Jump to content

Talk:Joe Biden sexual assault allegation/Archive 12

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

RfC - Suggestion that article needs to include more material concerning Reade's back story

Regarding suggestion that Biden sexual assault allegation article needs to include more material concerning accuser's back story. Currently the article contains only material concerning her educational background (see Joe Biden sexual assault allegation#Controversy over Reade's educational background). But much more has been found of revelance; see for example:

  1. nytimes feature on Reade's background: ".. Ms. Reade’s own back story has been caught up in the churn of #MeToo-era politics, as rising questions about her credibility add fuel to the social-media combat between Mr. Biden’s defenders and detractors. .. Ms. Reade, through her own pluck and smarts and powers of persuasion, overcame an unsettled and abusive childhood to find opportunities on the big stages of acting, politics and law. She won praise for what friends took as a sincere commitment to helping other abuse victims and to animal rescue. .. The Times’s findings comport with the autobiography Ms. Reade, now 56, has rendered in cinematic detail across blog posts, online essays and court statements. But in the dramatic retelling of her life story she has also shown a tendency to embellish — a role as a movie extra is presented as a break; her title of “staff assistant” with clerical responsibilities in Mr. Biden’s office becomes “legislative assistant” when his shepherding of the Violence Against Women Act is an asset for her expert-witness testimony in court. .."
  2. Draft_talk:Tara_Reade#Misc. (other material from Associated Press & local papers in CA & WI)
    --Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 18:08, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Specifically what material concerning her back story are you proposing we add? As I have said before, these constant attempts to restore everything that was once in the bio are not helpful. Trying to get a fake "consensus" for everything to be included, while glossing over what that actually means is not helpful. If you think something in particular should be included, please just spell it out. Are we talking about child abuse? Spousal abuse? What besides her "educational" background do you propose we include? If you are not prepared to say specifically what, my answer is a firm NO. This is not the first time you have been asked to make specific proposals.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 18:15, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Although there have been a number of suggestions within this talk page's history for such biographical information to be included, a cadre of article watchers and proactive article editors have been able to keep it out to-date via arguments it had, as of that time, lacked talkpage consensus for inclusion. This RfC is a good faith effort to ascertain genuine consensus, now, Re possible inclusion of a brief biographical section for Reade (her age, place born, place lived, brief outline of her education and various careers -- which needn't be at length. See, for example, the condensed biography at Death_of_George_Floyd#George_Floyd). I'd prefer for this thread to please hew closely to the subject at hand rather than veering into editor behavior issues or procedural nitpicking, at least if at all humanly possible. Let's at least try.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 18:37, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
As I alluded to here, I am open to more information about Ms. Reade being included in this article where it is properly sourced and relevant. I remain unconvinced that we need an entire bio section, or to open the floodgates to any and all information about this person who is not notable on her own, particularly after the recent AfD discussion. If there is specific material to be proposed, I will of course consider it. And again, I think that would lead to a more productive discussion. I assume you are acting in good faith with this proposal but by refusing to specify precisely what your proposal means you asking us all to vote on issuing a blank cheque. I am not interested in doing that.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 19:37, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
>>>>user:Darryl Kerrigan said, "by refusing to specify precisely what your proposal means you asking us all to vote on issuing a blank cheque."<<<< Apparently you can relax, in any case. Among the few responding thus far to this request for comment, it seems a sizable chunk remain averse to mention of such of Reade's vital statistics as her date of birth, educational level, personal life and career path--ditto what's transpired within various talkpage sections on this topic, above.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 17:35, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

You are asking a general question that doesn't need or fit the RfC format. I do agree that the article should include the kind of background and other content related to Reade's allegations that we are increasingly see dominate the RS covevrage of the matter. SPECIFICO talk 20:46, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

How about some specific suggestions on how to recast it then, eh? Or, perhaps the following might be deemed sufficiently specific: I believe it would be more encyclopedic were this article to include such basic vital statistics as Reade's Monterey Co. CA 1964 birth, Grass Valley CA residence, acting study, state legislator's staff membership, disputes with spouse, successive relationships, earning of law degree as a single parent, and selective mention of her avocations of writing, victims' advocacy and animal rescue.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 17:24, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Generally this seems WP:OFFTOPIC - it's not part of the alleged sexual assault, and has no statement that it was a factor causing the alleged assault. Just looks like otherstuff. Unless something specific is given and shows relevance in RS ... think not an area for this article. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 06:30, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
Reade backstory is on topic, as this her BLP now redirects here. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:17, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
Her name redirects here. She does not have a BLP because outside of this event, she is not notable.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 21:05, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

This RfC is not properly formatted and should be struck. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:17, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Antioch unofficial transcript

nbcbayarea.com - .. She also sent screenshots of "unofficial" transcripts that she said showed that she'd earned the degree. ..
--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 17:17, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Sartorial admonishment

diff

  1. nytimes: "A few days[. . .after Reade's alleged refusal to serve drinks at a reception, Reade. . .]said, Mr. Biden’s office manager, Marianne Baker, admonished her to dress more modestly — what Ms. Reade has described as one step in a campaign of retaliation." (Reade's initial story published in the Union: "I was later told to 'keep my head down and fly under the radar, if I wanted to last.' I was told by my supervisor to wear lower skirts and button up my blouse more. 'Try not to look "sexy"' she said.")--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 18:27, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
More citations
  1. WaPo[1] - told her to wear less provocative clothing
  2. LATimes[2] - told she dressed too provocatively
  3. Megyn Kelly interview - [Reade]: ".. 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 ..
  4. PBS.org/NewsHour[3] - .. claimed a supervisor admonished her for the way she dressed and asked her to be more modest. ... 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. ..
  5. TheNewYorker[4] - .. was wearing 'lingerie,' .. (original/transcript)
  6. Current Affairs[5] - .. wear different clothes. You need to button up more ... try not to be so noticed or too noticeable. ... 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 ..
  7. CNBC - Senate office to dress more conservatively and told 'don't be so sexy
  8. Vox - says she was blamed and told to dress more conservatively
  9. NYmag - admonished her for dressing inappropriately at work
  10. NYmag - claim that a supervisor admonished her for dressing inappropriately at work
  11. theGuardian - told to dress more conservatively
  12. WaPo - she was reprimanded by Marianne Baker
  13. BussFeedNewsbuzzfeed - .. 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) 18:41, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

@Hodgdon's secret garden: - this should be included, it's WP:DUE, as you proved. Is it not included? starship.paint (talk) 10:36, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
Thanks,Starship.paint. Yes, it's mentioned here.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 16:56, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
@Hodgdon's secret garden: - I've reflected that the NYT source was quoting Reade when Reade says it was Baker who admonished her. It wasn't the NYT's determination. starship.paint (talk) 01:19, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Yes. One of the pair of staff members who, according to pbs.org/newshour, "worked with Reade[..and] believe she was not appropriately dressed" -- is/was, she told the Times, Baker. (WaPo[6]: Reade ".. said ... she was reprimanded by Marianne Baker ..")--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 17:05, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
Some commentary in Jezebel Re the sturm and drang among Senate staff about Reade's dress: "The assessment of her dress is not merely aesthetic but rather mired in class-based assumptions."[7] By the way, Wikipedia declines to go into much detail about the accuser's life: not even her age, for example, nor a straightforward description of her occupations -- I suppose in order to avoid reader's becoming overly influenced by whatever "sturm and drang," as the New York Times has called it, to be found there (that is, according to the Times: her "messy," "tumultuous," and "shambolic life"(!)) Jezebel: "The Times article isn’t the kind of profile meant to create intimacy with a public figure by exploring early beginnings, but rather a deeply reported evaluation of Reade as a high-profile accuser. Here, facts are not facts, they are selected within a classed frame that implies significance around credibility. That frame reveals the enduring myth of the 'perfect victim' and casts histories of abuse and poverty as incriminating evidence."--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 17:11, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
This WP article on Reade's allegation(s) doesn't address the accuser's personal and family life directly but only what facet are explanatory with regard her allegations, these facets not presented within the context of a full telling of her life, as available in high level sources. And what is included tends toward the derogatory, ending up only with this partial biography dribbled out in bits and pieces and not impartial nor equitable with regard to her. How can Wikipedia's ideals be upheld by such an imbalanced telling of a living person's life?--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 18:22, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

"Corroboration" RfC's await formal closure

Note: these two RfC's have been archived sans closure. I've requested closure here.

petrarchan47คุก 23:14, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

NY Times election op-ed

The addition of this op-ed commentary strikes me as UNDUE and not really on-topic for the Reade allegation. The author is not especially notable for her political insight and the tone of the comment is speculative and it has not been noted by other writers or commentators. @Petrarchan47: I believe this should be removed from the article. It does not advance our readers' understanding of the allegation. SPECIFICO talk 13:33, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Have you checked that all opinions added are from journalists known for their political insight, or that all included commentary advances readers' understanding of the allegation? It seems a random bar to set, one that hasn't been used heretofore.
Bruenig "was named a Pulitzer Prize finalist in Feature Writing, for one of her pieces covering Wyatt's sexual assault". Reade's can't be viewed as a purely political story, even though Biden is a politician. A journalist well-versed in sexual assault allegations is a perfect fit for this article.
The NYT introduced her thusly
Liz’s work at The Washington Post has ranged widely — across questions of gender, family, class and faith — and her piece on the rape of one of her peers in high school, and its aftermath, made her a finalist for a Pulitzer.
The Op-Ed made waves in RS, and her position is supported by "a chorus of" voices, such that it should probably be expanded per WP:RS and WP:WEIGHT; from NYMag:
His critics demand Democrats push their nominee out of the race and choose a new one. A chorus of left-wing voices — Elizabeth Bruenig (New York Times), Alex Pareene (The New Republic), Ryan Cooper (The Week), and Lyz Lenz (the Washington Post) — have rallied behind this demand.
Arguing Bruenig's piece doesn't belong in the commentary section, while including Political commentator Jonathan Chait stated that at first he found Reade's claims believable, but that the findings reported by PBS, Laura McGann in Vox, and Natasha Korecki in Politico cast doubt on the veracity of the allegations" hurts our goal of NPOV. Consider that 55% of voters believe Reade: the coverage of related commentary will somewhat reflect this roughly-even split, if done right. petrarchan47คุก 19:17, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the context. That pretty much clinches the fact that her ruminations are not significant and do not add to this article's narrative of mainstream coverage. being cited among the chorus of the fringe hoping for Biden to abdicate is a red flag not to include in our brief article. The alternative would be to cite it as an example of extreme marginal reactions, but I see no basis to do that. SPECIFICO talk 20:49, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Further, it diminishes an allegation of rape to reduce it to political manouevering and chit-chat about remote hypothetical inside-baseball scenarios. Assault is not about political strategy. It is about violence in the workplace. SPECIFICO talk 14:43, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Well said, SPECIFICO, very well said - and very spot on. BetsyRMadison (talk) 15:32, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

RfC: "... alleged that Biden pushed her against a wall and penetrated her with his fingers" in the lead

It's alleged that Joe Biden, who for the benefit of non-Americans is a likely candidate for the US presidency, touched a woman's genitals nonconsensually, and this RfC is about how much detail about that allegation to give in the lead. The RfC took place a few months before the US presidential election and so of course was rather fraught and attracted a lot of attention, particularly from our American editors. Predictably, there is no consensus about whether to put the graphic details front and centre. On Wikipedia, a "no consensus" outcome about whether to make an edit leads to the status quo ante being restored.
The RfC question correctly states that an editor removed details of the allegation from the lead on 23 April 2020; but omits to mention that the said details were also added on that date, in this edit. I find that the status quo ante is not to include the disputed content.
The article does not include it at the moment, so in practice, the outcome is not to change the article.
I hope this helps. If you have any questions, comments or complaints, please direct these to my talk page in the first instance.—S Marshall T/C 15:23, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

In this edit, AzureCitizen removed details of the allegation from the lede with the edit summary Returned the start of the lead to a prior version from earlier today. The more explicit details about the wall, penetration, and fingers should be included in the article, but in the body (not the front of the lead). 1) BLP advises us to write conservatively about crime allegations (as opposed to a post conviction fact pattern), and 2) Triggering can occur for some readers with sensitivities when you put something right up front like that. Need Talk Page consensus for this please.

This appears to be a clear violation of WP:NOTCENSORED. Also, "sexually assaulted" can be misinterpreted to mean many things including vaginal rape with a penis. The lede is supposed to give enough information to stand alone as a good summary. Without clearly stating that the allegation is that Biden put his finger in Reade's vagina, the reader is left with inaccurate picture. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 07:43, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

AzureCitizen is correct. There is no value in having this insignificant detail in the lead, especially for such a short article. If the allegation were proven to be true, perhaps it would be relevant, but since the allegation is of questionable credibility, it would tend to violate WP:DUEWEIGHT. WP:NOTCENSORED is possibly the most misunderstood principle on all of Wikipedia. It's purpose is not to clear the way for any content for any reason, and it almost never at risk of being violated. Our other policies and guidelines are still in effect, and good writing style is still a thing. - MrX 🖋 11:39, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
This article is about the allegations. How does what the allegation is not have DUEWEIGHT in the lead of the article about the allegation? That makes no sense. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 22:07, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
The essential fact is that she feels she was sexually assaulted. No matter how detailed an allegation she might have made, the lead of an encyclopedia article is always going to exclude some of the detail. I don't see that this detail is the focus of the RS coverage. The central allegation is that she was sexually assaulted, as opposed to being touched inappropriately in a non-sexual way. Detail should go in the article body. @Coffeeandcrumbs: I don't see any reason to think that readers will misinterpret "sexual assault" either in the cited sources or in our article. SPECIFICO talk 23:16, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
How can we dedicate an entire paragraph in the lead to the NYTimes coverage of the allegations and not say what she actually accused Biden of doing? --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 23:30, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
I don't think that paragraph is in very good shape. The timing of the Times article doesn't belong. It should state that the Times conducted an extensive investigation. Let's do that and then reassess the sense of the entire lead. SPECIFICO talk 23:34, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
"pushed her against a wall and penetrated her with his fingers" has made it's way back into the article against consensus. - MrX 🖋 12:47, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

RfC (alleged that Biden pushed her against a wall and penetrated her with his fingers)

Question: Should the lead include the fact that the allegation is that Reade says that Biden "pushed her against a wall and penetrated her with his fingers"? --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 14:08, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Survey (alleged that Biden pushed her against a wall and penetrated her with his fingers)

  • Yes – This article is about an allegation. The lead should clearly state what the allegation is. It is not as simple as "sexually assaulted". Reade alleges very specific form of assault. It make no sense to have an article about an "allegation" and not state what the allegation is in the lead of the article of said allegation. Concerns of "triggering" the reader is immaterial. So is any other concerns of BLP because this has been covered by multiple RS. As long as we make clear that these are still unproven allegations, we have no BLP issues in stating what RS state about a WP:WELLKNOWN person. Every single source that reports on this allegation includes details about what the specific allegations are. There are no DUEWEIGHT issues because nothing in this article has more DUEWEIGHT than what the allegation is. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 14:08, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment – Are there any articles in existence on Wikipedia or any other encyclopedia in which the graphic details of sexual assault allegations or sexual misconduct allegations are included in the lead of the article as opposed to being discussed and expanded upon in the body of the article? AzureCitizen (talk) 15:17, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
That's not an example for WP in WP voice mentioning graphic details of an alleged sexual assault in the lead, it's a direct Trump quote from the tape the page is named after. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:53, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
Yes, this seems typical of the restrained language used, e.g. Brock Turner. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 14:32, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
People v. Turner (Brock Turner) is not an allegations article, and the first sentence of that article's lead says "Turner was convicted by jury trial of three counts of felony sexual assault." Later, "digitally penetrated" appears in the context of the California legislature adding that to the legal definition of rape. AzureCitizen (talk) 03:16, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Not necessary - Describing the allegation is enough. It doesn't have to be explained in detail within the lead. Compare with the sexual misconduct allegations against Bill Clinton and Jimmy Savile, where graphic details aren't in the leads either. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 17:53, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
    That is not true. The Bill Clinton article says: "accused Clinton of exposing himself to her in 1991 as well as sexually harassing her; and Kathleen Willey accused Clinton of groping her without her consent in 1993." (emphasis added) Jimmy Savile is not comparable since there are hundreds of victims and it is not known what he did to each. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 23:29, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
To make "exposing himself" graphic in words, it would need to be written somewhere more along the lines of "exposed his erect p**** to her" (example only); similarly, a graphic depiction of "groping her" might be "groped her b*****" (example only). This is because the basic descriptives "exposing" and "groping" do not graphically tell us what was exposed, or what was groped. Here on this article, you're advocating that the lead must state that she was shoved against a wall and penetrated by Biden's fingers; you must admit that is more graphic than "exposing himself" and "groping her." AzureCitizen (talk) 00:08, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
At the very least, we can say "digitally penetrated". There is only one way for a man to expose himself. Groping also means breasts in most instances. However "sexual assaulted" can mean many things including vaginal rape with his penis or anal rape with his penis or oral rape etc... --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 00:53, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
In theory, a man could expose himself in other ways (if he dropped his pants and bent over to "moon" someone, would we say here on Wikipedia that he "mooned" or he "exposed"?), and a woman could be groped by unwanted touching of the breasts, buttocks, or genitals. However, you seem to be moving in the direction now of suggesting that we need to include in the lead that Biden allegedly digitally penetrated her in order to protect Biden from being mistakenly thought by our readers to be a rapist, and perhaps your argument here should be interpreted as being in favor of Biden's protection instead? Point taken, but then how would you square that with the way the article is written at Roy Moore sexual misconduct allegations? At that article, the lead says only that Moore allegedly "sexually assaulted" the three victims. It doesn't explain what the assaults were, yet in the body of the article the alleged assaults are fully described in terms of fondling of the breasts and genitals (alleged victim L.C.), fondling of the breasts (alleged victim B.Y.N.), and fondling of the buttocks (alleged victim T.J.). No raping (vaginal or anal) or oral sodomizing is alleged to have taken place, yet the lead just uses the term "sexually assaulted" and that article has been through hundreds of edits and over a hundred different editors over the last couple years. Would you mind comparing and contrasting that with the situation in the RFC here? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 01:48, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
I was going to respond to the original objection, but then AzureCitizen summed up things perfectly. Thank you. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 16:45, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
This article is about one sexual assault, not three, so it is simple to summarize the assault allegation by saying "digitally penetrated" in place of "sexual assaulted".  I'm not hearing any substantive arguments against the more informative summary.  Why do folks think the Roy Moore lead is superior?  An WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument still needs justification.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:07, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
The Moore allegations article lead allays concerns others might have about saying "alleged sexual assault" without explaining it was not a more serious sexual assault (e.g., rape). Taking a look at similar articles and gathering examples helps editors get perspective on what the usual editing norms are. With regard to substantive arguments, I'm not aware of a policy reason why a lead could not contain more descriptive details of an alleged sexual assault. Of course, there is no policy based reason why a lead must contain specific descriptions of what an alleged sexual assault was either. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 16:02, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Not sure that it is necessary in the lede - The specific allegations need to be included in the prose of the article, if only out of fairness to Reade, Biden and the reader. I am not sure whether they need to be in the lede though. The lede is supposed to be a summary. That said, it is far too short in its current form and needs to be expanded.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 01:05, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Yes - Thankfully, since I originally voted the lede has been expanded. It now contains earlier allegations that Biden touched her neck and shoulders in ways that made her feel uncomfortable. With this coming immediately after mention of "sexual assault", it makes it sound like THAT is the alleged assault we are talking about. So, I now think we need to be clearer in the lede that we are talking about an allegation that he penetrated her with his fingers, or digitally raped her, or some other language that more clearly summaries the specific act that is alleged. I am not sure whether the term "digital rape" has made it into common parlance. As an aside, I am shocked that Urban Dictionary seems to have a better definition than I can find on this project, even if that definition suffers from the usual informal language one would expect from that site.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 20:00, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
Just noting that People v. Turner is a court case article (the defendant was convicted, and lost his appeals too) as opposed to an allegations article; the "digitally penetrated" part appears later in the context of the California legislature adding "digital penetration" to the legal definition of rape, while the lead starts with "Turner was convicted by jury trial of three counts of felony sexual assault." Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 16:02, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
User:AzureCitizen The 'digitally penetrated' is just restrained language. In TALK at Brock an unspecified 'sexual assault' was tossed as misleadingly interpreted as meaning rape or worse, and graphic descriptions are too graphic, so -- just a restrained language. If you want an example in an allegation, try Devon Mathis (politician). Cheers Markbassett (talk) 06:49, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
Devon Mathis? It doesn't mention an alleged sexual assault in the lead. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 03:21, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
  • No, the lede should not include: Reade says that Biden "pushed her against a wall and penetrated her with his fingers." Primarily because that is not her only allegation. If the lede is to include that allegations; then Reade's 2019 allegations and 2020 allegations should be included.
In 2019 Reade alleged Biden touched only her hair and shoulders and that she never felt "sexualized" by Biden. In her 2019 interview with the Union, Reade said Biden treated her as an inanimate object, and she did not feel “sexualized” by anything Biden said or did to her. Then in 2020, Reade changed her allegation from not feeling “sexualized” by Biden and from Biden only touched her hair and shoulders to much more.
Therefore, if anyone wants the lede to include the allegations; then naturally both Reade’s 2019 allegations and 2020 allegations would have to be included. But since both are already covered in the “Allegation” section; there is no need duplicate them in the lede.
Also, the lede for Christine Blasey Ford does not go into the graphic allegations because they are covered in the “Allegation” section. Same should apply in the lede for Reade’s allegationsBetsyRMadison (talk) 12:47, 26 April 2020 (UTC)Betsymadison — BetsyRMadison (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
"It’s very reasonable to fear that talking to the wrong reporter will produce a damaging misunderstanding. One criticism that has been made of Tara stems from an interview she gave last year in the Union newspaper. In that interview, the reporter characterized (but did not directly quote) Tara as saying that the acts Biden performed on her did not make her feel “sexualized” but instead merely objectified. But Tara, in her interview with Katie Halper, says and the reporter seemed to be pressuring her to say the acts in question—inappropriate touching—weren’t sexual. Tara says that the (male) reporter’s questions made her reluctant to open up further, which is why she didn’t go into more detail about the alleged assault in addition to the unwanted neck and shoulder rubbing. The Union report is now used to suggest Tara is lying."[8] Kolya Butternut (talk) 05:22, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
  • No - There is no value in having this insignificant detail in the lead, especially for such a short article. If the allegation were proven to be true, perhaps it would be relevant, but since the allegation is of questionable credibility, it would tend to violate WP:DUEWEIGHT. WP:NOTCENSORED is possibly the most misunderstood principle on all of Wikipedia. It's purpose is not to clear the way for any content for any reason, and it almost never at risk of being violated. Our other policies and guidelines are still in effect, and good writing style is still a thing. - MrX 🖋 13:35, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

*Yes, this whole point of allegation. Maybe allegation true, maybe false. But you need to describe the allegation itself in article on allegation!--KasiaNL (talk) 05:41, 27 April 2020 (UTC) (banned sock puppet - [9] GizzyCatBella🍁 19:36, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

You're absolutely right, we need to describe the allegation itself in an article on an allegation. The article's body describes the allegation in graphic terms (have a look at the "Allegations" section); the focus of this RFC is whether or not that should be in the article's lead too. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 16:02, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
To Kolya Butternut -- It looks like you replied directly to me (in green) as opposed to adding your comment below the last entry in the discussion. Since I’m new here, I’m not sure if I should reply to you under your comment to me or reply below the last entry in the discussion. So to be safe, I’m going to reply below the last entry in the discussion.
I’m not sure what the point of your reply to me is; but, if your point is that you want to include Reade’s allegations in the lede; then, as I said before, both Reade’s 2019 allegations and 2020 allegations would have to be included. But since both are already covered in the “Allegation” section; I see no need duplicate them in the lede. BetsyRMadison (talk) 17:56, 27 April 2020 (UTC)betsymadison
I replied under your vote, so typically you would reply there.  You may move your comment.  Clearly the quote contradicts what you said. What would you have written in your vote taking into account the quote? Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:14, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
To Kolya Butternut -- I disagree with you. The quote you gave does not "contradict" what I wrote. I wrote facts and those facts are: In 2019 Reade alleged Biden touched only her hair and shoulders and that she never felt "sexualized" by Biden. In her April 3, 2019 interview with the Union, Reade said Biden treated her as an inanimate object, and she did not feel “sexualized” by anything Biden said or did to her. Then in 2020, Reade changed her allegation from not feeling “sexualized” by Biden and from Biden only touched her hair and shoulders to much more." Those are absolute facts and your quote does not contradict those facts.
I'll go step further and more facts:
Three days after Reade's April 3, 2019 (on April 6, 2019), Reade published a blog where she describes Biden treating her as an inanimate object, not feeling sexualized by anything Biden said or did to her and she wrote that Biden touched only her shoulders and neck. In the same blog titled “A Girl Walks Into The Senate" posted at Medium, Reade writes:
“Senator Biden would touch me on the shoulder or hold his hand on my shoulder running his index finger up my neck during a meeting … What started with promise and possibility, ended because some prominent Senator decided that he liked my legs and objectified me.
On December 13, 2019: Reade tweeted a promotional tweet directing people (and linking people) to her April 6 blog.
Therefore, the facts are: between April 3 2019 - December 13, 2019 Reade’s allegation was that Biden touched only her hair, shoulders, neck, and Biden treated her as an inanimate object, where she did not feel “sexualized” by anything Biden said or did to her.
So, for whatever reason, that facts are that: between April 3 2019 - December 13, 2019 Reade’s allegations never included anything beyond: Biden touching only her hair, shoulders, neck, and never included anything beyond Biden treating her as an inanimate object, where she did not feel sexualized by anything Biden said or did to her.
In 2020, for whatever reason, Ms. Reade's story changed from not feeling “sexualized” by Biden and from Biden only touched her hair and shoulders to much more.
So, like I said before, if someone wants to include Reade’s allegations in the lede; then, naturally both Reade’s 2019 allegations and 2020 allegations would have to be included. But since both are already covered in the “Allegation” section; I see no need duplicate them in the lede.BetsyRMadison (talk) 18:58, 27 April 2020 (UTC)betsymadison
Please try to be much more concise; do you see how incongruent your style is from everyone else's?  And no need to repeat what you have said in other comments (or within the same comment!).  Please provide quotes and link to sources to support your assertions.  Do you have a direct quote from her where she says she didn't feel sexualized?  Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:14, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
To Kolya Butternut - Yes, I do. And if you read my so-called "incongruent style" you will see that I was "concise" and did give you the direct quote from Ms. Reade where she wrote in her April 6, 2019 blog that she felt "objectified" (not "sexualized") and wrote Biden only touched her hair, neck and shoulders. And you would also see that on December 13, 2019 Reade promoted her April 6, 2019 blog and included a link to it. Both of which confirm that between April 3, 2019 - December 13, 2019 Ms. Reade's allegation only included Biden touching her neck, shoulders, hair, she felt "objectified" (not sexualized).
But, since you missed Reade's quote I provided, I will put here again for your convenience.
4/6/2019 Reade writes:
“Senator Biden would touch me on the shoulder or hold his hand on my shoulder running his index finger up my neck during a meeting … What started with promise and possibility, ended because some prominent Senator decided that he liked my legs and objectified me.
Here is link to her April 6, 2019 blog (see paragraphs 12 and 15) [10]
Here is link to Reade's December 13, 2019 tweet promoting her April 6 blog [11]
Finally, I feel that attempting to belittle someone by insulting their writing style is not productive. BetsyRMadison (talk) 20:01, 27 April 2020 (UTC)betsymadison
Twitter and blogs are not WP:RS (I acknowledge they have value in directing our research), and you have not provided a direct quote from the woman herself in an RS where she says she did NOT feel sexualized. Being objectified is usually a form of sexualization; the Union piece may be the only RS which characterizes her objectification as non-sexual, but there is no direct quote from her in that piece is there?
I am trying to be patient with you and honestly tell you what I feel, which is that your writing is anything but concise, and I find it somewhat disruptive. Most concerning now is that you do not appear to be acknowledging it, and are instead accusing me of attempting to belittle you. This is a discussion that is more appropriate for one of our talk pages, however. Kolya Butternut (talk) 21:32, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
To Kolya Butternut - I disagree with you. Tara's writing about her allegations are absolutely direct quotes from her. What the heck else would you call them? Tara writes that Biden did not touch her beyond her hair, neck, shoulders, and she felt objectified. Her direct words. Honestly, I'm actually stunned that you think Tara writings are not direct quotes from her; they are.
Trying to belittle someone and silence someone by insulting their writing style just because you don't like what they say, is not productive.BetsyRMadison (talk) 21:51, 27 April 2020 (UTC)betsymadison
Cut it out Kolya. For a brand new editor Betsy is doing very well when one considers that this is a very difficult first time article. Your repeated attempts to bully this editor are not acceptable. Also, statements such as "Being objectified is usually a form of sexualization" makes no sense and yet you seem to see yourself as an expert here. I generally try not to comment on other editors but in this case I am only following your lead. Gandydancer (talk) 22:00, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
Gandydancer, please do not cast aspersions by accusing me of repeatedly trying to bully her. If you feel I am being insensitive or not constructive, please yourself demonstrate constructive criticism.
Betsy, please provide examples of direct quotes of Tara's from WP:RELIABLESOURCES where she says she did NOT feel sexualized. You have not provided them. Objectification can be either sexual or nonsexual, so the quote needs to be FROM HER saying she felt she experienced nonsexual objectification. Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:34, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
To Kolya Butternut -- Tara Reade’s self-published blog may be used as a source of information about herself, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, (see: Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves in at WP:RELIABLESOURCES )
Therefore, as I’ve told you over and over again, in Reade’s April 6, 2019 blog Reade alleges Biden touched her hair, shoulders, neck, and she felt objectified, like an object, not sexualized.
4/6/2019 Reade writes:
“Senator Biden would touch me on the shoulder or hold his hand on my shoulder running his index finger up my neck during a meeting … What started with promise and possibility, ended because some prominent Senator decided that he liked my legs and objectified me. [12]
On December 13, 2019, Reade tweeted a link to her April 6, 2019 blog. Therefore, facts show that between April 3, 2019 - December 13, 2019, Reade's allegations were Biden touched only her hair, shoulder, neck, and felt objectified (not sexualized). Then, for whatever reason, in March 2020, Reade changed her allegation from not feeling objectified nor sexualized by Biden and from Biden only touched her hair and shoulders to much more.
Therefore, if anyone wants the lede to include the allegations; then naturally both Reade’s 2019 allegations and 2020 allegations would have to be included. But since both are already covered in the “Allegation” section; there is no need duplicate them in the lede.BetsyRMadison (talk) 00:38, 28 April 2020 (UTC)betsymadison
BetsyRMadison, please read my comments more carefully; I feel like we are talking past each other. As I said, "Objectification can be either sexual or nonsexual", so when she says in her blog that she felt objectified, we can not infer from that that she also did not feel sexualized. As I said, we need a quote "where she says she did NOT feel sexualized". Do you understand what I am saying? Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:06, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
To Kolya Butternut - We already have a quote of Reade saying she did not feel sexualized, in The Union. Tara Reade did not say "Objectification means sexualization or any sex." You are not Tara Reade and you cannot infer that when she told The Union she felt like an object, a “lamp” and “not sexualized” that she meant sexualized. And you cannot infer that when Reade wrote she felt “objectified” that she meant sexualized. Finally, Reade does not deny that she told the Union reporter that she did not feel “sexualized” so why do you insist on continuing on with this little song & dance?
But since you do insist, and without any inference at all, the facts you and I know are:
April 3, 2019 in a Union interview
  1. Reade alleged her expulsion was because she refused to do an assignment from her immediate boss to serve drinks at a function.
  2. “Reade said she did not consider the acts toward her sexualization.” (a quote Reade does not deny making.)
  3. Reade alleged Biden touched her shoulder and neck and she felt Biden treated her like an inanimate object, a “lamp.”
  4. Reade’s friend said that in 1993 Reade told her Biden touched Reade’s shoulder and neck and that Biden treated her like an inanimate object, a “lamp.”
April 6, 2019 Reade reiterated her April 3 interview in her blog where Reade alleged Biden touched her shoulder and neck and wrote she felt objectified not sexualized.
December 13, 2019 Reade directed people to read her April 6 blog where Reade alleged Biden touched her shoulder and neck and wrote she felt objectified not sexualized.
Therefore, the facts we know: between April 3, 2019 - December 13, 2019 Reade alleges Biden touched her shoulders and neck and she did not feel sexualized by anything he said or did to her. Also, between April 3, 2019 - December 13, 2019 Reade's friend says in 1993 Reade told her Biden touched her shoulders and neck and she did not feel sexualized by anything he said or did to her. Then, in March 2020, for whatever reason, Reade’s allegations changed from Biden touching only her hair and shoulders and not feeling sexulized to much more.
Do you understand what I am saying? Tara Reade did not say "Objectification means sexualization or any sex." You cannot infer that when she told The Union she felt like an object, a “lamp” and “not sexualized” that she meant sexualized. And you cannot infer that when Reade wrote she felt “objectified” she meant sexulalized. And, Reade does not deny that she told the Union reporter that she did not feel “sexualized.” BetsyRMadison (talk) 05:06, 28 April 2020 (UTC)betsymadison
One point at a time. You wrote: 2. "Reade said she did not consider the acts toward her sexualization." That is not a quote by Reade. So sticking to the facts, the fact is that we do not have a quote of Reade's saying she did not feel sexualized. If you can't acknowledge that you hurt your credibility. Kolya Butternut (talk) 06:00, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes per nom. It's clearly WP:DUE (the lead needs to be expanded overall), and some of the "it's too graphic" !votes here go against WP:NOTCENSORED. "Digitally penetrated" is overly technical (I remember I didn't know what it meant the first time I came across it), whereas "pushed her against a wall and penetrated her with his fingers" is suitably direct. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 19:18, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

*Yes, "digitally penetrated" now appears to be more common in RS. It uses dry, non-sensationalist language. This is a more informative summary than "sexual assault". Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:30, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

If the decision is between "digitally penetrated" and "penetrated with his fingers", that is an editorial style decision. RS have used both. "Digitally" is a more medical, dry, and professional word, whereas "fingers" is common speech but more graphic (which is not necessarily a bad thing). If we used the word "digital" we could provide the wikilink to Fingering (sexual act). Kolya Butternut (talk) 21:14, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
  • No Undue and not essential. Too much detail for the lead. We've all read a ton of RS and non-RS coverage of the incident. Such coverage and internet discussion does not routinely repeat the allegation in digital detail. It belongs in the article section that details the course of Reade's various allegations and other statements. It does not belong in the lead. We simply need to tell the reader she alleges she was sexually assaulted. SPECIFICO talk 22:01, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes per Sdkb. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 23:02, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
  • No To say "sexually assaulted" in the lead is preferable. I don't know for sure but I'm guessing that other articles about a sexual assault don't go into details in the lead such as "penis into vagina", "coke bottle into vagina", or "fingers into vagina, and such. Perhaps the worst suggestion of all is "digitally penetrated" with a link: Fingering (sexual act). Gandydancer (talk) 00:26, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
Gandydancer, why do you feel that is the worst suggestion of all? Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:59, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
If it appears "gross" to you and yet you wish to hide it, you are minimizing the ordeal the alleged victim went thru. To play down the victims is not a good look. XavierItzm (talk) 06:45, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes Considering that the mentioned article is concerning an allegation, (and the current lead's size seems to be small [and presumably incomplete]), as a result, including the mentioned sentence (of: "the allegation is that Reade says that Biden "pushed her against a wall and penetrated her with his fingers") can be more helpful in the lead. On the other hand, including this statement can also be regarded as "a part of the gist of the subject". Ali Ahwazi (talk) 09:36, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
  • No -Unnecessary, Undue, and Unprofessional; doesn't belong in the lede, for all the reasons already stated. Manannan67 (talk) 01:00, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes. I was actually leaning toward no, but fact that a straightforward, explicit description of the act has led to a talk page section titled just "Ugh. Seriously?" makes it clear to me that people are mentally self-censoring the word "sexual assault". Apparently we need to be explicit here. Einsof (talk) 21:12, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes per nom. ~ HAL333 20:17, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes, the current wording fails WP:NPOV. -- Netwalker3 (talk) 06:27, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Also, one of the main reasons to visit this article is to find out what the allegations actually are. That should be in the lede, not all the irrelevant stuff that is currently there. -- Netwalker3 (talk) 11:38, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
  • No per MOS:INTRO Editors should avoid ... overly specific descriptions – greater detail is saved for the body of the article. Also per BLP considerations per WP Manual of Style: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article. Thirdly, Reade has given differing accounts of the alleged assault, none of which have been verified one way or the other. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:44, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
Funny, when the very first sentence reads «exposing himself to her» in the Bill Clinton sexual misconduct allegations. XavierItzm (talk) 23:03, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes This is what seperates this incident from all the plethora of other overly-close[13], uncomfortable[14] touchy-feely incidents[15], [16] that Biden has been documented performing. Noting that under FBI guidelines this accusation if true constitutes Rape[17].--MONGO (talk) 14:05, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes For clarity, as "sexually assaulted" can mean a number of things. Readers should not have to read the entire article to ascertain what is meant by the "sexual assault" in the title. Additionally, the current vague wording followed with the specific detail of the April 2019 allegation that "Biden had touched her neck and shoulders in ways that made her feel uncomfortable" may mislead readers into thinking the neck and shoulder touching was itself the sexual assault allegation. Hrodvarsson (talk) 22:35, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes It's the essence of the assault and distinguished it from the allegations of hair sniffing and groping allegations. ConstantPlancks (talk) 05:45, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
  • No This is a key detail but not necessary in the lede, which should provide an introductory overview. It is enough to basically explain there was an allegation of sexual assault made in 2020 involving Biden and Reade in 1993. The fingers-in-vagina detail of that alleged assault is not necessary for the lede, the reader can explore that by continuing to read on. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 06:54, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
They can find the fingers-in part, but no sign of a vagina, it's for their own good. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:13, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
  • YES per Einsof (talk · contribs) and Coffeeandcrumbs (talk · contribs). If this article was just about Joe Biden, then the details of such an assault allegation would not be appropriate in the LEDE. This article, however, is about sexual assault allegations made against Joe Biden. Some detail, not all, should be in the lede regarding the subject of the article, which is: sexual assault allegations made against Joe Biden. This can be included just due to the very subject nature of the article. Censoring all details from the lede is unnecessary, undue, and unprofessional; some detail belongs in the lede, for all the reasons already stated. GenQuest "Talk to Me" 13:07, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes - The title of the article is "Joe Biden sexual assault allegation"; it would be bizarre to not describe the alleged sexual assault in the lead. "Sexual assault" is OK for the title but it's too vague to repeat in the lead; it can mean many different things. "Pushed her against a wall and penetrated her with his fingers" describes the sexual assault that is being alleged. Whether the allegation itself is true or false, this description is neutral and it's how the sources describe it. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 16:34, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes - per Coffeeandcrumbs, XavierItzm and Einsof. Also strongly oppose using "digitally penetrated" -- I don't even know what that means! It is not a common phrase, and it is not appropriate to skirt around the issue and not ignore a key point by using obscure, less well-known, terminology. I don't think the objections to inclusion here are anything but political. It's a key factor in the allegation made, it should be in the lead. What exactly he's accused of; feeling her leg, pulling a skirt, groping, penetrating, whatever, should absolutely be in the lead and I see no argument here why it shouldn't. "Sexual assault" varies so wildly that omitting this is clearly not due to logical reasons, or due to reasons based on Wikipedia policies, or out of "concern" for being "too detailed" in a barely 2 paragraph lead. ProcrasinatingReader (talk) 15:19, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Further discussion (alleged that Biden pushed her against a wall and penetrated her with his fingers)

I noted she said he "touched her vagina", mainly to accompany the existing "touched her neck and shoulder" in the secondary story. I trust "vagina" is less offensive than the robot porn proposed above. It's a short and common word, at least. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:01, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

And it's already been called "bad writing", with two sarcastic Seriously?'s. Yes, seriously. How to improve without getting scientific or sleazy? InedibleHulk (talk) 20:51, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
It makes the article look ridiculous and you should wait for the outcome of the RfC. Volunteer Marek 20:54, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
I put it in the body, where everything except which part was "penetrated by his fingers" is already clear. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:43, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
For the historical record, it revanished hours later. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:20, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
Does this RfC end at some point? InedibleHulk (talk) 21:07, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Multiple year avocation or career of reade's in domestic violence victims advocacy

nytimes - .. After law school, Ms. McCabe took a job at the Snohomish County Center for Battered Women, where she was credited with creating a system to help victims navigate the courts. ... by 2006 was back in California, working in the domestic violence program at the YWCA of Monterey. Soon, she was also testifying as an expert in domestic-violence cases. ..
--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 19:14, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

"What a wicked world we choose when we practice selectively to accuse."

Full disclosure: Personally I myself don't believe the gist of Tara Reade's accusations against Joe Biden. I think maybe she did 'seduce' him <I'm getting politically incorrect here>, whether her so doing had been her full intention or not. She only began to hold whatever happened against him in 2020, when people began calling her a Russian asset and the like. Prior to this she'd always spoken positively about working for him. It's hypocritical to discount Reade's story while making loads of hay w rgd similar allegations against Republicans. (Wikipedia's coverage of Reade vs. its coverage of accusers of Republicans also follows this pattern, rather much, IMO.) There are opinion pieces out there that comment on this perceived hypocrisy. Perhaps might be mentioned in the article's commentary section. (Last line of an opinion piece in London's The Spectator: "What a wicked world we choose when we practice selectively to accuse.") LINK --Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 14:36, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Not hypocritical. It is NPOV. SPECIFICO talk 14:41, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
It isn't our fault if the women accusing republicans of misconduct, such as Christine Blasey Ford, appear to be significantly more reliable as sources than Tara Reade does. It would be a disservice to our readers to present things in a way that obfuscates their differences, as though they were equally consistent in their stories and equally truthful in their personal and professional lives. We shouldn't put our thumb on one side of the scale to make it seems as though they are balanced. If we were refereeing a sports game and only one side is committing fouls, we wouldn't start calling fouls on the side that is following the rules just to seem fair and avoid being accused of bias. NonReproBlue (talk) 06:20, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 8 November 2020

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

The result of the move request was: not moved. The discussion has been ongoing for a bit over a week and the consensus seems to be (increasingly) against the proposal. Furthermore, WP:BLP1E is an important pillar here, especially point 3, ...if the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented. The consensus here does not indicate the event was significant enough to warrant a separate article for Tara Reade - and given that this article is about the allegation itself, there's not much to pass the test at this moment. qedk (t 愛 c) 09:56, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Joe Biden sexual assault allegation → Tara Reade – Revisting the issue of the article's name now that the 2020 United States Elections are over. While Wikipedia has a number of articles titled "_______ sexual assault allegations," they usually involve multiple accusers. In contrast, this article could be renamed Tara Reade and structured along the lines of Juanita Broaddrick, Paula Jones, Anita Hill, Christine Blasey Ford, etc. Like Reade's situation, they begin with basic biographical material on the person, then move on to extended content about sexual assault and/or misconduct allegations against a high profile government official with political ramifications (usually U.S. presidents and supreme court justices). Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 03:14, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

  • Support Tara Reade is now clearly WP:NOTABLE in her own right. There is so much focus in this article on her biography, life, and of being the sole accuser in an inactive case, of her credibility (or apparent lack of it) and cited accusations of lying under oath etc, that I don't feel at this time it is acceptable for Wikipedia to keep the page with its present title. If it were a WP:BLP page of a less well-known person, I believe we would jump immediaitely to rename it. Whilst one person making an unfounded allegation against a famous figure could theoretically be the very start of a snow-ball effect (a la Harvey Weinstien), it could equally well that Tara Reade will be the only person ever making those accusations. Wikipedia follows the news, rather than makes it, and it should not retain an unfair title on a page for effect. The well-cited final subsection of this article, entitled Media vetting and politicization should be read by everyone considering !voting here. Using 5 citations to WP:RS, it lays out the arguments why this article's title is inappropriate, and why a WP:MOVE to Tara Reade, who is clearly Notable in her own right is wholly justified under our policies. Retaining this page title goes against WP:BLP (of Biden), and is WP:UNDUE. (That said, I am quite happy to retain the short mention of the unsubstantiated single allegation by Tara Reade and a link here from the main article about Joe Biden in the section there entitled 'Allegations of inappropriate physical contact'.) Nick Moyes (talk) 00:47, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Tara Reade is not independently notable. Her moment in the public eye passed months ago. KidAd talk 04:14, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Support per AzureCitizen and Nick Moyes. It's WP:UNDUE POV for Wikipedia to frame this one allegation, that went nowhere, around Biden, and is against our standard practice. The current title is just a legacy from when the topic was being framed differently (by sources and the article) during the Democratic primary. Crossroads -talk- 05:24, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
    There are almost 100 sources in the article framing the title as it currently stands. Now if there are new sources that supersede that and are more about Reade rather that Reade's accusation against Biden then we could talk. I just am not seeing RS support for that and cannot conclude it is undue. PackMecEng (talk) 05:28, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose having a BLP about Tara Reade, which is basically what is being proposed. However, I would support merging this article content to another page (probably Biden campaign page), as I don't think a sub article about these allegations will pass the ten year test. This election controversy wasn't as big as, say the Hunter Biden thing, and election controversies should be summarized in articles about the election rather than expanded into standalone scandal articles. Some political scandals deserve their own page, like Watergate, but this isn't one of them in hindsight. Lev!vich 16:30, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose The article is about the event, not the person. Dream Focus 16:36, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:COATRACK and WP:BLP1E. Reade is not notable outside of the incident described in this article. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:38, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Tara Reade's only claim to notability is her sexual assault claim. Colin dm (talk) 02:32, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article needs serious editing/trimming

Now that the transition is over and everything is a little less heated than during the campaign, I think it's time to look seriously at how we can improve this article. There are a few key problems - the article is confusingly structured, the article is too detailed, to the point of overwhelming the reader, and the article does not lay out the key facts in a clear manner.

As I see it, the key things to include in the article are this:

  1. Tara Reade made an accusation of sexual assault against Joe Biden
  2. Joe Biden denied said accusation
  3. Context regarding Biden's history of being overly touchy
  4. Context regarding Reade's deviations from fact with regards to her history in Biden's office etc
  5. Various "evidence" was brought up and weighed but nothing definitively proved or disproved the allegation, as is to be expected in a messy case like this.
  6. Commentary on what the whole saga meant in context

The article should lay out those 6 elements and not much else in a clear through-line for the reader. Right now, the structure is:

  1. Background on Tara Reade + activities since making accusation
  2. Reporting in The Union which didn't directly involve this accusation of sexual assault
  3. Reporting which didn't initially get published in other venues
  4. Specific allegation in immense detail regarding how and when it was reported
  5. Examination of some "evidence" in favor of the accusation being true
  6. Reporting by Vox
  7. Reporting by others
  8. Filing of police report, etc
  9. More background on Reade about her professional credentials
  10. Biden campaign and personal denial
  11. Accounts by Biden Senate staffers
  12. Commentary on what the whole saga meant in context

The article as written is chronologically confusing, jumps around, and devotes too much space to the minutiae of *how* things were reported and loses the focus on *what* was reported.

I'm saying all this to start a discussion - if you think the 6 basic things I laid out above, make sense, say so. If you think they should be different or differently ordered or you think the current article is great as it is, say that too. Together we can come to some rough consensus and get this article to a place where it passes the WP:TENYEARTEST, because I don't think it does at the moment. We're an encyclopedia, which means summary style - we do not need to include every shred of information about this saga in the article. Ganesha811 (talk) 19:39, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Any thoughts from others? If no discussion after a week or so I plan to start making changes. Ganesha811 (talk) 20:27, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
I'm going to start a draft page for a revision of this article. It will almost entirely contain content from this page, summarized in places, and with some sections trimmed down.
Here's the link: User:Ganesha811/sandbox/Joe Biden sexual assault allegation
Please come along and contribute and discuss via that draft's talk page. When I think it's ready, I'll start a new section on this page for discussion. Ganesha811 (talk) 04:30, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Ganesha811, rewriting this entire article is a tall order and I don't think a sandbox where you can't compare what is the same vs. different is the best way to do that. This article may have too much detail added via WP:RECENTISM last year and there are surely ways to improve it. Try proposing specific changes here instead. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:50, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
Muboshgu, while that's also a reasonable approach (proposing each individual change here), I think it is likely to result in reams of discussion and few substantial changes, which I think are out of scale with the rewrite the article needs. I could be bold and just start making large changes, but that might get bogged down the same way. This isn't quite a WP:TNT situation, but I feel like having a clean draft space to remake the article using existing material will be helpful. Ganesha811 (talk) 14:14, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
On reflection, I don't want to spend my effort budget for Wikipedia on this, so I'm going to delete my sandbox draft page. I still believe the article needs improvement, however. Ganesha811 (talk) 14:40, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
One issue last year was that there was one editor hellbent on having a standalone article for Tara Reade. When that was rebuffed and redirected here, they crammed in as much biographical info about Reade into this article as they could. Some of that could be trimmed, but some of her background info that she lied about is pertinent to the debunked assault allegations, so its tricky. ValarianB (talk) 13:15, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

harris notable?

this article does not seem to mention VP harris.....

is it not notable that she seemed to say she believed Biden's accuser/s before being his VP?

https://www.independent.co.uk/us-election-2020/kamala-harris-police-joe-biden-sexual-assault-law-and-order-2020-election-a9666131.html

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/harris-believe-biden-accusers/

https://nypost.com/2020/08/12/kamala-harris-believed-joe-bidens-accusers-until-she-didnt/

https://money.yahoo.com/sen-kamala-harris-says-believe-181901449.html

hhhhmmmmm? Michael Ten (talk) 02:09, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

This page is deeply biased and disingenuous and designed to discredit Reade

I'm confused about why information from this Intercept article is being excluded as "needing a better source" https://theintercept.com/2021/03/14/new-york-times-tara-reade/ when the Intercept is cited multiple times throughout this page otherwise. Before the main body of this wikipedia article even starts we get to read about how "Reade has been under investigation by prosecutors in Monterey County, California, for lying under oath about her educational credentials in her appearances as an expert witness on domestic abuse" but according to Ryan Grim's article "The probe has since been concluded with no charges filed", which is an important piece of context that completely changes the impact of the prior statement. Frankly, I don't even fully understand the relevance of her educational history or credentials in the context of claiming she was sexually assaulted. It reeks of using any available negative pieces of information that could diminish Reade's character, even if it's not relevant to the actual allegation. Joe Biden has historically made false claims about his academic attainment and performance, does that also need to be highlighted so that readers can frame his denial of the assault in the context of his past dishonesty? If the answer to that isn't yes, then all of this extraneous information about Tara Reade's credentials can probably be removed as equally irrelevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PurpleSwivel (talk • contribs)

[Comment removed per WP:BLPTALK]
Valarian, that has nothing to do with The Intercept. TI is used many, many times throughout this article. Why exclude one of their articles on Tara Reade but not others? Just because you don't like an article doesn't mean it doesn't fall under WP:Reliable Source. Jasper0333 (talk) 20:54, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
Valarian, what you said has nothing to do with The Intercept. Please stay on topic. The point of this article is not to "debunk" anything (there's absolutely no conclusive prove that the assault did or did not take place). If Reade being under investigation is pertinent information, then the probe being dropped with no charges is equally pertinent. The only way one would disagree is if they want the article to appear as damning as possible. I don't think a person like you has any business editing this article because your objectivity is clouded by a fairly conspicuous agenda. I just find it awfully suspicious that The Intercept is suddenly an unreliable source when it contradicts and diffuses questions about her character or truthfulness. It seems dishonest to say Tara Reade isn't credible while suppressing information that lends to her credibility. PurpleSwivel (talk) 01:10, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
The Intercept's reporting on this story has been troubling to me, and I imagine others as well. Even the title of their new article, "Tara Reade Works to Correct the Record", is not neutral. I don't know that there's enough justification to try to remove it or anything like that, but we need to be aware of their bias here. Pretty much every reputable media outlet has maintained their neutrality and pointed out the holes in her story. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:08, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
How is it any less neutral than "Tara Reade’s Tumultuous Journey to the 2020 Campaign", or "Ryan Grim helped push the Tara Reade story into the mainstream. What does he think of it now?" Why is "Tara Reade Works to Correct the Record" so "troubling"? It seems the stewards of this article are very selectively "troubled". PurpleSwivel (talk) 01:10, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
Stick to discussing content, not contributors. Your section title should really be amended. "Correct the record" implies there's something to correct. The Intercept is way out of synch with every reputable publication on this. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:46, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
There is something to correct, like the probe being dropped. Why is this remotely controversial? Which contemporary "reputable publication" contradicts the Intercept article of which we speak? These are really paper-thin arguments for excluding pertinent pieces of information. PurpleSwivel (talk) 00:41, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
And? Do you think WP:Reliable Source excludes all biased sources? A source can both have some bias and utilize solid, factual reporting. The Intercept is a good example. Most newspapers have a political bias one way or another. Are we going to stop using the NYT as a source because they have a Democratic bias? Or maybe stop linking to the WSJ because they have a Republican bias. Guess what, biased sources are still sources. Other biased sources may disagree, and wikipedia will link to their critique as well. That's how this whole thing works. Jasper0333 (talk) 07:06, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
So to be clear you're in favor of adding information from the "biased" Intercept article that clarifies/contradicts many allegations regarding Reade's history? PurpleSwivel (talk) 00:34, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Muboshgu, ValarianB, PurpleSwivel, Jasper0333, I just wanted to draw your attention to my section 'Article needs serious editing' above on this page. While I didn't get any replies there, I think that this is a good opportunity to do a real rewrite of the article according to WP:10YEARTEST principles. Right now, it's overstuffed and confusing for someone who didn't follow the saga in real time. I haven't really started my sandbox draft rewrite, so please come along to User:Ganesha811/sandbox/Joe Biden sexual assault allegation and help me out over the next few weeks. Ganesha811 (talk) 00:04, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
Sounds good, bound to be more productive than a discussion initiated by someone who revels in being identified as a sock by a Wikiadmin. ValarianB (talk) 13:18, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
Stick to discussing content, not contributors. For example, it would be out of line for me to say that you're an idiot for linking to my profile when all of my comments are signed with the same exact link to my profile. PurpleSwivel (talk) 00:34, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Joe_Biden_sexual_assault_allegation/Archive_12&oldid=1046707591"