Talk:Joe Biden sexual assault allegation/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 → Archive 10

Reade's background POV issues

Somebody added to Reade's background the following lines:

Reade has published several positive social media posts about Biden. In 2017, after Biden called for technological industries to fight cancer, Reade wrote: "My old boss speaks truth. Listen".

I believe this pushes a certain POV and should be removed from the article. Thoughts? Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 14:23, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

  • Remove – I think if its accurately sourced it should remain, its useful information to know how Reade felt about Biden in the years following the alleged assault and before she came public with her testimony. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 14:27, 30 April 2020 (UTC) Was convinced otherwise by CJK09. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 07:23, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Remove – I don't see how Reade's social media background is relevant. Agree with the removal. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:31, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Remove – Agreed with Nice4What, since those social media posts have nothing to do with her allegations, it's a case of WP:SYNTH or an attempt to skew the narrative. It should be removed because it's a NPOV violation. BeŻet (talk) 14:28, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Remove. That text is way too specific. Sources have discussed the speculation over her politics, but if we included any of this information it would be in the context of the media's reporting. Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:48, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Remove this wasn't Reade congratulating or getting behind him on some contentious or controversial issue. It was on curing cancer - something basically everyone supports. This is the sort of feel-good pablum that gets shared constantly all over social media. It shouldn't be read too much into. Plus, I'm not a psychologist, but compartmentalization as a coping mechanism is a very real thing. CJK09 (talk) 01:32, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
You're right, I didn't look at it that way originally. I'm changing my vote. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 07:23, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Remove - I was under the impression that reviews belonged under a section titled Reception and applied primarily to books & movies. This is trivia by a person who is non-notable were it not for her sexual assault allegation against Biden. Let's not drift away from the topic. Atsme Talk 📧 16:27, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

2020 Allegations section NPOV V BLP issues

I tagged the 2020 allegations] section. There are numerous instances of unverified assertions and use of "corroborate". The section does not meet our standard for BLP but it's going to take some careful detailed work on sources and content to see what can be salvaged. I'm not available to do more about that at this time, so I'm tagging and starting this thread. SPECIFICO talk 15:19, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

You cannot actually start a productive discussion without making specific statements about what's NPOV. Merely waving around terms and asserting that in general terms you don't like it isn't helpful. What exactly is a problem? CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 15:27, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
Yes, this section is pointless and irrelevant unless we are presented some specifics. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 18:39, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
The last three paragraphs of the section can be condensed into one; much of it is overwrought, and work needs to be done, as SPECIFICO suggested, to adhere to NPOV and verifiability. There should not be any implicit editorializing, and the formatting/structure is currently a mess. RedHotPear (talk) 18:41, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
Please present the parts showcasing editorialization and formatting errors. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 19:03, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
I have revised some of the language. These have been repeatedly added by added by Petrarchan47. The additions simply state that several people "corroborate" her story. In fact, what this refers to are friends and/or associates of Reade who said that Reade recounted her story of the Biden assault to them at or around the time the alleged incident occurred, or years later. This is not "corroboration" as it is traditionally understood, and adding it without this context is inappropriate and possibly violates BLP. The word "corroboration" should not be used without in-text attribution to a source or context about what that corroboration is. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:41, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
Yes there's definitely POV pushing going on wrt to this "corroboration". Volunteer Marek 20:29, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
Hm. Casting aspersions?
  • 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" petrarchan47คุก 22:00, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
So far nobody has corroborated that what Reade alleged happened. Multiple people have corroborated that Reade told them that something happened. That's the key difference that needs to be clarified, I think. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:50, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
Nobody has proven that what was said actually happened (no one else was there), but as for language, we go with sources. petrarchan47คุก 22:00, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
  • I have revised to conform to reliable sources, and attributed the language very clearly to WaPo. If the "corroboration" language is wrong, please immediately let the Post know about their error, and once they revise their reporting we will change the wording here. But do not argue it must be changed per an editor's opinion as that is a waste of time. petrarchan47คุก 21:12, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
per an editor's opinion... that is a waste of time Comments like these are unnecessary. Why did you change the language indicating that the confirmations that she had previously told her account came from "a few people," rather than friends and associates contacted by reporters, as the article previously read? This seems a bit like WP:WEASEL words to me. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:10, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
In this disgraced and grizzled ex-reporter's formerly unprofessional opinion, this is Wikipedia's largest entire weasel article. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:50, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

The Virginia Slims-smoking friend on the stoop said in a news video that Tanya Reade had been in touch with her recently before the friend announced she recalled events from the 1990's. Not sure whether or where that would go, but it is the sort of thing investigators and laymen take into account when assessing the statements of people related to the subject. SPECIFICO talk 22:43, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: - Tara Reade, not Tanya. starship.paint (talk) 08:45, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
I've removed the tag as the criteria to start a discussion was not met, you have to name specific issues. No drive by tagging. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:21, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Section titling (the allegation)

The section of the page describing Reade's allegations seems to have its title change by the day, from "Reade's account" (the preferred version I added) to "Allegation" to "Reade's sexual assault allegation." Is there something I'm missing here? If the article is already titled "sexual assault allegation," why does the section on Reade's account need to indicate that it is a sexual assault allegation as well? Can we trim the language here? Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:33, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I was wondering about that as well. I almost changed it, but I couldn't remember what the section was called before. Changing it back to "Reade's account" seems like the best course. - MrX 🖋 19:42, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
Excellent question. I prefer "Reade's account" BetsyRMadison (talk) 19:53, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
Great. I think it'd be best if we could establish for the preferred version, simply to prevent any further changes and to enhance the stability of this page. Right now huge sections of it seem to be in flux, and while that's going to happen to a certain extent with any developing story, the overall structure should not be changing dramatically within every 24 hour period. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:03, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
Yes, anything differentiating the assault allegation from the seven or eight more detailed and inoffensive accounts is bad, everything should be equated till we forget which combination of stories is (reputedly) the lie. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:31, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
You forgot to add the sarcasm emoji. Half the editors who stumble on this page may think you were being serious. SPECIFICO talk 21:12, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
I am being serious, I've just switched sides, not even suspiciously, this is the new Hulk, I like conflation and obfuscation now, helps us move on, look over there! InedibleHulk (talk) 22:17, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
If we have consensus for "Reade's account," I'll reinsert it into the article. I don't know what IE is talking about. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 07:14, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
Talking about bundling a serious allegation with weaker ones. Waters everything down, allowing for easier cherrypicking to brush aside the whole package. Like when War on Terror beating, shocking, sleep deprivation and rape were rolled into "torture" with waterboarding. Waterboarding's not torture, reporters tried it, just uncomfortable! Here, light non-sexual touching is the strawman. It's a good thing, happy thoughts! Most importantly, though, I'm IH. Internet Explorer is a sick joke, always has been. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:15, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Here's the full chronology of how "Background" turned into "Reade's initial allegations."
[1] deleted subsection titles "2019 allegations" and "Contacting Time's Up and changed subsection "2020 allegations" to "Allegation:
[2] changed "Background" section title to "Background, including Reade's initial allegation"
[3] changed section title to "Background and Reade's initial allegation"
[4] changed to section title "Background" and subsection titles "Tara Reade and initial allegation" and "Joe Biden"
[5] changed subsection title to plural allegations
[6] deleted subsection title "Joe Biden" deleted
[7] deleted section title "Background", subsection title becomes section title "Reade's initial allegations" Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:14, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Senate response

https://www.npr.org/2020/05/04/850038361/senate-office-tells-biden-it-cannot-seek-tara-reade-records 68.197.116.79 (talk) 01:38, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Added, thanks, 68. starship.paint (talk) 03:30, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
No need to be so formal: my friends call me 79. 68.197.116.79 (talk) 14:49, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Time's Up Legal Defense Fund

The article said:

"In January–February 2020, Reade sought help regarding the elements of her allegations from Time's Up Legal Defense Fund.[13] The Fund ultimately declined to assist her, having determined that Internal Revenue Service restrictions on nonprofit organizations prohibit it from involvement in politics or elections.[12][14]"

It seems like outdated reporting based on The Intercept, which is an anti-Biden outlet. From Forbes:

"In a statement to Vox, the organization said it did try to help Reade and gave her a list of lawyers with expertise in the area. Time’s Up does not represent clients, as the New York Times reported. According to The Intercept, the organization told Reade they could not represent her because Biden is a candidate for federal office and they could lose their status as a nonprofit."

NYT said:

"Ms. Reade tried to get legal and public relations support from the Time’s Up Legal Defense Fund, an initiative established by prominent women in Hollywood to fight sexual harassment. Her outreach to the group was first reported by The Intercept. As it has for thousands of people who have contacted the group, the Time’s Up Legal Defense Fund, which does not represent clients, gave her a list of lawyers with expertise in such cases. She said she contacted every single one but none took her case. Two lawyers confirmed speaking to Ms. Reade but declined to comment on the record about her or the allegation.

I've updated the paragraph.[8] – Muboshgu (talk) 23:42, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

As the the reporting on Time's Up's decision not to fund Reade's PR has been contradictory, it's best to include direct quotes from Time's Up, which I've added with this update:

In January–February 2020, Reade sought help regarding the elements of her allegations from Time's Up Legal Defense Fund.[13] Spokespersons for Time's Up stated that they "informed Ms. Reade of [its] inability to fund legal and PR fees for her due to [its] 501(c)(3) status"[14] which restricts it "in how it can spend its funds, including restrictions that pertain to candidates running for election".[15] Time's Up provided Reade with a list of attorneys that she could reach out to. Reade reports that she contacted all of them, but none agreed to take the case.[9]

Kolya Butternut (talk)
Agree. (See tkpg's archive here.)--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 17:53, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Atsme, the exact text of the NYT source is above in this talk page section. She got a list, says she contacted them all, and they all declined. Reade didn't say how many were on the list. Neither did Time's Up. Unless I've read the sources wrong, Time's Up would pay the lawyer who agrees to take the case, as they do for anyone who comes to them. Why did the lawyers not take the case? They wouldn't say. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:38, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Muboshgu - I recognize that the above is neither an RfC nor truly local consensus considering only 1 editor agreed. After reviewing the sources, the NYTimes appears to be the only one saying that she contacted all the attorneys on the list and 2 confirmed the contact but would not comment further - it's possible I may have overlooked it in the other sources. Why were the 2 confirmed contacts omitted? There's no date when all of this took place, no corroborated conclusion, we don't know how many attorneys were on that list, or why they turned her down, if they actually did. NYT did not quote her response. Was Reade turned down because she had no funds to pay an attorney, or are they still considering taking her case? Our readers are left with a cliffhanger which has zero lasting encyclopedic value that even comes close to justifying inclusion. She might well have 3 attorneys by next weekend, and then what? That last sentence as written goes away - no lasting encyclopedic value. Let's examine what I wrote:

Time's Up provided Reade a list of attorneys to contact; however, as of May 1, 2020 there was no indication that she has secured legal representation.

It's a summary that can be expanded when new information comes forward. It serves a mutiple purpose: it provides a date, a point of reference, it is factually accurate and it's neutral. The current version is noncompliant with NPOV because it implies that her case isn't worthy of representation; i.e., none of the lawyers would take her case. Keep in mind that Reade is a private citizen, not a WP:PUBLICFIGURE and would not be notable were it not for the alleged assault. We need to exercise caution and restraint per WP:NPF. Also keep in mind that, at this point, the NYTimes is questionable as it relates to Reade because of their reluctance to publish anything about it until recently, and then they ended-up making changes to what they published at the behest of the Biden campaign. I ask that you please restore the material I added. Atsme Talk 📧 20:59, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
Atsme, I don't think your text is bad. I do think it's more vague, as it leaves more questions as to what has and hasn't happened. I think it's important to know that she did reach out to attorneys and that they declined to represent her. Your text leaves it unclear whether or not she contacted any attorneys, or if she simply got the list and sat on it. I don't agree with your assessment of the NY Times as questionable relating to Reade. They've been reluctant to publish about it, but her story does seem to change alot, so that could be giving them pause. We'd need to hear from them to know more about their reticence. The change I made doesn't have a strong consensus, so I appreciate your feedback and hope more people can chime in here. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:11, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
Atsme, here[10] you removed the quote where a Time's Up rep says that they cannot fund her PR because of the connection to Joe Biden: Time's Up said it "informed Ms. Reade of [its] inability to fund legal and PR fees for her due to [its] 501(c)(3) status"[1] which restricts "how it can spend its funds, including restrictions that pertain to candidates running for election".[2] I feel those are the most important details. Can you tell me how you felt that was a neutrality problem? This is the same text in my blockquote above. Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:19, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
Stuff that did not happen for a reason unrelated to any of the facts of the incident cannot be coatracked or SYNTHed into an article. It's also received no sustained coverage outside the fringe blogoshpere. SPECIFICO talk 00:27, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
I'm sorry I don't understand. Which details do you feel are synth and coatracking? Maybe if you suggested text I would understand which parts you are opposed to. Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:43, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
Kolya Butternut - see the following which was my edit vs the prior edit, rather than what is included now:

In January 2020, Reade contacted Time's Up Legal Defense Fund seeking legal and public relations support in an effort to "get her story out in a safe way". Uma Iyer, vice president of The National Women's Law Center (NWLC), which oversees and distributes funds for Time's Up, expressed their desire to provide her as much assistance as they possibly could but funding her legal defense was not possible because of restrictions imposed by their 501(c)(3) status.[14][15] Time's Up provided Reade a list of attorneys to contact; however, as of May 1, 2020 there was no indication that she has secured legal representation.[16]

VS

In January 2020, Reade contacted Time's Up Legal Defense Fund and requested financial assistance to make her sexual assault allegation public.[14] Time's Up said it "informed Ms. Reade of [its] inability to fund legal and PR fees for her due to [its] 501(c)(3) status"[15] which restricts "how it can spend its funds, including restrictions that pertain to candidates running for election".[13] Time's Up provided Reade with a list of attorneys that she could reach out to. Reade said she contacted all of them but none agreed to take the case.[16]

Re: "restrictions that pertain to the candidate running for election" gave me flashes of WP:SYNTH because there are 2 different sources cited in that one sentence to reach a particluar conclusion. I also wasn't sure if the reason given to not fund her was accurate or necessary so I opted for safe and left it out. Re: I chose not to include "none agreed to take the case" because it was too vague and gave me the impression Reade didn't have a case which I felt was noncompliant with NPOV. Atsme Talk 📧 01:48, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
Atsme, would you support this:

In January 2020, Reade contacted Time's Up Legal Defense Fund seeking legal and public relations support in an effort to "get her story out in a safe way". Uma Iyer, vice president of The National Women's Law Center (NWLC), which oversees and distributes funds for Time's Up, expressed their desire to provide her as much assistance as they possibly could but funding her legal defense and PR fees was not possible because of restrictions imposed by their 501(c)(3) status. A spokesperson for the NWLC said that as "a nonprofit 501(c)(3) charitable organization, the [NWLC] is restricted in how it can spend its funds, including restrictions that pertain to candidates running for election". Time's Up provided Reade a list of attorneys to contact; however, as of May 1, 2020 there was no indication that she has secured legal representation.[16]

The connection to Biden being the reason not to fund her is precisely what makes this noteworthy. Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:33, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
Kolya, nonprofits are simply not allowed to use funds in any political campaign to express support or oppose a candidate or they risk losing their nonprofit status or worse. Biden was more about circumstance than actual reason. Frankly, I’m of the mind that less is more right now because more information is coming forward. WP has no deadlines. It’s always better to wait and avoid falling into the WP:RECENTISM trap. Atsme Talk 📧 06:30, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
I have to strongly disagree. I don't think anything about Time's Up should be in the article (especially if deadlines are not a concern), if the connection to Biden and Anita Dunn, which is what makes it noteworthy, is excluded. Atsme, I'm concerned about the rationale you've been offering here. This is not an accurate representation of what Time's UP would be doing. They would not be "using funds in a political campaign" or even expressing opposition. Just as I am not expressing opposition to Joe Biden by caring that the truth (as reported in RS) gets out. Voters know this story, nothing we do here is going to influence them; it's just going to hurt our credibility to exclude this. Lastly, it's WP:OR to say the connection to Biden wasn't the actual reason, and there simply isn't any evidence that their nonprofit status would be jeopardized:

Ruling out federal candidates marks as off-limits any member of Congress running for reelection, as well as President Donald Trump. Ellen Aprill, a professor of tax law at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles, said that Time’s Up’s analysis is too conservative, and the group wouldn’t be putting its tax-exempt status at risk by taking a case involving a candidate for federal office as long as it followed its standard criteria for taking on cases. “As a legal matter, if the group is clear regarding the criteria used as to whom it is taking to court, show that these are long-established neutral criteria, and they are being applied to individuals completely independent of their running for office, it would not be a violation of tax law. Groups are allowed to continue to do what they have always done,” she said.

Kolya Butternut (talk) 07:12, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
I was about to add that exact same quote. It comes from the initial reporting from Grim/Intercept, which is the same outlet that broke the Kavanaugh story. I think remarks about what candidates an outlet supposedly hates or supports are unhelpful. Aprill's commentary and Anita Dunn's connection are both encyclopedic and well documented, and should be included in the article. petrarchan47คุก 17:27, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
petrarchan47, this still hasn't been corrected in the article, but I'm not ready to take this on. (You're probably busy too.) Kolya Butternut (talk) 04:31, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

"(...) inveterate hugger who has no ill intent"

This sentence: The article also mentions that Biden has been "touchy-feely with men, too," and that he is an "inveterate hugger who has no ill intent." required more specific attribution, specifying who is making the claim that he's a hugger with no ill intent. This should be uncontroversial, and I've already made an attempt to do that, but my change was reverted for some reason. @Space4Time3Continuum2x:, if you could explain what was wrong in that phrasing that would be grand, thanks. BeŻet (talk) 16:58, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

It's the New York Times who is making the claim. An inveterate hugger who has no ill intent isn't what people said, it's the NYT's summation (interpretation, if you will) of what people said about him. They add an example in the same sentence: People who know Mr. Biden are virtually unanimous in their assessment of him as an inveterate hugger who has no ill intent — “a very affectionate individual who is a natural toucher,” said Senator Susan Collins, Republican of Maine. and then go on to cite numerous women praising Biden's empathy, compassion, and decency. BTW, at the top of the article is a photograph of a total stranger sitting on Biden's lap during a campaign stop and obviously not suspecting ill intent. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:54, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
This doesn't mean that this statement doesn't need to be attributed. If an article stated that People who know Mr. Biden (...) think he is very handsome, we wouldn't just say The article mentions that Biden is "very handsome", because the article is talking about an opinion. This opinion is not expressed by the author of the article (if it was, it would need to be attributed to the author) or by the newspaper (we would attribute it to NYT then), but by a specific group of people. Thus, if the article itself is not trying to make a factual statement and instead is talking about an opinion (which the article itself attributes to "people who know Mr. Biden"), it is even more important for our article to talk about an opinion, rather than a factual statement, and attribute it accordingly. However, since this fragment has now been removed, this discussion is moot. BeŻet (talk) 20:10, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

The whole "Tara Reade" (bio) section is just an attempt to disparage and doxx her.

The whole opening section is a little disturbing. It's basically "Tara Reade Moulton lives in Nevada County, California and works with special-needs children. So just google that, and it'd be a shame if you participated in ruining her life or... whatever. Oh, and she dates jerks who beat her, so take that into account when you read her claims against our candidate. And she only works part-time, like a loser who lies about being raped. She went to law school but then didn't take the bar, like a loser who lies about being raped." Seriously, let's keep in the relevant parts and take out the character assassination and doxxing.--Mrcolj (talk) 23:06, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

As a wise man once said, "I do not think those words mean what you think they mean. Zaathras (talk) 01:06, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
I just removed "She has changed her name for protection due to domestic violence in her past" as being irrelevant to the topic of the article. Cjhard (talk) 01:48, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
I agree, why is it relevant to discuss where Reade lives and what she did in early 2020? Zloyvolsheb (talk) 01:59, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Oh no. If she has changed her name for protection due to domestic violence in her past, this is absolutely relevant because she complaints here about an alleged abuse. Such things from her past should be expanded, not removed. My very best wishes (talk) 02:18, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
Domestic violence is not the same as sexual assault. Please explain how and why "it is absolutely relevant". Cjhard (talk) 02:45, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
  • What is relevant to the subject must be determined by RS, and we do have a NYT article on the subject that tells about her changing her name for protection due to domestic violence - as an important part of her biography: [11]. So should we We say what RS say on the subject. Same does an NPR article [12], which tells: "Reade described herself as a third-generation Democrat and said she supports the work Biden did to advocate for the the Violence Against Women Act. She's a domestic abuse survivor and said that legislation personally helped her.". Is that important? Yes, absolutely. That's why NPR article mentioned it. So should we. Sources presents her as a victim of abuse and a fighter against abuse, for example here: 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 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. All of that should be included. My very best wishes (talk) 03:19, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Some of that may be relevant, but surely not everything about her that may have been published, since the article is not about Reade but about her allegation of sexual assault against Biden. Why is it relevant that she worked for animal rescue organizations? I see no relation between that and the sexual assault allegation, nor do I see the connection to the county where she lives now, or the work she did in early 2020. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 04:41, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Policy requires considering the "body of reliable sources" on the subject of the allegation as per WP:BALASP. If the vast majority of sources that focus on the allegation do not describe the county where Reade lives now or the work she did a few months ago in connection with the allegation, we should not either. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 04:49, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
That character introduction section is not a biography, it just has her name on it. It's meant to give context to her notable allegation. Nothing more, nothing less. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:00, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
How do you decide what's relevant background and what isn't? 05:02, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
It's not rocket science. The connection is either obvious, explainable or bogus. We should say she worked at the Senate, as an obvious example. We used to reasonably explain her and Biden's shared history here. But now everything she says he did with her is mushed into the topic section. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:10, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
Well, I agree we should mention that she worked with Biden, and anything else in her life that many reliable sources discuss in connection with the allegation. I don't think we should include things like the county where she lives now or the kind of jobs she happened to have worked at in the last year. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 05:16, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
Correct, because this story is set in 1993. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:19, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
I trimmed the madness, but when it comes back, I'm powerless to stop it again and fully aware of this glaring weakness. The wrong version will prosper, even if we losers band together. We can only stall it, slightly, but it won't be easy or fun or rewarding on any appreciable level later! InedibleHulk (talk) 06:02, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
Indeed this is article tends to get a little mad at times. Good people are watching it. But her bio stays put unless she gets her own dedicated article, and then we will trim it down and move most of the content. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:41, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
Again, there is no bio. When supposedly notable people don't have one, the thing to do is make one. If it's deleted, it wasn't meant to be, especially awkwardly crammed inside a current event article like a malformed parasitic twin. Just the important bits. If nobody can explain why a bit is important here, the only possible motive for writing it here is ulterior (and those are typically sinister). InedibleHulk (talk) 08:12, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
  • cmt - Events we're covering include: a 1993 alleged incident of dual biography, a series of relatedly alleged incidents from the same time period, private revelations of the latter at various time points, public revelations of latter in 2019/20 and of the former in 2020, how these revelations are perceived to affect the accused's presidential election campaign, how the media has covered them, etc. Obviously, some of these are more meta than others - a type of material, when existing in great measure within available RSes, wikieditors must decide what to do with. Well, there is always an effort to focus lazerlike on certain aspects and screen out others. (The site Hamichlol will feature content on Kabbalah markedly different than in the WP subentries Kabbalah#Scholarship, Kabbalah#Criticism, and Kabbalah#Contemporary study. Often there's subarticles: Homer but also Historicity of the Homeric epics, English translations of Homer, etc.) No particular choice is intrinsically right and Wikieditors choosing what to extract from among RSes in coverage of some topic do not violate wp:OR in so doing. That said, I myself believe it best to "respect readers' intelligence" by the inclusion of more sourced information rather than less.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 17:29, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
    If the content is broad, we need to move to a title consistent with that broad content. Like "Tara Reade" or "Tara Reade controversy". SPECIFICO talk 18:09, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Editors certainly have done an excellent job purging this page of anything "irrelevant" like the names she has been writing under over the years. It wasn't just on social media; she has written articles, as well. Take this one, for example, written in 2009 under the name Alexandra McCabe on the website thewip.net, about the reason she left Washington (WaPo mentions it briefly): Soon I received an offer to work on a Governor’s race in California and I almost accepted. Tate kept me up that night, pleading with me to go with him while he managed the Congressman’s campaign. I agreed and we moved to the frozen tundra of the Midwest. This is now the page of "she said, she said, and then she said," and the widely differing accounts she gave in the past have been hidden somewhere at the end of long paragraphs of "she said" ([13], [14], [15], [16], [17]) for the sake of "better integration." Indeed. What some editors seem to be overlooking is that these are writings she published for public consumption. Also, job well done on finding the most non-descriptive section titles possible. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:27, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Notice: Deletion discussion Tara Reade

This deletion discussion is related to the content of this article. The discussion is occurring here.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 20:46, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

No section regarding analysis of the media coverage?

Earlier versions of this article had numerous references to some of the analysis of the media coverage of the Reade allegation and now this information seems to have disappeared in the various restructures necessitated by this unfolding story. There has been substantial analysis done, across many major media outlets and across the whole political spectrum, examining the media's coverage of the allegation, both in general as well as comparing and contrasting directly it to other such allegations, specifically the Kavanaugh allegation from a few years ago. The analysis has been very widespread and pretty balanced in terms of people claiming there have been double standards and hypocrisy and those claiming there hasn't been. Regardless, analysis of the media coverage surrounding the allegations has been pretty substantial and is definitely been a prominent aspect of the entire affair. I feel like a section covering the media analysis is probably warranted, or at least a few paragraphs in some other section. Zaqwert (talk) 01:13, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

This has been discussed at #Needs a media controversy section. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:19, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Please help write the Tara Reade article

That article can include noteworthy content related to the 2019 allegation, her media presence, and current controversies surrounding her zllegations and advocacy. Then we can pare the excessive off-topic content from this article and consider whether it should be merged. SPECIFICO talk 19:28, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

I'd be happy to help. Just tell me how. BetsyRMadison (talk) 19:32, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
I suggest we remove content not related to the 2020 sexual assault allegation from this page and integrate it with the Tara Reade page. Then we can take stock of the two articles. Others may suggest other work plans. SPECIFICO talk 19:47, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
I don't know how to remove content and integrate it so I'll just follow your lead. BetsyRMadison (talk) 20:08, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
I just meant copy and paste from the edit window. Only problem will be not to break references. Then we can trim any of the copied material that isn't related to the assault allegation. SPECIFICO talk 20:24, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
I strongly disagree, as Tara Reade does not meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for biographies (see Wikipedia:Notability (people)), while the subject of the allegation does meet the general article criteria. That means we should stick to the subject and only discuss those parts of Reade's life that are related to the allegation by the body of reliable sources on the subject (see WP:BALASP). The rest of Reade's biography is not suitable for its own article. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 20:28, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
If she is not NOTABLE we will discovevr that when we look at the new bio article and decide to delete it. But this article is full of material that is unrelated to her assault allegation. We can't have it both ways. Either we drasticqlly trim this article, removing e.g. somebody's call to Larry King about not assault, the media issues, etc. or we chronicle her tale in a bio article. I think we should try to write that and see whether it passes muster. SPECIFICO talk 20:34, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
@Zloyvolsheb: I apologize, I should have noted the deletion discussion on this page earlier. It is now noted below.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 20:48, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, I wasn't aware. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 02:13, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Second accuser

Some news outlets are reporting about a second accuser, who is alleging that Biden sexually harassed her when she was 14.[3][4][5][6] Since the article heavily focuses on the Tara Reade accusation and most of the sources for this second accuser are sites with a conservative bias, should this second accuser also be included somewhere? { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 15:46, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ North, Anna (April 29, 2020). "A sexual assault allegation against Joe Biden has ignited a firestorm of controversy". Vox. Retrieved May 1, 2020.
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference InterceptGrimTara was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ Wulfsohn, Joseph A. (May 2, 2020). "Woman accuses Biden of sexual harassment over alleged incident when she was 14". Fox News.
  4. ^ Mujezinovic, Damir (May 1, 2020). "Woman Says Joe Biden Sexually Harassed Her When She Was 14". Inquisitr.
  5. ^ Vespa, Matt (May 1, 2020). "New Biden Accuser: He Complimented My Breasts When I Was 14 Years Old". Townhall.
  6. ^ Enloe, Chris (May 2, 2020). "New woman accuses Joe Biden of sexually harassing her when she was just 14 years old". The Blaze.
Good thing this accusation mentioned a specific date, time, and place. One of the four unreliable sources reporting it, Fox News, goes on to mention that Biden didn't attend the event A past organizer of the event, however, now says Biden was not even at the dinner in question. ... However, J. Brian Murphy, the former vice president of the dinner in question, said in a statement over the weekend that he reviewed the records and can “conclusively say” Biden “was not at the dinner.” “The year 2008 is particularly noteworthy because it is the only year where the Senator agreed to appear in a video, which was a spoof of Meet the Press. It was taped earlier that week. It was our hope the Senator would attend the dinner to see the video, but he sent regrets. Had he been there, myself as well as others would have known and in fact, I would have acknowledged him from the stage,” he said. “Senator Biden was not at the Gridiron Dinner in May of 2008.” Local news reports from the time said he was having sinus surgery earlier that week, and was scheduled to be out of work for the whole week. A personal schedule for Biden obtained by Fox News also listed an aide as going in his place to the Gridiron dinner. Despite all that, Fox went on the interview people who remember looking at the accuser "beyond-creepy" ... Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:34, 3 May 2020 (UTC) In short, nope. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:36, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
This has nothing to do with the topic of the article. It does not belong. - MrX 🖋 18:07, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
Not within the scope of this article. RedHotPear (talk) 18:16, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
As with all mere impropriety and harassment allegations, yes, out of scope, does not belong. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:04, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
We'll see how it plays out over the next several days, but isn't appropriate for this article and seems a little bizarre, too. EdJF (talk) 16:49, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
Maybe. I think we have to have a discussion about what the scope of this article should be. Unfortunately, we haven't really had that conversation yet. Some editors are keen to have this article only be about Tara Reade and her allegations. There is an open question whether the other allegations noted here should be incorporated into the article, or these ones (if notable/reliable enough).--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 19:36, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
This IS the page about Reade's allegation. The so-called allegations of inappropriate physical contact you're referring to are complaints about unwanted physical contact. The contacts happened and weren't welcome. Among adults the way these things are usually handled is to remove the hand or step away and tell the "inveterate hugger" that the contact is unwelcome. BTW, one of the women who complained about Biden, Flores, doesn't seem to have been bothered by the touching when he was supporting her run for office (or with reciprocating, for that matter - these days everything is documented on Twitter and Instagram). Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:32, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
I agree that information about inappropriate behaviour belongs (once reliably sourced, journalists are looking into this currently) on the Biden page. This is for the sexual assault allegation. petrarchan47คุก 20:20, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
What about moving the page to Joe Biden sexual misconduct allegations? 137.27.174.150 (talk) 17:00, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
That'd be a major POV violation, and probably a BLP violation. There is one, singular, allegation of sexual misconduct. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:03, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
If a when a second accuser shows up this article will be the correct venue for it, unless the article is renamed. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:05, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Errors in Tara Reade and initial allegations

I've tagged this section. I began looking at the text and references and found serious misrepresentations of the sources and other unverified content. I corrected or removed a few, but I think the entire section needs to have the content checked for verification and NPOV. There appear to be numerous other BLP violations still in the text. SPECIFICO talk 13:59, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Speaking of errors, the lead incorrectly states that Reade felt "uncomfortable" when Biden "commented on her legs." First: Reade specifically stated that the comments about her legs did not make her feel "uncomfortable." In Reade's April 17, 2019 essay published at The Union [18] , Reade wrote "I was told that Sen. Biden wanted me to “serve drinks at a event” because he “liked my legs” and thought I was “pretty.”I was a former model and actress, so at the time such comments were of no consequence to me. I was asked to do many things based on my looks..." Second: 4/3/2019 Reade told The Union [19] she never she heard Biden say anything about her legs "...didn’t hear Biden make that suggestion, instead learning of it through his staff’s argument." So, the statement regarding legs & uncomfortable in the lead seems to be written in error. Any thoughts? BetsyRMadison (talk) 14:31, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
I find that kind of stuff throughout the article. This article has degenerated to the point where each day brings a dozen or more clearly unverified, POV, or UNDUE bits in the article. It's not the job of others to police the article and remove this kind of garbage. Some editors take a lot of time and effort to check our text against the sources we are citing. Thanks for pointing that out. SPECIFICO talk 15:00, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
Got it. Thanks SPECIFICO. Question for clarity though, the part in the lead about Reade feeling "uncomfortable" regarding "legs" is an error of the facts. How are fact-errors addressed, if at all? Respectfully, BetsyRMadison (talk) 15:49, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
We address them by editing the article to fix them. ;) Thanks for pointing out this error, I removed it from the lead a few minutes ago. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 15:55, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: Could you give some examples, so we can help address the issues? Perhaps marking them inline? I've had a read and can't see any issues, and you haven't mentioned anything specific when marking the section. Thanks. BeŻet (talk) 12:19, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

I have now removed the tag, please feel free to reintroduce it once you explain which fragments are dubious. Thanks. BeŻet (talk) 16:48, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

NPOV tag

I see that we have "touched her neck and shoulders" in the lede, and have buried the actual assault allegation, which is the actual subject of the article, deep inside the article itself, with no actual heading to help find out what the actual allegation is.

This makes it virtually impossible to find out what the allegation is without actually reading the entire article, and looks a little like an attempt at political damage control. That appears to justify a NPOV tag, in my view (I'm not an American, so I have no particular horse in the Presidential race). -- Netwalker3 (talk) 06:23, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

I have now added a description in the lead, explaining what the alleged assault entailed. BeŻet (talk) 10:23, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
There is already an RfC underway here: #RfC: "... alleged that Biden pushed her against a wall and penetrated her with his fingers" in the lead. This material should not have been restored. - MrX 🖋 12:27, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
The detailed description of the alleged assault should not be in the lead. It adds excessive weight. If someone can't be bothered to read the article to find out this level of detail, Wikipedia probably should not be on their reading list. - MrX 🖋 12:27, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
The detailed description of the alleged assault should not be in the lead, but "Biden had touched her neck and shoulders in ways that made her feel uncomfortable" should be? Are you serious? The most common reason for going to this article is probably to find out what the allegations are. -- Netwalker3 (talk) 13:13, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
No, neck and shoulders shouldn't be in the lead either. Go ahead and delete it. - MrX 🖋 13:39, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
It's still there. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:22, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Tara Reade's biographical section

I cannot fathom why Space4Time3Continuum2x changed a section heading to Tara Reade bio stub. This is bizarre and completely at odds with WP:LAYOUT and WP:HEADING. "bio" is a casual abbreviation and "stub" is a word that has as specific back-office meaning among Wikipedia editors are no meaning to our readers. - MrX 🖋 17:26, 6 May 2020 (UTC)  

I agree "stub" is too inside wikibaseball. Btw, per wp:ONEEVENT:

.. if media coverage of both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles may become justified. If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate. The assassins of major political leaders, such as Gavrilo Princip, fit into this category, as indicated by the large coverage of the event in reliable sources that devotes significant attention to the individual's role. When the role played by an individual in the event is less significant, an independent article may not be needed, and a redirect is appropriate. .. when an individual plays a major role in a minor event. In this case, it is not generally appropriate to have separate articles on the person and the event. Generally in this case, the name of the person should redirect to the article on the incident, especially if the individual is only notable for that incident and it is all that the person is associated with in the source coverage. For example, Steve Bartman redirects to Steve Bartman incident. In some cases, however, a person famous for only one event may be more widely known than the event itself, for example, the Tank Man. In such cases, the article about the event may be most appropriately named for the person involved. .. It is important to remember that "notable" is not a synonym for "famous". Someone may have become famous due to one event, but may nevertheless be notable for more than one event. Conversely, a person may be generally famous, but significant coverage may focus on a single event involving that person.

I also considered calling it "Tara Reade," "Tara Reade biography," or "Who is Tara Reade" but I thought bio stub was a generally known term. The section now contains only a few biographical snippets, so background is too vague. I would prefer a page move to "Tara Reade," anyway, or a merger with the page that is being drafted, per the below edit. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:56, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
I think calling it by her name is sufficiently unambiguous. - MrX 🖋 18:31, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Someone's started a bio for Reade in draftspace: Draft:Tara Reade. Reade may already be considered notable enough to warrant independent coverage.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 17:43, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Until Reade has the notability to warrant her own article, her bio belongs on this article. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:47, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
Well, her bio doesn't really belong anywhere. She's not a notable person beyond the one event. - MrX 🖋 18:31, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
Reade’s notability stems entirely from her allegation against Biden. Those interested in a standalone article should first review WP:BLP1E, specifically condition 1. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:29, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
user:Mr Ernie, in certain cases, multiple reliable and independent sources provide biographical information for a person known almost entirely for one event and WP's treatment for the event gets subsumed into its biography for this intrinsically linked person. wp:SingleEvent gives by way of illustration WP's bio for Rodney King, pertaining in large part to the incident of his beating by the LAPD, which compares to WP's biographies for Juanita Broaddrick &alia.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 18:29, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Commentary section

I removed some content that was just a criticism of NYT or purely uninformative opinion (person A supports person B), but the section is probably legit and can be expanded. The opinions here must provide some factual info and/or arguments, rather than to simply make a claim. For example, something like "Chairman Tom Perez on Sunday dismissed calls for the Democratic National Committee to launch an investigation into a former Senate staffer's allegation" and so on (i.e. why he dismissed it) [20] could be included I think. My very best wishes (talk) 02:30, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Does the following removed information belong in this article? Btw, if not, per wp:PRESERVE this sourced information would be contributed, say, to the article about criticisms of the New York Times.

The New York Times was criticized by commentators who said it delayed coverage of the allegation and argued its coverage differed from reporting on other allegations in the past.[1] Its executive editor, Dean Baquet, published an op-ed on April 13, responding to these criticisms.[2][3][1][4] Baquet responded to a controversy about a line in the news story that was removed after the piece's initial publication. The sentence previously read: "The Times found no pattern of sexual misconduct by Mr. Biden, beyond the hugs, kisses and touching that women previously said made them uncomfortable." Baquet explained that it had been included originally in order not to falsely imply that other individuals had made allegations as invasive in nature as Reade's, but was thereafter removed because of "awkward phrasing issue that could be read different ways."[5] Baquet stated that the edit was made after the Biden campaign had objected to it because "[it] made it look like there were other instances in which he had been accused of sexual misconduct."[4]

--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 05:28, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
The NYT criticism should be in the article. It's been a big part of the entire ordeal, and has been thoroughly discussed on the talk page. I wish MVBW would have joined those conversations instead of jumping straight to another reversion. Mr Ernie (talk) 06:27, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
People are just adding and adding to this article and creating huge sections. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 07:22, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
That is certainly true, but it's not a good reason to rip out all the text. I've put it back in. The current play-by-play of what each person says is not sustainable and should be condensed. Einsof (talk) 12:51, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
* No it does not belong in the WP article. The complaint alleging NYT was sitting on the story (as commentators alleged) is opinion, not fact. In NYT initial published piece, they wrote that they began an in-depth investigating into Reade's 2020 allegations directly after her March 25 interview. The Times wrote: "Soon after Ms. Reade made the new allegation, in a podcast interview released on March 25, The Times began reporting on her account and seeking corroboration through interviews, documents and other sources...interviewed Ms. Reade on multiple days over hours... those she told...lawyers who spoke to Ms. Reade...nearly two dozen people who worked with Ms. Reade...seven women who criticized Mr. Biden last year, to discuss their experiences with him." So, NYT was not sitting on the story (which "commentators" were alleging), they were doing an in-depth investigations so there is no validity to the accusation against NYT and therefore is of no benefit to the reader in this WP article. BetsyRMadison (talk) 13:27, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
Besides the NYT or Biden WP pages, this is the only article this information would fit. It cannot be claimed it is unencyclopedic. There has been much coverage of the NYT piece and of media coverage in general. The highlighted text in question could be condensed, but there is also more to add. The controversy surrounds not only the length of time it took to report on the allegations, but the fact of the Biden-influenced removal of an important caveat, as well as the leaked talking points showing the Biden camp encouraged their supporters to falsely claim the NYT "investigation" concluded there was no there there. Here is the Columbia Journalism Review on the blowback received by the NYT.
The Times’ story was criticized online: some progressives said that its delayed publication was suspicious—Bernie Sanders was still running against Biden when Reade made her allegation, but had ended his campaign by the time the story came out—and others said that the assignment should have been handled by specialist investigative reporters. (Lerer and Ember primarily cover politics.) petrarchan47คุก 20:06, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes, appears to be an important part of the story that was removed, not sure why. EdJF (talk) 16:43, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
  • No - If it appears anywhere, it would be on an article about the NYT. But, I don't see that either. Not WP:DUE O3000 (talk) 16:47, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
  • No The first sentence is far too broad to derive from its only source, the popular culture magazine Vanity Fair. There are then four long sentences on the NYT executive editor's response to one line, which is very much non-notable and WP:UNDUE. RedHotPear (talk) 18:38, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes particularly since it has been used incorrectly to suggest that Biden was exonerated, and was part of the talking points his campaign relied upon.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 18:55, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes. These are important aspects to the story and should not be ripped out of the text in large chunks. Einsof (talk) 19:24, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes in some form; I'm not particularly wedded to the exact language proposed. But the "NYT edit" aspect of this topic has received enough coverage in RS (including NYT itself but also others) that I think it's significant enough to include in the article. At least based on the state of RS now. Time may prove that coverage is not WP:SUSTAINED enough to merit inclusion in the future, but for now, I think we'd be remiss to omit it. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 19:30, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes Sufficient coverage for inclusion. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 07:14, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment You did a terrible job. Now about half of the section is devoted to Nathan Robinson's thoughts on the subject. Robinson has proved to be a full-time, purely partisan advocate against Joe Biden. Robinson is the farthest thing from an unbiased or factual commentator that you could possibly find. He is not an expert on sexual harassment, rape, or any other related topic—other than being a full-time partisan advocate against Joe Biden. Nor is he a trained journalist. If this group is interested in writing a remotely neutral or accurate article, then Robinson's amateur and amateurish commentary should not dominate the section. I would be very interested in hearing what is the rationale for having Nathan Robinson's random thoughts dominating the commentary section. — goethean 15:24, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment I agree that the section isn’t really a “Commentary” section of Reade’s 2019 allegations & 2020 allegation. It’s become a section about two people, Katie Halper & Nathan Robinson, (who both 1: have a vested financial interest in people promoting, and clicking on, their Reade stories and 2: vocal anti-Biden political interests) reacting and complaining about other commentator's critique of Reade’s changing allegations that Halper & Robinson first publicized. Halper’s & Robinson’s reactions to commentators discussing Reade’s changing stories are of no benefit to the WP reader reading that article; so Halper & Robinson's reactions should not be included in this section at all. BetsyRMadison (talk) 18:13, 5 May 2020 (UTC) (I forgot to sign this initially, sorry)
  • No. The criticism of New York Times and other personal opinions, which are purely opinions, do not belong here, as explained in the beginning of the thread. Everyone has opinion. Some other content, such as commentary that provides factual info about the controversy or views by people directly involved to the controversy (the accuser, the subject, investigators, etc.) can be included. My very best wishes (talk) 17:30, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
The criticism of the NYT piece has gone far beyond opinions at this point. The story is evolving daily, and while the section you highlight above may be bloated, I wouldn't agree with the noton that we should ignore reliable sources' coverage of the piece. I added newer bits of the story and sources here. petrarchan47คุก 20:18, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
I agree that the story is related to the subject of the page, but it seems too convoluted, and strays too far away from main subject. I think it is undue. My very best wishes (talk) 19:56, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
I've always found the NYT report to be 'not very due', however it really has become a big story in itself. The Biden campaign decided to weaponize it, and got called out for doing so*. The NYT was forced to respond to all the criticism they received over the reporting, and when they admitted to changing important text to remove a disclaimer about Biden's past with women on behalf of the Biden campaign, that became a controversy too, as it rightly should have. When the allegation came out, I tried to add it to the Biden BLP, but we were forced to wait a month, until the NYT (et al) decided to cover it, so I've been made to understand that this NYT report is VERY important. It's controversial enough to also be included in the Times page. petrarchan47คุก 22:33, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
  • No - This is too far afield and WP:UNDUEWEIGHT. It really doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article about a sexual assault allegation. - MrX 🖋 19:49, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes - as we are using the New York Times as a resource (4x), it definitely should be included. Patapsco913 (talk) 03:51, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes. Biden campaign asked NYT to change sentence. NYT did. Rest of media critiqued.--KasiaNL (talk) 06:04, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
  • "Rest of media critiqued" is a false and extravagant exaggeration. SPECIFICO talk 13:00, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
  • "Rest of media critiqued" is from two people, Katie Halper & Nathan Robinson, who both have a vested financial interest in people promoting, and clicking on, their Reade stories. Halper's & Robinson's self-serving complaints about other commentator's critique of discrepancies in Reade’s changing allegations (of which Halper & Robinson first publicized) are meaningless and should be deleted entirely from that section. As for Arwa Mahdawi, the WP article includes only her bit about politics, not her bit on Reade's allegations. Specifically, WP article only includes what Mahdawi said about how republicans and democrats will use the allegations politically. This WP article is not about “politics” so if Mahdawi is going to stay in WP article, then what she wrote about the allegation should be included and her political dissertation should be deleted. Mahdawi wrote, “Reade also gave a slightly different version of events last year; she accused Biden of touching her neck and shoulders in a way that was inappropriate and uncomfortable, but did not say anything sexual took place.” BetsyRMadison (talk) 14:03, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
  • No the subject of this article is allegations. Criticisms of NYT (if they are due) belong on the The New York Times article. I kinda doubt this event is big enough to be DUE on the NYT article. Putting it here because it is UNDUE over there is akin to WP:REDUNDANTFORK with a dollop of WP:UNDUE on top for added measure. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 14:16, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ a b Ecarma, Caleb (April 14, 2020). "The Media Floodgates Finally Open on Biden Sexual Assault Allegation". Vanity Fair. Retrieved April 17, 2020.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  2. ^ Tobin, Jonathan S. (April 14, 2020). "The New York Times Denies Tara Reade the Christine Blasey Ford Treatment". National Review. Retrieved April 15, 2020.
  3. ^ Cite error: The named reference Slate was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  4. ^ a b Smith, Ben (April 13, 2020). "The Times Took 19 Days to Report an Accusation Against Biden. Here's Why". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved April 15, 2020.
  5. ^ Swanson, Ian (April 14, 2020). "NY Times faces blowback for removal of controversial passage on Biden sexual assault allegation". The Hill. Retrieved April 15, 2020.

Q'es w rgd Reade's various names

Choices from among for mention

Formerly Tara Reade McCabe (nee Moulton), upon separation from her partner she changed her name to Alexandra Tara Reade. A lot of women, when leaving a partner, choose another name. In such cases, to give a rigamarole like "Also known as Alexandra Tara Reade, Tara Reade Moulton, Tara McCabe, Alexandra Tara McCabe, and Alexandra McCabe," as currently in our Background section, for what it's worth seems to my ear somewhat mocking.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 10:51, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree. We could just place a note there. BeŻet (talk) 11:29, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
It didn't sound mocking to me, and I'd have to speculate about the intent of the editor who wrote it. Her pseudonyms/aliases are relevant because she used social media accounts and published stories under different names concurrently. A lot of women, when leaving a partner, choose another name - Reade's legal name still seems to be McCabe and I haven't seen any RS on whether she's separated or divorced and on who left whom. She made serious allegations against someone running for the highest office in the U.S., so yeah, her integrity, honesty, truthfulness, and motives are being scrutinized. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:39, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
I would agree with making it a note like BeZet suggested. To address your point, if her other stories are relevant to the page and merit inclusion, it would be better to just include the name she used in the intro to that particular discussion. "Reade, writing under the name Tara McCabe, said..." - Drlight11 (talk) 17:36, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
Definitely agree with Drlight11 here, much better format used with his proposal. I also agree that the current format used does come across as mockery, intentional or not. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 18:42, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
Google results:
"Tara Reade" - 6,430,000
"Alexandra Tara Reade" - 35,700
"Tara McCabe" - 10,800
"Alexandra McCabe" -8,280
"Alexandra Tara McCabe" - 367
"Tara Reade Moulton" - 201
Recommend we stick with Tara Reade EdJF (talk) 18:58, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
I think everyone has made very good pro & con points on here. While I'm still on the fence, I tend to lean toward including all of her pseudonyms/aliases for the reasons explained by Space4Time3Continuum2x -- and I'd add to that: WP readers reading this page may want to do their own independent research on Ms. Reade which might include researching her past writings beyond the "essay" Reade wrote that is discussed in this WP article. Therefore, I tend to think it would be most beneficial to the WP reader if they had all the names she's used to help them in their independent research. It is not a shameful thing for an author to use pseudonyms/aliases. Many great works of literature, books, magazines, and newspaper opinion pieces are from authors using pen names. Ben Franklin, Mark Twain come to mind. Authors who use pseudonyms/aliases want their work read just as much as authors who do not. So I feel that including an author's pseudonyms/aliases is not a form mocking, but actually a sign of respect for their work.BetsyRMadison (talk) 17:45, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
If Tara's name change from Alexandra Tara McCabe (nee Tara Reade Moulton) -to- Alexandra Tara Reade was ever informal---- (Opinion writer Bruenig in the New York Times terms these variants aliases.) According to what she's told Amy Goodman, (link) it later became official: ".. I had a name change, which was sealed, and a sealed Social Security change ..". Apparently it resulted from a confidential Washington State court order? (See 2009 feature about her in the Seattle U. of Law's Lawyer (link; scroll to p. 34).) Also see her 2009 piece, "Defying the Rule of Thumb: A Domestic Violence Survivor's Story".
(Or perhaps the court was in northern California? (See "Confidential Name Change Law" (California Code of Civil Procedure Sections 1275 - 1279.6).--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 09:47, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

"Aliases"

--is the term used by some sources for Reade's various names and was also added to our article here (diff). However, it's what's often implied by its usage is nefarious intents; e.g., the first definition at American Heritage Dictionary reads, "1. "An assumed name: The swindler worked under various aliases."[21] --Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 21:52, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Vote

Should we start a vote to decide what to do? There doesn't seem to be a consensus to include all names. BeŻet (talk) 17:00, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

cmt - Inasmuch as the article has been giving mention of more than one name by which she's gone, for the time being at least our switching to full names rather than her various iterations of partial names seems more efficient.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 16:26, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
  • I don't see any vote here, only an action I would not support. Why not use the only name media uses, and respect the fact that she changed her name due to domestic violence. The NYT says she changed it for protection. Media has ever reported there was any other reason. It seems insensitive or WP:OR to decide that we should include her past names, and perhaps is a way of undermining her credibility in a way that does not have support in RS. petrarchan47คุก 20:13, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
  • comment Reade is a self-described author who publishes/published stories using various names, pseudonyms/aliases. There is nothing nefarious about an author using pseudonyms. Many great works of literature, books, magazines, and newspaper opinion pieces are from authors using aliases: Ben Franklin, Mark Twain come to mind. Also, Reade has not been trying to keep her pseudonyms/aliases secret since at least the last 2009 (11 years ago) when Reade published her real-life bio under the assumed name (alias) Alexandria McCabe. In her 2009 bio Reade talks about: her husband, Tate, her daughter, Molly, her time working in D.C., why she left DC, and what happened to her after. So, whatever the reason (protection or otherwise) she had for changing her name, became unimportant to her 11 years ago. And because Reade uses pseudonyms/aliases on: social media accounts, published stories, personnel records, nonprofit work, etc., it is valuable to the WP reader to know all the pseudonyms/aliases Reade used/uses. In fact, since WP is an encyclopedia, the WP reader would expect to find that information here. BetsyRMadison (talk) 14:17, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
cmt - user:BetsyRMadison says that "Reade published her real-life bio under the assumed name (alias) Alexandria McCabe," but bernie-[Demo]cratic bloggers Brian & Eddie Krassenstein say[22] she "chang[ed] it once again later in life (through marriage) to Alexandra Tara McCabe."

Hmmm. If true that "McCabe" is not the name of Reade's legal husband but a choice she more randomly adopted, saying she became McCabe "by marriage" seems inaccurate. Would it be better to describe McCabe as a name adopted "during marriage"?--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 16:41, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

So what I'm seeing here is that we should ignore how RS treats this, and act like private investigators, listing her names for some unknown reason, whilst simultaneously arguing that fact that she filed a police report over the allegation is irrelevant and should be removed even though RS all report on it. petrarchan47คุก 22:25, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
* (comment) To petrarchan47 - It seems you are saying WP editors need to protect the identity of “Tara Reade” because she alleges that she changed her name from “Tara Reade” to “Alexandra Tara McCabe” for protection; and I do understand your concerns. However, here’s where I think people may be getting confused: Tara was trying to protect the identity “Tara Reade, not the identity of “McCabe.” So, if “Tara McCabe” were making these allegations (because she was still trying to protect the identity of “Tara Reade”) then I’d agree with you 100%. But, she is no longer trying to protect the identity of “Tara Reade” as evidenced by the fact that “Tara Reade” is making the allegations. So, for reasons I state in this reply, plus my comments above, I feel it will not violate any WP guidelines to list all “Tara Reade’s” assumed names that she’s used to: publish her writings, promote her radio show, and used in employment; and I feel listing her names will be of benefit to the WP reader. So I think all her assumed names should be listed and reinstated into this WP article. BetsyRMadison (talk) 11:06, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
Betsy, her former middle name was Reade so it wouldn't be a very good choice to hide with. CA court records say her spouse's name was Dronen.[23] Perhaps McCabe is the new name randomly chosen.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 18:29, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
To Hodgdon's secret garden - great points! So it appears she was only trying to protect the identity of "Alexandra Tara Reade Dronen" and she was not trying to protect the identity of: Tara Reade, Tara Moulton, Tara McCabe, or Alexandra Tara McCabe. So, I guess there should be no concern in putting all the names she's used in social media, writings etc., within this WP article, if that's what editors choose to do. Thanks for sharing that with me Hodgdon ~Respectfully BetsyRMadison (talk) 20:04, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Corrected Fact-Error in "Reade's Account" section

Edited “Reade’s Account” section to give the corrected date and Fox link of Reade's request to make her personnel file public. Reade made her request 4/28 not 5/1 (here [24] ). The Fox link I replaced used past tense "Reade has said..." not present tense which makes clear that on 5/1 Fox was not reporting that Reade said that to them on 5/1, but on what she "has said" in the past. I also added Biden's response regarding making Reade's personnel file public & how he suggested to do that. The previous version not only gave the incorrect date of Reade’s request for her personnel file to be made public, but, the way it was written, gave the false impression that Reade told NYT’s Lisa Lerer that she cancelled Fox interview “the same day” she requested her personnel files be made public (which was a factual error). For convenience, the date-sequence of events listed here

  • April 28, 2020: Reade tells Fox she wants her personnel file made public [25];
  • May 1, 2020: Biden responds & asks Sec. of Senate to find and release Reade’s personnel file [26];
  • May 1, 2020: NYT Lisa Lerer says Reade cancelled Fox news interview [27].

Also for convenience below is the previous version before my edit

On May 1, Reade told Fox News: "I'm calling for the release of the documents being held by the University of Delaware that contain Biden's staff personnel records because I believe it will Italic texthave my complaint form, as well as my separation letter and other documents," and questioned why they are under seal. The same day, New York Times reporter Lisa Lerer said Reade had cancelled a planned interview with Fox News, stating that "death threats received by her and her child made her nervous about being in the public eye".

In short, I corrected the factual errors that were in the previous version. BetsyRMadison (talk) 14:35, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

This text, as written, is simply difficult to understand. What this is all about? Here was my edit. As source tells, when MSNBC host Mika Brzezinski asked Biden if he would approve a search in the University of Delaware records, Biden refused saying that staff personnel files are stored in National Archives, controlled by the Senate, and not stored in his documents at University of Delaware. Whatever reason he could have for refusal, that does not look good, because the archive can in theory include some relevant records (the archive at the University of Delaware is completely different from the archive in Senate). This is the controversy. Let's check another, CNN source on this: [28]. It explains this very well, is not it? My very best wishes (talk) 22:52, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
To My very best wishes - The text I wrote is simple to understand and accurately/factually explains "what this is all about" which is: Tara Reade says she wants her personnel files released to the public. Joe Biden responded to let Reade (and us) know that Reade's personnel file is stored in the National Archives, controlled by the Senate, and not stored in his documents at University of Delaware. Joe Biden called on the Secretary of the Senate to release Reade's personnel files - and - if Reade is serious about wanting her personnel file released, then she too should call on the Senate to release her files. But, so far she has not. That's all this is about: Reade claiming she wants her file released, but asking the wrong person to give them to her. So, it is clear, Biden did "not refuse" to open Reade's personnel files; Biden does not have them. At this point, the only "controversy" on that is: Will Reade ask the Senate to release her files, or will she choose to keep her personnel file hidden? (Oh & BTW: The CNN link you gave is an "opinion" piece from Chris Cillizza.) Cillizza writes his personal opinion, I wrote facts. BetsyRMadison (talk) 01:03, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
  1. According to cited ref, MSNBC host Mika Brzezinski asked Biden if he would approve a search in the University of Delaware records. She did not ask him personally to provide records.
  2. The paragraph in question (and the corresponding part of the controversy) is not about the National Archives controlled by the Senate, but about records kept at the University of Delaware. The paragraph begins from the following quotation from Fox News article (I will cite it more completely here): "I'm calling for the release of the documents being held by the University of Delaware that contain Biden's staff personnel records because I believe it will have my complaint form, as well as my separation letter and other documents," Reade told Fox News on Tuesday. "Maybe if other staffers that have tried to file complaints would come to light -- why are they under seal? And why won't they be released to the public?.
  3. Biden tells the records are not there. This is great. Then, why would not he approve the search to prove they are not there? This is something discussed here. Author cited NYT article [29] saying that "Any serious inquiry must include the trove of records from Mr. Biden's Senate career that he donated to the University of Delaware in 2012. Currently, those files are set to remain sealed until after Mr. Biden retires from public life — a common arrangement. There are growing calls for Mr. Biden to make those records available to see if they contain any mention of Ms. Reade or perhaps others who raised similar complaints about his behavior."
  4. According to CNN (link), Biden's path forward here is plain: Ask the University of Delaware to open his papers and search for anything related to Reade in any way, shape or form. If Biden is right that there are no personnel matters in his Senate papers, then this is a simple ask since nothing about Reade will be found!.
None of that can be understood from your text. Maybe to rewrite the paragraph? My very best wishes (talk) 02:02, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
To My very best wishes - there are a lot of untruths, half-truths, and innuendo in your text which is why you won't find that in my text. My text has only facts, as it should be.
Ask yourself: What is it that Reade asked Biden for? Answer: Reade asked Biden for her personnel files. (Let that sink in). Tara Reade was calling on Joe Biden to release her personnel file. No matter where her personnel files were being stored, Reade claimed she only wanted her personnel files so she could make them public.
  1. Biden said I don't have them. (Let that sink in) He can't give her something he does not have. Do you agree with that? Can he give her something he does not have? Answer: No, he cannot.
  2. Biden said Reade's personnel file is controlled by the National Archives; so Biden called on the Sec of Senate to find them & release them.
  3. Sec. of Senate responded to Biden and said, yeah, we have Reade's personnel file, but we can't give 'em to you.
  4. Then Biden responded and asked if the Sec. of Senate would give them to Reade. So far, Reade has not asked the Sec of Senate for her personnel files, that she claimed she so desperately wanted, why not? She said she wanted her files made public, so why isn't she asking the National Archives to find them & release them?
  5. Recap: Reade asked Biden for personnel files. Biden said he doesn't have them. Sec. of Senate said, yeah, we got 'em.... So why is it, exactly, that you and Chris Cillizza want Biden to search documents at U of Delaware for personnel file that the Sec. of Senate already admits are at the National Archive?
  6. To you & Cillizza I give this simple analogy:
ME: "Open your wallet and give me the $1000 you stole from me!"
YOU: "I didn't steal your $1000, the guy over there did."
ME: "You're refusing to open your wallet and give me my $1000 you stole!"
YOU: "I don't have your $1000, that guy over there does"
(Guy over there waves $1000 bill around)
CILLIZZA "That person named "YOU" is refusing to open his wallet and give back $1000!"
Question: Do you see how utterly silly it sounds to accuse someone of "refusing" to give you something they don't have?
You see, Reade claims she wanted her personnel files, now that everyone knows Biden doesn't have them, it sounds silly to tell him to look for something that we all know he does not have. And it's utterly ridiculous to say Biden "refused" to give her something that now we know he does not have. So, I gotta ask, do you and Cillizza think Reade wanted her personnel files, or did she just want to give the appearance she did so that she, Cillizza, and others could twist facts and falsely accuse Biden of "refusing" to give her something he does not have?
Finally, the text I put in the WP article is factual and accurate and belongs in the WP article. BetsyRMadison (talk) 03:08, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
No, according to her own words quoted by FOX News, Reade did NOT ask just about her personnel files. This is your incorrect interpretation. She asked to examine if there were any records related to her or other staffers, specifically in the University of Delaware archive (Maybe if other staffers that have tried to file complaints would come to light -- why are they under seal? And why won't they be released to the public?"). That's what authors of articles in NYT and CNN also say. Would you agree to describe this as explained in citations from CNN and NYT above? My very best wishes (talk) 03:30, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
P.S. "To you & Cillizza". Meaning Chris Cillizza. Yes, I like it. He is very knowledgeable in his area. If me (or you) could easily misinterpret words by Reade, he and authors from NYT certainly could not. So, let's cite them because they qualify as RS. My very best wishes (talk) 04:05, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
I understand that you feel Reade's additional request for "other staffers" personnel files to be publicly released should be included or inferred upon in this WP article; but I disagree with you on that and here's why: This article is about Reade, not other staffers. So only Reade's request for her personnel file should be included and not her request of other staffer's personnel files. Also, since all staffer's personnel files are controlled/possessed by National Archives, not Biden, it would be inaccurate to accuse Biden of "refusing" to release Reade's personnel files since he does not have them. Plus, since we know Biden does not have personnel files, it may even be a breach of WP:NPOV to accuse him of "refusing." So, the ball is in Reade's court now, if Reade is serious about wanting her personnel files released, then she needs to ask National Archives, not Biden. So far she hasn't done it, we'll see of she ever does. For reasons I just explained, I'm going to delete "refused" - Respectfully ~ BetsyRMadison (talk) 15:03, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Joe_Biden_sexual_assault_allegation/Archive_6&oldid=1136266887"