Talk:Joe Biden sexual assault allegation/Archive 13

Reporting from Politico
I've removed this section for now.*
 * Politico interviewed several former acquaintances who recalled bad experiences with Reade and described her as deceitful and manipulative. They said that she had only spoken positively of her time with Biden; one who was later phoned by Reade in 2019 became suspicious of the motives behind the call, because of a sense that she "was trying to plant a story with me, so she could later say: ‘I told the story to this attorney I worked with".
 * Source: 'Manipulative, deceitful, user': Tara Reade left a trail of aggrieved acquaintances
 * Source: 'Manipulative, deceitful, user': Tara Reade left a trail of aggrieved acquaintances

With a nod to, who above notes,
 * This WP article on Reade's allegation(s) doesn't address the accuser's personal and family life directly but only what facet are explanatory with regard her allegations, these facets not presented within the context of a full telling of her life, as available in high level sources. And what is included tends toward the derogatory, ending up only with this partial biography dribbled out in bits and pieces and not impartial nor equitable with regard to her. How can Wikipedia's ideals be upheld by such an imbalanced telling of a living person's life?

This Politico section is a prime example of derogatory. (a) She was called 'manipulative, deceitful, user' by a disgruntled ex-landlord, and this is added to the article with the unspoken understanding it somehow relates to the allegation. (b) She only spoke positively of her boss to other co-workers. She was professional, and as she has said many times, she took the allegation of harassment to the proper office - not to her co-workers. This addition is meant to chip away at her credibility when it actually supports her claims. (c) Someone else "had a sense" - how is this encyclopedic fodder?

From what I understand, the definition of "rape culture" is when the accuser receives more scrutiny than the accused. WP should steer clear of engaging in this.

If Reade's historical relationship with the truth, and any malfeasance in general, should be considered for this article, then so should Biden's. After all, his denial is fully covered here. Has anyone ever referred to him as deceitful? Why should this not be added? Why does he not deserve even more scrutiny than the accuser, given his run for POTUS?

 petrarchan47 คุ  ก  00:33, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * "But as Biden denies alleged misdeeds related to General Flynn, to his son Hunter’s involvement in Ukraine or to Tara Reade, his history of bending the truth is informative..." fact-based op-ed in The Hill
 * That Time Joe Biden Lied About His Academic Credentials
 * Joe Biden Keeps Lying — But You Won’t Hear It From Liberal Media

Discussion
I don't understand "what does this have to do with the investigation?" - What other context and rationale is there for Politico to be interviewing Reade's contacts and reporting on their views? Please don't drop "rape culture" etc. into the mix here. Let's just follow our sourcing policies. We're not second-guessing the sources even if we do not like them or their choices. We just need to reflect relevant narratives. SPECIFICO talk 01:23, 16 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Agreed - the Politico report makes the connection crystal clear (Reade is introduced as "Biden’s accuser" right in the subtitle, and he is mentioned in the article no less than 27 times).
 * Petrarchan47, per WP:NPOV, this article should cover "all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic". It seems that in this case you would like us to diverge from that principle, and instead decide based on whether we personally agree with the view offered by this RS (and are hence offering us various arguments why we should do so). I have reverted the deletion.
 * I do agree that if there are similar reports by RS casting doubt on the credibility of Biden's denial in this matter, we should consider including them as well. But two of the three examples you provided above don't actually mention the Reade allegations, and the third (an op-ed by Liz Peek) does not nearly rise to the level of the in-depth Politico report in terms or weight or reliability.
 * Regards, HaeB (talk) 03:04, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I think it is wise that HaeB reverted the deletion and agree with HaeB's reasoning. I know Petra is a hardworking WP editor but to accuse other WP editors of "engaging" in a "rape culture" is not only a lapse of good judgement, but also untruthful. BetsyRMadison (talk) 13:55, 16 June 2020 (UTC)


 * It is true that RS isn't investigating or commenting on Biden's reliability, while there have been at least 3 major pieces scraping through Reade's history. So per our rules, you all are probably correct. However, it doesn't make sense per NPOV that we should give Politico it's own section... while we wait on RfC's about using the word "corroboration" because some editors didn't like it, even though it is used by all RS. So let's apply the PAGs evenly. If what some have termed "smear", or "hit" pieces, on Tara Reade are to be included, we must do so with NPOV in mind. Commentary about these pieces must also be included. (When I get the chance, I'll dig some up.) I think also if we quote from the pieces, there should be context provided. We can't use "she is a deceitful manipulative liar" without stating exactly who said it and in exactly what context, as this is her BLP and we need to be as careful as possible to treat this story with fairness and dispassionately.  petrarchan47 คุ  ก  19:34, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Indeed it is untruthful to suggest that editors that do not agree with Petra are part of the "rape culture". Petra should strike that accusation.  For example, I have worked closely with Flyer on several articles and my 2012 Delhi gang rape and murder article is a GA.  Gandydancer (talk) 20:58, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * To: Petra คุ  - you are correct when you said "we need to be as careful as possible to treat this story with fairness and dispassionately." That is absolutely true. I know you're a hardworking editor, so when you accuse your fellow WP editors of "engaging" in "rape culture" then perhaps that's a sign you're too passionate about this WP article and possibly even taking this article as some kind of a personal affront against you.  If that's the case, then perhaps you should take a few breaths, turn off your computer, and enjoy your life away from this article for awhile? Gandydancer is correct, you should strike that accusation and you should apologize to WP editors for accusing them of that. BetsyRMadison (talk) 21:16, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I have complete respect for the professionalism of such reporters as Natasha Korecki at Politico. Complete. That said, let's get into the sticks with regard her shorthand that these acquaintances of Reade's regard her as a prevaricator. The spokesperson she gives the most space to is Austin Chang, ".. ''a Monterey-area real estate investor who rented Reade a house from 2008-10, [who] learned of Reade’s charges against Biden from television. “Look,” he told his wife when he first saw Reade on the screen, “she has gone big time. She’s going after the big fish now.”
 * Prevarications:
 * On the run from domestic violence Konecki's reportage: Chung said Reade .. claimed that she was on the run from domestic violence and trying to start over. .. Was Reade not on the run from domestic violence? (Evidenciary support within Konecki's reportage seems lacking here.)
 * just broken up with her ex .. Chung said Reade led him to believe she had just broken up with her ex-husband. He was so moved by Reade’s story, he said, that he did extra work on the house to prepare it for her and her daughter, who today is an adult. Chung provided emails showing he offered Reade the pick of paint colors for their rooms and the type of flooring in the Pacific Grove home he rented her. .. Had Reade not just broken up with her ex?
 * reasons given for invariable late payments of rent .. But then the payments came in late, month after month. Her explanations always sounded sincere and convincing, Chung said, so he reduced her rent and tried to come up with a compromise. Eventually, however, he had to evict Reade. When he returned to the house he had once fixed up for her, he said the floors had been damaged by animal waste. In the end, Chung recounted, he lost thousands of dollars in court-related fees, lost rent and repair costs. When he confronted her, Chung said, “She knew exactly what she had done to me and there was no remorse. I knew there was never a chance I’d get my money back.” Chung said he is in contact with others who have had similarly unpleasant run-ins with Reade. “Did she think that all of the people she ran over would just roll over and die and forget about her? No. I recognize her face,” he said. “We are actually starting to find each other and put the pieces together because we saw her face on CNN,” Chung said. “I thought to myself, ‘hey, I have a support group now. I think we are Alexandra/Tara survivors.” .. Were Reade's various&sundry tenant'splainings bogus?
 * From the foregoing (her supposedly being on run from domestic violence, supposedly having just broken up with an ex, and supposedly having insufficient means to stay out of arrears with regard her rent), we end up with the shorthand that acquaintances have described her as deceitful and manipulative. Although, per reliable sources, a number of folks who know this living person characterize her as a liar (which is a statement of fact), simply stating it without any contextualizing balance whatsoever seems less than serious on Wikipedia's part. Perhaps instead we might observe, say, what commonalities exist among the respective "shamboliciouses-ness" being described by this string of folks who've spoken with reporters? BRB.--Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 18:48, 18 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I undid revisions 963231778, 963231879, 963245970, 963246712 by Hodgdon because when describing Reade, her acquaintances use the words: "liar," "deceitful," and "manipulator." They do not say she was simply an "unreliable" tenant. I also added additional text regarding Reade's 2019 phone call to lawyer, Kelly Klett, for clarity.


 * 1) Excerpts from Politico story describing Reade
 * Harriet Wrye: “She was manipulative,” said Wrye, a self-described feminist and social activist.
 * Kelly Klett: “You can use these words: manipulative, deceitful, user,” said Kelly Klett
 * Lynn Hummer: She described Reade as “very clever, manipulative. ... I do think she’s a liar.”
 * Austin Chung: Chung tells of Reade breaching her rental contract, forcing him to legally "evict" her, and of Reade destroying part of his property. Which all added together cost him "thousands of dollars in court-related fees, lost rent and repair costs."
 * The author of the piece, Natasha Korecki, summarizes: "many of those who knew her well in recent years said she frequently lied or sought to manipulate them, in many instances taking advantage of their desire to help a person they felt was down on her luck." And "Reade ingratiated herself, explained she was down on her luck and needed help, and eventually took advantage of their goodwill to extract money, skip rent payments or walk out on other bills." And, "The people quoted in this article provided copies of past emails, screenshots of Facebook Messenger or text exchanges with Reade, copies of billing invoices or court records detailing their grievances or correspondence."
 * 2) To answer Hodgdon questions (above):
 * 1996 Reade got a divorce from her husband.
 * No, in 2008 when Reade met Chung, Reade was  not  "on the run" from domestic violence & there is no reporting from any RS making the claim that her ex-husband chased after her for 12 years.
 * No, in 2008 Reade had  not  "just broken up with her ex."  — Preceding unsigned comment added by BetsyRMadison (talk • contribs) 13:31, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the due diligence user:BetsyRMadison has provided immediately above which buttress what conclusions Reade's former acquaintances ultimately arrived at, I suppose one could say, within their respective intuitions. What Politico's Konecki did (/have time, presumably, to...) include in her reporting was that various people believe Reade was untruthful with them. Thus WP ought be especially diligent to avoid its own wp:SYTHESES and simply let what has been said speak for itself, not ourselves' moving the ball, actively advocating on these individuals' behalves. (I was and remain convinced still that Ms. Reade is, to be more polite than to say a liar, somewhat manipulative and deceitful; however, I think it's all to easy, generally, to go a little out of bounds in covering someone's reputation for sketchiness and that Wikipedia itself ought not appear as the final arbiter in such cases.)--Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 18:23, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * To Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden - I feel you should revert your edits and I'll explain why.
 * In your current version:
 * 1) You deleted Kelly Klett's quote. By deleting Klett's quote, you have changed the what Kelly Klett said to Politico and you imply a conclusion not stated by the source. WP editors are suppose to let what is quoted by an individual speak for itself, not ourselves. When deleting or manipulating a quote to give rise to an implication not stated by the source is a form of WP:SYNTH and WP editors should be avoid doing that. Therefore, you should revert your edit & put Klett's quotes back in the WP article.
 * 2) You rewrote the first sentence so that now it reads, "Several former acquaintances said to Politico that they had had bad experiences with Reade ..."
 * One concern I have with your change is that now it implies that acquaintances of Reade reached out to Politico. There is no evidence that Reade's acquaintances reached out to Politico so that sentence should be reverted back to "Politico reported." In the text, "Politico reported," the word "reported" is a noun that gives an account or statement describing in an event or situation.
 * 3) You deleted quotation marks around words what Reade's acquaintances used to describe Reade. I feel those quotation marks should be added back in because it's what they said.
 * For comparison of versions
 * Here is the version on the Politico directly prior to your revision  added by me  - I added description of who the "one" being quoted is for clarity


 * Here is the version dated June 9, added by  Petra  who added full quote from Klett.


 * Version dated May 15 added by Avial Cloffprunker for minor fixes to wording


 * Here is the original text dated May 15 when the Politico article was first added to the WP article by  Avial Cloffprunker 


 * Here is your version


 * I know you're a wise WP editor, a fine researcher, and good writer. After reading my explanation, I hope you revert your edit.  BetsyRMadison (talk) 21:14, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your kind words ('tho per self-knowledge, I'm aware line editing is not my strength.. ). In any case, I don't really think the phrase "deceitful and manipulative" is the direct quote (viz., as by a group of people who all said that exact phrase, together like a chorus or else, by random chance, happen to use that exact phrase independently from each other), rather, I believe these individuals, at whatever points of time during their interviews, said Reade was "...deceitful...," and/or, at other points, that she was "...manipulative...". Putting such words into quotation marks I suppose might add a certain nuance, although it's not a style I'd choose. I'll add them.--Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 23:24, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh, on another of your points, How do you know whether these folks approached Politico or not? --Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 23:24, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * To Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden  - Thank you for your reply. A concern of mine with the first sentence that you rewrote is that it implies that Reade's acquaintances reached out to Politco. Since there is no evidence that Reade's acquaintances reached out to Politico, I have exchanged a few words at the beginning of your sentence (while leaving the bulk of your sentence intact) in a manner that won't give that impression.  I would like to address the question you asked above: "How do you know whether these folks approached Politico or not?" As I said above, Politico (and no other RS) ever claimed Reade's acquaintances "approached" Politico - so we should not infer that they did.
 * Below are excerpts from the Politico article that let's their readers know Politico approached Reade's acquaintances (and not the other way around)
 * 1. Politico writes, " As part of an investigation into Reade’s allegations against Biden... POLITICO interviewed more than a dozen people,  many of whom interacted with Reade through her involvement in the animal-rescue community."
 * 2) Politico writes, "  The people quoted in this article provided copies of past emails, screenshots of Facebook Messenger or text exchanges with Reade, copies of billing invoices or court records detailing their grievances or correspondence. POLITICO also reviewed dozens of public records, including court documents, divorce filings and Reade’s 2012 bankruptcy records."
 * 3) Politico writes, "Biden was a common theme with Reade, many of those interviewed for this story said. Five of her acquaintances have specific recollections where Reade spoke in positive terms about Biden, as recently as 2018, one year before she lodged an initial charge against Biden that he had sexually harassed her. "
 * To summarize: Politico writes that they (Politico) initiated an investigation into Reade's allegations and conducted interviews with Reade's acquaintances as a part of their investigation. BetsyRMadison (talk) 18:25, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * These wordings from Politico's reporter Natasha Korecki's piece that you've so kindly cited for me above are not necessarily interpretable as "After Politico looked up so-and-so blah blah blah." Whatever mechanism was involved would not invalidate such wordings as them.
 * BetsyRMadison, you wrote: ".. Politico (and no other RS) ever claimed Reade's acquaintances 'approached' Politico .."
 * My response is that I never thought I'd implied that Politico nor any other reliable sources had ever made the claim that Reade's acquaintances had approached Politico. It's just that "So-and-so said to [this newspaper]...," just so happens to be a quite common -- and I might add very felicitous -- way to set up "According to this newspapers' reporting blah blah blah- ..," its being so very readable and yet very neutral in its tone. Here is the google search for "...said to the New York Times." This is a hit from one hour ago. Here is another one from four hours ago. Etc. Here is a hit for "said to the Wall Street Journal" from one hour ago.
 * [Struck later]: Normally I would stop at that but sometimes even dead horses deserve a good thrashing, I suppose. So let me continue by explaining that my semi-rhetorical question of "How do you know whether these folks approached Politico or not ?" (although, I believe, a completely valid one) apparently was completely misunderstood. Within it, I'd not implied either possibility between Politico's having been approached or else its doing the approaching. Rather, its meaning was: How so-and-so came to be interviewed, by virtue of it's not being found worthy of mention by Korecki, is conventionally presumed to be immaterial to her reportage. --Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 23:05, 21 June 2020 (UTC)--Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 19:41, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Again (Re BetsyRMadison's observation that ".. Politico [and no other RS] ever claimed Reade's acquaintances 'approached' Politico .."): A slew of people who'd known Tara got together, spontaneously -- likely this, at first, electronically, within our Age of Social Media. The question of whether this siblinghood-of-commiseration formed before or after when a member of it first came into contact with reporters (including such journalists as the brothers Krassenstein, who self-publish on the Medium.com platform, and subsequent chroniclers including Politico's Korecki), it seems, is one no reliable sources have raised.--Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 20:31, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I would just like to say that to my mind, neither phrasing ("Politico reported" vs "said to Politico) implies anything one way or another about who reached out to who. Someone could have said something to Politico after Politico reached out to them for an interview, and Politico could report on things that were said to them by someone who reached out to contact them. I think either phrasing is acceptable. AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 01:11, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I added back in the context and quote by Klett as the wording without it substantially changed the meaning and implied a conclusion that was not supported by the source, that being that Klett was corroborating her story. AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 00:54, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * CNN ran its "Complicated Life" piece about the same time as Politico's "'Manipulative,' 'Deceitful,' User'"; and, likely, simultaneously with the Politico piece's being published, the NYT's "Tumultuous Journey" piece was in the works by its research & reporting staff. I feel the unrelentingly prosecutorial tone within the Politico piece's likewise over-dominates our section on Wikipedia. If my memory is correct, the NYT mentions someone who also sympathized with Reade's professed plights -- apparently, her near-poverty and having survived domestic violence -- and allowed her to move to an outlying county and utilize this person's premises (I speculate, for the upkeep of Reade's "rescue" mare and also) take care of the horse or horses of this patron, but ended up regretting that Reade couldn't juggle such expenses along with her rent (the NYT mentions her desiring in general to maintain a middle class "veneer" for her daughter. [Hmm. Riding lessons? Ah anyhoo . . . ]). This former patron of mentioned the high quality care she'd given these animals. Mention of some or another detail such as this might make for more balance, IMHO.--Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 17:59, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm confused. Did anyone accuse Joe Biden of being a horse-botherer? This is all pretty far afield.  SPECIFICO talk 18:31, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * To Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden - In your last edit (here ), you said that you "haven't check source" before you edited/exchanged the word "duped" for the word "used."  The word "used" is nowhere in the article. The word "duped" is the word used in the article. Therefore, to avoid confusion of who said what, I added text to clarify exactly what was said and by whom.  I know you're a good, hardworking editor with an expansive vocabulary and vigorous prose so my edits to your edits are in no way, shape, or form meant to be criticism of you or your advanced editing/writing skills. I feel your work & research do help improve WP articles. BetsyRMadison (talk) 20:25, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * user:BetsyRMadison, I love how WP now distances itself from 'duped' by its crediting it to who originally chose it. Thanks!
 * (By the way, I just now surfed to the MLA style guide to check out what they provocatively describe as 'quotes, when nothing is[...]quoted'(!). It seems my quoting the word used to characterize how a certain group of reade's former acquaintances (I'd left anonymous(*)) felt, doesn't follow the MLA's advice: "because there are so many possible ways to interpret quotation marks that are not used for quotation, some uncertainty results, some ambiguity—and, even if the ambiguity is a relatively small matter, we recommend against using them or using them sparingly and with explanation.")
 * _____(*) it actually was reade's former landlady klett whom politico quotes directly as describing reade as a 'user,' fwiw --Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 13:17, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * With regard to wikipedia's coverage of reade's reputation with her stiffed landlords, our making such extensive & exclusive use of the such titillatingly gratuitous quotes of her disparagement by them per politico, 'stead of some more measured approach a la, say, that in the nytimes, makes for wiki's tending likewise to exemplify a lowest common denominator within journalistic practice rather than its aspiring more toward its highest, at least to my ear. See below to compare the piece in the nytimes w politico's/ours:
 * [Re chung] - ".. She had answered an ad in 2008 for a two-bedroom house, telling the landlord, Austin Chung, that she had little in the way of credit or references because she had escaped a domestic-violence situation. She appeared for her move-in without the full rent or security deposit. “I knew it was a red flag, but I just walked right over it because she seemed so nice and I thought I could help a domestic-abuse victim and her daughter,” Mr. Chung said. “I put in new carpets for her, even repainted the bedrooms to their liking.” /P/ Mr. Chung said he had to prod her to pay her rent, even after cutting the rate. Finally, feeling awful but fed up, he evicted her. /P/ “She is the only tenant who ever made me weep,” Mr. Chung said. After she left, he recalled, Home Depot declared the carpets, damaged by her dogs and cats, a biological hazard. .."
 * [Re the wryes] - ".. Harriet Wrye and her husband, who knew a friend of Ms. McCabe’s, permitted her to move into a yurt on their property in Aptos. She would pay discounted rent/... P/ “She confided in me a lot,” Ms. Wrye said, adding that “it was an irregular profile”: Ms. McCabe was caring and kind but also unstable and volatile, someone who did a good job /.../ but paid her $800 rent sporadically and asked for other financial assistance. /P/ When Ms. Wrye and her husband decided to sell their house, they told Ms. McCabe she would have to move. She threatened to sue, and ultimately, Ms. Wrye said, “We had to pay her to leave.” That was in May 2018. .."
 * [Re klett] - ".. She moved to a rented room at a ranch owned by Kelly Klett, a lawyer who has worked pro bono for domestic-abuse victims. Ms. Klett, hearing Ms. McCabe’s history of abuse, used her truck to help her move. She offered her a reduced rent and lent her law books so she could study for the California bar exam. /P/ “She knew that I had advocated for women in abusive situations,” said Ms. Klett, but in her time there, “she never once told me about all of these allegations that are coming out right now.” /P/ When the rent at Ms. Klett’s ranch became too much, she moved... " --Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 19:05, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Reade's relation with certain landlords per the AP: ".. struggl[ing.. ]to keep a job. She was helped by sympathetic strangers drawn to her story of escaping abuse, but often failed to meet financial obligations and was perpetually in debt and frequently entangled in legal battles. .."
 * [Re chung] - ".. need[ing.. ] a new place to live[...], in 2008,[reade]turned to Austin Chung, an inexperienced property manager, and inquired about a cottage he was renting out that offered a glimpse of the waves at nearby Monterey Bay. /P/ She told him she was fleeing abuse and had no credit history, explaining her change of name and Social Security number. But she did have a law degree and a job, she told him. /P/ “My heart went out to her right away,” Chung said. /P/ Chung said he had the interior painted and installed new flooring to make the home welcoming. /P/ Within five months, she was behind on rent. Pretty soon, she was out of a job, too...  /PPP/ ".. “I’m not a lying, manipulative user,” [reade.. ]said in a Wednesday interview with The Associated Press. “I’ve really understood what it’s like to be struggling and poor. I’ve really tried to help people when I could.” /P/ Chung moved to evict Reade after she fell $3,600 behind on rent; Reade accused him of harassment in an email. /P/ She eventually left behind a house in need of $8,000 in repairs that included carpets so stained by animal waste that they needed to be replaced, according to Chung, who provided emails and video footage of the home’s interior. .."
 * [Re anonymous] - ".. Financial and legal turmoil followed her as she continued to move around California’s central coast, living in some of the most scenic and affluent parts of the state: /PPP/ [ca. 2012.. ], Reade was evicted again over $12,750 in unpaid rent. .." --Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 18:04, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

1992 Reade face photo
I don't think this old photo is appropriate, as it suggests that Reade's statements and narratives as to the 1990's are true and accurate. This article is about her allegations and the allegations are made by current-day Reade, not 1990's Reade. This photo should be replaced by a contemporary photo of Reade, showing us the person who is making the allegations and telling us her truth today. There must be a fair-use photo or commons photo of Reade that we can use for this purpose.  SPECIFICO talk 14:23, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree. I've felt that 1992 photograph is the wrong photo to use since it first appeared. We don't used Christine Blasey Ford's high school picture. BetsyRMadison (talk) 18:08, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I also believe that a contemporary photo would be more appropriate. RedHotPear (talk) 16:27, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

I've uploaded an AP photo from April 4, 2019 (see File:Tara_Reade_AP_Interview_20190404.jpg). Assuming the Fair Use rationale is sufficient and the file is not deleted after review, would that be a good contemporary representation? In the picture, she is posing for AP photographers during an interview in which she was discussing her initial allegations made against Biden in April 2019. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 17:15, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I would say that has a couple of things in its favor. First, as you say, she chose to present herelf to the press on that occasion. Second, subjectively if I may, it shows a modest and sincere woman looking straightforward into the camera. I think that is a good bold edit, if you wish to insert it, based on this discussion.  SPECIFICO talk 17:29, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I've implemented that edit here; review and comments by others appreciated. Thanks, AzureCitizen (talk) 18:00, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The photo is an AP photo. Photos from commercial photo agencies are heavily restricted under nonfree content guidelines.  See WP:F7 (point b) and WP:NFCC. -- Whpq (talk) 20:30, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

RfC: Should we use the word "corroborate" to describe accounts that align with parts of the allegation?
Does WP:RS support use of the term "corroborate" when covering Reade's family, co-workers and friends' accounts in this article?  petrarchan47  คุ  ก   21:48, 8 May 2020 (UTC)


 * NYT "Five friends, former co-workers and family members have come forward to corroborate that Ms. Reade told them of an episode of either assault or harassment."
 * Buzzfeed News "Subsequent reporting has corroborated elements of Reade’s story."
 * NYT "And in large part, she corroborates the story that Tara had told me."
 * WashingtonPost "List of Corroborators"
 * NPR "Former Neighbor Corroborates Tara Reade's Account Of Sexual Assault By Joe Biden"
 * Fox News "AP report: Two more sources corroborate Tara Reade's allegations"
 * NY Mag "New Sources Corroborate Timeline of Sexual Assault Accusation Against Biden"
 * Nation "...Business Insider published this account, corroborating Reade’s prior testimony"
 * TIME "Friends and family of Reade’s have corroborated parts of her account"
 * FORBES "...corroborated parts of Reade’s story"
 * The Nation "...corroborating Reade's claim"


 * Related discussion some editors have opposed use of the term "corroborate" with regard to friend's accounts that are covered in the article


 * RfC this RfC focuses on a proposed special section and its heading

Survey B

 * Yes As proposer, per WP:RS, WP:NPOV and per WP:BLPBALANCE:
 * Given their potential impact on biography subjects' lives, biographies must be fair to their subjects at all times
 * Sources use corroborate unabashedly when covering the accounts of Reade's associates since 1993, so arguments that we should refrain from doing so here are based in nothing but WP:OR. Currently, the only use of the term found on the page is in the references section, and in the article, referring to an AP piece, "they could not corroborate her accusations".  petrarchan47  คุ  ก   21:53, 8 May 2020 (UTC)


 * We should avoid using "corroborate" - This is not an issue of sources. The issue is that we may not want to say in our voice that Reade's allegations are true (or untrue).  We do not want to take a position on that at all.  I believe WP:NPOV and WP:BLPBALANCE require us to stay out of it.  The term "corroborate" can just mean "supports" (ie suggests might be true), but it can also mean "proves" or "confirms" (as in definitively decides the issue).  I do not think we can do that.  We also should not say any account or evidence discredits her, disproves her version or rebuts her etc.  Biden has denied the allegations, but we can't comment on the truthfulness of his version either.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:18, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * If any readers confuse "corroborate" with "prove" or "confirm", that's on them. Dictionaries are nearer than ever. No excuse for misunderstanding any common word. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:40, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes but clearly it could be an unknown known—the ones they don't know they don't know and they might think they knew when they actually didn't know and so did not look it up. Gandydancer (talk) 14:24, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * They're overbored and self-assured, have been since 1991. Some think albino means white person, or mulatto means black person. Some call a mosquito a bug, some call a dildo a libido. With the lights out at Simple English Wikipedia, it's less dangerous. Those feeling stupid and contagious might go there now and entertain this. And yes, I'm "being curt here", but also frank, cocksurely. I've been to murder allegation articles where gut-trusters didn't know what "murder" or "allegation" meant. Now some of them know better, because encyclopedias are designed to educate, not enable. It's a good system, just highly fallible when used on people who hated high school back when "ignoramus" meant "cool". InedibleHulk (talk) 21:38, 9 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes. Merriam-Webster says "corroborate" is to "support with evidence or authority" or "make more certain". When describing things that "support [the accusations] with evidence" or "make [them] more" likely to be true, we should feel free to use that word. Mdaniels5757 (talk) 02:56, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, when the sources use the word. The sources say that Reade's confidants "corroborate" that she told them her story; not that they "corroborate" that the allegation happened. Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:04, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * No -It implies more than what most of them said. Wikipedia is not in the business of having to sell content by eye-catching headlines. Manannan67 (talk) 05:43, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes as a simple unassuming word, Sweet Jumpin' No as an eye-catching headline. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:39, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes-ish - Yes, RS use "corroborated” and is OK to use. But also is fine to say it other ways - the meaning of told instead of witnessed might be clearer if explicitly phrased 'confirmed she had told them'. I think *do* just say it some of the time, but also don’t mandate using it all the time.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 07:54, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * No - From the comment above giving Merriam-Webster definition of the word “corroborate” her brother and friends have not corroborated Reade’s stories, they’ve provided no evidence and they have changed their story in sequence with Reade changing her story.
 * Example: On 4/6/2019 Reade  wrote that her story about Biden, “is not a story about sexual misconduct.” Reade wrote that in her essay (published at The Union ) as a follow-up to her 4/3 Union interview. On 4/3/2019 Reade told The Union  Biden touched only her neck and shoulders. At that time, Reade’s friend’s stories matched Reade’s story and they told The Union that Reade told them Biden touched only her neck & shoulders. Then in 2020, Reade changed her story from " not a story about sexual misconduct" to ‘sexual assault’ and her friends then changed their story too. Most notable and glaring is that in 2020 her brother changed his story in a matter of days. First he told the Washington Post  that Reade told him Biden touched only her neck and shoulders (which is her 2019 story). Several days later he texted the reporter and changed his story to match Reade’s new 2020 story saying his sister told him she was  ‘sexually assaulted.’
 * So, by definition they have not corroborated, they’ve provided statements with no evidence, no nothing, just words to repeat whichever story Reade is saying at the time. Therefore, the word “statements” should be used instead of “corroborate.” BetsyRMadison (talk) 13:59, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Statements can be a type of evidence, see Testimony. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:11, 9 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes - it clearly fits the definition: confirm or give support to (a statement, theory, or finding). The argument above is using original research. BeŻet (talk) 14:05, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note that the original research policy states: "(This policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources, such as deletion discussions or policy noticeboards.)". BRM is outlining her thinking on how she came to a conclusion that corroborate would not be appropriate to use in this case.  Gandydancer (talk) 14:41, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * To BeŻet - I think you are mistaken. I do not think my example is original research and here's why, in the “example” I give use quotes from reliable sources used within this WP article. In my example, I point out that the RS used within this article report statements given by Reade’s friends & family change to match whatever story Reade is telling at the time. And those changing stories, by definition of Webster’s definition of “corroborate” (given above by Mdaniels5757 ) are not “corroboration” but are “statements.” Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying we should devote a subheading to highlight the changing stories Reade's friends & family. I'm merely saying that from RS used within this WP article, the word "statements" is an accurate term to use rather than "corroborate." BetsyRMadison (talk) 15:00, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I labelled it as original research, because contrary to the wording used by a lot of sources, you are arguing that said people did not corroborate, based on your own research. I think this discussion should be all about what the sources say, not what our opinions are. BeŻet (talk) 19:31, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * To BeŻet - I understand you think I did my own research, but you are mistaken. I did not do my “own research” All I did was read this WP article to get the quotes I used in my example (above) and to get the description of Reade’s friends & family changing their stories when Reade changed hers. And, the questioner (above) is directly asking us to give our opinion, which is what you did & I did & everyone answering is doing. BetsyRMadison (talk) 20:32, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, I disagree. You have performed synthesis of sources to draw a conclusion that the sources do not state; that generally counts as original research. The opinion we are supposed to give here is whether we should use the word corroborated or not, not whether we personally think they have actualy corroborated the story. BeŻet (talk) 21:57, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * To BeŻet - I feel that if you re-read my example (above) and read this WP article, you see that you are mistaken, I did not synthesis of sources. I used direct quotes from within this WP article and everything I said about Reade's family & friends changing their stories as Reade changed her story are found within the text of this WP article. If, after reading the two, you can point to anything specific within my example that differs from this WP article, let me know. The questioner did ask us for our opinion as to whether "corroboration" is the correct word to use base off each of our individual opinions as to whether we think they actually "corroborate" Reade's story - which is exactly what you did when you answered, what I did, & what everyone answering is doing. BetsyRMadison (talk) 23:11, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I have read your comment and you clearly are saying that, for instance, her brother "changed" his story. The source you provided does not say he changed his story; unless you made a mistake and referenced a different source by mistake. Moreover, you are incorrect in saying that the editor was asking us whether we personally think the individuals corroborated Reade's story. BeŻet (talk) 12:07, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * To BeŻet - You are still mistaken. Perhaps you misread this WP article so, for your convenience, I will detail for you here to show you that this WP article highlights that her brother changed his story in a matter of days to match Reade's new 2020 story (as I wrote in my example above). And, you will see that I used the exact same Washington Post article sourced in this WP article.
 * 1. From my example (above): Most notable and glaring is that in 2020 her brother changed his story in a matter of days. First he told the Washington Post that  Reade told him Biden touched only her neck and shoulders (which is her 2019 story).  Several days later he texted the reporter and changed his story to match Reade’s new 2020 story saying his sister told him she was  ‘sexually assaulted.’ 
 * 2. From this WP article: Collin Moulton, Reade's brother, initially reported to The Washington Post that  Reade told him in 1993 that Biden had touched her neck and shoulders. He said there was "a gym bag incident", and that Biden "was inappropriate". Several days after that interview, Moulton told the Post that Reade in the early 1990s told him Biden put his hand  "under her clothes."[9] 
 * 3. From Washington Post  (source used in this WP article): "In another recent interview , Reade’s brother, Collin Moulton, said 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. ”
 * As you can see, I used text within this WP article and the source this WP article used that shows that within days Reade's brother changed his story from 'Biden touched only her neck and shoulders' (which is Reade's 2019 story) to match Reade's 2020 story, 'sexual assault.' And, by Webster's definition (above), that's not her brother "corroborating" anything, it is her brother repeating whatever story Reade is telling at the time. Finally, the only reason you gave your opinion (above), and I gave mine, and everyone else is giving their opinion on whether to use "corroborate" is because the questioner asked us for our opinion. And, in order for you, me, and everyone else to form our opinion, we have to determine if we personally think the individuals corroborated Reade's story 'or' if they change their story & repeat whatever story Reade is telling at the time. From text within this WP article, Reade's friends & family change their stories to match whatever story Reade is telling at the time, (not corroborating). BetsyRMadison (talk) 14:11, 10 May 2020 (UTC) (opps forgot to sign when posted, sorry )


 * No per Darryl Kerrigan. Indeed, there is nothing certain in this case. This is because she significantly changed her story and because of other suspicious details like her refusal to unilaterally use lie detector . Any honest accuser would agree to do it. Nothing has been corroborated except a few secondary details. My very best wishes (talk) 16:07, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 *  Yes No Rather than look at the numerous examples offered by the proposer my thinking led me to believe that Wikipedia, an encyclopedia, need not use the same terminology as individual journalist's reports. But before I made my final decision I wanted to look at the Vox report from May 7 which I had found to be the best and the most complete report to this time.  Reading McGann's article I found that she freely used the term as she referred to various individual's statements throughout an extensive time period.  That she was not hung-up on any strict meaning of the word  influenced me and led me to decide that it would make sense to use it here as well.   Gandydancer (talk) 17:45, 9 May 2020 (UTC)  After reading many other posts I have changed my mind.  When writing so little on the entire alleged assault using the word corroborated, while not incorrect, does seem to imply a suggestion that the information given was factual.  Gandydancer (talk) 14:50, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * (comment) Very Well said Gandydancer - I take a different position than you, but what you said, you said very well. BetsyRMadison (talk) 01:01, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * LOL, you need to read my "Best diff ever" section on my page. {. Actually I was ready to vote No till I read her article again.  I decided to go with an experienced journalist rather than do what seemed to make sense to me.  Gandydancer (talk) 04:28, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Are you talking about this article? McGann, who clearly sympathizes with Reade, uses corroborate/corroborating in connection with Reade exactly six times, and each time also clearly felt compelled to use a lot of modifiers, ifs, and coulds:
 * I returned to her many times in an attempt to get more information to help me find more corroboration.
 * The story that both she and her corroborating witnesses are telling has changed dramatically.
 * A recently uncovered tape of her mom on Larry King Live appears to corroborate Reade’s claim that she was struggling in Biden’s office in 1993, but does not include an assault allegation.
 * If Reade had told a consistent story and shared all of her corroborating sources with reporters, if those sources had told a consistent story, if the Union piece had shaken loose other cases like hers, or if there were “smoking gun” evidence in Biden’s papers,
 * Reade herself says the complaint didn’t include the assault accusation, so finding the complaint — or failing to find it — would neither corroborate nor debunk the most serious allegation. The complaint could corroborate Reade’s claims of sexual harassment, which Biden also denies.
 * If you compare these to the two other times McGann uses the word corroboration, about the Me Too movement in general and about the Charlie Rose case, the contrast is striking:
 * But the acts of journalism that have driven the [Me Too] movement forward have been built on extraordinary amounts of evidence: They usually include not just consistent corroboration but oftentimes multiple stories, stacked on top of each other.
 * Charlie Rose: built on accusations from eight women, three on the record. Carmon and Brittain found consistency across the women’s stories and strong corroboration of each account Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 08:33, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that the problem lies in the meaning of the word "corroborate". It has nothing to do with "truth".  Two people can both be lying and yet corroborate each other's false story.  A murderer at trial might say he could not have done it because he was 500 miles away visiting his mother and she might corroborate his story.  (though this is not to say that I'm certain that I'm right on this call - see RHP's remarks below for example that make a lot of sense as well) Gandydancer (talk) 16:44, 10 May 2020 (UTC)


 * No per Darryl Kerrigan. There is no reason to use words or phrases that can be construed as editorializing when there are less controversial, NPOV ways to present such information. RedHotPear (talk) 21:58, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes-ish, as long as our explanation of those witness statements clearly defines what aspects of Reade's story they corroborated. ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 05:01, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * No. Does WP:RS support use of the term "corroborate" when covering Reade's family, co-workers and friends' accounts in this article? This is not an issue of sources or reliability of sources, it's an NPOV issue: A neutral characterization of disputes requires presenting viewpoints with a consistently impartial tone; otherwise articles end up as partisan commentaries even while presenting all relevant points of view. (} Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 08:36, 10 May 2020 (UTC) The initial description indicates something quite different than the RfC statement itself. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 09:06, 10 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes. That's what the word means. Where only one aspect of the story is corroborated, that should be made clear. -- Netwalker3 (talk) 12:34, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes - per common sense. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme Talk 📧 13:16, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * No-ish — it depends on context - We cannot say that someone corroborated Reads's story but we could say that someone corroborated that Reade told them her story. WP:WEASEL, and specifically WP:SAY apply. We should never use the word "corroborate" to imply that Reade's story might be true given what has been reported in reliable source. We also cannot used the word corroborate/corroborated as part of a heading for the same reasons, except that the reasons are even more important in that case per WP:NPOV, WP:HEADING, and WP:TITLE. Mdaniels5757 gives a particularly strong argument against using this word in the article. - MrX 🖋 15:59, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * False dilemma - We really don't have any statements that corroborate the sexual assault allegation. I'd like to read which statements editors feel should be characterize as corroboration, then we can make concrete decisions. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 16:08, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm just asking why I'm running into problems adding RS to this article. Gold-standard WP:RS such as the New York Timesuses the term without hesitation. For example, the NYT latest:
 * Five friends, former co-workers and family members have come forward to corroborate that Ms. Reade told them of an episode of either assault or harassment.   petrarchan47  คุ  ก   19:02, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * To petrarchan47  - The NYT article you quote is dated May 8,2020 where, within the paragraph you   pulled that quote, the NYT authors link to their "updated May 8, 2020" original NYT article where they say they did  not  interview Reade's brother, NYT writes, "Ms.  Reade said she also told her brother , who has confirmed parts of her account publicly  but who did not speak to The Times. " Also, as I said in my comment above, Reade's friends & family change their story to match Reade's story every time Reade changes her story; and that's not "corroboration." BetsyRMadison (talk) 04:26, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes per above ~ HAL  333  21:58, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * No (for the most part) - Friends confirming that Reade reached out to her are corroborating only the fact that she reached out to them, not the underlying facts of the allegation. We are bound to RS, but also to the definitions of words. --WMSR (talk) 23:21, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Depends, No "made statements which corroborated" or simply "corroborated" or "corroborating", Yes "made statements to corroborate" or "offered corroboration". The former use could imply that the statements did in fact support what they intended, whereas "to corroborate" implies only that the intent of the statements were to corroborate. Because this word can be used either to state a fact or an intent we should paraphrase things in a way that avoids the impression that the corroboration proves anything unless an RS or the preponderance of RSs are very clear that that is the case. For example the statement that a tape appears to corroborate something is about the level of certainty we would want to use, based on an RS. M-W lists the synonyms for corroborate as "argue, attest, authenticate, bear out, certify, confirm, substantiate, support, validate, verify, vindicate" so again it can either be an intent or factual. We should be very careful about which we imply based on which statements in an RS. —DIYeditor (talk) 20:53, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes In the absence of any specific examples, I would say that corroborate isnt weaselly per se. Obviously, there could be examples where corroborate shouldnt be used, but a blanket prohibition is ridiculous, especially when the RS's do so. Bonewah (talk) 12:07, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes-ish - it's OK to use it, it's OK to use it, IT IS OK TO USE IT. Should be used at least once just to get over this.  But it shouldn't be a mandate that have to say only that or that it must be used everywhere on each such detail or where awkward.  Feel free to use 'confirm' or 'match' or simply 'said she told them'.   Haven't we beaten this enough times to jusput 'corroborate' in and be done already ?  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 22:57, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes when sources use the word, no when sources don't use it. We follow the sources. We don't decide for ourselves what words we editors think is most appropriate. I'm kind of surprised this question is debatable; it seems like basic WP:V policy to me. Levivich&thinsp;<sup style="white-space:nowrap;">[dubious – discuss] 16:59, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes as per the ever-popular "we go by reliable sources", since multiple reliable sources use the word corroborate we should too.--Rusf10 (talk) 18:01, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Other instances of similar behavior
This article should reference other instances where women have spoken to Biden’s behavior towards them. The Tara Reade incident appears not to have been a single occurrence of this type of behavior and by neglecting to include related behavior in the article it slights against the accuser


 * I say we continue to exclude that information because it makes Biden look bad. PurpleSwivel (talk) 00:41, 25 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Yeah this is just blatant bias. Trump's allegation page includes EVERY allegation against him, but Biden's lists just one of several well-known accusations? I thought Wikipedia was better than this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by an IP editor 04:41, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Move undone
I've undone the move of this page to the plural title (Joe Biden sexual assault allegations), which was based on the inclusion of a new section more or less presenting this material. I don't have a very strong opinion about whether/how that material should be summarized here, but broadening the topic of this article to "sexual assault allegations" is something which, at very least, needs discussion first. Not the least because this change in the scope of the article/title was rejected in the past. &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 20:21, 4 August 2021 (UTC)


 * The other allegations are notable information. This isn't about their impact on the campaign. Does it make sense to put all other allegations only in the campaign page? That smells from POV as an attempt to bury the information. It should be in Joe Bidens page, or in this page, or in a new page entitled something like Joe Biden Allegations of inappropriate physical contact. This information is significant enough to get a Wikipedia page! The comments that you references opposed including those incidents under the title "sexual assault allegation". I agree! These aren't necessarily sexual assault allegations, they are allegations of inappropriate physical contact. I say we change the title to that. Proud Novice (talk) 20:41, 4 August 2021 (UTC)


 * If you would like to propose changing the scope of this page in this way, you're welcome to open a requested move discussion (WP:RM). I don't know what the best place for those allegations of inappropriate touching would be. Part of the challenge with figures like Biden (and Trump or any other extremely high-profile politician) is there's such a deluge of coverage for so many different aspects of their lives, policies, campaigns, events they were involved with, specific issues, specific comments, specific speeches, etc. and it's hard for us as Wikipedians to sort out what's most notable and how to organize it. Based on the coverage of inappropriate touching, it seems clear that they merit inclusion in Wikipedia somewhere. Do they merit a separate page? I'm not sure. If the coverage of that subject continued after the campaign, and independently of the coverage of the Reade allegations, then maybe? Maybe they should be included here and the page reframed? Not sure. Certainly a new article would be put to the test by deletion discussion, and certainly reframing this page needs discussion beforehand rather than afterwards. &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 20:55, 4 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Understood, thanks for explaining! I started a requested move discussion, I"m not sure if I did it correctly. Please let me know. Also, why did you revert my first two edits? Was that a mistake? Proud Novice (talk) 21:39, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why it didn't work. Looks like an issue with the template. Hopefully someone else will be by to fix it. As for the other edits, I looked at them in sum and they looked to all have to do with the retitle/rescope so I reverted all of them. Looking at the first two, I see they were unrelated so went ahead and restored them and defer to others as to whether they should remain. &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 21:47, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * You need to replace "tlps|" with "subst:". Looks like you may have copied from the source when the source was designed to let you copy from the display version. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 03:50, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * If you look at WP:RM, the code it says to use starts with Tlps. It's odd, and doesn't work for me either. &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 04:17, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * That is odd! I have some guesses. I'm fairly sure that subst: instead would work, following the guidance at Template:Requested move. I'd do it myself, but tbh I'd prefer not to have an RM on this. Proud Novice, I get your point about inappropriate touching being not solely a campaign issue. Solving that problem with your proposed move would create a greater problem: allegations of sexual assault would find themselves covered in an article purporting to be about inappropriate physical contact. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 04:24, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

, you're wrong about "all other allegations [being] only on the campaign page" (all other allegations only in the campaign page? That smells from POV as an attempt to bury the information. It should be in Joe Bidens page). They are on Biden's page, in two paragraphs in the Joe_Biden section because it was a dead issue after the election.
 * In March 2019 and April 2019, Biden was accused by eight women of previous instances of inappropriate physical contact, such as embracing, touching or kissing.[323] Biden had previously described himself as a "tactile politician" and admitted this behavior has caused trouble for him.[324] In April 2019, Biden pledged to be more "respectful of people's personal space".[325]
 * In late March 2020, Tara Reade, one of the eight women who previously accused Biden of inappropriate physical contact, made a new allegation against Biden, accusing him of a 1993 sexual assault.[334] There were inconsistences between Reade's 2019 and 2020 allegations.[335] Biden and his campaign vehemently denied the sexual assault allegation.[336][337]
 * In late March 2020, Tara Reade, one of the eight women who previously accused Biden of inappropriate physical contact, made a new allegation against Biden, accusing him of a 1993 sexual assault.[334] There were inconsistences between Reade's 2019 and 2020 allegations.[335] Biden and his campaign vehemently denied the sexual assault allegation.[336][337]

None of the other women accused Biden of sexual assault, so moving this page to something including "sexual assaults" plural would be improper. As for a separate page for "inappropriate touching"—that would be what, 6 sentences, one for each accusation (including Reade's)? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:05, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

,, there's also an entire section on Joe Biden 2020 presidential campaign. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:12, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

References to Katie Halper opinion?
I quickly wanted to discuss an edit I just made to the article, in "Commentary/Assessment of truth and consistency", changing the line:
 * Katie Halper, whose interview with Reade, which was published in Current Affairs, broke the sexual assault allegation, said the story had not changed.[12]

to:
 * Katie Halper, whose interview with Reade, which was published in Current Affairs, broke the sexual assault allegation,[12] said the story had not changed.[citation needed]

The citation used there links to the Halper interview, which understandably does not include much if any opinion from Halper at all. So I moved the citation back to a portion of the sentence where it was relevant. I then did some Google searching to find Halper presenting some opinion on the consistency of the story, and here's where I wanted to get folks' attention: Obviously I didn't find any statement that she believed the story was consistent, which is why I left it as "citation needed" -- but granted that my memory on this is a bit hazy, I did think I might have read somewhere a while back that she had expressed such an opinion, though I couldn't find it in my searching today. Clearly this article has a lot of eyes on it from folks that probably know much more about the topic than myself; if someone can confirm she's made such a statement and knows where she would have done that, would you please throw that citation in to replace my "citation needed" tag? I'll also continue looking when I get a bit more time. Thanks in advance! Gnassar (talk) 21:16, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

content revision needed to promote article neutrality
The introduction section of this page includes the following statement: The first sentence claims the accusations of Reade's misrepresentation of herself are "reports", rather than "allegations". Any claims that are indeed factual should include citations (high-profile accusations of "lying under oath and in court proceedings" should not be difficult to cite, if true). The second sentence appears to offer an example of the first sentence's claim of Reade's "lying under oath and in court proceedings", but the example does not support said claim. Instead, the example is something of a non-sequitur, describing Reade's false claim that she completed a bachelor's degree program at Antioch University [2]. I suggest the sentence currently on the live page be replaced by the following: My ultimate goal in suggesting this revision is to remove from the live page, any claims that lack citation and/or could be easily construed as specious, while preserving any viable content from the original. ComfyHarpy (talk) 00:00, 8 September 2021 (UTC)ComfyHarpy
 * "Reports emerged that Reade has misrepresented herself and her life experiences on numerous occasions, including lying under oath and in court proceedings. For example, she falsely claimed to hold a bachelor's degree from Antioch University."
 * Reade's accusations have been met with considerable criticism, with some detractors questioning Reade's trustworthiness. For example, some critics point to Reade's past, false claims that she completed a bachelor's degree program at Antioch University. [2]


 * The article as written follows the sources, and there is nothing to address or change. ValarianB (talk) 12:21, 8 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Note to other editors - last night, #TaraReade was briefly trending on Twitter, which has led to a renewed push like we see above. We may have to deal with this junk for a few days before it peters out. ValarianB (talk) 12:21, 8 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Apologies, my intent is not to revise this article so as to benefit any one perspective (as the reference to #TaraReade trending on Twitter appears to imply). As stated in my original post, some of the content in question lacks citation altogether. This isn't to say that said content is untrue, only that cited sources are needed in order to maintain credibility as resource material (sources I believe do exist, for what it's worth).


 * Given the political nature of its subjects, I understand this topic is difficult to document without upsetting one political faction or another, but that's precisely why I wish to make the proposed edits. The live article, as it currently exists, falls short of providing evidenced information. A user that wishes to learn more about the "reports... that Reade has misrepresented herself and her life experiences on numerous occasions" will not be able to do so, given this article does not currently include citations to source material corroborating such claims.


 * If the wikipedia community chooses to restrict edit access to any article, it must then bear the responsibility of ensuring the published content in question remain objective and adhere to its own quality standards. ComfyHarpy (talk) 19:48, 12 September 2021 (UTC)ComfyHarpy
 * This article has been written and scrutinized by a very large and diverse group of editors. The current text is well-sourced and accurately conveys the narratives found in mainstream reliable source references. You would need to show very specific problems with content and sourcing to offer constructive suggestions for article edits. You are free to do so. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 22:00, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree that the proposed text is more neutral and less of a WP:BIO violation on Reade. These are, after all, allegations regarding Reade.  The proposed text that should be used is: Reade's accusations have been met with considerable criticism, with some detractors questioning Reade's trustworthiness. For example, some critics point to Reade's past, false claims that she completed a bachelor's degree program at Antioch University. [2] — XavierItzm (talk) 00:31, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
 * It's definitely not. Taking out lying under oath, why? How is accusations have been met with considerable criticism an improvement? – Muboshgu (talk) 00:55, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 February 2022
In the section "Accounts by former Biden staffers"

In the second paragraph, third sentence:

"Over 20 of the interviewees worked there at the same as Reade"

missing the word "time" to read "Over 20 of the interviewees worked there at the same time as Reade" Daric2 (talk) 01:25, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ – Muboshgu (talk) 02:02, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Reade and RT
No mention of the fact that Ms. Reade has a podcast sponsored by RT? There's the motivation for the accusations. 2601:145:8100:48E0:5D60:B50F:8F15:1168 (talk) 17:47, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Any reliable sources that discuss it? – Muboshgu (talk) 18:46, 4 March 2022 (UTC)