Talk:Joe Biden sexual assault allegation/Archive 5

Stacey Abrams statement
I tend to think this reaction should be included. BUT it makes inclusion of other perspectives as noted above even more important. We also need to be careful with her statements about what the NYT did and did not find, as she seems to be suggesting that amounts to an exoneration. Of course, Abrams is influential and one of a few women that have been rumoured to be up for consideration as Biden's VP pick.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 19:36, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I see now it has been added. Restate my objection to omitting other reactions which might provide balance.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 19:42, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * It makes me wonder, because I find this reaction notable as well due to Abrams' being one of Biden's campaign surrogates. Is there any fair/neutral way to include this information? Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥ ) 19:43, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Most likely by pointing out she is tied to his presidential campaign, which is merely stating a fact and allowing readers to draw their own conclusions. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 19:52, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * What ties? She doesn't work for the campaign. She has endorsed him, but so have many. She might be his VP pick, but she might not be. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:08, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

"I believe that women deserve to be heard and I believe they need to be listened to, but I also believe that those allegations have to be investigated by credible sources. ... The New York Times did a deep investigation and they found that the accusation was not credible. I believe Joe Biden."
 * On Stacey Abrams' quote:

That bolded section about The New York Times finding that Reade's accusation was "not credible" comes directly from talking points being distributed by Biden's campaign, talking points first reported on by BuzzFeed's Ruby Cramer. Here's the specific language from Biden's talking points:

"Biden believes that all women have the right to be heard and to have their claims thoroughly review. In this case, a thorough review by the New York Times has led to the truth: this incident did not happen."
 * Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:41, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * And if she used a Biden talking point, so what? Politicians use talking points all the time, so I'm not sure why you highlighted that. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:07, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * You should know why I'm highlighting that, considering your comment, and the source. Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:19, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I can't read your mind, so no, I don't know why. I have a guess, but I do try to assume good faith. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:27, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * There's nothing remarkable about a presidential campaign -- Biden's -- listing talking points that state obvious truths. No UFO's circling overhead. They summarized the mainstream RS just like we do here at Wikipedia.  SPECIFICO talk 23:33, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , I'm disappointed that you would suggest bad faith motivations without stating your concerns. I think it goes without saying that based on the sources I believe Stacey Abrams is not speaking independently, and if we are to include her opinion we must provide the context of the talking points.  SPECIFICO, that is a BLP violation against Tara Reade to state that it is an "obvious truth" that the NYTs found that Reade's allegation was not credible.  The NYTs itself disputes this. Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:40, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , you misunderstand AGF. We're not supposed to "assume good faith" when we've been given reason not to. I've read many of your talk page posts, including the ones on AN/I where you said "this story is about what happened to a woman and it will live on as evidence that mainstream media are often not RS." I assumed correctly in this case, because I've been paying attention. You're ascribing bad faith to the NYT. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:46, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , that's a strawman of what I said here, and a misrepresentation of what I said at AN/I. I said that I'm disappointed that you would suggest bad faith motivations without airing them; you are now airing them so I am now able to defend myself.  I don't recall ascribing bad faith to the NTYs; I recall saying they are biased.  One can be biased without bad faith.  I am saying here that Stacey Abrams is repeating talking points that the NYTs itself had said are not accurate, so my opinion on the bias of the NYTs is irrelevant here.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:02, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Seems like something could be added. Abrams is using the false Biden campaign talking point that the NYT found the Reade allegation not credible. The NYT responded that the talking points "inaccurately" described their findings, adding Mueller-esque-ly "Our investigation made no conclusion either way." Such coverage could be relevant in the "Media coverage" section. Story containing the updated NYT comments is here. Mr Ernie (talk) 12:02, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

I think this reaction belongs, and belongs in the reactions section. Whether she is ultimately picked as Biden's VP or not, she is prominent, and she is being talked about for the role, and she seems to be positioning herself for it.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 19:19, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

"He said, she said"
May I suggest using these simple terms more frequently? Rather than "Reade then further went on to allege that..." or "Biden, in a statement, expressed that he believed that...". Those are slightly exaggerated examples, but not far from what I saw for real earlier today. We know who he and she are from the start. A reminder now and then is perfectly adequate. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:12, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Alexandra Tara Reade...
...is up and running, should Reade eventually prove notable.--Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 18:19, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Would make for a marvelous precedent were this assault-allegation article become for the time being deleted within mainspace and its content moved over to a subsection of this draft biography. Written, as all articles are, while attempting prognostication of what might be of note ten years hence, for sure, but not submitted for formal review till, heck, let's say one day past the upcoming US general election. --Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 18:35, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Completely against policy. WP:BLP1E WP:EVENT. The allegation clearly passes WP:GNG, while Reade is only known (and likely will only ever be known) for this one thing.  ResultingConstant (talk) 18:38, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Absolutely not for very, very obvious reasons I shouldn't need to be pointing out. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 18:41, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Despite some users' out-of-pocket dismissals, per actual wikipractices, many blpees passed wp:N thresholds with subjects who originally became notable due one event even such an these type of allegations. See Juanita Brodderick &alia. If there quite obviously will be zero indications of near-future notability (say, 180+ some odd days from now?), sure, even such "drafting's" slam dunk a no-go. Otherwise, per wp:Drafts in 5W: "(1) Drafts are a class of Wikipedia articles which do not pass inclusion criteria in their current shape, and are subject to less aggressive deletion criteria. (2) Drafts are reviewed before being published."--Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 22:22, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Expanding article to include the other allegations?
This article used to include some of the other allegations briefly outlined here. For whatever reason, they seem to have been removed and this article's focus has been shifted only to Tara Reade's allegations. Should we expand it and include the other allegations as noted my myself and above.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:04, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * If you want to change the title, the lead, the point, the purpose and the picture first, then expand away. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:26, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Sure, I could, but it would be nice if we had some idea of what the scope of this article should be. Should it only be Reade's allegations, or should we include the others?  Someone seems to think we shouldn't expand it because the article did contain some of this before.  There is now no mention of Amy Lappos, Caitlin Caruso, or D.J. Hill, scant mention of Lucy Flores (only in relation to Reade), and a photo and extremely detailed content concerning Tara Reade and her allegations.  Do we want it this way or not?  What is the scope of this article we are working towards?--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 00:11, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Are you thinking naming it after the section in Joe Biden, "Joe Biden allegations of inappropriate physical contact and sexual assault"? It is wordy, but I'm curious what others think.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:16, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd rather focus on the "pussy" and "grab by the" parts. Donald Trump Access Hollywood tape is coy about it. Maybe The Katie Halper Show clip? InedibleHulk (talk) 00:40, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

, I am not set on a title. Above I floated the title Joe Biden sexual misconduct allegations, as it was similar to the language used for Trump and Clinton. That said, I kind of think the title is a different discussion. I think 's comment above hit the nail on the head though. The fact that we are deciding on a title before we have settled the scope of the article is a bit crazy.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 02:38, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Biden has allegedly been groping women for years, see his main bio page for descriptions and events and add additional information there as necessary. This article is about a specific sexual assault allegation. Adding lesser events here simply waters down an allegation which, if true would be treated as a serious felony crime and make no mistake about it, there are several editors here who are desperately trying to water down this article, in one case posting the same comments every four hours.EdJF (talk) 02:49, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Couldn't Tara Reade's allegations get proper treatment in an article about all of the allegations against Biden? In the same way as is done at Bill Clinton sexual misconduct allegations or Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations?  Those allegations that need further treatment in their own article could be split off like was done with Paula Jones and Juanita Broaddrick (giving further details in their bios) or perhaps a stand alone article.  Doing that would allow for more of a summary on Biden's bio and more detail on all of the allegations in a stand alone article(s) as was done with Trump and Clinton.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 17:35, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

HALF of Reade's Allegation MISSING From the Lead
Tara Reade’s allegations began in April 3, 2019, not March 2020. An entire year of Reade's account is missing from the lead. Does anyone know why? To be clear: Reade's 2019 account should obviously should be included in the lead. Anything less deprives the reader of full facts, denies Ms. Reade full facts, and denies Joe Biden full facts. Which seems to be opposite of wikipedia's mission. Currently Reade's April 3, 2019 account are under section “April 2019 essay in the Union" but Reade's April 3, 2019 account was in-person and was published 2 weeks before her essay. On April 3, 2019 The Union published their interview with Reade where she alleged Biden touched only her neck and shoulder. On April 17, 2019 The Union published Reade’s April 6 essay.  Reade's April 3, 2019 interview is where she first details her 2019 allegations account. Naturally, the reader, Ms. Reade, & Joe Biden would expect all Reade's 2019 account to be included in "Reade's Account" subheading and not in the “essay” section.

* April 3, 2019 allegation: In interview with The Union Reade alleges Biden touched only her shoulder and neck. The Union reports that "Reade said she didn’t consider the acts toward her sexualization. She instead compared her experience to being a lamp." Reade told The Union her job duties were reduced after she refused to do a job her immediate boss told her do. A friend of Reade’s told The Union that Reade told her at the time that Biden touched only Reade’s shoulder and neck. The friend wanted to remain anonymous.

* March 2020 allegation: In an interview with Katie Halper, Reade alleged Biden pushed her against a wall and put his hands up her skirt and sexually assaulted her. The Washington Post interviewed Reade's brother who first said Biden touched only Reade's neck and shoulder, then sent text message to the reporter several days later writing that Biden had put his hand “under her clothes.”

I hope everyone can agree that all of Reade’s 2019 account should obviously be included in the lead section and in reverse chronological order. And if anyone knows why the lead or "Reade's account" section then I wish they'd let me know, because it doesn't make any sense to me. BetsyRMadison (talk) 01:29, 1 May 2020 (UTC)betsymadison


 * You are correct it should be in the lead. Go ahead and add it and see what happens. In fact, go ahead and make any other changes needed to adjust the sequence of events, or whatever you see as improvements.   Gandydancer (talk) 01:33, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * To Gandydancer - I agree, the leade & Reade's Account section should include her 2019 allegations. I'd like to get feedback before I revise it though. I don't know why I want to wait for feedback, but it seems like the right thing to do. BetsyRMadison (talk) 02:02, 1 May 2020 (UTC)betsymadison
 * Sexual ASSAULT is the only scandalous part of these allegations, and nobody feels bad for public servants feeling like lamps, but I give up! Go on, then. Finish the job! InedibleHulk (talk) 02:20, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * OK Betsy but keep in mind that many of these editors are exhausted and may not be interested in long drawn-out discussions when they have several other articles that they are working on that need their attention as well. Gandydancer (talk) 02:56, 1 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I do not support this. This text has already been repeatedly discussed, beginning at 12:47, 26 April 2020 above.  The "objectified" language misrepresents Tara Reade's feelings.  We need quotes from the woman herself, not paraphrasing which Reade states were misrepresentations.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 04:58, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, my thoughts exactly. To better maintain NPOV we shouldn't be going down this route. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 05:04, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * No it's actually the opposite. NPOV would require us to include this.  Volunteer Marek   05:25, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * To confirm, you're suggesting that NPOV requires us to include paraphrasing of the alleged victim of sexual assault, that the alleged victim has stated are misrepresentations, in the lede of the article about the allegation? Cjhard (talk) 07:01, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Confirmation denied. That is a gross misrepresentation of what either the other editor or myself are saying. Try again, but this time in good faith.  Volunteer Marek   15:13, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, both sets of allegations should be in the lead given they're both prominent in the body of the article. That's not to say they need to constitute half of the lead, of course, but they're also not just a little detail relegated to the "2019 allegations" section. For example, the corroborating statements. Some talk about inappropriate touching, some about harassment, some about assault. What the first two are corroborating are the allegations other than the assault (and, perhaps, a pattern of behavior). I'll note that right now, however, the lead is imbalanced towards the 2019 allegations, only specifying what happened with those, and omitting specifics for the primary allegation. Either they should be better summarized or, indeed, more should be added about the sexual assault allegation (not necessarily the full quote being debated elsewhere -- but something). &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 13:41, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with Rhododendrites  who makes an excellent point about the "corroborating statements" section. BetsyRMadison (talk) 21:35, 1 May 2020 (UTC)betsymadison

Bad first sentence
The article begins with the sentence:

"In March 2020, Tara Reade ...."

But before we can understand such a sentence, we need to know who the name "Tara Reade" refers to. Otherwise it is just a word with no meaning attached.50.205.142.50 (talk) 13:04, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * You're correct. It is very poorly-written. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 14:18, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * To elaborate on my point, the lead is currently being discussed above. The current one, whilst very poor, is best left alone so we may not be distracted by edit warring and may form a more concise replacement for it instead. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 14:25, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually rereading this I now find myself disagreeing with it. I withdraw my previous comment. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 14:33, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

— Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 15:01, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I suggest: In March 2020, Tara Reade, a former staff assistant of former U.S. senator and 2020 presidential candidate Joe Biden, alleged that Biden sexually assaulted her in 1993.
 * Pros: Describes who Reade is before making any claims about her
 * Cons: Repetition of "former", doesn't make it clear that the alleged assault occurred while she was a staff assistant.

Missing punctuation:

 * She works as a consultant to nonprofit organizations

There's no period at the end of that sentence. 68.197.116.79 (talk) 14:50, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ Thanks for pointing that out. BeŻet (talk) 16:53, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Delaware records
Even Biden has directly reacted to the sealed Delaware records on an MSNBC interview. Can editors crying "BLP" realize that this is being covered by reliable sources and mentioning these records is not a POV violation? It doesn't necessarily imply anything. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥ ) 16:16, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Link: Biden OKs search for any records on Reade complaint in Archives, refuses to do same for University of Delaware papers via Fox News. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥ ) 16:20, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Added with no issues. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥ ) 16:26, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

So what? NOTNEWS and irrelevant. Non-story. How about we include this when Trump releases his tax returns.  Volunteer Marek  17:00, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It is a directly response from Biden. Why was it removed? We have an article called Tax returns of Donald Trump, actually. It's quite simple: People have requested the Delaware archives. Biden directly said no. Not a BLP violation or anything, and quite a relevant development... Do we need an RfC for adding one sentence to the article? Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥ ) 18:11, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Can you accept anything even slightly disparaging against Biden or do you always just act in bad faith? MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 03:22, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 29 April 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 NOT MOVE. (non-admin closure) ---  C &amp; C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 22:24, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Joe Biden sexual assault allegation → Tara Reade sexual assault allegation – Move discussion already in progress. See below. - MrX 🖋 20:18, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Suggested name for article title to: "Tara Reade Sexual Assault Allegation" In regard to WP:CONSISTENT question: Since no legal action has been taken against Joe Biden; and since there is no public record of Joe Biden admitting sexual assault (like what Donald Trump did); and since titles for Ford, Jones & Broaddrick do not include their alleged assailer’s names; I feel that in order for the title of this article to be consistent with the pattern of similar articles; we should consider renaming the article: “Tara Reade Sexual Assault Allegation.” BetsyRMadison (talk) 15:13, 29 April 2020 (UTC)betsymadison
 * 1) Does the current article title violate WP:BLP ?
 * 2) Is the article title consistent with the pattern of similar articles? WP:CONSISTENT
 * The article title for Christine Blasey Ford does not include Kavanaugh’s name
 * The article title for Paula Jones does not include Bill Clinton’s name
 * The article title for Juanita Broaddrick does not include Clinton’s name
 * The article title: “Jimmy Savile sexual abuse scandal” was created after police launched a formal criminal investigation.
 * The article title: “Woody Allen sexual abuse allegation” was created in 2018 which was years after legal action had been taken against Woody Allen
 * The article title: “Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations”  was created after Hollywood Access tapes released audio of Donald Trump bragging about getting away with sexually assaulting women.
 * The article titled: “Bill Clinton Sexual Misconduct Allegation” was created years after legal action against Bill Clinton had concluded.
 * Actually, I think this entire article is framed incorrectly. It should be called "Tara Reade" and be formed in a similar way to the Paula Jones article. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:24, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Both good points. The other factor is that if the title were something like "Tara Reade contoversy" it would allow editors to add all the stuff that appears to frustrate them when it's pointed out to be off topic and UNDUE to her 2020 allegation, the current topic. The article could then discuuss the use of social media and blog chatter as well as things like her failed effort to get support from Times Up and her claims about the Larry King Show. This article is really not about Joe Biden, and except for the press coverage that reports no demonstrable connection, Biden is not really invovled.  SPECIFICO talk 15:35, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with the suggested name change by Scjessey - This article should be titled "Tara Reade" and be formed in a similar way to the Paula Jones article in order to adhere to WP:CONSISTENT. BetsyRMadison (talk) 16:17, 29 April 2020 (UTC)betsymadison — BetsyRMadison (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * This article is not a biography on Tara Reade though. Again, I'm citing WP:SPADE: this article is named "Joe Biden sexual assault allegation" because it's about the Joe Biden sexual assault allegation. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥ ) 16:21, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * But that is the problem right there. Because of a highly dubious claim against him, by a person who has changed her story, Biden gets to have an article with his name and "sexual assault" in the title? That seems like a BLP violation. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:25, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * We don't get to judge Reade's reliability. See also Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥ ) 16:32, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * To Nice4What - Actually, this article is solely about Tara Reade's sexual assault allegation.  Reade is the person making the allegation (not Biden). Therefore, in order for us to adhere to WP:SPADE this article title should be changed to "Tara Reade Sexual Assault Allegation" or "Tara Reade."  BetsyRMadison (talk) 16:35, 29 April 2020 (UTC)betsymadison
 * To Nice4What - As discussed in the opening above, The article title: “Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations”  was created after Hollywood Access tapes released audio of Donald Trump admitting to and bragging about getting away with sexually assaulting women.
 * Therefore, since no legal action has been taken against Joe Biden; and since there is no public record of Joe Biden admitting sexual assault (like what Donald Trump did); and since titles for Ford, Jones & Broaddrick do not include their alleged assailer’s names; I feel that in order for the title of this article to be consistent with the pattern of similar articles, adhere WP:CONSISTENT, and adhere to WP:SPADE we should consider renaming the article: “Tara Reade Sexual Assault Allegation” or "Tara Reade" BetsyRMadison (talk) 16:41, 29 April 2020 (UTC)betsymadison
 * That is your interpretation of SPADE. Also, per the article, Reade filed a police report. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥ ) 16:46, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * A report filed many many years after the fact, in light of contemporary publicity is not a legal action.  Volunteer Marek   16:50, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Then must I make the counter-point that there was no legal action taken in regards to Trump's Access Hollywood tape, since I keep seeing that being mentioned? Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥ ) 16:55, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Except that article isn't about an "allegation" (singular) but "allegations" plural. 1 person vs. what... 23?  Volunteer Marek   17:13, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Name change to either "Tara Reade's Sexual Assault Allegations" or "Tara Reade" in order to adhere to WP:CONSISTENT & WP:SPADE & WP:SCANDAL BetsyRMadison (talk) 18:02, 29 April 2020 (UTC)betsymadison
 * Let the record show this is BetsyRMadison second vote on her own proposal. I know we are not supposed to edit closed sections but this can't stand unremarked. XavierItzm (talk) 18:13, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Note – I've combined all votes made by BetsyRMadison into this section to avoid confusion. Thanks for pointing this out! Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥ ) 21:12, 29 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose per WP:SPADE and WP:CONCISE. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥ ) 15:38, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Reiterating opposition since this move request has been reopened. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥ ) 21:13, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * No, this article is not a BLP of Tara Reade, and this is how other allegation articles are titled, as already discussed. Kolya Butternut (talk) 15:40, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * No - per Nice4What and Kolya Butternut. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 15:56, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * To Nice4What & Kolya Butternut & MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken -- There are 7 articles listed above that are not titled this way. And 7 articles not titled this way seem to underscore that the current title may actually be violating  WP:CONSISTENT and possibly even WP:BLP BetsyRMadison (talk) 16:12, 29 April 2020 (UTC)betsymadison
 * Welcome to Wikipedia Betsy, where you can show something 100% obvious in bright flashing light and yet some people will sit there and STILL deny and claim the opposite. These !votes by the Kolya and Nice4What should be simply discounted as not having been made in good faith, as they are obviously claiming something which is directly and clearly contradicted by the text right above.  Volunteer Marek   16:50, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The comparison is simply to the related Donald Trump article, so its being consistent. No need to be a dick and dismiss our comments. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥ ) 16:55, 29 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Support change of name per BetsyRMadison. Ultimately the accuser will be notable for her own blp (if, debatably, she isn't already. After all, her interviews and even some of her blogposts have garnered a lot more than one incident of independent coverage in reliable 2ndary sources. Note: For whatever it's worth, previously I'd suggested a placeholder at "Joe Biden Senate Aide Controversy" to weight its focus slightly more upon the brouhaha's political implications, its portion that was more notable at the time, per my then estimation.)--Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 16:52, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment – You must wait until a consensus is reached or the conversation is closed before moving the article. I've now placed it under the temporary title "Sexual assault allegation against Joe Biden" because I don't have pagemover powers. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥ ) 17:04, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Did you just WP:SALT the title that Mr.X moved the article to? You know that's a quick way to an indef block right? You are purposefully making it impossible to move the article except manually to a different title in order to "protect" your own preferred version, which is highly disruptive.
 * And no, I don't have to wait. There's no tyranny of the status quo on Wikipedia. Especially when BLP is involved.  Volunteer Marek   17:08, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Revert back, you're breaking WP:1RR sanctions. There's clearly opposition to the article change. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥ ) 17:13, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I only made one revert (initial move was not a revert AFAIK) but if someone wants to manually move it to just "Tara Reade" (which is now a redirect) I'm fine with that.  Volunteer Marek   17:30, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * My move was a style correction. I was not aware that there was an ongoing discussion because the article was not tagged as it would have been had WP:RM been followed. - MrX 🖋 17:37, 29 April 2020 (UTC)


 * No, the arguments laid out are spurious. Christine Blasey Ford, Paula Jones, and Juanita Broaddrick are bio pages, not articles on accusations they made.  In contrast, this here article is not a bio of the victim, nor should it be unless she can be found to be independently of WP:NOTE.  Furthermore the Woody Allen sexual abuse allegation article stands the test of time despite the fact the lead of the article reads "the judge agreed that the allegation of sexual abuse had not been proven"... therefore making utterly spurious any attempt to use WP:CONSISTENT to suggest this here article's title ought to be changed... if anything, consistency with WP:CONSISTENT requires the title remains as is: "Joe Biden sexual assault allegation."   Furthermore the Bill Clinton sexual misconduct allegations by four women (Broaddrick, Jones, Willey, and Millwee) includes three women whose cases were never adjuticated by any court of law, and as such remain strictly allegations... and so this here article's name needs to stand as is in order to meet WP:CONSISTENT.  Furthermore, it is spurious to argue the Clinton case post-dates the legal accusations because it was created or re-created in 2011 only because that's the date when it was separated from the Clinton bio; i.e., the content predated 2011. XavierItzm (talk) 17:07, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Support per the proposer and many insightful thoughts made by several editors.  Also support the quick move to change the title per BLP considerations.  And thanks for the helpful chart.  Gandydancer (talk) 17:32, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: This thread caused me to do some research on Wikipedia article names for title comparison purposes and consistency.  By using category tags to locate all articles in which the title of the article uses the name of the accused with the basis of the allegation (i.e., "John Smith sexual assault allegation"), the chart below was created for reference.  The one pattern I'm able to discern at present is that articles that have multiple accusers always use the obvious convention of naming the article after the accused in the context of sexual allegations (by plural necessity), while articles which have single accusers use the name of the accused if the victim was either 1) underage (a minor), or 2) never named, which again makes naming the article after the accused a necessity.  Articles in which there was a single accuser who was both 1) an adult and 2) is identified by name are instead patterned after the name of the accuser, e.g., "Paula Jones", "Juanita Broaddrick", etc.  If anyone else is seeing other patterns herein or something that the chart is missing (especially if it breaks the pattern aforementioned), please add comments so that we can examine those too.  Thanks, AzureCitizen (talk) 17:14, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for this. So at this point WP:CONSISTENCY would suggest that the article be under Tara Reade.  Volunteer Marek   17:23, 29 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose this name change, it is simply inconsistent given the focus of the page. Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations refers to allegations against Trump, Bill Clinton sexual misconduct allegations refers to allegations against Clinton. There are no allegations that Tara Reade assaulted anyone, but that's what "Tara Reade sexual assault allegation" sounds like. If Tara Reade's name is used it should be used alone as the title. --John_Abbe (talk) 17:18, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with Reade's name being used alone as the title. The article should be changed accordingly though.  Volunteer Marek   17:23, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * N.b. if we want to move it to just "Tara Reade" then it will have to be done manually as that redirect already exists. If someone wants to do that, please go ahead.  Volunteer Marek   17:26, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Wait, so there isn't a single example of an article titled "[Accuser] sexual assault allegation"? Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:38, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * That is right, User:Kolya Butternut, and that is why the current title as it stands right now is an enormous WP:BLP vio. XavierItzm (talk) 18:08, 29 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Seeing as this thread was opened again, and if it remains open, I'd like to voice my opposition to such a move, as it violates the consistency of prior articles related to sexual assault accusations of celebrities as has already been listed. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 20:16, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose, mostly per XavierItzm. Comparisons to, e.g., Christine Blasey Ford are inapposite, as that article is a biography about her, not only the allegations. The primary topic of this article should not be Ms. Reade, but rather her allegations. However, as I said at the first AfD, my 1st choice would be to rename from "Joe Biden sexual assault allegation" to "Joe Biden sexual misconduct allegations" to cover allegations of sexual misconduct other than assault. My 2nd choice is to keep the article named "Joe Biden sexual assault allegation". Mdaniels5757 (talk) 20:27, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose also mainly per XavierItzm. Come back and make this argument when you're comparing similar things. The Biden BLP currently has five sentences dedicated to the Reade allegation, and one of them was admittedly edited by the Biden campaign. The Kavanaugh page has two screen-fulls of text related to Ford and even includes the allegations in the Lede. We should be treating similar situations in a similar manner, or else we will be accused of hypocrisy and bias, which spells death for an encyclopedia. 23:05, 29 April 2020 (UTC)  petrarchan47  คุ  ก  
 * Support This article has nothing to do with Biden other than lots of people talking about him or talking about things tenuously related to him or talking about things that aren't even related to him. We have yet to see any evidence that ties Biden to Reade's 2020 allegation. We can't juxtapose his name with an increasingly dubious allegation. We shouldn't do that for our readers, for his BLP, or for google hits that would pick up that wording.  SPECIFICO talk 23:38, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment - suggestions that "this article has nothing to do with Biden" is possibly the wildest thing I have read on this discussion page so far. Your personal opinion on whether this allegation is dubious or not has no implication on anything. We should stick to less extreme arguments if we want to achieve consensus. BeŻet (talk) 13:11, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Namecalling is not discussion and it certainly can't lead to article improvement. You're free to offer a substantive rebuttal to my substantive objection. (signed) Extreme Wild Thing,  SPECIFICO talk 15:03, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose or No do not change the article or manipulate in any other way that deletes Joe Biden's name. Joe Biden is the central person in this story, not Tara Reade.  The fact that Joe Biden is the subject of this allegation is what makes it notable, not the fact that a person named "Tara Reade" has made an allegation - I mean who are we trying to kid here by saying this article isn't about Joe Biden?  Importantly, do not lose sight of the WP:GAMING that is occurring right before our eyes. This became a separate article as a means to push the conversation off Joe Biden's bio page. Now some people want to erase Biden's name from this article which completely divorces Biden from the sexual assault allegation. If that occurs, the whitewash will be complete and Wikipedia will suffer immeasurably.EdJF (talk) 00:48, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I think Joe Biden sexual misconduct allegations might be the best title though, as this would be consistent with the articles about Donald Trump and Bill Clinton and would allow for inclusion of the other allegations of inappropriate contact, touching shoulders, smelling hair etc.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 00:50, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose - It's an article about a sexual assault allegation against Joe Biden. "This article has nothing to do with Biden" Hm. Cjhard (talk) 01:17, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Tara Reade is not a notable person in her own right and thus should not have her own biography article on Wikipedia. This article is about her sexual assault allegation against Joe Biden, and the current title is consistent with other similar articles. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:22, 30 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose per WP:CONCISE and WP:SPADE. The allegations should be framed as they are for other politicians which is with their name. Biden deserves no special unique treatment.ToeFungii (talk) 05:30, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This about Biden, not Reade. Title of "Tara Reade sexual assault allegation" sounds like Reade is accused of assault!--KasiaNL (talk) 05:38, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Don't care but also suggest the more grammatically pleasing "Sexual assault allegation against Joe Biden". UpdateNerd (talk) 06:47, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose - per WP:CONSISTENT with other article titles where the accused is the name used, and concerning politicians, in this case the politician being Biden. Isaidnoway (talk) 09:22, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose - per WP:CONSISTENT and other similar arguments mentioned above. Moreover, the article talks about the way Joe Biden did/did not address the issue so far, and how allegations presented against specifically Biden where digested differently by certain media outlets compared to other allegations; thus, the article is very much about Biden himself. BeŻet (talk) 13:11, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Darryl Karrigan. This article sits at the top of the "Allegations of inappropriate physical contact and sexual assault" subsection of the main Biden article. If anything, this article should be expanded to cover those other incidents, not pared down to talk about Tara Reade only. Einsof (talk) 13:30, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment it's odd really, no legal proceedings yet, of any description, right now this is Wikipedia reporting on she said/he said. Acousmana (talk) 19:41, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * There can't be any legal proceedings in this case, as the statute of limitations has already passed, as is true for many of the sexual assault allegations against Bill Cosby. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:56, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Civil proceedings perhaps. Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:11, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * From what I've read, the statute of limitations for a civil suit in this case has also passed. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:18, 1 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose for consistency for reasons, and because the very reason this is notable is because Joe Biden is the subject of the allegation. CJK09 (talk) 23:57, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Consistency, there is a repeated pattern of how these articles are titled and this obfuscates just who is accusing whom.LM2000 (talk) 00:22, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support -per Jones, Broaddrick, and Ford. These are her allegations. Manannan67 (talk) 03:00, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per nom, but prefer move to "Tara Reade" to reduce ambiguity. --WMSR (talk) 05:55, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Moving to "Tara Reade" is going to increase the article's ambiguity, not reduce it. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 06:51, 1 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose per consistency with the articles in the table. The alleged sexual assault claims are directed at Joe Biden, not Tara Rede. cookie monster  (2020)  755  06:16, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose: it's a matter of consistency and WP:SPADE at this point; the proposed title is inconsistent with the listed articles, and is likely to mislead readers (given those listed articles) into a belief that an accusation was filed against Tara Reade, which is incorrect. Moreover, as Darryl Kerrigan notes, however, and I agree, the best title might be Joe Biden sexual misconduct allegations, in line with the subsection "Allegations of inappropriate physical contact" at Joe Biden. &mdash; Javert2113 (Siarad.&#124;&#164;) 14:09, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Change to Joe Biden sexual misconduct allegations since there were multiple allegations of misconduct, which this would fall into. Merge any relevant information from Joe Biden. 2600:100C:B23F:3CE7:F8D6:C87F:FD68:30BE (talk) 14:24, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The focus of the controversy is on Joe Biden, not Tara Reade. Regarding the title Joe Biden sexual misconduct allegations, I believe some things he did before may have made people uncomfortable, but unless any evidence is provided I don't think anything he was previously accused of would have been a crime.— Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 14:56, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose - This has been discussed ad nauseam by this point, but I do want to add that I agree. The article is about Biden. Changing the title isn't only inconsistent with past practices but also increases ambiguity unnecessarily. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 06:52, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support This is just one person's allegations right? If yes, then it should name the accuser as we do on most other wikipedia articles. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:46, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Oppose the name change per consistency with other articles. The alleged sexual assault claim is directed at Joe Biden. If anything, page should probably be expanded to discuss the allegations of unwelcome touching/kissing by the several other woman and possibly the May 1 report from Law and Crime of sexual harassment. Lonelyeditor19 (talk) 10:49, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose - it is best to maintain consistency with how all the others are titled. Atsme Talk 📧 19:59, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Technically, this is a correct title. Sure, it might attract more attention to put Joe Biden's name in the title, but at this point, the level of coverage makes the two names synonymous. Tara Reade is no longer an unrecognizable name, it is closely associated with Joe Biden and her allegation based on reliable coverage. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:11, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per de facto naming conventions showing the accused's name. Axem Titanium (talk) 18:08, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose, the accusation is against Joe Biden and the main feature is that it is against Joe Biden. Nobody would be talking about it if some other person sexually assaulted Tara Reade. The only reason that this is notable enough for an article is because it is against Joe Biden. Naming the article something else just seems like an attempt to hide that. Ikjbagl (talk) 02:26, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose - per other opposers above. Biden is the public figure. The readers are going to be looking for "that accusation against Biden", not "that accusation by Reade". The only reason this accusation is notable in the first place is because it's against Biden. If Reade had accused someone else, a non-public-figure, we wouldn't have an article about her accusation at all. The title should name the notable accused, not the non-notable accuser (who is not notable except for this). (I use "notable" in the WP:N sense.) Levivich&thinsp;[dubious – discuss] 02:40, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose, we have titled past articles after perpetrating parties when the parties are notable, such as Kobe Bryant sexual assault case, Harvey Weinstein sexual abuse cases, Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations, Hacienda HealthCare sexual abuse case, USA Gymnastics sex abuse scandal, . We should probably be consistent.SecretName101 (talk) 03:38, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose The proposed title would make it seem as if there is an allegation against Tara Reade rather than by Tara Reade. I wouldn't necessarily oppose Tara Reade but Tara Reade sexual assault allegation is not a good title. Galobtter (pingó mió) 03:58, 6 May 2020 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. <b style="color: #FF0000;">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Content dispute involving a particular editor
Here is all the reverts done by MrX just now, and I'm assuming this is a gross violation of WP:1RR. Many of these reverts have nothing to do with BLP and are based on personal preference of what information is encyclopedic or important. Is there any way to address this? Thanks. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥ ) 16:43, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Those are not disruptive edits. That's actually following policies. It's not a violation of 1RR either. What is disruptive is you and a couple others repeatedly trying to insert over the top POV into the article in violation of BLP. Just stop. Or it's gonna be AE time.  Volunteer Marek   16:59, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * There is no consensus for this material as evidenced at . Nice4What, feel free to launch an RfC is you disagree. - MrX 🖋 17:04, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * You are still making multiple reverts. What policy protects you from that? Edit warring is all based in disputed interpretations of consensus. I suggest you self-revert. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥ ) 17:56, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes that revert and a few other removals are all unambiguous 1RR violations. That’s in addition to more 1RR violations from yesterday. MrX, if you have no intention of abiding by the sanctions please ask that they are removed so the rest of us have such reversion privileges. Mr Ernie (talk) 17:33, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? - MrX 🖋 17:34, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , A series of reverts counts a single revert, so no, MrX did not violate WP:1RR. Please also familiarize yourselves with WP:FOC, WP:TPG, and WP:NPA. Article talk pages are not meant to contain threads criticizing individual editors, they are meant to focus on content. Accusations of violations without evidence or that are untrue can be construed as personal attacks. Please keep your focus on article content and do not make this talk page a WP:BATTLEGROUND. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:05, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Allegation Section Missing Half the Allegations & should be added
Tara Reade’s allegations began in April 2019, not March 2020. So both, or rather all, Reade's 2019 & 2020 allegations belong under "Allegation" section. Currently Reade's 2019 allegations are under section “April 2019 essay in the Union" but her April 3, 2019 allegation were in-person and was published 2 weeks before her essay. On April 3, 2019 The Union published their interview with Reade where she alleged Biden touched only her neck and shoulder. On April 17, 2019 The Union published Reade’s April 6 essay. Reade's April 3, 2019 interview is where she first details her 2019 allegations so the reader, Reade, & Biden would expect all her allegations in the “Allegation” section, not “essay” section. I know as a person who’s been coming to wiki for years for my encyclopedia needs, I often click on a page and only read the subsection I need information out of. If all the information isn’t there; and instead is in areas it wouldn’t naturally belong; then I’m in deep trouble.  So my point is: including 2019 allegations & Reade’s 2020 allegations is the only way to be fair to Reade, Biden, and the reader. It’s the only thing that makes sense.
 * April 3, 2019 Allegation: In interview with The Union Reade alleges Biden touched only her shoulder and neck. The Union reports that "Reade said she didn’t consider the acts toward her sexualization. She instead compared her experience to being a lamp." Reade told The Union her job duties were reduced after she refused to do a job her immediate boss told her do. A friend of Reade’s told The Union that Reade told her at the time that Biden touched only Reade’s shoulder and neck. The friend wanted to remain anonymous.
 * March 2020 Allegation: In an interview with Katie Halper, Reade alleged Biden pushed her against a wall and put his hands up her skirt and sexually assaulted her. The Washington Post interviewed Reade's brother who first said Biden touched only Reade's neck and shoulder, then sent text message to the reporter several days later writing that Biden had put his hand “under her clothes.”
 * Here is a suggested first paragraph for “Allegation”
 * In early April 2019, Reade contacted a reporter for The Union, a local newspaper in Grass Valley, California, and alleged that Biden touched her shoulder and neck while she worked in his U.S. Senate office. The Union reported that Reade said she did not feel she was a victim of sexualization, but instead she compared herself being treated like an inanimate object, "a lamp." Reade explained, "It’s pretty. Set it over there. Then when it’s too bright, you throw it away." She further stated that she was reassigned office duties after she told her immediate boss she would not serve drinks at an event. Reade said she believes that opting against serving drinks sidelined her career.  Reade made the allegation after watching an episode of the The View on April 1, 2019, in which Nevada politician Lucy Flores had alleged that Biden sniffed her hair and kissed the back of her head shortly before a political rally in 2014.  

I hope everyone can agree that all of Reade’s allegations should be included in the Allegation section and in reverse chronological order. BetsyRMadison (talk) 18:44, 30 April 2020 (UTC)betsymadison
 * "Allegation" is a singular noun, and the subject of this article, per title and lead. That lampshady shit is just background to the one about him trying to steal third base. The entire story of lesser hair and neck creeping is already in Background, almost verbatim. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:55, 30 April 2020 (UTC)


 * I agree with BetsyRMadison. Reade made one allegation in April 2019 and a different allegation in 2020. Both should be included in the article as allegations. &mdash; goethean 20:26, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Both already are, but so long as this is the "sexual assault allegation" article, the vaguely inappropriate conduct, however abusive or wrong it may be, isn't the allegation. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:13, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * That completely misses the point which is that she made a DIFFERENT allegation initially and only later changed her story. You can't explain that very relevant fact without mentioning BOTH allegations.  Volunteer Marek   14:54, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * So she CHANGED her non-sexual allegations (dehumanization, asked to serve drinks), or made a DIFFERENT one (penetration) eleven months later? InedibleHulk (talk) 18:14, 1 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I do not support this. This text has already been repeatedly discussed, beginning at 12:47, 26 April 2020 above.  The "objectified" language misrepresents Tara Reade's feelings.  We need quotes from the woman herself, not paraphrasing which Reade states were misrepresentations.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 04:55, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * KB: Many people, including sincere people who are nonetheless unaccustomed to dealing with the press, claim they were misrepresented when in fact they blurted out something they later regret. [ https://www.voanews.com/science-health/coronavirus-outbreak/trump-walks-back-claim-absolute-authority-over-states]<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk
 * You're ignoring the point; The Union does not quote her; she says the journalist misrepresented her; we have quotes in her own words from better RS which we can use. Kolya Butternut (talk) 14:23, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * No, actually I directly refuted your point and provided two illustrative examples that I thought might help you recognize that such denials and claims of media misrepresntation are not necessarily credible. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk
 * I'm not sure what you feel you have refuted, but anything from The Union needs to be attributed to the journalist and we'd have to include Reade's reaction. Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:01, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually, The Union does quote Reade saying she felt objectified and not sexualized. In The Union interview while describing herself feeling like an inanimate object, a "lamp," Reade said "It’s pretty. Set it over there. Then when it’s too bright, you throw it away.” Then on April 17, 2019 The Union published Reade's 4/6/2019 essay  where Reade said she did not feel that anything Biden said or did to her was sexual in nature, Reade wrote "this is not a story about sexual misconduct." So however Reade feels about what she said one year after-the-fact is not material to the fact that in 2019 Reade said what Biden did and said to her "is not a story about sex" but instead, his alleged actions toward her made Reade feel like an object, a lamp. BetsyRMadison (talk) 18:17, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for laying out the detail. It's so important for editors don't read the sources here before diving in. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 16:42, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Saying that her particular blog story wasn't about sexual misconduct is not the same as saying that what happened to her did not make her feel sexualized and objectified. Kolya Butternut (talk) 05:24, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Kolya, you are mistaken. Key fact point: Reade wrote her 4/6/2019 essay for the Union to publish for her as a follow-up to her 4/3/2019 Union interview. Therefore, what Reade wrote in her 4/6 essay (published at the Union 4/17/2019) absolutely confirms that Reade did not feel sexualized by anything Biden said or did to her in 1993. Plus, Reade’s 4/3/2019 Union interview confirms that Reade said she felt objectified, like an inanimate object, a “lamp.” Again, to underscore, Reade’s 4/6/2019 essay is a follow-up solely about the story Reade told the Union about Biden on 4/3/2019.
 * 4/6/2019 Reade wrote, “This is not a story about sexual misconduct” (a.k.a. not sexualized)
 * 4/3/2019 Reade told The Union Biden’s actions toward her made her feel like an inanimate object, “lamp” (a.k.a objectified)
 * So yes, we have direct quotes from Reade that in 2019 she said that in 1993 she felt objectified, not sexualized. BetsyRMadison (talk) 11:26, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

New York Times Investigative Reporting
Requires some clarification, as it states "Her brother said she had previously told him." The Times article cited states, "Ms. Reade said she also told her brother, who has confirmed parts of her account publicly but who did not speak to The Times" He apparently did speak to the Washington Post and told them, "...she told him in 1993 that Biden had behaved inappropriately by touching her neck and shoulders." …"Several days after that interview, he said in a text message that he recalled her telling him that Biden had put his hand “under her clothes.” …-but doesn't say when. I question whether this should be under the Times section at all, since they did not speak to him and are only stating what was reported elsewhere. Also, his memory seems to have improved between the time he was interviewed and his text message, and that is not an unimportant detail. Manannan67 (talk) 04:55, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * - I removed the content, because it is a duplicate of things in Response by Biden and other involved parties and Corroborating statements.  starship .paint  (talk) 08:03, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * This sentence has been reinserted w/o addressing the concerns raised above. "Her brother said she had previously told him." -yeah, well sort of. It does not indicate that he initially only recalled her hair being touched. Nor does it indicate that his recollection miraculously improved after a few days. -There's a reason why witnesses are routinely sequestered. -And it still duplicates text in subsequent paragraphs. Manannan67 (talk) 20:20, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * When you characterize his memory as having "miraculously improved" that sounds like a WP:BLPTALK violation. Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:32, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Adding #MeToo activists response
"Actress and recognized figure of the #MeToo movement, Rose McGowan, publicly defended Reade on Twitter after fellow #MeToo activist Alyssa Milano expressed hesitation concerning the allegations toward Biden, stating, "if you remember, it kind of took me a long time to say anything about Harvey Weinstein as well -- because I believe that even though we should believe women... but that does not mean at the expense of giving men their due process and investigating situations." McGowan responded by writing, "This is about holding the media accountable. You go after Trump & Kavanaugh saying Believe Victims, you are a lie. You have always been a lie. The corrupt DNC is in on the smear job of Tara Reade, so are you. SHAME."



In regards to a complaint from that I didn't quote Milano, it's very clearly quoted here, "if you remember, it kind of took me a long time to say anything about Harvey Weinstein as well -- because I believe that even though we should believe women... but that does not mean at the expense of giving men their due process and investigating situations," which I speculate to you not thoroughly reading it before reverting its inclusion. "Quote both or neither," both were quoted mate.

Its very noteworthy to include their responses to these case, why wouldn't it? Did they not kickstart the exposure of sexual assault cases back in 2017 (which is why our article, 2017-present United States political sexual scandals, begins in the year it does), so why would you logically oppose the documentation of their opinions being voiced? MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 23:56, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * To MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken - I do not support putting the quotes from either actress on this wikipedia page. This page is about facts regarding Tara Reade's sexual assault allegations and is not about MeToo movement. In my view, quotes from either actress are gossip and add nothing to the facts of Reade's allegations. BetsyRMadison (talk) 00:06, 28 April 2020 (UTC)betsymadison
 * How is this not intricately connected to the MeToo movement? Is that by your own decision? Referring to them merely as actresses is disregarding their work as activists and boiling it down to TMZ-esque drama to stave off their inclusion. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 09:09, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I would be opposed to including this. This is not a WP:SOAPBOX for the #MeToo movement, or a place to pit opposing commentators against each other. The comments from both individuals strike me as shallow attention seeking with a dash of virtue signalling. - MrX 🖋 00:49, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Exclude both They're both off-topic for this article. Of the millions of notable celebrities in the world, the words of these two have no extraordinary expertise and no particullar connection to the topic of the article. Also insinuating the name of convicted serial violent predator Weinstein because why? Not going to happen here. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 01:21, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Exclude An encyclopedia's purpose does not involve documenting every sensationalized remark. These comments are too tangential to the topic of this article RedHotPear (talk) 01:26, 28 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Prefer not to include content - Rose McGowan may be a popular and influential celebrity, but she's still just one individual and doesn't have any particular credibility as an office holder, academic, journalist, et cetera. I'm not inclined to think that her opinion is that notable in this context. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 06:02, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Include content - note the Harvey Weinstein article includes #MeToo not only once but twice.  Why would a different standard apply here? XavierItzm (talk) 12:43, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Include content - I am tired of everything being removed. WP:Due and WP:NPOV requires us to display different relevant perspectives, not to remove them all.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:26, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Include content. This isn't all happening in a vacuum, it's happening at a particular point in time where the #MeToo movement is an important social and political phenomenon, and the reaction by that movement is important context and should be included in this article. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:39, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The issues that are critical to Me Too are not identical to the allegations of Ms. Reade. Quite the opposite, in fact. Everyone must be heard, but when we hear and reject a story, that becomes the central fact. Reade appears to be going that way. There are so many important social and political organizations. What about PETA. Biden eats meat, you know. What about the Teamster's Union. We need to stick on topic. And observe DUE WEIGHT with no SYNTH.  <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 17:21, 30 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Include content The more other editors try bleach, sanitize, and whitewash this article, the more I’m convinced we need to add additional content from RS. EdJF (talk) 17:39, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Exclude both - or put it on the MeToo page. This is not the place for "influencers" striving to be relevant. Manannan67 (talk) 02:19, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Exclude - who cares what celebrities' think anyway? They're not experts. This is ridiculous.  Volunteer Marek   15:16, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Include It's obvious that this incident takes place in the context of the METOO movement, so of course we should mention the reaction of leading activists associated with that movement. The sources above are of high quality and will do fine when including this information. Worldlywise (talk) 03:41, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Removal of AOC's comments and all other Reactions
These appear to have been removed all together now. I was not able to locate any explanation or discussion of why. I am having a hard time locating the specific diff that removed them altogether. This removal is unacceptable. We seem to be removing any statements which might balance the article and provide an objective reaction of different segments of society and politics. Whether editors intend to do so or not, we seem to have drifted well off presenting this topic in a WP:NPOV. I state my objection again to the removal of any and all reactions to these allegations, first Bernie Sanders was removed, then AOC was watered down, now she has been removed all together. The proper way for us to deal with these issues and give them WP:Due weight is to represent different perspectives not to whitewash them out of the article. I am sure some legitimately feel this article is a WP:POVFORK but it also seems pretty clear that properly sourced content is being removed based on what some editors view as neutral and there is a significant disagreement here about what that means. I am very unhappy about what is happening here, and state so again for the record.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:23, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Any substantive comments can be considered for the article. Generic statements in favor of free speech are not noteworthy and indeed they suggest that the speaker or the WP editor had no more relevant specific statement that would actually relate to the topic of this article. The AOC and Whitmer statments add nothing that is particular to Reade's allegation.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 22:38, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * With the greatest of respect, that simply isn't true. AOC's statements were not generic.  Reade's allegations received significantly more coverage after AOC made her statements, because AOC made her statements.  AOC was not making general statements about "free speech".  She was specifically addressing the allegations made by Reade and calling out those that would ignore them or refuse to talk about them.  She was not simply saying it was legitimate for Reade to talk about them, or even for others to, or to report on them, she called people out.  She said:
 * What other #MeToo issues were going to get in the way of beating Trump? In fact, she was specifically asked about Reade's allegations.  The article begins:
 * How can you say these were general comments about "free speech" in general? These were forceful comments on the subject matter of this article and peoples reactions to them.  Sanders and Whitmer were also asked specifically about the Reade allegations and made less forceful comments.  Our job is not to remove such statements because they are too forceful, because we might disagree with them, or because of what we think about AOC as a congresswoman.  This was a reactions section.  It now has no reactions and all that remains are denials and a journalist critical of the allegations, another suggesting this is a conservative attack on Biden (as opposed to an actual allegation potentially worthy of belief), and criticisms of the NYT, and their response which includes casting doubt on Reade's version of events.  That is the current state of the article.  Is that WP:NPOV?  I don't think it is.  And I think if editors take some time to reflect on it, they might just agree with me.  We have only presented reactions that are critical of Reade.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:49, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * To be clear, I renamed the Reactions section Denial because it just had one denial in it when I got there, not because I have an opinion on Reaction sections. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:15, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * It has no reactions section because there has been no substantive reaction. We could write a Meh section and it could have affirmations of free speech, etc.
 * The Joan Walsh piece was used as a reference to falsely summarize her thoughtful analysis as saying there were credible views on "both sides" -- when in fact she wrote that she regretted not finding Reade's tale very credible. And that was in The Nation. It does nobody any good to quote people like Whitmer trying their darndest to avoid saying what Joan Walsh had the courage to say in that Nation article. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 01:16, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * To be clear, I renamed the Reactions section Denial because it just had one denial in it when I got there, not because I have an opinion on Reaction sections. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:15, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * It has no reactions section because there has been no substantive reaction. We could write a Meh section and it could have affirmations of free speech, etc.
 * The Joan Walsh piece was used as a reference to falsely summarize her thoughtful analysis as saying there were credible views on "both sides" -- when in fact she wrote that she regretted not finding Reade's tale very credible. And that was in The Nation. It does nobody any good to quote people like Whitmer trying their darndest to avoid saying what Joan Walsh had the courage to say in that Nation article. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 01:16, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

I know that it's been constantly rehashed, but maybe it's worth opening up one new discussion when it comes to AOC's statement. I personally think that, in contrast to Sanders' and Whitmer's "I don't know" style comments, AOC's "I find this kind of silencing of all dissent to be a form of gaslighting" line and other strongly phrased opinions appear noteworthy. She has managed to influence coverage of the allegation at least somewhat. AOC has been as "courageous" as Walsh if not more so if we're going to use that as our standard (but we shouldn't since the standard ought to be newsworthiness). CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 02:21, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * What kind of silencing? Do you know what she might be talking about? I find your scarequote disparagement of Joan Walsh harsh and unseemly. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 02:34, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Do you have an actual argument to be made in response? 'I don't like it' and 'I can't hear you' don't really count. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 02:46, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps I should not have said there are no reactions currently in the article. It is just that we have removed the "reactions section" and only included media reactions and only those that are opposed to or critical of Reade in this section. As I noted above all we have there is Joan Walsh being critical of the allegations, Arwa Mahdawi suggesting they are part of a conservative attack (ie suggesting they are purely politically motivated, as opposed to true), and Dean Baquet explaining how the NYT screwed up their reporting and ended up suggesting there were no other allegations against Biden (when there were, but we are splitting hairs about whether they amount to "misconduct" as opposed to honest mistakes etc). The way we have paired down this article leaves it with a WP:POV one that is hostile to Reade. Including a few other perspectives is needed to give them proper weight and restore a WP:NPOV.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 18:46, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Hello Darryl Kerrigan, your arguments are compelling. I've restored. XavierItzm (talk) 07:28, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I have re-added the gaslighting statement. Not sure who removed it.  If they want to revert, they should discuss here.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 19:06, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Disappointingly, this appears to have been removed again. Again, as far as I can tell, without discussion or a edit description which indicates that it is being removed.  Now that Biden has personally addressed these allegations publicly, that statement is all the more relevant as he, the party and his campaign have moved from refusing to talk about it, to trying to address it head on.  This happened because people like AOC spoke out about it.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 19:10, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:ONUS means it stays out until and unless there is consensus to include it. I don't see consensus for a reactions section. My two cents is I'm generally opposed to reactions sections, especially where they are sourced to the reactions themselves; they become an OR collection of primary sources (when someone reports that so and so said such and such about this and that, that's a primary source). Some reactions may merit inclusion, but they should be sourced to multiple top level secondary sources and probably discussed one at a time. It's a nuanced subject and there's a lot of false balance risk on all sides. Levivich&thinsp;<sup style="white-space:nowrap;">[dubious – discuss] 19:38, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, it only seems to be going one way at the moment. And there is no excuse for sneakily removing content and refusal to discuss (if that is what is happening here).  Perhaps, the editor(s) responsible have missed this section and removed content in good faith.  But it is exceedingly difficult to trace the removal of the content without discussion, proper edit labeling and hundreds of edits a day.  If that is a tactic it is disruptive, unhelpful, and worthy of rebuke.  The section titles in this article have been changing daily.  I am not sure whether this statement belongs in a "reactions section" or some other section, perhaps a timeline etc.  It does seem clear to me that AOC's statements, Stacey Abrams' and others are part of the story though and should be mentioned.  WP:ONUS is not an excuse to refuse to discuss or to revert without doing so.  If it was, editors could simply use ONUS as a veto, by saying I oppose and refuse to discuss.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 19:52, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I think Levivich has made valid points. With respect to AOC and others who make general statements about "hearing women", those are really not on topic for this article. These statements would likely not be the best general statements for their own articles, becuase I think they have made more complete and articulate statements about the range of gender issues at other times and in other contexts. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 20:29, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * As I have pointed out before repeatedly, and has been repeatedly ignored, she did not just make "general statements about hearing women". She called the democratic party out, suggesting they were refusing to talk about Tara Reade's allegations, that doing so lacked integrity and was itself a form of gaslighting.  AOC was specifically addressing Tara Reade and her allegations.  Suggesting these were general statements, and not related to the content of this article is simply not true.  Stacey Abrams' comments (also removed) were also quite relevant due to her high profile, possible selection as Biden's VP, and use of the NYT's article to defend Biden and suggest he was somehow exonerated.  She also was not speaking generally.  She said "I believe Joe Biden".  It is puzzling to me why we are scrubbing this article of politicians statements on this matter in favour of only including social workers, journalists and and the usual pundits/talking heads.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 21:21, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Reade's assistance to non profits (redux)

 * 1) Tkpg archive link
 * 2) Copy of a Reade (McCabe) June 8 2016 email describing her volunteer work for the Watsonvill CA "Pregnant Mare Rescue" (scroll down to it) --Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 08:45, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * How is this relevant to the subject of this article? – Muboshgu (talk) 17:11, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * user:Muboshgu: Where Reade says she helps non-profit entities. (See diff.)--Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 10:52, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

As for the nonprofits: She volunteered for PMA, received a horse without having to pay the usual adoption fees, and swindled them out of money - your link actually has her admitting to it, although not in those words. Gracie's Pet Food Pantry is her own nonprofit - wonder how much of the money she raised through crowd funding went to pet food? As for the blog post: The author isn't the blog's "owner" (Anna Twinney), it's Tara McCabe. Says so in the "About the author" section underneath the article. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:52, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Your "Background" edits and  one can assist a nonprofit and be paid to do so (regarding Reade's apparently paid position with monterey county's YMCA): The Monterey Herald source  needs to be removed as a source for this sentence. It might be a source for a sentence about her having been the legal services outreach coordinator of the YWCA of Monterey County but we don't have the time frame. She was employed by them, and she was one of the former employees who sued them for discrimination and harassment. In her own words: I help nonprofits. That’s what I do. I’m an expert witness for Monterey County, for domestic violence cases. I do that for a stipend. It’s almost like a volunteer thing - the operative word being "almost."
 * Santa Cruz Sentinel: "Alexandra McCabe, Animal Friends Rescue Project executive director"--Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 10:42, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

"Vagina" and chronology in lead
User:InedibleHulk changed the wording in the lede to basically "he touched her vagina". Aside from the fact that makes the article sound ridiculous, it also ignores the RfC open above which is very heavily leaning towards NOT including this kind of stuff.  Volunteer Marek  20:49, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * For the third time, yes, seriously. Women have vaginas. Touching them without permission is how scandals erupt. If you can think of a better word (or series of words) for "box", be my guest. But shouldn't imply "touched her shoulder" is the assault here. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:55, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think that edit was helpful. Per the allegation she was digitally penetrated. The phrasing of vagina touching is weird and off-putting. I'm not sure we need to describe exactly what the allegation was in the lead, but could use phrasing such as "sexual assault." Please don't call it a box. Mr Ernie (talk) 21:02, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It reads like an 8 year old wrote it.  Volunteer Marek   21:13, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * What do you two adults call it? InedibleHulk (talk) 21:15, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry to disagree with you IncredibleHulk; you do a lot of great work. However, I also believe that "sexually assaulted" is sufficient here. This phrase clearly precludes something like shoulder-touching. RedHotPear (talk) 21:06, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, then remove the part about him digitally manipulating her cervical column ("touched her neck", if you're nasty), that's not sexual or assault. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:08, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * This is a separate issue. And that issue is that Reade's initial allegation was that he touched her neck. A year later she made another allegation. The fact that the allegation changed is part of the story here and both need to be in the lede. This has been discussed above already I believe.  Volunteer Marek   21:14, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with  Volunteer Marek  . I also question why the timeline in the first sentence begins with Reade's 2020 allegation, then 2019 allegation, then back to 2020? The chronology of Timelines, especially events, are done in reverse chronological order; therefore, I feel we should consider using reverse chronological order in first sentence.  BetsyRMadison (talk) 21:17, 1 May 2020 (UTC)betsymadison
 * Because people remember the last thing they hear, especially when the first is hidden. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:21, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The order is justified because the first sentence introduces the article topic. The next two sentences then provide context (still important, but it makes sense that the context comes after the sexual assault allegation itself). RedHotPear (talk) 21:25, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The first sentence introduces him apparently "having intercourse" with her...thingy. You're burying the lead in the lead, somehow. I added an "also". InedibleHulk (talk) 21:29, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I understand why you think there needs to be more clarity. The new wording (with "also") is potentially confusing as well, though, because it may read like she added the "neck and shoulder" allegation to the sexual assault allegation, when it was really the other way around. RedHotPear (talk) 21:35, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Any order is fine, but they are two very, very different stories, sexual assault and "touching her inappropriately". InedibleHulk (talk) 21:41, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I definitely agree. I just made an edit that further clarifies the distinction between these two stories. RedHotPear (talk) 21:44, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * No, you made it seem like she upgraded the same story/allegation/complaint/account, I clarified further. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:52, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * That's exactly what she did.  Volunteer Marek   22:52, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * What are you basing this on? The harassment story doesn't even happen on a single day, much less in a basement. Does she now deny her first set of memories actually happened? Twice now, at least, you've said she changed the original and made another in the same comment. That should be impossible to believe. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:04, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * If you say so. Either way, your most recent edit is clear to me. Thank you. RedHotPear (talk) 21:57, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for "taking care of" that newspaper. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:01, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm still concerned with the chronological timeline in the lead. I'm sure everyone on here knows that timelines of events always being with what happened first. Plus, according to Wikipedia, a timeline is "A timeline is a display of a list of events in chronological order." The example WP gives is timeline for 9/11/2001. The 9/11 timeline beings at 6:00AM ends at 11:00PM. Reade's first allegation was April 3, 2019 so it only makes sense that this Wikipedia article would adhere to it's own timeline advice and begin with the 2019 allegation and end with the 2020 allegation. BetsyRMadison (talk) 23:03, 1 May 2020 (UTC)betsymadison
 * Aye. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:06, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

"Vagina" in body
About "vagina" in the article text: that word appears nowhere in the cited source, so I have replaced it with a more accurate summary of what she said: that he put his hand under her skirt and penetrated her. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:38, 2 May 2020 (UTC)-- MelanieN (talk) 15:38, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I can't copy, but quite a few sources say as much, though specify what he allegedly "penetrated". Not Hustler or The Daily Mail, either, NPR and WaPo. Would something like that be an OK replacement, or must readers assume it wasn't her butt? InedibleHulk (talk) 18:25, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Business Insider (no pun intended) quotes her: "He then proceeded to put his fingers inside of my vagina, and he made a motion upwards with his hand inside of me." (Emphasis mine.) InedibleHulk (talk) 18:59, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * No, let's not describe the alleged assault in excruciating detail. Business Insider is not a good source anyway. - MrX 🖋 14:23, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It's not excruciating detail, it's six letters and a space after "penetrated her". On the contrary, we mention her uncomfortable neck six fucking times, and detail everything else besides the Joe Biden sexual assault allegation. Use NPR, WaPo or USA Today, if those are suitable here. Omitting subject description, not acknowledging female anatomy, is the disgusting part. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:57, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I completely disagree. 's proposed "put his hand under her skirt and penetrated her." makes it very clear what was alleged. For those reader wanting more sordid detail, let them read Business Insider or any other tabloids willing to print such. - MrX 🖋 18:02, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The mainstream liberal purveyors of this directly-relevant detail, NPR and WaPo, are cited 21 other times here. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:24, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I've clarified the alleged hole, citing Asma Khalid, who is already used here to verify five other statements, none this concisely. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:49, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * So in other words, you did what you wanted, without regard to those of us who object to it. - MrX 🖋 18:05, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * No, I addressed your valid sourcing concerns, just disregarded your personal squeamishness, per WP:NOTCENSORED. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:17, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I had no sourcing concerns, valid or otherwise. Nor am I "squeamish" (where did you even get that?). I think encyclopedia articles should be written in an encyclopedic tone so that our readership takes us seriously. - MrX 🖋 18:31, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * You said Business Insider is not a good one, and called "vagina" excruciating and sordid, despite serious encyclopedic discussion. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:41, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Now I've burned my one revert because someone resorted to accusing Khalid/NPR of guessing. But the other five, no such doubt. I wonder why? InedibleHulk (talk) 17:57, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * That someone would be me, and this is the reason why I wrote "guess:" When Reade met up with the senator, she said, he pinned her up against a wall and penetrated her vagina with his fingers. "His hands went underneath my clothing and he was touching me in my private areas and without my consent," Reade told NPR. She said Biden asked her whether she wanted to go somewhere else. I wouldn't object to using the word vagina if Khalid hadn't made clear with the direct quote that Reade hadn't used it. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:15, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Interviewing someone is deeper than getting one snippet, you know? InedibleHulk (talk) 18:19, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I just noticed that the vagina sentence lists the Current Affairs article as its source, and that article doesn't use the word. The next sentence contains this same direct quote from the NPR article. So my edit summary for removing "vagina" from the sentence In a March 25, 2020, interview with Katie Halper, Reade alleged ... should have been "Not in source." Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:29, 3 May 2020 (UTC) Why IS the NPR article listed as a second source for the first sentence when it's clearly not? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:34, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Brevity, but I can make it longer in the next sentence, if needed. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:45, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Or we could lose the long quote, and say "In April, she clarified the penetration was vaginal." InedibleHulk (talk) 18:58, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * OK, I've been "politely" advised by a powerful man to stop telling the truth, in any shape or form, about the nature of what was alleged in this mainly non-sexual tale of very mild upper body harassment that doesn't offend even the most delicate readers in a significant way, so I just think my seventh instance of "neck" should stay now, unless kissing is also deemed too gross. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:44, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

could we use "genitals"? At least that clarifies it wasn't a thumb in the bum. By the way, now Wall Street Journal has also used "vagina".  starship .paint  (talk) 04:45, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Let's just stick with the source. As far as I'm concerned, that's the current wording. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 06:51, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , I would be opposed to that for the same reasons. - MrX 🖋 11:15, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Would seem we mean her "twig and berries" with the pluraler version of "genitalia", and that's just "wronger". InedibleHulk (talk) 19:45, 5 May 2020 (UTC)