Talk:Joe Biden sexual assault allegation/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Gretchen Whitmer's non-opinion

Is this really worth mentioning in the article given that she's essentially not saying much, basically just stating that she's not familiar with the allegation but supports the right of the debate to go on? What's the worth of including this? CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 14:33, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Both the Whitmer and Ocasio-Cortez bits are unrelated to the topic of this article and should be removed, in my opinion. The fact that no notable persons have commented is significant, but there are no significant comments. Perhaps there's RS discussion of the fact that the matter is apparently not clear enough to elicit public comment. SPECIFICO talk 14:38, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

I would be fine with removing the entire section, but not just Whitmer's comments which are roughly as encyclopedic as AOC's. - MrX 🖋 15:05, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree. Gandydancer (talk) 16:44, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

I would be fine with expanding this section to include a more fulsome account of AOC's comments that have been significantly watered down here. As well as, the adding of Bernie Sanders' comments, and others.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 19:46, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Political commentary, from AOC or another politician, is not the crux of the article. The content was appropriately provided in a condensed fashion. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 03:11, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

The problem is that the way AOC's comments were condensed, it watered her statements down and somewhat changed the meaning. Our job is not to blunt the sting of difficult statements from a politician. It is accurately represent what they said. AOC was not just saying that it was okay to talk about it. She called out those who would rather not talk about these allegations pretty harshly comparing it to gaslighting and saying their actions (or inaction) lack integrity:

What you're voicing is so legitimate and real. That's why I find this kind of silencing of all dissent to be a form of gaslighting.

Not discussing allegations is the "exact opposite of integrity" the congresswoman said, adding that it is "not okay" to prioritize beating Trump over discussing sensitive #MeToo issues like these because they are "very legitimate thing[s].

Reducing her statement to "she said it was okay to talk about it", and ignoring the second part that "it is inappropriate, dishonest, lacks integrity not to" is not a fair "condensing" of her statements.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 07:17, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

References

Larry King pic?

Would it be helpful to add a pic of Larry King to this page?MagicatthemovieS (talk)MagicatthemovieS

No. O3000 (talk) 17:37, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

What would it be useful for? This article barely has anything to do with him. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 17:40, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

A picture of Larry King isn't really helpful, but the actual video recording of her mother's call would be helpful. I think it would qualify as fair use. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:21, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

King pic adds nothing, agree add call recording is nice.--KasiaNL (talk) 05:37, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

I absolutely back this. This is without a doubt one of the biggest points of discussion regarding this article's topic, and would greatly aide in the reader's comprehension of what its documenting. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 22:32, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

No, this is not an article about Larry King. - MrX 🖋 13:27, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Misleading & false information in "Allegation" section should be removed/reworded

First: The following paragraph in the "Allegation" section is misleading and should be removed or reworded.

"According to Reade, after leaving Biden's office, her mother called Larry King Live and said that "my daughter was sexually harassed and retaliated against and fired". Both Reade's brother and a friend who Reade had told about the allegations corroborated that Reade had told her mother as well as that Reade's mother had recommended that she go to the police."

To stick with facts & for clarity the paragraph perhaps the paragraph can be reworded. Here's a possible suggestion"

"In an interview with The Intercept, Tara Reade said that after she left Biden's office, her mother called Larry King Live and said that "my daughter was sexually harassed and retaliated against and fired". However, on April 24, 2020, an unidentified source sent The Intercept a video of an August 11, 1993 phone call to Larry King and the audio transcript of the call does not support Reade's recollection of the phone call. The caller makes no reference to her daughter being sexually harassed, retaliated against, or being fired. The caller does mention a problem her daughter had but does not go into any specifics of the nature of the problem.

The caller said,

"Yes, hello. I'm wondering what a staffer would do besides go to the press in Washington? My daughter has just left there, after working for a prominent senator, and could not get through with her problems at all, and the only thing she could have done was go to the press, and she chose not to do it out of respect for him.”

The caller is identified as living in San Luis Obispo, California. Property records show that Reade's mother was living in in San Luis Obispo at the time."

That ends my suggestion for rewording that paragraph. Since statements from Reade's friend and brother are elsewhere in "Allegation" section; they don't need to be restated in this paragraph.

Second:, I feel the following sentence should be removed & I'll explain why:

"Commentators noted that the entire August 11, 1993, episode is missing from Google Play's catalog of Larry King Live.[31] It is unclear when the episode was removed."

Anonymous "commentators" opinions about Google Play appear to have no value in this topic & therefore I feel it should not be published on Wikipedia. BetsyRMadison (talk) 18:17, 26 April 2020 (UTC)betsymadison

"[T]he audio transcript of the call does not support Reade's recollection of the phone call" appears to be, at best, highly questionable editorializing. That Reade's mother didn't explicitly mention how she got allegedly harassed and the details of that doesn't disprove anything. This is a classic argument from inference that's original research on our part as editors and isn't appropriate to have in an article. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 18:32, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Adding to the point: if we as editors have a problem with Reade's mother using the euphemism "problems", that may or may not be reasonable, but it's still an editorializing position that we're putting into the source. That's not an appropriate thing to do. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 18:34, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

To Coffeewithmarkets- Clarity and facts are important in wikipedia. Fact is, the caller does not support Reade's recollection of the call. The caller does not mention harassment at all. I feel editors in wikipedia should avoid assuming that the caller was using a "euphemism" when she clearly said "problems."

To be factually clear: The caller only mentions problems and gives no details of the problems. The problems could be any number of things: problems with a coworker, an office rule, being asked to serve drinks at an event, etc.

The only facts we garner from the caller is her daughter worked for a prominent male senator and, whoever her problem was with and whatever her problem was, the daughter “chose not to [go to press] out of respect for him.”

And, Washington Post added an important bit to Reade's problem/complaint. Reade told WaPo her the "Complaint" she filed with the Senate personnel office was not about Biden at all and was only about her feeling bullied by coworkers. Tara said she felt "bullied" by coworkers and she felt Joe Biden should have done more to protect her from coworkers and she was angry that Biden didn't help her with coworkers.

WaPo writes,

"In The Post interview last year, she [Tara] 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.'”

Washington Post writes, "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 WaPo 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."

Finally, if: we are going to put Reade's recollection of the call; then I feel we must also include the fact that the audio transcript of the call does not support Reade's recollection.

As it is written currently, it is misleading. Wikipedia should work hard to avoid being misleading. BetsyRMadison (talk) 18:57, 26 April 2020 (UTC)betsymadison

To CoffeeWithMarkets --- So as to not get in the weeds over good or bad editorializing, how do you feel about changing the current paragraph to this:

"In an interview with The Intercept, Tara Reade said that after she left Biden's office, her mother called Larry King Live and said that "my daughter was sexually harassed and retaliated against and fired". On April 24, 2020, an unidentified source sent The Intercept a video of an August 11, 1993 phone call to Larry King. In the call, the caller makes no reference to her daughter being sexually harassed, retaliated against, or being fired. However, the caller does mention a problem her daughter had but does not go into any specifics of the nature of the problem.

The caller said,

"Yes, hello. I'm wondering what a staffer would do besides go to the press in Washington? My daughter has just left there, after working for a prominent senator, and could not get through with her problems at all, and the only thing she could have done was go to the press, and she chose not to do it out of respect for him.”

The caller is identified as living in San Luis Obispo, California. Property records show that Reade's mother was living in in San Luis Obispo at the time."

That ends my suggestion for rewording that paragraph. BetsyRMadison (talk) 19:16, 26 April 2020 (UTC)betsymadison

I think {{ping|BetsyRMadison]] has raised valid concerns. All this sleuthing around the edges and whodunnit mystery language undermines whatever valid content appears in the article. The word "missing" and certainly "removed" with no credible verification are obviously not NPOV or V and should be removed. The whole Larry King bit is very shaky and does nothing to help evaluate Reade's 2020 allegation. I think it encourages speculative inferences that undermine Reade's legitimacy and right to voice her allegation. We don't need to scour the dregs of Fox News, Washington Enquirer and similar sources for BLP content. SPECIFICO talk 19:40, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Fox News is a reliable source, and attacking reliable sources isn't helpful. Editors are free to challenge consensus at WP:RSN. 2600:1700:D281:27D0:9D22:C06C:8CAF:57F3 (talk) 19:44, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Fox should never be used for stories like this. Just looked at their site. The first six stories are about this. Then Kim Jong Un. You'd hardly know were in a pandemic, except you finally get to the story about Texas reopening. O3000 (talk) 19:54, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

• What evidence is there to support the notion that sexual harassment cannot quality as a "problem" or a part of "problems"? The exclusion of terms being insisted on seem to defy regular English completely. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 19:57, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

What is being suggested, to use language contrasting the contents of the call with Reade's recollection of it, sounds like editorializing and not appropriate. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:06, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

About the Google Play sentences, (1) they are sourced by an article with a specific journalist in the byline that quotes a specific twitter user, and therefore are not anonymous commentary, and (2) it is hard to see how a simple statement about the presence or absence of a website listing could constitute an opinion. It is true that the word "removed" is an unsupported inference—the episode could have never been there in the first place for all we know. The language should be changed to "when or if the the episode was removed". For that matter, there is no reason to have the same Fox News article duplicated in two separate ref tags; the second should simply be converted to <ref name=Wulfsohn /> or the sentences should be combined. Einsof (talk) 20:13, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

It clearly makes a nefarious suggestion without a wit of proof. And, a "specific twitter" user usually is anonymous. O3000 (talk) 20:18, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Fortunately, you don't have to make a guess based on how twitter is "usually" covered; you can click on the reference, open up the article, and find out that a specific person's name is provided. Einsof (talk) 20:25, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

All the Google Play Anderson Cooper episodes listed say “episode not available”, and an equally anonymous twitter user said CNN has no distribution deal with Google Play. I don’t understand why Fox is considered RS. The story is written like a hit piece and makes absurd inferences. O3000 (talk) 20:41, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

I request permission to reword the paragraph as I feel strongly feel that the current paragraph is misleading and needs to be reworded. I feel I was not clear in my original point, I muddied the water for myself with editorializing so I'd like clarify and offer a suggestion for rewording the paragraph

1. it is not up to wikipedia editors to define “problems.”
2. The caller said problems not "harassed"
3. The caller did not define problems
4. The caller does not mention “police report”
5. Comments from Reade’s brother & friend regarding any suggestion that the mother advised filing a “police report” in 1993 add no value to the point of the section; which is the call from the caller.

Therefore, with no editorializing, here is my suggestion for how the paragraph should read:

"In an interview with The Intercept, Tara Reade said that after she left Biden's office, her mother called Larry King Live and said that "my daughter was sexually harassed and retaliated against and fired". On April 24, 2020, an unidentified source sent The Intercept a video of an August 11, 1993 phone call to Larry King. In the call, the caller makes no reference to her daughter being sexually harassed, retaliated against, or being fired. However, the caller does mention a problem her daughter had but does not go into any specifics of the nature of the problem.

The caller said,

"Yes, hello. I'm wondering what a staffer would do besides go to the press in Washington? My daughter has just left there, after working for a prominent senator, and could not get through with her problems at all, and the only thing she could have done was go to the press, and she chose not to do it out of respect for him.”

The caller is identified as living in San Luis Obispo, California. Property records show that Reade's mother was living in in San Luis Obispo at the time."

That ends my suggestion for rewording that paragraph. Again, I feel the current paragraph is misleading and should be reworded with either my suggestion or someone else's.BetsyRMadison (talk) 20:46, 26 April 2020 (UTC)betsymadison

This version that you propose is still editorializing and is still inappropriate. We cannot assert that Reade is/was lying in Wikipedia's voice in that section or any other. We don't, as stated above, have any evidence that the described "problems" cannot have included sexual harassment. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 17:06, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

To @CoffeeWithMarkets I certainly do not want to suggest Ms. Reade is lying or being truthful. I want to remain neutral in here. I strongly feel Ms. Reade has a right to be heard & strongly feel wikipedia editors should stick to publishing only facts. If I stumble & accidentally "editorialize" I appreciate you letting me know that. So thank you.

Regarding that Larry King Live paragraph, someone has gone in and completely changed it so it looks nothing like it did when I wrote my comment here (that you replied to.) See my new talk section "changes in Larry King Live section"

In the new talk section "changes in Larry King Live section" I explain why I strongly feel that that section, as it currently stands, has erroneous information and irrelevant information and should be deleted and reworded. In that section I give a different suggestion for how it should read, one I hope you agree does not include any editorializing from me.

P.S. I have the utmost respect for Wikipedia and for Wikipedia editors which is why I do not make changes in wiki articles without first getting consensus, and permission, in the talk page. So thank you again for all your advice to me. BetsyRMadison (talk) 17:41, 27 April 2020 (UTC)betsymadison

• Agree Thanks for the clear summary, @BetsyRMadison:. SPECIFICO talk 23:44, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm having a hard time digesting all of this, but would emphasize that whatever we write must be directly verifiable in a reliable source, without adding any conclusions of the editor, or synthesis of information to arrive at new information. Words like "however" raise red flags. - MrX 🖋 01:04, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Error in "Allegations Made Public"

The second sentence in the "Allegations Made Public" section has an error. I will copy/paste the sentence here and put the error in bold:

"The Fund ultimately declined to assist Reade, having determined that as a non-profit it was legally constrained from doing so owing to the political candidacy of the individual accused"

That is false. Time'sUp did not say the declined to help because of "owing" something to the "political candidacy of the individual accused." Time'sUp has consistently said:

"As a nonprofit 501(c)(3) charitable organization, the National Women’s Law Center is restricted in how it can spend its funds, including restrictions that pertain to candidates running for election,” I feel the false part of the sentence, "owing to the political candidacy of the individual accused" should be removed and the sentence should read:

"The Fund ultimately declined to assist Reade, having determined that as a non-profit it was legally constrained from doing so." BetsyRMadison (talk) 21:17, 26 April 2020 (UTC)betsymadison

"Owing to" is an English-language preposition meaning "because of". Einsof (talk) 21:23, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

@Eisnof - Well now, don't I feel stupid! ;) Thanks for enlightening me! That said, I still feel it may a good idea to reword the sentence so the casual reader does not make the same mistake I did. Here a some suggestions:

1. "The Fund ultimately declined to assist Reade, having determined that as a non-profit it was legally constrained from doing so."
2. "The Fund ultimately declined to assist Reade, having determined that as a non-profit it was legally constrained from doing so because of restrictions that pertain to candidates running for election."
3. "The Fund ultimately declined to assist Reade, having determined that as a non-profit it was legally constrained from doing so owing to the restrictions that pertain to candidates running for election."

I feel, the current wording, may be confusing to the casual reader and may leave the casual reader with the wrong impression of Time'sUp. BetsyRMadison (talk) 21:50, 26 April 2020 (UTC)betsymadison

• Given the necessity of using precise wording, I went ahead and changed it so that the section now reads "legally constrained from doing so because of the political candidacy of the individual accused". We could edit it more, but I think that in context it doesn't imply anything wrong right now. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 03:32, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

  Yes, is better. I confused too by "owing to", not understand how this connected to debt.--KasiaNL (talk) 05:47, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Erroneous information in "NYT Investigation" should be deleted

I feel that the current paragraph that discusses Katie Halper's opinion piece contains erroneous information, misplaced and should be deleted. I will explain why. The current paragraph reads:
"The Guardian, Katie Halper points out that two interns interviewed by the Times "corroborated Reade’s allegation that she was removed of her duties supervising them (in retaliation, she claimed, for reporting earlier sexual harassment)" and further noted that no response about Reade's demotion from the Biden campaign was included in their reporting."
First: The two interns did not "corroborate" the Reade was reassigned duties "in retaliation for reporting sexual harassment."
Second: The two interns did not "corroborate" that Reade was retaliated against at all.
Third: There are no facts to support the claim Reade was "demoted." Being reassigned duties does not mean "demotion." In fact, often times being reassigned duties can mean promotion.
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia where facts, not innuendo, are to be distributed. I know this topic is one where some, or all, may have their minds up made up. And that means we all need to extra careful and diligent to out only facts. Period.
I feel that paragraph regarding Katie Halper's should be removed because it is opinion and innuendo and not fact.
For example, the facts are:
In multiple interviews Tara Reade says that some of her office duties were cut after she refused to do an assignment that her supervisor gave her. Ms. Reade said her supervisor told her to serve drinks at an event and Reade said she refused to do what her supervisor told her to do. Additionally, in multiple interviews Reade says she never, never told anyone in Biden’s office about any alleged “sexual assault.” And, in multiple interviews Reade says she never filed a “sexual assault” allegation against Biden with Biden’s office or with anyone at all during her time in DC.
For example, in 2020 Washington Post article, Reade says she filed a complaint with the Senate Personnel office regarding her feeling “bullied” by her coworkers. In that interview Reade stressed that her filed complaint was not about Biden but instead was about feeling bullied.
Given what Reade has said in multiple interviews, that she never told anyone in Biden’s office (nor Senate Personnel) about “sexual assault” allegations; and she says she was reassigned after she refused to do a task her supervisor gave her; it is false and inaccurate to infer or even imply that Reade was reassigned in ‘retaliation of sexual assault allegations' of which Reade says no one in Biden's office knew about.
Perhaps, if some wants to include the memory of the two interns, a sentence could read: “while no one in Biden’s office corroborated Reade’s sexual assault allegations, two interns recall Reade being reassigned duties after Reade says she refused to do an assignment from her supervisor.”
And, as SPECIFICO has pointed out in other talk sections: "If an employee says she will not serve drinks at events and the employer subsequently relieves her of that and other tasks the employee decilined because she finds them menial or unprofessional or "women's work" or any other disagreeable thing, how is that a bad thing? What does that have to do with a sexual assault allegation? It's certainly not retaliation when an employer reassigns duties the employee refuses. That's not a sign of employer punishment. It's the opposite, it's respect."
I feel it is the duty of wikipedia (and all encyclopedias) to be factual, accurate, precise, and to avoid innuendo, inference, and bias. And since, in multiple interviews, Reade says she never told anyone in Biden’s office about any alleged “sexual assault” and says she never filed a “sexual assault” complaint against Biden to Biden’s office nor to Senate Personnel during her time in DC it would be nonfactual, inaccurate, and imprecise to imply that Biden’s office ‘retaliated against’ Reade for sexual assault allegations given that no one in Biden’s office had heard of any such allegation. Therefore, I feel Halper's opinion/innuendo piece should be deleted. BetsyRMadison (talk) 15:23, 27 April 2020 (UTC)betsymadison

• Agree - good clear summary. SPECIFICO talk 23:42, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
• I agree also. - MrX 🖋 00:54, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
• Disagree, that is a misinterpretation of Katie Halper's quote; essentially a strawman. We can change the word "demotion" to something more precise, however. Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:13, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Katie Halper's opinion piece should be deleted. I feel it is the duty of wikipedia (and all encyclopedias) to be factual, accurate, precise, and to avoid innuendo, inference, and unobjective opinions. At the beginning of Halper’s opinion piece she says she is not objective. Halper writes, "I don’t hide my politics, nor am I an “objective” investigative reporter.”

Also, when the NYT article says, "No other allegation about sexual assault surfaced in the course of reporting, nor did any former Biden staff members corroborate any details of Ms. Reade’s allegation. The Times found no pattern of sexual misconduct by Mr. Biden." the NYT is clearly stating that no staff member corroborated any details of Reade’s 2020 allegation of sexual assault.

Reade was reassigned duties after Reade refused to do an assignment from her immediate boss – refused to serve drinks at a function - and that has nothing to do with Reade's 2020 allegations and therefore is not relevant in the wikipedia page that is solely about Reade's 2020 allegations of sexual assault.

Katie Halper's opinion piece contains erroneous information and innuendo so it should be deleted.' BetsyRMadison (talk) 06:20, 28 April 2020 (UTC)betsymadison

You have not addressed my comment. In addition, if we leave out both the New York Times line about "no corroboration" and Halper's line about the interns, we can include the information about the interns from another RS. Kolya Butternut (talk) 15:02, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

FYI, none of us is obligated to respond to any particular comment on the talk page, even when it refers to something we may have said. SPECIFICO talk 15:15, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

• Agree with the original poster's proposal. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:04, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
• Disagree with the OP's assertion that the sentence could read: “while no one in Biden’s office corroborated Reade’s sexual assault allegations, two interns recall Reade being reassigned duties after Reade says she refused to do an assignment from her supervisor.” This is a gross tergiversation of The Guardian. The Guardian says:
  "Two interns the Times interviewed corroborated Reade’s allegation that she was removed of her duties supervising them."
  The Guardian never says that Reade refused to being a drink server nor that she refused any other assignments. XavierItzm (talk) 07:12, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
• Observation -Why are you even using Halpern? I had to go to her article to find out who she was, which gave me an inkling to google her. It's nothing more than an opinion piece of someone who has apparently spent the better part of the last year or so complaining that the media wasn't being fair to Bernie Sanders! That she would present a critical interpretation of Biden -I'm absolutely shocked! Manannan67 (talk) 02:07, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Inaccurate summary for why Reade didn't share full story last year

The NYT has:

Ms. Reade said she did not disclose the sexual assault allegation last year when she spoke out because she was scared. After her initial complaints were reported last year by a local California newspaper, Ms. Reade said she faced a wave of criticism and death threats, as well as accusations that she was a Russian agent because of Medium posts and tweets, several of which are now deleted, she had written praising President Vladimir Putin.

This was summarized in our article as:

According to Reade, she faced backlash following her 2019 statements due to her previously expressed support of Putin, and she therefore did not share the entirety of her story right away.

I'd suggest refraining from summarizing unless it's accurate. Why not something straightforward, like this from Politico?

She said she didn’t tell the full story about Biden initially in 2019 in part because “I just didn’t have the courage” and then faced threats after she publicly alleged inappropriate touching.

petrarchan47คุก 14:37, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

• As this is essentially Tara Reade's BLP, I will remove the innacurate summary and replace it with more factual and neutral one from Politico per WP:BLP:

"We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source. Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." petrarchan47คุก 15:45, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

The summation was misleading. Thank you for correcting it. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 16:41, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

It's still not adequate. There's also this info: "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."[1] Kolya Butternut (talk) 05:19, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Interactions with Time's Up section

This recent addition strikes me as very problematic. Why are we covering something that did not occur? There's a clear suggestion that some impropriety or conflict of interest deprived Reade of something to which she was entitled. There is nothing to support that insinuation. U.S. tax regulations 501c(3) nonprofits from any politics-related activity. All nonprofits scrupulously avoid this if they wish to retain the tax exempt status for donors. I don't think any of this section is on-topic for the subject of the article -- Allegation and certainly not for a separate bold header. SPECIFICO talk 18:15, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Well, user:SPECIFICO, go ahead and delete the section. (For now, anyways. Some sources[2] [3] seem to document Anita Dunn's a catch and kill expertise.)--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 18:27, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

OK. Those are exactly why I'm uneasy about having it on WP. Sometimes many things can be true at the same time and sometimes nothing is as it seems. Actually, if you don't mind, it would be easier if you could self-remove it. I don't want to get caught up in 1RR issues. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 19:17, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Done. SPECIFICO talk

Time's Up was the subject of the original story on Tara Reade, and it has been widely discussed. Kolya Butternut (talk) 14:49, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

user:Kolya Butternut & user:SPECIFICO - As a heads up, I wp:Preserve "source'd" mention - it's hoped within an acceptably "NPOV" enough of fashion - of Reade's having sought help from Times Up w/in this (diff) edit here.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 17:20, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

• Salon: ".. Time’s Up offered her considerable help when she first reached out to the organization .."

Extended content

Did Time’s Up refuse to help Reade as a political favor to Biden? Almost certainly not. As Reade herself said (LINK) when she was interviewed by pro-Sanders pundit Krystal Ball, Time’s Up offered her considerable help when she first reached out to the organization. In its partnership with the National Women's Law Center, Time’s Up connected Reade with a number of lawyers who interviewed her to see if she had a case worth pursuing. None of those lawyers took Reade on as a client. It’s important to understand here that Time’s Up Legal Defense Fund only provides support beyond these referrals — such as PR assistance — if a client obtains a lawyer and moves to take legal action against workplace harassment. But Reade told Salon she wasn’t interested in suing Biden. Instead, she was angry “about the smears about being a Russian agent” from Biden supporters and was hoping a lawyer could find a way to stop them. One law firm Reade spoke with confirmed that they would not take a case with the ambiguous goal of trying to shut down people on social media who were speculating about an accuser being a “Russian agent.” Carrie Goldberg runs a firm dedicated to defending women against sexual abuse. Time’s Up helped Reade set up a meeting with her. Goldberg told Salon that she would not “comment on who reaches out to our firm for help” but said that “our firm never hesitates to take on powerful adversaries.” She said her firm is not, however, in the business of threatening “to sue conspiracy theorists for potentially protected speech.” Salon’s discussions with Reade indicated that she was less interested in legal action and more in public relations representation — for “protection” and to handle “being inundated” by phone calls from reporters. After this interview, Reade continued to send messages to Salon indicating her anger over not getting help with PR. But Time’s Up is primarily a legal organization, and is not in the business of running PR for accusers who aren’t going through the court system. In a written statement to Salon, Uma Iyer of the National Women’s Law Center confirmed what Grim reported in The Intercept — their status as a nonprofit comes with “a strict and absolute prohibition on participating in electioneering or political campaign activity.” Considering Reade’s active presence on Bernie Twitter and her enthusiasm for the Sanders campaign, the concerns that any involvement with her allegations during a presidential primary could be perceived as electioneering don’t seem unfounded. SKDKnickerbocker, the firm that Time’s Up hires to do PR support for their legal cases, was founded by Anita Dunn, who is an adviser to Joe Biden. This fact has attracted the attention of many pro-Sanders people on social media who are eager to sense an “establishment” conspiracy, which is understandable. But considering the multiple reasons that Time’s Up had to say no to Reade before involving the PR side — she has no legal representation, she’s not suing anyone and the whole story could potentially be interpreted as electioneering — there’s no reason to believe that Dunn ran interference to quell Reade’s story.

1. Vox: ".. reached out to Time’s Up, an anti-harassment organization launched as the Me Too movement rose to prominence, to see if she could get legal representation .."
2. ["wondering what a staffer would do besides go to the press" Heavy.com]: ".. reported that Time’s Up said it couldn’t help Reade because Biden was a candidate for federal office and the group was worried about its non-profit status .."
3. TheWeek: ".. Reade did go to the legal aid nonprofit Time's Up in January this year and told them the story, only for them to turn her down, supposedly because Biden was a presidential candidate. .."
4. Politico: ".. Reade’s allegations against Biden, which he adamantly denies, have even led to scrutiny of the TIME'S UP Legal Defense Fund, which was founded in 2018 to help victims of sexual harassment and assault. The group said it helped connect Reade to attorneys, but determined it could not fund a lawyer or public relations for her because Biden is a candidate for federal office and it believed its nonprofit status could therefore be threatened. .. Uma Iyer, a spokeswoman for TIME’S UP Legal Defense Fund, said 'funding for legal representation or public relations is not a given part of our process, and in this situation, we had to make a decision that abides by the strict 501(c)(3) rules and regulations that necessarily govern our status.' .."
5. NYT ".. tried to get legal and public relations support from the Time's Up Legal Defense Fund, an initiative established by prominent women in Hollywood to fight sexual harassment .."
6. TheEconomist: ".. sought help from the TIME'S UP Legal Defense Fund, which helps victims of sexual harassment. She could not find a lawyer to take her case, and the outfit does not offer public-relations help to accusers without lawyers. Some cite that, and the fact that the PR firm affiliated with the fund is run by a Biden adviser, as evidence of a stitch-up. The fund replies that the PR firm in question did not know about Ms Reade until journalists started calling. The fund worried about getting involved in a case against Mr Biden because tax-exempt non-profits are barred from political campaigns .."
   --Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 08:41, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

---

Violence Against Women Act in Background section

I have reverted the mentioning of Violence Against Women Act. This is in no way relevant to the allegation, and could be seen as a WP:NPOV violation in the form of an attempt to skew narrative. Previously, information regarding Biden's other inappropriate behaviour towards women and minors was included in that section, but also removed; it was a lot more relevant as it was closely related behaviour. BeŻet (talk) 12:10, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree. - MrX 🖋 12:40, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Many politician's pages include whether they voted for or against the Violence Against Women Act or its reauthorizations. Evidently a major sponsor of the legislation should have it as well, and it seems quite odd to remove it. See for example Jason Chafetz and one B.H. Obama. XavierItzm (talk) 12:52, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

You're right, and that's why Joe Biden's page includes that information. But this is a different page. BeŻet (talk) 14:35, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

This is not a politician's page, nor does it even matter what is included in other articles. A legislative vote is irrelevant to the subject of a sexual assault allegation. - MrX 🖋 14:04, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree completely that the legislative vote isn't relevant to this allegation. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 14:51, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Editing The Lead

I feel the lede, as currently written, is confusing and possibly even misleading. Sidenote: One fact about Reade that is not in this wikipage (and maybe it should not be) is that Reade worked for more than one member of Congress. Prior to working for Joe Biden, Reade worked for US Rep. Leon Panetta. I only bring that up as a fact to keep in mind when publishing facts on wikipedia regarding people's memories, what was said, and about whom.
Back to the lede: currently the lede states:

"In March 2020, Tara Reade alleged that U.S. Senator Joe Biden sexually assaulted her in a Capitol Hill office building when she worked as a staff assistant in his Senate office in 1993. Her accusation garnered a response from Biden's spokesperson denying the allegation. Three people later said that Reade told them of his assault between 1993 and 2008. An August 1993 anonymous caller on the American television talk show Larry King Live, whom Reade identified as her mother in April 2020, stated that her daughter had unpublicized problems with a prominent Senator. Media coverage of the controversy also became controversial, as Biden was running for president at the time."

To be fair, factual, and objective to Ms. Reade, Senator Biden, and wikipedia readers, I feel the lede needs to be reworded and I'll explain why:
1. If the memories of Reade's friends are to be included; then Biden's staff should be as well "former Senate office staff members do not recall such an incident.
2. Are there "three people" or two? I'm not clear if the anonymous friend in prior news reports is one of the two women who recently spoke out. I feel it is important, on a factual basis, to know for sure if there are "two" or "three" people.
3. Leaving aside the question of, are there two or three people; currently, the sentence "people later said that Reade told them of his assault between 1993 and 2008." is not factual.
4. Fact is, two women, Lynda LaCasse and Lorraine Sanchez, mention an assault but do not mention Biden's name so "his assault" should be deleted.
Sanchez says, "she does not recall if Reade offered details about the sort of harassment she allegedly suffered, or if she named Biden."
LaCasse says "“I remember her saying, here was this person that she was working for and she idolized him,”
So, since I do not feel comfortable deleting other people's work I have edited it to read:

“Two friends of Reade have said publicly that between 1993 and 2008 Reade told them of an assault but they do not mention Biden by name.”

5. Regarding the sentence describing the call to Larry King Live, the caller does not say “her daughter had unpublicized problems “with” a prominent Senator." That is false. The caller does not say "with" the senator. Facts of the call are:

• The caller does not specify the nature of the problems and
• The caller does not specify who the problems were with.
  

So that sentence should be deleted or reworded. I’m leaning toward it being deleted since it already has it’s own subsection. But, since it is there right now, and I do not feel comfortable deleting other people’s work on such a serious topic, I have edited it to:

In August 1993 an anonymous caller phoned the Larry King Live show and said her daughter had problems at a prominent senators office but does not want to go to the media. The caller does not specify the nature of the problems or who the problems were with. Reade says the caller is her mother.

6. I feel the sentence “Media coverage of the controversy also became controversial, as Biden was running for president at the time.” is an opinion, irrelevant and debatable so I feel it should be deleted. This page is not about the media but is about Reade’s allegation against Joe Biden so I feel the sentence is irrelevant in that regard. Some say the media has been controversial and others do not agree. I feel the whole sentence should be deleted.BetsyRMadison (talk) 18:53, 28 April 2020 (UTC)betsymadison

Your current version is trying too hard, with all the buts and specific things that weren't said. Comes across as aggressively defensive and needlessly wordy. And I say that as someone who doesn't care who's lying, I just like neutral and concise leads. They should summarize the entire story, though, so as long as the press kerfuffle is the last section, the last lead sentence is fine. If there's published disagreement over whether the coverage is controversial, that's just proving the fact further. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:18, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

To InedibleHulk -- well, you could be right, I may be trying to too hard. I do admit that I am trying hard to be fair to Ms. Reade, Joe Biden, and the readers. You & I have the same goal: a neutral, concise, and factually accurate leads. I felt like the old lead, that I edited, was unintentionally lacking some of that, so I edited it accordingly. I try putting myself in Reade's & Biden's & the reader's shoes when editing or making suggestions. Thanks for you input to me. I appreciate it.BetsyRMadison (talk) 19:45, 28 April 2020 (UTC)betsymadison

I hope you appreciate the tweaks I made, my edit summaries are hit-and-miss for clarity. Anyway, my personal interest here is pretty much spent, so revert if you want. Nice meeting you! InedibleHulk (talk) 19:59, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. ;) BetsyRMadison (talk) 20:00, 28 April 2020 (UTC)betsymadison

Can someone please explain to me what just happened?

I don't know what just happened with the talk discussion topic "Requested move 29 April 2020" that is now seen in a green box. I am totally confused. Can someone please explain it me? Thank you. BetsyRMadison (talk) 19:02, 29 April 2020 (UTC)betsymadison — BetsyRMadison (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

The page was moved back to its long-standing title, Joe Biden sexual assault allegation, thus closing the move request discussion. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 19:23, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

@Nice4What - I'm still confused. Can you explain what that means exactly? Does it mean we are no longer permitted to ask questions about the article's title? Does it mean we can no longer get a consensus on whether the article's title should be renamed? Oh, and Thank you for answering my questions ;) BetsyRMadison (talk) 19:42, 29 April 2020 (UTC)betsymadison — BetsyRMadison (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

@BetsyRMadison: You can start a formal move request. Read WP:RM and let me know if you need help. The article was reverted back to "Joe Biden sexual assault allegation" because certain editors chaotically moved the page while a discussion was ongoing. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 19:44, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

As Awilley said in their close of the requested move, "This is without prejudice to any future move requests or discussions." I don't want to speak for them, but with the move warring that was going on, I think the interpretation was that the process has become FUBAR and needs to start over. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#More silliness with articles related to Joe Biden for the discussion that happened. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:49, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Muboshgu and @Nice4What -- I'm still confused so do you mind answering a few more question? If we just want to get a consensus for a change in the article's title, do we need to start a formal move request? Regarding the consensus: what percentage of editors need to approve in order to make the change? Or, what percentage of editors need to disapprove in order to stop a name change? I'm not sure it's worth reverting it back from reverting it back. But, as you know, I feel that article's title could be better in regard to adhering to: WP:SPADE & WP:CONSISTENT & possibly WP:BLP so I wanted to get a consensus changing the article's title. Thanks again to you both for your help! BetsyRMadison (talk) 20:02, 29 April 2020 (UTC)betsymadison — BetsyRMadison (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Yes, you need to start a formal request to have an article moved. There is no strict percentage, it's whatever consensus becomes clear. Let me know if you need anything else! Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 20:05, 29 April 2020 (UTC

I just want a consensus, so do I just start a new section & copy/paste my original points? Now here's a stupid question: How does an editor know when a consensus becomes clear? BetsyRMadison (talk) 20:09, 29 April 2020 (UTC)betsymadison

BetsyRMadison, generally, move discussions are kept open for seven days. Consensus may become clear in less time, or the discussion may need to be relisted beyond the seven days for more input if it is not. If you want to start a new move discussion, go for it. You can copy/paste what you've already written on your reasonings. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:31, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

@BetsyRMadison: that is correct, any future page move will require a formal move discussion. Before you dive in and start one of those there are a couple of steps I would recommend. First, review the naming criteria at WP:Article titles and look carefully at the names of similar articles (for consistency). Next think carefully about what the article's scope should be and brainstorm a bit on the best name. For example if the article is about the Reade allegation and the allegations of lesser misconduct you might consider Joe Biden sexual misconduct allegations. Weigh each idea by how well it satisfies the criteria. (For example, people wanting to move the article to Tara Reade should consider how WP:BLP1E is satisfied.) At this point it might be helpful to do an informal multiple choice straw poll to get a rough idea of where the consensus lies and weed out choices with problems you didn't see. Finally write an argument in favor of the best title and start the RM. Going through the process will take some extra time on your part, but it has a higher probability of ending with a better result with less drama along the way. Or you might convince yourself in the process that the current name is the lesser evil. ~Awilley (talk) 22:54, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

To Awilley - Thank you for your detailed explanation! I guess two things still leave me struggling with the current article's title: WP:Consistency and WP:Spade. When I research WP:CONSISTENCY and WP:SPADE,, I walk away thinking the current title does not adhere to either them and I'll explain why.

On WP:SPADE

• Let’s say Sally Smith makes a declaration about John Doe. If the title is: "John Doe blanket declaration;" then the reader thinks it's a declaration from John Doe; (not a declaration from Sally Smith about John Doe).
• Let’s say Dan Jones makes a blanket allegation against Ann Mae. If title is: "Ann Mae's blanket allegation" then the reader thinks it's an allegation from Ann Mae; (not an allegation from Dan Jones about Ann Mae)

The way I read the current article’s title, it reads as if it’s allegation is from Joe Biden (not an allegation from Reade about Joe Biden).

So, in my view, in order to adhere with WP:SPADE, we should consider renaming the article: “Tara Reade Sexual Assault Allegation” or “Tara Reade.”

On WP:CONSISTENCY

From the seven articles I discussed in the original talk-section questioning the article’s title (listed below)

• 3 articles did not include the accused’s name,
• 3 included accused’s name after police launched “criminal investigations,” and
• 1 included accused’s name after audio of the accused surfaced of him admitting to and bragging about getting away with sexually assaulting women

I should note here: Tara Reade acknowledges she did not file a police report for any criminal investigation and not for litigious reasons. According NPR, Reade filed it “because she was worried about her safety after receiving ‘online harassment.’”

In fact, Reade has stated publicly that she has no (0) interest in suing Biden in any Court, not criminal court and not civil court.

(list of articles)

• Article title for Christine Blasey Ford does not include Kavanaugh’s name
• Article title for Paula Jones does not include Bill Clinton’s name
• Article title for Juanita Broaddrick does not include Clinton’s name
• Article title: “Jimmy Savile sexualBold text abuse scandal” [4] was created after police launched a formal criminal investigation.
• Article title: “Woody Allen sexual abuse allegation” [5] was created in 2018 which was years after legal action had been taken against Woody Allen
• Article title: “Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations” [6] was created after Hollywood Access tapes released audio of Donald Trump admitting to and bragging about getting away with sexually assaulting women.
• Article titled: “Bill Clinton Sexual Misconduct Allegation” [7] was created years after legal action against Bill Clinton had concluded.

Therefore, since no legal action has been taken against Joe Biden (but were in Bill Clinton, Woody Allen, & Jimmy Savile); and since there is no public record of Joe Biden admitting sexual assault (like what Donald Trump did); and since titles for Ford, Jones & Broaddrick do not include their alleged assailer's names; I feel that in order for the title of this article to adhere WP:CONSISTENT with the pattern of similar articles; we should consider renaming the article: “Tara Reade Sexual Assault Allegation” or “or “Tara Reade.”BetsyRMadison (talk) 05:14, 30 April 2020 (UTC)betsymadison

You haven't found any articles which compare. Bios are irrelevant. If you think the legal action criteria you are using matters (which I certainly do not), then find an article about a single sexual assault allegation where no legal action has been taken, and use that for comparison. It is specious to suggest that the reason the accused are in the titles is because legal action had been taken or the accused admitted to the allegation. Again, please find an example which fits the scenario of this article. Kolya Butternut (talk) 05:39, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

To Kolya Butternut - You just proved my point. There are no articles that compare with this one which is why I feel this article's title does not adhere to WP:CONSISTENT and therefore, it should be changed to either "Tara Reade's Sexual Assault Allegations" or "Tara Reade." BetsyRMadison (talk) 09:24, 30 April 2020 (UTC)betsymadison

Do you understand how that argument lacks logic?  You cannot argue inconsistency if you have nothing to compare to.  Bios are irrelevant.  Tara Reade is not notable beyond her allegation.  We don't have a bio for every person who alleges sexual assault.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 14:45, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

To Kolya Butternut You proved my point again. The bio pages of: Ford, Broaddrick, Jones are not notable beyond her allegation, would not have any page if it weren't for their allegations, and yet, they have a bio page specifically because of their allegation.

• Ford: Had no wiki page til after she alledeged sex assault. 79% of her page is about sex assault. 2317 total words; 1830 about Ford’s sex assault allegations
• Broaddrick 96% of her page is about sex assault 4369 total words; 4200 about Broaddrick’s sex assault allegations
• Jones: 94.5% of her page is about sex assault. 1763 total words; 1666 about Jone’s sex assault allegations
• Reade 94.4% of her page is about sex assault. 2318 total words; 2189 about Reade’s sex assault allegations

So, your reply makes it even more obvious that this article's title does not adhere to WP:CONSISTENT should be changed to either "Tara Reade's Sexual Assault Allegations" or "Tara Reade." I'm beginning to lean toward "Tara Reade" BetsyRMadison (talk) 21:32, 30 April 2020 (UTC)betsymadison

• Cmt - I think wikipedia avoids mentioning in an article title persons making an allegation or otherwise involved in real/would-be scandal when (1) the person is known for something else to which the allegation or the real/would-be scandal would distract, or (2) the person is not a wp:Public figure. Eg likely "John McCain lobbyist controversy" avoids naming "Vicki Iseman" per No. 1; and, instances-named-somewhere-in-the-discussion-above regarding cases when charges had been brought against alleged perpetrators, the reasoning behind victims' not being named in these titles was mostly per No. 2.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 17:33, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
• BetsyRMadison, those are not policy-based arguments. WP:CONSISTENT is not a policy; policy must be considered first. Relevant policies are: People notable for only WP:ONEEVENT, and WP:BLP1E. Tara Reade as an individual is not notable; it is Joe Biden's alleged act that is notable; this event is notable because Joe Biden is accused, not because Tara Reade is the accuser. "Tara Reade's Sexual Assault Allegation" does not meet the goal of WP:CONSISTENT, and it may violate policy by titling the article after the victim who is not a public figure. Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:41, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

To Kolya Butternut you prove me right once again. As is proven by the 3 women's wikipedia page bio stats above, Tara Reade, Broaddrick, Jones, & Ford are not notable for anything other than accusing someone of sexual assault. Which explains why 3 of the non-notable women have the same ratio of (Words talking about their allegation/total words written on them). And the other non-notable women has a 79% ratio

• Broaddrick 96% of her page is about sex assault; 4% about her actual bio
• Jones: 94.5% of her page is about sex assault; 5.5% about her actual bio
• Reade: 94.4% of her page is about sex assault; 5.6% about actual bio
• Ford: 79% of her page is about sex assault; 21% about her actual bio'

& you also prove me right on the sentence structure: Tara Reade is the accuser which is why the sentence to read: Tara Reade's sex assault accusations which would adhere to WP:SPADE

• Let’s say Sally Smith makes a declaration about John Doe. If the title is: "John Doe blanket declaration;" then the reader thinks it's a declaration from John Doe; (as oppose to the truth which is: a declaration from Sally Smith about John Doe).
• Let’s say Dan Jones makes a blanket allegation against Ann Mae. If title is: "Ann Mae's blanket allegation" then the reader thinks it's an allegation from Ann Mae; (as oppose to the truth which is: an allegation from Dan Jones about Ann Mae)

So, you prove me right in both cases you make: The article's title should be either "Tara Reade's sexual assault allegation" or "Tara Reade."BetsyRMadison (talk) 00:15, 1 May 2020 (UTC)betsymadison

• She's got at least 2 events. Her 2019 story and her 2020 allegation. A Tanya Reade article will give everyone a chance to add all the content that is off-topic and much of the content that's UNDUE for this article. Could be a better article. SPECIFICO talk 22:50, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

They're not two events; it's one story reported at different times. The notable story here is the allegation of sexual assault against Joe Biden; everything else is background information. What policy based reason is there for her to have her own bio? Does she meet notability? How do you interpret the other PAG I've cited? Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:06, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

ToKolya Butternut - To be clear: Reade has one accusation with two narratives. Reade's 2019 narrative & Reades 2020 narrative. As wiki stats above prove: Reade, Broaddrick, Jones & Ford are equally 'non-notable' BetsyRMadison (talk) 00:46, 1 May 2020 (UTC)betsymadison

• BetsyRMadison, can you help me understand why you're repeating the same text? Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:32, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

To Kolya Butternut - sure, sometimes, even when you're proving me right, your replies indicates that you didn't read what I wrote (and sometimes what other's wrote) so I reiterate for your convenience BetsyRMadison (talk) 00:42, 1 May 2020 (UTC)betsymadison

BetsyRMadison, I assure you I read what you write. I do not find repetition to be convenient; I personally find it disruptive; I'm sorry if that's harsh. Again, please comment on the policies I have cited. "Wikistats" are not how we evaluate policy. Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:08, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

The only way Reade can be considered credible is if we treat her complaints as separate events and separate narratives. 1. Felt like a lamp. 2. Raped. Any other interpretation would entail the belief that she's deceptive or disingenuous or shape-shifting. These are plausibly two distinct behaviors at different times and places and with different responses from her, according to her accounts. SPECIFICO talk 01:14, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

RfC: Should a separate section be included that lists people who have been told by Reade of her allegation, under a heading 'Corroborating statements', 'Witness statements', or similar?

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

Proposed content

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

Sources

---

Yes, as the corroboration are well sourced and key to the accusation. They are a notable difference to the Kavanaugh accusations, as there were zero corroborations from the alleged time window. Mr Ernie (talk) 17:29, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Merger proposal

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.

---

From its present title of "Joe Biden sexual assault allegation"

--& into a subsection at "2017–present United States political sexual scandals."

No litigation as of yet has become involved (see ("Woody Allen sexual abuse allegation"; "due process") & accuser's not as yet known for her activism otherwise than her recent allegation against Biden (Cf. to Juanita Broaddrick, Anita Hill, Leeann Tweeden, &alia; Wikipedia:ONEEVENT). Also a formal rule should be adopted to this effect throughout the English Wikipedia if it is not, by implication, already.
--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 20:31, 27 April 2020 (UTC)--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 20:55, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

• The title of the article that you're proposing this article be merged into is "2017–18 United States political sexual scandals". It's currently 2020, so this article is outside the scope of that other article. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:46, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
• Comment - '2019–20 United States political sexual scandals' doesn't exist. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 20:51, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Hodgdon's secret garden, I assume you are also proposing the 2017–18 United States political sexual scandals article be moved to 2017–present United States political sexual scandals, and be changed to cover all such scandals in since 2017. Is there a reason that article is broken down into those years? Was that just an attempt to capture all the #MeToo allegations that surfaced during that period. I do not see other earlier or later articles which cover other periods? Also I wonder what relationship that article should have with List of federal political sex scandals in the United States.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 20:54, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes. To "2017–present" via a page move at target.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 20:56, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia (Hah! I know. Not a reliable source): ".. On October 15, 2017, American actress Alyssa Milano posted on Twitter, 'If all the women who have been sexually harassed or assaulted wrote "Me too" as a status, we might give people a sense of the magnitude of the problem,' saying that she got the idea from a friend. .."

So, claims from 2017 up till and including the present are all associated with the "Me-Too movement."--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 21:03, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I anticipate the point of the 2017-2018 article was to document allegations arising due to the "#MeToo movement", during its initial rise to prominence. Not sure if that is a natural fit though, as movements sometimes have clear start dates, but often not end-dates. It is weird, that we have that article, but not ones that cover other year periods (unless I am mistaken).--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 00:11, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

No: There are quite a few layers to this story (the allegation itself, the response of the mainstream media etc.). The 2017–18 United States political sexual scandals article functions more as a list, with just brief explanations of each event. BeŻet (talk) 21:23, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

No: There's more meat in this article than virtually anything at the proposed merge, and many of the articles at 2017-18 United States political sexual scandals with less overall information link to full articles roughly the same size or smaller. ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 22:00, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

No: The press coverage of this case has proven to be strong and well-documented, not to mention is centered on a presidential presumptive nominee, which warrants its own page. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 22:29, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

No: This deserves its own page. More evidence is coming out all the time. This looks to be a major issue for the 2020 election. Cox wasan (talk) 22:37, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Cox wasan, I'm sure you want add more to the article as evidence comes out, but your edits adding "new" content in a new section overlooked the fact that the same information is already in the article. After you read the entire article to get a sense of what's already in it, you can self-revert your edits. Sound good? Thanks, AzureCitizen (talk) 22:49, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

As more and more witnesses come out, there should be a separate section. Cox wasan (talk) 22:53, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

No. 2017–present United States political sexual scandals was a red link when this proposal was made, and even now is just a redirect to 2017–18 United States political sexual scandals, which by construction excludes scandals taking place in 2020. Seems like a necessary (but not sufficient) condition of approving a merge is that the proposed target of the merge actually exists. Einsof (talk) 02:50, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

cmt - Splitting hairs a bit, perhaps, but per Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion, the Me-Too activism(*) being covered is technically inapplicable for inclusion here on Wikipedia. That said, from the perspective of giving coverage related to the accused party -- that is, of the He-said half of the political controversy, the subject is notable in that it is in effect a 'child' article to that of the "Joe Biden 2020 presidential campaign" article. The only other legit way for the She-said half of the controversy to become notable for Wikipedia's purposes is if and when Reade should be thought to merit her own blp here. Which brings up this question. At which point does Reade give enough interviews where she's wikinotable as a 'name' activist and not just somebody notable only for a single event?
_______
(*)As what's going on here is surely activism---- with Reade's simply wanting her story to be heard. She's not thought to file any criminal charges in the matter---- at least not before the district of columbia's applicable statute of limitations expired. Nor has she filed a suit seeking civil damages, which, in the D.C. jurisdiction as of recently there isn't any stature of limitations, by the way. Instead she's but decided recently to sit for several interviews is all.
--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 04:56, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

• No - significant coverage warrants this article. ɱ (talk) 05:37, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

No. Why would a 2020 allegation be included in a 2017-2018 list. Stupid. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 05:55, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Q. - Are commenting here really unaware of the "move" button whereby article titles are adjusted?--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 06:13, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Hodgdon's secret garden, why would only the article title need to be updated? Surely the list would need more than a single addition to be comprehensive, so doesn't it make sense that the article be updated before a merge is decided?

• No - per The Washington Post 28 April 2020: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/developments-in-allegations-against-biden-amplify-efforts-to-question-his-behavior. XavierItzm (talk) 12:39, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

user:XavierItzm, please explain. (The WaPo's behind a paywall.)--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 12:52, 28 April 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.

POV violation in the lede

The lede used to read as so:

NPR has described Reade's accounts of the allegation as "inconsistent", however Current Affairs refuted this characterization and stated that Reade had been "completely consistent".

Now it's simply this:

NPR described Reade's accounts of the allegation as "inconsistent".

This appears to be a POV issue. It was changed by Goethean, who wrote "Nathan J Robinson's personal anti-Democratic zine does not deserve the same coverage as NPR." Is there a way to change the lede so it doesn't come off as an explicit dismissal of Reade's allegations? I'm not entirely familiar with the alleged bias that Current Affairs holds, but Katie Halper of The Guardian criticized claims that Reade's story "changed", as mentioned in the "Allegation characterization" subsection. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 17:52, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Just put it back, everyone's counteropinion seems less important to the other side. No "however" though, that's a synthetic connection. Just two sourced "quotes", back-to-back, clearly illustrates dueling ideas. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:21, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree to drop the word "however". I can't put it back due to threats of 1RR by certain editors. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 18:28, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Nice4What, I put it back and somebody immediately added the word "however." It may be a good idea to just choose a different source that would be less controversial than Current Affairs. ThadeusOfNazareth^{Talk to Me!} 18:31, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

To @contribs Thank you for giving me that information. I'm glad your piece got restored ;) BetsyRMadison (talk) 18:56, 30 April 2020 (UTC)betsymadison

Current Affairs has a definite conflict of interest on this point so I don't feel their opinion belongs in the lede at all. BetsyRMadison (talk) 19:02, 30 April 2020 (UTC)betsymadison

This is a simple yes-or-no election story, so every political opinion writer has a conflict of interest, by design. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:10, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree that this is a violation and highlighting an opinion of a singular source is inappropriate. Either we balance it out with a different source or remove this all together. BeŻet (talk) 19:06, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

What is Current Affairs? Is it anything other than non-journalist professional Democrat-hater Nathan J Robinson's opinions? I don't see how it has any notability at all. — goethean 19:17, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Who is Asma Khalid? Who cares? She represents a side, Nathan J. Robinson used a similar-but-opposite "term", problem solved! InedibleHulk (talk) 19:33, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Asma Khalid works for NPR. If she/he didn't their opinion would be non-notable. Nathan J Robinson works for himself and his opinions have zero notability. All this seems pretty obvious. — goethean 21:40, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

So an employee you've never heard of ("she") is more notable than a known commentator and entrepreneur because...? InedibleHulk (talk) 21:53, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Goethean, your language there implies that you don't have an NPOV when it comes to whether Current Affairs should be included in the lede. Unless you have another source with a quote to balance NPR's, the lede should stay as-is. ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 20:43, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

To ThadeusOfNazereth Current Affairs (Nathan J Robinson) has a conflict of interest on this topic so his opinion should not be in the ledeBetsyRMadison (talk) 21:10, 30 April 2020 (UTC)betsymadison

What does he win if his two-word opinion, not attributed to him, is in the lead? InedibleHulk (talk) 21:25, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Unless you have another source with a quote to balance NPR's, the lede should stay as-is.

I don't see how that follows. NPR found the allegations to be inconsistent. For some reason, we are not happy with NPR's conclusion, so we dredge up a professional Biden-hater and elevate him to the lede of the article? That doesn't make any sense to me. Nathan J Robinson is not a journalist and doesn't belong in the lede if the goal is accuracy or neutrality. — goethean 21:30, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

But Asma Khalid is right to be elevated, or neither? InedibleHulk (talk) 21:35, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Asma Khalid is only cited because s/he works for NPR. That's why their opinion is notable. Robinson doesn't work for NPR, or for any news agency. He publishes his opinions in his magazine. — goethean 21:45, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Goethean, how does the lede look now? I can self-revert if you want, but since the source of the disagreement was the source of the quote and not the idea of balance, is this acceptable? I don't particularly agree with your assessment of an accomplished author as a "professional Biden-hater," but I also don't want my own political opinions to impact the neutrality of the article. ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 21:39, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't think that we should be citing the opinion of a non-notable crank like Robinson in the lede. — goethean 21:43, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Oh, I see. You've removed Robinson and put in Halpern. That is fine. — goethean 21:47, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Why, because Katie Halpern is a notable crank? InedibleHulk (talk) 21:49, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Turns out Katie Halpern is actually Katie Halper, who actually DOES have a huge stake in this. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:11, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Biden has responded to the allegation

Biden denies sexual assault allegation: 'This never happened' By Eric Bradner and MJ Lee, CNN 8:25 AM ET, Fri May 1, 2020.

Editors will want to update the article accordingly. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 12:34, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Done, thanks. starship.paint (talk) 12:46, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Corroborating statements

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.

---

Can somebody please revert the emotional deletion of this section? I'm at 1RR already. The section doesn't violate BLP or POV and clearly belongs in the article, although each line should include RS. EdJF (talk) 15:11, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Please do not refer to my edits as "emotional". That constitutes a personal attack. I removed that section because it is so clearly over-the-top POV.

More generally the problem here is that while some sources see these statements as "corroborating" other sources point out that these people have been contacted by Reade prior to her going forward with the allegations, while others point out that they have changed their story. The presence of such a POV section has been challenged and should not be restored without consensus. Nor should the same POV be pushed in the lede. Volunteer Marek 15:24, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

You calling it "B.S." in your edit summary is emotional behavior. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 15:40, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

It's not. It's an accurate description. You have no insight as to what my emotions are so please stop speculating on them. This is simply a rhetorical trick used to denigrate other's comments. Don't do it again. Volunteer Marek 15:51, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

@EdJF, it did get added back and then deleted following your post. You can now contribute to the discussion here, if you wish. Cheers, XavierItzm (talk) 18:05, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Basically the whole section is an over-the-top POV attempt to scream at the reader "these allegations are true!!!". It's actually kind of obnoxious of how shamelessly it pushes a POV. And regardless, it's also WP:SYNTH. Find a source which directly discusses "corroboration of Reade's allegations" and then we can talk. Volunteer Marek 15:38, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek massively deleted the following sources: The Washington Post, Forbes, ABC News, Associated Press, and CNN. These are WP:RS. The Washington Post calls it "Corroborators".. CNN describes them as "corrobating statements." But I get it you personally don't like the English verb "to corroborate" when used by The Washington Post, so perhaps a synonym will satisfy your taste for the English language. XavierItzm (talk) 15:47, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

The problem is the entire section is POV synth. The sources can be used elsewhere in the article. Volunteer Marek 15:51, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

In that case, show your good faith and do that, instead of massively blanking out the article. I hasten to note your mass-deletion of The Washington Post, Forbes, ABC News, Associated Press, and CNN is a violation of WP:PRESERVE. XavierItzm (talk) 16:02, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

I did not "massively blank the article". I removed one obnoxiously POV section, the info in which was mostly included elsewhere in the article. Please stop using false hyperbolic rhetoric to insinuate things or two make POV points. Volunteer Marek 17:09, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: Stop engaging in disruptive editing, as you've been doing over the past 48 hours. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 16:11, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Stop calling my edits disruptive. They're not. Cramming POV garbage into the article is what's disruptive. You've been making multiple personal attacks here on the talk page and in your edit summaries and you really need to cut it out. Volunteer Marek 17:09, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

I've restored it. Bullshit that certain editors use their own personal interpretation of BLP to be disruptive instead of engage in talk page conversations. If it's not clear, I support the inclusion of these "Corroborating statements" because multiple reliable sources cover them! Let's use common sense here. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 16:10, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for that. This is a "he said, she said" story, however investigative reporters have dug up corroborating evidence to support both Reade's claim, and Biden's denial. We can't only include exhaustive mention of the latter, which was how I found this article late last night. I was shocked by the state of it. Please, editors, pay attention to the article and don't allow this to become an attack page for either side. To disallow WaPo's reporting on the list of corroborators is as egregious as removing any rebuttals from Biden and his staff. petrarchan47คุก 16:16, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree that Volunteer Marek's editing has been enormously disruptive. Don't forget that less than 48 hours several admins had to get involved to fix his disruptions to this article, including awilley here and King of Hearts here. XavierItzm (talk) 16:26, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

The ANI is filed here.XavierItzm (talk) 16:41, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

I removed a section which was extremely POV and which objected to by others. That's not "enormously disruptive". Cut the ridiculous hyperbole. Just because you don't agree with an edit you don't get to call it "disruptive". If you continue using such WP:BATTLEGROUND rhetoric then your own contribution to this conversation will be seen as "disruptive". Volunteer Marek 17:12, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Petrarchan47 with the most recent mass deletions, I think it is fair to say your pleas fell on deaf ears. Cheerio, XavierItzm (talk) 17:26, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

• Reaffirming my support for removing it per my original comments. I agree with Volunteer Marek. - MrX 🖋 16:28, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

• What's the rationale of keeping an extensive list of people who support Biden's denial but we can't do the same for Reade despite reliable sources reporting on such? Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 16:30, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

There's no such list so I have no idea what you're talking about. IF we did have a section, like say, "Statements which corroborate Biden's denial" I would remove it as well. Same goes for if we had a section like "All the ways that Reade and her supporters changed the story as it developed" or something. Volunteer Marek 17:07, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Should there be a "Corroborating statements" subsection?

• Support inclusion per above. There's already consensus to mention Larry King Live. All the editors who have blanked this section are purposefully being disruptive and pushing their pro-Biden POV. These statements have been covered by multiple reliable sources, including WaPo, NYT, CNN, and ABC. It's not fair to include those who support Biden's denial but refusing to include corroborative statements on Reade's part. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 16:37, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
• Against inclusion in this manner. The presentation here violates NPOV; this material can and should be presented, but developments must be integrated with the rest of the article. On a sensitive BLP topic such as this one, the burden of proof falls on those who wish to restore the material. RedHotPear (talk) 16:42, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
• Of course not It's blatantly POV and also WP:SYNTH. The whole purpose of both the section and the section title is to try to suggest to the reader that this allegation is true (jury's still out). The text tries to do this in a over-the-top obnoxious manner. Including this stuff is shamelessly disruptive. Volunteer Marek 17:05, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support inclusion - good sourcing from The Washington Post, Forbes, ABC News, Associated Press, and CNN. XavierItzm (talk) 17:09, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

The problem is not with the sources but with the WP:SYNTH and the WP:POV title given to this section. The info and sources themselves are already used elsewhere in the article. Please don't misrepresent the dispute. Volunteer Marek 17:13, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Let this be your final reminder that WP:AGF applies. XavierItzm (talk) 17:20, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

• Support inclusion - it's significant and relevant information from multiple reliable sources, but it is undue to present the content in that much detail and format, summarize in prose in a paragraph. Isaidnoway (talk) 17:29, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

RfC started below: RfC: Should a separate section be included that lists people who have been told by Reade of her allegation, under a heading 'Corroborating statements', 'Witness statements', or similar? - MrX 🖋 17:31, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

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