“Talk” section in Wikipedia shows wiki-editors using Sean Hannity-style propaganda to cover-up Reade’s changing stories & bury facts.
The “talk” section on wikipedia pages is where the so-called ‘editors’ of wikipedia discuss on what to publish on their pages. But what you’ll find are a bunch of unhinged misfits pushing their own political agendas discussing ways to bury facts that get in the way of their political agenda. Just like Sean Hannity.
Click on the “talk” section in a wikipedia article of Tara Reade’s sexual assault allegations and you’ll think you’ve stepped into the behind the scenes show of Hannity or Alex Jones. You’ll read wiki’s faux-editor’s writing all kinds of crazy bullshit reasons for covering up Tara Reade’s changing stories saying.”
Hop on over to the article itself and you’ll see wikipedia’s political bias right away in the lead paragraph where wiki starts with Tara’s 2020 story and then her 2019. Odd. Real encyclopedia chronicle timelines of events beginning with the oldest date first.
Scroll down and you’ll see the faux-editors put their version of Tara’s 2019 story buried underneath a main heading titled “Background.” But they give Tara’s 2020 allegation a main heading all by itself.
Wiki’s version of Tara’s 2019 story:
2019 allegations
In April 2019, Reade was one of eight women who came forward with stories of inappropriate physical contact from Joe Biden. She told part of her story to a local newspaper, The Union, saying she was "objectified, inappropriately touched by Biden, and later retaliated against after complaining." Reade said she spoke out after watching an episode of The View during which she says most of the panelists defended Biden and attacked Lucy Flores the former assemblywoman who alleged that Biden kissed the back of her head without consent. According to The Intercept, Reade feared coming forward with her full story of sexual assault, and "went silent" after receiving harassment online related to the allegation. However, she "thought about the world she wanted her daughter to live in and decided that she wanted to continue telling her story".
The most glaring thing missing from wiki’s “2019 allegation” section is Tara Reade’s actual 2019 allegation. The allegation itself is missing!
When I read that, I thought WTF? Where’s her actually ‘allegation.’ Where’s the part of her allegation where she says Joe Biden only touched her hair, shoulders, and neck? And where she said she didn’t feel sexualized but she felt like an inanimate object, a lamp. And where her friend said, yeah, Tara told me at the time Joe Biden only touched her hair, shoulder’s and neck.
You read any newspaper about this event and that’s the first thing you read about. So why the hell does a so-called online encyclopedia leave all that out? Well, go to the “talk” section and you’ll see their fake-editors discussing justifying covering up what Tara Reade’s story really was in 2019.
At one point the fake-editors take a “survey” to see what should go into the lead. The want don’t want to say “sexual assault” in the lead; they want to use “fingered” and “penetrated” instead.
Wiki-Faux Editors say:
….Don’t say “sexual assault” say “fingered” and “penetrated”….
Question: Should the lead include the fact that the allegation is that Reade says that Biden "pushed her against a wall and penetrated her with his fingers"? --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 14:08, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
Survey
- Yes – This article is about an allegation. The lead should clearly state what the allegation is. It is not as simple as "sexually assaulted". Reade alleges very specific form of assault. It make no sense to have an article about an "allegation" and not state what the allegation is in the lead of the article of said allegation. Concerns of "triggering" the reader is immaterial...--- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 14:08, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
- If the decision is between "digitally penetrated" and "penetrated with his fingers"..."Digitally" is a more medical, dry, and professional word, whereas "fingers" is common speech but more graphic (which is not necessarily a bad thing). If we used the word "digital" we could provide the wikilink to Fingering (sexual act). Kolya Butternut (talk) 21:14, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
Wait a minute! If this is a story about “an allegation,” then where the heII are Tara’s “clearly stated” 2019 allegation? Like coffeeandcrumbs says, “it makes no sense to have an article about an “allegation” and not state what that allegation is in the lead of the article of said allegation.” So where the hell is Tara’s 2019 allegation?
The answer to that question is, NO WHERE in wikipedia will find it. Even Fox news gives more facts about Tara’s 2019 allegation than wikipedia does. And you’ll find out why wikipedia doesn’t include Tara’s 2019 allegation by reading their fake-editor’s “talk” section.
Keep in mind, the below quotes are from the so-called “Editors” of Wikipedia. Not anonymous people commenting in a blog, but the actual “Editors” of Wikipedia!!!
Wiki-Faux-Editors also say:
...Don’t include Tara’s 2019 allegation — cuz people will think Tara’s lying
"It’s very reasonable to fear that talking to the wrong reporter will produce a damaging misunderstanding. One criticism that has been made of Tara stems from an interview she gave last year in the Union newspaper. In that interview, the reporter characterized (but did not directly quote) Tara as saying that the acts Biden performed on her did not make her feel “sexualized” but instead merely objectified. But Tara, in her interview with Katie Halper, says and the reporter seemed to be pressuring her to say the acts in question—inappropriate touching—weren’t sexual. Tara says that the (male) reporter’s questions made her reluctant to open up further, which is why she didn’t go into more detail about the alleged assault in addition to the unwanted neck and shoulder rubbing. The Union report is now used to suggest Tara is lying." Kolya Butternut (talk) 05:22, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
…Don’t include Tara’s 2019 allegation — just cuz
“...Either have an article including alleged contemporary election spin and summarize it, or have one purely about alleged classic power sex and just summarize that. But as below, so above. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:51, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
...There's one reason and one reason only this 1993 pussy-grabbing has a Wikipedia article in 2020 and the other hundred million or whatever don't... InedibleHulk (talk) 03:25, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
This article is about one sexual assault, not three, so it is simple to summarize the assault allegation by saying "digitally penetrated" in place of "sexual assaulted"….. Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:07, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
...Don’t include Tara’s complete background — cuz you’ll see her motives
Somebody added to Reade's background the following lines: “Reade has published several positive social media posts about Biden. In 2017, after Biden called for technological industries to fight cancer, Reade wrote: "My old boss speaks truth. Listen” I believe this pushes a certain pov and should be removed from the article. Thoughts? Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 14:23, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
...Don’t include Tara’s 2019 allegation — cuz it’ll hurt Tara
"Reade's Account" is missing HALF its information
Tara Reade’s "account" began in April 3, 2019, not March 2020. An entire year of Reade's account is missing. Does anyone know why? Reade's 2019 account should obviously include "Reade's Account."
Here is a suggested first paragraph for “Reade's Account"
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. [1] 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 2019 account should obviously be included in the "Reade's Account" section and in reverse chronological order. BetsyRMadison (talk) 21:52, 30 April 2020 (UTC)betsymadison
- I do not support this. … 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)
- There are TWO accounts in this article, April and March. One is about being with a regular creepy grandfather figure, sniffing and poking around, thinking he's better than you, demanding prompt liquor. The second, IMPORTANT one is about A SEX CRIME. BOTH are FULL, but if you pretend they're the same thing, YEAH, each IS half. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:56, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
- 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)
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...--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:04, 30 April 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)
- Biden has allegedly been groping women for years... 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)
There ya’ have it folks!! The joke-of-a-clown-show-fake-editors at wikipedia are intentionally covering-up Reade’s 2019 allegations and her background to push Reade’s 2020 allegation because Tara’s drastically changing allegations make Tara Reade look like a damn liar.
This is their propaganda that they want to pass off as “historical fact”
This type of push coming from Wikipedia might be ok for tabloids where people expect to read pure propaganidized buIIshit. But it’s not ok for a so-called encyclopedia to do it.
Wikipedia doesn’t have real “editors” it has unhinged crackpots pushing their own political agenda who just call themselves “editors”
Unlike a real encyclopedia, wikipedia is not an “up-to-date, and scholarly source of knowledge and learning for the general public” like a real encyclopedia is.
Wikipedia is no more an “encyclopedia” than Fox news is a real news outlet.
Wikipedia is frickin’ tabloid.