Talk:Joe Biden sexual assault allegation/Archive 9

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5 ← Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 → Archive 14

Reade check fraud charge

This is such a contentious article I want to get a consensus before adding information. Fox News is reporting Reade was charged with check fraud days before leaving her job in Biden's office. What are editors thoughts? --Kbabej (talk) 22:57, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Townhall, which also reported on the check fraud here, states, "...the timing may raise questions about both the timeline of events, and Reade's credibility." Inquisitr also reported on the check fraud here. --Kbabej (talk) 23:05, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
I would be very reluctant to put something like that in this article without multiple reliable sources establishing relevance to the sexual assault allegation. Townhall and Inquisitr are not reliable sources. - MrX 🖋 23:42, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
Can you point to a policy stating Townhall isn't an RS? Per WP:RSPSOURCES there's no consensus on that. And, regardless, Fox is a RS per WP:FOXNEWS. Information that can help readers better understand a situation and covered in RS should at least be considered for inclusion. --Kbabej (talk) 00:10, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
'No consensus' at RSP is a good indication that a source is of questionable quality, which happens to be supported by the summary. BLP content must be sourced to high quality sources per WP:BLP ("Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources."). Townhall has been routinely rejected at every American politics articles where I've seen it mentioned as a potential source. - MrX 🖋 01:48, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
Updates at the bottom of that article indicate that the nature of the case has been addressed by Reade's lawyer. PurpleSwivel (talk) 04:32, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
I agree with MrX. Policy for public figures at WP:BLPPUBLIC literally states "If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out." If Reade is a public figure, there you go. If she is not, we should be even more cautious about sourcing than we would with public figures, not less. Fox is a WP:RS per WP:RSP, but we would at minimum need more than one RS. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 02:40, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
Of interest, Reade told this to Megyn Kelly about her not having been a public figure at time of her initial (public) "reveal": "If you’re not a known[...]person, you don’t necessarily get a platform[...]."[1] --Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 16:55, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Probably do not include, unless better sourced. Fraud is a serious accusation, more details should be published. Her allegations, however, do look like a deliberate smear campaign against Biden, which follows simply from the logic of the events. For example, as described here, "She first brought complaints of harassment against Biden in April, 2019, in her local newspaper, claiming that, in 1993, while she was working in Biden’s Senate office, “he used to put his hand on my shoulder and run his finger up my neck.” These accusations squared with complaints by seven other women, including the Nevada legislator Lucy Flores, who accused Biden of kissing her on the back of her head without her consent at a 2014 campaign event. In a video, Biden apologized for his behavior, explaining that he had only ever sought to create an environment of connection. “I will be more mindful about respecting personal space in the future,” he said. Then, in March of this year, Reade appeared on the podcast “The Katie Halper Show,” coming out with the more serious allegation [the subject of this page]". This is the way to present it. My very best wishes (talk) 00:38, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
  • I would be against including this information for now, until more sources show a clear connection between any relevant events. BeŻet (talk) 10:12, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
I would oppose trying to draw the connection -- that's not our job. But, to be fair, it does seem relevant on the surface. If she left due to being caught committing check fraud, that has to be taken into account. FollowTheSources (talk) 20:39, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Include - for the reasons mentioned above. This was even mentioned by Fox! [2]FollowTheSources (talk) 20:40, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Not yet. Wait for mainstream coverage. Chances are the biggies are currently doing their own reporting, and if they confirm this, we will hear about it. For now we need more information, and we need Reliable Sources stating both 1) there was a check fraud issue and 2) it was the reason for her departure from the office. As noted above, we shouldn't include it without a direct connection to her departure - which she has suggested was a voluntary resignation brought on by her discomfort with the office situation. If the charge and connection are not better established, adding it would be WP:SYNTH and an attempt to impugn her credibility via unrelated charges. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:21, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
Fox says the misdemeanor charge, and the dates, are confirmed by documents, and says her lawyer has confirmed the charge while insisting it had nothing to do with her departure from the office. This is helpful but we need more. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:27, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict)
Just how much more?
This right-leaning source [3] says "There is no evidence that her departure from Biden's office was connected to the criminal charge, but the timing may raise questions about both the timeline of events, and Reade's credibility." Note the second part.
By tying the fact that she was charged for a crime to her credibility, the article connects the dots for us, avoiding any "synth". And, like Fox, this is a sympathetic source, so it's hard to claim that they have it out for her. FollowTheSources (talk) 23:13, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
I've never seen her suggest she left voluntarily. She's either said she was fired or pressured to resign. Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:10, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
To Kolya Butternut - Don't know if you've seen this, but The Washington Post[4] reports that in both 2018 & in 2009 Reade wrote that she left voluntarily, the Post writes, "In late 2018, she wrote that she left Washington to pursue an acting and artistic career, turned off by what she called the U.S. government’s “xenophobia” toward Russia. In a 2009 essay that noted Biden’s work on the Violence Against Women Act, she discussed moving from Washington to the Midwest to be with a boyfriend."
  • In Reade's 2009 essay mentioned by the Post Reade writes, "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..."
  • In Reade's 2018 essay, mentioned by the Post, Reade writes, "I resigned my position and took myself out of the Washington DC beltway. Why? First, I started as an actor in classical theatre, an artist and writer before Washington DC. This work in the arts has always been my first love and best vocation. Second, I saw the reckless imperialism of America and the pain it caused through out the world. Third, I love Russia with all my heart." BetsyRMadison (talk) 14:46, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
Whoa. That Russia stuff surprises me, mostly because none of it is mentioned in the article, yet it seems relevant. Can we fix this? FollowTheSources (talk) 14:53, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
And before that the 1996 documents from her ex-husband show that she told him she left because of sexual harassment.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 15:13, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
To Kolya Butternut - you are mistaken, Reade's exhusband did not say she told him she resigned because of sexual harassment. In fact, in the 1996 court documents, Reade's exhusband did not say "why" she left and he only said, "she eventually struck a deal with the chief of staff of the Senator's office and left her position." Notice, he did not mention 'why' any deal was struck. And, if you add together his 1996 document to Reade's 2009 then one logical conclusion is she struck a deal so she could resign, without penalty, to move out west with her boyfriend. A second logical conclusion when adding together his 1996 document with Reade's 2018 writing is she struck a deal to resign to: pursue acting, held disdain for "imperialism of America," and her love of Russia. And, a third logical conclusion when adding his 1996 document with the check fraud, is Reade struck a deal to resign because she was being prosecuted for check fraud.
Regarding the "sexual harassment" her exhusband spoke of. Tara Reade told Current Affairs that she & her mother defined "sexual harassment" as Tara being told to dress in a less "provocatively."
Reade said, "she [her immediate boss] took me inside and sent in an assistant and said, we want you to wear different clothes. You need to button up more. You should wear longer skirts… And she goes, try not to be so noticed or too noticeable. The other person was more awkward about it. She was just like it’s not coming from me, but they’re telling you to wear longer skirts and button up more and you’re a little too provocative. Right. Whatever. So, and I was like, Oh, this is, this is weird. So I told my mom that, and she goes, that’s retaliation. They’re trying to retaliate. You need to document everything. And my mom was very adamant. I was like, mom. And my mom even said, you march in there and you tell them this is sexual harassment and you don’t take it. I’m like, you don’t march into Ted Kaufman’s office, and you don’t do that."
So, as you can clearly see, according to Reade "sexual harassment" meant being told to dress less "provocatively."  BetsyRMadison (talk) 15:54, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
It is clear from the 1996 document that she told her ex that her departure from Biden's office was related to sexual harassment.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 16:03, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
TO Kolya Butternut -I have 4 questions for you
1. Can you please give the exact quote that supports your claim, "she told her ex that her departure from Biden's office was related to sexual harassment."
2. Are you saying that you think Reade's exhusband said Reade resigned because her immediate boss told her to wear longer skirts and button up more and told Reade you’re a little too provocative. (which is how Reade defined "sexual harassment" to Current Affairs.)
3. Are you saying Reade was being dishonest in 2009 when she wrote that she resigned because she agreed to move out west with her boyfriend?
4. Are you saying Reade was being dishonest in 2018 when she wrote she resigned because she "started as an actor in classical theatre, an artist and writer before Washington DC. This work in the arts has always been my first love and best vocation. Second, I saw the reckless imperialism of America and the pain it caused through out the world. Third, I love Russia with all my heart." BetsyRMadison (talk) 16:33, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
I don't have anything to add beyond what I've said. Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:26, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

The check fraud charge is questioned:  [5]  Gandydancer (talk) 15:51, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

That is a very interesting article you posted Gandydancer - it raises so many more questions. Four things jumped out at me: 1) The Court sent Reade official communication informing her that an unspecified criminal charge had been purged from Reade's record, 2) Reade does not deny the criminal charges were check fraud, 3) Reade can't remember how the checks in the check fraud charge got paid, and 4) Reade's lawyer said Ryan Grim did not report truthfully about his conversation with Grim. Salon writes that Wigdor said, "I wouldn't say that I could confirm it or that my client could confirm it, because my client doesn't have a recollection," Wigdor continued. "She's not denying it — maybe it did come in and she paid it back — but she does not recall this happening." BetsyRMadison (talk) 18:44, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, very interesting. New information keeps coming out. We should not add this for another day or two at least, not until we think we have all the relevant information. In any case we should not go into all the exact details about what she said to whom when. We need to be able to summarize while being sure that our summary is accurate and well documented. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:34, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Salon confirmed the charges of check fraud in a new article, stating "San Luis Obispo District Attorney Eric J. Dobroth confirmed the 1993 check fraud charge against Tara Reade". --Kbabej (talk) 22:54, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

It should not be included unless we get better sources, and it is in someway linked to the allegations. Seems pretty irrelevant based on the reporting we currently have, but perhaps it's a way to sell newspapers (or get clicks anyway).--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 20:44, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Tara Reade article merger, what is WP:DUE and WP:UNDUE

Well, the Tara Reade article was merged here by AzureCitizen following the AfD discussion there. Azure says the merger was a "rough cut" and "needs editors to go over this material carefully to decide what is DUE and UNDUE in the context of this article". There were previous discussions about some of this content (perhaps those should happen again in light of the AfD discussion, maybe not). There has yet to be discussion about some of the other content. It will be a large task, but will need to be done.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 04:50, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Local consensus had already established that there should only be facts relevant to the article topic "Joe Biden sexual assault allegation". I suggest just restoring the article to it's pre-merge state. I struggle to see anything in the section being on-topic. Cjhard (talk) 12:31, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
What parts do you consider irrelevant and why? FollowTheSources (talk) 14:32, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
It's hard to respond to this question without sounding like an ass. To be clear: I think everything but "Tara Reade, (née Tara Reade Moulton) (born February 26, 1964) is an American blogger and nonprofits' employee.[8] From December 1992 to August 1993, she worked for then-Senator Joe Biden as a legislative assistant in his U.S. Senate office." is irrelevant to the topic, because none of the other biographical facts have any connection to the topic of the sexual assault allegation against Joe Biden. Cjhard (talk) 21:39, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
That's your opinion, but not that of our sources. They do see a connection and point it out, so we have to follow their lead. FollowTheSources (talk) 21:44, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
You keep saying that, but don't produce sources that make a connection between "As a young adult, Reade studied acting and worked as a model and actor." and the sexual assault allegation against Joe Biden. Cjhard (talk) 22:04, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
FollowTheSources, where is the source making the connection between Reade's study of acting and work as a model and actor to her allegations of sexual assault against Joe Biden? Cjhard (talk) 02:27, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Cjhard, yes that is the problem. Merge may not have been a great result. Some of those arguing against the deletion of the Tara Reade article, took the position that article was needed to cover background that was need to understand Tara Reade but not directly relevant to the allegation or this article. Content not relevant to the allegation or this article is going to have to be paired down. My reading is that the Vladimir Putin blogging was seen as irrelevant. I will remove that. There will be other content we need to consider, and the section will need to be re-writen as not to be a biography within an article.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 17:15, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
As it turns out, you are mistaken about this. Her views about Russia were considered relevant by reliable news sources, so we have to go with their judgment on this, not our own. FollowTheSources (talk) 17:39, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
Actually, I wasn't. We discussed this and had reached a consensus against. See the section below.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 17:42, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

How about moving the background to later in the article? It's about the allegation, so we should focus on that, not bury it. FollowTheSources (talk) 14:50, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that turned out well. I also made an attempt to avoid controversy about her brother's statements by using his own words, straight from the articles. FollowTheSources (talk) 17:36, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

What to keep or remove from her biography article, which was merged in.

To avoid repeating myself, I'm opening this section to discuss what our thinking is in terms of keeping what was merged. I've removed some material, such as the infobox, because it seemed inappropriate outside of a bio. However, there were a few orphaned sections about Reade's political views that were removed. They can't go anywhere else and our reliable sources say that they belong on Wikipedia, so we have to discuss what to do with them. Let's. FollowTheSources (talk) 18:36, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

So, here is the link to the merged page. I would say almost everything from her bio belongs here. Something like info about her political blog posts needs to be rephrased to make sure it is relevant to the subject of this page (see my previous comment here). My very best wishes (talk) 18:49, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
I disagree. There was consensus against including the Putin related blog posts. We can revisit that, but consensus was against. There was also resistance to including her political views/beliefs. If I remember correctly, there was also some concerns expressed about some of the history of domestic violence, but I don't think we reached any consensus on that. I am not sure where she was born, that she had a child long after the allegations, her work with non-profits afterwards, or her political views generally are relevant. There was some pretty forceful resistance to including personal details which were not directly relevant to the allegations. In any event, I think we need to discuss these things individually, and can't just blanket endorse the entire batch of content that was merged.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 19:00, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
As I've pointed out repeatedly, that turns out not to be the case. The decision was that the information belonged in her bio, not here. Her bio is gone, so here it is. FollowTheSources (talk) 19:03, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
What are you talking about? There was never any agreement that all of this content should be moved over to a biography. When one was proposed, editors discouraged the creation of such an article. It was created anyway, and thus the AfD discussion occurred. Can you point to any discussion for your suggestion that it was agreed that all of this content belonged in a Tara Reade biography? There was discussion that much of it was irrelevant, doxxed her, and that as she was not notable enough on her own for her own article, ie. it shouldn't exist anywhere. We can certainly discuss it and consider it for inclusion now, but please do not suggest there was some consensus to include those materials in a biography when that consensus never existed.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 20:29, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
I do not see consensus in the linked discussion, and the discussion was on a different subject. As cited source tells, this has nothing to do with Putin. This is about her changing the story. How exactly this should be worded is a different question. Probably this should not be in her bio/background. Also, the infobox for her subsection is fine. One can use several infoboxes on a page. My very best wishes (talk) 19:08, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
We had an edit conflict, so you posted your comment about the infobox before I broke out a new section. If it's not too much trouble, could you please respond below? As for location, I agree that the best place for this is not in her bio as a random factoid, but integrated into the discussion of her claims. FollowTheSources (talk) 19:12, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
@My very best wishes, I assume you are referring to me and consensus about the Putin comments. This is the discussion about that, which I linked to in the above section about that. Unfortunately, we seem to be bouncing around a lot.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 19:39, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
The discussion was about this: Should Reade's political views be included in her background? ... I believe if it included, it should not be phrased in a way to allege that she is a "Russian agent" or whatever else sort of speculation.... Yes, I agree with others: this should NOT be included like that because the cited source does NOT say "she is a Russian agent", among other things. Source tells this is just one of several examples how she changes her stories (I fully explained this above already). One time she said she quit working for Biden because she disagreed with him ideologically (about loving “Russia with all my heart”, being sickened by “the reckless imperialism of America” or whatever - as source tells). Another time she explained why she quit very different. That is how this should be described (i.e. exactly per the source), and apparently NOT a as a part of her bio. My very best wishes (talk) 19:52, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't think anyone wants to call her a Russian agent in this article, especially not in wiki-voice. Our sources only say that she accused Biden's campaign of secretly spreading that accusation about her. This says a lot about her credibility, although we should be careful not to include any judgements not directly attributed to reliable sources. But we shouldn't exclude this. FollowTheSources (talk) 19:56, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

That discussion was not just about calling her a "Russian agent". Yes, one editor mentioned that, but the bulk of the discussion was opposed to mentioning the Russia/Putin views at all. I am not going to cite parts of the arguments made there, and by whom. Editors can read the entire discussion for themselves. The consensus at that point was against including those views at all, not some silly allegation that she was a Russian agent, suggesting so misconstrues or misrepresents the discussion.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:23, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
No, we can't do that, because Reade accused the Biden campaign of spreading rumors about her being a Russian agent. She brought this weird topic up, so we have to cover it. FollowTheSources (talk) 22:26, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

For an example of an article that brings these issues up in context, try this.[6] FollowTheSources (talk) 19:58, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Bio Infobox

I removed the infobox that was pulled in from the biography because I didn't think it was appropriate for an article that's not primarily a biography. Yes, there's a biographical section, but we don't usually have boxes like that for sections, at least from what I've seen. Unfortunately, this has led to something of an edit war.

Look, I don't want to invoke 1RR and all that. I just want us to discuss it here and come to some sort of consensus. Can we please do that? FollowTheSources (talk) 19:10, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

This is something obvious. We have several infoboxes on many pages. Therefore, having an additional infobox, specifically for her subsection is fine. It does not mean this is a biography article. You can add another infobox for whole page if you wish. My very best wishes (talk) 19:15, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
I don't have a strong opinion on this. FollowTheSources (talk) 19:44, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
I also removed the infobox after it was restored the first time, and I object to its restoral. This is not the Tara Reade biography. She wasn't considered notable enough for her own biography page, and - as other editors have also pointed out - the decision to merge the content of that page into this one doesn't mean we have to keep the entire content of that page. Most of the content of the biography content came from this page originally anyway and had been edited and/or deleted by the time of the merge. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 07:02, 19 May 2020 (UTC) Just to be clear, we should keep/include what's relevant to the assault allegation, and that includes anything that's relevant to the accuser's credibility. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 07:05, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Vladimir Putin again

So I removed this content about her blogs, which was recently added back in due to the Tara Reade merger. We had previously reached a consensus not to include it. FollowTheSources just added it back in because sources have covered it. Guess we have to discuss this again. I suspect there are going to have to be a lot of discussions like this to restore consensus which has already been reached here, or to revisit it. Unfortunately, this merger ignores the debates and consensus which had already been reached here.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 17:41, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

That was more than two weeks ago and the story has moved. As the consensus said, "This can be visited if better sources connecting the topics arise", and here we are. FollowTheSources (talk) 17:45, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
Perhaps. Perhaps, not. If you want to obtain consensus to include it, feel free to discuss. But the current consensus, is to exclude it.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 17:49, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
Let me remind you of why it belongs by copying a comment from that prior discussion:
cmt - "Much of the ensuing coverage by left-leaning and mainstream publications .. allegation as fact — has included descriptions of Reade’s past Putin flattery and emphasized her support for Bernie Sanders’s primary candidacy .." .. "Reade claims, the Biden campaign dug through her private Instagram account and scoured her years-old online writing, in which she praises Russia and Vladimir Putin, and sent the results to the New York Times in order to cast doubt on her allegation. She also alleges that the campaign used bots to spread the narrative that she was a Russian agent. NATIONAL REVIEW was unable to confirm either accusation." [7]

We can't suppress the fact that, according to her, she was accused of being a Russian agent. And this makes little sense except in the context of her various statements about much she loves Russia and Putin. FollowTheSources (talk) 18:00, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
Actually, let me point out that she not only claims to have been called a Russian agent, but insists that this is a secret attack by Biden's campaign using Twitter bots! That's not something we can suppress. FollowTheSources (talk) 18:02, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

It is not helpful picking one comment out of that discussion and ignoring the others. That is why I linked to the entire discussion. The closing comment was "Consensus is to omit such information. This can be visited if better sources connecting the topics arise." So we can certainly revisit it, but consensus was against inclusion.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 18:09, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

And here we are, revisiting it, so I'm bringing up one of the points that was never addressed. FollowTheSources (talk) 18:11, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
We can revisit it sure, but the consensus is against. If you want to convince your fellow editors we should disregard or change that consensus, the WP:ONUS falls on you. I do not see any reason to deviate from the previously achieved consensus against inclusion.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 18:22, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
Except that I pointed out the reason: it was weeks ago, things have changed, not the least of which is that the bio article is gone. FollowTheSources (talk) 18:26, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
It is not enough to say, that consensus it old maybe it has changed, so I am going to assume it has. Maybe it has, maybe it hasn't. We don't know until others sound off. What we do know is that until expressed otherwise the consensus is against. You can't just ignore the past consensus because you don't like it. And if you want that material included you need to convince others it should be, per WP:ONUS.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 18:30, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
Good thing I'm not saying that. As I've explained a few times now, the consensus to keep some material in the other article cannot survive merging with that article. FollowTheSources (talk) 18:33, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
Yes, it can. It certainly needs to be discussed, but it is not appropriate to completely dismiss it as you are doing. There was no consensus to merge the Tara Reade article back into this one. There was consensus against it existing on its own, and a lack of consensus to delete all of its content (not consensus to merge it, or to include its content here). That doesn't create a consensus to include it now, and it doesn't override the preexisting consensus. It just means we need to talk about it. And if we are going to deviate from the old consensus we need to do better than "well that was awhile ago" or "there has been a merger without consensus". We need to point to what has changed, new sources a broader discussion etc. Without that, there is not consensus to include. For someone, that joined Wikipedia less than a week ago, you seem to be very certain of your interpretation of WP:POLICY.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:11, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
Irrelevant to the topic of the article. It seems strange that FollowTheSources is against including prior crimes of Arbery in the shooting of Arbery article yet here s/he is supporting the inclusion of irrelevant content that is not directly relevant to the article topic. Per WP:OR everything should be directly related to the article. Adding irrelevant political views etc in order to demonize the victim of sexual assault is absolutely unacceptable.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 18:51, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
To SharʿabSalam▼ - you've gone off-topic by bringing up a completely different WP article which is disruptive to this page. It's important to stay on-topic WP:ROC ~Thanks BetsyRMadison (talk) 01:59, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
I agree, it's entirely irrelevant because it's not comparable. Arbery is dead and can't speak for himself. Reade is alive and chose to become a public figure by demanding that Biden drop out. FollowTheSources (talk) 19:01, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
BetsyRMadison, it is not disruptive. It's a fair comparison. There is no confirmation that Tara's political opinion is relevant to the article about her sexual assault against Joe Biden. You should actually read what that eassy WP:ROC tells you. It tells you stay on the topic of the article when you are writing in the article. Do you have a confirmation that Tara's political opinion has anything to do with her sexual assault allegation against Joe Biden? No? Then it should not be included. We don't poison the well here. The political opinion of Tara might be relevant in an article about Tara's biography but this article is not about Tara's biography, it's about the sexual assault against Joe Biden.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 02:11, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
To SharʿabSalam▼ - Yes, you went off topic when your brought up an entirely different WP article. Yes, when an editor goes off-topic it is disruptive. Yes, there is confirmation (see my above comments & other's) that Tara Reade's political essays & opinions have everything to do with her allegations against Biden. For the record, I said "yes" not "No?" So please do not answer questions that are directed at me, for me. I answer my own questions. Thank you. And yes, since there is a direct connection to Reade's political essays and to Reade's allegations against Biden, yes, they should be included within this WP article. BetsyRMadison (talk) 02:48, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
BetsyRMadison, the only disruptive behaviour is coming from you. You have just made a BLP violation by claiming that there is a connection between Tara's political opinion about Russia and her sexual assault allegation against Joe Biden. BLP violations are not tolerated here and if you continued this then I predict a topic ban.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 02:54, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Ladies and/or gents, lets all get back to discussing content. And try to build a better encyclopedia, eh?--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 03:00, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
To SharʿabSalam▼ - Look, I understand this is a topic that is passionate for some and because of that it's easy to be blinded (for lack of a better word) by passion and be not be able to see things clearly. You and I are both here trying to make this article better by using facts. It is not a BLP to include Reade's political essays, that are directly connected to her allegations against Biden. For example: Let's take Reade's resignation: Along side Reade's other alleged reasons for resigning, Reade's written 2018 political essay where she writes "why" she willing resigned should be included. Reade wrote that she resigned because of her disdain for America (not Biden) and because of her unwavering 'love of Russia with all her heart.' (her words). That's just one example. There are more. So as you can see, Reade herself connects her resignation to both her 2018 political essay and to her 2020 allegations. So, naturally that should be included. BetsyRMadison (talk) 03:12, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
You said "It is not a BLP to include Reade's political essays, that are directly connected to her allegations against Biden." Yes, it is a BLP violation. You have provided no confirmation or proof that it is directly related to her allegations against Joe Biden. This is the second warning. Do not make unsubstantiated accusations against a living person in Wikipedia. I cannot be more clear about this. Everyone has the right to love Russia. That has nothing to do with a sexual assault allegation against Joe Biden. Please think twice before you make a biography of living person violation again. Bring a confirmation that there is a relationship between her political opinion and her allegation against Joe Biden or don't make allegations against a BLP again, OK?.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 03:31, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
To SharʿabSalam▼ - I think I finally understand the point you're making & believe it or not, I think you and I have been saying the same thing but saying it in different ways. I believe you're saying that it is fine for WP editors to include Reade's political writings as expressed in writing by reliable sources; but it violates BLP if WP editors include within the article something like 'Reade's political writing are connected to her allegations' (which is not written within our reliable sources). And, if that is what you're saying I absolutely agree with you and I apologize for myself not being more clear in what I've been trying to say. You see, when I've been saying to include 'Reade's political writing because they are directly connected to Reade's allegation, I did not mean for WP editors write it in those exact words within the WP article. I meant the same thing you do: include Reade's political writings where relevant and as sourced, and definitely without including the words because they are directly related because no source that. My usage of those words was simply to illustrate to you and other editors a connection, not to conclude or editorialize a connection. Again, I apologize for not being more clear in what my intentions were/are regarding Reade's political writings. ~Regards BetsyRMadison (talk) 11:04, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

This has been covered in plenty of previous discussions: there is no consensus to include her opinions about Vladimir Putin in the article page. As explained countless times before, her opinions regarding that person are completely irrelevant to the topic at hand, despite some news outlets deciding to bring it up. If there are still any doubts regarding this, I recommend reading What Wikpedia is not: it's not a tabloid, it's not a soapbox, not a crystal ball, not a forum for free speech. If you somehow think that Reade made accusations against Joe Biden because she likes/liked Putin, thats your own opinion that you are entitled to - that doesn't mean we need to bring it up in an encyclopedia. Until there is at least a tiny bit of evidence that this is in fact the reason she acused Biden, this information simply does not belong here. Please consult Wikipedia regulations and guidelines. BeŻet (talk) 12:03, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Reade's political views

Similar to the discussion above, there seemed to be resistance to inclusion of Tara Reade's political views generally. I have removed this for that reason, but anticipate it will almost immediately be added back in. So is it WP:UNDUE for us to include Ms. Reade's political views in this article?--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 18:06, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

You anticipated correctly. The political views of someone who calls for a political candidate to drop out are highly relevant, as shown by their repeated inclusion in mainstream news sources. FollowTheSources (talk) 18:10, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
In case I didn't make this clear, any consensus about what belongs in this article as opposed to her bio must be revisited in light of the fact that the two have been merged. You can see this in the case of BetsyRMadison, who only opposed after it was pointed out that this information can go in the bio, not here. FollowTheSources (talk) 18:13, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

So FollowTheSources has added this back in. There does not appear to be a consensus to include this unless others sound off and say it should be included. Just because we can WP:VERIFY something does not mean that we must include it. In fact, AzureCitizen has charged us with determining what is WP:DUE and WP:UNDUE. It is not an answer to that question to say something exists in WP:RS. Whether it is due and balanced to include it is a separate question. One that we are going to have to discuss further. If you want the material to be included here, you are going to have to convince others that it is relevant and balanced to do so.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 18:18, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Uhm, no, I'm not saying we should include it just because we can verify it. I'm saying we should include it because it keeps getting brought up by reliable sources as a relevant piece of background. You need to make an argument against those sources, not me. FollowTheSources (talk) 18:20, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
The previous argument against was that her political views were irrelevant and WP:UNDUE. Several editors had expressed that concern. If the content is going to be included you need to establish a consensus to do so. Per WP:ONUS, The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is upon those seeking to include disputed content. If there is no consensus, it is excluded.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 18:27, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
That's not an accurate summary. What actually happened is that it was decided that this biographical material was best suited to her biography, not this article. With the merger, that's out the window. But I've explained this repeatedly, so I am not sure why you keep repeating the error. FollowTheSources (talk) 18:29, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
It is not out the window, and that is not an accurate summary. The "BIO" content was removed before the biography article was created. Many here expressed that Tara Reade was not notable enough to have her own article. There was never an agreement to move that content over to a biography. That is simply false. Otherwise a merger would not have happened. We have now been charged with deciding what from the merger is due and undue. That is a process that must happen, and it is going to be informed by the previous consensus that was reached here and by discussion, and yes those wanting to have material included are going to have to establish consensus to include it.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 18:40, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
  • I think including her political views is important, but only if they are clearly relevant to the subject. For example, including that "She claimed that she quit working for Biden because she loves “Russia with all my heart” and was sickened by “the reckless imperialism of America” [8] is clearly relevant to the subject and should be included. However, the edit in question inserts something which is not directly relevant to Biden or to the story. I would be inclined not to include it. My very best wishes (talk) 18:37, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
    Thank you for your feedback. I also don't want to insert random facts without context.
    If you look above, there's a quote from an article which says, "Much of the ensuing coverage by left-leaning and mainstream publications ... has included descriptions of Reade’s past Putin flattery and emphasized her support for Bernie Sanders’s primary candidacy".
    I believe that this is how we should contextualize the information. How do you feel about that? FollowTheSources (talk) 18:43, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
    I think we should include any information about her political views which has been published in reliable secondary sources because this article is fundamentally related to politics. —DIYeditor (talk) 18:50, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
Yes, one could argue the materials in question (diff) might be included just because they were mentioned in RS on the subject. However, what is the relevance of this to the subject here, exactly? My very best wishes (talk) 18:54, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
Ok, then the next step is to write up what the proposed change would look like. I can do that, but not right this minute. FollowTheSources (talk) 18:59, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
Well I don't want to speculate too much about this as I have admonished another user for their speculation. I think what is relevant about this is that it may speak to bias one way or another, since it relates to the current election cycle and the topic of this article is closely tied to conflicting narratives of bias and interference in the election. So that she supported Warren or Sanders (Biden's opponents) is just as relevant as sympathies to Russia. —DIYeditor (talk) 19:13, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
Thank you! OK, it was not obvious to me. Yes, this is definitely important, but then we should frame it more explicitly, i.e. as described in this source: "The story originated on the left, just about three weeks ago, when diehard Bernie Sanders supporter Katie Halper hosted Reade on her podcast, and encouraged her to tell her story publicly for the first time in 27 years. My very best wishes (talk) 20:06, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes including Reade's political views & views on Russia in so-far-as they relate direct to her actions surrounding her 1993 internship, why she resigned, and Reade's differing allegations should be included in the WP article. For example, Along side Reade's other alleged reasons for resigning, Reade's written 2018 reasons for "why" she willing resigned should be included: her disdain for America (not Biden) and her unwavering 'love of Russia with all her heart.' Also, Reade hiring top-Trump donor is, in and of itself, political so that should be included. And Reade hiring a former employee of Putin's State-Run-Media, Sputnik (which reliable sources [9] say is a "Russian propaganda outlet") is, in an of itself political as well, for three reasons. 1) because in 2018 she said her 'love of Russia with all her heart' is why she resigned, 2) because reliable sources [10] report in January Bernie Sanders was told by US intel that 'Russia is trying to help Bernie Sander's primary campaign against Joe Biden,' and 3) because reliable sources[11] report that 'Intelligence officials warned Congress that Russia is interfering in the 2020 election to help get President Trump re-elected' Therefore, Moran as her lawyer should be included. Now, none of this means that Reade is working with Russia or for Russia; and none of this means that I think any of those things. These are just facts that should be included because they are facts. BetsyRMadison (talk) 20:01, 18 May 2020 (UTC) — BetsyRMadison (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Her political views should only be brought up when clearly relevant. We should not be doing any original research or "detective work" trying to identify any agenda Tara may or may not have, or include any information randomly without any reason. That would be a violation of WP:NPOV. BeŻet (talk) 12:08, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Her words.

I ran into these two primary sources.[12][13] They match the quotes used in various secondary sources, of course, but I think the context helps to understand them better. FollowTheSources (talk) 05:19, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a blog or a forum. The talk page is used to post specific suggestions or concerns regarding the article, not posting links for no reason. BeŻet (talk) 12:17, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
So having access to the primary sources referenced by our secondary sources doesn't help us edit this article? I don't understand your thinking. FollowTheSources (talk) 14:31, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
This is the second time you created a thread here with just a link and no concrete action points. Wikipedia editors are not researchers, we don't need anything for "context". We report relevant information that's backed up by reliable sources. BeŻet (talk) 12:14, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Thanks FTS, I agree that they are helpful. I read them sometime ago so they must be referenced somewhere in the article, though perhaps by a link in one of the sources we are using. Gandydancer (talk) 14:21, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Totally agree: we should only bring them in when they're referenced by secondary sources. We're not here to do original research. FollowTheSources (talk) 14:49, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Who needs consensus? Let's just delete the whole thing!

At least that I imagine they were thinking with this edit.[14]

However, they're mistaken. There is no consensus to remove the entire biographical section that was merged in.

Revert yourself. FollowTheSources (talk) 22:18, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

I took this to ANI. FollowTheSources (talk) 22:39, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) There was never any consensus to include it. We need to discuss each piece to determine whether it is WP:DUE or WP:UNDUE as AzureCitizen asked us to do. If editors think content is relevant and due, the need to say why. I tried to do this methodically separating out individual pieces for discussion but you quickly accused me of WP:1RR, so that didn't get us very far. I see another editor also thinks there is no consensus to include much of the content. I suggest you focus on convincing others that that material is relevant and due in this article instead of questioning Cjhard's motivations. I know you are a new editor, so if you would like any advice, be sure to ask.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:44, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
To be clear, I accused you of 1RR violation because you were guilty. FollowTheSources (talk) 22:47, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
And, to be clear, this was the consensus:
The result was merge to Joe Biden sexual assault allegation.
Merge, not delete. What Cjhard did was to delete the whole thing, even though we are clearly in the middle of a discussion on which parts to keep. FollowTheSources (talk) 22:49, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
The RESULT was move merge. There wasn't consensus for that result, it was essentially a no-consensus close. There was consensus against keeping it, but "no consensus" for deleting it thus merge (not consensus for merge). Some free advice, as a new editor you should familiarize yourself with our policies and guidelines. I see you have raised this at ANI, so I guess we will have to deal with this there. If you are not familiar, you should also be aware of WP:BOOMERANG. Hopefully, we can work this out, and being focusing on improving the article.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:58, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
Uhm, no, I quoted from the result, above. Which I found at the page you linked to. It was merge, not move.
Why are you trying to gaslight me? FollowTheSources (talk) 23:02, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
Please try to WP:AGF. Sorry, that first mention of "move" should say merge, as is indicated in the rest of my comment. The point is, the RESULT being merge does not mean there is consensus for that material to be included. The closing comment itself says there is "not consensus to delete it", that is absence of consensus (not consensus). The distinction is important.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:08, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
I agree that the content shouldn't have been wholesale deleted, but FTS, the way you are going about making the case for its restoration is not productive. Please don't make accusations against other editors. --WMSR (talk) 23:15, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
The only accusation I'm making is that they deleted the entire merged section (but for the first couple of sentences). This accusation is true. FollowTheSources (talk) 23:21, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
I for one agree wit the large chop, though it doesn't preclude the restoration of some material if deemed useful, it would be easier to start small then build rather than take the big bio from the old article and prune. This article is not a biographical article about Tara Reade, it is about a sexual assault allegation made by this person. Where a non-notable person went to school, where they grew up, horse sanctuaries, the bar exam, etc... all of this means, pardon, fuck-all, to the subject of the assault allegation.
Why don't we work on a summary of her life, 5-6 sentences and see how that looks? Zaathras (talk) 23:42, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
I think there's some context you may have missed. FollowTheSources (talk) 23:59, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
As you have now been told at ANI, I recommend we try to focus on discussing what specific content should be in the article and take up the task of determining what is relevant and due to be included here.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 00:08, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
I don't think I've missed context at all, dear heart, as I participated in the deletion discussion, and am thus well-aware of the matter. The result of the discussion was to merge the content of that article here, but that does not dictate exactly what is to be merged, that is what we decide here. As this is not a Reade biography, biographical content about her should be minimal. The reader is being informed of the sexual assault allegation, not Tara's favorite horsie. Zaathras (talk) 00:15, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Please don't patronize me with such terms of endearment. FollowTheSources (talk) 00:17, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
You belittled me in your first response, insinuating that I didn't know what was going on re: the subject matter, so I tossed that back in your face. Don't dish out what you cannot handle in return, friend.
Now, to other editors, are there opinions about something that is actually important, rather than picking nits? I'm looking through the deleted text there's very little that really seems important. Perhaps the parts about her ex-husband's alleged DV, and the part later on about "poke favorably about her time working for Biden", as they give a little context to her anti-Biden claims. Zaathras (talk) 00:26, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

So much for AGF. The civil response to "you missed something" is not to insult me, but to call my bluff by asking me to specify. So I'm going to pretend you did.

The answer is that the people calling for the removal of biographical information have edit-warred and violated 1RR to remove the sections mentioning Putin and Bernie, even though these are strongly supported by the sources. That's the context. Thanks for asking instead of attacking me. FollowTheSources (talk) 00:28, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Your attempt to insert errata about Reade's Putin admiration, trying to paint her as some sort of Russian plant, was rightly reverted. Editors should follow the example that Mr. Biden himself has set regarding this entire situation, as it is good advice - lay out the facts, take her seriously, don't attack her personally. Zaathras (talk) 00:37, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Look, you're allowed to disagree with me, but let's not mischaracterize my actions. I did not insert anything that wasn't already there. I just restored what was deleted without discussion. And it was there in the first place because it was brought up in our reliable sources.
Reade herself opened the door to this by claiming Biden's campaign used bots to spread the (false) rumor that she's a Russian agent. This seems unlikely -- the part about Biden's secret slander -- but she did go on record repeatedly about loving Russia and Putin. FollowTheSources (talk) 00:45, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
  • I think almost everything about Reade, and especially her own contradictory comments, belong to this page, merely because she is an accuser, and it is therefore important for a reader to know how trustworthy she might be. This page is a lot more about her and her claims, rather than about anything else. For example, that story now belongs to this page. My very best wishes (talk) 03:08, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
    I can only agree, but it seems very clear that some editors are opposed to anything which might be unflattering towards Reade. While Wikipedia does not exist for the purpose of sharing such information, that's also not something it shies away from when our sources insist. Our sources insist. FollowTheSources (talk) 05:33, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
    FollowTheSources, i highly recommend for you to assume good faith on other editors. We can't really have a productive argument if you think this about us. We are against poisoning the well without any proof of relevance. This article is not about the biography of Tara. This article is about the sexual assault allegation against Joe Biden. Her political opinion has not been proven to be related to the sexual assault.
    MVBW, no, we don't do original research here. The trustworthiness has nothing to do with whether the allegations are true or not. The only content that should be included is the one that is directly related to the allegation of sexual assault against Joe Biden. This is per WP:OR.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 05:43, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Nobody here is talking about "original research". We're talking about reliable news articles on the subject of the allegation that see fit to share relevant details about the accuser, such as her stated reasons for leaving her job (including her great love of Russia), and her political support for Biden's opponents. It would be original research for us to ignore the fact that our reliable sources considered this information relevant.
As for assuming good faith, I am not impugning anyone's motives. Rather, I am correctly summarizing their displayed behavior, which has ranged from removing specific biographical details without cause to deleting the entire section. Good faith does not mean ignoring what's in front of me. FollowTheSources (talk) 05:48, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
FollowTheSources, you said "it seems very clear that some editors are opposed to anything which might be unflattering towards Reade." and you also said without evidence that you are "correctly summarizing their displayed behavior, which has ranged from removing specific biographical details without cause to deleting the entire section." I quote from WP:AOBF "Avoid accusing other editors of bad faith without clear evidence in the form of diffs. Making such claims often serves no purpose and could be seen as inflammatory and hence aggravate a dispute. Without clear evidence that the action of another editor is actually in bad faith or harassment, repeatedly alleging bad faith motives could be construed as a personal attack." So be careful. You have already repeated the accusation against other editors without any proof.
I am going to repeat what I said there is no proof from sources that any political opinion of Tara is relevant to her accusation against Biden. Sources are only providing a biography of Tara that they don't even say it is related to the allegations against Joe Biden. We are a Wikipedia. We can add the biographical content that sources are not saying it is relevant to the allegations against Joe to an article about the biography of Tara. We cant add it to this article when there is no proof that it is relevant to the allegations against Joe Biden.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 06:05, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
  • "there is no proof from sources ...Sources are only providing a biography of Tara that they don't even say it is related to the allegations against Joe Biden." What? How come, if multiple sources claim exactly this. Consider that one (there are many more). Is it exactly on the subject of this page? Yes. Does it explicitly say that statements by Tara Reade, including ones made by her in political blogs, are directly relevant to this case? Yes, it does! It would be very strange if her own statements did not matter, and especially on her alleged reasons why she quit working for Biden. My very best wishes (talk) 17:19, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Except that I've never accused anyone of bad faith; that's just your misinterpretation. People can, entirely in good faith, believe that unflattering information is inappropriate. They're mistaken, of course, because Wikipedia is not censored. But that's an error in understanding policy, not any sort of nefarious motives.

The fact that reliable sources consider these details to be relevant is the proof that they are. We don't get to ignore our sources. FollowTheSources (talk) 06:12, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

I think I have warned you and I think you should at this point stop making inflammatory comments.
Secondly, there is no confirmation Tara's past political opinion is relevant to the sexual allegations. Sources don't claim that it is relevant. Period. I believe what I am saying is very clear.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 06:19, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
FollowTheSources, I also note that you have started 2 discussions in this talk page both of the sections headers are not neutral. One is "Trumper lawyer" and the other is "Who needs consensus? Let's just delete the whole thing!". I am seeing problematic behaviour from you in this article. Please read the talk page guidelines.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 06:13, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
You're a liar FollowTheSources, you accused me of bias toward Biden simply due to me not wanting material included that alluded to Tara Reade asking to get sexually assaulted due to the way she dressed. I quote, "We are going to follow the sources, not your hostility towards Biden." MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 07:49, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Actually, nobody is suggesting she was asking to get sexually assaulted. Rather, in her own words, the extent of the original "harassment" was that she was asked to wear appropriate office attire. It is only decades later that she went public a new claim, which added sexual assault. This is particularly relevant in that her brother acted as if he was only familiar with the initial claim, not the new one, when asked to corroborate. To his credit, he changed his story the very same day. FollowTheSources (talk) 14:53, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Don't misdirect, I'm only refuting your claim that you "never accused anyone of bad faith". Now good day. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 17:46, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

An RFC is probably necessary to determine what biographical information to include. It should stay out until a consensus is determined. Mr Ernie (talk) 07:05, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Could be a good idea. However, we should first have consensus about how to write the RfC. What I am suggesting that we also have Biden's women complaints (the women who said Biden made them uncomfortable) because sources also mention this. So any RfC should also have this, if Tara's past political opinions are relevant because sources mention them then Biden past women complaints are relevant because sources also mention them. We should not have double standard in Wikipedia. Am I right? IMO, both are irrelevant but if we are going to include Tara's past political opinion and old issues then we should also do the same for Biden.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 07:23, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Biden's background, including other women, is already in a standalone article, a Wikilink suffices. Maybe hold an RfC on that, if you want, but separately. Nothing botches a question like asking an opposite question on top of it, even if garbled to make a third fair point about equality. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:51, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Agreed, proposing to add equally undue 'counter-evidence' to the article is not the solution to this proposal. Truth be told, I think enough eyes are on this article that the undue Reade biographical content won't get consensus for inclusion. Cjhard (talk) 07:58, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
That's not what I said. I suggested that if there is a RfC, Tara's background and Biden background inclusion be one option and removing both should be another option. InedibleHulk argument that Biden has an article and Tara doesn't is absurd and claptrap. There is no reason to include one side background and remove the other that's if we are going to include. In any case, I have said my opinion, none should be included.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 08:07, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, doubling a simple choice between A and B to quandary about A through D. I also like None. We'll discuss whose trap is clapping later, deal? InedibleHulk (talk) 08:27, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
  • cmt - (Full disclosure: I haven't read this thread). My own understanding of the guidelines are these. There being no consensus to delete the Tara Reade's blp as well as there being, as of yet, neither the consensus to include it here', it's able to be restored @ the Tara Reade namespace as a placeholding measure until when or if consensus emerges to contribute its essentials elsewhere (or else, of course, have essential content from here merged to there).--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 17:13, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Also, this article was too long with the added material.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 17:17, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Perhaps, but "there is a consensus that [Tara Reade] should not exist as a stand alone article" in that discussion. Not sure, restoring all of the content there two days after that close is a great idea, as opposed to discussing what should be included here, as we have been tasked to do.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 17:47, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
wp:Merging: .. if there is no consensus[. . .]and you don't believe that it is appropriate to merge the pages, then please remove the merge proposal tags[. . .]. ..--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 18:14, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Sure, they can be un-merged, but it isn't a good idea when there was consensus against that stand alone article. What we should be doing is having more meaningful discussions about what content can be incorporated here. Not reversing the outcome of AfD that is not but two days old.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 18:36, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
That doesn't apply when the consensus is the result of an AfD discussion, in the same way as you can't simply restore a page that has been deleted in that manner. You don't get to unilaterally override that. I have restored the redirect, I hope I don't have to protect it. Black Kite (talk) 18:43, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
It sure does. As an encyclopedia, not a CNN political desk, we want to not muddle efforts to understand this topic. If recent headline is reliable and complicated life and conflicting accounts do muddle such, they're counterproductive here. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:19, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

CNN Re Reade's "Growing up in the Midwest and a tumultuous marriage"

https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/19/politics/tara-reade-biden-allegation/index.html Where to put this citation? --Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 17:30, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

I guess that would depend what text we were using it as a WP:RS for.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 17:33, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Deletion Review: Tara Reade

A deletion review has been initiated at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 May 19 concerning the recent recent AfD and merger of that article into this one.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 20:09, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

How extraordinarily ill-informed of a decision that was. Zaathras (talk) 02:15, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
Which decision, user:Zaathras? The close of the AfD? Or filing for a formal review in order to ascertain what the default in this case should be (in light of the fact that its hoped-for merger is proving untenable -- per such reasons as you allude to below, where you argue , ".. because this article is not a biography of Tara Reade ..")?--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 16:27, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Should Title Mention Tara Reade and be more general?

One, this is the only allegation of its type and Reade's name is in the title of most of the stories about the allegations. Moreover, she made a string of allegation, starting with sexual harassment claims. Seems like it isn't just the assault. I would suggest something like Tarra Reade's allegations against Joe Biden. SOmething like that. Casprings (talk) 18:21, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

This has been discussed at length in this and this move discussion. If you want to start another move discussion you are entitled to do so, but in my view it is unlikely to have any greater success. A suggestion that it be moved and the scope enlarged to deal with the other allegations of sexual misconduct (or as some would prefer "inappropriate touching") was met with similar resistance. Perhaps the mood has changed, but I would be surprised.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 18:30, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Legislative assistant

The given sources—and all other sources that I have read—do not say that Reade worked as a legislative assistant. (If anyone wants to take a look at the job description of a legislative assistant to a member of the house, here's a link to a page where you can download a sample description.) Mostly the sources just say that she worked for Biden or for his congressional office. As for the actual work she did, she initially oversaw the work of two interns who said that she was reassigned abruptly, and she worked in the Biden mailroom. Her former co-worker there said that she was "fired for her poor performance on the job, which he witnessed," and that she "had been mishandling a key part of her job and an essential office task — processing constituent mail."[15] That probably involved logging and classifying incoming mail but that's pure conjecture on my part. Sticking to the sources, we should leave the job description at "worked for Biden." Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:13, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

"Working for" someone sounds to me like being employed, hired or overseen by them. How about "processed Biden's mail" or "worked in Biden's office"? Both seem sourced and fairly accurate (I think "legislative assistant" could work, too, paraphrasing is fine if it's reasonably close enough and your link says they answer constituent mail). InedibleHulk (talk) 14:59, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
-->"staff assistant."--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 16:19, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
  • I googled "Tara Reade legislative assistant" and got these results at the top of the search results:
I also googled "staff assistant" and found this job description for a staff assistant position at Alaskan Senator Lisa Murkowski's senate office. Sounds like your typical entry-level job. I'd suggest this version: "She was a staff assistant at Biden's U.S. Senate office from December 1992 to August 1993." Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:49, 21 May 2020 (UTC) And here's the job description of a legislative aide, also at Senator Murkowski's office — definitely not working in or from the mailroom! Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:55, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
I stand corrected, carry on. Maybe "in" the office, though. "At" seems...off. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:01, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
I changed it to "in" but "at" sounds pretty normal to me when referring to an organization like a Senator's office that has a number of offices, as in rooms. In the mailroom, 'though :). Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:22, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
Forever in debt to your priceless advice. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 17:29, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
Hey, wait! They do say "another day at the office". In the Navy, at least, sorry again, proceed with Plan B. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:50, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Why TF has Reade's biography gone AWOL!

RSes (CNN[21], the NYT[22], USAToday[23], Politico[24], TheHill[25], Salon, Business Insider, DailyBeast...) mention her ex, Dronen, for example. Then, within cases of more minor associates within her life history (Politico[26], CBS[27], etc.), numerous citations refer to a Ms. Hummer of a central-California coast horse sanctuary. Etc.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 20:06, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

You are entitled to propose that the entirety of content that was included in her biography is included here, but that may not be a very successful way to accomplish that goal. We were tasked with considering what specific content was due and undue for inclusion here. I think the most methodical and productive way to do that would be to have separate discussion about separate content, and why (or why not) that content should be included. Possible discussions topics could include the Putin comments, other political beliefs (ie politicians she supported since), history of domestic violence, her family/child, non-profit work, etc. I suspect we will get further discussing specific material and WP:RS as opposed to trying to tackle all the content together as a package deal.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 20:24, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
Every content should be directly relevant to the topic of the article. Reliable sources also mention Biden history of inappropriate touching yet it is not included here.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 22:55, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
Because...this article is not a biography of Tara Reade, an otherwise unnotable person outside of this story? Zaathras (talk) 23:18, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
Please see if there are any recent discussions on the topic you're asking about before starting another section about it. Cjhard (talk) 02:33, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
Yes, I actually already knew these answers. As is understandable, with this page already so long, its wp:OWNers must resorted to Procrustean measures such as narrow readings of wp:DUE WEIGHT and more-Catholic-than-the-pope extensions of wp:PSEUDOBIOGRAPHY as apply it to even a biographical sub-entry.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 16:16, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
Some inclusion warranted It seems like quite a stretch to claim that information about a person making the allegation is irrelevant to an article about an allegation. No, I do not think all of the content that was in her biography is warranted in this article, but the current version errs on the side of far too little. We should go back, condense, and aim to include the most relevant and well-sourced information. Having a more-developed "Reade's background" section in the beginning of an article with other, much longer sections does not nearly constitute a biography or pseudobiography. RedHotPear (talk) 17:36, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

I would say background. I think a her history with making up stuff (e.g. a degree) is important here.Casprings (talk) 14:24, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

"Denied remembering her" in the lead

InedibleHulk: You inserted POV and, judging by your edit summary, possibly intentionally. The sentence insinuates that WP doubts that he does not remember her, he just denies it. It also misrepresents the source. I've replaced the link to the video with the link to an NBC article about the McDonnell/Biden interview. You also changed the title of the "Biden's response" subsection to "Denial." That doesn't reflect the content of the section which deals with various aspects of Biden's response (denying the accusation, Biden's requests to the National Archive and the Senate, Axelrod's vetting comment, Biden stating that he doesn't remember Reade). Axelrod doesn't quite fit, so the former title could be improved, but it was better than Denial. Because of 1RR I can't revert it, so I'm asking you to self-revert. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 10:07, 22 May 2020 (UTC) Oops - messed up the notification. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 10:32, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

I think saying you didn't or don't do something is a denial. Saying otherwise is a confirmation. Change the header to include the rest, though, if you want. I just added "and response", but no prejudice against a better word. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:16, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
I don't think years, surnames and "stated that" are necessary, in any case, for what he said about her in the lead. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:18, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
To be clear, I do think Biden doesn't remember a lot from 1993 that he might have in 1994, but that's because he's had a long and busy career/life as of this May, not because I think he's lying or she's not about anything specific, including any meeting. I categorically deny having this on my mind during the edit. Just an afterthought. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:44, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
After some self-hypnosis, I recall something strange and disturbing in my past, involving a powerful man known only as MrX. I have evidence, honestly. It happened at Talk:David Hogg (activist)/Archive 1#Mention his denial?, but nobody ever quite knew what it was. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:12, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

I hadn't seen the archived discussion. I agree with the editors in that discussion that something as demonstrably false as the "Conspiracy theories and harassment" section doesn't need a denial from the falsely accused because independent reliable sources have shown the rumors and slander to be wrong. (Hogg only said so because he was asked in a TV interview.) This is different - it's one person's word against another's. No witnesses or report to back up Reade's claim; no way for Biden to refute it - because of the vagueness as to date, time, and place - other than to say that the assault didn't happen. We know now that even if the Senate produces her complaint from 1993, it won't mention the alleged assault. What we have are reliable sources weighing reporting on the statements she herself, co-workers, neighbors, acquaintances, friends, and family have made. It boils down to credibility. As Wikipedia editors all we can do is try to faithfully represent what reliable sources say. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:26, 22 May 2020 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:59, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

The Hogg deal is certainly way different. I largely brought it up to show that these two adults, sex and politics have nothing to do with my belief that "deny" is an innocent word, a short form of "state that one did/does/is/was not" and something liars and honest people can both do as easily. But now that I remember the distrust of naysayers is strong in American controversy, I fold in peace! Just ask it be shortened in a "more appropriate" way, like with pronouns and yearless dates in place of repeating the obvious. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:21, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
Wait a second, Biden only said so because he was asked in a TV interview, too. That part isn't different at all! Ah well, I didn't bring it up before folding, so it's all moot now. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:00, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Joe_Biden_sexual_assault_allegation/Archive_9&oldid=959712097"