more reliable than the NYT, that reported Tara Reade's story before the NYT. And none of them adjusted their coverage under the direction of the Biden campaign, that we know of. — Sockpuppet comment

It is extremely problematic to include either quote by the NYTimes in the lead. A huge part of this story is the media controversy, and this quote in particular has been criticized as slanted against Reade. We should keep it in the body, with commentary. The lead could include a summary of what was found and a summary of the media controversy. We should not keep the original quote, because The NYTimes edited it out of the story. This was discussed at Talk:Joe Biden#NYT on Reade, and in Slate's piece, "Joe Biden Sails Under the New York Times’ Bar for Sexual Abuse, The Times has made 'a pattern of behavior' its standard. What happens when an important figure doesn’t clear it?". We have sources who have investigated the allegations more profesionally than The Times; The Times misrepresents its own findings; they say that her allegations were uncorroborated, when in the same story they say that two interns remember she abruptly stopped supervising them at the same time she alleged she lost that responsibility in retaliation for complaining of sexual harassment. This misreporting should be discussed in the article, as it is by several sources. Current Affairs evaluated the early reporting,[6] as did Prof. Anthony Zenkus, an expert on sexual violence at the Columbia School of Social Work.[7] Later reporting was discussed on The Katie Halper Show, the same podcast where Reade gave her first public recorded interview.[8] Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:42, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

If you think we should deprecate NY Times, you need to convince the editors assembled at WP:RSN where there seems to be little support for your view. SPECIFICO talk 02:04, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

The WP:ONUS is on you to convince editors to include the specific NYTimes quote in the lead. Without consensus it will be removed. In the body we can include the NYTimes' reporting of the allegations, the more professional reporting of others, the criticism of the NYTimes and others, and the NYTimes' and others' reaction to criticism. It of course does not require a noticeboard discussion to include criticism of the NYTimes. Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:02, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

No we shouldn't. The NYT corrected their copy because it was phrased wrong. - MrX 🖋 12:38, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

That's not what NYT executive editor Dean Baquet said. He said "I think that the campaign thought that the phrasing was awkward and made it look like there were other instances in which he had been accused of sexual misconduct." Baquet didn't address the fact that Biden had, in fact, been accused of sexual misconduct previously, by multiple women. It's fine if people here still trust the NYT, but we should use sources for this article that don't take orders from presidential campaigns. We certainly shouldn't be treating it as some highly respected source and putting it in the first paragraphs, as if NYT staffers have the final say as to whether Tara Reade and the other alleged victims should be believed. We should take a holistic approach, and show a preference for independent, non-partisan sources. — Sockpuppet comment

Bacquet's comments align with what I wrote. Biden has been accused by the other women of touching and kissing, which is not the same thing as "sexual misconduct". - MrX 🖋 15:17, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

That’s kind of a dangerous comment. Unwanted touching and groping is considered sexual assault. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:19, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Legally, everything other than the Reade allegation may constitute sexual harassment and disorderly conduct, but unlikely sexual assault. Colloquially we might consider this to be a form of sexual violence. Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:47, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

This is exactly why I voted to keep this article with the page name to "Joe Biden sexual misconduct allegations". We get all the women's allegations under one page, and we avoid the semantics difficulties of distinguishing between non-consensual hugging, kissing, and hair-smelling and forced digital penetration accompanied by the comment "C'mon, man! I heard you liked me." — Sockpuppet comment

See also: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § NYT Tara Reade coverage. --MarioGom (talk) 15:10, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

• I think that in the lead we should describe the allegations (other than Reade's) as "benevolent sexism" in the form of physical "boundary violations" as described by psychologist and professor Peter Glick in HuffPost's story, "There’s A Name For Joe Biden’s Behavior Toward Women". Kolya Butternut (talk) 16:21, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

• So do you no longer believe that the other allegations related to "sexual assault"? If so, that would seem to indicate you now understand why the Biden camp thought the Times lanuage could be misleading and why the Times decided to edit itself. SPECIFICO talk 16:39, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

• What previous statement of mine are you referring too?  Kolya Butternut (talk) 16:49, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: SeriousIndividuals is CU-blocked. O3000 (talk) 10:49, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up, turns out it was a sockpuppet of a community banned user. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 13:48, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Active investigation: DC police probe sexual assault allegation against Joe Biden

Update from Washington Examiner. petrarchan47คุก 06:18, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

We would not cite article content to the Washington Examiner. I don't think it's useful to put this up as if it were a useful resource here. It would be pointless to discuss the Examiner's statements and speculations without RS. SPECIFICO talk 18:17, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

I wouldn't have suggested it if I had not seen that in fact you are citing article content from the Washington Examiner. I'm concerned that rules are not being followed uniformly and this is impeding creation of NPOV material.

"According to the Washington Examiner, tech news website Daily Dot, and some additional media outlets, in the aftermath of Reade's revelation, certain social media posters proffered conspiracy theories; for example, owing to Reade's having authored a 2019 blogpost story that had also been translated into Russian, some of them speculated that Reade's allegation were at the behest of Russian intelligence agencies." petrarchan47คุก 19:42, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

I presume you do not mean me, myself is using that reference? By all means wherever that is, it should be removed. Thanks for spotting it. I do think this sesction should be archived as well. SPECIFICO talk 20:03, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

No, I am referring to the editing pool, all of us (except that I haven't been editing the article so I'm not actually including myself). petrarchan47คุก 20:18, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Got it. Well somebody should get it out of the artilce - that publication is a joke, IMO. SPECIFICO talk 20:30, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

It doesn't seem too urgent to you so it must not be too objectionable. Anyway, we've got corroboration so the Examiner might not be required. petrarchan47คุก 23:07, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

From Rich McHugh (highly regarded investigative reporter covering the Reade story; was Ronan Farrow's producer during Weinstein reporting):

• Update: while it is typical for a criminal complaint filed out of statute--like the one Tara Reade filed against Joe Biden--to be closed/archived, DC Metro Police confirmed to me, 11 days later, "This is an active investigation..."

From Colin Kalmbacher, investigative reporter with Law and Crime:

• BREAKING: Washington, D.C. police have an "active investigation" into Tara Reade's sexual assault claim against presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden.*

• Update: Metropolitan Police Department Public Information Officer Sean Hickman responds: "This is an ongoing investigation and there are no further details to provide at this time." A copy of the original complaint was attached.*

• For those asking: I initially spoke with Metropolitan Police Department PIO Hugh Carew who confirmed that the investigation was "active." He asked me to submit my questions via email. Which I did. Here's the response:link to tweet

petrarchan47คุก 23:07, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Larry King in 1993

Coffeeandcrumbs, I assume you've read the article warning notice which states "If an edit you make is reverted you must discuss on the talk page and wait 24 hours before reinstating your edit." I ask because you added new content here, then reinstated it 90 minutes later here. Did you mean to do that? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 00:30, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

It was removed as "poorly sourced". I added more sources. I do not see the problem. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 00:52, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

First, it was removed as a tenuous BLP assertion and you have no basis to assume that adding one more source to this very indirect and unconfirmed detail would cure the problem. Second, the "Enforced BLP" page restriction does not have an exception for coming back with an additional source before 24 hours. And third, you did not engage on talk prior to reinserting the reverted edit.

I was not aware of this, but AzureCitizen is correct that it's a clear cut violation, so please undo the reinsertion, and we can all discuss here on talk if you feel strongly about this. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 01:08, 25 April 2020 (UTC) @Coffeeandcrumbs:

This is now sourced to Politico.[9] Kolya Butternut (talk) 06:32, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

It's still a BLP violation, and the reinsertion was still a page sanction violation. I don't know why @Coffeeandcrumbs: has not undone his edit. The content itself is not even connected to the Reade allegation exccept by speculation and innuendo. It should not be published on Wikipedia. Here's another source for perspective. SPECIFICO talk 13:48, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Because many people have edited the sentence since. It is no longer up to me. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 13:52, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, you can't just arbitrary label every single content change that you don't like a BLP violation. As stated above, multiple editors think that the section should stay. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 14:20, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Please don't make aspersions. Anyway, you+1 is hardly "multiple editors" and it's clearly a BLP violation and was clearly a DS violation, so I'll very likely be removing it again unless there is any well-sourced indication that Reade's mother in fact discussed Reade's assault allegation in 1993. So far we have just breathless chatter and speculation. Our WP standards with regard both to BLP and WEIGHT are stricter than those of the sources that are publishing this bit. SPECIFICO talk 14:30, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Do you have an actual argument other than that you don't like it, though? You can't simply assert that anything and everything is a BLP violation. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 14:35, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

I've stated my objection several times. I've never said "I don't like it." It's really not constructive for you to characterize a straightforward disagreement that way. Surely you know that aspersion is not going to lead to article improvement.

No fact is reported in the cited references to link the Larry King bit directly to Reade's current allegation that Biden touched her genitals. There is lots of dot-connecting, interpretation, speculation, etc. by websites that crank out daily content. Some of them also do serious reporting on other subjects. Some of them specialize in breathless speculation. But WP's standards are tougher than that. This is an extraordianry claim concerning Biden and both the narrative and its sourcing are weak and -- as I said in my edit summary -- tenuous. It should not be published on Wikipedia. That's all. SPECIFICO talk 14:58, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Tara Reade confirmed that it was her mother. We don't need proof, just as we don't need proof that Biden assaulted her to write this article. RS are reporting on this in connection to Tara Reade's allegation...it's pretty straightforward.

The Intercept, "NEW EVIDENCE SUPPORTING CREDIBILITY OF TARA READE’S ALLEGATION AGAINST JOE BIDEN EMERGES"

Kolya Butternut (talk) 15:04, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

I am requesting permission to change the first two sentences because currently the first two sentences factually wrong and do not reflect the facts of the actual call. Since it is of utmost importance for Wikipedia to stick to facts and only facts, including only facts of the call itself, I request permission to change the 1st two sentences to read,

“On April 24, 2020, a video surfaced of an August 11, 1993 phone call to Larry King Live from a woman that Tara Reade states is her mother. The caller said her daughter had worked for a prominent senator and asked for advice about how her daughter could report a problem without going to the press.”

That is exactly what the caller said, “I'm wondering what a staffer would do besides go to the press in Washington?”

Additional justification for my request:

Currently 1st two sentences are factually wrong and I put the inaccurate portions in bold right here:

"On April 24, 2020, a video surfaced of an August 11, 1993 phone call to Larry King Live in which a woman that Tara Reade states is her mother made a potential reference to the misconduct allegations. The caller asked for advice about what to do about her daughter's "problems" with her "prominent senator" employer."

Regarding the 1st sentence: the caller made zero (0) reference to Reade’s “misconduct allegations” which are: sexual assault, and reassigned duties. Therefore “made a potential reference to the misconduct allegations” should be removed because it is not true; it is factually wrong.

Regarding the 2nd sentence: the caller did not say that the problem was “with her” prominent senator employer. And to leave those words in the sentence is factually wrong.

The fact is, the caller made zero reference as to 1) whom her daughter’s problem was with: a coworker, an office rule, a person in another senator’s office; and 2) gave no indication what the nature of the problem was.

The only facts we garner from the caller is her daughter worked for a prominent male senator and, whoever her problem was with and whatever her problem was, the daughter “chose not to [go to press] out of respect for him.”

Transcript of call:

“Yes, hello. I'm wondering what a staffer would do besides go to the press in Washington? My daughter has just left there, 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.”

I feel it is important for wikipedia to stick to it's mission of only reporting facts; so I am asking permission to remove the inaccurate portions of the first two sentences.BetsyRMadison (talk) 19:22, 25 April 2020 (UTC)betsymadison

I made an edit which may address your concerns.[10] Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:59, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Update: CNN has finally covered the Tara Reade allegation. Fox News has a piece on CNN seemingly forced to break their silence after other media organizations managed to unearth CNN's own video footage. [11][12] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:D281:27D0:A901:8CD8:31DF:FD91 (talk) 20:19, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Wikieditor19920, please read the sources where Tara identifies her mother's call and restore the edit or discuss.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:22, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

@Kolya Butternut: Absolutely not. Reade's assertions that 1) the caller was her mother and 2) when the caller said problems, the caller was referring to Reade's sexual assault allegations are not independently corroborated and cannot be re-stated in Wiki voice. I have reverted you again, and do not restore your preferred wording again. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:41, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Wikieditor19920, regarding your reversion,[13] I am not assuming the allegations to be true. I am reporting that Reade states that the caller was her mother and that Reade claims the "problems" meant sexual assault. I'm not sure what you mean by wikivoice; we're explaining what Tara's "assertions" are. I only reverted once; multiple edits are getting jumbled up. Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:44, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

@Kolya Butternut: Sorry, my objection was to your earlier edit, not the reworded version. I've restored the last edit you made to the page. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:52, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

I feel it is important to reflect the accurately; therefore, if no one objects, I will add the portion of the call where the caller explains why her daughter did not want to go to the press with whoever her daughter had a problem with and whatever her problem was. The sentence would be the 3rd sentence and will read:

"The caller stated that her daughter "chose not to go [to the press] out of respect for him."

Also, I feel it is a good idea to add the transcript of the call so I am requesting permission to add it.

Transcript:

“Yes, hello. I'm wondering what a staffer would do besides go to the press in Washington? My daughter has just left there, 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.”“Yes, hello. I'm wondering what a staffer would do besides go to the press in Washington? My daughter has just left there, 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.”BetsyRMadison (talk) 21:07, 25 April 2020 (UTC)betsymadison

• This text: "On April 24, 2020, an unidentified source sent The Intercept a video", is misleading. The Intercept describes the source as a "listener", but the added text makes it sound like an anonymous source. Rich McHugh described the source as a PhD student. Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:43, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Adding to the intrigue, Google has yanked that specific episode from their Google Play catalog without explanation. They have the August 10th, 1993 episode, and now it just goes straight to the August 12th, 1993 episode. [14] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:D281:27D0:C0AA:EEA5:D688:6082 (talk) 11:25, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

We don't know whether it was available before, and other days appear to be missing too. We need better sources for this. Kolya Butternut (talk) 04:57, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Better sources than the New York Times

Considering the controversy over the New York Times' reporting, I think we should put more focus on other writers, especially Katie Halper and The Intercept, who originally broke the story.

• The Intercept, "TIME’S UP SAID IT COULD NOT FUND A #METOO ALLEGATION AGAINST JOE BIDEN, CITING ITS NONPROFIT STATUS AND HIS PRESIDENTIAL RUN" by Ryan Grim

• The Guardian, "Tara Reade says Joe Biden sexually assaulted her. She deserves to be heard", by Katie Halper
  • The Katie Halper Show[15]
  • Published transcript of March 25th first interview
• Current Affairs, "Evaluating Tara Reade’s Allegation Against Joe Biden" by Nathan Robinson

• "The Inconvenient Truth of Rape" by Prof. Anthony Zenkus, an expert on sexual violence at the Columbia School of Social Work

Kolya Butternut (talk) 06:55, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Even if I agreed with the content, these are opinion pieces and thus not RS and unusable. Mvbaron (talk) 11:47, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Being opinion pieces doesn't mean that they automatically cannot be cited necessarily. However, including these is tricky and they should be treated in the proper context. I don't think that it's fair to say that these are "better" than the NYT is; they're merely different since they're written for different purposes. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 13:20, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

I disagree. Wikipedia policy is to always seek the highest-quality sources, based on reputation. News reporting from less-established outlets is generally considered less reliable for statements of fact. Obviously we should avoid opinion columns like the coronavirus.- MrX 🖋 13:55, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

These are not poor quality sources with inferior reputations. And it's not a matter of "obviously" doing anything. Please don't misinterpret policy like this. Where are you seeing the columns being cited as absolute statements of fact? All I'm seeing is them being used to report on the debate over the media's mishandling of the allegation, with assertions being specifically put in the mouths of those making them, which is appropriate. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 14:24, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

I did not say they were poor quality sources. Everything I wrote was based firmly in policy. Hell, I even quoted directly from WP:RS. No interpretation necessary. - MrX 🖋 15:17, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

• The statements of fact are backed up by the primary sources, the recorded interviews with Tara Reade and and her friend Jane Doe.[16] And the sources above should be used in the Media coverage/criticism section.  While more established sources may be "generally more reliable", this case may be an exception. Kolya Butternut (talk) 14:45, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Are you starting a new discussion or making a list? I thought this was about the sources that should be used for the article. Anyway, I'm sure you know we will not be using soundcloud as a source.- MrX 🖋 15:17, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Both? Like I said, the interviews show the reliability of the quotes in The Guardian piece. Kolya Butternut (talk) 15:26, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

I disagree with Kolya Butternut. For example, in her Guardian piece, Katie Halper writes, “I’m an independent writer and podcaster. I don’t hide my politics, nor am I an “objective” investigative reporter.”

So, putting “more focus” on a person who states they are not objective would uncut the entire mission of wikipedia which is:

“to act as an encyclopedia...present a neutrally written summary of existing mainstream knowledge in a fair and accurate manner with a straightforward, "just-the-facts style". Articles should have an encyclopedic style with a formal tone instead of essay-like, argumentative, promotional or opinionated writing.”

Therefore, to focus on articles by people who acknowledge they are bias, would reduce WP into a gossip rag as opposed to WP’s stated mission of “just the facts.” signedBetsyRMadison (talk) 15:51, 25 April 2020 (UTC)betsymadison

I understand what you're saying, but everyone has bias; the NYTs has been accused of bias in their reporting; Katie Halper is just honest about it.  She does report facts, along with opinions; Tara Reade's interview with her has been published by Current Affairs, and the primary source is available to verify.  We can report what Tara Reade says. Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:05, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

We must stick to Wikipedia's stated mission of “just the facts" anything less reduces Wikipedia into a gossip rag. Any notion of "putting more focus" on people who are bias, including those who are honest about their bias, goes completely against WP's stated mission. As I said, We must stick to Wikipedia's stated mission -- we have no choice -- we have no authority to turn WP into a gossip rag, nor should we. Therefore, I feel if someone, Person A, wants to "put more focus" on people who report information from their own bias, then that someone, Person A, should do that in a blog (not in wikipedia).BetsyRMadison (talk) 19:38, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Your comment sounds to me like a strawman; it does not address my comment.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:44, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

I feel if you re-read all my comments on this page regarding your comments you will find they are: concise, consistent, and absolutely address your comments. Wikipedia (like the encyclopedia) is not a blog, is not a gossip rag, and should not be used as either. BetsyRMadison (talk) 20:01, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

I understand your opinion on Wikipedia, no need to lose concision with repetition.  You have not addressed what I was trying to communicate; you have repeated what you already communicated.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:15, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps I have misunderstood what you're trying to communicate to me? I understood you to be asking opinions on your notion to "put more focus on other writers, especially Katie Halper." Is there something else you are trying to communicate to me?BetsyRMadison (talk) 21:23, 25 April 2020 (UTC)betsymadison

Katie Halper does report facts. Nathan Robinson of Current Affairs reviewed her investigation and published her long interview with Tara Reade. Ryan Grim and Rich McHugh have also worked closely with Tara Reade and her confidants. Also, we do report opinions, and these four are among the most noteworthy for this story. Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:08, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Arguments about using primary sources and assertions that the NYT is an inferior source, or suppositions that sources are "biased" are not especially productive areas of discussion. Primary sources are to be avoided, per WP:PRIMARY. All sources contain WP:BIAS, but consensus on Wikipedia is that the New York Times is among the highest quality sources available and is preferred whenever there is a choice. Other less-established sources indeed require greater scrutiny, and in certain cases may not be appropriate for BLP sensitive information like this. Per RSP, information from the Intercept should be attributed for political figures. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:07, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

• Sources aren't ever to be judged sans context (WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. In this case, we know that the NYT changed their piece at the behest of the Biden campaign. That the NYT is normally considered RS is irrelevant if a particular piece is deemed to be non-independent. The NYT piece has been criticized by Slate, which is also RS, and this should be included on the page in the media criticism section. Current Affairs is considered RS, as is the Intercept and especially Ryan Grim, who broke the Kavanaugh story. Prof. Anthony Zenkus is RS for this, given that he is a recognized expert in the field of sexual assault.
• I agree with Koyla that there are less problematic sources than the NYT for this, in fact there is no shortage whatsoever. petrarchan47คุก 12:16, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

@Petrarchan47: Correct, certain sources are less reliable in some contexts. For the NYT, there is consensus that it is reliable in almost all fields except for certain medical reporting. You have provided no example where the NYT reporting was deemed "irrelevant," nor would this be appropriate in most any circumstance For American politics, it is one of the most reliable sources available. If you want to overturn this, I suggest something more than vague suggestions of bias (ironic when the proposal is that we instead should rely on an opinion piece) and inaccurate statements like the piece was "non-independent" or somehow improperly influenced. Here is a piece from the NYT in which they provide a thorough, detailed summary of their reporting process and the editorial basis for each of their decisions. This is more than any of the sources above have provided, and furthermore, the NYT has conducted the most substantial investigative reporting of the allegations to date, of any other source. The Intercept is reliable, Current Affairs is eh, but neither of these are preferable to the NYT, and both of these sources also are believed to contain bias. So please spare the "bias" arguments about the NYT. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:31, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Some Biden surrogates, media supporters and campaign staff including Symone Sanders have deleted their Brett Kavanaugh tweets regarding Me-too.

Some Biden surrogates, media supporters and campaign staff including Symone Sanders have deleted their Brett Kavanaugh tweets regarding Me-too. ,

This is factual information, why deleted/ censored?

Cox wasan (talk) 09:13, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

See the discussion above.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 09:17, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

References

To: Cox wasan -- An advanced twitter search indicates that Symone Sanders twitter account automatically deletes old tweets. For example, a cursory advanced twitter search of Symone Sanders' twitter account between January 1, 2018 through December 31, 2018 for commonly used words, "the, an, and" give zero (0) results. A second cursory advanced search on her account for the same date range of other words: "MLK, vote, midterms, up, me, too, to" also yield zero (0) results. Therefore, there is no point to add a sentence, or section, for "deleted tweets." BetsyRMadison (talk) 13:13, 26 April 2020 (UTC)betsymadison

This is an encyclopedia article. We use reliable sources and we don't include everything simply because it's factual. - MrX 🖋 13:27, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Couple sections above a New York Times article written by multiple reporters after weeks of interviews is regarded a poor source by some; and here we have someone who did a twitter search that failed to find something, suggesting this means something nefarious. This doesn’t match my understanding of WP:RS. O3000 (talk) 13:54, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Can we have a higher level of protection here?

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.

---

can we add a blue lock to this article? Pinging Muboshgu. We have a high level of participation with editors who have little familiarity with sourcing or BLP policy making dramatic changes and including info with superior sourcing. This had been addressed at the Joe Biden article, which was carefully scrutinized and had a level of protection, but this has essentially been circumvented with the creation of this new page. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 16:01, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

It reflects very badly to try to use protection policies as a bludgeon in editorial disputes, particularly when it's one editor acting out against pushback from multiple other editors. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 16:24, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Wikieditor19920, make protection requests at WP:RFPP. Preferably a less WP:INVOLVED admin can make the determination. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:24, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

@Muboshgu: OK. I will, thank you. @CoffeeWithMarkets:, This is a high-profile article and we have a lot of editors with little knowledge of BLP or DUE adding information that is requiring immediate removal for poor sourcing or inaccuracy. This is unacceptable and a protection would help resolve the issue. No one is trying to "keep information out," but not everything you believe should be included is not actually warranted. I'm not the only editor who's taken note of this, so I suggest you calm down and not be so quick to start hurling accusations. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 16:31, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

The "I'm calm! That's why I'm so emotional! You're not calm! You're the emotional one!" silliness is noted and won't be dignified with a response. Anyways, statements of fact are not accusations. Not everything that you (or anybody else) automatically don't like therefore shouldn't be included. This is a high-profile article and we have editors constantly scrubbing material without logical explanation, which is a problem but is best resolved through normal processes. It, as stated above, reflects badly to try to use technical policies in an editorial dispute as a 'gotcha'. It's not right to 'game the system' like that when the more appropriate thing is to go to through standard editorial processes. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 16:39, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

@CoffeeWithMarkets: I suggest you refactor your rants to specific content, or better yet, stop the rants entirely. WP:FOC. Content being challenged, removed, and discussed is part of the normal process of editing. WP:BRD. This is especially true for high-activity pages where information is still developing. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:41, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

I'll continue to take the silliness that's posted in terms of empty rhetoric and not respond so as not to dignify it. Anyways, as I've said before, I'd prefer that we go through the normal process of editing without attempts to subvert it. There's nothing that wrong with the pattern of content being hashed out on the page so far. Attempts to stop that aren't right. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 17:47, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

@CoffeeWithMarkets: Page protections, along with BRD, are a normal part of the editng process. Attacking other editors intead of focusing on content is not. I've submitted a formal request for semi-protection, to match the protections at Joe Biden. Given the heavily BLP sensitive content this page deals with and high level of interest by inexperienced IPs, an equivalent or greater level of protection with the main page is appropriate IMO. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:52, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Once again, I'm going to ignore the empty rhetoric for the aforementioned reason. Anyways, using page protection as a bludgeon in an editorial dispute is disruptive and doesn't help the article. Asking for page protection should be done from the perspective of trying to improve an article through preventing vandalism and otherwise keeping away unhelpful material. Doing so out of a 'I don't like it' impulse because editors are inserting material that's not agreed with doesn't fit the spirit of the policy. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 18:02, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your commentary. Your disagreement with applying page protection is noted. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:09, 26 April 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.

Anderson Cooper

I added details of Reade's criticism of Anderson Cooper who has failed to ask Biden about the incident. Clearly relevant since it is coming straight from her. "...if this were Donald Trump, would they treat it the same way? If this were Brett Kavanaugh, did they treat it the same way?" "In other words, it's politics and political agenda playing a role in objective reporting and asking the question".Patapsco913 (talk) 17:50, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

• Wulfsohn, Joseph A. (April 26, 2020). "Biden accuser Tara Reade 'lost total respect' for CNN's Anderson Cooper for not asking former VP about assault claim". Fox News.
• Colton, Emma (April 26, 2020). "'Lost total respect': Biden sexual assault accuser blasts Anderson Cooper for not asking about allegations". Washington Examiner.

"Failed" is POV. You provide two anti-Biden sources, one that should never be used in anything related to politics, if at all. Can you find a better source? And, I'm not sure I understand the relevance anyhow. This isn't about Anderson Cooper. O3000 (talk) 17:54, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Wait... Reade's criticism of Cooper has what relevance here? This page isn't about Cooper at all. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 17:59, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

This page is about Reade, the allegation, and the media coverage (if it were only about Reade, it would be entitled with her name). I do not see this as Wikipedia:UNDUE since it is coming straight from her mouth. If it were a news article written by someone other than Reade criticizing Cooper it would be UNDUE. For whatever reason, she has spoken about Cooper and that is now part of the story. She is stating that she is not getting treated fairly by the press and using Anderson Cooper, one of the top journalists in the country, as an example of that. She is the alleged victim and her statements matter.Patapsco913 (talk) 18:06, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Complaints about Anderson Cooper have no relevance here. I do not support adding this section.BetsyRMadison (talk) 18:21, 26 April 2020 (UTC)betsymadison

Her statements matter, but not everything that she's said is necessarily notable enough and important enough to include. Criticism of the media's coverage of the allegation is already a part of the article. What more does bringing up Cooper accomplish? CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 18:28, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Reade is stating that she is not being given a fair hearing by the press and she is the alleged victim. Her opinion matters more than that of any journalist. If Biden were to state that he is being pursued for political reasons, that would be relevant as well. Patapsco913 (talk) 18:31, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

The fact that she may not be getting a fair hearing in the press is already discussed in the article. Bring up Cooper doesn't appear to add anything really. It's just reiterating the already covered point. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 18:37, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Nothing in the article states that "she" believes that she is not getting a fair hearing; and she is one of the two main actors in the article. 19:48, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

I deleted the content. It was a POV addition meant to make it seam that the "lamestream media" is ignoring the story, without any context beyond that. Patapsco's framing of how AC "failed" to go down that road exemplifies this. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:34, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

So where does it state in the article that she believes that she is not getting fair treatment by the press? and why is that not relevant? The wording is easy to change but her statement should be included. This is not about Anderson Cooper, it is about her belief that her story is not being given the relevance by the media that it deserves. She further states "There are two things happening at once. [Biden] is not making himself accessible to be asked the question. And when he does make himself accessible, they are not asking, those anchors. And so that tells there may be a political agenda behind that and that's gross. ... I'm a survivor and I would like the question asked." Her words and feelings are a 100x more important than some journalists opinion (as are Biden's) Patapsco913 (talk) 18:37, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, this should be left. This article is about a sexual assault allegation, not Media bias against Bernie Sanders Tara Reade. - MrX 🖋 01:10, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Changes in "Larry King Live" section

I feel the first sentence in this section should be deleted and I'll explain why. This section is about a 1993 phone call to Larry King Live. Currently, I feel the first sentence, as written, has incorrect information and has no relevance to the actual phone call.
Here is a copy of the first sentence where I put in bold the parts that are not fact
"Reade's brother and a friend confirmed that Reade had told her mother about the allegations and that Reade's mother had recommended that she go to the police (which Reade did not want to do).[24] According to Reade, after leaving Biden's office, her mother called Larry King Live and directly referenced her allegation."

First: The caller does not "directly reference her allegations" which are: sexual assault. And, as a matter of fact, at the time, in 1993, Larry King did not assume the caller was "directly referencing sexual assault." Not only that, Larry King did not even assume "who" the daughter's "problem" was with.

KING: “These are the people who do come to the Lois Romanos right. The staff worker who says, ‘I want to let you know what’s going on; either with my boss or the guy down the hall.'”

Therefore, it is false for wikipedia to write "Reade's mother called Larry King Live and directly referenced her allegation." Therefore that should be deleted.

Second: The caller says "problems" (not sexual assault and not sexual harassment). Again, at the time Larry King does not seem to get the impression that "problems" means sexual assault.
Third: The caller does not define "problems," gave no indication what the "problems" were.
Fourth: The caller does not mention "police" or "police report." Therefore, including an alleged "police report" as it pertains to this caller is not relevant and is erroneous.
Fifth: The caller says "press" (not police).
Sixth: The brother and the friend have not "confirmed" that Reade told her mother anything. They allege she did.
Seventh: The brother and the friend have not "confirmed" that Reade's mother "recommended she go to the police." In 2020 they allege she did.
Again, this section is about a phone call to Larry King Live. Therefore, I feel that the part about Reade's brother and friend should be deleted.
Sticking with facts, this should read:

“On April 24, 2020, an unidentified source sent The Intercept a video of a video of an August 11, 1993 phone call to Larry King Live from a woman that Tara Reade says is her mother. The caller said her daughter had worked for a "prominent senator" and asked for advice about how her daughter could "get through with her problems" without going to the press.

The caller said,

"Yes, hello. I'm wondering what a staffer would do besides go to the press in Washington? My daughter has just left there, 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.”

The caller is identified as living in San Luis Obispo, California. Property records show that Reade's mother was living in in San Luis Obispo at the time."

So, unless someone has a better wording than what I suggest, and if you all agree, I will delete the current first two sentence and add my suggestion.BetsyRMadison (talk) 16:43, 27 April 2020 (UTC)betsymadison

Witnesses

A former neighbor and former colleague of Tara Reade, said that Tara told her about the alleged assault in the mid-1990s. Reade’s brother Collin Moulton and another friend also said they were told of the assault soon after it happened. ,

Lynda LaCasse, A self-described Biden supporter, said in 1995 or 1996, that Reade said specifically that Biden had assaulted her.

There are more and more witnesses coming out, I think it deservers a separate sub-section. And, yes, they are called witnesses, from a legal perspective.

See article title - "Biden Accuser Tara Reade’s Claims of Sexual Assault Bolstered By Two New Witnesses"

Cox wasan (talk) 22:59, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

References

Cox wasan, this content you have repeatedly tried to make its own section is already contained in Joe Biden sexual assault allegation#Reade's account. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:04, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

To Cox wasan -- I agree with you that saying what a neighbor recalls and what a co-worker recalls is important. But, I feel we don't know enough of what facts they know to put their comments in a wikipedia page. Here's what I mean:

Coworker Lorraine Sanchez says Ms. Reade never mentioned Biden by name. From your links Sanchez says

“[Reade said] she had been sexually harassed by her former boss while she was in DC,” Sanchez said, “and as a result of her voicing her concerns to her supervisors, she was let go, fired....Sanchez said she does not recall if Reade offered details about the sort of harassment she allegedly suffered, or if she named Biden."

Reade's neighbor does not mention Biden by name either

“I remember her saying, here was this person that she was working for and she idolized him,” LaCasse said. “And he kind of put her up against a wall. And he put his hand up her skirt and he put his fingers inside her. She felt like she was assaulted, and she really didn’t feel there was anything she could do.”

Could both women be talking about Biden? Yes. But do they say Biden or do they say "her boss" and "this person she was working for?" As an intern, Ms. Reade had many bosses. I'm not accusing any of them of being dishonest, but in wikipedia facts are important and the fact is, neither of them say Biden by name. So at this moment I do not feel their comments should be placed in wikipedia.BetsyRMadison (talk) 23:53, 27 April 2020 (UTC)betsymadison

Color cast fix

Could somebody with Photoshop attempt remove the yellow tint from Reade's portrait? I don't have that program. Thank you. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 13:12, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Did it myself. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 17:35, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

She looks a bit grey, to my eye, and not in a healthy way. Also, her eyes have sunken, framewise. They already were a bit low, relative to his, but hey, I'm no art critic, could be fine work! InedibleHulk (talk) 19:11, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Move "Denial" Section?

Does anyone have any objection to moving the “Denial” Section to be directly below the “Allegation” section?BetsyRMadison (talk) 16:23, 29 April 2020 (UTC)betsymadison

Makes sense to me. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 16:47, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Researches

"Alexandra Tara Reade"?

is the name Reade uses for herself.

1. Author byline: "A girl walks into the Senate," by Alexandra Tara Reade, April, 17 2019 issue, the Grass Valley CA Union --Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 22:01, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
2. Twitter--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 22:05, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
3. Salon "Alexandra Tara Reade accused Biden of sexual assault. Salon untangles fact from fiction .."--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 21:49, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
4. Medium "Alexandra Tara Reade’s accusations of sexual assault against Joe Biden appear very questionable .." --Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 21:55, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
5. Independent "Alexandra Tara Reade, a former Biden staffer, accused the presidential hopeful .." --Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 21:53, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
6. Paris Match
7. Vox--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 22:07, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

• We should be using her proper name. This is effectively her BLP. petrarchan47คุก 22:06, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Tara Reade seems to be more commonly used in the media, and her Senate ID badge says "Tara Reade". I think we should just include a brief explanatory note (or footnote) that her full name is Alexandra Tara Reade. - MrX 🖋 13:14, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, a footnote seems to be a prudent way to address this. I have also created a redirect for her full name, Alexandra Tara Reade.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 17:08, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Mas.

1. Univision
2. L'essentiel Deutch
3. RealClearPolitics - "
4. WaPo - "From the Sierra Sun's Alan Riquelmy: 'Alexandra Tara Reade said that in 1993 ..'"
5. Nevada[/Placer/Alpine] County[es] CA newspapers Sierra Sun & the Union - "Alexandra Tara Reade said .."
6. USA Today - "Alexandra Tara Reade, 56, a California-based writer, first came forward .."
7. Dec 17, 2018 author byline: "'Bring on the Light' By Alexandra Tara Reade" (snapshot hosted at Medium.com)--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 17:39, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
8. Medium.com: .. born as Tara Reade Moulton, before changing her name in her early 20s to Tara Reade, then changing it back to Tara Moulton again, and then changing it once again later in life (through marriage) to Alexandra Tara McCabe. It appears as though sometime between 2017 and early 2018 she began calling herself Alexandra Tara Reade. ..--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 17:42, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
9. Heavy.com - ".. Her full name is Alexandra Tara Reade .."--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 08:34, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Alexandra Tara Reade is her current ["pen-"?]name--such as on Twitter. Alexandra Tara McCabe is formerly her married name (which, she may still be legally married, may well remain her so-called legal name, btw).--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 23:39, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Skye Williams (of "Democrats for Joe Biden"): "Born as Tara Reade Moulton, she changed her name to Tara Reade and later went by her married name Alexandra Tara McCabe and now goes by Alexandra Tara Reade."--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 17:51, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

•  Done - I've set off an also-known-as phrase with the name she most often goes by, here: diff.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 00:42, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

besides ATR

Aren't there others? Krassensteins mentions four changes between five names:

1. Tara Reade Moulton
2. Tara Reade
3. Tara Moulton
4. Alexandra Tara McCabe
5. Alexandra Tara Reade

TR seems like the most consistent aspect of these. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.145.16.133 (talk) 20:58, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

AlexandraReade.com website

The website we have listed in the info box is AlexandraReade.com. It does not seem to work. I am removing it now. If anyone has the correct website, or if I am missing something, please correct this. Thanks--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 18:56, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Now that we have removed the infobox per above, this appears redundant.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:01, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Here it is on the way back machine.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 18:01, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

& here it's captured (this is her C.V.) & hosted @ Medium.com. Thanks, User:Darryl Kerrigan. Brian & Eddie Krassenstein link: .. According to a website that she recently deleted, Reade is the founder of Gracie’s Pet Food Pantry, graduated from Seattle University School of Law, and was the co-host, creator and producer of a soul music radio show called "Soul Vibes" on KNRY — an AM radio station that serves the Santa Cruz and Monterey areas in California. At one point in her life Reade worked on the domestic violence unit for the King County Prosecutor, in Seattle, WA, as a ‘Victim’s Advocate,” and on at least one occasion testified as an expert witness on domestic violence. ..--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 17:41, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, that seems to explain it. Not sure it matters anymore though, now that we have removed the infobox that included the website.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk)

College instructor, radio host, stage- /voice actor

Pretty much a "renaissance" type

Experience section on eg her (Tara McCabe's) online voice acting webpage[17]:

I have been the co-host for a weekly radio show called Soul vibes on KNRY for two years.
I have done 5 radio plays and many commercials.

I have done several public service announcements and had my voice used in educational videos.
I have a law degree from Seattle University School of Law.
I have taught workshops on domestic violence prevention and teach Social justice.

I have been classically trained in theatre and commercial acting in LA with Kate Geer and Robert Reed.
I attended the Celtics Arts Playhouse workshops also for 5 years.

I have a computer with professional microphone and recording software.
I can edit and engineer for final submissions of projects.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 01:14, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

FundRazr: Frankie Knight Fund by Tara McCabe - On July 18th [2012], our beloved radio show host Frankie Knight of Soul Vibes had a stroke that caused a blood clot to form in his brain. He was airlifted by helicopter, given lifesaving drugs and three days in ICU. Frankie has his great radio voice back and use of his left side. Tara was recently laid off from teaching college due to state budget cuts. She was supposed to sit for California Bar Exam to obtain her attorney license but had to withdraw to take care of Frankie. ..--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 16:53, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

"Powerful Men and the Women They Choose to Destroy," Medium.com: "When I was 18 years old, I had already starred in Equity productions of classical theatre. I had started acting in plays as a child and did school theatre, community and regional theatre, sprinkled with some radio and television commercials." .. "My time in Hollywood was one of the best times of my life. I was a theatre geek in love with the process of creating a production. I modeled and acted in Hollywood, got bit parts, great theatre parts, high paying model gigs, an agent, and even came close, so close, but no starring roles."[18]--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 08:48, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Hodgdon's secret garden - I will be archiving this thread because the infobox is already gone. starship.paint (talk) 08:05, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Allegations

I feel it is very misleading and untruthful for this wikipage to falsely attribute "sexually harassed" to the 2019 article and here's why. In April 2019 Tara Reade told journalist Alan Riquelmy at the Union newspaper that Joe Biden treated her as an inanimate object and she did not feel sexualized. So

Alan Riquelmy of the Union newspaper wrote, "Reade said she didn’t consider the acts toward her sexualization. She instead compared her experience to being a lamp.

“It’s pretty. Set it over there,” she said. “Then when it’s too bright, you throw it away.”" I feel honestly and clarity is important for people looking to wikipedia for answers. Therefore, I feel it is important to include the truthful quotes from the April 2019 interview.

It was not until March 2020 that Tara changed her story from her being a "lamp" to being "sexually harassed."

Mixing Tara's 2019 story with her 2020 story is not helpful for anyone who is trying to learn what was said and when it was said.

Signed BetsyRMadison (talk) 18:33, 23 April 2020 (UTC)BetsyMadison

@BetsyRMadison: There seems to be disagreement between the contemporaneous source (The Union) and the more current reporting, however we would not automatically favor the earlier reporting. Do you have any suggestions about how we could reword the material to address the apparent discrepancy? - MrX 🖋 19:23, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

She explained that she felt uncomfortable with the Union journalist and felt pressured to downplay the sexual aspect. I feel like Katie Halper may have been the source who discussed this.[19] Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:47, 24 April 2020 (UTC)Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:50, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

@MrX: Yes, I do have a suggestion of how wikipedia can reword the material and it’s very simple: be factual, accurate and concise by not mixing Tara’s 2019 interview with her 2020 interview. Since the first sentence in "Allegation" section describes only The Union interview; then everything in that sentence should only pertain to the facts the Union reported in 2019. And those facts are: in the 2019 Union interview Tara never, never said “sexually harassed” so, in order to stick with facts, “sexually harassed” should not be included in that sentence.

To be factual, the sentence should read, “During an interview with a reporter in April 2019, Reade alleged that Biden touched her inappropriately while she worked in his U.S. Senate office.”

Those are the facts of what she said “during” that interview so that is how that sentence should appear.

Currently that first sentence is not factual. So again, in sticking with facts, in a separate sentence or paragraph, Tara’s reasons for not accusing Biden of “sexual harassment” in 2019 can be explained. The whole idea behind wikipedia is for people to get factual, accurate & concise information. Mixing her 2019 and 2020 interviews together is not factual, not accurate, and not concise.

Signed: 74.132.12.185 (talk) 18:32, 24 April 2020 (UTC)BetsyMadison

New Evidence Supporting Credibility of Tara Reade’s Allegation Against Joe Biden Emerges

I am leaving new pieces here rather than to try and add anything to the article since that has not gone over well.

Ryan Grim for the Intercept: New Evidence Supporting Credibility of Tara Reade’s Allegation Against Joe Biden Emerges petrarchan47คุก 19:39, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

This does not corroborate the specific claim of assault that is the subject of this article. Assault and harassment are both unquestionably wrong, but we would do readers a disservice by conflating the two. --WMSR (talk) 19:44, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Splitting hairs? This article is about the Tara Reade claim and overall story in my understanding. We've got "nor did any former Biden staff members corroborate any details of Ms. Reade’s allegation" in the Lede. Clearly we are addressing "any details" in this article. Also, we have a large section titled "Allegations" which covers much more than the rape allegation, which is why it is plural. I'm not sure where you got the idea that we can't cover this Intercept piece without conflating rape and hair sniffing. petrarchan47คุก 20:16, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

• Video has now emerged from Larry King, 1993 featuring Tara Reade's mother complaining about her daughter's plight. petrarchan47คุก 23:01, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
• Tara Reade confirms it is her mother's voice. petrarchan47คุก 23:15, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
• New York Magazine has now covered this. Does anyone object to this being added? petrarchan47คุก 23:39, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
• Slate Video Appears to Show Tara Reade’s Mother Knew of Allegations Against Biden in 1993

False claim in article

This claim is false: No former Biden staff members corroborated any details of Reade's allegation.

In Tara’s account, after filing a complaint with Biden staff, she was reassigned. From the NYT piece, "Two former interns...recalled that she abruptly stopped supervising them in April, before the end of their internship". This corroborates a detail, even though it does not prove causation. It cannot be claimed that "No former Biden staff members corroborated any details of Reade's allegation". I believe this tidbit was not included in our article. I would suggest removing the false claim and adding the mention of two former interns for more factual and balanced encyclopedic coverage. petrarchan47คุก 20:11, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

• This is an WP:SPA. petrarchan47คุก 22:54, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree wikipedia should be factual and accurate and in the NYT piece (your talking about) Tara said she never filed a complaint with Biden's staff about sexual assault. In fact, Tara said she never mentioned sexual assault with anyone in Biden's staff. The NYT writes, "Instead, Ms. Reade said, she complained to Marianne Baker, Mr. Biden’s executive assistant, as well as to two top aides, Dennis Toner and Ted Kaufman, about harassment by Mr. Biden — not mentioning the alleged assault.The staff declined to take action, Ms. Reade said, after which she filed a written complaint with a Senate personnel office. She said office staff took away most of her duties, including supervising the interns; assigned her a windowless office; and made the work environment uncomfortable for her."

Washington Post added an important bit. Tara told WaPo her the "Complaint" she filed with the Senate personnel office was not about Biden at all and was only about her feeling bullied by coworkers. Tara said she felt "bullied" by coworkers and she felt Joe Biden should have done more to protect her from coworkers and she was angry that Biden didn't help her with coworkers.

WaPo writes, "In The Post interview last year, she [Tara] 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.'”

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 WaPo 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."

I would also like to note here that in several interviews Reade said that her supervisor wanted her to serve drinks at some function and when Reade refused to serve, she was reassigned. In the NYT piece none of the people who remembered her moving to a different office knew why. My point is: for whatever reason, Tara's allegations have evolved with her primary allegation being touching her neck to sexual assault. Therefore, I feel it is correct to leave the NYT quote as is: "No former Biden staff members corroborated any details of Reade's allegation." Important to remember Reade says she never told any of Biden staff members about her allegations. For the record, I'm new here so I apologize if my suggestions are too lengthy. Signed BetsyRMadison (talk) 22:12, 24 April 2020 (UTC)betsymadison

For BetsyRMadison: You are correct, in the 2019 interview she did not say she was sexually harassed while working in the office. You can fix this by clicking the "edit" link that appears in the article next to the section title "Allegations", and then removing the words "and sexually harassed her" that appear in the phrase "touched her inappropriately..." in the first sentence of the first paragraph. Meanwhile, if other editors find some other source that does says Reade alleged that Biden sexually harassed her while she was working in the office, they can add those words back in with the appropriate sourcing.

For Petrarchan47: I think you could certainly add the statement "Two former interns...recalled that she abruptly stopped supervising them in April, before the end of their internship" to the article text in order to make sure readers are aware of that fact. However, the fact that two interns recall she abruptly stopped supervising them does not corroborate Reade's allegation that she was sexually assaulted. When the media reporting speaks of "the allegation", they are referring specifically to the allegation of sexual assault. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 23:32, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Let's be very clear, NYT was not limiting their comments to assault. They say there was no corroboration for "any details of Reade's allegation". Reade's allegation, which is covered by the Times, includes what happened after the event as well. One of the things she mentions is being stripped of her duties. Two interns (Biden staff) did corroborate this part of her allegation. I haven't seen any article limit their coverage of her allegations to just the act involving fingers. Have you?  petrarchan47คุก 23:43, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

My understanding of the Time's article when it states "No former Biden staff members corroborated any details of Reade's allegation" is that it is stating that no staff member corroborated any details of the allegation of sexual assault. Given that the Times included all of this in their reporting, including the fact about the two former staff members remembering her leaving the position abruptly, I think the logical inference is that the Times was talking specifically about the allegation of sexual assault, and not other allegations or assertions of fact such as the speed with which Reade left her job. Your understanding of the same words (I assume) includes anything that anything Reade said or recalled, such as stating she left her staff position abruptly, ergo two staff members recalling her leaving her job abruptly is a form of corroboration. I acknowledge your view, we just see it differently. Perhaps others can comment here and provide additional perspective. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 00:05, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

I see it similar to AzureCitizen's way of looking at it.  Gandydancer (talk) 04:01, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree with petrarchan47. Katie Halper points out that "Two interns the Times interviewed corroborated Reade’s allegation that she was removed of her duties supervising them (in retaliation, she claimed, for reporting earlier sexual harassment)."[20]. Other sources have also pointed out the NYTs' contradiction.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 06:04, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

The NYTimes article has turned out to be an unreliable source in several respects. We should reduce our over-reliance on the article and use other sources. NYTimes is usually the most reliable source in most cases, but in this case, it has been shown to be a very biased source. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 09:04, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

"Biased" isn't the same thing as "unreliable". Biden has been one of the most controversial political figures in U.S. history over the past multiple decades. It's rather understandable for pieces on him to come from particular viewpoints, positive or negative, and they just have to be evaluated in that context. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 13:23, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

We also should not use biased analysis as the most often used source or report their conclusions as fact. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 13:55, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Are the NYT's views being reported as fact? I don't see that. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 14:25, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps not. But NYTimes is named in this article an inordinate amount of times. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 14:41, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree with AzureCitizen. In multiple interviews Tara Reade says that some of her office duties were cut after she refused to do an assignment that her supervisor gave her. Ms. Reade said her supervisor told her to serve drinks at an event and Reade said she refused to do what her supervisor told her to do. Additionally, in multiple interviews Reade says she never, never told anyone in Biden’s office about any alleged “sexual assault.” And, in multiple interviews Reade says she never filed a “sexual assault” allegation against Biden with Biden’s office or with anyone at all during her time in DC. For example, in 2020 Washington Post article, Reade says she filed a complaint with the Senate Personnel office regarding her feeling “bullied” by her coworkers. In that interview Reade stressed that her filed complaint was not about Biden but instead was about feeling bullied.

Given what Reade has said in multiple interviews, that she never told anyone in Biden’s office (nor Senate Personnel) about “sexual assault” allegations; and she says she was reassigned after she refused to do a task her supervisor gave her; it is false and inaccurate to infer or even imply that Reade was reassigned in ‘retaliation of sexual assault allegations' of which Reade says no one in Biden's office knew about.

Perhaps, if some wants to include the memory of the two interns, a sentence could read: “while no one in Biden’s office corroborated Reade’s sexual assault allegations, two interns recall Reade being reassigned duties after Reade says she refused to do an assignment from her supervisor.”

I feel it is the duty of wikipedia (and all encyclopedias) to be factual, accurate, precise, and to avoid innuendo, inference, and bias. And since, in multiple interviews, Reade says she never told anyone in Biden’s office about any alleged “sexual assault” and says she never filed a “sexual assault” complaint against Biden to Biden’s office nor to Senate Personnel during her time in DC it would be nonfactual, inaccurate, and imprecise to imply that Biden’s office ‘retaliated against’ Reade for sexual assault allegations given that no one in Biden’s office had heard of any such allegation. signedBetsyRMadison (talk) 15:21, 25 April 2020 (UTC)Betsymadison

I agree with BetsyRMadison. Further, just on the first point: If an employee says she will not serve drinks at events and the employer subsequently relieves her of that and other tasks the employee decilined because she finds them menial or unprofessional or "women's work" or any other disagreeable thing, how is that a bad thing? What does that have to do with a sexual assault allegation? It's certainly not retaliation when an employer reassigns duties the employee refuses. That's not a sign of employer punishment. It's the opposite, it's respect. SPECIFICO talk 18:08, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Such speculations and opinions aren’t very helpful. I believe you’ve even called it original research before. Just stick to the sources and details about this topic. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:14, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Mr Ernie, when your employee tells you he doesn't want to work on something any more and you say, OK you don't have to work on that thing any more...Is that a noteworthy inicidence relating to an abusive or hostile work environment? SPECIFICO talk 18:21, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Why are hypotheticals about me relevant here? I don’t understand what you’re getting at. Mr Ernie (talk) 21:03, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks you all this is helpful. I'll add the note, as a few have suggested, about the two interns and will put it in Katie Halper's voice, citing the Guardian to avoid the appearance of WP:OR. petrarchan47คุก 13:47, 26 April 2020 (UTC)