Talk:Joe Biden sexual assault allegation/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

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?

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.

---

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

Proposed content

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

Sources

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Not in this form per most of User:MrX's points. Should be summarized and woven into prose as appropriate, not presented like a list of evidence for one side. —Granger (talk · contribs) 15:02, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
• No. It violates WP:BALANCE and WP:IMPARTIAL by prominently presenting one side of the arguments. The material, if reliably sourced can be integrated into the text in other ways. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:49, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
• No per most of the above. It's undue, and it's a misuse of "corroborate" and of "witness", and it's indiscriminate, and various other problems. The key parts of the material could be worked into the rest of the article, but we certainly don't need a section for a list of this stuff.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:53, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
• 'Yes-ish - the article is giving whole sections to NPR commentary or to NYT commentary that predates much of this, so for BALANCE and for chronology, there should be a equivalent prominence hence section, detailing the corroborations. And placed later as items that showed up later than and not seen by the NYT or NPR. I actually do not think the NYT or NPR or these are all needed to be sections, but since they are in RS at that prominence and were put in as sections, then this should also be a section. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:06, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
• No - The content should definitely be included in the article, but I think it's better to weave it into the prose of the historical narrative, rather than as a separate section. A separate section listing corroborators is too dossier-like, as if we were building or analyzing a case... here's the "pros" section, here's the "cons" section, etc. I agree it's too much like listing characters in a fictional work. The reader's understanding will be improved by learning about the various corroborations in the surrounding context. For example, some corroborations came at the time (30 years ago); others came today. It's helpful for the reader to know, e.g., that some corroborations happened before she went public, some after the first time she went public but before she made more-serious accusations publicly, and some only in recent months. I don't see a reason to separate corroborations out from the other events of the timeline - the whole story should be told in a narrative, prose form. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 16:47, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
• No Per above about weaving in content and per WP:STRUCTURE. A section called, "Cooberating Statements" skews POV, and thus violates WP:BLP. "Cooberating Statements" takes a POV position in a legal argument, like it's a prosecutors opening argument. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:36, 24 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.

Perjury Investigation

Should we not mention both here and on Biden's page she is being investigated for perjury? [2] GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 09:53, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Sure, when/if she's charged. Meanwhile, here is mention of her misleading and/or seemingly false testimony.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 18:38, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Agree with above. This should be included, however, per WP:BLPCRIME it may be too soon to do so if this hasn't proceeded beyond the investigatory phase ("For individuals who are not public figures; that is, individuals not covered by § Public figures, editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured."). Chetsford (talk) 20:27, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Per reade, did she complain Re biden's behavior to baker?

. . . Re perhaps her having been asked to serve cocktails/whatnot after normal workhours(?) Or, else: ----(?))

Current working in our WP article (apparently per the sources cited): " .. Reade also told of an incident where (unnamed) staff under Biden argued over whether she should serve drinks at an event.[23] Reade said that she heard from (unnamed) staff that Biden wanted her to do so because he liked her legs.[23][25] Reade said after she had declined this assignment, she was admonished by a staff member (whom she identified as Biden's office manager Marianne Baker).[26] to wear longer skirts and button-up more.[27] Reade said she complained to Senate personnel, but Biden's office learned about her complaints.[23][25] .. "

Cf.: Per Samuel Pierce:[3] After Reade had " .. The Times interviewed Ms. Reade on multiple days over hours . . . Ms. Reade said, she told her supervisor Marianne Baker that Biden was being inappropriate with her -- Ted Kaufman, Biden's chief of staff, took away Taras job supervising the interns, and relegated her to a windowless office until she was ultimately fired. .. "^{GoFundMe: "Aid Tara Reade"}
--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 18:00, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

1. As implied in April 12, 2020 (/updated May 22) nytimes, per reade, the alleged assault occurred before reade's complaint about feeling uncomfortable, etc. (albeit absent any particulars with regard to the alleged assault) to baker. - " .. Mr. Biden walked down the hallway, Ms. Reade said, and she cleaned up in a restroom, made her way home and, sobbing, called her mother, who encouraged her to immediately file a police report. 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. .. "[4]
2. Yet, per reade, the alleged assault occurred after both the request she serve drinks & her sartorial discussion with baker. See May 31, 2020 (/updated June 5) nytimes - " .. By her account, her problems came to a head with her refusal to serve drinks at a reception. A few days later, she said, Mr. Biden’s office manager, Marianne Baker, admonished her to dress more modestly — what Ms. Reade has described as one step in a campaign of retaliation. Then, she says, when she met Mr. Biden in an empty Senate hallway to deliver his gym bag, he pushed her up against a wall, reached his hand underneath her skirt and penetrated her digitally. Ms. Reade says she filed a harassment complaint to a Senate personnel office. .. . .. Ted Kaufman and Dennis Toner, later gave her a month to find a new position, she says. Both men, as well as Ms. Baker, say they do not recall Ms. Reade or her charges against Mr. Biden. .."[5]
   --Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 18:19, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Tara Reade's strange fascination with Putin

Should there be mention of Reade's praise of Vladimir Putin? And subsequent deleting of the article she authored praising Putin. [6]

 "President Putin’s obvious reverence for women, children and animals, and his ability with sports is intoxicating to American women."

While Reade's sexual assault accusations are compelling and deserve coverage on wikipedia, we must consider that these accusations affect election politics, and Reade happens to praise the leader of the country responsible for interfering in the 2016 US election. I know Reade's political views are not necessarily relevant as legal evidence, but they seem relevant within the political landscape.

Here's some more context: [7]

Jeremyagottfried (talk) 19:59, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Definitely not. No reliable source is saying that this has anything to do with her allegation. Her views on Putin (or on any issue) would be relevant on a page about her, but not on a page about her assault allegation against Biden. --WMSR (talk) 21:17, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

This could be considered a page about Tara Reade, given that "Tara Reade" redirects here." Jeremyagottfried (talk) 21:29, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

1. April 12 nytimes - " .. After her initial complaints were reported last year by a local California newspaper, Ms. Reade said she faced a wave of criticism and death threats, as well as accusations that she was a Russian agent because of Medium posts and tweets, several of which are now deleted, she had written praising President Vladimir Putin. Ms. Reade said that she was not working for Russia and did not support Mr. Putin, and that her comments were pulled out of context from a novel she was writing at the time. “It was trying to smear me and distract from what happened, but it won’t change the facts of what happened in 1993,” she said. She called her praise for Mr. Putin “misguided.” .. "
2. May 31 nytimes - " .. Ms. Reade — she had reclaimed her name, she says — was beginning to write her novel, “The Last Snow Tiger,” a political thriller about a friendship between a Wisconsin farm girl and her Russian-American neighbor. At the same time, her online life was taking a sharp, pro-Russia turn. In 2017, on Twitter, she had shown support for the special counsel’s investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. By late 2018, she was inveighing against “anti-Russian propaganda” in America. “Why would a liberal Democrat support Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin?” she wrote in an essay on Medium. “Maybe it is because I believe he has saved the world from a large conflict on more than one occasion.” She reposted that essay on the information-sharing social platform Quora, where she was following three accounts, all Russian-oriented, including those of a self-described former “Soviet propaganda executive” and a “Russian national-conservative” who has alleged that Ukraine’s anti-Moscow regime is a puppet of Mr. Biden. She told visitors about a Russian man with whom she was video-chatting online. The relationship was active when she made her first public accusations of harassment against Mr. Biden, according to two women who saw photos of the man, whom they took to be a love interest. Neither could recall his name. The relationship lasted through the summer, recalled one of the women, who would speak only on the condition of anonymity. “She had a picture of a guy and said that they had been communicating,” recalled the other woman, Rachel Sabajo, a former housemate of Ms. Reade who confessed to developing a personal aversion to her. “I said, ‘Why Russia?’ And she said, ‘Putin is so dreamy, I really get him.’” Ms. Reade denied having a romantic relationship with anyone in Russia, saying her online activity was part of her book research. She said Ms. Sabajo was trying to besmirch her, McCarthy style, because of personal animus, which she said Ms. Sabajo had exhibited through harassing messages. (Ms. Sabajo denied sending them.) A close relative, who spoke on condition of anonymity to avoid becoming a target of online harassment, called the implication that Ms. Reade was somehow in league with Russia absurd, saying there was no interaction beyond innocent online chats as she explored Russian culture for her novel. .. "
   --Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 18:28, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

nytimes's reade biographies

1. April 12, 2020 (compressed) - " .. A single mother, she changed her name for protection after leaving an abusive marriage in the late 1990s and put herself through law school in Seattle. After leaving Mr. Biden’s office, she eventually returned to the West Coast, where she worked for a state senator; as an advocate for domestic violence survivors, testifying as an expert witness in court; and for animal rescue organizations. .. "[8]
2. 31 May -

Extended content

" . . . The newly renamed Alexandra McCabe secured a job as a victim advocate with the King County prosecutor’s office. . . . "By 2001, Ms. McCabe had enrolled at the Seattle University School of Law . . . where she received a degree in 2004 . . . "After law school, Ms. McCabe took a job at the Snohomish County Center for Battered Women, where she was credited with creating a system to help victims navigate the courts. But a legal career would not come together. She did not pass the bar exam and by 2006 was back in California, working in the domestic violence program at the YWCA of Monterey. Soon, she was also testifying as an expert in domestic-violence cases. . . . "The YWCA job ended after Ms. McCabe and several other employees settled a lawsuit . . . "Another job, as executive director of a local animal shelter, would end after a couple of years . . . "Ms. McCabe and her daughter moved across the bay, to Santa Cruz. By 2011, she had a new job as an adjunct professor at Hartnell community college in Salinas. . . . "Ms. McCabe moved to the next town, Aptos, where she started two ventures: a dog-walking service and a nonprofit that distributed outdated or damaged pet food to needy families. That made for an odd fit with her work as an expert witness. “Now you’re working for Gracie’s Pet Food Pantry,” a defense lawyer said pointedly when she testified in an attempted murder case against two women. . . . "Ms. McCabe also volunteered at Pregnant Mare Rescue, a sanctuary for unwanted horses. . . . "

[9] --Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 18:37, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

reade's-planation of why antioch has no record of her degree

1. nbcnews[10] - .. In an email to NBC News, Reade . . . sent screenshots of "unofficial" transcripts that she said showed that she'd earned the degree. NBC News forwarded the images to the school, which declined to comment and referred to its earlier comments to CNN. ..
2. montereycountyweekly[11] - .. says that the CNN reporting is incorrect, and that the statement from Antioch University is incomplete. ..
3. AP[12] - .. Reade this month has continued to challenge Antioch’s statement that she never finished a degree program there. However, she has not been able to produce any documentation. ..
4. abcnews[13] - .. Reade provided the New York Times with a screenshot of a school transcript from Antioch University, which showed her department as “BA Completion” but left blank the “date conferred” and “degree conferred.” She told the Times that, to help protect her new identity from her allegedly abusive ex-husband, the school’s then-president, Tullise Murdock, helped secretly bestow a “fast-tracked” degree upon her. ..

--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 01:17, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

The article does not mention that Tara Reide went to Times Up in January, but they declined due to a conflict of interest

An article published by the intercept correctly points out that Tara Reide tried to get assistance from multiple campaigns including Elizabeth Warren. She also reached out to NWLC in January 2020 before any votes were cast in Iowa. It wasn't until February that she learned that the organization could not help her out. They stated that it was due to their non-profit status, but Ellen Aprill, a professor of tax law at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles, disagreed with that assessment.

It was also revealed that the Times Up Legal Defense Fund uses SKDKnickerbocker for its public relations, and that the managing director of SKDKnickerbocker is Anita Dunn, who was also working on Biden's campaign.

https://theintercept.com/2020/03/24/joe-biden-metoo-times-up/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.165.188.169 (talk) 04:03, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Trivia and DUE WEIGHT determinations

There's too much scarcely-reported trivia and UNDUE bits about Reade personally. Horse advocate? What does that have to do with the topic of this article. And how do we know it? From the horse's mouth or from Reade's or her friends and neighbors? Let's pare this all down to encyclopedic content. It diminishes her to make this sound like a personal show-and-tell story of every little thing in her life. SPECIFICO talk 14:19, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

I question the motives of an editor who tends to edit out any and all references which might in some way or another possibly be interpreted as positive thing by some readers. Or this may be a false impression. (If so I apologize.)

In any case, taking the above comment at face value (after my Ha ha ha ha @ "horse advocate"): Of the ah um slew of endeavors among which Reade has surfed, the Times mentions Reade (in reverse chronological order) (a) started & run a nonprofit collecting expired pet food for free distribution for homeless folks' & poor folks' pets (b) worked--well until she was ah fired let go--at an animal shelter (c) volunteering with a horse sanctuary (she left under a cloud) (d) working as a groomswoman for busy One Percenter horse people along the California coast (who said they had to 'pay her to leave'...). Hmm. So, OK, yeah: "horse advocate"! Kudos for user:Specifico's pithiness as well effective ah "political" rhetoric there. That said, IMHO we ought retain mention of some kind about what the nature of her employment and volunteering is. Although the Times says it's partially within animal rescue, if somebody wants to trim that aspect from her bio here, this would be fine with me.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 14:24, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Strike your WP:ASPERSIONS and discuss article sourcing and content. SPECIFICO talk 15:32, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

APOLGIES. Right now, at this point in time, think the above aspersion would NOT apply to user:SPECIFICO. (If it did, this wouldn't be the venue to air such an observation in any case. However, what I wrote did, I believe, contain a typo. What I meant to convey is that I question the motives of [Edited: an[y] editor [...who tends to edit out any and all references which might in some way or another possibly be interpreted as positive things by some readers.])--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 17:01, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

AP[14] - " . . career experience includes several stints working with domestic violence organizations, along with work with animal rescue groups. . . "
Also:

AP[15]

. . struggled to keep a job. She was helped by sympathetic strangers . . By May 2006, she was back in California, working as a victims’ advocate . . soon found a new job as executive director at the Animal Friends Rescue Project . . said she was proud of her work for the animal shelter. . . had spent years testifying in court as an advocate for domestic violence victims . . launched a charity that aimed to provide pet food to impoverished animal owners. . . started volunteering at a Watsonville, California, nonprofit horse farm . .

--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 16:48, 16 August 2020 (UTC)--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 17:06, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Reade unsure Biden knew of firing or its rationale

I've contributed that [till recently] Reade directed her disappointments toward Biden's office staff [for allegedly bullying her], implying that she remained unsure whether Biden knew of her firing / rationale.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 15:52, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

citing below RSes somehow violates wp:NOTNEWS?

Wigdor

1. nytimes[16] - . . Mr. Wigdor, who supported President Trump in 2016, acknowledged that his representation of Ms. Reade could open him up to partisan criticism. He said his decision to take her on “has absolutely nothing to do with politics.” . .
2. wsj[17] . . Mr. Wigdor donated to President Trump’s 2016 election effort; others at his firm have contributed to Democratic presidential candidates, including Mr. Biden, this year. Mr. Wigdor’s firm said in a statement: “Our representation of Tara Reade has nothing to do with politics.” . .
3. washingtonpost[18] . . "Wigdor, who has donated to President Trump but said his own political affiliation did not impact the cases he pursued . .
   --Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 14:01, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
4. cnn[19] .. Wigdor, a prominent sexual harassment and assault lawyer, announced that his firm was representing Reade earlier this month. He has represented accusers of Harvey Weinstein, and was a vocal supporter of Christine Blasey Ford when she accused Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh of sexual assault. Wigdor supported President Donald Trump in the 2016 election. . .
5. pbs - . . Wigdor is well known for his work on prominent cases related to sexual harassment and assault. He represented six women who accused Harvey Weinstein, the disgraced Hollywood producer, of sexual misconduct. He has also represented a number of Fox News employees in cases alleging gender and racial discrimination at the network. And he’s a frequent political donor, giving tens of thousands to Democratic politicians in New York and about $55,000 to Donald Trump in 2016, according to Federal Election Commission records. . .
   --Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 14:23, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

What content are you proposing? Cryptic posts like this are not really helpful. - MrX 🖋 14:06, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Not that obscure, IMO. Yes, I hate leading readers and believe respect for their intelligence imperative in good reporting as well as its being summarized for posterity. In this light, I've rmv'd wigdor's support of trump from the article in the face of the page's watchers & their campaign to consistently take out mention of of reade's political leanings. However, I in fact believe that various parties' political affiliations as supported by multiple RSes ARE pertinent to the page, in the interest of full disclosure, for readers thus to come to their own conclusions w rgd possible motivations.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 14:30, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

RfC: Tara Reade's personal politics

Certain of Tara Reade's political leanings are, indeed, sourced, widely reported and RS discuss it as relevant to her "Joe Biden sexual assault allegation." I propose something be included in its WP article in this regard.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 14:35, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

• Note: Proposer's suggested text is here: (See diff).--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 10:42, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Possible items for inclusion.

1. Past pro-Putin commentary by reade she says was motivated by her reacting against American xenophobia (nytimes[20] wsj[21] washingtonpost[22])
   --Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 14:40, 29 August 2020 (UTC)--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 15:30, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
2. Her being neutral (not voting) in national politics, continuing to vote for Democratic party candidates locally. (mutliple RSes e.g nytimes[23] : . . She said her decision to come forward had nothing to do with politics or helping Mr. Sanders, and said neither his campaign nor the Trump campaign had encouraged her to make her allegation. . . / / theatlantic[24] : . . pointed to her support for Bernie Sanders in the Democratic primary and a weird, since-deleted Medium essay she wrote praising Vladimir Putin . . / / wsj[25] : . . As a lifelong Democrat, Ms. Reade said in an interview, she “always felt conflicted about Biden,” whose legislative efforts, such as sponsoring the Violence Against Women Act, she admired. Ms. Reade supported Mr. Sanders during the primary, but she posted social-media messages supportive of Mr. Biden as recently as 2017 and said she voted twice for Mr. Obama in presidential elections. . . / / apnews[26] : . . Reade said she supported Sanders or Elizabeth Warren in the Democratic primary, she said that her decision to come forward with new details was not politically motivated. . . / / nbcnews[27] : . . supporting Marianne Williamson and Elizabeth Warren in the 2020 race, Reade — after Super Tuesday — was a constant presence on Twitter, tweeting and retweeting pro-Bernie Sanders and anti-Biden . . )
   --Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 10:31, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

• It's unfortunate that the article on Tara Reade was deleted. These statements would have fit there better. However, biographical information on Tara Reade is certainly relevant to this article as well, so I support inclusion of both points. Worldlywise (talk) 01:50, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Alleged Double Standard

The section on criticism does not include claims of a double standard in comparison to Brett Kavanaugh, despite it being brought up in numerous articles. I believe it should be added. Here are some sources [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34]. 3Kingdoms (talk) 16:40, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Opinion pieces and a statement from McConnell? maybe the allegations were treated differently because they're different allegations. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:52, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

The commentary section has numerous opinion pieces from the guardian, Vox and the Nation. The point is numerous sources mention this alleged double standard as part of the commentary of this allegation. I don't see a reason why not to add it. 3Kingdoms (talk) 18:17, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

I'll take a look at them. We could add something on it. I object to adding McConnell, after his double standard on Garland/ACB, he has no leg to stand on. Can you propose some text you'd like to add? – Muboshgu (talk) 18:39, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Sure something along the lines of "Some Publications and Republican politicians accused the media and supporters of Biden of having a double standard, citing the allegations of Brett Kavanaugh with some politicians who supportted Dr. Ford from the start came out aganist Reade" Basically this with more information a quotes, but this is the roughly the starting point." 3Kingdoms (talk) 19:15, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Would need more specificity, like who said what, rather than the nebulous "some". I have skimmed the USA Today piece, which says that Biden okayed some looking into Reade's past but didn't call for an FBI investigation, so there is some similarity and difference with what he said around Kavanaugh/CBF. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:21, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

I would just do what the other opinion pieces did which is have the writer followed by publication which quotes if need be, like USA Today, National Review, Fox, etc. Having a compare part I am all for. 3Kingdoms (talk) 21:50, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Last paragraph in introduction

"A few years before she accused Biden of sexual assault, Reade repeatedly praised Biden on her personal Twitter account, retweeting or otherwise endorsing comments which characterized Biden as a leader in combating sexual violence."

This seems to cite a Fox News article. I think this is an opinion article but am not sure.

Should it be removed or should a different source be given? Or specified as coming from an opinion source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.215.188.101 (talk) 04:29, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Should be changed to allegation(s)

New York magazine is recognized as a perennial Reliable Source yet there is no mention in this article of multiple instances of the behavior of Joe Biden other than the Reade incident. The article should be updated to reflect the correct information. The Insider also has an article on this as well and there is no clear decision on it as WP:RSP it reiterates many of the same charges.

https://www.thecut.com/2020/04/joe-biden-accuser-accusations-allegations.html also the insider has an article on this too https://www.businessinsider.com/joe-biden-allegations-women-2020-campaign-2019-6 these other allegations should be noted on the page as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.190.233.44 (talk) 23:53, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Unrelated aside

Anyone else think "She works now as a domestic violence advocate." sounds like she promotes domestic violence? English is a weird language. 178.31.97.135 (talk) 10:48, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Poisoning the well

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

Agreed. That’s the tone of the article as a whole, and I don’t think anything is going to change that, but I agree that this should be changed. SweetTaylorJames (talk) 10:22, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

I also agree. I find it jarring and out of line for the lede. Jusdafax (talk) 10:08, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

And so is the next paragraph about her previous praise of Biden. This type of information is best presented as something like "her credibility has come under attack because of her record of false claims and her previous praise of Joe Biden." And then you mention what her defenders say, for example that victims (such as those of Weinstein) often continue to defend their abusers. TFD (talk) 10:59, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

@Alex the weeb I just want to add another voice to this. The intro, and the article as a whole, is overwhelmingly biased against her and clearly intended to make the reader believe that it's a "fact" that she lied.

Why do we keep doing this to abuse Anna harassment victims? Wikipedia at the very least should be able to provide a neutral viewpoint. Djengle91 (talk) 20:02, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

"to abuse Anna harassment victims" I don't understand this term. What is Anna harassment? Dimadick (talk) 15:54, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

My guess is the person meant to write “any” and it got autocorrected to Anna. In any event, since presumption of innocence is a core principle of US law (as well as a fundamental human right according to the UN), we should _never_ call a sexual assault accuser a “victim” unless and until the accused is proven guilty in a court of law. “Alleged victim” or “accuser” is fine. Just because some social media users want to use #metoo as an excuse to erode the rule of law and start implementing mob justice, doesn’t mean we should. 2604:2D80:6984:3800:0:0:0:4EFD (talk) 02:33, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

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

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

Valjean, you are preaching to the choir. We already know that biased sources are necessary for Wikipedia. Per WP:BIASED: "Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject." Dimadick (talk) 15:59, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

We three know this. I don't know that Djengle91 or Alex the weeb do. "Neutral" refers to our writing, not the inclusion of sources or material that may lean one direction or the other. We don't provide WP:FALSEBALANCE when one side is favored over the other. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:16, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

@Muboshgu I'm not going to claim to know Wikipedia rules. I know you people love to use them to hide behind technicalities that let you get away with stuff like this. There is no reason for the last 2 paragraphs in the intro to be included. Readers often don't read much past that and will take it as fact. The choice to include those is so obviously intended to make people believe she's a liar.

and you seems to favor leaving the impression that she is telling the truth no matter what, that include editing this article multiple time to remove content in the name of 'victim blaming' as if libel was a victimless crime Shmget (talk) 20:12, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

It is laughable anyone could call that neutral. "Well this source said that this person is a liar, so me writing that she's a liar at the top of the article is totally neutral". This is especially disgusting in light of the general treatment of abuse and harassment victims. This is why old white men like Biden and Trump constantly get away with stuff like this.

Oh, sexist, racist and ageist are we ? Shmget (talk) 20:12, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

And again, no, I don't know all the rules or anything. That shouldn't be required to voice opposition and you shouldn't use it to hide behind technicalities when it's very obvious what is happening. Hopefully someone that knows the rules and has integrity will see this, or at the least our opposition will be on record here. Djengle91 (talk) 17:48, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Djengle91, everything in the last two paragraphs of the intro is fact. If you're not going to accept the rules of the platform, then you don't have to be here. Reading Wikipedia:Neutral point of view would be a start for you. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:53, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Since this discussion has apparently started up months after I left the initial message, I want to clarify that I'm not stating that Wikipedia should present this case as credible if it isn't, I'm saying that the article shouldn't commit logical fallacies like poisoning the well. Whether Reade has said incorrect things in the past or not does not prove or disprove these allegations, but it is deliberately being used by the article in a way that implies it does. If her allegations are not credible, then Wikipedia must do better than this. Muboshgu, before you tell me I don't know Wikipedia's rules, maybe you should try to understand what I'm actually accusing Wikipedia of doing. Alex the weeb (talk) 18:01, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Alex the weeb, I apologize for lumping you in with someone who has acknowledged they don't know the rules. But, the analysis of Reade's past inconsistent statements was a big part of the coverage of her allegation. You are proposing that we not include it because it "seems to exist purely to discredit Reade"? Is it not WP:DUE based on WP:RS coverage? – Muboshgu (talk) 18:19, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Needs to have a more neutral tone

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

@Klee Bakudan You're both right and extremely wrong. Liberals aren't leftists. But even if we're generous and say that some liberals are leftists, such as Social Democrats, those liberals were against this. Leftists and left leaning liberals believed her, other liberals (neoliberals and such) attacked her, and conservatives used her for their own ends.

Don't act like the right cares about victims, cause it doesn't. Liberals care up to the point it affects them. Actual leftists are the only ones that take them seriously no matter what.

Having said that, this article is horribly biased, and uses Wikipedia's reputation as being credible as a way to lead viewers to believe that it's a "fact" she lied and Biden is innocent. It's blatant. Djengle91 (talk) 20:08, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the correction.

• liberal bias KaleeBR (talk) 20:11, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Or maybe not even that. There's just bias. KaleeBR (talk) 20:15, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Comments like the above are why I’d never call myself a leftist, although I’m a proud American liberal (in the New Deal Democrat/Cold War liberal tradition). First of all, the right/left distinction is technically alien to the US (it originated in post-revolutionary France and wasn’t even used in an American context until sometime in the 20th century). We’re not France. Second of all, a lot of self-proclaimed leftists these days seem to spend more time simping for Putin, Xi, Maduro and other tin pot dictators than anything. (That is, when they’re not weaponizing movements like #metoo to undermine the rule of law and presumption of innocence in this country).

All this is certainly the case for the above poster, who (prior to entering this discussion) was mostly known for making pro-Putin edits. (Speaking of which, did you read that Reade just defected to Russia?)

In other words, when I say I consider myself a liberal rather a leftist, what I mean by that is I’m pro-democracy. I’m a Biden/Harris/Zelensky Democrat, not a Putin/Reade/Nord Democrat. 2604:2D80:6984:3800:0:0:0:4EFD (talk) 02:50, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

it's pretty obvious to me that she's not a very credible person. The article should reflect that. That's not bias, it's reality. 99.38.19.204 (talk) 23:00, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

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

Fixed on June 9.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I think the wording of this sentence in the lede is problematic? She did defect to Russia but the way this sentence is written potentially implies she defected there to avoid being questioned under oath, whereas the source cited next to this statement does not indicate that at all. There's also no indication in any of the reports that she was about to be questioned? On the contrary, the most recent CNN article indicates she WANTED to be questioned under oath: Quote from CNN article: Reade said she decided to come to Russia following death threats she received this year after she reiterated her accusations regarding Biden and announced on Twitter that she was willing “to testify under oath in Congress if asked.” (Source: Tara Reade: Woman who accused Biden of sexually assaulting her in 1993 defects to Russia | CNN) I'm as liberal as they come so I have no political agenda here (quite the opposite) but this sentence did strike me as problematic and potentially unbalanced. I think it should be completely reworded. Use the source cited (and the new CNN one I've provided) to indicate she did defect to Russia, but not to avoid being questioned under oath (that we know of). Perhaps don't even mention the oath part - or if it is mentioned, it should also be stated she wanted to be questioned before defecting. The article is protected so I can't make any changes myself right now, hence posting this here. 2001:BB6:4E52:7D00:1052:E156:A1B7:1468 (talk) 12:18, 9 June 2023 (UTC) THIS IS LIBELOUS and SHOULD BE DELETED even on this talk page. Reade had no obligation to testify under oath, because the issue of her accusation was never in court. She stated in her interviews that she would testify under oath if the accused perpetrator agreed to testify (this from her interview with Megyn Kelly on Fox News). Wikipedia's own definition (based on RS) of defection is: "In politics, a defector is a person who gives up allegiance to one state in exchange for allegiance to another, changing sides in a way which is considered illegitimate by the first state. More broadly, defection involves abandoning a person, cause, or doctrine to which one is bound by some tie, as of allegiance or duty. This term is also applied, often pejoratively, to anyone who switches loyalty to another religion, sports team, political party, or other rival faction. In that sense, the defector is often considered a traitor by their original side." Reade had been notified by Twitter that her DMs were subpoena'd by the DOJ for a Grand Jury Investigation. Reade's lawyer learned that she was under sealed indictment. Reade did not change citizenship, she asked for protection, because she's been blacklisted and subjected to persecution on U.S. territory. She could have asked for asylum, but citizenship was less difficult. Reade's allegation can be watched in her interview with Megyn Kelly BlueSapphires (talk) 09:29, 15 June 2023‎ (UTC) This was fixed on June 9. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 14:34, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

article title

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

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

Back in 2020, I pointed out that Juanita Broaddrick, Paula Jones, Anita Hill, and Christine Blasey Ford were good examples where instead of using a "[NAMED PARTY] sexual assault allegation" title, the article was styled as a BLP with most of the content detailing a single individual's accusation against a top U.S. government official (of course, it's different scenario if there is more than one individual making accusations). As it's been three years since that suggestion was rejected, maybe it's worth revisiting again. I recall some editors said that readers will always be searching for "[NAMED PARTY] sexual assault allegation", ergo the title needs to be there, but a redirect will always populate in the search box if they look for that, so I don't think that's really an issue. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 15:55, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

I came here to write something like this. I support this kind of rename. Cononsense (talk) 22:55, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Description of Butina as a “Russian spy” first and foremost

I think it’s hard to argue her acts of spying are the “only” thing she is known for given her own page leads with her status as a “politician, political activist, journalist, and former entrepreneur” before discussing her confession of guilt to spying. I genuinely don’t know much about her besides what the cited article says, but this seems like loaded language right out the gate (which also does not match how this information is discussed on her page nor the cited source). Paragon Deku (talk) 12:58, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

RS describe her as a spy, but we could also just call her a Russian agent. They mean the same thing. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 14:36, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

I think that if we are going to characterize someone with a single descriptive word to label them, it looks like POV pushing if it's contentious and not even the way they're described in the lead of their BLP. I'd recommend we either use no descriptor (instead of "spy Maria Butina," just use "Maria Butina," which is currently linked to her BLP), or go with whatever her current and most prominent status is at the time of the interview with Reade, which appears to be "Russian politician". If need be, the fact that she was convicted in 2018 for being an unregistered foreign agent in the U.S. can be included with the corresponding content in the "Further developments" section in context. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 15:42, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

But what do the sources we are using in this situation say? We are supposed to let them set the scene. That's what's relevant, and she's (Butina) called a spy by one of them. The situation the RS describe is that she's (Reade) being played by Russian intelligence and wittingly, according to at least one of the sources, is acting as a willing asset to help the Russian's attempts to aid Trump by smearing Biden. She's part of an active smear campaign, and she knows it. This is about Biden, in case you forgot to notice the title here. That is the setting of her defection and appearance right beside Butina, and Butina gives us information that could imply that Reade has been influenced by the Russians for a long time, maybe involved in the creation of this whole accusation. We can't be sure how much, but this is not some accidental thing. It's all carefully staged. That's what the sources are telling us, so we honor them by transmitting their message to readers. Butina is a Russian spy/agent, and Reade is a long-time friend of hers. That's pretty simple. I'm not asking much. Just that, and that's from the RS. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:43, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

The source used in the article refers to her as "a suspected Kremlin spy." I trust that editors can distinguish between suspicions and established fact. And agent doesn't necessarily mean spy. Someone can actually register as an agent of a foreign government, which Butina failed to do, hence her conviction. TFD (talk) 16:50, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

She did admit to being a secret agent: "A Russian gun-rights activist admitted Thursday that she was a secret agent for the Kremlin who tried to infiltrate conservative U.S. political groups as Donald Trump rose to power." -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:03, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Facts presented in articles should be based on reliable sources, not what a convicted agent of Russia says. In any case, she was never charged with spying and you need to show that is how reliable sources routinely describe her. TFD (talk) 17:26, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes to first phrase, but no to the following obfuscation. How do you define "spying"? Conspiracy to "act as an illegal foreign agent" is spying. She conspired to do it, she did it, and was convicted for those actions. What she said was in connection with her trial, not just some remark. RS describe her variously as a convicted Russian agent/spy. On December 13, she pleaded guilty to conspiracy to act as an illegal foreign agent, while the original charge of failing to register as a foreign agent was dropped. I only need to show that RS describe her in that way, not "routinely". Facts presented in articles should be based on reliable sources. RS call her a convicted Russian agent/spy. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:25, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

I think we should call her "Russian agent Maria Butina". It's common to refer to people that aren't the article subject by their role that is most relevant to the topic. Butina's status as a politician, activist, journal, and entrepreneur aren't really relevant here. This is backed up by the way Butina comes up in the reliable coverage of this article's topic. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:19, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

I have replaced "Russian spy" with "convicted Russian agent". That's factual and relevant to the topic. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 14:31, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Godalmighty. The FARA is about whether a person registered or not, for representing or working-with a government. Public affiars officials, and other professionals sign-up for the FARA, and a failure to file FARA doesn't mean you are a spy. Michael Flynn pled guilty to FARA and he wasn't a foreign spy. But he failed to register. Also: registering doesn't mean you are a spy. "Read up" guys.

From what I read about Butina, from reliable sources, she was a Russian student who networked a lot, and her American boyfriend, Patrick Byrne, reported her to the FBI as being is Russian lover, because he was trying to follow the rules (Byrne was a U.S. informant). It was Byrne's reporting that put Butina under investigation, and for a while, ruined her life. Byrne felt bad about it and paid for her legal fees.

There's been Russian spies caught in the U.S. Anna Chapman is the most famous of late, and she's the model of a Russian woman being a spy in the U.S. BlueSapphires (talk) 12:10, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

"Butina was just a social networker!" is some interesting disinformation, if that is really how some circles are trying to defend her, but ultimately your personal opinion it is of no relevance to this article. We follow the sources. Zaathras (talk) 13:27, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

The term spy is used to describe people who carry out espionage, which is "the act of obtaining secret or confidential information (intelligence)." Butina was not charged with espionage and no evidence was provided that she did. The allegation against her was that she was pushing a positive view of Russia without being registered as a foreign agent, in which case her actions would have been legal. Had she been conducting espionage, she would have been facing 20 years to life, not the 18 months she received. In fact she wasn't even convicted of being an unregistered Russian agent because she made a plea deal. TFD (talk) 18:55, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

"...plea deal" What RS says that espionage was not part of the deal that ultimately got her out of the USA.->? SPECIFICO talk 19:42, 29 July 2023 (UTC)