Jump to content

Talk:Joe Biden sexual assault allegation/Archive 8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10→Archive 14

Requested move 7 May 2020

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

The result of the move request was: Consensus to keep at the current location. (non-admin closure) AzureCitizen (talk) 14:28, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Joe Biden sexual assault allegation → Joe Biden sexual misconduct allegations – Per WP:CONSISTENT and per previous move discussion. This is in light of at least the Lucy Flores allegations in 2019. Such information should be moved from Joe Biden considering that we now have a page related to sexual misconduct by Joe Biden. Multiple editors had proposed such a move and to add or merge relevant information. 2600:100C:B24F:7C9A:C181:F5BD:251F:FB73 (talk) 21:06, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

  • Oppose because the subject of this article is the allegation made by Tara Reade. No other women, including Lucy Flores, have accused Biden of "sexual misconduct". There are no other allegations included on this page other than Tara Reade, so that implies you want to expand the focus of this page. That appears to me to be an attempt to create a page on par with Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations in an effort that would make Karl Rove proud with the "attack the strength" playbook. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:39, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
So you say "unwanted touching", "smelling of hair" or "kissing the back of a womans' head" cannot be sexual misconduct or harassment?--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:14, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
To Darryl Kerrigan To be clear; Lucy Flores (of whom you reference) said that Biden's action toward her do not approach the sexual assault or harassment [1]. So, it's best we stay calm and avoid attributing "sexual allegations" to people who have said no such thing. Respectfully BetsyRMadison (talk) 22:37, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
To be clear, I am not only talking about Lucy Flores. There are a number of women mentioned in this section which I already linked to below. To be even clearer, you are misquoting that source:

Flores said she recognizes that Biden’s penchant for invading personal space is not as serious as what Franken allegedly did, nor does it approach the sexual assault and harassment allegations that have been lodged against Trump by 17 women. Still, she said she has been stunned by the response to her claims.

I am puzzled by editors approach here. Simple words and comments on their own can amount to sexual harassment or misconduct. One of the things Franken did was posing in a photograph in explicit gesture, he didn't touch Tweeden who was sleeping at the time. But few had a problem calling that sexual misconduct allegations, we have it included in such a section on his bio titled as such.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:13, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
@Darryl Kerrigan: The Franken section title is "Allegations..." Nobody believes Franken's behavior was "sexual misconduct". Your post says the section is titled "sexual misconduct" That's false and a BLP violation and you should simply link the actual title with no easter egg pipe. Please take care of that. SPECIFICO talk 23:40, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
Don't be obtuse. The proposed title includes "allegations" as well: sexual misconduct allegations. Are you really confused about that? Some editors seem to be suggesting it is inappropriate to even label these "sexual misconduct allegations". As in, Joe Biden sexual assault allegations. I think these allegations clearly relate to sexual misconduct. You are free to disagree, but there is no need for us to debate whether allegations are true or not. That isn't our job, and I am not interested in doing so.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:59, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
I thought my post made clear I was saying you misrepresented the content of the Franken article, which does not conclude or state in WP's voice that his action was "sexual misconduct". Your link misleadingly took the reader to a section that is captioned "allegations" of that behavior, not simply "sexual misconduct". I'll again ask you to fix the misleading link w/o the pipe. I hope you will do the right thing. That's all I'll hve to say about this. SPECIFICO talk 00:56, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
Yes, you clearly ignored the point. I wasn't misleading anyone, and I suggest you withdraw that accusation. BetsyRMadison questioned whether it was appropriate to refer to these as allegations of a sexual nature or harassment (in reference to me suggesting that if they were true, they could be misconduct). We were always talking about allegations and have always been talking about allegations. Both the proposed title and the existing title specify these are allegations. I am not sure what part of this is so hard for you. The part we were discussing and there was an issue about was the "sexual misconduct" part. That these were allegations has always been a given, but I have "fixed" this for those who have difficulty following a discussion.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 02:02, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
To Darryl Kerrigan - Other women are not accusing Biden of "sexual" anything. It is not the job of WP editors to write a fictitious article about Biden and falsely accuse him of things women have not accused him of. BetsyRMadison (talk) 02:19, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
We don't have to accuse him of anything. We simply summarize the allegations and let people make up their own mind whether the facts are true and if they are what they amount to. Flores said she felt "uneasy, gross, and confused". She talks about how they made her feel inferior, ie not like an equal. These are the sorts of things that are often termed sexual harrassment. Because smelling a woman's hair, kissing the back of her head, touching her without consent etc. can be the sort of things that make workplaces toxic for women. And whether it is done for sexual gratification or with the misguided intention of making someone feel comfortable these sorts of behaviours have been termed sexual harrassment complaints before. It seems Flores would rather just explain what happened and how it made her feel and not suggest that Biden was acting "sexually" towards her. It can't be easy to come forward. Did every woman who said Frankin took an uncomfortable photo whith them, inappropriately touched them, use the words "sexual misconduct"?--Darryl Kerrigan (talk)
Sexual advances constitute sexual misconduct per the respective article, which, provides, in part,
Sexual misconduct is any misconduct of a sexual nature that is of lesser offense than felony sexual assault (such as rape and molestation), particularly where the situation is normally non-sexual and therefore unusual for sexual behavior, or where there is some aspect of personal power or authority that makes sexual behavior inappropriate. A common theme, and the reason for the term misconduct, is that these violations occur during work or in a situation of a power imbalance. It is a legal concept to frame offenses which are non-criminal but nevertheless violating of another person's personal boundary in the area of sexuality and intimate personal relationships.

2600:100C:B24F:7C9A:C181:F5BD:251F:FB73 (talk) 22:22, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

The women themselves have generally opposed terming Biden's behavior as "sexual misconduct". And to conflate all of the hair sniffings with an alleged rape is problematic. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:24, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
We are not conflating unwanted touching or hair sniffing with rape. Some of the allegations against Trump and Clinton were not "rape" they were gropings, exposing oneself (flashing), looking up a woman's skirt, trying to kiss a woman... etc. Sexual misconduct is a broad term that does not necessarily mean criminal behaviour. Biden has been accused of a lot of unwanted touching, a forced Eskimo kiss, smelling hair, unwanted kissing of the back of a woman's head... etc. These are the kinds of things that can make up sexual harassment/misconduct complaints. Most of the women who are making these allegations, seem to be trying to give Biden the benefit of the doubt that he didn't mean to harass them or make them uncomfortable. Of course, as our article makes clear sexual harassment does not require the intent to make the victim feel uncomfortable. The perpetrator may be completely unaware that his or her behavior is offensive or constitutes sexual harassment. Why are we happy to suggest these thing are sexual misconduct when Bill Clinton or Donald Trump does them, but not when Biden does?--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:52, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
We are not in a position to decide for a woman what she considers sexual misconduct. While one woman may be upset with an "Eskimo kiss" another might laugh and enjoy it. Etc. I would laugh. Gandydancer (talk) 23:38, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
We're not deciding for anyone, we're deciding within the broader context of semantics. One can describe actions that constitute an action without explicitly naming that action. If I deliberately set fire to your house, it's arson even if you wanted the house demolished. It seems unreasonable that a term that semantically describes what happened doesn't apply until the victim chooses that specific terminology. PurpleSwivel (talk) 16:57, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
To PurpleSwivel - Actually you are trying to deciding for others. For one thing, deliberately burning a house down is not always arson, so you are not correct about that. Second, the women do not claim to be "victims" of Biden's hugs and, hugs are not sexual misconduct when people say they did not feel sexualized by the hugs. So Gandydancer is correct, "we are not in a position to decide for a woman what she considers sexual misconduct." BetsyRMadison (talk) 18:23, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
But I didn't say "deliberately burning down a house is always arson". I said if I were to hypothetically commit such an act, it would qualify arson irrespective of whether or not you or I described it as arson. Are you refuting that point? And, if so, under what conditions would it not qualify as arson? Your second point was already addressed by my first comment and this one as well -- I understand what they didn't say. That doesn't address the question of whether or not what they're describing, as they described it, qualifies as sexual misconduct. 'Lappos, a small business owner and Democratic political activist, told the Hartford Courant in April 2019 that Biden "put his hands behind my head and pulled me close and I thought, 'he's going to kiss me,' or a separate accusre relating "Biden had rested his hand on her thigh even though she squirmed to indicate discomfort." Then I would argue that "sexual misconduct" is a legitimate designation, based purely on the definitions of the word. Your argument seems to hinge on whether or not these women said it was sexual misconduct, but completely skirts around the broader question of whether or not it's a semantically applicable label, which was the crux of my point. Perhaps we could rename the page "Joe Biden unwanted touching and sexual assault allegations", but it seems a bit longwinded PurpleSwivel (talk) 19:18, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
To PurpleSwivel- Yes, I am refuting your ‘arson point’ because you are not correct. Using your analogy (above), ‘if a homeowner is planning to demolish their house, then burning it down is not always arson. Arson is a legal term describing certain criminal acts. Burning down a house is not always arson because burning down a house is not always a criminal act. This WP article would be more accurate if it were titled, "Tara Reade’s sexual assault allegations” since that’s exactly what it is. Not only have Reade’s stories changed yearly, now her stories are changing monthly. For instance:
  1. (yearly) Reade changed her 4/17/2019 story about Biden from “this is not a story about sexual misconduct” to her 2020 story, “sexual assault;”
  2. (monthly) Reade changed her story to saying “I’ll never forget he said ‘I want to f@#k you’ on 5/8/2020 from saying "“phrases that always stuck with me” was “do you want to go somewhere else, I heard you like me.” in her 3/25/2020 interview.
The women are describing Biden’s hugs, etc., the women say they do not feel it was sexual misconduct. So it is not. More often than not, people get hugged (willingly or not) and it is not sexual misconduct. As a matter of fact, in the same 4/17/2019 Reade essay (above) she writes that her brother died right before she started working for Biden. We all know Biden is very compassionate, extremely compassionate, to people who have lost loved ones. Reade writes, “Right before I came to Biden’s office, my brother died. Joe Biden has faced the loss of not one but two children and others close to him. He has had unimaginable.” Knowing that, it would be within his character to rub her shoulders and neck, if he really ever even did those things. The NYT writes that "Two former interns who worked with her said they never heard her describe any inappropriate conduct by Mr. Biden or saw her directly interact with him" NYT also writes, "several people who worked in the Senate office with Ms. Reade said they did not recall any talk of such an incident or similar behavior by Mr. Biden toward her or any women. Two office interns who worked directly with Ms. Reade said they were unaware of the allegation or any treatment that troubled her." BetsyRMadison (talk) 21:45, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
This particular thread isn't a debate over the veracity of Tara Reade's claims or renaming the article based on how credible you personally find her. Many of the assertions you're making seem to have no direct bearing on the specific topic we're discussing. It's hard to not see many of your comments here and elsewhere as deliberate injections of tangential talking points into the discussion, which makes the points you make that are on-topic difficult to extricate and address. At this point I'm not sure it's worth attempting to continue a meaningful discourse with you in regards to the content of the article. PurpleSwivel (talk) 22:32, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
To PurpleSwivel - Actually, this is thread about renaming this WP article based on our opinions. In fact, you suggested a new name for this WP article in your comments based on your opinion. My comments to you (above) is me answering questions you directly asked me about your “arson point” and me addressing your attempt to convince WP editors to decide for a woman what she considers sexual misconduct. As I told you above, Gandydancer is correct, "we are not in a position to decide for a woman what she considers sexual misconduct." BetsyRMadison (talk) 00:41, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
"We all know Biden is very compassionate, extremely compassionate, to people who have lost loved ones" demonstrates bias and agenda on your part. I didn't suggest a new name for the article, I was making a blatantly obtuse example of what the article shouldn't be named. I have not "attempted to convince WP editors to decide for a woman what she considers sexual assault", I argued that terms like "sexual misconduct" have an established meaning that transcends whether or not anyone uses that specific terminology to describe something, which seems to elude you because you keep reiterating someone else's talking point without actually supporting it. Lastly, the notion that "the women say they do not feel it was sexual misconduct" is to some degree a falsehood and completely a generalization; while some women have stated things along those lines of what you are claiming, some of them simply have not vocally disqualified their experience as sexual or sexual misconduct, and one specifically described his actions as "perpetuating harm". Another thing to consider is that most articles that list Biden's accusers generally include Tara Reade. It's true that Tara Reade's allegations are an outlier compared to the others, but they're still categorically and topically similar enough to exist in the same article. PurpleSwivel (talk) 04:27, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
Seems folks are missing the label change from sexual assault to the wider sexual misconduct. There are nine individuals reporting Sexual misconduct, and one of those is also reporting an incident of Sexual assault. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:47, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
9 people are not reporting sexual misconduct. Starting March 2020-today: there is one (1) person, Tara Reade, alleging 'sexual misconduct/assault' (not 9). And, interestingly enough, between 4/3/2019-3/2020 no one, not even Tara Reade alleged "sexual misconduct/assault." On 4/6/2019 Tara Reade wrote that her story about Biden "is not a story about sexual misconduct." and she did not change her 2019 story until 3/2020 BetsyRMadison (talk) 17:09, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Tara Reade is the only person accusing Joe Biden of sexual misconduct.
* If any title change, then the title should be: "Tara Reade's sexual assault allegation"; since this really is Tara Reade's allegation. BetsyRMadison (talk) 22:23, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
Comment: That would be the the very first time such a title would be used. The focus of the article is Joe Biden, not Tara Reade. Secondly, while some of the women may say it wasn't sexual harassment, some did, and their voices matter. 2600:100C:B24F:7C9A:C181:F5BD:251F:FB73 (talk) 22:31, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
To 2600:100C:B24F:7C9A:C181:F5BD:251F:FB73 - Nothing in your comment changes the fact that this is Tara Reade's allegations; not Biden's. And, whether or not you want the title to reflect that fact, doesn't change the fact that it is still a fact. BetsyRMadison (talk) 22:43, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
Also, there was a move request to have the title at this title closed as not moved just yesterday after a clear majority of people rejected it. It’s not happening.--69.157.252.96 (talk) 22:37, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This article is (and should be) about the sexual assault allegation made by Reade. None of the other complaints about Joe Biden's "touchy-feely" style rise to the level of sexual assault or sexual misconduct, and thus don't belong in this article. Rreagan007 (talk) 23:20, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose I agree with those editors that believe that we need to stick to Reade's charge of sexual assault. Gandydancer (talk) 23:38, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose A criminal complaint was filed by Reade against Biden for Sexual Assault. This is an encyclopedia; call a thing what it is. -- Sleyece (talk) 23:50, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
The allegations against Clinton and Trump also include allegations of sexual assault. Yet, we use "sexual misconduct allegations" in the titles of those articles.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 00:25, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
Because those articles also include non-assault allegations as well. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:29, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
And this one could too if we included any of the allegations from his bio. They were included here for a time, but have now been removed.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 00:43, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
There are no other sexual assault or sexual misconduct allegations against Biden. The other women who have described Biden touching them in a way that made them feel uncomfortable characterized the touching as non-sexual. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:14, 8 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.

"Denial" should follow "Allegation"

I renamed the sections simply, unsubsectioned three. But can't copy or paste Denial to its naturally expected place. Can you? InedibleHulk (talk) 08:12, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

On a "real computer", so it's under Allegation now, took the silence as a "fine". InedibleHulk (talk) 12:24, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Trumper lawyer Lawyers' connections with Trump and/or Russia

I noticed Trump's name came up in the references, as an article entitled "Prominent lawyer, Trump donor representing Biden accuser". [3] Despite this, there is no mention of the lede's point in the article. AP is not the only one reporting this fact as notable. For example, Time[4], Al Jazeera[5], and even the right-leaning Hill[6]. That's just four: there's plenty more where that came from. FollowTheSources (talk) 15:01, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

And, in another odd coincidence, The Week's article on her lawyers[7] points out that:

Reade's other new lawyer is William Moran, who "previously wrote and edited for Sputnik, a news agency founded and supported by the Russian state-owned media company Rossiya Segodnya," AP reports.

This is being reported as relevant to the matter, so we should mention it. FollowTheSources (talk) 15:03, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Wow! Thanks for that information FollowTheSources - I just can't figure out why Reade would hire a Trump top donor and a former employee of Putin's state-run-media, Sputnik. This brings to the forefront that in 2018 Reade wrote that she resigned from Biden's office to pursue acting, and because of her disdain for "imperialism of America," and because of her love of Russia. Now this. Wow! I remember sometime in February Bernie Sanders said that in January 2020 US intel told him Putin was trying to interfere in Bernie's campaign CNN reported, "Sen. Bernie Sanders said Friday that his campaign was briefed about Russian efforts to help his presidential campaign, intensifying concerns about the Kremlin's role in the US presidential race...The revelation comes a day after it was reported that the US intelligence community believes Moscow is taking steps to help President Donald Trump win." There is so much to digest here. BetsyRMadison (talk) 16:19, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
It's certainly food for thought, but it's also above my pay grade. It's not my job to fully understand why the woman going after Biden has all of these connections with Trump and/or Russia. It's not even my job to decide whether it's notable. Instead, we have reliable sources that have decided it's notable, so we have to reflect them. FollowTheSources (talk) 16:29, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
Yes, you make excellent points & I agree with you. And, I'll add, this food for thought sure is a lot to digest. BetsyRMadison (talk) 16:44, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
This is addressesd in New York Magazine, "Tara Reade’s New Lawyer Represented 6 Weinstein Victims". Kolya Butternut (talk) 15:20, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
Actually, that article is about Douglas Wigdor, who's a Trumper but apparently has no connections with Russia. The article I posted is about Bill Moran, the one who worked for Sputnik. His name only shows up in a comment to the article you linked to:
Oddly, this piece does not mention Tara Reade's other attorney is a former employee of Sputnik, the Russian government’s English-language propaganda arm
Bill Moran, who works at a law firm in Columbia, Maryland, previously wrote and edited for Sputnik, a news agency founded and supported by the Russian state-owned media company Rossiya Segodnya.
A January 2017 report released by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence on Russia’s interference in the 2016 campaign said Sputnik was part of “Russia’s state-run propaganda machine,” which “contributed to the influence campaign by serving as a platform for Kremlin messaging to Russian and international audiences.”
Reade herself has faced questions about her past writing praising Russian President Vladimir Putin.
Just to be clear, I don't suggest that we use this comment as a source. We have plenty of other, more reliable, sources that discuss this. FollowTheSources (talk) 17:04, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
The AP seems to be the only source for Bill Moran, and it's not clear his representation is official.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:35, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
To Kolya Butternut - Did you see that Time Magazine is reporting that Reade's pro-Trump lawyer, Douglas Wigdor, said Reade got connected to William Moran through Katie Halper? Time Magazine writes, "Wigdor said Reade told him she was connected to Moran through Katie Halper." Even though Time does not say if Halper is connected to Moran through Halper's years of working on Russia's state-run television, Russia Today; from what Wigdor told Time, it sounds like William Moran's representation with Reade is official. BetsyRMadison (talk) 17:55, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
If that's true it will be reported in other top-tier sources.  Kolya Butternut (talk)`
To Kolya Butternut - Other top tier sources are reporting it. The Washington Post[8], New York Times[9] report the same thing. Both the NYT & Post write, "Wigdor said Reade told him she was connected to Moran through Katie Halper." Again, even though the NYT, The Post, & Time do not say if Halper got connected with Moran through Halper's years of working on Russia's state-run television, Russia Today; from what all three news outlets report that Wigdor said, it sounds like William Moran's representation with Reade is official. BetsyRMadison (talk) 19:21, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

The AP is more than enough here. FollowTheSources (talk) 19:26, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

All of the sources are just the same AP story.  This doesn't deserve weight yet.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:55, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
You are mistaken in this regard. FollowTheSources (talk) 20:15, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
Which is that? I had two points. Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:10, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
By my count, you had somewhat fewer than that. The fact that AP reports this is important, but the fact that other prominent sources repeat it means that it's notable. I don't see any counterargument offered to this. FollowTheSources (talk) 23:15, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
Sources always pick up AP stories. It's a few sentences in a story about Wigdor. If Moran is noteworthy we will see more coverage. Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:32, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
We have seen more coverage, more than enough to justify inclusion. FollowTheSources (talk) 00:47, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Support We should include the names & background of all Tara Reade's lawyers in this WP article. Right now, regarding Reade's lawyer, this article lists Douglas Wigdor and includes his background. Four reliable sources report that William Moran is one of Reade's lawyers so his name and his background should also be included. BetsyRMadison (talk) 20:50, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
What four? The AP story is the same story in many sources. Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:10, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Support in general, but this is not just a "Trumper lawyer". Cited source [10] tells:
Over the weekend, another attorney, William Moran, told the AP he was working with Reade. Moran, who works at a law firm in Columbia, Maryland, previously wrote and edited for Sputnik, a news agency founded and supported by the Russian state-owned media company Rossiya Segodnya. A January 2017 report released by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence on Russia’s interference in the 2016 campaign said Sputnik was part of “Russia’s state-run propaganda machine,” which “contributed to the influence campaign by serving as a platform for Kremlin messaging to Russian and international audiences....There is no evidence to suggest Reade or Moran worked at the behest of Russia with respect to the Biden allegation."
My very best wishes (talk) 21:31, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
Yes, the section heading is outdated. One lawyer is a Trumper, the other is more of a Putiner. At least that's what our sources say. Given that Putin supports Trump's candidacy, I'm unsure of whether it's a distinction that makes any difference, but that's not my call. I just go by what my name says. FollowTheSources (talk) 21:36, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Support if other Reputable Outlets pick up the AP it's because they recognize the AP as a RS. - And yet according to Reade none of the attorney's on the list Time's Up gave her would touch the case; and there's always Gloria Allred who doesn't shy away from publicity. Curiouser and curioser. Manannan67 (talk) 07:24, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Its nice to see the activists have come out of the woodwork to restructure this article, alongside several other prominent articles related to Democrats nationwide. We have political hacks throwing words around like "Trumper" and "Putiner" and you expect me to accept their proposals? Get lost. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 04:13, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
Please see WP:NPA, WP:NOTAFORUM and discuss content not editors. Volunteer Marek 08:44, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Good source

We do mention The Nation's[11] article, but only use it slightly. There's a lot of good material in it. FollowTheSources (talk) 19:33, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Good for what, beside bonus Joan Walsh commentary? InedibleHulk (talk) 02:31, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
Good for avoiding synthesis. We aren't allowed to tie things together and draw inferences. She is.
Good for putting this in context, starting with the origins of the accusation (with Halper's role).
Good for pointing out that Reade's story has changed repeatedly.
Good for mentioning that AP contacted 21 Biden staffers, none of whom could confirm Reade's story.
Good for pointing out that the friend who says Reade told her about the assault contemporaneously remains anonymous.
Good for pointing out that her brother confirmed being told about the allegation but changed his story, too.
Good for pointing out Reade's Russophilia, including that pro-Putin essay.
Good for pointing out the lack of sexual assault claims against Biden in the course of 50 years.
Good for all of that, I'd say. FollowTheSources (talk) 03:47, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
Better to find all that in a hard news source, says the spirit of WP:YESPOV (which I echo). Some of those points must be in something factual for a talking head to have learned as much. At least, one might assume. That said, in practice, this article is already a "shit sandwich". Maybe in context, "good enough" really is good enough, give it a shot! Or just replace her "doesn't stand up" snippet with your preferred point. Maybe rotate the top five daily. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:59, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
We can find each of these facts in other reliable sources, but we can't attest to their significance, much less string them together to tell the story. That's what this source does for us. FollowTheSources (talk) 05:37, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
Stringing things together is stringing readers along, just lay out the facts in chronological order, as in nature. This is not a complex series of events, and can be told in five easy chapters. The only confusing one should be Commentary, because opinions are nuanced. Facts are basic, precise and concise, regardless of bias (written or read). The whole clusterfuck about whether the story "changed" or "grew" and where one story ends and another begin is purely a matter of interpretation, not fact. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:03, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

That the story changed is a matter of fact, but it would be synthesis for us to point out the change, unbidden. It's not synthesis to allow a reliable source do draw a line between the dots. FollowTheSources (talk) 13:59, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Well, I like this info from the source. In an op-ed posted on Medium in 2018, Reade wrote, “President Putin has an alluring combination of strength with gentleness. His sensuous image projects his love for life, the embodiment of grace while facing adversity.”... She claimed that she quit working for Biden because she loves “Russia with all my heart” and was sickened by “the reckless imperialism of America”. So, that is why she quit working for Biden, not because of the alleged attack. My very best wishes (talk) 16:28, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
Yes, that's very interesting and belongs in the article. We can definitely use primary sources to confirm that she wrote all this, but we still need to use secondary sources (like that Walsh article) to show that it's notable. In other words, we're not here to research everything Reade said and did, just to repeat what others have found. FollowTheSources (talk) 17:13, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
I agree. However, as cited source tells, "Respecting Putin does not discredit her; again, her changing stories here hurt her credibility.". My very best wishes (talk) 18:46, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
See, some pundits say her story changed, some say THE story or her STORIES did. Others say she told one story last year, then added another this year. Neither this article or this talk page notes which part of which story, in fact, changed. Just people saying one or both did, without evidence. I'm not even touching the Russia thing, everything made in America about Russia is inherently suspect, especially when tied to Trump. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:37, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
To InedibleHulk We can see with our own eyes that Reade changed her story. In 2019 Reade wrote an essay (published at The Union [12]) as a follow-up to her 4/3 Union interview. In that 2019 essay Reade wrote that her story about Biden "is not a story about sexual misconduct." Then in 2020, Reade changed her story from "not a story about sexual misconduct" to ‘sexual assault’ BetsyRMadison (talk) 19:26, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

If I understand correctly, the change is that she used to say that someone on his staff "harassed" her by telling her to wear more professional clothing, and now she's saying that Biden sexually assaulted her, which is a whole 'nother thing. FollowTheSources (talk) 00:46, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, a whole 'nother thing. Meaning a fresh, new thing. Like if you accuse someone of lying, then check fraud, then loving Putin. You're not wishy-washy, you're just not retelling the first story. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:54, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
It would be strange to say you were the victim of sexual harassment, explaining that it was about being treated differently ("cover up, girl") for being a woman, when you coincidentally were harassed through sexual assault. It's a story that grew with the retelling, not an unrelated matter. FollowTheSources (talk) 01:08, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
The news story (and resultant article) grew, but if you follow the Halper and Robinson sources, that's because Reade told a whole new story, about her vagina. Still related to Biden and Reade, but not necks, lamps, drinks, clothing or harassment. And yes, people are strange, as are their motives, especially when they're strangers. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:24, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
The old story is that she left the job because of various reasons, such as her love of Russia, but nothing about sexual assault. Many years later, her new story is that she was sexually assaulted.
That is important to this article, because the contemporaneous "corroborations" about sexual harassment were not about assault, just what she perceived as less than equal treatment of a woman. FollowTheSources (talk) 01:36, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
Waiting for a friend to let the rape cat out of the bag before corroborating it to the entire world is just good manners. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:43, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
Imagine you sent me to the store to buy something for you and I came back angry. You asked why, and I explained that they mugged me and I'm never going back. You asked me to explain what I meant by that, and I said that they overcharged me unscrupulously.
Years later, I announce that the store had literally mugged me back then, at gunpoint and all. As proof, I ask you to confirm that I once told you that they mugged me. Is that corroboration? FollowTheSources (talk) 01:48, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
Not even similar enough to imagine my answer, sorry. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:58, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
And I'll add that we should believe women! When Reade said she really, really loves Russia, we should believe her. It explains so much, from why she left Biden's staff to why she's making this accusation now. And, fortunately, we have reliable sources to point this out. FollowTheSources (talk) 01:38, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
Russia has nothing to do with US elections, at least relative to American voters' simple binary preferences. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:47, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Why did she quit working for Biden? One time she said that's because he harassed her. Then she said he attacked her. Then she said she quit because she loves “Russia with all my heart” and was sickened by “the reckless imperialism of America”. Wow! This is changing the story - according to the cited source. I am sorry, but all of that is such an obvious fabrication/nonsense that I have lost any interest here. My very best wishes (talk) 02:14, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
Her leaving story may have changed, I've never been interested, deferring to you. But when you say things like "her story", most people probably think you mean the sexual assault story, not tangential ones. I quit my last job for four reasons, not surprised. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:41, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
What changed is that she added a claim about sexual assault, entirely without evidence. FollowTheSources (talk) 02:42, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
Yes, added. Added another story. Further to the old, unaltered one. Plus one, new wrinkle, and so on. No retractions or replacement, right? Just reframing and reviewing? That's the media story. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:46, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
Right, so when I said they mugged me, I meant it both ways. That seems credible, right? FollowTheSources (talk) 02:51, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
As I said, I can't grasp this analogy firmly enough to even begin answering truthfully. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:56, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

FollowTheSources, you seem to have a vested interest in discrediting Reade rather than simply reporting the facts in a Wikipedia-friendly manner. It seems inappropriate at best.--Pokelova (talk) 03:56, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

You're mistaken. We're absolutely permitted to have our own opinions. What matters is whether we edit to reflect those opinions or our reliable sources. FollowTheSources (talk) 14:45, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
Over the past few days I've noticed an uptick both here and elsewhere of political goons feeling empowered to not even try and mask their political agenda whilst editing political pages. I've already seen this user use words such as "Trumper" and "Putiner" as a description already on this talk page alone, and other familiar faces backing him up who've made less than respectable proposals elsewhere, but I digress. I doubt much will come of it anyhow, as much of the hierarchy doesn't seem too bothered by it. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 04:20, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
Wow, I sure hope you're not calling me a "political goon". That would not be civil. In fact, it would be a personal attack. Don't you agree?
I used those terms as shorthand for people who are supporters of, aligned with, or employed by, those two politicians. I stand by what I said. FollowTheSources (talk) 14:45, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
Unlike Russian cybernetic brainwashing hornets, the uptick in unabashed political thuggery and buggery is a perfectly normal and extremely embarassing part of every old man's blossoming into a potential presidential opponent. It will only get worse until November, then back to ragging on the incumbent for three more years. The Cabal has seen elections, "they" know such bother is fleeting. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:35, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
Yes, political thuggery is terrible. You should definitely avoid contributing to it. FollowTheSources (talk) 20:31, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
Nobody here knows whose side I'm on, that's the important thing. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:24, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
Well, I'll you what side I'm on; the side that the sources support. FollowTheSources (talk) 23:44, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
Yes, loudly and clearly. But it's the words you don't say that matter now. Did you want to "tell" me how impartial you are, or "show" me? InedibleHulk (talk) 01:13, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
Neither. I'm not interested in talking to you about me. I'm not the topic here; this claim against Biden is. So let's stick to that instead of, say, browbeating contributors, capiche? FollowTheSources (talk) 03:07, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
Whatever, you're the one who offered to blank me which side you're on. I'll quietly assume you meant "tell". But loudly and kindly decry your butchery of "capisce", too! InedibleHulk (talk) 03:39, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
Whatever. I'm speaking English, not Italian, and "capiche" is a perfectly cromulent spelling in English. Google it.
It's a semi-polite way to ask whether you understood. You did understand, but you effectively proved my point by pretending you didn't, and instead refocusing on me, even though I am not the topic here. I think we're done here. FollowTheSources (talk) 03:53, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
What ain't cromulent is refusing to admit you omitted a key verb in your earlier public statement. "I'll you what side" naturally raises questions, and "neither" in response even more. Just belatedly acknowledge you made a typo and fix it, then we're done. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:00, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

We use the source to the extent it is needed. We don't need to echo Democratic Party talking points and interpretations at all. A lot of your "points" are quite biased (e.g. the "Russophilia" one) and we should stick to the cold facts and not talking points that have been digested multiple times by Biden apologists. BeŻet (talk) 21:37, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

To BeŻet - Two things: 1) Please explain who and what "Biden apologists" are and is. 2) Regarding "Russophilia" - I'm not sure if you know this but, according to wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russophilia Russiophilia is "Russophilia (literally love of Russia or Russians) is admiration and fondness of Russia."
Given that definition of "Russophillia" and given the fact that Tara Reade wrote several essays professing her unwavering "love" of Russia (Russophilia) and her disdain for America, the term "Russiophilia" correctly describes Reade. In one essay [13] Reade wrote, "I love Russia with all my heart” and Reade was sickened by “the reckless imperialism of America.” In another essay[14] Reade wrote, "President Putin has an alluring combination of strength with gentleness. His sensuous image projects his love for life, the embodiment of grace... President Putin’s obvious reverence for women...is intoxicating to American women" Therefore, it is clear that FollowTheSources was "sticking to the cold facts" (as your correctly say we should do) when FollowtheSources appropriately described Reade's self-professed love of Russia as "Russophilia." As you can see, describing Reade's love of Russia as "Russophilia" is not at all bias, but rather, "Russiophilia" correctly describes Reade. BetsyRMadison (talk) 11:17, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
@BetsyRMadison: "Biden apologists" are people who are desperatly trying to defend Biden by reiterating Biden's campaign's talking points rather than waiting for facts and due dillegence to happen. I have a question for you, why on Earth is it relevant to mention "Reade's Russophilia"? If she wrote articles about Portugal or Belgium instead, would we be so keen to mention that? By answering this question you might reveal some internalised biases you may have. BeŻet (talk) 11:43, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
To BeŻet - Your definition for "Biden apologists" is vague. Can you be more specific? Also, can you specifically tell me what "Biden's campaign's talking points" are? And, can you tell me who is "desperatly trying to defend Biden by reiterating Biden's campaign's talking points?" Regarding your question about Tara Reade's "Russophilia" - Yes, Tara Reade's "Russiophilla" is very pertinent to Reade's 2020 allegations. In fact, Reade's "Russiophilla" is tied directly to her 2020 allegations and I will explain. In 2018 Reade wrote an essay saying she "resigned" from Biden's office for three reasons 1) she had an acting job, 2) her disdain for America, and 3) her unwavering love of Russia.
2018 Reade wrote, "I left that political work behind a few years ago. I resigned my position and took myself out of the Washington DC beltway. Why? First, I started as an actor in classical theatre, an artist and writer before Washington DC. This work in the arts has always been my first love and best vocation. Second, I saw the reckless imperialism of America and the pain it caused through out the world. Third, I love Russia with all my heart." OK, so Reade wrote that in 2018.
Then in March 2020, Reade changed her reasons for resigning willingly and began to allege she was "force out" for: dressing too provocatively and for alleged retaliation for allegedly filing a 1993 formal complaint against Biden. Also in March 2020, Reade told Current Affairs that she and her mother defined "sexual harassment" as Reade being told to "dress less provocatively." Then, in May 2020 of Reade told the Associated Press that her 1993 complaint does not mention sexual assault, or sexual harassment, or Joe Biden's name. Also, in May 2020, Reade's lawyer, Douglas Wigdor, confirmed Reade hired Bill Moran who is a former employee of Russia-State-Run-Media, Sputnik.
As you can see, since this is an online encyclopedia, and since Reade's "Russiophilla" is directly tied to the reasons Reaade said resigned willingly from Biden's office, it is an extremely important piece of information the WP reader have when they are reading Reade's other 2020 allegations of allegedly "forced out."
And actually BeŻet, I can think of no reason to hide or to keep Reade's Russiophilla from the WP reader, can you? BetsyRMadison (talk) 18:03, 17 May 2020 (UTC)~
Yes I can: it has nothing to do with the accusation at hand. We already mention Russia as the reason she left (first paragraph in first section). There's nothing more to add. BeŻet (talk) 18:22, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
To BeŻet - You are 100% wrong. Reade writing that she willing resigned from Biden's office due to her disdain for America and for her unwavering love of Russia has everything to do with Reade's current, contradicting, accusations. Plus, Reade hiring Putin's former employee, Bill Moran, who helped coauthor Russia-State-Run-Media "disinformation" is also relevant to Reade's current accusations and there is no reason to hide any of those facts from the WP reader. The first paragraph of this WP Article is, at best, a partial-truth. I feel that anyone who actively tries to hide Reade's unwavering "Russiophilla" may be acting on their own bias as opposed to responsibly relay whole-truths to the WP reader. By the way, you did not answer my question to you: Your definition for "Biden apologists" is vague. Can you be more specific? Also, can you specifically tell me what "Biden's campaign's talking points" are? And, can you tell me who is "desperatly trying to defend Biden by reiterating Biden's campaign's talking points?" BetsyRMadison (talk) 19:32, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
This is wild, conspiratorial thinking. I don't understand why I keep needing to explain this to you, but there is no logical, undeniable, obvious connecyion between her apparent love of Russia and her accusing Biden of sexual assault. Don't you understand that this connection is a subjective matter, based on biases you may have formed yourself? If a reliable source can show and explain this connection - be my guest, include that information. Otherwise you're doing speculation, based on several personal assumptions, and there is now room for that on Wikipedia. BeŻet (talk) 20:05, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
To  BeŻet - Calling facts "conspiratorial" makes me think you don't understand the definition of the "conspiratorial" [15] [16] so you should look it up. Also, you're accusing WP editors who present facts with "conspiratorial thinking" is a WP:PA personal attack, an ad hominem. So you should try to avoid such wild attacks against other WP editors.  Since you appear to be new at the English language, it makes sense that sometimes the translation may throw you for a loop. I notice a similar situation in a different comment of yours (above) where you attacked WP editors in an attempt to dismiss their legitimate points by falsely accusing them of using "Democratic Party talking point of blaming Russians for everything, from lost elections to inconvenient accusations." Not only did you personally attack a WP editor, you also went off-topic, and you appear to be very under-educated on that topic.  It is a fact that Russia interfered in the 2016 election in order to help Donald Trump win. To become educated on that topic, it would benefit you tremendously to read the 2017 US Intel's declassified document [17] where US intel conclude that, at the direction of Vladimir Putin, Russia interfered in 2016 US elections to help Donald Trump win.
The fact you attack WP editors who state facts, and try to discredit them by accuse them of using "Democratic party talking points about Russia" and then, to attack even further, you call facts 'conspiracies' means you really believe those things. And that's sad. I feel sorry for you because since you really believe those things that indicates that you may be letting your bias get in the way of seeing things clearly.  Your bias is causing you to attack instead of listen and causing you to dismiss others with ad-hominems instead of hearing. Tara Reade wrote her connection to Russia and Biden when she wrote that she resigned willing because of her 'love of Russia with all her heart.' That's a fact, not a conspiracy and not a talking point.  Reade doubled-down on her connection to Russia and Biden when she wrote that she hold great disdain for American, not disdain for Biden, but disdain for America.  I think you'd be happier if you take time to listen and to hear WP editors and stop attacking WP editors. BetsyRMadison (talk) 00:29, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
I understand English perfectly, and nobody called facts "conspiracies". Somebody said interpreting and/or echoing facts about Russia and Reade, as if there were some unstated connection to Biden or Trump or the election, is "conspiratorial thinking". You explain she writes about Russia, but don't even try to explain how Russia or her love for it is about Biden or sex or assault, just rant at length about connections to other stuff you read somewhere. The idea that Reade is an unpatriotic lustful liar and that Russia (as opposed to the DNC scandal, the DNC or the candidate's robotic image) made Clinton narrowly lose are Democrat talking points, that's not an insult, it's widely self-evident. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:43, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
To InedibleHulk - Very interesting that you answered my comment in first person, as if I were talking to you, when I wasn't. hmmm... Anyway, I actually do 'explain how Russia [and] her love for it is about Biden or sex or assault are connected. So, instead of WP:NPA personally attacking me, use your 'perfect English' skills and re-read my comments above & then, if you have clear eyes, you will find, that Tara Reade, herself, makes the connection between her 'love of Russia with all her heart,,' plus her disdain for America, and her hiring of Putin's former employee, Bill Moran, and her 2020 allegations against Biden. Oh, and one more thing, you and BeZet, have both gone off topic, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Off_topic over a topic that you both seem to be very under-educated about. Those comments of yours & BeZet belong on a different talk page, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_interference_in_the_2016_United_States_elections Remember, when you go off-topic, and when you personally attack other WP editors, you disrupt this talk page, so it's best to avoid doing both. ~Regards BetsyRMadison (talk) 11:44, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
But you are not explaining anything. You just list things and say "they are connected". Even calling Moran a "Putin former employee" is an extreme exaggeration considering he simply wrote and edited for Sputnik, and not literally worked for Putin. Until you justify the inclusion of any of this, this conversation is completely pointless and is going nowhere. BeŻet (talk) 12:13, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
As InedibleHulk pointed out, stating that she once expressed her admiration of Putin is one thing, but trying to somehow connect it to her sexual assault allegation is another. The latter is conspiratorial thinking. As I've said plenty of times before, Wikipedia is NOT a tabloid, and we are not supposed to list "uncomfortable facts" that you, PERSONALLY, think are related to the accusation. If this is how Wikipedia worked, I would have gone to the Joe Biden article and started listing all the uncomfortable "facts" about is health and mental well-being. I would have gone to the Democratic Party article and started mentioning all the uncomfortable "facts" about how the primaries had widely different results between exit polls and final official totals. Do you understand that mentioning of "facts" needs to be justified in the context of a given article? There is no undeniable connection between Putin and Reade's accusations, therefore, we are not in a position to write about it. Do you understand now or do we need to keep explaining? BeŻet (talk) 09:47, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
To BeŻet - Heads up, Your off-topic personal attacks on Joe Biden and the Democratic Party are disrupting this WP talk page. You should post your attacks on the WP talk they belong on, not here. Now, back to the topic: All of the reasons Reade has said she resigned are connected to her resignation. Every single reason Reade has said she resigned, are directly connected to Reade's resignation (Let that fact sink in). Obviously, in any language, all of the reasons Reade has said she resigned are directed connected to her resignation. How could they not be, right? Reade, herself, wrote that she willingly resigned because "I love with Russia with all her heart" - let that fact sink in.  Therefore, you are mistaken, Reade did not simply "once express admiration for Putin" -- she literally resigned from her job willingly because she is "in love with Russia with all her heart." and because she holds great disdain for America. In 2018 Reade did not write that she resigned because of Biden, no, it was two years later that she said anything like that. To admit Reade's love of Russia & her disdain for America is why Reade wrote she resigned, is not a conspiracy, it is a fact. In this WP article, the WP editors have an obligation to list all of Reade's self-stated reasons she resigning, including, but not limited to, her love of Russia and her disdain for America. 
Also,  WP editors have an obligation to list all of Reade's lawyers, including Bill Moran, who is a former employee of Putin's State-Run-Media Sputnik [18], where Bill Moran cowrote and edited Putin's "dezinformatsiya" propaganda. Wikipedia writes that "Sputnik is frequently described as a Russian propaganda outlet." There is no legitimate reason to hide the fact that Reade hired a former employee of Putin's state-run-media. None, zero, zilch. And, there is no legit reason to hide all the reasons she says she resigned. Hiding facts is a form of "disinformation" and "propaganda" and people who do hide facts, are working from their own bias, which is not what WP editors are supposed to do. ~Regards BetsyRMadison (talk) 13:09, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
But we already mention both the fact that her feelings towards America and Russia were one of the reasons she left, and also we mention that William Moran is working for her. So what are you getting worked up about? BeŻet (talk) 14:32, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
To BeŻet - I am so glad you finally see the connection! Excellent! I am proud of you BeZet and I am happy I could help you understand the connection. ~Best BetsyRMadison (talk) 15:10, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
This may surprise you, but it does appear as though Russia has preferences with regard to who runs America. According to these sources, its leaders would prefer someone other than Biden.
Now, it would be a bad idea for me to try to draw these connections myself. Fortunately, we're not doing anything of the sort. Instead, reliable sources like Joan Walsh are drawing them and we're reporting on what they said. FollowTheSources (talk) 16:31, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but this is ridiciolous. We can't base Wikipedia content on wild conspiracy theories. What makes Joan Walsh "reliable"? What makes the source "reliable"? Moreover, the article itself doesn't even draw the conclusions you are presenting. It's your own internalised biases BetsyRMadison (talk) 19:32, 17 May 2020 (UTC)and opinions. There's nothing "sober" in this. BeŻet (talk) 17:35, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
You're confusing articles. The "sober, mainstream" one was NBC [19] FollowTheSources (talk) 17:40, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
I'm not confusin anything, neither of these sources don't support the conclusions you presented. BeŻet (talk) 17:46, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
Excuse me, but these aren't my points. They're all taken directly from a reliable source that synthesized them and are confirmed by other reliable sources. If you think they're "biased", go find a different reliable source to counter it with. As for political bias, you'd be surprised by where it may be found.[20]FollowTheSources (talk) 21:40, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
When you select choice items from a menu, are they the restaurant's food, or is there an unwritten social understanding that you intend to pay for your decisions later? InedibleHulk (talk) 01:19, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
Let's allow all the sources their place. FollowTheSources (talk) 03:07, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
The article you are so in love in with is an op-ed that is presenting a series of opinions and interpretations that belong to the author of said article. Believe it or not, several of these statements are not "facts" but specific opinions. For example, saying that her brother "changed" his story is an interpretation of the sequence of events. Another example is the "Russophilia", which does not belong to this article at all, unless you want to stick to the Democratic Party talking point of blaming Russians for everything, from lost elections to inconvenient accusations. Op-eds can be used as sources for presenting someone's opinions, or to reiterate factual statements that are backed up by other sources. Therefore, this is definitely not a "good source" as you described it - it's merely an acceptable source in certain situations. If in doubt, consult Wikipedia:Reliable sources. BeŻet (talk) 11:38, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
To BeŻet - Firstly, I feel you are getting upset at some WP editors on here for pointing out the fact that in 2018 Reade wrote that she "resigned" willingly from Biden's office due to her disdain for America and her unwavering love of Russia. Her 2018 stated reasons for resigning willingly from Biden's office are as equally as important to the WP reader as her 2020 allegation of being forced out so obviously should be included in this WP article. I can think of no reason to hide Reade's "Love" of Russia a reason she said she resigned willing, can you? Secondly, I think it's very unbecoming of a WP editor to ignore a 2017 US Intel declassified document concludes that at the direction of Vladimir Putin, Russia interfered with 2016 US elections and helped Trump win. I also think it's very unbecoming of a WP editor to ignore the 2020 US Senate Intel Committee report that also concluded Russia interfered in 2016 US elections and helped Trump win. You uttered a false claim when you incorrectly accused people who state absolute facts that yes, Russia interfered in 2016 election of using "Democratic Party talking points." Therefore, it might be beneficial for you to learn the topic and read the 2017 US intel report [21] so that when you talk about it, you won't sound so under-educated on the topic. Thirdly, by definition of the word, "change" - Reade's brother did, in fact, change his story. During his interview, he told the reporter that Biden touched only Reade's neck and shoulder. Several days later, Reade's brother texted the same journalist and changed his story to: "sexual assault." BetsyRMadison (talk) 18:32, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
Reade's love of Russia, as I pointed out earlier, explains her departure from Biden's staff and offers motivation for her current stance. That's not my opinion, it's something brought up in sober, mainstream news articles.[22] I can't imagine why you might think it's ok to suppress this. FollowTheSources (talk) 16:36, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
How does it explain her departure, and how does it offer motivation for her current "stance"? BeŻet (talk) 17:35, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
To BeŻet - you asked how does Reade's love of Russia explains her departure. I will tell you how: Reade wrote it. Reade wrote that her "love of Russia" and her disdain for America, and acting is why she willingly departed Biden's office. I'm actually a little stunned that you don't know that fact by now. BetsyRMadison (talk) 19:37, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
Uh, no, it's not my job to speculate in this direction. It's my job to stick to the sources. FollowTheSources (talk) 17:40, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
What are you even saying right now? Which source is showing any of the things you have suggestes? Which source shows a clear and undeniable connection between her "love of Russia" and anything that we are talking about in this article? BeŻet (talk) 17:46, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

I realize this confuses you, but you just need to read the sources.

There was also the odd occasion of Reade's 2018 posting to Medium -- since deleted -- in which she publicly praised Vladimir Putin, who has poured so much time, energy and money into electing Donald Trump. She wrote, in part: "To President Putin, I say keep your eyes to the beautiful future and maybe, just maybe America will come to see Russia as I do, with eyes of love."
She rationalizes that “having a peculiar regard for Vladimir Putin does not make her a liar.”
No, professor, but it could indicate that Reade’s personal elevator doesn’t go all the way to the top floor. Other observers have noticed that her tweets on the subject appear to have been written by a native speaker of Russian, which she is not: “I am avid NPR listener. Super-disappointed NPR editor decided not to air recorded interview of my friend (who is verified) that I told at the time that Joe Biden sexually assaulted me.”
Reads a bit like Natasha, the cartoon spy on the old “Rocky and Bullwinkle” show.
Elsewhere, Reade’s ever-changing stories, trial lawyers point out, would make her a cross-examiner’s daydream. “The first thing that comes to mind…,” writes former federal prosecutor Michael J. Stern in USA Today, “is that Reade’s amnesia about specifics makes it impossible for Biden to go through records and prove he could not have committed the assault, because he was somewhere else at the time.”

I could go on, but I don't want to exceed the bounds of fair use. FollowTheSources (talk) 17:57, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

This doesn't answer my question at all. Once again none of this shows anything you are concluding, nor does it state there is any connection between this and the accusations. Wikipedia is not a tabloid. We don't present "facts" for readers to draw "their own conclusions". BeŻet (talk) 18:04, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
Here's another quote which shows the source drawing the connection.
As recently as 2017, she was regularly posting tweets in praise of “my old boss” Joe Biden, specifically for his efforts combating sexual assault.
By 2018, she had a new hero: Vladimir Putin. “President Putin,” she wrote in an opinion column, “has an alluring combination of strength with gentleness. His sensuous image projects his love for life, the embodiment of grace while facing adversity. … President Putin’s obvious reverence for women, children and animals, and his ability with sports is intoxicating to American women.” Waxing passionate, she wrote that “like most women across the world, I like President Putin … a lot, his shirt on or shirt off.”
Up to this point, I've taken your confusion at face value and tried to address it, but I'm done now. Either you'll understand or you won't, but that's not really important. FollowTheSources (talk) 18:07, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
How on Earth does that show any connection? You are seriously confusiing opinions with facts. BeŻet (talk) 18:22, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
TO BeŻet - The "connection" is actually very obvious. Reade says and writes that her unwavering love of Russia (a.k.a "Russiophilla") is 100% directly connected to why she willing resigned (departed) Biden's office. Reade wrote it. Reade wrote: I resigned because "I love Russia with all my heart" - and - because she held great disdain for America (not disdain for Biden, but instead disdain for America). Let that sink in. Things to Notice: in 2018 Reade wrote she willingly resigned from Biden's office for 3 reasons and none, zero, zilch of those 3 reasons had anything to do with "sexual assault," or "sexual harassment," or being "forced out." (Let that sink in.) Then, in 2020 she drastically changed her reasons for resigning, left out her love of Russia with all her heart, left out her disdain for America, and left out her acting job. So, all those things combined: Reade writing her 'love of Russia with all her heart' is directly connected to her resigning, plus what she changed her reasons to in 2020 are "connected" - which means - all those things combined are the "connection." The connection gets even stronger when you add to that the unbiased fact that Reade recently hired Putin's former employee, Bill Moran. BetsyRMadison (talk) 20:19, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
This is what I'm trying to get to: are you suggesting Reade is a Russian agent trying to, for some odd reason, target Biden? (Let that sink in) What is it that you want to add to the article? Your interpretations and theories? What would you like to add specifically that isn't in the article yet. BeŻet (talk) 22:40, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
You're completely missing the point. It doesn't matter whether I think that Reade is a Russian agent; I don't even have an opinion on this matter. It matters that she said she's been accused of this. We don't need to determine the truth, we just need to report what our sources say. In this case, the statement came right from the horse's mouth. FollowTheSources (talk) 22:46, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
I'm missing the point? Everything you add to the article matters. We have already mentioned that she left her position because of her opinions about America and Russia, which is relevant. What is more to add here? If we want to mention that she liked Putin at some point, why? There is no reason to do this. Every addition needs to be justified, and you still haven't explicitely defined what it is that you want to add. For some reason you thought that simply saying that the article you like is a "good source" would be enough to get some activity going... Just say what exactly is it that you want to add and we can discuss it. BeŻet (talk) 22:53, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I don't think I can help you at this point. I can only lead the horse to water. FollowTheSources (talk) 18:28, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
Here at Wikipedia, we don't achieve anything by being smug and condescending, but presenting clear arguments. What is that you want to include in the article, is it connected to the allegations and is it an opinion or a factual statement? This is really simple. So far you're just attempting to show Reade's alleged "love" of Russia, but nothing that directly related to the topic at hand - her sexual allegation. You have implied that this somehow "offers motivation for her current stance", which is wild speculation that isn't even directly referenced in the sources provided. So see, here's my trying to "lead the horse to water" by attempting to explain the basics of how Wikipedia works and what content is appropriate here. BeŻet (talk) 19:59, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
Here at Wikipedia, we don't ask questions and then ignore the answers. I made a good-faith effort to explain, but it somehow did not penetrate. At this point, it's on you to try harder. FollowTheSources (talk) 20:03, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
You haven't explained anything. You just kept posting the same things and then presenting your opinions about the matter, not adressing anything I said. Until you clearly present what do you want to add to the article and why, there is no point in continuing this discussion. BeŻet (talk) 20:07, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
Given how difficult multiple people have found communicating with you to be, it's a very good thing that convincing you is not a prerequisite for making changes to improve the article. FollowTheSources (talk) 20:27, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
And here we are, still not sure what exactly is that you want to change. BeŻet (talk) 22:40, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Fine, you want me to make changes, and I did. Let's see what the reaction is, and then we can look at including more material about Reade's highly-relevant political views, including her support for Russia and Bernie. The fact that she endorsed the candidate who ran against Biden seems relevant.

We also need more of a summary in the lede, making the status of the allegations clear. FollowTheSources (talk) 23:26, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

OK, what the hell is "their status"? InedibleHulk (talk) 03:24, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

I had to partially revert your changes, because they were not factual. BeŻet (talk) 09:53, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

I did not revert your changes, but I did make other changes in the area, in response. The more important one was sticking to a very close paraphrase of one of our sources, instead of artificially cutting it short. FollowTheSources (talk) 15:07, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Joe_Biden_sexual_assault_allegation/Archive_8&oldid=1131534682"