Talk:Joe Biden sexual assault allegation/Archive 7

This is an archive of past discussions about Joe Biden sexual assault allegation. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Police Report filed with D.C. Metro

There appears to be a misunderstanding of facts regarding the police report Reade filed with the D.C. Metro police department this year. It seems the confusion stems from the reporting by the NYT and NPR. The New York Times reports that both Reade and the D.C. police department gave the Times a copy of the actual report and it does not name Biden. Conversely, NPR reports that they did not see an actual copy of Reade’s police report but that they did receive “confirmation” that a report exists and NPR writes that the person who told them about the report said Biden was named. NPR said they’re filing a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) to obtain the actual report.

From NYT: “Ms. Reade filed a report with the Washington, D.C., police, saying she was the victim of a sexual assault in 1993; the public incident report, provided to The Times by Ms. Reade and the police, does not mention Mr. Biden by name, but she said the complaint was about him.”
From NPR, “NPR obtained confirmation of the police report from a law enforcement source. A record of the report names Biden. NPR has filed a Freedom of Information Act request for the full report.”

I only bring this up as topic because the 'police report' part of the WP article, keeps changing back & forth from what NPR reports and what NYT reports. So, for clarification, I thought the WP editors would benefit from seeing a side-by-side of what both NPR & NYT wrote. Since the NYT got a copy of the report and say it does not name Biden and NPR did not get a copy of the report, I think we should include what NYT reported and not NPR. Anyone disagree? BetsyRMadison (talk) 12:03, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

The article currently reads:

On April 9, 2020, Reade filed a police report with the Washington Metropolitan Police Department alleging she was sexually assaulted in the spring of 1993. According to NPR, Biden was named in the report.

Could we include both the NPR and NYT statements? It's not a long and involved situation that would take extensive copy to clear up. Gandydancer (talk) 12:23, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

BetsyRMadison is correct. "According to NPR, Biden was named in the report" is fabricated information, and has to be corrected per WP:BLPR. NPR wrote "A record of the report names Biden". A record of the report is not the report itself. - MrX 🖋 12:32, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

The police report is an inconsequenial detail that had its moment in the sun thanks to the twitter/reddit chatter. Why don't we just get it out of the article and focus on the important enduring facts of the allegation? We don't even have a settled topic for the article and increasing amounts of inessential detail are being put in and out, often with significant misrepresentation. Thanks BetsyRMadison for clarity on this. SPECIFICO talk 12:53, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm ok with deleting the police report detail for reasons SPECIFICO gave. But, if it's going to stay in, then corrections to the current form should be made. BetsyRMadison (talk) 13:16, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

I would also support deleting it. It's really of no enduring importance. - MrX 🖋 13:37, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't support deletion until RS establish that it is of little or no relevance. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:36, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

The WP:ONUS is on establishing such relevance and due weight before inclusion. UNDUE stuff rarely has RS writing about how it's irrelevant to a Wikipedia article. If they did, that might make it relevant. So it needs to stay out until it's demonstrably on point. SPECIFICO talk 15:06, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

I think that SPECIFICO is correct. Supposedly we aren't even supposed to include breaking news but since we do it anyway we need to continually remove items that are no longer of much if any importance. Gandydancer (talk) 15:47, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Why would the Times include it in their reporting if it was irrelevant? And how could filing a police report that would land Reade in prison if false, be considered unimportant? Alas, it doesn't matter what we or Twitter feels, but is this part of the story included in reliable reporting? Yes. Yes it is. Here for example is MSNBC's first report on the allegation, the report is one of the main points. petrarchan47 คุ ก 22:20, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

I would also support deleting it. It has no relevance to this article as far as I can see. Reade's stated reason for filing report was for "safety reasons" because she had faced online harassment. She filed the police report fully aware that the statutory time for prosecution had expired a dozen years before and had no expectation that it would result in criminal charges. Falls in the "news du jour" category with no lasting importance. CBS527^Talk 20:42, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Leave it in. This addresses the concern here: "A record reviewed by AP didn't mention Biden by name. NPR has reported, however, that a record does name Biden and has filed a Freedom of Information Act request for the full report."[1]. Kolya Butternut (talk) 16:36, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
The confusion is based on the fact that no journalists saw the police report, they saw a version that was anonymized. This is a simple matter:

A "criminal complaint" was filed. The "public incident report" is the name of the form used to convey information to media, but keep private information private. From the original report by Rich McHugh*,

"Tara Reade, who worked for Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden's Senate office in the early 1990s, has filed a formal criminal complaint against the former Vice President in Washington, DC.....While the incident report obtained by Business Insider was anonymized for public release, it states that a subject "disclosed that she was the victim of a sexual assault which was committed by Subject-2 in 1993." Reade confirmed that she was the complainant and that "Subject-2" is Biden. The penalty for filing a false or fictitious police report in Washington DC is a fine and up to 30 days in jail. petrarchan47 คุ ก 22:13, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, Rich McHugh substantiates what NYT reported in-that Reade did not name Biden in her police report. All the more reason to delete the NPR story. NPR says they only got "confirmation" that a report exists. So, there is literally no value in including NPR's story because keeping NPR's story in is misleading to WP readers BetsyRMadison (talk) 15:36, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Keep N'PR - not actual conflict'. What NPR is reporting on is the full report, what the NYT is reporting on is a 1-page anonymous sheet - it seems misleading to say it doesn't name Biden because it seems that sheet never would. There are mentions that the Public Incident Report released single page item is not everything. e.g. NBCnews and Washington Examiner. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 06:26, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

I think you're confused. NPR doesn't know if the report names Biden. Washington Examiner is never a reliable source for contentious BLP material, and I'm pretty sure you've been advised of that before. - MrX 🖋 17:51, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Use the USA Today text which was reverted today. They are the secondary source for the AP and NPR investigations. Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:56, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

To Kolya Butternut - Your secondary source, April 28, 2020 The USA today piece, substantiates what MrX 🖋 said above, " NPR [didn't] know if the report name[d] Biden." NYT got a copy of the actual report from Reade and said Biden is not named. NYT reports what Reade told them (NYT) as to why she kept Biden's name out. Also, Business Insider, Time Magazine, and AP all report Biden's name is not mentioned. Finally, there is zero value in misrepresenting Reade's DC Metro police report by even implying that Biden's name is in it since, at this point, we all know that Biden's name is not in it. Therefore, the NPR verbiage should be deleted. BetsyRMadison (talk) 18:45, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

BetsyRMadison, I see, you're quoting MrX, not the story. This is the full quote in context:

"She has called on the former vice president to allow access to the records. Earlier this month Reade filed a police report saying she was assaulted in 1993 in order to give herself safety from threats she has received. A record reviewed by AP didn't mention Biden by name. NPR has reported, however, that a record does name Biden and has filed a Freedom of Information Act request for the full report. 'I also wanted to make it clear that I would be willing to go under oath or...'"[2]

Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:22, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

To Kolya Butternut - actually, if you read my comment that you're replying to, you'll see that I said your 4/28 USA Today piece "substantiates" what MrX wrote. USA today confirms, that at the time of their (USA Today's) writing NPR did not know if Biden's name is in it. USA Today writes that NPR "filed a Freedom of Information Act request for the full report." NPR filed that FOIA because they did not know what was in it. Also if you read the beginning of this talk section, you will see that NPR, themselves, substantiate what MrX said when they (NPR) write they only have only "confirmation" a report exits but are "filing a Freedom of Information Act" because they don't know if Biden's name was in it. But, all that about what NPR didn't know on 4/28/2020 is nonsense at this point because at this point, at this exact moment in time, we all know that Biden's name is not in it. And we know his name's not in it because NYT reported that Reade told them why she did not put his name in it. And, we also know Biden's name is not in itbase off reports from: BI, Time, AP, and NYT report (above). So again, there is zero value in misrepresenting Reade's DC Metro police report by even implying that Biden's name is in it. The NPR verbiage should be deleted, anything less does a great disservice to WP and to WP readers. BetsyRMadison (talk) 19:59, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

We cannot conclude from that wording that NPR did not obtain a copy of the record with Biden's name on it. If there is ambiguity we should use a direct quote from the secondary sources. We cannot use our own OR conclusions. Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:27, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

To Kolya Butternut if you read the beginning of this talk section you will see NPR admits they did not obtain a copy report and only had "confirmation" a report exited. So yes, we can conclude with certainty that NPR did not obtain a copy with Biden's name it. From NPR, “NPR obtained confirmation of the police report from a law enforcement source. A record of the report names Biden. NPR has filed a Freedom of Information Act request for the full report.” BetsyRMadison (talk) 20:06, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I don't see the sources supporting your conclusions. Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:09, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

That's why we're not using NPR. Tie does not go to the runner in this kind of thing. Unless the source is unambiguous and solid, WP:BLPSOURCE.

One shaky source citing two others doesn't work. It's like the "corroborations" thing. It doesn't work. Valid content is easily sourced. SPECIFICO talk 19:27, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

There are no sources which contradict USA Today. If you find another secondary source which mentions NPR and the NYTimes or whoever, please provide it. Otherwise we have to use USA Today because it's all there is. Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:35, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

To Kolya Butternut - Do you mean NPR admitting they did not obtain a report is not good enough for you? Really? At this point in time, do you think Reade may have put Biden's name in the report? Did you read the NYT report where they report Reade gave them a copy of the report & Biden's name is not in it? Did you read the NYT report where they say Reade said she did not put Biden's name in it?

From NYT: “Ms. Reade filed a report with the Washington, D.C., police, saying she was the victim of a sexual assault in 1993; the public incident report, provided to The Times by Ms. Reade and the police, does not mention Mr. Biden by name, but she said the complaint was about him.”

In my view it is very unbecoming of an encyclopedia to willfully misrepresent facts. And the fact is, Reade did not put Biden's name in it, you know it, I know it, and everyone reading this knows it. Therefore, the NPR verbiage must be removed because we know it misrepresents facts of the report. BetsyRMadison (talk) 20:26, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

The whole POLICE POLICE thing is a sideshow. It doesn't reflect well on Ms. Reade and it only detracts from the story of her serious allegation. The bloggers and call-ins are full of whodunnit stuff but we are not going that route here. SPECIFICO talk 20:14, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Please cite RS which support your opinion to remove the police report. Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:17, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Published sources don't offer advice on writing an encyclopedia. The police report is irrelvant to the sexual assault allegation. It might be relevant to the larger Reade bio, if we move the article. It's already waaay beyond its stated topic, and moving it to Tara Reade would be a good thing. It would also allow us to add an appropriate amount of surrounding facts and events, such as her filing the irrelevant police report. SPECIFICO talk 20:37, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

To Kolya Butternut - We all know Reade did not put Biden's name in the report (see comments above). Because we all know that Reade did not put Biden's name in her report, and because we all know that NPR did not have a copy of the report (see comments above) the USA Today's description of NPR should not be included because including it would be akin to willfully misrepresents facts that we know regarding Reade's report. WP editors should steer-clear from intentionally misrepresenting facts, in this case misrepresenting facts of Reade's report. BetsyRMadison (talk) 20:40, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

The police put Biden's name in the report. NPR reported that Biden's name is in the report. Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:09, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

To Kolya Butternut - You make two serious allegations in your comment so I’ll address both:

To your allegation “the police put Biden’s name in the report.” Provide the source you have that says "the police altered Reade’s report and put Biden’s name on it."
Show us any source that says “NPR obtained a copy of the report.”

To be clear: NPR does not say they obtained a copy of the report. USA Today does not say NPR obtained a copy of the report. Want to know who did? NYT, BI, Time, & AP all obtained a copy of the report and they all report Biden's name is not in Reade's report. So as a reminder, show us your source that says "The police altered Reade's report and put Biden's name it" and show your source that says “NPR obtained a copy of the report.” If you have no source to support your allegations; then, the police did not alter Reade’s report, NPR did not see the report so did not know if Biden’s name is on it, and Biden's name is not in the report as per: Reade directly, NYT, BI, Times & AP. The NPR verbiage must be deleted. Misrepresenting facts is no laughing matter. The last thing any encyclopedia or reference book/cite should do is practice in willfully misrepresenting facts. WP editors should not do that here. BetsyRMadison (talk) 00:33, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

The takeaway is that NPR reported that a record of the report names Biden. This is in your initial quote of the NPR piece. Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:25, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

To Kolya Butternut - is that your way of saying you have no source to support your claim (above) that "police put Biden's name in the report"' by somehow altering Reade's report; and you you have no source to support your implication that 'NPR obtained a copy of the report.' Here are facts we do know: on 4/28/2020 Reade, herself, said Biden's name is not in the report, NYT, BI, Time & AP all possessed a copy of the report and they all say Biden's name is not in it, NPR had no report & only "confirmation" one existed. (Meaning: on 4/28 NPR did not see the report, did not know if his name was in it, reported what they thought at the time, but that we now know is inaccurate.) So, from Reade & everyone who saw the report, WP editors right now know with 100% certainty: Reade did not Biden's name in the report. And if we ignore that fact, and willfully put NPR verbiage in, verbiage we know in advance is inaccurate; then we WP editors are willfully misrepresenting Reade's police report. (See my comments above regarding willfully misrepresenting facts in an encyclopedia and other reference books/cites). Therefore, NPR verbiage should be deleted for what is now obvious reasons. BetsyRMadison (talk) 13:18, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

That is not accurate. When making counterarguments you must be sure to represent the sources and editors' arguments accurately. Most sources received a "public incident report", which has Reade's and Biden's names removed. The police gave NPR the information that confirms the police report does name Biden. Kolya Butternut (talk) 13:30, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

To Kolya Butternut - Alright, so you have no source to support your comment (above) "The police put Biden's name in the report." That's fine. It seems you are also disregarding this fact: Reade acknowledges she did not put Biden's name in the report. Reade's report states: "Subject-1 disclosed that she was the victim of a sexual assault which was committed by Subject-2 in 1993.” [3] [4] [5] By now, every WP editor reading this knows that Reade did not put Biden's name in the report and that the 4/28 NPR piece you want to include in this WP article is an inaccurate description of Reade's police report. Therefore, WP editors should not include NPR verbiage because by doing so, it would be a willful misrepresent Reade's report. (See above comments regarding willfully misrepresenting facts in an encyclopedia/reference books/cites). NPR verbiage should be deleted BetsyRMadison (talk) 14:39, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

The police did put Biden's name in the report; how else would it have gotten there? I think what you're presenting as fact is a misrepresentation. Please use intact quotes so there is no confusion. But I have nothing else to add here. We should use the USA Today source, or another secondary source which clears the confusion. Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:08, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

To Kolya Butternut - Provide the source to support your accusation that "The police did put Biden's name in the report"

Since, we already know Reade did not put Biden's name in the report (she acknowledged that fact to NYT); and since, we can see with our eyes that Reade did not put Biden's name in the report from reading media outlets that printed the verbiage that's within Reade's report, "Subject-1 disclosed that she was the victim of a sexual assault which was committed by Subject-2 in 1993.” [6] [7] [8] then, if your accusation against the police is correct, "The police did put Biden's name it;" the police would have had to alter Reade's report. Now, please provide your source to support your claim. If you cannot; that's fine. But, right now, everyone reading this, including you, knows with 100% certainty: Reade did not put Biden's name in it. So, in order for WP to maintain accuracy and to avoid willfully misrepresenting facts, at the appropriate time for me to avoid any 1RR issue, I will be deleting NPR verbiage because we all know it would be a flagrant misrepresentation of Reade's police report if we were to leave it in. BetsyRMadison (talk) 18:34, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

These are false statements; see below. Kolya Butternut (talk) 21:09, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

To Kolya Butternut - I asked you to tell me specifically of any "false statements" you are accusing me of making on this talk page. You have provided none. Now, back to the topic,: Above (at time 22:09 7 May) you wrote "The police put Biden's name in the report." and again (time 18:08 8 May) you wrote "The police did put Biden's name in the report; how else would it have gotten there?" Please provide a source that supports your accusations against the police. Here's what we know: Reade acknowledges she did not put Biden's name in the report, multi-media who obtained the report say Reade did not put Biden's name in it, and we can see with our own eyes that Reade did not put Biden's name in it from media who published verbiage in Reade's report (see above). So, please provide a source that supports your accusations against the police, "The police put Biden's name in the report." ~ BetsyRMadison (talk) 21:25, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

I am not going to discuss your misrepresentations outside the context of your conduct, which belongs on your talk page. Kolya Butternut (talk) 21:34, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

To Kolya Butternut - Alright, so you do not have any sources to support your comment (at time 22:09 7 May) where you wrote "The police put Biden's name in the report." So, now that that is settled, from Reade acknowledging she did not put Biden's name in the report (discussed above) & from news agencies who obtained the report saying Reade did not put Biden's name in the report (discussed above), WP editors right now know with 100% certainty: Reade did not Biden's name in the report. And if we ignore that fact, and willfully put NPR verbiage in, verbiage we know in advance is inaccurate; then we WP editors are willfully misrepresenting Reade's police report. (See my comments above regarding willfully misrepresenting facts in an encyclopedia and other reference books/cites). Therefore, NPR verbiage should be deleted for what should be obvious reasons to everyone. BetsyRMadison (talk) 21:56, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Unrelated to article improvement. SPECIFICO talk 20:27, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

These false statements may bring you to WP:AE. I suggest you discuss this with an administrator, but not here. Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:05, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

To Kolya Butternut - Tell me specifically of any "false statements" you are accusing me of. BetsyRMadison (talk) 19:18, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

This conduct-related discussion is more appropriate for your talk page. Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:07, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

To Kolya Butternut - First, You accused me of writing "false statements" on this talk page. So, once again, tell me specifically of any "false statements" you are accusing me of making on this talk page. If, you cannot find any "false statements" from me; then acknowledge that. Second, above (at time 22:09 7 May) you wrote "The police put Biden's name in the report." and again (time 18:08 8 May) you wrote "The police did put Biden's name in the report; how else would it have gotten there?" Please provide a source that supports your accusations against the police. So far as we know, Reade acknowledges she did not put Biden's name in the report, multi-media who obtained the report say Reade did not put Biden's name in it, and we can see with our own eyes that Reade did not put Biden's name in it from media who published verbiage in Reade's report (see above). So, please provide a source that supports your accusations against the police, "The police put Biden's name in the report." BetsyRMadison (talk) 20:38, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

RfC: Ought scrutiny given blogposts by Tara Reade be included in article about her allegations w rgd Biden?

Re certain blogposts written by Reade, the non-partison Poynter Institute's Politifact says (link):

Reade told the New York Times, among others[... she'd]received death threats[...]and was accused of being a Russian agent because of Medium posts and tweets praising Russian President Vladimir Putin.

In a December 2018 Medium essay, Reade wrote glowingly about Putin, saying he "scares the power elite in America because he is a compassionate, caring, visionary leader."

"To President Putin," Reade concluded, "I say keep your eyes to the beautiful future and maybe, just maybe America will come to Russia as I do, with eyes of love."

Reade told the New York Times that she wasn’t working for Russia, didn’t support Putin and that her comments stemmed from a novel she was writing at the time. She said her praise of Putin was "misguided."

Poynter goes on to sample commentary Re the above, including the NYT's Michelle Goldberg's "Reade seems almost engineered in a lab to inspire skepticism in mainstream Democrats" in part because of Reade's "bizarre public worship of President Vladimir Putin."}}

Ought this WP article do so as well if in more non-partisan form than even Poynter's?--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 09:12, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

[Added later]: Time magazine:

Extended content

After she came forward with allegations against Biden, Reade’s credibility was called into question by some critics, who noted her support of other candidates in the 2020 Democratic cycle as well as blog posts she wrote praising Vladimir Putin, including a now-deleted Medium post entitled “Why a Liberal Democrat Supports Vladimir Putin.” Reade says her past posts regarding Russia have been taken out of context. “What I would say is I do not support Vladimir Putin any longer,” she says.

--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 01:45, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Not really relevant - Reade's political views, whether reasonable or zany, are rather irrelevant to her allegation. A lot of reliable sources don't even touch upon them, and those that do usually only refer to them in passing. I don't think that inclusion of such material is helpful to readers. For what it's worth, I'd oppose including more information about Biden's ideological opinions on things here as well. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 10:21, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
- CoffeeWithMarkets, it seems a bit simplistic to say that they're entirely irrelevant. There's been a great deal of criticism levied at her because of her views, and some commentators have dismissed her allegations specifically because of her praise of Russia and/or the fact she supported Warren and Sanders. ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 13:06, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
Limited yes - I think that standalone descriptions of Reade's political views are irrelevant per WP:NOR, as including them in isolation causes the page to itself imply they are related. However, several RS are commenting on her political views being possibly relevant context - it IS appropriate to include that aspect of the sources' reporting, as a component of their overall reporting on the allegation itself. Where I think the distinction becomes blurry would be a paragraph that collects multiple sources commenting on her political views - I would be against that, unless RS start discussing the prevalence of references to her political leanings in reporting at large on the scandal. - Drlight11 (talk) 17:32, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
Limited yes - I find myself convinced by Drlight11's take on this discussion and agree with him. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 18:44, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
yes - part of the legitimate coverage, (as well as, if she has made harassment complaints previously against other employers, as suggested above). Manannan67 (talk) 07:24, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
No - UNDUE and not really relevant. These just aren’t covered in this amount of detail, so would be UNDUE to do so here. And this detailed duplication of the exact prose or noting her novel just isn’t relevant to any part of the allegation. I could see mentioning that police filing here, and that it is just due to death threats and inactive.... and if there’s sourcing where she said it’s the death threats are from a cause then convey that. But not going into a fifth step away from the topic and in sooooooo much detail when this looks like just speculation and OFFTOPIC details. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 14:18, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
If RS reports on them Isn't this how we always decide content? If the NYT exhaustive piece included her comments from posts or elsewhere, why would it not be fodder for the encyclopedia? petrarchan47 คุ ก 20:24, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
Very limited, yes - It is relevant to show the backlash she has been receiving, and to put that backlash in context. The above paragraphs go into far too much detail to be balanced and due. That could be accomplished in a couple of sentences. I do not think her past statements about Putin are relevant on their own. I also tend to think her politics is irrelevant or at least a very difficult issue to address neutrally and without giving it undue weight. Her past support of Biden, and then support of others opposed to Biden in the primaries could have be done for many different reasons. Suggesting that her actions are purely politically motivated without WP:RS is inappropriate. Of course, it is possible these allegations are false and simply an attempt to take Biden down, it is also possible that her past praise of some of Biden's actions were because she was proud of her time working for the Senate, she agreed with those specific actions, she was ashamed or embarrassed about what happened at that time and was deflecting, or a myriad of other motivations. Thus, we must be careful.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 20:48, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
No - Entirely irrelevant. Cjhard (talk) 22:41, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
Limited yes - Similar to the previous limited yeses, this basis for questioning of her credibility and motivation should be mentioned. Morbidthoughts (talk) 16:18, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Proposal for Joe Biden summary text

Please see my May 10 version of the Reade section of Joe Biden which I believe addresses all the disagreements over the main article. The text was fully reverted; here is the discussion Kolya Butternut (talk) 13:40, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Your text While The New York Times was investigating the Reade allegation, no other allegation about sexual assault surfaced, and no pattern of sexual misconduct was found. is POV. You might as well have added "but we don't know about later." Also, why are you bringing this here? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:54, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

That can be changed to be more clear, but you haven't commented on the intention of the proposal. Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:51, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm bringing this here because the Tara Reade text from the Joe Biden article should represent this article. And...folks here are likely interested in what happens at Joe Biden. ~~I don't understand what you're saying about POV.~~ The intention is just to give information about Joe Biden's history, which is that nothing else like this is known to exist. And this information was found in the context of the Reade investigation. : ThatKolya Butternut (talk) 15:08, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Your edit (in green above) was reverted to: "The New York Times reported that "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 text in that revert is very clear, not ambiguous at all, and it does just what you say you want it to: "give information about Joe Biden's history, which is that nothing else like this is known to exist." So I support keeping the reverted text within the Joe Biden WP article. BetsyRMadison (talk) 16:09, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

It's now obvious to me what the concern is. You're saying you feel my text is suggesting no sexual misconduct was found "but we don't know about later". That can be easily fixed, but your suggestion to keep the existing text does not comment on the actual changes I made. Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:45, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

To Kolya Butternut - The reverted text is perfect as is and does exactly what you claim you want it to accomplish. There's an old saying, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." I support keeping the reverted text within the Joe Biden WP article. BetsyRMadison (talk) 18:13, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

I assure you that your preferred text in no way addresses my concerns. Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:15, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

This is not the place to discuss edits to the Joe Biden article. This frequent forum shopping is starting to look a little tendentious. - MrX 🖋 18:07, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

This was meant as a notification. You're right that discussion should not have occurred here as well. Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:09, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

So it was the right thing to do when the editor notified us but we would be wrong to respond to the notification. Right? Gandydancer (talk) 18:30, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't have the answer for the best way to structure this. Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:51, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Photo

Seems to be a partial screenshot of an ID or a copy of an ID Reade provided to the NYT in 2020. The part where you can see the signature of the Sergeant at Arms, Jack Russ, has been cropped. The caption seems to imply that it was a Senate ID. However, Jack Russ was the Sergeant at Arms at the House of Representatives, not at the Senate, from 1983 to March 13, 1992, according to the NYT in 1992. That means it is a photo from Reade's House ID while she was a House intern (when?). Also makes me wonder about a couple of things: why didn't she hand in her ID when her internship ended, and since when does WP use screenshots of photos in newspaper articles? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:35, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

According to her twitter feed: Reade was an intern in US House of Representatives for then-Rep. Leon Panetta. In Reade's 4/6/2019 essay that she wrote as a follow-up to her 4/3/2019 interview, published at the Union [9], (right below the paragraph where she writes that her story about Biden "is not a story about sexual misconduct" she briefly talks about it but doesn't mention Panetta by name. BetsyRMadison (talk) 14:30, 10 May 2020 (UTC) Thanks. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:19, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

According to the opinion column Reade wrote for the Union Newspaper in April 2019 (link in BetsyRMadison's comment), she interned for House member Panetta after college and then worked on campaigns: I had been approached in college by a political science professor to apply for an internship in a congressional office. After working as an intern in Washington D.C., I caught the political operative bug and worked on campaigns. This would put the internship somewhere in the 80s. We just don't know. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:19, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Question: Did Reade's complaint to the Senate personnel office pre-date the alleged incident?

Had Reade already reported to to Senate personnel office that she'd felt uncomfortable about certain things (which has become termed her sexual-harrassment complaint) BEFORE the alleged incident took place? (Note: Reade told the Washington Post that it was Biden's office staff who had "bullied her," saying, "I want to emphasize: It’s not him [Biden]. It’s the people around him.") Of course, it's difficult to be subject to "trial by media" (a low standard of due process to which, ironically, Biden doesn't mind subjecting university students likewise the subject of such allegations. Referencing the a Title IX overhaul by the Obama administration that Biden still champions, Andrew Sullivan's ironically notes: ""By Biden's own standards, he is guilty.")

Biden is now claiming simply that he never did what Tara Reade said he did. Let’s posit that he didn’t. Too bad. If he were to attempt to defend himself, by his own campus logic, he would be barred any knowledge of what he was precisely accused of, even the identity of his accuser; he would be unable to see the results of any investigation; and his own claims of innocence would be rejected if the woman merely subjectively felt as if she were being abused, regardless of his own intent.--Andrew Sullivan

Reade told the Washington Post that it was Biden's office staff who had "bullied her," saying, "I want to emphasize: It’s not him [Biden]. It’s the people around him." --Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 17:59, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

“I remember talking about him wanting me to serve drinks because he liked my legs and thought I was pretty and it made me uncomfortable,” Reade said in an interview Friday with the Associated Press. “I know that I was too scared to write about the sexual assault.” Reade said she described her issues with Biden but “the main word I used — and I know I didn’t use ‘sexual harassment’ — I used ‘uncomfortable.’ And I remember ‘retaliation.’”[10]--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 18:07, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

She says she filed the complaint after the alleged assault[11], and she discussed the "people around him" here[12]. Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:44, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

@ Hodgdon's secret garden - To answer your question, who knows. Ever since May 1, 2020, when Reade learned how easy it is for her to ask Senate Personnel Office National Archives to release her peronnel file, she has not requested them. Seems odd she hasn't asked for them, since before she learned how easy it is for her to get those files, Reade claimed she wanted them made public. Maybe she changed her mind? Maybe she doesn't really want them made public after all? BetsyRMadison (talk) 19:14, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

"This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject." Your answer is, by your own admission ("to answer your question, who knows"), not substantive or on topic in the context of the thread, and is comprised almost exclusively of pure speculation. PurpleSwivel (talk) 19:24, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

"If we can't have a bit of fun in Wikipedia without a lot of hand wringing, we're going in the wrong direction." ~ Jimbo Wales, 2018 ~ Editors work very hard as they try to put a good article together. It's important that we all attempt to get along and a few moments of chat help encourage us to work together. Gandydancer (talk) 00:06, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Larry King Live content

I've added an audio sample of the 1993 episode of Larry King Live that allegedly features Reade's mother. Linked here, with subtitles included. My rationale stated was this: "Demonstrate the 1993 call in question. Shows what is alleged to be a recorded corroborating statement related to the Joe Biden sexual assault allegation. The call was highly scrutinized and examined by media in regards to the allegation." The addition was reverted and then accidentally reinstated during an edit conflict. I'm here to get consensus about whether the sample should be included or not. Thoughts? Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 14:34, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Of course it should be kept. This recording has played an integral role in this scandal's development, so as to what rule is its inclusion breaking? Keep it. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 14:37, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Does it violate copyright?BetsyRMadison (talk) 14:45, 30 April 2020 (UTC)betsymadison

It falls under fair use, so no. I've uploaded multiple audio samples to Wikipedia before, so I've made sure to comply with these rules. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 14:49, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Using a 30-second audio sample has always been qualified as fair use and has been done many times before. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 15:01, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Of course it should be kept. The removal was disruptive and now forces pointless talk page discussion. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:55, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

I've been forced to remove all Larry King Live content from the article due to threats by SPECIFICO. Could we quickly garner a consensus for this content's inclusion because it has been reported on by nearly all reliable sources that are covering this allegation? Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 14:52, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

That's pretty outrageous. I shouldn't even have to explain why his whitewashing of the Larry King recording is disruptive behavior. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 15:04, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

First, of course, there are no threats from SPECIFICO. Second, I removed the Larry King bit this morning because there is nothing that ties it to the subject of this article, "Allegations of Sexual Assault". This is straighforward. We don't write BLP content based on tenuous assertions that it is related in some undocumented and unknown way to an entirely different allegation, particularly when that involves commission of a crime. And keep in mind, the section header was "Corroborating statements". Clearly, this does not corroborate that Joe Biden sexually assaulted Reade. I hope this is not a controversial principle here. SPECIFICO talk 15:28, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Why do we even have a talk page if your say trumps all others' contributions? You've so far taken it upon yourself to change the article twice now whilst we've had discussions related to the subject because you, personally, decide its a BLP violation. I think you should step aside and allow discussions to develop in relation to this article, we'd be crewed on a smoother boat than the one we're on now if that were the case. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 15:40, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I can't agree with you MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken. While I had previously decided that the tape was appropriate, reading SPECIFICO's note makes me re-think my position. The charge here is rape--how does this tape in which her Mother makes no mention of rape and in fact does mention "out of respect" for Biden, respected, a term that one does not generally use for a rapist, collaborate the charge of rape? Gandydancer (talk) 15:58, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

So you believe that Reade couldn't have possibly been assaulted just because she didn't tell the press "out of respect"? And based on your personal opinion on rape, we shouldn't mention Larry King Live despite what reliable sources have reported? That's ludicrous. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 16:03, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

It corroborates that Reade had issues with her boss, a prominent senator, as the LKL episode has been tied to Reade's mother as reported by an overwhelming amount of reliable sources... It deserves a mention in the article. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 15:56, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Include text about the show, as it seems to be a focal point in the public discussion of the accusations. FWIW, there's an up/down vote on the main Joe Biden talk page about the inclusion of sentences about Larry King Live, and even some editors who are voting to exclude it there seem to have expressed support for including it here. Einsof (talk) 16:04, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Since we quoted the Larry King call, there is no reason to have non-free audio recording of the same content. The audio file fails WP:NFCCP#1. It should be omitted. - MrX 🖋 16:06, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Reliable sources that mention the Larry King Live call: The New York Times, The Washington Post, Forbes, CNN, and Fox News. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 16:08, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Include - Several reliable sources discuss the Larry King Live segment when talking about the allegations, and Tara herself has confirmed that it was her mother who called in that day, having mentioned that earlier on. While we could argue whether this should sit under the "Corroborating statements" header, inclusion of this information is not controversial at all. Since there is consensus for inclusion (all other editors seem to agree), this should be reinstated once the 24 hour period is finished. BeŻet (talk) 16:12, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Include audio clip. It clearly falls under fair use and is a very important piece of evidence to corroborate the accuser's story, who has already verified that it is her mother's voice. The transcript alone doesn't allow a reader to hear and judge the sincerity (or lack thereof) in her mother's voice, which is important. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:30, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
include section, mixed on audio The king content was exceptionally reliably sourced, and widely covered in the media. There is absolutely no BLP issue with discussing it here. Specifico's removal is completely inappropriate. Regarding the audio, I think it very well may fall into fair use, but I also think the transcript convey's all the relevant information, so the audio is superfluous. ResultingConstant (talk) 16:51, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
Include audio clip - since the WP:RS cover it extensively. XavierItzm (talk) 16:55, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
Exclude Before adding you'd need to check if it violates copyright policy. I had something deleted today because it violated copyright policy. Also, the caller does not corroborate Reade's claims because the caller does not indicate the nature of her problems and we cannot infer what the problems were.

Reade refused to do a job that her immediate boss gave her. Were her problems because of that? Reade has said in multiple interviews she was reassigned because she refused to a job her immediate boss gave her to do. In fact, Reade herself writes in several of her blog posts that she knew she was going to be in trouble for telling her immediate boss no.

Were her problems that she felt bullied by coworkers as the Washington Post reported? Reade told Washington Post 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.”

The Post went on to say

"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." BetsyRMadison (talk) 17:11, 30 April 2020 (UTC)betsymadison

Comment: This is original research. She said that the call was about the alleged assault, and that's all we need to report. Trying to read into what she wrote and psychoanalyse her position is clearly nothing that we're supposed to be doing. BeŻet (talk) 19:05, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Include audio clip - Multiple RS reference the LKL clip as it relates to the allegation; as well, the longer and more desperate the "Exclude" arguments become, the more I'm convinced it belongs in the story.EdJF (talk) 17:20, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
Comment – MrX has tagged the audio file for speedy deletion even though this discussion is ongoing. Could somebody please remove that tag as I may not do it myself? Thank you. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 17:42, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Done. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 18:47, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Include audio clip and Lary King Live section The Larry King Live clip is an essential element of the story and its media coverage.MagicatthemovieS (talk) 17:58, 30 April 2020 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS
Include – The Larry King Live segment is an important part of the story, as BeŻet said it was referred to by most media sources covering the story. This is an allegation page and it clearly is a significant enough part of the allegation to include. Shmuelic (talk) 23:08, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

The LKL call has been readded to the article, and it appears that there's consensus to readd the audio file. Could someone help out as to avoid 1RR issues? Thanks. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 16:18, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Nothing has changed. It is still a BLP violation. I suggest you again remove it. Do we need a formal RfC on this?

Only POV speculation ties this to the assault allegation of Tara Reade, the topic of this article. SPECIFICO talk 15:33, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Readded the audio file with a link to the deletion discussion. Let's be fair here. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 14:04, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Include - it is relevant and within scope, so let our readers decide whether or not it's valid. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 16:30, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
Include - Relevant, notable, not a BLP violation. Cjhard (talk) 22:38, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
Include, helpful, tied by sources, and relevant.--KasiaNL (talk) 07:46, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
Exclude - A direct quote from the call in is sufficient and the recording is not compatible with WP:NFCC. Also, there is no reason to have the date and program name listed twice. - MrX 🖋 13:34, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
Exclude - The buzz-buzz internet sensation has died out and there is no evidence this recording is related to the topic of this article -- Reade's allegation that Biden physically assaulted her under her clothing in 1993. At most its long-run significance will be to document the breathless excitement that was not diffentiated from the real evidence and facts upon which the ultimate public understanding of the allegation will rest. SPECIFICO talk 13:39, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

"wp:ONEEVENT"

A partial list of individuals, whether victims of sexual assault or perpetrators of false allegations thereof, at the alleged hands of someone or another with a high political profile in the United States. We'll term these respective allegations a "single" event and discount whatever feature articles have been written about these individuals' respective backgrounds as well as media coverage about who and when they told this and that, in public or in private, and so on. Juanita Broaddrick. Paula Jones. Christine Blasey Ford. Tara Reade. Are biographical treatments on WP in like cases rare? In fact, the guidelines – altogether intended to serve the encyclopedia and not the encyclopedia them – specifically upon the page "wp:ONEEVENT" do not say what has repeatedly been alleged on this talk page that it does. Geez! How do rational folk "refuse to consider alternative explanations, rejecting all disconfirming evidence and blatantly seeking only confirmatory evidence to support what has a priori determined to be the case"?[13] My guess (if to state the obvious): Politics. For example, the category page Category:Deaths by firearm in Iran contains 18 biographies of lethal victims, out of which a single one is styled as an event: "Death of Neda Agha-Soltan." Neda, a former student in Western Europe who even wore a cross pendant at her neck (perhaps a gift from her Western boyfriend) albeit not with religious intent, was fatally picked off by a goonsquad sniper. Sure, it's a discretionary editorial call whether to provide much biographical detail in an article whose focus is specifically the event. And perhaps in Iran there'd be lots of back and forth about such a decision, too. Why? Well: Politics. Oh well. This is a wiki; and, the "wisdom of crowds" is what it is.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 18:29, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Here is the essence of this. Yes, she is a person notable for only one "event". However, this is not really an event, but multiple accusations made by her over the years, and she is highly notable only for the accusations. Therefore, one should create only one page in this case, Tara Reade. I guess this is also the reason for having pages like Paula Jones. My very best wishes (talk) 00:14, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

She is notable for one story; this is the spirit of WP:ONEEVENT. This section has examples of women with their own feature articles, but there are many more who do not have their own articles which have not been cited. Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:14, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

The policy tells "event" and it means an event. If you follow disambig page event, none of the meanings is about poorly substantiated claims by a single person. This is not an event, but an allegation, exactly as the title tells. Is it a good idea to attach the name of the accused, purely based on a single allegations by another single person? Let's see. We do have a whole Category:Allegations, and this page belongs there. Please check other pages in this category. The closest example is probably Steele dossier. It is named by the author. Yes, this is good naming. Including name of Donald Trump in the title of Steele dossier would NOT be appropriate. Same is here. The page should be either named Allegations by Tara Reade or merged to page Tara Reade. With such naming, this is a WP:attack page. Note that only Tara Reade accused the subject of sexual assault, no one else. My very best wishes (talk) 01:55, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Or just move the background events to Background, the aftermath events to Aftermath and the one event to Allegation. Like before. It was fine. And yes, a media event is an event. As is a phenomenon, or any observable occurence. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:39, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

No accusation except the one that got this article started are notable, it only seems that way because this page's powerwriters are creative and/or Biden fans and/or smell a rat. Think of those non-criminal accusations as Background. Pay no attention to the current version's framework. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:44, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

A separate "Tara Reade" WP article is justified, as per WP:ONEEVENT guidelines, so should be written. @Hodgdon's secret garden has brought up a very good discussion here. WP:ONEEVENT says, "When an individual is significant for his or her role in a single event, it may be unclear whether an article should be written about the individual, the event or both …. However, if media coverage of both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles may become justified...If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate. "

So, given that CNN reports[14] that Tara Reade told Megyn Kelly her goal is to get Biden to dropout of the presidential race against Donald Trump; and given that a top Trump campaign donor, Douglas Wigdor, is representing Reade for free, I’d say Reade has pushed her 2020 story to be “highly significant” and she is pushing for herself to play a ‘large role’ in it. BetsyRMadison (talk) 14:29, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Again, you're pretending something like character assassination is something like actual assassination. This is nowhere near that level of significance. It's not even as significant as the sort of allegation that actually does sink a candidate, as intended. Last I checked, Democrats are sticking with the Joe they know for president. This just seems big to you because you've invested a large amount of time and thought. But nobody died, nobody went to jail, nobody lost their spot. Tara Reade caused this gentle ripple, nothing else. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:32, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

W rgd to the removal here of Reade's bio section: Apparently people in their right minds might likewise remove the section Shooting of Ahmaud Arbery#Ahmaud Arbery from Shooting of Ahmaud Arbery, etc.?--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 16:56, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

That's not a bio, either, it's a brief character introduction with some historical context, as this one should have been. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:36, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Tags