Jump to content

Talk:Joe Biden sexual assault allegation/Archive 11

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14


Discussion (should a separate section be included that lists people who have been told by Reade of her allegation)

Please see the related discussion which highlights sources for the corroborators: Talk:Joe Biden#Reade's story corroborators Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:09, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Reade's dress or alleged demeanor

Claims Reade's hemline-lengths/degrees of unbuttoning inappropriately provoked attention
  1. WaPo[1] - dismissed her concerns, told her to wear less provocative clothing
  2. LATimes[2] - was told she dressed too provocatively
  3. Megyn Kelly interview - [Reade]: ".. I felt like it was my fault. Like, that I did bring it on. And the reason, when after the whole serving-the-drinks-thing happened, things got really tense for me. And it's like my supervisor kept finding all of my work-- Like, all of a sudden: I was doing things wrong, all of a sudden. And, then, she took me aside and sent in an assistant and said: We want you to wear different clothes. You need to button up more. You need to wear a longer skirt. Like, in other words, she-- And, she said: Don’t look so sexy. Shoes, like [inaudible]. And, she goes: Try not to be so noticed. You're 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 a longer skirt and button up more. You're a little too-- Provocative was the word she used. ..
  4. Reade[3] - ".. I am the alpha in the room too. Again, I like to be the one who chooses who enters my space and in what way. We are sexual beings and we are all trying to figure out how to express this aspect of ourselves at work and home lives, it is a journey our society is on right now. .."---Alexandra Tara Reade, the Nevada County Union, April 17, 2019
  5. PBS.org/NewsHour[4] - ".. Reade has claimed a supervisor admonished her for the way she dressed and asked her to be more modest. She has claimed this was a baseless criticism and retaliation for her complaint about sexual harassment from Biden. A woman who worked with Reade, but who spoke to the NewsHour on the condition she not be named, said she remembers Reade mentioning that she was scolded for her attire and that Reade asked her if it was a legitimate complaint. That coworker and two other staffers who worked with Reade said they believe she was not appropriately dressed for work. .."
  6. TheNewYorker[5] - ".. [Megyn] Kelly expresses herself in eyebrow raises; she enjoys the performance of asking what appear to be uncomfortable follow-up questions. 'Were you wearing underwear?' she asked, responding to Reade’s description of the assault. When Reade said, evasively, that she was wearing 'lingerie,' the eyebrow went up again.[. . .]Did he push the underwear to the side, or was that not an issue?' One could sense that Kelly was searching for the headline—and yet, for all her combative style, she failed to extract specifics. .." (Megyn Kelly[6] - Original; TheFederalist[7] - "Full Transcript: Megyn Kelly’s Interview With Tara Reade")
    --Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 19:25, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
To Hodgdon's secret garden - Here's a few more regarding hemlines & dressing provocatively.
1. Current Affairs [8]: ( Reade tells Current Affairs that Reade & her mother both defined "sexual harassment" as Reade being told to dress less proactively.)
"..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."
2. Washington Post [9] (Reade tells Washington Post that her biggest criticism in 1993 is that Joe Biden did not help her enough with her co-workers)
"In the Post interview last year she [Reade] laid more blame with Biden's staff for “bullying” her than with Biden. “This is what I want to emphasize: It’s not him. It’s the people around him who keep covering for him,” Reade said, adding later, “For instance, he should have known what was happening to me. . . . Looking back now, that’s my criticism. Maybe he could have been a little more in touch with his own staff.” The Post goes on to write, "Reade was referring to alleged bullying, not alleged sexual assault. And Reade clearly gives the impression that Biden himself is not the person responsible for whatever wrongdoings she allegedly suffered." The Post continues, "Reade said that in 1993 she filed a complaint with a congressional human resources or personnel office but did not remember the exact name. Her complaint dealt only with the alleged harassment, not the assault, she said.
BetsyRMadison (talk) 21:10, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
Keep this victim blaming garbage off the article. I'm not going to grant this trash anymore attention than it deserves. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 06:37, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
No, because our sources do not confirm that Reade is a victim of anything. Believing women is great, but it's not a suicide pact. Multiple news outlets listened to her story and dismissed it because they could not find verification. We are going to follow the sources, not your hostility towards Biden. FollowTheSources (talk) 14:35, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
You got some gall accusing me of bias with the way you've been conducting yourself on this talk page. Don't you dare start making this a political battle. Now I stand by my position this proposition is that of a degenerate, toxic attempt to smear Reade of an allegation neither of us are aware of, so don't you even try to make me out to be the one assuming guilt. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 07:42, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Any relevant information that has RS support merits at least consideration for inclusion in the article. I am not sure what your personal assessments of "victim blaming garbage," "trash," and "degenerate, toxic attempt to smear Reade" have got to do with it; let us aim to instead discuss content based on sourcing and relevance. RedHotPear (talk) 17:23, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
  1. CNBC - Senate office to dress more conservatively and told 'don't be so sexy
  2. Vox - says she was blamed and told to dress more conservatively
  3. NYmag - admonished her for dressing inappropriately at work
  4. NYmag - claim that a supervisor admonished her for dressing inappropriately at work
  5. theGuardian - reported Biden's conduct to superiors and was told to dress more conservatively
Questions Re the timeline:
- Alleged incident (When? On a warm spring day, her wearing lingerie-with-no-stockings, as she intends to meet her boyfriend later)
- She was told by Biden's decades-long executive assistant (she told Megyn Kelly: "I was called in actually, to the office by Marianne Baker") to "dress more conservatively"?
- At some point, she'd filed a request for counselling with the Senate personnel office, citing some factors from among the constellation mentioned above or hereafter that had resulted in her feeling uncomfortable within the office.
- Of course, somewhere or another, Reade's having remarked to others in the office how his touching her shoulders, neck and hair during meetings was uncomfortable fits in, too.
-Then, lastly (in July), her processing of constituents' mail having been complained of, she's shown the door (remaining paid into the month of August)
  1. WaPo - she was reprimanded by Marianne Baker
  2. TheHill[10] - ".. Marianne Baker, an executive assistant. All three have gone on the record to say that Reade did not confront them .." [About the alleged incident? Or about having been asked to serve drinks and/or not to dress so daringly?]
    --Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 19:11, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
Reade's assertion that being told to "button up" constituted sexual harassment certainly deserves mention, and does not strike me as victim-blaming. --WMSR (talk) 12:08, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
I dunno. Is a woman-to-woman talk about how-one-has-been-perceived-coquettish "sexual harassment"? Possibly. In any case, of course, Reade has by now also complained about her allegedly having been molested by her boss. With regard to her original complaint, however: Yes, Reade, who didn't believe herself to have been overly coquettish, was there being told that she had been thus perceived. However, per Reade's own interpretation of the verbal exchange, what she'd been told was about her boss's complimentary assessments with regard to her looks along with an invitation for her to be eye candy, after hours.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 18:05, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
In any case, regarding the issue of Reade's (shoulder/neck/hair's?) allegedly being touched, according to her attorney, these occurred on occassions where Biden "met with the interns, some formal, some not."[11]--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 19:41, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
  1. buzzfeed - ".. Two people brought up the clothes she wore to work — specifically recalling that she wore capes and dressed in a 'hippie' style" .. --Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 16:44, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
  2. AP - .. Another close friend of Reade’s, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to protect her family’s privacy, described her as a laid-back Californian in contrast to her own East Coast conservative upbringing. ..

If background section sticks please close my RfC above.

If a background section will sticks (see current version here; diff), please close my RfC, etc., above.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 19:00, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

It does reference her domestic violence work as "Reade had served as an expert witness on multiple cases involving domestic violence in Monterey County, California" (the sole line of pre-Washington background in Joe Biden sexual assault allegation#Background) .--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 16:58, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Closure of RfC on including picture

@TonyBallioni: Does your closure include the caption underneath the image? As I said in my comment and a previous discussion, the picture is not from her Senate ID, it's from her House ID when she was an intern for Rep. Leon Panetta. The cropped picture does not include the signature of the House Sergeant at Arms, Jack Russ, but the picture it was cropped from does. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 08:35, 23 May 2020 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 08:39, 23 May 2020 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 09:01, 23 May 2020 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 09:39, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

The closer replied on my Talk page ([12]) that the closing summary applies to the image only. I went ahead and changed "Senate" to "House of Representatives." It's not ideal (we no longer explain that she was a House intern at some point prior to her Senate job) but at least it's not wrong. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:34, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

There's no consensus for a side-by-side image of Biden and Reade. We haven't even begun discussing dual Joes, yet. Might solve that supposed problem of her BLP contagion diffusing across to him, though. Maybe have the '87 looker on the left, the fist-cupping businessman on the right, and Photoshopped Reade slightly beneath and between them. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:29, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
  • I knew it was not an RfC. My mistake. I should have said "poll". The side by side is an obvious BLP violation and was never going to be used. I called for a quick close at AN because OP was edit-warring the side-by-side into the article and didn't even offer the standalone Reade option 3 in his poll. It doesn't seem credible to suggest that either I or Tony Ballioni did anything unusual or inappropriate here. SPECIFICO talk 22:38, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Needs a media controversy section

A fact not so much to be adjudicated by WP but passively made note of, is that reliable sources consider the topic of this article to encompasses as well a media controversy. See for example:

  1. this from TheNewYorker: "Given that Reade’s claim will not be heard in a court, the Senate chamber, a campus disciplinary proceeding, or even a human-resources department, it has so far fallen on journalists to investigate and report on it. But, as Ben Smith wrote in the Times, mainstream television outlets have dragged their feet in hearing Reade out on camera, in a replay of how Juanita Broaddrick wasn’t heard out on her 1999 allegation that Bill Clinton had raped her decades earlier."
  2. this from NPR: "NPR Public Editor, with Pooynter's Kelly McBride: NPR Was Too Slow On Tara Reade's Story"
  • &alia.
    --Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 17:35, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
    A WP:CONTROVERSYSECTION impairs the NPOV of any article. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:42, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose a "media controversy" section. People in the media complaining about other media, and making fallacious comparisons to other sexual assault allegations is not suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia, and it's not relevant to the alleged sexual assault. - MrX 🖋 17:46, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose. That is the least productive thing we could do at this time. There is too much media chatter, intramural media criticism, and advocacy bloggers inflating media issues into controversies larger than the allegation itself. With respect to Reade's scarcity on the telly, it has been her choice, and it is her right, to avoid the additional distress such appearances might bring. That is not a media controversy, just a woman keeping what's left of her privacy. SPECIFICO talk 17:50, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose for the same reasons as MrX 🖋 & SPECIFICO & Muboshgu. BetsyRMadison (talk) 18:26, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
  • cmt - A narrow focus is being brought to this subject but more than one article can be written pertaining to various aspects of a subject being covered (see wp:SUMMARY). We'd do well to fork off a companion article with broader focus. This allegation doesn't exist in a cultural vacuum but is emblematic of ethical issues arising from the moment's cultural ferment, coverage of which might involve citing certain on-point commentaries (for example TheNewYorker piece cited also "raises the question of whether it makes sense that Biden may receive the Democratic nomination for President, while a student or professor who engaged in the same conduct would be disciplined on a campus reformed under Biden’s efforts" . . . "while offering cold comfort to Franken, or to Reade, #MeToo is evolving, as are its imperatives, toward possibly fairer ends. What is emerging unmistakably from this Biden episode is a later-draft, more refined #MeToo, in which “Believe women” stands for the imperative to listen respectfully and investigate thoughtfully. It is not about a right to be believed, much less automatically vindicated, but essentially a right to be heard and to have one’s claims examined with care." . . . ).--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 18:57, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Support - there has been a significant WEIGHT of the story on the media difficulties and differences in handling among this story and other stories of sexual assault, that in lieu of a court it will only be a trial by press, and on Tara Reade's distrust of media handling. I'm thinking it is controversial and some mention of that is reasonable, if difficult. Though I would suggest a more restrained word than 'controversy'. Maybe just ‘media coverage’ or ‘public handling’.
FiveThiryEight How The Media Has — And Hasn’t — Covered Tara Reade’s Allegation
Vox The agonizing story of Tara Reade
The Hill New York Times calls on DNC to investigate Tara Reade allegations
NY Post Joe Biden nets unlikely defenders amid Tara Reade allegations
Reason Why Are the Mainstream Media Ignoring Tara Reade's Sexual Assault Accusation Against Joe Biden?
Mother Jones Sexual Assault Advocates Are Grappling With the Allegations Against Joe Biden
NY Times The Times Took 19 Days to Report an Accusation Against Biden. Here’s Why
TheHill NY Times faces blowback for removal of controversial passage on Biden sexual assault allegation
Medium The NYT Article on Tara Reade is a Masterclass on Journalistic Sleight of Hand, How popular media can bury survivors
FoxNews New York Times reporter mocked for justification of Kavanaugh, Biden allegations being handled differently
FoxNews Timeline shows media, Dems' different approach to Tara Reade accusation after Kavanaugh free-for-all
NPR (op) NPR Was Too Slow On Tara Reade's Story
Jacobin The Media Had a Formula for Reporting Sexual Misconduct. Then Joe Biden Was Accused.
Vanity Fair Fox News’ Rabid Tara Reade Coverage Is a Far Cry From Allegations Against Trump
The Atlantic How Uncertainty Became a Weapon in the Tara Reade Story ('complete exoneration' the Biden campaign declares NYT exonerates them)
Daily Mail Joe Biden accuser Tara Reade says she 'lost total respect' for CNN's Anderson Cooper and other TV news anchors when they failed to ask the presumptive presidential nominee about her sexual assault allegations during interviews
Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:04, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
{ping|Markbassett}} All that kind of stuff is UNDUE here, but would fit nicely in the newer Tara Reade article. Consider adding parts of it there, if you agree. SPECIFICO talk 22:41, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
Sinc the media controversy only exists because it is Joe Biden sexual assault allegation - I think it belongs here, as a part of this story and to provide full disclosure that the media cites we use were having issues. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 22:51, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
Oppose for reasons given above. There seems to be a presumption that various networks are obligated to give someone airtime. That would likely be problematic if the broadcaster had reservations concerning the accuracy of he material. They've been burned before. Manannan67 (talk) 04:39, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
Support There has been a lot of talk in the media about the way things have been handled, and I think it is inappropriate for us to attempt to make judgement on whether this controversy is justified or not, as expressed by some editors above. We need a neutral approach to this: if this has gained attention in the media, and has been discussed a lot, clearly it is notable, and our personal judgement regarding how we feel about said discussions is completely irrelevant. Talking of "making fallacious comparisons" is expressing an opinion (MrX) - it is your opinion those comparisons are fallacious, it's not an objective fact. Regarding SPECIFICO's argument that it was Reade's choice to not appear in an interview on television: this is partially false. She initially complained that she has only been contacted by Fox News to do an interview, and only after that complaint has surfaced she got contacted by two other media outlets, which she then rejected in order to do one with Megyn Kelly. BeŻet (talk) 11:20, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
Please don't misrepresent things with gender-loaded words like Reade "complained". Really? She has a right to cancel her Fox appearance, without being accused of "complaining" about this or that. Fox is a news organization. Megyn Kelly's twitter account is a self-published video platform. Big difference. The public face of this matter has taken a very unfortunate turn. Whether this is because numerous news and media outlets have found Reade's positions untenable and unworthy of reporting -- that we do not fully understand now. But the public forum is turning into a conspiracy theory/blog/tabloid event and there is little new reporting in the mainstream media -- except about this shift. SPECIFICO talk 11:43, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
"Gender-loaded"??? I am simply correcting a false statement you have made and putting it in context. She was only oferred a Fox News interview, which she rejected due to safety concerns. It would be helpful for these discussions to not include ridiciolous arguments, like calling a word "gender-loaded" or claiming that this article has nothing to do with Joe Biden. It will help the discussion move forward. BeŻet (talk) 12:21, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
A rejection is not a complaint. If I reject your complaint, am I complaining or rejecting it? SPECIFICO talk 12:26, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
Support part of the story is the media's coverage or lack of coverage as evidenced by all the coverage about just that. Patapsco913 (talk) 16:35, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
Oppose per MrX. RedHotPear (talk) 21:52, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
Support. The strange response of the media is indeed a huge part of the history of Reade's allegation; the allegation emerged soon after Biden became the frontrunner in the Democratic primary, and was completely ignored by mainstream sources like The NY Times and CNN. Maybe just a coincidence, perhaps they needed a long time to investigate. During that time other reliable sources picked it up and noted that silence. As soon as Biden's opponent Sanders withdrew from the primary, the allegation went mainstream. The reader should have some awareness of that. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 08:41, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
Oppose per MrX. Volunteer Marek 08:51, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Support but I would call it "media coverage" rather than "media controversy". The media coverage of the allegation is, itself, a notable and significant part of this topic, and should be addressed, and that should be in a separate section than the primary historical narrative that provides the timeline of events. The whole "was it a blackout?" controversy would be a glaring omission if it weren't included. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 17:02, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
  • support - Btw, see this: May 25, 2020 WSJ - Van Gordon Sauter op-ed [former president, CBS News (1982-83; 1986)]: "The 'Liberal Leaning' Media Has Passed Its Tipping Point: A Return to Balance Would Be Commercially Unviable. The Best Solution May Be an Honest Embrace of Bias." Quote: "The media’s protective coverage of the sexual-assault allegation against Mr. Biden is perhaps a clear and concerning preview to how his presidency would be covered."--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 03:59, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Praises of Biden

Reade's Twitter History Should Be Mentioned

Tara Reade has contradictory Twitter history where she appears to support Biden over matters related to sexual misconduct and assault. https://medium.com/@eddiekrassenstein/evidence-casts-doubt-on-tara-reades-sexual-assault-allegations-of-joe-biden-e4cb3ee38460 Gibsonfarabow (talk) 17:48, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

A draft exists for her biography. It's here: Draft:Tara Reade.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 18:06, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
Btw a recent AP piece also relates Reade's praise and expressions of Biden over the years (yet - full disclosure - also includes that ".. Reade’s friend, the one who spoke to the AP on the condition of anonymity, said Reade told her a much different story about Biden in 1993. That’s when Reade says she was asked to deliver a gym bag to Biden in a Senate office building; when she met him, she says, he kissed her and digitally penetrated her. The friend said Reade called her a few nights after the assault allegedly occurred, and the friend described in vivid detail feeling “so physically sick” at the disclosure that she ran to the bathroom and threw up in the middle of their conversation. ..").--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 18:14, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
How is that praise? InedibleHulk (talk) 19:37, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
AP: ".. Over the years, Reade spoke favorably about working for Biden. Margie Estberg, of Aptos, California, said she got to know Reade after hiring her in late 2017 to pet sit. Over a pizza dinner and cocktails in 2018, Estberg said she asked Reade what Biden was like — and whether Biden was one of the “bad guys.” “I said, ‘Is he a nice guy?’ And she said, ‘Yeah, he is,’” Estberg recently recalled. “I said, ’Oh, good. Because I hate to see somebody who you think is a decent person and somebody shuts them down and says, ‘No, they aren’t.’” Reade said she didn’t share details of the alleged assault with Estberg because she wasn’t ready to discuss it. .."--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 16:35, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
So praise of the job and a white lie to not ruin a casual dinner when asked by a recent petsitting client. I might call that faint "praise". The article doesn't call it any sort, though. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:00, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Even if this article was a biography of a living person (which it's not), we should prefer analysis from a somewhat notable professional analyst (which Eddie Krassenstein and Brian Krassenstein combined are not). InedibleHulk (talk) 19:25, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
Speaking of twitter, etc., fwiw new media investigative journalists Brian and Eddy have reported on a possible 'russian asset' angle - which now (according to a Rose McGowan tweet) apparently is being looked into by the nytimes.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 17:49, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
If anybody here could pull off a convincing journalist impression, it'd probably be McGowan, but even famous actresses on Twitter aren't exactly reliable sources. We're currently quoting two pieces from six unattributable authors just to have this article use the keyword, "praise", that's bad enough for now. Used to be a single reporter could tell a whole story. Anyway, that gripe is probably as irrelevant to this section as whatever you're hinting at here about Russia, so cheers to venting, let's move on. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:44, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

RfC III

Should wp:Significant coverage of biographical details of Joe Biden accuser Tara Reade's advocies with regard to domestic violence issues be included in the article concerning these accusations against Biden? or within a separate biography of Reade? --Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 18:03, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

  • Comment Including the RfC under media and soc is overkill, I'd remove those tags. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 18:38, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
  • No Sex at work is to violence at home as apple pie is to orange sorbet, both serious problems/just desserts, but whole other genres. And no, speaking out against a non-notable ex doesn't count as a second claim to fame, salt that bio. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:47, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
    • Come on folks, this isn't that hard. The question isn't yes or no but a two parter: Whether to contribute this information -- which, as we know, doesn't have to establish notability, per se, in order for it to be included in someone's biography) to Reade's background section that was recently ah merged (sic. --Sometimes I wonder if I'm in a George Orwell novel ) into this article or whether to contribute its mention into a separate blp for her.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 22:37, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, No to the first part, "and no" to the second. Do the math, secret gardener! And yes, you're in the same old story we're all in. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:53, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
OK fine, user:InedibleHulk. By contrast, my math went: Subtract wp:DONTLIKEIT !voting of those-through-own-lights deny importance to those enjoying wp:Significant coverage in reliable sources (including of those believing, contra wp:NOTCENSORED, WP shouldn't reflect the same), minus timid !voting by those not wanting to get muddied with wikiintra-editorial wp:Ad hominem mudslinging, you end up with a need for biographical coverage. (It's my hope that these issues I've cited will be sorted out at deletion review.) After which one is left with the binary choice within the OP of whether this should be done here, per wp:PSEUDOBIOGRAPHY, or else in a stand-alone article, per wp:GNG more generally.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 17:18, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
This is way over my head. As math, logic, English, law and philosophy. But yeah, OK, fine! InedibleHulk (talk) 18:11, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
Lol.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 18:29, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment This seems like the OP is utilizing a reverse death-by-1,000-cuts ("patch-up-with-1,000-Bandaids" ?) approach to returning a Tara Reade bio to article form. Zaathras (talk) 19:31, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
Ha ha ha @ user:Zaathras. --Maybe kafka's beetle? OP finds himself treading on what seems the surface of ice tea in a fruit jar. Then he realizes, Gosh! he's attempting to navigate in some compound exponentially more resinous!.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk)
  • No - We should discuss whether specific content should be included here or not. Trying to restore the entirety of the "bio" of Tara Reade, without discussing its individual parts is not a productive strategy, but I have said that before. Nor is it helpful to start endless vague RfC's prior yo starting a general talk page discussion. This talk page needs a reset, and not a new section titled "RfC IV".--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:50, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
user:Darryl Kerrigan, do I sense your impending thrill of victory at my potential agony of defeat? If the flashmobocratic consensus here becomes (per the naked politics of the essay "wp:Everybody knows") that, whereas the preceding RfC II had been over specific, the current one is overly vague and thus underly so, unlike the United States's madame speaker, I would not persist with yet another iteration.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 18:48, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
user:DIYeditor, first the Cliffs notes version: The question being discussed here has to do with certain material to be included within Tara Reade's (necessary per wp:N) biographical wikicoverage. (1) Arguments for expansion to her biographical sub-entry here are supportive of the AfD-instituted merger that became effected after the AfD's closing. (2) Arguments here still suggestive of a stand-alone blp in essence are toward re-litigation, as you say.
In full: At first I suspected all the commenters in this thread other than myself have adopted a stance of disingenuous naivete en masse. But, after perusing the imaginary wikiessay "wp:What should you do if everybody seems crazy but you?,"' I've come to the conclusion everybody else might not have followed whatever the ins and outs involved so will take time to explain my take of what's precipitated this RfC. Kay? Alright. Certain good-faith editors who watch this page (the event page's "Watchers") suggested that any efforts toward her biographical treatment on wikipedia be tested by way of an AfD for an attempted blp for her. Such a blp was created by a number of editors: the blp's "Bio creators"--many of whom have since shrunk from the fight, apparently. And, so, the AfD transpired, ending in a merger ersatz merger. Thus, many of these Watchers have begrudgingly allowed but a newly-contributed accuser's 'background section' here in the event article, comprised of a compressed, single sentence (without irony I approve of this sentence, by the way). Since per e.g. wp:Notability#Whether to create standalone pages & wp:Significant coverage the accuser merits biographical coverage, any !votes to disallow it in large measure here would seem to suggest re-creation of a stand-alone blp and re-litigation of its AfD, as you've mentioned.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 18:27, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

A subject's unchallenged self-claims are considered reliable?

@Hodgdon's secret garden: What in the world are you talking about, where does WP:BLP say that, and boy have her self-claims ever been challenged! Reade claimed in court that she had a BA from Antioch University, and both the current president of the university and the former one who allegedly had conferred [the degree upon her] under special circumstances denied it. Reade is the one who is doing the alleging. I was going to write that her claim is already adequately covered in another sentence, testified that she had received a Bachelor's degree from Antioch University Seattle through a discrete program for victims of abuse, but after rereading the sources that one turns out to be partially incorrect. According to the sources Reade did not testify about how she obtained the BA, she merely said that she had received it. The last part of the sentence (through a discrete program for victims of abuse) needs to be removed, too. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:23, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Subjects' claims about themselves is addressed in Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 18:52, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
A blp in general grants equal time w rgd allegations (which challenges to her assertions seem convincing, I agree. I/a/c I'll return w some guideline quotes, if possible. Thanks.)--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 18:28, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
  1. Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Explanation_of_the_neutral_point_of_view
  2. wp:Proportion - .. discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news .. Reade has testified she has a B.A. The institution in question says that she does not (a fact highlighted in isolation within various media reports without mention of her law degree, years as a domestic violence advocate with the King County Washington state prosecutors office, or federal credentials from DHS). Nonetheless she persists in arguing, whether or not convincingly, she does.
  3. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Impartial tone
    --Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 18:42, 26 May 2020 (UTC)--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 17:34, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Re fraud or perjury [Edited: CV-aggrandizement] allegations

AP - "Reade’s resume states that she graduated from Antioch University with a bachelor’s degree in political science and later worked at the school’s Seattle campus as an “Ongoing Online Visiting Professor for degree completion.” But school officials said she did not graduate and was never a faculty member, though she was paid to do several hours of administrative work as an independent contractor, a detail first reported by CNN. ... She says the number of school credits that could be applied to her graduation was complicated by her name and social security number change, and that the school’s president at the time stepped in to personally confer a degree. The school said that no such arrangement was made. 'University officials confirmed with former president Toni Murdock that no special arrangements existed,' university spokeswoman Karen Hamilton said in a statement. ... Defense attorneys are now reviewing whether she may have testified falsely about her education credentials...."
--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 18:52, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Seems like reasonable Background. Perjury and fraud are related to truthiness, as are allegations. As long as these, too, are treated as allegations, and include a fact about who alleges. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:46, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
Also, don't say "perjury" or "fraud" (in Wikipedia's voice) unless the accuser means them literally, as in actual crimes; neither at all "just another word" for "may have testified falsely". InedibleHulk (talk) 19:53, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. I've reworded the heading.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 16:44, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
The heading was in your voice, to be clear. I meant be careful in the article, where nothing's signed. But no objection to your new heading, either. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:09, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Researching a bit. Here is a cite Re Bill Clinton's defense of a famously equivocal statement he, likewise to Reade, made under oath.
  1. nytimes - .. She later received a law degree from Seattle University. But an Antioch spokeswoman, Karen Hamilton, told The Times that while Ms. Reade had attended classes, she was certain Ms. Reade had not received a degree. In her testimony in the 2018 trial, Ms. Reade was questioned about her degree by Mr. Soltesz. She testified that she received a liberal arts degree, as was stated on her résumé provided by the district attorney’s office. “The focus was political science,” she said, according to a trial transcript. ..
  2. nbcnews - [Reade presented a list of qualifications to the court identifying herself an]"ongoing online visiting professor"[at Antioch 2007 - '12]. .. In an email to NBC News, Reade described her position at the university's Seattle campus as "affiliate faculty online as needed to help students with life learning and BA completion." She also sent screenshots of "unofficial" transcripts that she said showed that she'd earned the degree. NBC News forwarded the images to the school, which declined to comment ..
  3. businessinsider - .. transcript from the Seattle University School of Law, which lists Antioch University as Reade's prior degree-granting institution ..
  4. montereycountyweekly - .. She says that her degree from Antioch University in Seattle was conferred under special circumstances by former Chancellor Toni Murdock. ..
    --Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 17:44, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
Commentary: "Those who live by the sword . . . ." I find it ironic that Reade herself now must become subjected to trial-by-media, without due process concerning her false claims Re the undergraduate degree sans any bonafide diploma (which was really, I should say, its unofficial equivalence, by which she'd been accepted to law school via its Alternative Admission Program). --Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 18:30, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
What "trial"? We have several media sources reporting facts that relate to the subject. Of course we include this.Casprings (talk) 19:35, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
According to Antioch and its former president, there was no special arrangement and no "unofficial equivalence" of a degree, and Seattle Law School did not comment at all, they merely referred journalists to the requirements of its Alternative Admission Program. If the lawyers who defended clients Reade testified against are able to obtain subpoenas for her records, journalists will report on it. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 08:18, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Indeed. Her claim with regard her alleged Antioch University baccalaureate (by which she was accepted into "graduate" school in law) is false. (More clear: Her claim is false that such a B.A. exists. Also: I'm sorry I'm not very clear my feeling of 'irony' just from its context, above. Which is in reference to her (1) subjecting her former boss not to formal charges but to revelations she's made in the media (interviews with halper, ball, kelly & the like), (2) her now finding herself likewise subjected (Re: of course, creatively finessing into ersatz existence the undergraduate degree).--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 17:18, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

More

Hasn't taken bar exam?
  1. politico - .. “We are investigating whether Ms. McCabe gave false testimony under oath,” Monterey County Chief Assistant District Attorney Berkley Brannon told POLITICO on Tuesday. .. She also testified on the witness stand in December 2018 that “I have not taken the bar exam.” That answer came in response to a question asking whether she was a licensed attorney in the state of California, according to an official court transcript of the proceeding. However, an archived 2012 account from her personal blog, which was taken down from the Internet, alludes to two prior attempts: “taking the California bar exam a third time ... hoping I can charm it and pass!” ..
  2. [Politico's overview of prior reporting] - .. news reports have raised questions about Reade’s testimony under oath, including whether she falsely claimed to have completed her bachelor’s degree,[. . .]and exaggerated her job duties in Biden’s office. .. [Antioch University has] denied Reade’s assertion she had a special arrangement with a former chancellor to credit her with an undergraduate degree under a different name. Seattle University Law School confirmed that Reade, under the name Alexandra McCabe, did graduate from law school. But officials wouldn’t comment on whether she had a valid undergraduate degree, which is required under the law school’s current admission standards. Defense lawyers are calling on the Monterey prosecutor’s office to subpoena Reade’s academic records and to determine whether other aspects of her credentials are credible.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 17:50, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
  3. abcnews - .. Reade provided the New York Times with a screenshot of a school transcript from Antioch University, which showed her department as “BA Completion” but left blank the “date conferred” and “degree conferred.” She told the Times that, to help protect her new identity from her allegedly abusive ex-husband, the school’s then-president, Tullise Murdock, helped secretly bestow a “fast-tracked” degree upon her. ..
  4. abcnews - [Reade told Kelly] .. When assisting [Biden's] legislative aides, she “would help go to a hearing and take notes, or write something,” ..
    --Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 18:02, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

There are 2 Nation articles on Reade's allegation, only one is allowed?

We have in the commentary section,

Joan Walsh, writing in The Nation, said Reade's allegation of sexual assault "doesn't stand up to close scrutiny" Nation

My addition (per WP:BALANCE) was removed.

Also for The Nation, Kate Mann says she sees "strong evidence", and asks "why are many people still refusing to believe Tara Reade?" Nation

The reason for its removal was, "opinions are not noteworthy unless another source takes note". However, Joan Walsh's opinion was allowed to remain on the page. Neither article was in the opinion section of the Nation and gave no indication they should be categorized as such. This seems a blatant violation of NPOV. Also I am unaware of this rule, which would, if applied evenly, require us to remove a great deal of the current content. petrarchan47คุก 00:01, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Walsh is a journalist (national affairs correspondent for The Nation and political analyst for CNN) who laid out the pros and cons available at the time (April 5, before the BA issue was reported) and came to the conclusion that Reade's allegation against Biden doesn’t stand up to close scrutiny. Manne is not a journalist, she's a feminist philosopher whose opinion carries no more weight than yours or mine. Opinions (published by The Nation are called called comments (750 words) or articles (1500–2500 words), depending on length. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 11:52, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Reade has previously claimed that she received a Bachelor of Arts degree

@KidAd: You keep inserting this—if not false, then—misleading information. Previous to what? She told CNN that she received a bachelor of arts degree from Antioch University in Seattle under the auspices of a "protected program," personally working with the former president of the school to ensure her identity was protected while she obtained credits for her degree. She also said that she was a visiting professor at the school, on and off for five years. But a spokesperson for the university told CNN that Reade "attended but did not graduate from Antioch University" and that she was never a faculty member, but she did provide several hours of administrative work. University officials confirmed with former university president Toni Murdoch that no special arrangements existed, university spokeswoman Karen Hamilton said. An Antioch University official also told CNN that such a "protected program" does not exist and never has. Whether the other editor's version was clunky or not, yours is unclear and confusing. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:02, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

  • Space4Time3Continuum2x Here, "previously" denotes "any time before right now." Reade claimed to have a Bachelor of Arts in Political Science from Antioch Seattle while serving as a witness in Monterey County...prior to going public with her allegations. She has claimed this information in the past, so the language should reflect that. All sources cited support this, and I don't see any reason why it should be controversial. KidAd (talk) 17:26, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Attorney Wigdor

@Petrarchan47: Reminder - this article is subject to active arbitration remedies. You violated 24-hr BRD cycle: If a change you make to this article is reverted, you may not reinstate that change unless you discuss the issue on the talk page and wait 24 hours (from the time of the original edit) with this edit after another editor had challenged your first edit. It's not an "and/or" option. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:00, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

I was honestly unaware that there was a requirement to start a talk page discussion as well as waiting to reinstate my edit. Thank you for letting me know. petrarchan47คุก 20:25, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
@Petrarchan47: You reinserted the material another editor and I challenged with the wording somewhat changed without discussing it here on the Talk page despite the reminder. Taking it to [13] 15 minutes later is no excuse. Wigdor is or was an assocate of Reade's, not an uninvolved journalist commenting on the subject, so the "Commentary" section would be the wrong place, anyway. Please, remove it.
Old version: The New York Times called Wigdor "a leading plaintiff’s attorney of the #MeToo era" and noted "While not providing a reason for leaving, Mr. Wigdor said his decision was "by no means a reflection on whether then-Senator Biden sexually assaulted Ms. Reade," adding that he was among the 55 percent of Americans who believe her, according to a Harvard CAPS-Harris Poll.
New version: Reade's former attorney, Douglas Wigdor, commented upon his departure, "Much of what has been written about Ms. Reade is not probative of whether then-Senator Biden sexually assaulted her, but rather is intended to victim-shame and attack her credibility on unrelated and irrelevant matters"
Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:15, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I've removed it. Reade's lawyer, or ex-lawyer, shouldn't go in the commentary section. He's just too involved. Shall we put her brother, her neighbour, her friend in too? starship.paint (talk) 13:10, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I think you're splitting hairs. He is involved, and we state this by saying he was her lawyer, but his defense belongs next to the mention of the very journalism he is referring to, which happens to be in the commentary section. I'm done here. It's not worth my time. petrarchan47คุก 17:26, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
his defense belongs next to the mention of the very journalism he is referring to, which happens to be in the commentary section - no, it doesn't need to be. You seem to be more motivated to refute the journalism than anything else. starship.paint (talk) 01:38, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Bar exam tries

Notwithstanding Reade's variously documented CV embroideries (I suppose under a self-declared dramatic license): For the time being, per BLP I've rmv'd the sentence Reade had in 2018 testified that she had never taken the bar exam, however a blog post of hers made in 2012 recounted hopes to pass a bar exam on her third try..

According to the Times, Read had taken Washington state's bar examination. But it's yet to be determined whether she'd ever taken the Cali one prior her explanation from a Monterey County CA witness stand why she was not a lawyer.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 17:45, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Per [Washington Post] and [Politico] the blog referenced is titled " "California Bar Exam: Three Times A Charm." and the quote from the blog is "taking the California bar exam a third time ... hoping I can charm it and pass!". Regardless of whether or not what she said is true, the reporting of what she said is accurate and the phrasing (juxtaposing what she said in court with what she said in the blog) is supported by the sources. There is no BLP violation there, as we are not the ones making the comparison, or citing either the court transcripts or the blog. AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 07:22, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Joe_Biden_sexual_assault_allegation/Archive_11&oldid=965936440"