Talk:Joe Biden sexual assault allegation/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Corroborating statements section

Blanking Corroborating statements

Corroborating statements The following is a list of people who have stated that Reade had talked to them about details of the alleged incident prior to March 2020.

• Collin Moulton, Reade's brother, initially told The Washington Post that she told him in 1993 that Biden had touched her neck and shoulders. He said there was "a gym bag incident", and that Biden "was inappropriate". Several days after that interview, Moulton told the Post that Reade in the early 1990s told him Biden put his hand "under her clothes." Moulton was also interviewed by ABC News, which he told Reade told him about "harassment at work" by Biden, but only heard about the assault in 2020. Hours after the interview, he added he had heard from Reade in 1993 that Biden had "more or less cornered her against the wall" and "put his hands up her clothes".
• Lynda LaCasse, Reade's former neighbor, told Business Insider that Reader told her in 1995 or 1996 about the alleged assault.
• Lorraine Sanchez, Reade's former co-worker, told Business Insider that Reader told her in the mid-1990s that she was fired after being harassed by her former boss in Washington, D.C.
• Anonymous friends (those reported in different publications may be referring to the same people)
  • One friend initially did describe any assault allegation when interviewed by Associated Press in 2019. After Reade made the assault allegation, this friend stated in 2020 that Reade told them about the alleged assault at the time of the incident. This friend also stated that they previously told Reade not to allege an assault due to negative remarks directed at Reade after she alleged about harassment by Biden.
  • Another friend told Associated Press that Reade in 2007 or 2008 alleged suffering sexual harassment from Biden, with no mention of assault.
  • One friend told The New York Times that Reade told her in 1993 about the alleged assault.
  • Another friend told The New York Times that Reade told her in 2008 that Biden had touched her inappropriately.

In addition, Reade has claimed that she told her mother, Jeanette Altimus, about the incident. Altimus had died by the time Reade went public with the allegation. The Intercept found a 1993 video clip from CNN's Larry King Live, where a female caller stated that her daughter had left Washington D.C "after working for a prominent senator, and could not get through with her problems at all, and the only thing she could have done was go to the press, and she chose not to do it out of respect for him." Reade claims that the caller is her mother.

Why was this blanked? Cox wasan (talk) 16:11, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

References

Cox wasan, please be sure to include a {{reflist talk}} when adding cites to a talk page. - MrX 🖋 17:05, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

I suggest participating in the conversation above. It was blanked by an editor who has been ignoring the talk page. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 16:19, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

It was not blanked. Stop repeating that. SPECIFICO talk 16:25, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

The removal of an entire subsection is the blanking of a subsection. Don't kid yourself. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 16:27, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Here's a diff for one of the blankings. The blanking was by Volunteer Marek. XavierItzm (talk) 16:29, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

The presentation here violates NPOV; this material can and should be presented, but developments must be integrated with the rest of the article. On a sensitive BLP topic such as this one, the burden of proof falls on those who wish to restore the material. RedHotPear (talk) 16:39, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Cox wasan. The section was subsequently blanked by RedHotPear as well. There is now an RfC opened below; you may wish to contribute there. Cheers, XavierItzm (talk) 17:52, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

It was removed because it violates BLP and NPOV. Claiming that "It was blanked by an editor who has been ignoring the talk page" is at the very least an assumption of bad faith, and probably crosses the line into a personal attack, especially since it's a false assertion. Volunteer Marek 17:01, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

This material has been challenged several times and previous discussions have not resulted in consensus. If you want it in the article, please start an RfC. - MrX 🖋 17:09, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

RfC started below: RfC: Should a separate section be included that lists people who have been told by Reade of her allegation, under a heading 'Corroborating statements', 'Witness statements', or similar? - MrX 🖋 17:31, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Here we go again. It’s a manipulation of process for 2 or 3 editors to continually remove sourced information and insist upon RFC consensus. This RFC will inevitably end with clear consensus and constitute a large waste of everyone’s time, and I could probably already name the first 5 editors who will say no per BLP. There’s a point where that turns into cryblp, and I think we’ve passed it by now. Mr Ernie (talk) 17:37, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Mr Ernie, you really need to stop casting aspersions. RfCs are a time-tested part of our dispute resolution process on Wikipedia. - MrX 🖋 17:58, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

"Reactions"

Possible fodder for a "Reactions" section:

• VICE Sexual Assault Survivors Aren’t Ready to ‘Vote Blue No Matter Who’
• Atlantic Bernie Sanders’s Most Vocal Supporter Lets Loose

Briahna Joy Gray: "And there’s all kinds of whispers and rumors about whether or not something might happen at the convention, which might mean Joe Biden isn’t even the nominee."

Are you talking about the Tara Reade allegations?

BJG: "There’s a lot of reasons why Democrats might want to substitute a different person for Joe Biden as the nominee. The Tara Reade allegation has been handled abysmally by the press. If anyone looks at this closely, then they will see reason for concern."

• Fox Former Clinton adviser calls on Biden to withdraw over assault allegations
• Politico Biden sexual assault allegation roils #MeToo movement

"Activists said fear over Trump winning another term is changing how some #MeToo allies see Reade’s allegations."

petrarchan47คุก 13:40, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

To petrarchan47 - In her April 2020 Atlantic interview that you cite; Briahna Gray’s primary focus is describing things she is doing to convince Joe Biden to adopt Bernie Sander’s policies, which, Gray says will make Joe Biden a “better candidate and he will get more votes if he supports these policies.” And Gray asks, “Why isn’t he giving us more? Why not just do the things the Democratic voters want him to do?”

My point: if Briahna Gray truly believes that Biden should be replaced at the Convention because of Reade’s allegations; then why is she saying she will support Biden if Biden adopts Bernie’s policies?

And the example from her interview I gave is one, of many reasons, why I do not support including a “reaction” (which seems like unintended gossip) section. BetsyRMadison (talk) 14:35, 26 April 2020 (UTC)Betsymadison

Thanks for your concise input on one of the above sources. However, the suggested bit cites Gray as stating that there are rumors that Biden will be replaced, not that Gray thinks he should be. I would also note that no one expects an editor with only 2 days' experience to understand all the intricacies of a WP article, but "reactions" sections are indeed the norm. petrarchan47คุก 14:41, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Petrarchan47, we don't traffic in rumors. We traffic in verifiable facts. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:48, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

So we have Vice (no consensus on reliability), A Fox (story only covered by DailyMail and something called ABC 14 News, apparently NOT affiliated with ABC News, whispers and rumors about whether or not something might happen, and activists said to fear over Trump winning another term. How about we stick to reliable sources and facts? O3000 (talk) 14:50, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Regarding "activists", Politicois RS. As for the Fox story, nice goalpost shifting; we don't require multiple RS to cover a story. I am simply leaving links here to inform editors of what's going on, this is not a formal proposal yet. Please try not to misrepresent the WP:RS policy in your comments as it confounds an already contentious article. petrarchan47คุก 15:42, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

I have not misrepresented anything and have not shifted goalposts. For something that is controversial in a BLP (and this article is extremely so), we need something more than a single source that has a history with the subject of the article. O3000 (talk) 17:49, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

• .r.e. Vice, given the status as a reliable source and the factual, non-opinion nature of the story, I can see it used in support of a comment in the "reactions" section. What, though, is being proposed to be added? CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 15:04, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Where do you see Vice regarded as RS?[1] O3000 (talk) 15:16, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia guidelines. A website not being listed as a "perennial source" doesn't automatically make it unreliable. Have you ever bothered to actually read Vice? CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 16:26, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

I am quite familiar with guidelines thank you. Vice has been discussed at RSN and is mentioned at perennial sources. There is no agreement that it is RS. That's why I asked, where do you see it regarded as RS. O3000 (talk) 17:20, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

@CoffeeWithCrumbs: Actually Vice Media is listed on RSP, as no consensus. A lack of consensus on reliability indicates a lack of consensus on reliability. WP:BLP requires high-quality sources for contentious information, which is exactly what this is. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:13, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• SenareaidIDTaraReade.webp

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:22, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Symone Sanders Twitter

This edit removed further sourced content from the article. As with the pairing down of AOC's comments and removal of Bernie Sanders', this doesn't seem to be a sourcing issue, but that some editors do not like the content. It is clear that Biden surrogate, Symone Sanders, did this. What is the reason to exclude this fact now? It is only going to get more and more press as these allegations get more and more coverage.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 00:53, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Gaming the system. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 01:21, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Well, hopefully we get an answer. Otherwise, I will be adding this content back in. Cox wasan appears to have added this content in good faith, though admittedly the sources initially provided were not sufficient. We now have sources, and it was removed again without discussion.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 01:37, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

There is a clear pattern of removing everything and anything to force discussion that goes nowhere. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 01:43, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

These sources are garbage—an opinion piece from an undergraduate? The second, OC Register, is not enough on its own to verify this claim. If and when better sources are available, I will reconsider, but for now the answer is no. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 03:10, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Where are you getting that Alexander Sammon is some undergraduate? He is a staff writer at The American Prospect. Are you confusing it with this article which was not cited? Why isn't the The American Prospect along with the Orange County Register piece enough to verify what anyone can also verify by logging on to Twitter? Are you really questioning that she did this?--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 07:08, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Is it really relevant to this specific article that some Biden staff, acting on their own, have been doing questionable things online? This reflects badly on them, not on Biden or on anyone else, and doesn't have any particular relationship as to the validity of the accusations. It's all tangential. Giving it a full paragraph is certainly undue weight to say the least. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 06:38, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

A full paragraph? It was one sentence. And Yes, it is relevant. She took one position on Brett Kavanaugh and Christine Blasey Ford, and deleted the tweets shortly after they became inconvenient. This is exactly the sort of gasl*****... what was that again? I don't know, we removed that portion of AOC's comment from the article because it was inconvenient.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 07:08, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

References

To @Darryl Kerrigan - 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." Also, since it appears Symone Sanders' twitter account deletes old tweets, the accusation that she "deleted the tweets shortly after they became inconvenient" is not supported by facts and therefore should not be included. BetsyRMadison (talk) 13:23, 26 April 2020 (UTC)betsymadison

You have a source for that? Or are you relying on Twitter's search function? What makes you think her account "automatically erases old tweets"? She just as easily could have purged all tweets from before she became a Biden Surrogate when she was removing these ones? Or after when folks started reporting that she erased the Kavanaugh ones.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk)

@Darryl Kerrigan: This piece from OC is from an undergraduate. Check the disclaimer at the bottom when you're reviewing opinion/guest pieces. We have no reliable sources corroborating that Symone Sanders deleted tweets or changed her position on sexual assault, and the one you provided does not pass muster for us to restate it as fact here. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 15:49, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

These are not reliable sources. If we can put that in (we can't) then we could put in all the stuff about how Citizens Affairs folks coached Reade's brother, how Reade altered her earlier medium post to fit her story, how these corroborating witnesses were contacted recently by involved parties and "helped to remember", and how some prominent pushers of this story have basically admitted that they're backing the allegations for political reasons (cuz Bernie). All of that can be found in sources of similar quality as the ones being proposed here. You don't want to - and per policy can't - open that door. Volunteer Marek 20:33, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Context of Biden's other allegations, as per main article

"Biden has been photographed in close proximity to females, in some cases inappropriately embracing, kissing, or gripping them, or placing a hand on their shoulder."

References

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Eternal Father (talk • contribs) 00:57, April 28, 2020 (UTC)

Tara Reade's age

So, the article refers to her as a staff assistant "At age twenty-nine", yet the cited article only has her referring to herself as "mid twenties"! I googled her DOB and came up with several links saying her DOB was 1971-01-26. Then someone reverts my edit, asking for "my source" -- what is YOUR source for her being TWENTY-NINE in 1992?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:7C0:C500:3540:8938:59DC:71B6:2CFD (talk) 04:24, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

https://globalnews.ca/news/6881453/tara-reade-neighbour-joe-biden-sexual-assault/ mentions "Fifty-six-year-old Reade" so if we go back to 1993 (27 years ago) 56 subtract 27 is 29. So while she was in her twenties, I think "late" would be a more appropriate prefix than "mid". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.145.16.133 (talk) 20:51, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

1971, per here--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 17:35, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Should the lead include blaming Joe Biden for media coverage?

I feel the sentence in the lead regarding "media controversy" should be deleted. I feel it is a subjective opinion that doesn't belong in the wikipage at all, let alone the lead. I'm even more uncomfortable with the lead alleging that Joe Biden's political aspirations are to blame for any alleged media controversy; which again, is a subjective opinion. Subjectively: some may feel there is not enough media coverage; while others think there's been the right amount; and others still feel there's been too much. I feel we should avoid stating subjective opinions as fact. Therefore, I vote to delete the following sentence from the lead: "With Biden running in the 2020 United States presidential election, media coverage of the allegation became controversial.
Does anyone else have an opinion about it?BetsyRMadison (talk) 23:25, 28 April 2020 (UTC)betsymadison

Determining whether something is controversial has nothing to do with opinion, people are either arguing over it or they aren't. And the notion of anyone running for president is going to attract the yays and nays. Not Biden's fault, just the way politics and media work. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:40, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

To InedibleHulk - I am saying that media coverage over Reade's allegations is absolutely subjective opinion. And I feel that wikipedia, like any encyclopedia, should never try to present a subjective opinion as a fact. Presenting this subjective opinion as a fact: hurts the reader, hurts Ms. Reade, hurts Biden, and hurts wikipedia. Just stick with the facts. Therefore, I feel that sentence should be deleted.BetsyRMadison (talk) 00:17, 29 April 2020 (UTC)betsymadison

Yeah, one side of the controversy feels the coverage is one way and the other believes otherwise. But that's how we know the coverage dispute is controversial. By looking at both sides and seeing there are two in conflict. Echoing either side's opinion as fact is biased and bad. But simply acknowledging the battle is factual and good. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:30, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Remove - I don't find that in the bulk of mainstream RS presentations of the allegation. It sounds like editorializing. SPECIFICO talk 23:49, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

There's a section about it at the bottom, including eight citations, probably to editorials. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:57, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

To InedibleHulk -about that section at the bottom "media coverage." 1) When I clicked one of the links in that section, the journalists describe the people complaining about media coverage as: Anti-Biden, Never Biden, Bernie Sanders Supporters, and TrumpWorld. Another link is to journalist Arwa Mahdawi who describes herself as a Bernie Supporter.

My point in saying that is not about who's saying it but simply that their complaining highlights & underscores that: complaints about media coverage are subjective opinion; and subjective opinion should not be presented as fact on wikipedia. 2) Do you all think we should include media coverage from the Washington Post or just re-title that section?  BetsyRMadison (talk) 00:35, 29 April 2020 (UTC)betsymadison

The substance of the complaints is opinion, but the existence of the complaints objectively indicates the coverage of them is polarizing, divisive or whatever synonym for "controversial". InedibleHulk (talk) 00:43, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

To InedibleHulk -Agreed, and that's why the sentence should be deleted. It is the opinionated substance that needs to be deleted. And since the sentence, the whole sentence, is a direct reflection of that opinionated substance, that sentence should be deleted from the lead. Additionally, since this wikipage is solely about Reade's allegation and not about "polarizing media coverage" that gives one more reason that sentence should be deleted from the lead. BetsyRMadison (talk) 01:36, 29 April 2020 (UTC)betsymadison

Deleting a reflection does not defeat the reflected matter, only works vice versa. Either have an article including alleged contemporary election spin and summarize it, or have one purely about alleged classic power sex and just summarize that. But as below, so above. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:51, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

There appears to be two issues being conflated here:

• Should the lead mention that the media coverage itself of the allegation has been controversial?
• Should the lead refer to that fact in the specific context of Biden's actions and words, including wording like "With Biden..."?

In terms of the latter question, it seems blatantly inappropriate to me and questionable on BLP grounds. If we mention the storm over the media's role in all this, then it's the media being at fault, not Biden himself. In terms of the former question, I think that we've had enough sources being brought up to make it clear that the media itself is a part of the story. Thus, something like "Media coverage of the allegation has been divisive" is warranted. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 02:14, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

It wasn't quite "With Biden..." so much as "With Biden running...". There's one reason and one reason only this 1993 pussy-grabbing has a Wikipedia article in 2020 and the other hundred million or whatever don't. The race to the White House, nothing personal. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:25, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Oppose - I don’t have any particular dog in the fight, but I think the current title or perhaps a change to - Joe Biden sexual misconduct allegations, is simply most helpful to people looking in the encyclopaedia. Springnuts (talk) 13:09, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Except the misconduct allegations aren't about sex and the sex allegation isn't about misconduct. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:19, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Biden camp talking points

Buzzfeed News has reported that the Biden camp has circulated talking points to "coordinate and unify Democratic messaging on the matter." There's a bit more details in the article, and if anything, it should clarify the Biden denials. The article quotes the memo as saying:

“Here’s the bottom line,” they read. “Vice President Joe Biden has spent over 40 years in public life: 36 years in the Senate; 7 Senate campaigns, 2 previous presidential runs, two vice presidential campaigns, and 8 years in the White House. There has never been a complaint, allegation, hint or rumor of any impropriety or inappropriate conduct like this regarding him — ever.”

Something else to note is that the guidance to Democrats is to cast Biden as a lifelong advocate for women, which was somewhat reflected in Senator Gillibrand's statement "He's devoted his life to supporting women and he has vehemently denied this allegation."

Finally, to refute those who say the NYT piece serves as some sort of proof the allegation didn't occur, Buzzfeed News reports "the story did not conclude this, nor did it conclude that an assault definitively did happen." I think there could be additions to our article from the Buzzfeed piece. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:36, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Mr. Ernie: WP:NOTFORUM Please use the talk page only for article improvement. Do you have an edit to suggest, or was that just something you wanted the world to know? SPECIFICO talk 13:39, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Can you just not help yourself by making such comments to me? You yourself said, in response to a query if posting news articles was helpful "Of course it's helpful. It's better than immediately changing article content and launching a pointless revert war." Hopefully the information in that news articles helps some editors who are trying to clarify certain points or bring improvements. If I was to add some things directly from that article, it may cause some disruption and reverts, so please take your own advice. Better to get consensus first, don't you think? Mr Ernie (talk) 13:50, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

To Mr Ernie - Are you saying you want a 'consensus' on including Buzzfeed's "Talking Points" in the main article? BetsyRMadison (talk) 14:13, 29 April 2020 (UTC)betsymadison

I support adding this information from the BuzzFeed article. Incorporate the memo under the "Denial" section and the comment about the NYT investigation at the end of that subsection. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 16:49, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 29 April 2020 (Closed)

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

The result of the move request was: The article title should remain at the status quo ante bellum until a consensus is reached on the talk page. Yes there's WP:WRONG, but the "Tara Reade" title is also a possible WP:BLP issue in the context of our current naming conventions (Tara Reade has not been accused of sexual assault). This is without prejudice to any future move requests or discussions. ~Awilley (talk) 18:32, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

---

Tara Reade sexual assault allegation → Joe Biden sexual assault allegation – This was the article's title before the article was moved to Tara Reade sexual assault allegation by editors who were ignoring the then-ongoing discussion above. I'm opening up this discussion so this process is at least fair, as many people were opposing this new title. I see the justification for either side, so this is truly just to ensure that the move process is done right. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 17:16, 29 April 2020 (UTC); Edited 18:08, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose – Non-neutral wording. Also, associating a living person with a sexual assault based on one dubious claim from a person who changed her story should make this a violation of WP:SCANDAL. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:24, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
• Support – This was moved without consensus while a discussion was ongoing. Revert until the discussion is closed. Mr Ernie (talk) 17:36, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
• Support immediate move and close of this RfC.  Move was done without consensus.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:41, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose – for reasons stated by Scjessey and WP:SPADE and WP:CONSISTENT BetsyRMadison (talk) 17:48, 29 April 2020 (UTC)betsymadison — BetsyRMadison (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Support reverting the move. I would have (and do) support naming the article "Tara Reade sexual assault allegation," but moving when there's a clear lack of consensus is extremely irritating. WP:NOCON is clear that the squo should be maintained, and ignoring ongoing discussion is a serious problem. ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 17:51, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
• Support - Restoration of the original title, per Mr. Ernie and Kolya Butternut, until a proper consensus and closure of the discussion above is complete. Edit warring requires immediate preventative blocks. Jusdafax (talk) 17:52, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
• Support reverting until conversation resolves. --John_Abbe (talk) 17:54, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
• Support restoring the longstanding title, at least while the move-lock is in place. IMO it should not be frozen at the current title, which was arrived at by totally illegitimate means: first as a unilateral move while discussion was ongoing, and second as a violation of 1RR. I think it should be move-locked at the title that existed before these illegitimate moves were made, namely Sexual assault allegation against Joe Biden. I don't much like that title, but at least it had been longstanding so it had some legitimacy. King of Hearts, would you consider moving the article back to the longstanding title while the move-protect is in effect, so as not to reward the illegitimate move warring that put it in place (the second of which was slipped in mere minutes before you protected it)? Maybe if this discussion produces a strong consensus to do so? -- MelanieN (talk) 17:59, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

• @MelanieN: "Sexual assault allegation against Joe Biden" was just a temporary title because I have no pagemover powers, not an actual proposal. It was done after the page was first moved to "Tara Reade sexual assault allegation" while the discussion was ongoing. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 18:04, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

• Nice4What: So what was the title that VM moved it from? Or what was it when the article was created? It's impossible to tell from the log history. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:11, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

• VM moved it from "Joe Biden sexual assault allegation" → "Tara Read sexual assault allegation". Since I couldn't change it back and the move discussion was ongoing, I moved it to a temporary title: "Tara Read sexual assault allegation" → "Sexual assault allegation against Joe Biden". VM, again, moved it back to "Tara Reade sexual assault allegation". Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 18:16, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

• Thanks. So was Joe Biden sexual assault allegation the original or longstanding title? -- MelanieN (talk) 18:18, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

• MelanieN, The longstanding one (which is currently the article title, but not the talk page title, lol). Mdaniels5757 (talk) 18:23, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

• I can't keep up. Thank you for fixing this, User:Awilley. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:25, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

• user:Nice4What & user:MelanieN, fwiw, I'd originally created this page April 12th as Joe Biden assault allegation (diff) then thought better of it on the 13th, moving it to Joe Biden Senate aide controversy (diff).--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 18:29, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

• Support restoring to stable version for procedural reasons and on the merits. First of all: moving while a discussion was ongoing is, to put it mildly, a bad look. There are no good reasons to not include the name of the accused in the article name, and doing so certainly does not violate the BLP policy. Also, the current title can be fairly read to suggest Reade was the accused, which of course has its own BLP concerns. --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 18:14, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - As why should we get hung up on procedural minutiae? If sometimes there's a need to suppress an accuser's identity, in this case, Reade in no wise has sought not to become a wp:Public figure. Rather, this former broadcast personality and blogger has actively publicized her Me Too advocacies in connection with her allegation.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 18:04, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
• Note Request edited at 18:08, 29 April 2020 (UTC) due to neutrality requirement. Courtesy ping to those who commented on this: @Volunteer Marek, Nice4What, and Scjessey: Mdaniels5757 (talk) 18:08, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

• Don't edit other users comments. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 18:12, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

  @Nice4What: Oops. I was silly enough to take another editor's word as to the existence of a neutrality requirement. However, RM nominations need not be neutral, so I was in the wrong. Sorry about that. Mdaniels5757 (talk) 18:21, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

• Support; removing Joe Biden's name is inconsistent with similar articles shown below and is just a continuation of the whitewashing we have seen on this topic.EdJF (talk) 18:22, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
• Support restoring the longstanding title, to meet WP:CONSISTENT, and which was improperly changed right as there was a TP discussion on the subject.

Wikipedia articles in which the article's name is framed with the name of the accused in the context of sexual allegations:

Multiple accusers	Single accuser
Bill Clinton sexual misconduct allegations	Kobe Bryant sexual assault case (alleged victim 19 yrs old but never named)
Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations	Roman Polanski sexual abuse case (alleged victim was 13 yrs old)
Roy Moore sexual misconduct allegations	Woody Allen sexual abuse allegation (alleged victim was 7 yrs old)
Harvey Weinstein sexual abuse cases
Bill Cosby sexual assault cases
Jimmy Savile sexual abuse scandal
Rick Butler sexual abuse allegations
1993 child sexual abuse accusations against Michael Jackson

XavierItzm (talk) 18:17, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

• Comment – @Awilley: You moved the article back to its original title, but forgot to move this talk page. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 18:20, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, fixed. I could swear I ticked that box the first time. ~Awilley (talk) 18:40, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

• Support - I think Joe Biden sexual misconduct allegations might be the best title though, as this would be consistent with the articles about Donald Trump and Bill Clinton and would allow for inclusion of the other allegations of inappropriate contact, touching shoulders, smelling hair etc.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 18:23, 29 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.

Tara Reade's Essay

On April 6, 2019, Reade wrote an essay that she published on her blog. On April 17, 2019 The Union published that "essay" (which is included in this WP article). On March 24, 2020, Reade gave her interview to Katie Halper. That afternoon, after the interview, Reade went back to her April 6, 2019 essay and edited it and deleted details that contradict what she told Halper. The source code of Reade's essay shows the date she created it and date she edited it: "...-girl-walks-into-the-senate-dd9ebdfce31b","'dateCreated":"2019-04-06T18:56:32.009Z","datePublished":"2019-04-06T18:56:32.009Z","dateModified":"2020-03-24T22:18:47.379Z"',"
Here is link to source codes of Reade's essay: view-source:https://medium.com/@AlexandraTaraReade/a-girl-walks-into-the-senate-dd9ebdfce31b (right click and scroll down to "view sources.)
When you compare Reade's April 6 essay published in The Union to the one she edited, you can see what she added and deleted. A few examples of her edits: text in [bold italic brackets] is what Reade added; text with strike is what she took out

1. “But this is [not] only a story about sexual misconduct”
2. "I am upset now and feel defensive. Again, somehow me talking about what happened, [what Joe Biden did to me,] is my fault. [And I did not even tell the whole story…The small portion that did come out of what Joe Biden did to me resulted in me being bullied and threatened to silence.]”"
3. "Then, I went to Senate Personnel for help. No one helped me. I was moved into a solitary, windowless office and told to leave. I resigned or I would say, [I was fired, or should I say,] I was forced to resign. I was told to look for another job [No one would interview me on the Hill for any position.]”

I'm new here, but the way I read WP:RELIABLESOURCES is that Tara Reade’s self-published blog may be used as a source of information about herself, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field. The edits are from Reade, and are Reade's words and maybe should go under the area of the WP article that discusses her essay.
For convenience I've added links:
Link to Reade's April 6, 2019 Essay [2] Link to Reade's essay from the Union [3] BetsyRMadison (talk) 21:10, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Without a secondary source drawing those conclusions, it seems like WP:SYNTH. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 21:19, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm not drawing any conclusions. I'm just stating just facts. On April 17, 2019 The Union published Reade's April 6, 2019 essay (here [4] ). Date & timestamp show that on March 24, 2020 after Reade's interview with Halper, Reade edited her April 6, 2020 essay by adding & deletes text from her essay. All anyone has to do is go to the link in the WP Article under The Union "A girl walks into the Senate" and also go to the link to her April 6, 2019 blog (here [5] ) to see the edits yourself. It's relevant in the area where WP article discusses Reade's April 6 essay to show date she edited her essay and what her edits are. Her edits are as relevant as her brother updating what he told Washington Post in the WP article discussing what he told WaPo. I only listed 3 of her edits above, but she made many, many more. BetsyRMadison (talk) 21:36, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

And which reliable source points out these edits/discrepancies? Einsof (talk) 21:48, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Two reliable sources show Reade's edits

1. The Union published her April 6, 2019 essay, which is discussed in this WP article (here [6] ).
2. Reade's April 6, 2019 essay (here [7] )

The way I read WP:RELIABLESOURCES is that Tara Reade’s self-published blog may be used as a source of information about herself, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field. BetsyRMadison (talk) 21:52, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

I mean, which reliable source explicitly makes the statement "Tara Reade edited her essay after giving an interview"? Einsof (talk) 21:54, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

BetsyRMadison, you may be right about this. But, it looks like WP:OR. We report what journalists report. If any have published analysis of this sort, we can consider it. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:55, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Betsy, this is one of the hardest things to understand about WP. It doesn't seem to make much sense until you run into a case where you can see why secondary sources are a must. Gandydancer (talk) 22:07, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Ok, thanks guys! BetsyRMadison (talk) 22:29, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

2008 Vetting

OBAMA CAMPAIGN'S VETTING OF JOE BIDEN FOUND NO TARA READE COMPLAINT IN 2008, DAVID AXELROD SAYS. Seems pretty important to add in my opinion. Thoughts? Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 23:12, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Does seem important, though Newsweek probably does not meet a strict definition of RS. The Hill also published an article about it here. RedHotPear (talk) 23:40, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Duplicate content

The section Corroborating statements duplicates material found elsewhere in the article. The result is a massive violation of WP:NPOV. - MrX 🖋 23:43, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

This page is not being developed well if it is duplicating content. I do suspect WP:TNT may be required, but for the time being, can we not repeat ourselves in articles? – Muboshgu (talk) 23:47, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Have a subsection for "Corroborating statements". Pull everything relevant in the "Development" subsection into this one. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 23:54, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Lets not. Calling these corroborating statements and collecting them in a list exaggerates their significance. - MrX 🖋 00:13, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

How so? The Forbes timeline lists it out in a similar way. Maybe call them something other than "corroborating statements", okay, but it's still important for Reade's allegations. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 00:28, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Fixed up the duplicated content. I'd still call them "corrobating statements", as that's how CNN described LaCasse's statement. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 00:52, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Nice4What, "Corroborating statements" implies that each of those people is fully supporting Reade's story, when in reality they're only supporting pieces. I'm not sure there's a better way to phrase it, though. ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 01:57, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Yeah that whole section is UNDUE and over the top POV. Volunteer Marek 04:56, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

In Wikipedia, we go by the sources. In this case, The Washington Post calls it "Corroborators".. CNN describes them as "corrobating statements." I say we stick to the sources, people. XavierItzm (talk) 06:22, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Not all corroborate Reade's 2020 allegations. So I don't think corroborate is the correct word. But I don't know what fits eitherBetsyRMadison (talk) 08:59, 30 April 2020 (UTC)betsymadison

I agree with XavierItzm. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 12:42, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't see any issues calling them "corroborating statements". What are the other remaining issues that need to be addressed before we can remove the NPOV template? BeŻet (talk) 13:01, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

@BeŻet: There should be no other issues and the tag should be removed. These statements aren't POV if they are cited by reliable sources and described as "corroborative" by reliable sources. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 13:14, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll wait for others to confirm and remove it then. BeŻet (talk) 13:25, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

@Wikieditor19920: Read this discussion and self-revert your deletion of the "Corroborating statements" subsection. You're being disruptive, and the editing process of this article already has enough problems. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 21:44, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

@Nice4What: I don't think so. I cannot find single instance on Wikipedia where we selectively present information to "corroborate" an allegation. We are not out to make the case for either side, and this information is untenable to keep in the article per in its latest form. The information can go back once we've settled on a way to keep it compliant with NPOV, and that means integrating it into the relevant sections of the article like "Reade's account," "Investigations," or "Media reactions." Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:15, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

References

RfC started below: RfC: Should a separate section be included that lists people who have been told by Reade of her allegation, under a heading 'Corroborating statements', 'Witness statements', or similar? - MrX 🖋 17:32, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 April 2020

On April 29, 2020, Michael J. Stern, a federal prosecutor for 25 years, published an opinion article in USA Today in which he analyses in detail Reade's allegations and concludes severe scepticism.

Source https://eu.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2020/04/29/joe-biden-sexual-assault-allegation-tara-reade-column/3046962001/ SLundstr (talk) 10:37, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

 Done - Thank you - MrX 🖋 11:51, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

UNDUE opinion piece, I don't think it should be included. There are just as many stories about why survivors misremember details, wait years to come forward, etc, that were published during the Kavanaugh allegations that could be added if we want to go down that road. Two examples 1 2 Mr Ernie (talk) 12:06, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree, and I removed it for the reasons you stated Mr Ernie. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 12:09, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

This information is appropriate for this article. While certainly accurate, the two articles mentioned above do not mention the current case and it's synth to include them here. Gandydancer (talk) 15:00, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

I believe you're under the assumption Mr Ernie wants to include them in the article. He's using them as comparison as to why this opinion piece as proposed by SLundstr cannot be included in this article. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 15:08, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

No I am not under that assumption. You will need to find "just as many stories" that deal directly with this incident of rape to make your case. Remember also that the author of this piece is an expert regarding the ways that women report and remember a rape and made his assessment with that in mind. Gandydancer (talk) 15:22, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

An opinion piece is an opinion piece, he could have a degree in criminal psychology from Columbia for all I care, he's not relevant to this article. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 15:29, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

BuzzFeed memo

Why had every reference to the leaked memo been removed from the article? It at least belongs in the "Denial" or "The New York Times' investigative reporting" subsections. This memo is what triggered the NYT response, with the newspaper directly mentioning BuzzFeed. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 13:05, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Agree, the Buzzfeed article and the NYT response show the notability of the topic. That the campaign is spreading false information per the NYT as talking points that have now started appearing in Biden surrogate statements is suitable for inclusion. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:13, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with Nice4What and Mr Ernie. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 13:15, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

How do we readd this content without violating WP:1RR? I can't find in the edit history who removed the content in the first place. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 13:20, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

There's already a short paragraph in the NYT investigative reporting section. I think new text can be created and expanded there, that way there isn't any kind of revert issue. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:25, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

The memo was included in the NYT section before, but was removed by an editor without any stated reason. There was even a quote by the NYT. This content was removed by BetsyRMadison. BetsyRMadison, I suggest you self-revert as you may be violating 1RR. There was already support to include this memo in a talk page discussion above. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 13:38, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Nice4What - I agree with you that an actual memo with talking points may, or may not be important. But since Buzzfeed did not publish the actual talking points, any reference to them seems to be innuendo, speculation, & conjecture. I feel that to remain fact-based, we'd need to have the actual talking points. Your thoughts?BetsyRMadison (talk) 14:05, 30 April 2020 (UTC)betsymadison

Buzzfeed did publish the talking points - see the end of their article that was also discussed in an above section. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:11, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

@BetsyRMadison: Could you please self-revert to avoid a 1RR violation? Thanks. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 15:14, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

In the end, we could mention BuzzFeed's article and how that it directly triggered a response from NYT. −Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 14:13, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

TO Nice4What - First, I’m happy to undelete the buzzfeed paragraph. But, to be clear: I followed the rules of deleting at the time I deleted: I gave a stated reason at the time I deleted it.

So, since I’m new here, can you please explain to me how me following the rules of deleting is me violating a “1RR” rule? Thanks. Because when I read that policy I don’t read it that way.

Like I said, I gave the reasons why I deleted it when I deleted it: “deleted for innuendo; Buzzfeed did not publish the talking points”

I’m sure it was not intentional, and you paraphrase way better than I do, but to me, the Buzzfeed paragraph was innuendo & redundant information. For example:

• Biden's campaign circulated a memo among top Democratic supporters to counter the allegation and unify the Democratic Party. (innuendo)
• Biden Campaign Is Advising Them To Say Her Story "Did Not Happen" is misleading.
• It is also redundant because Biden’s campaign said in March and in early April what Buzzfeed reports about the talking points.

Second, This article is about Reade’s 2019 allegations & 2020 allegations. And there’s so much chatter going on (not in here) that it’s easy to lose focus of that sometimes.

This article isn’t about triggering the NYT or attempting to show the campaign is spreading false information” (and that would probably violate all kinds of wiki policies anyway).

& this article also isn’t about attempting to show Reade is spreading false information. And I don’t know for sure, but that may be a reason why we do not publish Reade’s 2009 article where Reade writes about her 1994 ordeal with her husband when her husband pushed her against a wall and assaulted her when her daughter was a toddler; after which Reade wrote that her friend told her to file a police report.

The point is: No matter how much it does or doesn't resemble her 2020 allegations against Biden; What Tara Reade wrote about that her husband did to her in 1994 does not mean she is or isn't telling the truth about Biden;

Just as, no matter how much the politics & spin is within the Talking Points, and no matter what NYT’s reaction or Buzzfeed’s reaction; none of that means Biden did or didn’t do anything.

The only way those Talking Points could be relevant here is if they said: Yeah, he did it so let’s lie.

Anyway, let me know if you still want me to undelete your paragraph & please remember to explain to m e how me following the rules of deleting is me violating a “1RR” rule. Because that’s not how I read it that policy. Thanks,BetsyRMadison (talk) 16:40, 30 April 2020 (UTC)betsymadison

@BetsyRMadison: 1RR means you can only perform one revert in a 24-hour period. You have reverted multiple edits, which includes the removal of this BuzzFeed memo. See that long justification you just typed? You should've brought that to the talk page first before your revert. I suggest re-adding the BuzzFeed memo yourself to avoid the risk of edit warring, but regardless, it'll likely be readded in 24hrs because of consensus. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 17:45, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

To @Nice4What Thank you for giving me that information. I'm glad your piece got restored ;) BetsyRMadison (talk) 19:04, 30 April 2020 (UTC)betsymadison

Altimus

from https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8256367/New-clip-emerges-Joe-Biden-assault-accuser-Tara-Reades-mother-phoning-Larry-King-1993.html

The latest evidence to emerge shows Reade's mother Jeanette Altimus calling into the Larry King Show in August 1993, the same month that Reade left Biden's staff, and anonymously asking a panel's advice on her daughter's 'problems' with a 'prominent senator'.

Why is Altimus not mentioned in this article?

The closest is "problems with the Larry King call," in the final paragraph of "Allegation characterization" section, then at the bottom "video which includes a call from a San Luis Obispo, California, woman about daughter's departure from job working for an unnamed U.S. Senator"

https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/25/politics/tara-reade-mom-larry-king/index.html titled "accuser says mother called into 'Larry King Live' in 1993" makes this notable since Reade is claiming the call was Altimus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.145.16.133 (talk) 20:46, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

A user removed it without consulting the talk page and it can't be restored at the moment due to WP:1RR restrictions. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 21:09, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

@Nice4What: Actually, this can't be restored because a) the Daily Mail is not a reliable source and b) you don't have consensus. Thanks. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 05:37, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

I didn't mean use the DailyMail, I meant use one of the many reliable sources included above. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 14:03, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

@Nice4What: Please read WP:1RR to make sure you understand how revert restrictions work. 1RR is a restriction per editor, not per content, although there are several other reasons in this case -- among them the ones that Wikieditor19920 points out. SPECIFICO talk 12:22, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

"Reade's Account" is missing HALF its information

Tara Reade’s "account" began in April 3, 2019, not March 2020. An entire year of Reade's account is missing. Does anyone know why? Reade's 2019 account should obviously include "Reade's Account." Anything less deprives the reader of full facts, denies Ms. Reade full facts, and denies Joe Biden full facts. Which seems to be opposite of wikipedia's mission. Currently Reade's April 3, 2019 account are under section “April 2019 essay in the Union" but Reade's April 3, 2019 account was in-person and was published 2 weeks before her essay. On April 3, 2019 The Union published their interview with Reade where she alleged Biden touched only her neck and shoulder. On April 17, 2019 The Union published Reade’s April 6 essay. Reade's April 3, 2019 interview is where she first details her 2019 allegations account. Naturally, the reader, Ms. Reade, & Joe Biden would expect all Reade's 2019 account to be included in "Reade's Account" subheading and not in the “essay” section.

* April 3, 2019 account allegation: In interview with The Union Reade alleges Biden touched only her shoulder and neck. The Union reports that "Reade said she didn’t consider the acts toward her sexualization. She instead compared her experience to being a lamp." Reade told The Union her job duties were reduced after she refused to do a job her immediate boss told her do. A friend of Reade’s told The Union that Reade told her at the time that Biden touched only Reade’s shoulder and neck. The friend wanted to remain anonymous.

* March 2020 account allegation: In an interview with Katie Halper, Reade alleged Biden pushed her against a wall and put his hands up her skirt and sexually assaulted her. The Washington Post interviewed Reade's brother who first said Biden touched only Reade's neck and shoulder, then sent text message to the reporter several days later writing that Biden had put his hand “under her clothes.” I said below, as a person who’s been coming to wiki for years for my encyclopedia needs, I often click on a page and only read the subsection I need information out of. If all the information isn’t there; and instead is in areas it wouldn’t naturally belong; then I’m in deep trouble. So my point is: including Reade's 2019 account & Reade’s 2020 account is the only way to be fair to the wiki reader, Ms. Reade, & Joe Biden. It’s the only thing that makes sense.

• Here is a suggested first paragraph for “Reade's Account"

In early April 2019, Reade contacted a reporter for The Union, a local newspaper in Grass Valley, California, and alleged that Biden touched her shoulder and neck while she worked in his U.S. Senate office. The Union reported that Reade said she did not feel she was a victim of sexualization, but instead she compared herself being treated like an inanimate object, "a lamp." Reade explained, "It’s pretty. Set it over there. Then when it’s too bright, you throw it away." She further stated that she was reassigned office duties after she told her immediate boss she would not serve drinks at an event. Reade said she believes that opting against serving drinks sidelined her career. Reade made the allegation after watching an episode of the The View on April 1, 2019, in which Nevada politician Lucy Flores had alleged that Biden sniffed her hair and kissed the back of her head shortly before a political rally in 2014.

I hope everyone can agree that all of Reade’s 2019 account should obviously be included in the "Reade's Account" section and in reverse chronological order. BetsyRMadison (talk) 21:52, 30 April 2020 (UTC)betsymadison

The headers still refer to her account of the subject of this article and his response to the same, they're just wordier now. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:04, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

To InedibleHulk - But a biggest problem is "Reade's Account" is missing HALF it's information. HALF!!! I don't know how anyone can think "Reade's Account" missing half it's information is a good thing. I sure wish someone would explain that one. (psst... I'm not yelling at you with all caps, I'm just emphasizing ;) ) BetsyRMadison (talk) 22:22, 30 April 2020 (UTC)betsymadison

There are TWO accounts in this article, April and March. One is about being with a regular creepy grandfather figure, sniffing and poking around, thinking he's better than you, demanding prompt liquor. The second, IMPORTANT one is about A SEX CRIME. BOTH are FULL, but if you pretend they're the same thing, YEAH, each IS half. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:56, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

To InedibleHulk - yes, that is exactly right. Both Reade's 2019 account and Reade's 2020 account belong within "Reade's Account" section. And I sure do wish someone would explain to me why both aren't in there and why both haven't been in there from the beginning. BetsyRMadison (talk) 23:45, 30 April 2020 (UTC)betsymadison

I don't know, maybe as a dude I lack your intuition, but the idea of my boss touching my general shoulder area and asking for a Scotch is A FAR CRY from the spectre of his icy hand suddenly clasping my knob, asking if I'm free for five minutes. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:55, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Isn't that the point though? Her two allegations are so significantly different in severity that it does raise questions. Forbes includes the 2019 allegation in their timeline of events. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:05, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

If a man does not respect boundaries and lacks awareness of consensuality when engaging in non-sexual touching; it would not come as a surprise that he would not respect boundaries and would lack awareness and respect for consensuality when engaging in sexual touching. Although I don't recall at the moment which sources may discuss this. Kolya Butternut (talk) 04:37, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

I AM a man with a history of lightly touching both genders' upper bodies (face and chest aside) without explicit consent, just as simple non-verbal communication. You how how many dicks, assholes and pussies I've marched up to and taken like a movie star? ZERO. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:43, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

To Muboshgu - yes, that is the point. And the silence from others on this article missing half of Reade's account seems to deafening. And the most recent lead I saw, ignores that Reade ever said a dang word in 2019 -- it only talks about 2020. I wish someone would at least explain it BetsyRMadison (talk) 00:58, 1 May 2020 (UTC)betsymadison

How is significant difference a point toward treating them as the same thing? And yeah, it's in our timeline, too, never "missing". Immediately preceding the main event. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:29, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

To InedibleHulk - Reade's 2019 allegations are under the wrong heading, "Reade's 2019 essay"

• Reade's April 3, 2019 interview, is not an essay so does not belong there.
• Reade's April 3, 2019 interview, when she made her first public allegations so it obviously belongs in "Reade's Account" section.BetsyRMadison (talk) 02:09, 1 May 2020 (UTC)betsymadison

Headings can easily change, pick something better. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:31, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

• I do not support this. This text has already been repeatedly discussed, beginning at 12:47, 26 April 2020 above. The "objectified" language misrepresents Tara Reade's feelings. We need quotes from the woman herself, not paraphrasing which Reade states were misrepresentations. Kolya Butternut (talk) 04:52, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

References

Biden's Senate Record

Thoughts on rearranging paragraphs Biden's Seante Record section.
The subject of subheading is: Biden’s Senate Records But, right now the paragraph describing his senate records are in the 2nd paragraph & it might be better to move it to the first paragraph.

Also, with that same paragraph, when I read it, it seems to be suggesting something nefarious went on at University of Delaware. Example: it reads “On April 24, 2019, the day before he announced his 2020 presidential campaign, it revised its plans and said it would release them…” When I read that my first thoughts are: Do we know 4/24/2019 is when the decision was made? Did they “revise” then or just publish it then? Do we know why any change was made? Anyway, maybe it's just me but that's how I read it. But if we don't know the answers to those questions, and possible more, maybe that phrasing could be reworked to stick things that are known facts.

As for the last sentence. I can’t substantiate the last sentence which says: “The Biden camp has so far refused to allow the opening up of the Senate papers. They did however send people over to review those documents.” The link is to a paywall that I don’t have access to and I found nothing to substantiate Biden camp is "refusing." As far as I know, UDel is in charge of those documents and have been since Biden gifted them to UDel in 2012. Regarding the allegation of "reviewing documents"- the only thing I found online was in the National Review who wrote, “Biden campaign operatives have reportedly accessed the former vice president’s archived Senate files, which may contain information shedding light on Tara Reade’s allegation that Biden sexually assaulted her when she worked for him as a Senate aide. The word "reportedly" tells me, that that entire notion is just unsubstantiated gossip at this point. If that sentence is not substantiated with fact, I'm not sure it should be in this article.BetsyRMadison (talk) 01:44, 1 May 2020 (UTC)betsymadison

If you have any concerns about the impression our chose text gives, then we should stick to direct quotes. I do not support your suggestions. Kolya Butternut (talk) 14:17, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Any source that uses language like "operatives" (like you know, masked spies sneaking around back alleys or something) is not going to be good, and these sources in particular (NR, BI) are not very high quality to begin with. Volunteer Marek 15:26, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

The Biden camp has so far refused to allow the opening up of the Senate papers. They did however send people over to review those documents.

They are no longer refusing
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
. SPECIFICO talk 01:56, 3 May 2020 (UTC) The Biden camp has so far refused to allow the opening up of the Senate papers. They did however send people over to review those documents. Why was this originally removed? It is factual, relevant, with a good source, not POV, or BLP vio? Cox wasan (talk) 15:56, 1 May 2020 (UTC) Because this access was in April 2019, or a year before Tara Reade's assault allegation. Thus, it is irrelevant to an article dedicated to the allegation. Please be careful and mind details when engaging. - Drlight11 (talk) 17:14, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Background section "scare quotes"

Explaining two self-reverted reverts and a revert ([8], [9], [10], [11]: I hadn't noticed at first that the editor had removed the quotation marks around both quotes in one revert ([12]), and I had forgotten about 1RR. I reverted my two reverts and then reverted his revert ([13]). Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 09:42, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Sorry for using the term scare quotes. If we write "Einstein said he had 'finally found proof' that E=MC²," with the three words quoted directly, this flags to the reader's attention that Einstein's statement is contested. But since the statement was already prefaced with "Einstein said," such a hedge is unnecessary. (Perhaps even confusing the reader, who wonders why so much caution was made in phrasing Einstein's assertion.) It's better to bravely say with "encyclopedic" voice, "Einstein said he had finally found proof that E=MC²." (WP:NPOV: "Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice.")--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 10:04, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

WP:OVERQUOTE in Biden's response section

The quote there is simply too long and unnecessary. It can be easily summarized to a couple sentences tops. What I'd suggest is: In his formal statement Biden referenced the Violence Against Women Act that he said he wrote 25 years ago and concluded that the allegations by his former staffer never happened. There is absolutely no need to keep it longer than that. BeŻet (talk) 11:08, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Inclusion of a reasonable amount of Biden's "posturing," if you will - that is, his attempts to reconcile the dissonance of now finding himself on the receiving end of changes in the culture which he himself helped wrought - seems appropriate. In any case, here's a shot at a trim: diff. I suppose what's left could be usefully paraphrased entirely, though, instead, if done well.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 11:46, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Please don't insinuate POV commentary into editing discussions. It's hard to understand the any sourcing and content point when it's surrounded by unverified POV. SPECIFICO talk 13:37, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

It's his full response to the allegation. While I understand wanting to trim the quote down to make it more easily readable, I have to really object to cutting it entirely. What he said matters a great deal; it's literally the crux of his argument. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 15:06, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Biden's response is obviously very relevant to this article, much more so than some of the other information that is currently present. Overquoting does not seem to be an issue that could plausibly apply here, but if there are formatting improvements that could add clarity, I have no objections to them. RedHotPear (talk) 18:47, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Media has been full of statements that Biden should respond. Now he has. Anyone ever hear of ellipsis? Manannan67 (talk) 07:29, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Archiving

I have changed archiving to every 7 days. The talk page is currently at 140,728 bytes and 23 discussions (before this edit). If anyone disagrees feel free to revert and discuss. In any event, that should likely be relaxed once the talk page calms down a bit.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 21:19, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

This seems to have quieted down a bit. I am going to go ahead and push archiving back to every 14 days. Anyone else feel free to keep an eye and alter this as needed. Cheers--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 19:00, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

I think I may have done a terrible thing moving this to 14 days. Coverage seems to have increased, as has discussion on this page which currently stands at 355,714 bytes and 51 open discussions. I am going to reduce this to 7 days. If anyone objects, please feel free to change. Of course, sections that need to be closed or kept for another reason can be pinned.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 19:39, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

@Darryl Kerrigan: - you certainly jinxed it on 25 April. I've manually archived 24 discussions and there's still 34. This is nuts! I'm doing the manual archives because the article has moved on from those discussions - and it's not as if they didn't receive attention. Plus, in some cases, we have repeated discussions of similar material. starship.paint (talk) 08:01, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Political views (history of liberal advocacies as well as past praises of Russia or Putin)

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.

---

Should Reade's political views be included in her background? We have her occupation and whatnot. Is there a way to include her controversial support of Putin without breaking any policies? I believe if it included, it should not be phrased in a way to allege that she is a "Russian agent" or whatever else sort of speculation. It does remain factual that she did express these views. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 13:38, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

1. I believe her former "support" for Putin could be worded in a reasonably NPOV fashion. (She has explained that she'd been mostly engaging in some immersion as prep work towards her creating a character for a fiction work, tho, of course: ".. His sensuous image [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] projects his love for life, the embodiment of grace ..")
2. But the above should only be mentioned within a more complete catalogue of her historical political stances. More obviously pertaining to the subject at hand is that (as someone who was and is really quite orthodox as a political liberal for the most part) she'd been someone who'd up until a very short time ago had been really effusive within her support for Biden, politically speaking, although this not, in my opinion, to be said in a cleverly discounting her quite possibly legit and truthful allegation. (If possible not to.. )--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 14:17, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm uncomfortable with this. It essentially implies Reade's peculiar fixation with Putin is related to her sexual assault claim. While it is conceivable they are related, there's no sourcing I am aware of supporting that. Consequently, it should be completely irrelevant. So I would currently oppose inclusion of Reade's political views. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:32, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

@Scjessey: There is sourcing which supports that. Stern's USA Today opinion piece. — goethean 19:37, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

I personally don't think that Reade's political views should be mentioned at all. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 14:55, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose per Scjessey and per CoffeeWithMarkets. XavierItzm (talk) 15:03, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
• Leaning Yes but only because I feel Reade's political views in her bio are no less relevant than the other information currently in there. But, if added, I agree with being cautious about wording. BetsyRMadison (talk) 15:08, 28 April 2020 (UTC)betsymadison

@BetsyRMadison: But this isn't Ms. Reade's bio. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:21, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Good point Scjessey -- I change my vote to no BetsyRMadison (talk) 16:52, 28 April 2020 (UTC)betsymadison

• Oppose Irrelevant and it comes off as a kind of SYNTH smear of Reade. We really need to stick to the specific topic of the article. Russia and Putin are not widely discussed as part of mainstream RS reporting. If it becomes a prominent part of reporting and comment on the allegation, then we can reevaluate. SPECIFICO talk 15:11, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per SPECIFICO, CoffeeWithMarkets et al. In terms of background information, we should stick to only things that are precisely relevant, or very top level. Her alleged "support" of Putin is completely irrelevant in this case. BeŻet (talk) 15:16, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose I needed that reminder that this is not her bio as well. I'd include it in her bio but not here. Gandydancer (talk) 17:30, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - It's not relevant to the allegation and this is not a bio. - MrX 🖋 17:51, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - I concur with the other users, it isn't relevant to the situation at hand and its inclusion, whether intentional or not, implies she has ulterior motives. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 07:18, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

cmt - "Much of the ensuing coverage by left-leaning and mainstream publications .. allegation as fact — has included descriptions of Reade’s past Putin flattery and emphasized her support for Bernie Sanders’s primary candidacy .." .. "Reade claims, the Biden campaign dug through her private Instagram account and scoured her years-old online writing, in which she praises Russia and Vladimir Putin, and sent the results to the New York Times in order to cast doubt on her allegation. She also alleges that the campaign used bots to spread the narrative that she was a Russian agent. NATIONAL REVIEW was unable to confirm either accusation." [19]

Our objective is to summarize events accurately, whether these same are unseemly or not, according to the historical record.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 17:30, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

• Washington Monthly:

Extended content

.. in 2018, writing under the name Alexandra Tara Reade, she began praising Vladimir Putin, sometimes in fairly sexual terms. Here is what she wrote in November 2018 in an article titled “Why a Liberal Democrat supports Vladimir Putin.” Through my lens, President Putin brought a chaotic and failed nation to become a vibrant, creative, economic force within a decade. I don’t care what your politics; just admit that his sheer, calculated vision and willful energy brought Russia back to be a world power…President Putin has an alluring combination of strength with gentleness. His sensuous image projects his love for life, the embodiment of grace while facing adversity. It is evident that he loves his country, his people and his job. Although his job may seem like in the words of writer, Elizabeth Gilbert on genius, “ trying to swallow the sun.” This is a whole lot to deal with for one mere mortal… President Putin’s obvious reverence for women, children and animals, and his ability with sports is intoxicating to American women. The week she came forward with her allegations against Biden, Reade wrote this. When the anti-Russia, anti-Putin propaganda starts up, personally, I shut down. I love Russia, I love my Russian relatives and friends. And like most women across the world, I like President Putin… a lot, his shirt on or shirt off. All of those missives to Putin that Reade wrote have now been deleted (links go to where they’ve been archived), so she obviously doesn’t want that to be part of the story. But they certainly raise some questions about a possible disinformation campaign against Biden. While I won’t attempt to analyze Reade, it is clear that she is an avid storyteller—which is what she claims is behind her missives about Putin. ..

--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 18:45, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

• opinion pc in USA Today:

Extended content

.. Reade’s distaste for America closely tracked her new infatuation with Russia and Putin. She referred to Putin as a “genius” with an athletic prowess that “is intoxicating to American women.” Then there’s this gem: “President Putin has an alluring combination of strength with gentleness. His sensuous image projects his love for life, the embodiment of grace while facing adversity.” In March 2019, Reade essentially dismissed the idea of Russian interference in the 2016 American presidential election as hype. She said she loved Russia and her Russian relatives — and "like most women across the world, I like President Putin … a lot, his shirt on or shirt off.” ..

--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 17:46, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

• Comment A huge part of this story is that she was accused of being a Russian agent, and that she was described as a Sanders supporter. (Sanders was the last candidate she supported.) Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:30, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

• Want to point to which reliable sources indicate that her political views are in any way relevant to the allegation? Thanks. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 19:37, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Nathan Robinson critiques some of the early reporting which framed Tara as a Bernie Bro, but only briefly mentions Russia.[20] The critiqued Salon piece isn't a good source; it's only relevant as an example of the biased early reporting. I thought the NYTs or WaPo pieces mentioned these things too. Kolya Butternut (talk) 05:50, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Nathan Robinson is not a reliable source for anything other than his non-notable opinions. — goethean 19:40, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose - There would need to be quite a bit more about this in the sources connecting those beliefs/statements to the allegations beyond what's there now. Anyone adding material insinuating motivations like this needs to spend some serious time meditating on BLP first. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:51, 1 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.