Talk:Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations

Hashtag #WhyWomenDontReport

Does this warrant inclusion? According to this report, peak tweets per hour over the last 24 hours are below those of #HalloweenMusicals and #AMJoy, and declining. James J. Lambden (talk) 16:47, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

There was a fair bit of related media commentary. Possibly the subheading could be changed to focus less on the Twitter part. Madshurtie (talk) 16:50, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

If you type 'credibility victims' into google, three of the top six news stories are about it. Madshurtie (talk) 16:54, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Hmm, my first page results for 'credibility victims' are mostly law journals, nothing about twitter. James J. Lambden (talk) 16:59, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, meant Google News. :-/ I was talking specifically about the news stories. Madshurtie (talk) 17:01, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

No problem, that makes sense because Google News search defaults to "Recent." I changed the range to 2016 (using Custom Range) and the hashtag doesn't show up in the first three pages. James J. Lambden (talk) 17:34, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Presumably that's because of the small proportion of days in 2016 since the articles were put up? Not all of the relevant articles are about the hashtag, some of them are about general victim doubting over the allegations. Madshurtie (talk) 17:53, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't think the hashtag is notable.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:22, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

@Jack Upland: Do you think changing the subheading to refer to the general topic rather than just the hashtag is a good solution? Madshurtie (talk) 08:10, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

But what is the topic???--Jack Upland (talk) 09:14, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

@Jack Upland: Commentators opposing the suggestions that the timing seems political and/or that no one would wait to come out. There has been a lot of media comment on this. 'Credibility of timing' or 'Reluctance to report' might work as subheadings, though I'm sure there are better wordings. Madshurtie (talk) 09:40, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

@Pincrete: Commentators have pointed out the general reasons why women don't report in response to these allegations, so it's purely a reaction, which is why it's in a reactions section. Adding a sentence on why these women said they didn't report might be valuable, but it would have to be from a secondary source reacting to these allegations, or the section would then start verging on synth. As far as I'm concerned, this section (and the comparisons section) is fine so long as we only use comments made by quality publications specifically in response to these allegations. Madshurtie (talk) 09:41, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Ummmm? I realised the article was 'triggered' by the Trump allegations (though as I recall they are only mentioned at the beginning). When something like this happens, all kinds of 'responses' become topical, there may well be articles out there asking why rich powerful men feel entitled to behave as they wish. All kinds of general discussion is triggered around related 'topic area', but what direct bearing do these have on this case? Newspapers' only restraints are staying within the laws of libel (which I'm sure they are careful to do in this instance), as long as they stay within those, they can focus their articles on misconduct in general, misconduct and power, why women often don't report, or any aspect they choose, WP has a stricter set of values, which include remaining 'on-topic'. I don't have the interest in the topic to get deeply involved here, so I'm not going to press my point, but I think there is unintended synth in the inclusion, which goes beyond saying that discussion/debate/controversy was sparked about the time delay, to implying why THESE women have delayed reporting, it may be easy for us to understand those reasons, but it is still synth to apply the general to the particular. The article is a fairly strong article, I don't think it needs to go beyond collecting the neutral facts. Pincrete (talk) 23:48, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

WP:SYNTH in Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations#Pattern of behavior

The first two sentences of this section are examples of WP:SYNTH: the reasoning appears to run like this:

• Men who make sexist or degrading comments about women are more likely to commit sexual assault.
• Donald Trump made sexist and degrading comments about women.
• Therefore, Donald Trump is more likely to have committed sexual assault (i.e. the allegations of sexual assault against him are more likely to be true).

This inference is not actually stated in either article -- rather, it is merely implied -- and mirroring that implication in the article is WP:SYNTH.

Moreover, the study from Psychology of Violence (see [1]) which both articles appear to be referring to, sought to discover whether "sexual objectification may be an important mechanism through which heavy drinking is associated with sexual aggression", not simply whether a history of making lewd and sexist remarks makes sexual assault more likely. As well, test subjects were all undergraduate males, and the authors concede that "[i]t remains unclear whether similar associations would emerge with noncollegiate samples. The relations from this study may be limited to college campuses." Finally, the study itself refers to the evidence that "sexual objectification may be associated with sexual violence" as "anecdotal".

In short, the implication that Trump is more likely to have committed sexual assault because he has made sexist and degrading comments about women is WP:SYNTH. The study doesn't really say what those citing it say it does, and its limitations and focus on the role of alcohol limit its applicability.

I think these flaws question the basis for the inclusion of the entire "Pattern of behaviour" section, and that this section ought therefore to be removed. -- Rrburke (talk) 15:06, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia editors did not come to the conclusion, the author and legal analyst Lisa Bloom and the Economist article did. From Bloom's article:

• "An anonymous “Jane Doe” filed a federal lawsuit against GOP presumptive nominee Donald Trump last week, accusing him of raping her in 1994 when she was thirteen years old. The mainstream media ignored the filing."
• "No outsider can say whether Mr. Trump is innocent or guilty of these new rape charges. But we can look at his record, analyze the court filings here, and make a determination as to credibility - whether the allegations are believable enough for us to take them seriously and investigate them, keeping in mind his denial and reporting new facts as they develop. I have done that. And the answer is a clear “yes.”"
• "The rape case must be viewed through the lens of Mr. Trump’s current, longstanding and well documented contempt for women. Men who objectify women are more likely to become perpetrators of sexual violence, just as one with a long history of overtly racist comments is more likely to commit a hate crime"

This article says:

• "Lisa Bloom pointed to research indicating that "[m]en who objectify women are more likely to become perpetrators of sexual violence, just as one with a long history of overtly racist comments is more likely to commit a hate crime."

The Economist article makes the connection between his behavior and the likelihood that he may have committed sexual assaults

I moved two other a sources about the connection between objectification of women and how that can tie to sexual violence, these did not mention Trump. If these two articles had been used alone, then I would get the WP:SYNTH claim.

I don't see how WP editors have performed original research / SYNTH. If you think this section needs to provide some of the background, like the connection to the rape case, that might help clarify things.

As mentioned in a topic above, Comparisons of past behavior, I do think that there should be balanced reporting - so it is not just this viewpoint that is represented.--CaroleHenson (talk) 15:32, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

I made a suggested markup in the section above.

If we get rid of this section, then I think we need to really streamline the Trump campaign's reaction. So much of it is redundant and the other position is totally unspoken, and is unbalanced in Trump's favor. The key point is "Trump claims that "corporate media" are "political, special interest, no different than any lobbyist or other financial entity with a total political agenda." ("HPM Feeling Burned" citation) And that the charges are without merit. Otherwise, it's just having the same sentiment stated from four of the Trump camp's perspectives: Trump, his campaign, his spokespeople and his attorney.--CaroleHenson (talk) 16:06, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

@CaroleHenson: Oh, hadn't noticed you'd also condensed the Trump reactions bit. The fact that the section is large may be a WP:DUE problem, but I don't know that it's large enough to count. We could also avoid WP:DUE by adding more content to other reactions sections, or even creating a new reactions section if anyone can think of one. As for the behaviour section, I personally think it's OK in it's current form and agree it's not SYNTH (though suspect the new heading makes its purpose a bit less clear:-D ) Madshurtie (talk) 16:26, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Ok, what do you think about adding the blurb at the top of the markup re: two arguments (theories) under the "Reactions" heading?--CaroleHenson (talk) 16:40, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

@CaroleHenson: A markup summary? Might as well. Madshurtie (talk) 16:44, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi, CaroleHenson. Both the Lisa Bloom piece and the Economist article are op-ed pieces, more in the realm of news analysis than news. Op-ed pieces reflect nothing more than the opinion of the writer and are not to be relied upon for facts, never mind to justify the inclusion of a section in an article.

More importantly, the study Lisa Bloom links to and the Economist article also appears to refer to doesn't say what Bloom says it does. Its focus is on the mediating role of sexual objectification between heavy drinking among college students and sexual assault. It is simply not on point, to begin with, and its findings, as the authors acknowledge, may not be applicable outside of a college environment. It even refers to evidence directly linking sexually objectification and sexual assault as merely "anecdotal". And yet I note that the abstract of this article is being cited to anchor the claim of a relationship between the use of sexist language and the propensity for sexual assault. How can that be when the study itself doesn't even say that?

Above, you assert that "Without the Lisa Bloom's statement, or something else that ties past behavior to proclivity for sexual misconduct, I agree, it shouldn't be in the article." I happen to agree with you, and since, first, Bloom's piece is merely on op-ed, and, second, she misstates the findings of the study that her claim is based on, I can see no basis for including the quote from her. And since, as you state, the merits of the section stand or fall with Bloom's claim, I think since it doesn't belong, neither does the section. -- Rrburke (talk) 17:21, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I said "Without the Lisa Bloom's statement, or something else that ties past behavior to proclivity for sexual misconduct, I agree, it shouldn't be in the article." because then it would be OR / SYNTH. It isn't that it falls on Bloom's or the Economist claim, It gets back to your original argument - we cannot make a statement that says that Trump objectifies women, which could lead to sexual assault, without a source.--CaroleHenson (talk) 17:34, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Right, and that's what I'm claiming: that there isn't a reliable source that says that. First, because the pieces that say that are op-eds. Here is WP:NEWSORG on op-eds:

Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact.

Second, the study[2] upon which the op-ed authors base their claim that objectifying and demeaning women verbally increases the propensity for sexual assault doesn't actually say that at all. What it says is that, among male college students, objectifying behaviour plays a mediatory role between heavy drinking and sexual assault. Both Bloom and the Economist have completely misstated the findings of the study.

So we do not currently have a reliable source that says that prior use of sexist or demeaning language increases a person's propensity for sexual assault, so the article shouldn't say that. The absence of such a source nullifies the stated rationale for including this section in the article, so it ought to come out. -- Rrburke (talk) 18:20, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello again Rrburke,

Re: Lisa Bloom — I am getting from your statement above is that editorial opinions "are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author" - which is what happened, it's attributed to her. The sourcing, especially the article title <inserted>for the research source she used<inserted> is unfortunate. Did you read the entire article or just the abstract? However: For now, it seems wise to comment out her info. I'd remove it, but there are others that contributed to that section and it would be good to give them time to weigh in.

 Done - No feedback re: keeping the Bloom info and because of the number of concerns around it, I went ahead and removed the commented text in this edit.--CaroleHenson (talk) 04:01, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Re: Economist article — Deborah Cameron, the author of “The Myth of Mars and Venus”, states that objectifying comments can be "used to build fraternal bonds", and not necessary convey fact. Even so, "locker room talk" is not an acceptable behavior, "such talk can pave the way to harassment and assault." She says that "Research on fraternities and sports teams suggests that, by reducing women to objects and ostracising men who do not join in, banter can make sexual assaults more likely—and make it less likely that men on the scene will intervene, or report the culprits later." I don't see that it's the same research that Bloom mentions. I think this info should be added.

Re: Shaun R. Harper — I added <inserted>the first part of the<inserted> paragraph after a discussion about finding a better source. I don't hear an issue with that paragraph.

Balance — I noticed very recently that Judge Jeanine, an attorney and Fox commentator/host, has spoken up quite a bit about how she doesn't see the connection between Trump's statements and sexual violence, so if I can find that in print, or something like that it could be added. Or, we could leave Cameron's statement to cover that angle.

Thoughts on that?--CaroleHenson (talk)

This is a bit over my head. It doesn't seem suited for RfC so, if we can't reach agreement here, I would suggest asking for input at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard. Or I could ping one or two people who I know to be competent at this level, but I don't want to be seen as canvassing. Probably you two could think of one or two yourselves. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:00, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Two things: One, I went ahead and took care of the first two items - the Bloom info has been commented out until other contributors can weigh in. There are enough questions that get raised about it, though, IMO it's probably best to remove it. I also provided info from the Economist article in this edit. It doesn't sound like we need a change to Harper's info. I do think we should add something that counters the assumption of a connection between what Trump says and the likelihood that he would have committed an assault, like comments that have been made in the media recently by Jeanine Pirro or someone else. I'll look around.

And, from what I'm hearing you say, Mandruss, we should give others a chance to weigh in and if we don't reach consensus, then go to the No OR noticeboard. I do know a couple of senior editors that would be objective, but I'd rather go directly to the noticeboard and avoid any POV questions.--CaroleHenson (talk) 22:00, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Not to put too fine a point on it, but they would need to be both objective and competent in this area, which is a difficult area to do well. I'd guesstimate about 10% of editors do it really well. Me, I can't begin to get my head around this, although I can handle SYNTH involving one or two sentences. I just felt this is too major to resolve between two competent editors. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:09, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

@CaroleHenson:@Rrburke:@Mandruss: Late on this because of sleeping (based in the UK here!). Agree with Carole on the following points: 1) Use of Op-eds has been handled fine. They are not being used to cite a fact, they are being used to cite "statements attributed to that editor or author" as per the style guide. 2) This isn't SYNTH, because it's clear we are talking about other people's reactions. 3) Rrburke appears not to have read the whole paper Bloom cites: it clearly does have a section discussing and citing research on the link between objectification and sexual violence. 4) The Economist is a separate article referring to separate research, so the relevance of Bloom's citation doesn't affect it.

Two other things I'll add: 1. I'm not sure if op-ed is even the right word to refer to The Economist's article, because The Economist deliberately hides its authors' identities to maintain its "collective voice" policy. 2. Re. Carole's comments about HuffPo, I agree it's not an ideal source because of its reliance on blogged content, however this particular article appears to come under the exceptions in wiki's content guidelines because the author is a "professional in the field on which they write".

I don't see any obvious reasons here to remove the sentence, so I'll tentatively restore it pending further comment. Madshurtie (talk) 10:09, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Sounds good!--CaroleHenson (talk) 10:25, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Sounds good! to me, too, but anything would sound good to me since I don't know what I'm doing. :D But thanks for the courtesy ping anyway. What would we like to do with the WP:NORN thread? ―Mandruss ☎ 10:57, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

@Mandruss: Maybe wait for Rrburke to respond? Madshurtie (talk) 11:44, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi, all. A few quick points:

• "this particular article appears to come under the exceptions in wiki's content guidelines because the author is a 'professional in the field on which they write'"

Lisa Bloom is not a professional in the field of psychology. She is a lawyer.

• "Use of Op-eds has been handled fine."

No it hasn't. WP:NEWSORG states that op-eds are "reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." In other words, op-eds are fine for the purpose of establishing the fact that someone stated something, not for trying to establish the truth of the statement. In other words, it would be fine to include in the article Lisa Bloom the statement that Lisa Bloom believes that making sexist and degrading comments about women increases a person's propensity for sexual assault, but it cannot be used as evidence that making such comments does indeed increase that propensity.

• "I'm not sure if op-ed is even the right word to refer to The Economist's article, because The Economist deliberately hides its authors' identities to maintain its "collective voice" policy."

It's still an opinion piece, editorial or work of news analysis.

• "[Shaun Harper] puts Trump in a class of men whose behavior sometimes includes sexual assault."

Two things: first, the Harper piece again is an op-ed. But more importantly, nowhere in his piece does Harper draw any connection between sexist or degrading talk and sexual assault. I disagree that he places Trump in any "class of men whose behavior sometimes includes sexual assault." I don't think the piece supports that claim.

• "Rrburke appears not to have read the whole paper Bloom cites"

Um, yes he has. In fact, if you'll look above, you'll see I linked to it and cited passages from it several times.

• There is now a troubling passage that wrongly attributes direct quotes to Deborah Cameron. The quotes "used to build fraternal bonds," "pave the way to harassment and assault" and "banter can make sexual assaults more likely" belong to the editorial writer, not to Ms Cameron, as the passage makes it appear. If someone wants to quote Cameron, she or he should look at Cameron's book to find out what she actually says and what she's basing her claim on, not cite an editorial writer's paraphrase as is it were direct speech.

But my overarching question is what is the justification for including this section? It appears to me to be the implication that engaging in sexist and degrading talk about women increases a person's propensity for sexual assault, and since Donald Trump has undoubtedly engaged in such talk, the sexual assault allegations against him are more likely to be true; the sexist talk belongs on a continuum with sexual assault, and therefore the section should be included.

But, for my part, I don't think we have sufficient evidence to support this implication, and this is why I oppose including this section. We have a single study that states that, among college students (the authors concede that "[i]t remains unclear whether similar associations would emerge with noncollegiate samples" and that "[t]he relations from this study may be limited to college campuses") "body evaluation," which, in my opinion, is ill-defined in the study, but includes "objectifying gazes," was positively associated with sexual violence. How strongly associated we really don't know -- or at least I don't: perhaps someone could decipher the numbers in the diagram on page 4. At any rate, I see nothing in this study that that explicitly states that sexist and degrading talk about women increases a person's propensity for sexual assault. I'd appreciate you pointing it out to me if you do.

Next we have an Economist editorial writer's paraphrases of Deborah Cameron. The writer states that "Such talk can pave the way to harassment and assault." "Pave the way" seems vague and weasel-worded to me, but more importantly we don't know either the accuracy of the paraphrase or the source of this claim. Is it a paraphrase of a passage in Cameron's book, where she backs up the claim with evidence, or is it from an interview with Cameron conducted by the editorial writer, and lacking the sort of scholarly apparatus that would qualify it as a high-quality source? There would be a great difference in the reliability (in the Wikipedia sense) of the claim depending on which it is.

I don't think that the two of these together are sufficient to establish the claim that sexist and degrading talk about women increase a person's likelihood of committing a sexual assault, or that, by implication, Donald Trump's sexist and degrading talk about increase the likelihood that the allegations against him are true. I think this is an exceptional claim, and "exceptional claims require exceptional sources." WP:EXCEPTIONAL states that an "exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources." Moreover, our sources in this case, only one of which, the University of Nebraska study, is "high quality", are marked by limitations and caveats. The University of Nebraska study concedes that its results "may be limited to college campuses," and Cameron herself "cautions against always interpreting words like Mr Trump’s as accounts of things that actually happened. Their boasts, coarse language and demeaning of women are not necessarily used to convey facts, she notes."

I think the article should stick closely to the allegations of "misconduct" (a word I'm not totally happy with), and avoid muddying the waters with examples of sexist and degrading talk. -- Rrburke (talk) 15:23, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

@Rrburke: Hi Rrburke, on the six bullets:

• 1) True, though she's a civil rights lawyer. The guidelines seem unclear on related fields.
• 2) Carole and I have both already pointed out that the current text only establishes 'the fact that someone stated something'. Don't see anything new here.
• 3) True, though see 2).
• 4) It's an Op-ed, but see 2). It's a reactions section. It provides reactions. As for the content, it does seems like Harper is vaguely drawing a link between sexist talk and sexual assault. For example, sentences a) 'The Trump on that video is a sexist, misogynistic, womanizing cheater who degrades and sometimes sexually assaults women. I know this man and so many like him. I wish I didn’t, yet I do, and I have for a long time.' b) 'When men fail to challenge other men on troubling things they say about and do to women, we contribute to cultures that excuse sexual harassment, assault and other forms of gender violence.' And c) 'By excusing their words and actions, I share some responsibility for rape, marital infidelity and other awful things that men do.' Sentence a) in particular seems equivalent to the wiki sentence 'he puts Trump in a class of men whose behavior sometimes includes sexual assault and degrading women.'
• 5) I'm still not seeing evidence you've read the whole paper. You said 'second, the study upon which the op-ed authors base their claim that objectifying and demeaning women verbally increases the propensity for sexual assault doesn't actually say that at all' (your emphasis), when it clearly does in the section 'Sexual Objectification and Sexual Violence'. I'll quote a sentence for you: 'In the only published study to examine this potential link, Rudman and Mescher (2012) found that people who implicitly associated women with objects were more likely to report sexually aggressive attitudes toward women (see also Cikara et al., 2011); when men more quickly associated women with objects (e.g., objects, tools, things) in an implicit association test, they responded higher on rape proclivity.'
• 6) I agree the new Deborah Cameron passage is troubling. It should make it clear this is The Economist's interpretation and possibly cite her directly. Maybe it should be removed.

As for the rest, the section is not claiming that Donald Trump's past statements make these accusations more likely to be true, at worst it's saying that other commentators have reacted to the accusations by implying his past statements make these accusations more likely to be true. Though really it's just saying other other commentators have reacted to the accusations by saying sexually abusive people tend to behave like Trump. This is true: commentators have. Madshurtie (talk) 16:48, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

No comment on anything else, but because of their massive conflict of interest I oppose citing Lisa Bloom, unless it's about their client. Bloom represents Jill Harth, which makes giving Bloom any prominence WP:UNDUE. Politrukki (talk) 15:03, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Politrukki, hadn't noticed that. Based on the new developments in the Jane Doe section of the talk page, we have another reason to view the Lisa Bloom article with more suspicion. I'll remove her, and reword/remove the Deborah Cameron bit, though I think the rest of the section should probably stay. Madshurtie (talk) 16:16, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

No OR Noticeboard posting

@Rrburke, Mandruss, and Madshurtie: This issue has been posted: No OR noticeboard - Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations--CaroleHenson (talk) 02:59, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

It appears with recent edits that this is no longer an issue, because the Bloom and Economist content has been removed and the other content was not questioned.--CaroleHenson (talk) 01:49, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Ivana Trump

the section on Ivana Trump needs to be removed for the following reasons:

• Ivana has given a public statement just before the publication of her 1993 book:

  [O]n one occasion during 1989, Mr. Trump and I had marital relations in which he behaved very differently toward me than he had during our marriage. As a woman, I felt violated, as the love and tenderness, which he normally exhibited towards me, was absent. I referred to this as a 'rape,' but I do not want my words to be interpreted in a literal or criminal sense.

• As per an article in the New York Times, not only has Ivana endorsed Trump, she has also said he would make a great president.And she has also said the following:

  I have recently read some comments attributed to me from nearly 30 years ago at a time of very high tension during my divorce from Donald. The story is totally without merit.”

What is obvious is that this was a 30 year old husband-wife quarrel and Ivana has now clarified on two occasions that when she accused Donald of 'rape' she was prevaricating if we go by the dictionary meaning of this very serious accusation. Does this husband-wife quarrel in which the wife is admitting to making false charges against her husband 30 years ago justify inclusion in a wikipedia page? We must be careful not to allow wikipedia to become a tool for political propaganda; it must remain a knowledge resource.

<insered signature info from history> 10:56, 16 October 2016‎ Soham321 (talk | contribs)‎

The article currently has "Years later, Ivana said that she and Donald "are the best of friends".[2] In 2015, Ivana issued a statement saying that the original assault claim came "at a time of very high tension".[1]"

Perhaps it could say: "Years later, Ivana said that she and Donald "are the best of friends",[2] and she endorses his in his presidential campaign. In 2015, Ivana issued a statement saying that the original assault claim came "at a time of very high tension".[1]" I referred to this as a 'rape,' but I do not want my words to be interpreted in a literal or criminal sense.

References

Thoughts?--CaroleHenson (talk) 16:46, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

You are not taking into account six very important words of Ivana (as quoted in the New York Times article): "The story is totally without merit." I would prefer this section to be removed completely, since it is coming across as nothing more than gossip about a husband-wife quarrel in which the wife is admitting to making false accusations against her husband. But if the consensus is that it should stay than these six words of Ivana should be included in the section. Of course,the clarification given by Ivana that what she meant by "rape" when she made the accusation is not the dictionary meaning of the word should also be included. Soham321 (talk) 16:51, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

What I am taking into account is that she did not say, "I was not raped." She said, "I referred to this as a 'rape,' but I do not want my words to be interpreted in a literal or criminal sense." Ivana lost an appeal to lift the gag order that she was subject to under her settlement, see this. (She also has three children with the man, it's in her and her children's best interest to have a good relationship with Trump and let the past go. It would not be unique at all for her to back off of statements made in a legal deposition to reach harmony and a divorce settlement.)

Ivana is commonly mentioned as having been an accuser of rape. To ignore what is universally reported (I've not seen a list of accusers without her), would seem to indicate cherry-picking. What could it lead to, WP editors deciding that some of the claims should not be believed and should be removed?--CaroleHenson (talk) 17:23, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

IMO the marked up draft sheds a positive light towards Trump. It would be helpful to get thoughts from other people.--CaroleHenson (talk) 17:20, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Just in case someone's editing, while I update this section. She has mentioned that it was rough sex and unlike anything she had experienced before. I am pretty sure it's in at least one of the cited sources for that section.--CaroleHenson (talk) 17:27, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

My interpretation of Ivana's words that he made love to her without "love and tenderness" is not "rough sex"; it is "mechanical sex". This is a fairly common feature in "loveless marriages" or marriages which are about to break up. Nothing noteworthy here.Soham321 (talk) 18:51, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Soham321 I just realized that instead of adding another sentence, if I removed the last sentence that I marked up earlier and replaced it with the one you say should be included, that works, too. And then reworded it so to combine the endorsement and her statement, then it looks like:

"Years later, Ivana said that she and Donald "are the best of friends".[2] In a July 2016 campaign endorsement, Ivana said, "I have recently read some comments attributed to me from nearly 30 years ago at a time of very high tension during my divorce from Donald. The story is totally without merit."

You also need to somehow clarify, in my opinion, the fact that what she meant by "rape" is not the dictionary meaning of rape as per her own claim.Accusing someone of "rape" is a very serious accusation and it cannot be done lightly as Ivana seems to have done during her divorce with Donald.Soham321 (talk) 18:51, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

That's already in that article section: Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations#Ivana Trump (1989). See the indented quote, which I just realized doesn't have a source or author any more.--CaroleHenson (talk) 19:55, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

References

How is that?--CaroleHenson (talk) 18:37, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Surely you're not going to blame Trump for something his aide said.Soham321 (talk) 18:51, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Soham321, Didn't you provide the sources at the top of this discussion?--CaroleHenson (talk) 19:18, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

I gave the link to the NY Times article because of what Ivana says in the article, not because of what Donald's aide says in the article.Soham321 (talk) 19:23, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Soham321 Did I miss something? Why are you upset with me for using a source you provided?--CaroleHenson (talk) 19:43, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

i am not upset. i think there is a misunderstanding. i thought your words "How is that?" were a response to what Trump's aide said since you just gave the headline carrying the aide's words followed by your response of "How is that?" I think we have now gone off on a tangent, and this sub-thread should be hatted.Soham321 (talk) 19:49, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Soham321 Ok, so I went ahead and made the addition to the article. You raised the question about the use of "rape"—Ivana's quote is already in the article, it's the indented {{quote}}.

I guess we threw each other for a loop, I was thinking it would be a quick - looks good - and we'd be done. I'm trying to figure out how to suppress the reflist. Sorry that cause confusion. I'll consider this  Done unless you have anything further.--CaroleHenson (talk) 20:34, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Much better. Thanks CaroleHenson Soham321 (talk) 20:37, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

CaroleHenson i am doing a little tweaking to the main article. feel free to revert me if you disagree with my edits and we can get back to discussing here with ourselves and others.Soham321 (talk) 20:49, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm just curious about the weird use of {{od}} in this thread. If a line break is needed without a blank line, you can use <br /> which doesn't create all that extra clutter. Or you can just include a blank line. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:14, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

It looks like it's an approach to avoid all the indenting. I don't have a problem with it on the screen, but it does make it harder for me to sort out what's happening in edit mode.--CaroleHenson (talk) 22:05, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

This comment comprises
five lines with
one indent. Is
that what you
meant? ―Mandruss ☎ 03:54, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

It's been a quiet day, so I've gotten a lot done. But, that's my first laugh while editing today. Thanks! Yes, I think that's what they're going for with that approach.--CaroleHenson (talk) 04:11, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Lead

Is there some reason why we should put a rape accusation by Ivana into the lead even though she denies it?[3]Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:17, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Here's what I posted in the main section of this topic:

"Ivana is commonly mentioned as having been an accuser of rape. To ignore what is universally reported (I've not seen a list of accusers without her), would seem to indicate cherry-picking. What could it lead to, WP editors deciding that some of the claims should not be believed and should be removed?"

I go into even more detail in the above discussion.--CaroleHenson (talk) 03:23, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't understand. Why do you think it's acceptable to completely remove a very reliable and detailed source (Politico) from this Wikipedia article?

Collins, Eliza (July 28, 2015). "Ivana Trump denies accusing Donald Trump of rape". Politico. Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:30, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

I was just about to post a message on your user page. Unfortunately, there are POV issues with Daily Beast. I am remembering seeing a Politico link, which is also a POV concern. Please see the list above: #List of sources and you may search WP:RSN's archives and see the scoop about Daily Beast.

There is keen attention on this page for POV, reliable sources, etc. issues. There have been a number of attempts to remove sections from the article or have it deleted entirely. That is why we're being hypervigilant on this article.

In addition, wasn't there info in that edit that duplicated what's already in the article?--CaroleHenson (talk) 03:44, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

I see your full question now, yes - everything I mentioned applies.--CaroleHenson (talk) 03:48, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

The source I gave just now is Politico, not Daily Beast. I will think about this some more.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:59, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Anythingyouwant, Yes, I saw Politico - it's in my response. I just didn't catch that I needed to remove Daily Beast.

You may also want to take a glance at #Quality of Sources. If there's a topic that you'd like to work on, I'd be happy to help search for reliable, non-POV sources. The #List of sources was developed with feedback of a number of editors on this page - so that we can keep it viable - and is hopefully a good aid. Again, I am happy to help.--CaroleHenson (talk) 04:08, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

I have added to the lead "and says she did not mean it was 'rape' in a criminal sense or literal sense." This is fully supported by what's already in the BLP. Without this added material, the lead implies wrongly that she did mean it in a literal and/or criminal sense.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:11, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Ok, let's go ahead and take her out of the lead - shorter is better and the key legal case is the pending one. What do you thnk about this edit?--CaroleHenson (talk) 04:22, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

I think that's another way to solve the problem, thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:50, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Timeline

I tried to fix some errors in this section, but I feel that the timeline is confusing because in does not always follow chronological order:

• we have Ivana's statement from 1993
• we have Donald calling the original allegation "obviously false" in 1993 (in Newsday)
• we say that divorce was granted in 1990
• we say that divorce was finalized in 1992 – but there are sources (e.g. [4], [5]) saying March 1991
• and finally we have Donald winning gag order in 1992 (April)

Comments? Politrukki (talk) 12:58, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

This is bothersome - several of us worked on this today and had it sources and cleaned and I've seen a lot of editing to this section.

Politrukki, Oh no, not again. There should be a very clean snapshot at 23:51, 16 October 2016. I've been up all night. Are you able to check that?--CaroleHenson (talk) 13:51, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Politrukki, So sorry, I misunderstood, I thought you meant the citations weren't matching the info. Here's the timeline chronologically:

• Ivana's deposition was 1989
• divorce was granted in 1990
• news report stated that there was an upcoming hearing in March 1991, which would have been the earliest possible date to make the final financial settlement
• final financial settlement in 1991 (e.g. [6], [7])
• final financial settlement in 1992
• Donald winning gag order in 1992 (April)
• Ivana's book from 1993, in which she describes the event
• Donald calling the original allegation "obviously false" in 1993 (in Newsday)

Updated for 1991 date - it looks like we have 2 source for finalization in 1991 and 2 sources for 1992. We didn't have these source. I wonder As an FYI, a message was posted on the Talk:Donald Trump#Dates of Donald and Ivana divorce and final settlement. I also posted the question on the Ivana Trumps page, which says 1992. On the DT page, it says date of divorce as 1991, -- their page says the divorce was settled in 1991, but we had 2 sources that said 1992. Noone has responded yet.--CaroleHenson (talk) 14:46, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

I inserted "1991 or" with the two citations in the article. I wonder if something happened to cause them to renegotiate the final settlement in 1992.--CaroleHenson (talk) 21:09, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Where's the discussion?

This edit was accompanied by an edit summary stating "Removed per discussion on the talk page". The edit removed the following material:

“ According to The Guardian, lawsuits by this "Jane Doe" against Trump "appear to have been orchestrated by an eccentric anti-Trump campaigner with a record of making outlandish claims about celebrities." That person, Norm Lubow, is a former producer on the The Jerry Springer Show, and may be the same person as Doe spokesperson "Al Taylor" who said the following to The Guardian in October 2016: "Just be warned, we’ll sue you if we don’t like what you write. We’ll sue your ass, own your ass and own your newspaper’s ass as well, punk." ”

References

Where is the discussion at talk page about why this information is unacceptable? The Guardian is already cited in this BLP so it seems reliable enough. This information is important to establish degree of credibility of accusations.Anythingyouwant (talk) 09:09, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

I see a comment up above somewhere: "Got anything stronger than Vox and Guardian? If U.S. mainstream is taking a pass on that, why is that? ―Mandruss ☎ 08:58, 15 October 2016 (UTC)". Is that the basis for deleting the material? I agree Vox is an unreliable source (and ought to be removed from this BLP), but the Guardian is reliable, and it's already used in this article. If the Guardian is deemed unreliable for this article, then why is it already used? More to the point, if material in the Guardian is uncontradicted by any of the most reliable sources then it should be okay here, especially with in-text attribution to the Guardian. Far from being ignored or contradicted by US sources, the stuff in the Guardian is repeated by Daily Beast.[8]Anythingyouwant (talk) 09:39, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Discussion on user page

This is the conversation posted to Anythingyouwant's user page, with "Talk:" added to the links We had someone yesterday who wanted to post the same information. The discussion is at Talk:Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations#Jane Doe at Distelfinck (talk) 08:51, 15 October 2016 (UTC) I keep thinking that it might make sense to make this its own article, but it's not hit mainstream press yet, but I think that might change after the hearing tomorrow. Do you mind glancing at Talk:Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations#Current state? Can we touch base in a couple of days and see if this is going to hit the major news outlets? Until then, doesn't it seem to be a notability issue? Do they know something we don't about why the story isn't taking off? What do you think? --CaroleHenson (talk) 09:14, 17 October 2016 (UTC) I hope you don't mind if I continue this at the article talk page, since it's purely a content discussion. Thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 09:18, 17 October 2016 (UTC) Absolutely!--CaroleHenson (talk) 10:17, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

I can see how it's upsetting to have your edits reverted. It looks so much like the edits from yesterday. The issue is that it seems an outlandish WP:CLAIM and so we had discussed letting the story mature a bit and get some mainstream press sources.

The thing is: it's a media frenzy right now - and there have been a lot of attempts to add content from unreliable sources - or where just one source has the info. I've not added content for that reason. Because of the nature of the story, it's good to ensure that the info is valid, especially if it's an unusual claim.

One recent example: There was someone who added a story about Jennifer Murphy - stating that she was an accuser - that had not been sufficiently vetted and the story was untrue. She wasn't an accuser.

I'd like to make sure, though, that I've not missing anything. I am super-super tired right now and want to make sure that I'm clear-headed when I respond, so I'll work on that in the a.m. to make sure I haven't missed any points.--CaroleHenson (talk) 10:45, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm not upset when I get reverted if there's a good reason for it. The problem here is that you're omitting reliable information that's needed to assess credibility of child rape accusations. Without that information, people will assume it's a credible allegation. People will come here and then decide to vote against Trump because they think there's a credible child rape allegation. Or decide to call him an alleged child rapist in the lead of the main Donald Trump article.[9] Omitting the credibility information from the Guardian is essentially the same as saying that the allegation is credible. IMHO.Anythingyouwant (talk) 11:11, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

One more stab then I'm gone. I haven't been clear-headed for awhile, so I want to apologize for that. I know that I've seen attempts to post these before - and was trying to find them in history. I'll work on that in the a.m.

Here's my thoughts on this:

• It's a media frenzy right now regarding the Trump accusations, and a lot of wild claims are coming out of the woodwork
• It's not WP's mission to reflect all the news that is in the media
• This is a strange claim
• Due to the nature of the content, it would be nice to see if this hits mainstream press where it would be subject to solid fact-checking. If this is true, wouldn't the story spread?
• I agree with you about the importance of the subject, and that's why it's good to ensure that there's not a tabloid mindset for posting content to the article. What if this is not true?
• What will it hurt to wait a bit to see if this is picked up?
• Is it WP's role to litigate the viability of accuser's claims?
• There will be a hearing on the 16th, if it's not a viable case and it gets tossed out, isn't that better clearer info? This other is essentially gossip at this point

I get the feeling that you're a very experienced editor and don't need the guidelines for these, but I'm happy to get them for you in the a.m.--CaroleHenson (talk) 11:40, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

If we use the Guardian, I'm against using it selectively, e.g. to describe the charges but omitting very illuminating info about who's orchestrating the charges. I've said my piece and will watch this discussion to see if any other comments are made.Anythingyouwant (talk) 11:45, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Sounds good.--CaroleHenson (talk) 11:51, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Here's mine, but you won't like it. I would ask again, if U.S. mainstream is taking a pass, why is that? If you're implying that they are all in fact complicit in the vast left-wing conspiracy against Trump, please say so and we can take it from there. To my eye, it's more likely that U.S. mainstream is applying more caution than The Guardian as to fact-checking on that story. You have one reliable source reporting that, and I have twenty or so reliable sources choosing not to report it—although they all read each other and are no doubt aware of that Guardian story. I would like to see similar content in one or two U.S. mainstream reliable sources. It's quite possible that The Guardian isn't as infallibly reliable as you seem to believe. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:52, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Mandruss, you've asked me a direct question about why U.S. mainstream is taking a pass, so I'll answer. First, Daily Beast is not taking a pass as I already said (and linked). Second, when I search this BLP, I find eight mentions of "Guardian"; if you get rid of them on the same basis that they're not U.S. mainstream then your argument would be more persuasive. Third, this encyclopedia is supposed to take a global view, and publications in England regarding the U.S. can offer valuable perspective. Fourth, when a reliable publication delves as deeply as possible into an issue (as the Guardian has here) it's not uncommon for other publications to defer instead of reinventing the wheel.Anythingyouwant (talk) 12:02, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for being unclear. Daily Beast is not what I meant by U.S. mainstream. Forget I used that term if it helps. If there is real substance to these claims, they will not go unreported by every one of The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Los Angeles Times, The Chicago Tribune, ABC News, CBS News, NBC News, CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, NPR, and probably 5 more than don't come to mind at the moment.
when a reliable publication delves as deeply as possible into an issue (as the Guardian has here) it's not uncommon for other publications to defer instead of reinventing the wheel. It would not reinvent a wheel to report the essentials of that story, independently fact-checked, without in-depth investigative reporting.
I have no objection to removing any content that is (1) quite controversial, and (2) supported only by The Guardian. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:14, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

@Anythingyouwant:@CaroleHenson:@Mandruss: Probably with Anythingyouwant on this one. The Guardian is certainly not 'infallibly reliable', but it's one of the traditional broadsheet newspapers in the UK, wins a lot of Newspapers of the Year awards, and is the only UK newspaper whose US arm has won a Pulitzer prize. It might be left-leaning, but if anything that cuts in its favour in this case, because the investigation is in Trump's favour. I don't see an obvious reason to doubt their investigatory journalism, their investigation is interesting and relevant to that case, and Anythingyouwant's text did make clear it was only 'according to The Guardian'. Madshurtie (talk) 12:15, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Time, Newsweek, U.S. News & World Report, Christian Science Monitor, Boston Globe. There's four five more. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:27, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Mandruss, when you say "If there is real substance to these claims...." I guess you aren't referring to the child rape claim (which is already included in this article), and so you must be referring to claims such as that the child rape lawsuit is being orchestrated by some guy from the Jerry Springer Show. Is that correct? It's omission of the latter claims that make the former more controversial because the omission increases the credibility of the child rape claim.Anythingyouwant (talk) 12:31, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

The child rape claims have been widely reported among sources I listed above, no? I mean, there is a pending lawsuit about that. If the child rape claims have only been reported by one non-U.S. source (and unreliable LawNewz), I retract my argument with apologies. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:33, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Two things: I started a section for help in developing criteria for the kind of content that get added to the article -and what should be scrutinized more closely than others. I think your thoughts there will make these kind of discussions smoother for everyone. That is part of my question here.

Another point is, there's going to be a hearing on the 16th - is that today? If it's not a viable case, it will be thrown out. Since the content is so wacky, noone else is picking it up, can't we just wait and see what the media reports after the hearing? If the claim above is likely, wouldn't the media be jumping on it?--CaroleHenson (talk) 12:41, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

The article said at one point October 16 for the hearing, but I corrected that per the LawNewz source and, I can't recall, possibly one other. It's December 16, and I think it was LawNewz that used the phrase "well after the election". ―Mandruss ☎ 12:45, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Bummer. That would have been very helpful. Am I the only one that thinks it's a wacky claim - not in mainstream media. We're so close to election season, I think we are likely to be barraged with wacky claims. Should we put them all in?--CaroleHenson (talk) 12:56, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

We shouldn't make judgments about wackiness, we should include any claims that are adequately supported by U.S. blue chip sources. We can debate "adequately", but I'd say more than one. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:59, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Why do they have to be U.S.? It seems like we're going down a rabbit hole if we arbitrarily decide some reputable newspaper investigations to be too suspicious to include. Madshurtie (talk) 13:18, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Fair point. So include some overseas blue chips. BBC to start. I don't know enough about UK press to say more, but, while I recognize The Guardian as a "reliable source", I wouldn't put them in the same league as BBC. I'd call BBC "Tier 1" and The Guardian "Tier 2", and there are probably four or five tiers ending with blogs. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:26, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Honestly I wouldn't personally put Fox News in the same league as BBC, either, but the clamor that would result from excluding them would probably make that impossible. I recognize that many sane people feel the same about The New York Times. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:57, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

What The Guardian article is saying is corroborated by an article in jezebel.com : http://jezebel.com/the-source-pushing-the-trump-rape-lawsuits-may-not-be-w-1783270283 could i get a clarification on whether Jezebel (website) is considered an RS? The Guardian story has been endorsed by The Daily Beast: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/07/21/trump-rape-accusers-turn-on-each-other.html Soham321 (talk) 13:42, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't know whether they are regarded as "reliable source", but I guarantee they are not blue chip. They don't approach any of those I listed above. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:45, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

when such a serious charge is being made against someone, it is unreasonable to only look for material presenting his defense only in "blue chip" sources. RS is good enough for wikipedia. Soham321 (talk) 13:57, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

I disagree, as per my arguments in this thread. Don't know what else to say. I defer to consensus that I strongly disagree with. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:00, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

The Guardian is one of the biggest news websites in the world, with even more visits than BBC News. The BBC is notable for its public service commitment and almost complete commercial independence, so I don't mind ranking it above the other UK news organizations, but all of the traditional UK broadsheets (inc. Times, Telegraph, FT) should be considered reliable sources for investigatory journalism. Madshurtie (talk) 14:08, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

No comment on the rest at this point, but readership does not correlate very well to reliability. I wish it did. I believe the most visited web sites are pornography sites. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:12, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

The Guardian has been used as a reference in many WP pages. It is very definitely an RS. Right now we have three editors who want material from The Guardian to be reinstated in the main article, and two who are opposed to this move. Unless other editors intervene here, the majority view must prevail and the material from The Guardian reinstated into the main article.Soham321 (talk) 14:17, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

The Guardian has been used as a reference in many WP pages. I think you're missing the essential point here. This is not "many WP pages", but rather a very controversial article about a candidate for leader of the free world. It merits special treatment. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:19, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree with you to an extent (even though there is nothing in Wikipedia policy which indicates that certain WP pages require "special treatment".) Never the less, The Guardian is not a tabloid. It is a reputed British newspaper and it is definitely an RS and there is no reason not to include material from it in the main article of this page.Soham321 (talk) 14:23, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough, agree to disagree, but we are not going to declare a consensus here 5.5 hours after the inception of this discussion. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:25, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

The lawsuit didn't receive much coverage / Remove Jane Doe?

The lawsuit didn't receive much coverage:

	Mentions of the lawsuit(s)	Site search	Google search
New York Times	none	[10]	[11]
Washington Post	As Trump mulls attack on Clinton scandals, one source makes him a target	[12]	[13]
Chicago Tribune	none	[14]	[15]
LA Times	none	[16]	[17]
Boston Globe	none	[18]	[19]
ABC News	none	[20]	[21]
CBS News	none	[22]	[23]
NBC News	The Allegations Women Have Made Against Donald Trump	[24]	[25]
NPR	none	[26]	[27]
PBS	All the assault allegations against Donald Trump, recapped	[28]	[29]
MSNBC	none	[30]	[31]
CNN	none		[32]
Fox News	none	[33]	[34]
BBC	none		[35]
Newsweek	none		[36]
Time	none		[37]
U.S. News & World Report	none		[38]
Christian Science Monitor	none		[39]

So in view of this the fact that e.g. the NYT hasn't covered The Guardian's findings, in this case shouldn't raise suspicions on the truthworthiness of the findings. --Distelfinck (talk) 15:46, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Now that's what I call a strong argument, assuming you're correct. Give me some time to look into that. I'm overdue for sleep, so I may not respond for 8 hours or so. Or someone else could beat me to it. If that's in fact all the coverage in blue chips, I would seriously have to consider argue for removing the content about the rape allegations per WP:DUE. Fifteen of those blue chips don't feel the lawsuit is worth reporting, and that should mean something to us. You're technically within my suggestion of "more than one" blue chip there (2) (3), but I'm not going to argue that for the most serious of all the allegations by far. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:37, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

I note that the Google search of site:bbc.com returned two hits (that happen to be unrelated), but the same search at bbc.com returned nothing. Suggest converting all the site searches in the table to Google searches. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:16, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

The thing with Google is that for some sites, it also gives results when the search term is just appearing in the sidebar, and not in the article itself. Which seems to be the case for the results you mentioned, so the BBC's own search engine seems to work fine. But I'll add Google links for double checking Distelfinck (talk) 17:28, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

At least some of that Google search hits article text, such as "Mike Tyson following his rape conviction". ―Mandruss ☎ 17:47, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

For that result, a part of the search terms is in the article text, but the word "Trump" is not in the article text. So it's a result you don't want, i.e. not a reason to not use the BBC's search engine. --Distelfinck (talk) 18:02, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

I understand, I just felt it would be better to use the less selective search and use human intelligence to filter out the unrelated. If the table provides both searches and someone has verified that both yield the same answer, it doesn't matter. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:07, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, was a bit unscientific to preselect different search engines without stating why --Distelfinck (talk) 18:13, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

All searches need to be trump epstein rape. If you say "Jeffrey Epstein" to ignore "Theo Epstein" hits, you may miss a "Jeff Epstein", a "Jeffrey Edward Epstein", a "Jeffrey E. Epstein", and so on. We'll use human intelligence to filter out the Theos or any other Epsteins. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:37, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm removing the quotes. Now all variants of his name should be found --Distelfinck (talk) 18:49, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

• Remove content about the Jane Doe rape allegations per WP:DUE. This is the most serious of all the allegations by far, and only two of the seventeen previously listed (no cherry picking) blue chip sources, plus PBS, (16.6%) have deemed the lawsuit newsworthy. This is somewhat tentative because the search arguments need to be cleaned up, and because the results need verification by more than just me and the OP. I'll modify this !vote if there is enough change to the table to change my mind. Hint: Four of eighteen wouldn't get me there. It would appear that the vast left-wing conspiracy is in fact a vast right-wing conspiracy. With almost full complicity by the rabid conservative mainstream media. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:56, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
• Remove content about the Jane Doe rape allegations per WP:DUE and WP:EXCEPTIONAL. But if the consensus is that this section should remain, then relevant material from The Guardian article which is endorsed by The Daily Beast and corroborated by jezebel.com should also be used in the section. Soham321 (talk) 19:45, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
• Comment - Is PBS a qualifying source? (I literally know nothing about PBS) As for whether to include Jane Doe, I don't have a strong opinion and agree the case looks sketchy. Perhaps noting in the article that it hasn't been deemed newsworthy by several major news outlets and including The Guardian research would be a decent warning? Madshurtie (talk) 19:59, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Ah, PBS Newshour. I'll add that to the table. I object to "the case looks sketchy"; what we should look at is the amount of coverage in reliable sources, and It Just Ain't There. Perhaps noting in the article that it hasn't been deemed newsworthy by several major news outlets and including The Guardian research would be a decent warning? No, I don't think that's how we treat low coverage of very serious allegations in BLPs. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:07, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

• Remove the section in its current form. Then basically do what Madshurtie is considering -- mention the suit in a sentence or two, not in its own section though (that might give it undue weight), and include criticism from reliable sources like The Guardian. If we don't mention the lawsuit at all, then readers who have otherwise heard it will be wondering why. They then might do their own thinking and conclude that the reason we don't mention it is that there doesn't seem to be much to it. I like to not have to rely on that, and explicitly mention it. --Distelfinck (talk) 20:21, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

  They will wonder why, and they will suspect Wikipedia of a biased coverup, like they always do. We don't edit based on expected public reactions to our content. If any suspicious reader asks about it on this page, they will be referred to the applicable Wikipedia policy. conclude that the reason we don't mention it is that there doesn't seem to be much to it. Yes. There doesn't seem to be much to it, per WP:DUE. Also WP:EXCEPTIONAL as cited above. That refers to "exceptional claim", and I feel that accusations of repeated rape of a 13-year-old rise above "exceptional claim". That's prison time territory for most folks. Therefore requiring more than "multiple high-quality sources". Like, say, six blue chips? I think that's reasonable. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:39, 17 October 2016 (UTC)―Mandruss ☎ 20:30, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

• No opinion right now about whether to totally remove this from the BLP, but certainly remove it from the lead. Furthermore, if it's not completely removed from the BLP, then I support making it vastly less contentious and harmful to the BLP subject by mentioning in the BLP that, according to The Guardian, lawsuits by this "Jane Doe" against Trump "appear to have been orchestrated by an eccentric anti-Trump campaigner with a record of making outlandish claims about celebrities", a former producer on the The Jerry Springer Show.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:34, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
• Comment: Just want to point out something to those who have been insisting that The Guardian article, which gives evidence to suggest that the Jane Doe allegation is frivolous, not be used since according to them The Guardian is not a "blue chip" source. If you go over the main article carefully you will find The Guardian being used as a source for some of the accusations against Trump.Should only "blue chip" sources be used when it comes to the accusations?Soham321 (talk) 01:40, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
  • I'll repeat what I said in the parent section: I have no objection to removing any content that is (1) quite controversial, and (2) supported only by The Guardian. No, I'll modify that here. I have no objection to removing any content that is (1) quite controversial, and (2) supported only by The Guardian, Daily Beast, and/or that Jeezebel thing or whatever. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:59, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
    • Here is another reference source on this issue: http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/yes-donald-trump-was-accused-of-raping-a-13-year-old-but-this-lawsuit-has-little-chance-of-succeeding/ Soham321 (talk) 02:26, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
    • The founder of the lawnewz "legal news" website is this gentleman: Dan Abrams Soham321 (talk) 02:32, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
      • We have a consensus on this page (or its archive, not sure) that LawNewz is not RS. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:34, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
• Suggest reducing Jane Doe content to one or two sentences as discussed above & remove from the lead. I feel it almost cheapens the allegations from the other women who offered extensive detail, went on the records, etc. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:05, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
• Proposal Remove all reference to Jane Doe from any other section inc. lede. Reduce Jane Doe section to one line saying something like 'An anonymous lawsuit was filled against Trump for the third time in October 2016. An investigation by The Guardian has revealed that it appears to be covertly coordinated by sensationalist Norm Lubow.' and then cite only the only the Washington Post article (as the only one of Mandruss's blue chips that has analyzed the case) and the first Guardian article (as the only reliable soure that has bothered to do any investigatory journalism). Put a message in the wikitext instructing other editors that adding anything else to the section may violate BLP. Madshurtie (talk) 10:17, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

This way we are acknowledging the existence of the lawsuit but not giving its contents any weight. We also steer readers away from dangerous territory, as recommended by Distelfinck. Madshurtie (talk) 10:20, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

• @Madshurtie: 1. You're proposing that we mention a lawsuit without saying word one about what it's about? That doesn't seem very useful to me. More importantly, 2. I'm puzzled. This is your second out-of-process proposal in this !voting to try to get some small mention of this into the article. It isn't all that unusual to omit an allegation completely, and in fact omitting allegations completely is what WP:EXCEPTIONAL is about. Can you say what Wikipedia principle you are thinking about here? ―Mandruss ☎ 10:38, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

@Mandruss: Does it look like I'm trying 'to get some small mention of this into the article'? My first comment was mainly about the source, where I also wondered if clear context is sufficient. My formal response was a stricter variation on what Distelfinck and K.e.coffman have suggested; I thought it looked like a compromise. My only contribution before that was to support Anythingyouwant saying the section should be made more skeptical with the Guardian research. Don't see what the agenda there is. I've only worked on the odd BLP before, so ignore me if I'm giving bad advice. Madshurtie (talk) 11:18, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

I didn't mean to imply an agenda, sorry. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:24, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

@Mandruss: No worries, maybe I overreacted. Madshurtie (talk) 11:29, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

• Remove - oppose a dedicated section for Jane Doe per WP:WEIGHT and WP:BLPGOSSIP. Table above suggests that the lawsuit is not very newsworthy. Some sources (cherrypicking alert!) are very skeptical: "mysterious, anonymous lawsuit ... no one has been allowed to speak to the plaintiffs – a major red flag."[40], "lawsuit appeared to have been coordinated by a former producer on the Jerry Springer TV show who has been associated in the past with a range of disputed claims involving celebrities" [41], and "[a] bizarre lawsuit"[42] (the last two we have cited). Taking account the tone used in previously mentioned articles, that they use anonymous sources – media outlets have not even been given a change to interview Doe – many claims appear WP:BLPGOSSIPish. If, however, something about Jane Doe is to be included, caveats expressed in the high-quality sources, for example in The Guardian, should be given due weight.
  All this being said, I don't question the reliability of The Guardian, and I would actually put them above many of these "blue chips". Politrukki (talk) 14:39, 18 October 2016 (UTC); edited 09:11, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

After thinking this through, I notice that I have been too fixated on whether the section should be removed or retained. Dedicating a section for Jane Doe gives and impression that the amount of exposure of this story has been given is somewhat equal to for example Jill Harth's story. If there's a way to merge Jane Doe content under another section using 50–70 words (say that a lawsuit has been filed + denial of wrongdoing + caveats), I don't believe that would be WP:UNDUE. I just don't see how that could be done in the current format, but maybe someone else does. Politrukki (talk) 09:11, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

• Keep the Jane Doe section She is in all the lists of accusers and is the only one with a pending legal case . And as the table shows is well covered by the media. It seems to me that removing her would be OR, to come to a conclusion that she should not be in the list of accusers. But I have been out of the loop for a day. if recent developments question the veracity of her claims, I agree to a much shorter section, with an explanation of why it's not a claim--CaroleHenson (talk) 17:18, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

  It seems to me that removing her would be OR, to come to a conclusion that she should not be in the list of accusers. Then WP:DUE would appear to violate WP:NOR. The WP:DUE argument for omission is that only 16.6% percent of 18 blue chip sources (no one has disputed their stature as blue chips; aside from PBS, no one has sought to add more sources to the table as blue chips) have reported this. The other 83.3% obviously know about the lawsuit but have apparently felt it was not newsworthy. In my opinion we should look at the number 16.6, not the number 3 in isolation. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:24, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

@Mandruss: Not sure why we're including the news magazines, not least because they cover fewer stories. However, there's probably the odd organization I would add, so I won't argue with the percentage too much. Madshurtie (talk) 21:21, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

@Madshurtie: - they cover fewer stories - But they would cover "Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations" at least once, no? If not in a separate article on that subject, at least as part of an article with wider scope. (Can you show that they have not?) And they would either mention the lawsuit or not in that story, no? ―Mandruss ☎ 21:37, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

@Mandruss: Newsweek doesn't appear to cover all of them, and the Time list isn't comprehensive. Because news magazines publish fewer stories, I expect they have a higher likelihood of missing or deciding not to cover an allegation. On this topic, The Atlantic has covered it. Madshurtie (talk) 10:14, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

• Keep it. The table in the beginning of the thread was based on incorrect search by red-linked account. In fact this received a significant coverage in press. No judgement if this is true. My very best wishes (talk) 18:45, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

@My very best wishes: Do you have evidence of that? The only other decent news organization I've seen cover it is Vox, who think it's silly, and aren't one of the established sources Mandruss is seeking. Madshurtie (talk) 19:37, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

I attempt to explain my rationale for this approach at User talk:Mandruss#Diversity of sources. I stand by it. I don't understand incorrect search by red-linked account. but, if there are any inaccuracies in the table, please correct them with explanation. As I said above, my !vote is changeable and I'd hope the !votes of others would be, too. We could ping !voters if needed. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:09, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

established sources -- For clarity I think we should use the term "blue chips". Vox and many others are "established sources" but not blue chips - not the best of the best, the cream of the crop, the few best exemplars of solid journalism principles. There's "good" and then there's "excellent", and for this purpose we should confine ourselves to "excellent". As I said in the user-talk thread I link above, I have no problem using other reliable sources in the article if the subject passes WP:DUE per this process of decision-making. Belatedly, that was never my intent; I didn't mean to suggest that the content should be entirely taken from three sources. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:05, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

@Mandruss: I meant established in the dictionary sense '1. having existed or done something for a long time and therefore recognized and generally accepted.' Presumably that is one thing that sets many of these sources apart from an upstart like Vox. 'Blue chip' itself is a vague term; we've hardly used a vigorous method for designating sources. We could also call them 'big' sources because their budget and number of journalists are measurable ways they are the cream of the crop. Digression aside, most 'reliable sources' aren't touching it either. Madshurtie (talk) 21:21, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

@Madshurtie: Thanks for the clarification. As to the term "blue chip", this is just my perception of how the editing community feels about quality of sources, and as I've said I'm open to additions or subtractions from the table. As to " vigorous method for designating sources", I've long felt Wikipedia should do that, creating a tier classification of sources such as what I described the other day. It wouldn't be practical to do that just for this one decision, however, and I think this is the best we can do. most 'reliable sources' aren't touching it either - Right, but, as I said on my user talk page, that universe would simply be too large to manage for this purpose. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:30, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

@Mandruss: Meant to say 'rigorous' but guess it still made sense. General google searches mostly shows up gossip, celebrity, and rumor sources, so it seems likely most reliable sources are leaving it. Madshurtie (talk) 10:14, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

• I am a little confused by the previous Keep vote because the words that follow suggest removing it. If you just look at just two sources, NPR and NBC, they both list her in the list of accusers. They are currently sources 4 + 5 in the article reference section.--CaroleHenson (talk) 20:14, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

• In fact this received a significant coverage in press. appears to support keeping it, not removing it. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:16, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely, I mean to keep it. I did not edit this subject, but after looking at this section and referencing, I think it belongs to the page and well written. My very best wishes (talk) 01:32, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

• Keep — the fact that a court is considering a claim is notable, and it definitely belongs in a page that deals with "allegations".--Jack Upland (talk) 21:36, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

  @Jack Upland: - I'm approaching WP:BLUDGEON territory at this point, but could you please respond to the well-articulated WP:DUE argument? Notability is about whether an article should exist, not about what to include in one. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:47, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

The Keep supporters also need to respond to the WP:EXCEPTIONAL argument. Soham321 (talk) 23:27, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Regarding [WP:EXCEPTIONAL]], which is: Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources.[12] Red flags that should prompt extra caution include:

• surprising or apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources;
• challenged claims that are supported purely by primary or self-published sources or those with an apparent conflict of interest;[8]
• reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character, or against an interest they had previously defended;
• claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community, or that would significantly alter mainstream assumptions, especially in science, medicine, history, politics, and biographies of living people. This is especially true when proponents say there is a conspiracy to silence them.

It is covered widely by the media, the sources used are not self-published or primary sources, and I am not seeing how the next two apply here. Trump and his supporters question the validity of the charge, but there is not prevailing opinion that she did not make the charge and there is an upcoming hearing.--CaroleHenson (talk) 00:13, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

"...I feel that accusations of repeated rape of a 13-year-old rise above 'exceptional claim'. That's prison time territory for most folks. Therefore requiring more than 'multiple high-quality sources'."—Me ―Mandruss ☎ 00:19, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

I would like to express my objection to the multiple Keep arguments with weak, incorrect, or no policy basis, that completely sidestep the WP:DUE argument that is the entire point of this subsection. Do people actually read the discussion before !voting? Do we have to request a closer for this discussion? ―Mandruss ☎ 00:23, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Mandruss, I am unclear what the point is - do you not think it is widely covered, that another more stringent guideline should apply, or something else?--CaroleHenson (talk) 00:29, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

@CaroleHenson: I'll try to write an executive summary. 1. We should look at percentage of the whole who have reported it, not simply the number who have reported it. We should consider that the others have not reported it, despite the fact that they must know about it. They have made a positive decision that it is not newsworthy, not simply overlooked it. We have to assume that. 2. I have essentially proposed limiting our "universe" to 18 of the highest quality sources for the purpose of judging WP:DUE. The alternative is to expand the universe to all reliable sources, research all of them, and then calculate a new percentage who report it. That would be completely unworkable for multiple reasons. 3. 16.6% of our current universe have reported it. 83.3% of our current universe, 5 times as many, have deemed it not newsworthy. That does not justify content about accusations of the repeated rape of a 13-year-girl. Accusations don't get much more serious, short of murder. 4. I have said in multiple places that this rationale is only for the purpose of deciding whether to include any content. If we decide to do so, then we can use other reliable sources to determine content. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:37, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Mandruss I understand your point. Thanks for clarifying your change of thought. The analysis does seem to be a valuable exercise, especially in light of the accusations . I do not feel comfortable in having the section totally removed, because that means we are now questioning something that has been reported by mainstream media. It seems a slippery slope to me, but of course the group must weigh in on the analysis you mention and then take it from there. It might be interesting to know how much reporting this got before October. I will check back in later.--CaroleHenson (talk) 01:28, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

@Mandruss: Presumably EXCEPTIONAL doesn't apply to the lawsuit itself, which clearly does exist, it just applies to the claims in the lawsuit? Though presumably DUE could apply to the lawsuit itself. Madshurtie (talk) 10:14, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

I did not not-vote "keep", but I don't find WP:EXCEPTIONAL particularly relevant here. There's no question that a lawsuit has been filed. That's easy to verify using court documents, which is exactly what at least some reliable sources have done. Politrukki (talk) 09:23, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

• Comment — I think the "Remove" argument relies to heavily on the fact that many news outlets have not mentioned the case. Why haven't they? Mandruss says this is because it is not newsworthy. How can this be the case? A lawsuit against a presidential candidate accusing him of rape during the election campaign??? No. I'm guessing they don't want to air an explosive allegation for fear they will be seen as unduly influencing the election. But that's only a guess. The fact that a court is hearing the case is a strong argument for inclusion. There is a higher threshold to get an allegation into court than to get it into the media, particularly when there is a feeding frenzy about Trump's behaviour towards women.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:03, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

• I'm guessing they don't want to air an explosive allegation for fear they will be seen as unduly influencing the election. But that's only a guess. Yes it is, and it's a guess that is precluded by Wikipedia policy, so there is no reason to even mention it in a content discussion. I don't even let my mind go places like that while I'm editing, but that's me. The fact that a court is hearing the case is a strong argument for inclusion I'm not sure I agree with that either. We routinely make editorial judgment calls like that, but I feel this is a case where we should strictly limit ourselves to strong policy connections.
  And while this doesn't specifically apply to you, I see a whole lot of arguments about this whole Trump sex thing that appear to be coming from both emotion about the sex abuse aspect and political leanings. Those who are known to hate Trump are seen consistently arguing for content unfavorable to him, and vice versa, working very hard to find whatever thin policy basis they can to support their argument. That is strong evidence that people are not keeping their biases out of their editing. This is not new or unusual, but it's unusually dangerous in this election situation. We're talking about a battle for not only the White House, but the Congress and the Supreme Court, not Gamergate. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:22, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

You don't guess??? Yes, you do. You said that some outlets didn't report the story because they made a decision that it wasn't "newsworthy". That is a guess. And a highly unlikely one, as I said.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:33, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Ok. We may need a closer here, then, and they will have to decide whose guess is better. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:35, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

As I have failed to sway a single one of the Keeps, and the very premise of my argument is now under attack, I'm going to drop the issue unless I can get sufficient support against that challenge. I know a losing battle when I see one, and I have better things to do with my time. At this rate the election would be over before we resolved this question. Madshurtie I received your latest pings. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:26, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

@Mandruss: I'm not a committed keep (I haven't actually put forward a vote yet), and have less experience on a dispute like this than you, so don't take me too seriously. Since this is a pretty serious issue, I think we need to get more editors involved. It doesn't just affect this article. Madshurtie (talk) 10:46, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

@Madshurtie: Thanks for that. I posted a discussion notice at Talk:Donald Trump 34 hours ago, so we probably won't get much more participation via that. The only other way to increase participation, aside from more notices elsewhere, is an RfC. That would automatically give us a closer, if I'm not mistaken. I'm not opposed to starting an RfC, although the default duration is 30 days and we would have to agree to close it much earlier to beat the election by any significant degree. Call me cynical, but in this contentious situation I would expect the minority to oppose the early close in the hopes of becoming the majority. (Sheer numbers count for more than we would like to believe.) ―Mandruss ☎ 11:00, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Mandruss, I am not a committed keep to the full section. I think the word rape and most of the verbiage could be removed... leaving that there is a pending court case involving a woman who was 13 at the time of an act of an alleged sexual misconduct. I can think of several reasons why it wouldn't have been reported: appearance of bias, getting locked out of access to the campaign staff at a pivotal time, and lawsuit threats. But when I weigh that against the media frenzy of the accusations it is hard to understand not reporting it. But IMO removing it entirely means we are litigating this issue.--CaroleHenson (talk) 15:47, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

How about posting it on the talk page of an applicable guideline?--CaroleHenson (talk)

Because it seems the prevailing thought is to entirely remove or reduce the section, I removed the most salacious content from her section and the use of the word rape from the intro until this gets resolved.--CaroleHenson (talk) 16:41, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Have we made any progress towards RfC or otherwise getting this section out of limbo? Because at the moment it's in the worst of all worlds, where there's still a decent amount of content, but no mention of the caveats that most of the reliable sources analysing it have mentioned. Madshurtie (talk) 12:46, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Madshurtie, I'm on it. The direction that I got from the Help Chat line about the Jane Doe issue and another issue was to report it to the WP:NPOVN - but to first wait til after the debate for things to sort themselves out a bit more. Since the issue about the Trump reaction section seems to have been resolved, we're good there. This issue, as you say, has been hanging out there for awhile. I realize now that I shouldn't have, but I had made edits to the intro and her section to tone down the rhetoric because of the points that you are making. If anyone disagrees with me about the NPOVN approach, please say so. In the meantime, I'll start drafting the posting. I'll post a draft here to ensure that it accurately reflect the issue.--CaroleHenson (talk) 23:36, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

MadshurtieThe draft is posted in the #Draft: NPOVN post for Jane Doe subsection. Any comments before we post it?--CaroleHenson (talk) 01:28, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

With regard to the question about why it hasn't been reported by some media outlets, Slate comments: "Update, Oct. 13: Readers are asking why we didn’t include a widely circulated civil suit alleging that Trump raped a 13-year-old girl. This week, a judge ordered that Trump have legal representation at an upcoming court date for the suit. But as Jezebel has reported, there are a lot of reasons to reserve judgment on that story." The Jezebel article linked to refers to "the special peculiarities that make the case so hard to report on and the red flags it raises: Katie Johnson isn’t findable, nor is Tiffany Doe, and the allegations are almost cinematic in their depravity." I think reading between the lines they are saying that they don't believe the story. The implicit logic is that someone who makes herself available for interview and alleges low-level sexual assault is more credible than someone who refuses an interview and alleges underage rape. I don't accept that as a valid argument. I think the fact that the court has set a trial date is more important than the self-important self-justifications of the self-appointed barrack room lawyers in the Fourth Estate. The title of this page is "allegations" and this is certainly an important allegation. We do not have to pass judgement on whether it is true. But "reserving judgement" by omitting this allegation is tantamount to passing judgement against it.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:15, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Jack Upland, that's interesting information. Do you have reliable sources from the #List of sources versus a tabloid and a blog?--CaroleHenson (talk) 23:36, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

What are you talking about?--Jack Upland (talk) 23:42, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Jack, I simply feel it's dangerous to start analyzing our sources' motivations. That invariably gets us into trouble, since it is very vulnerable to our own biases, and quite unconsciously so. It's not that different from making claims about the liberal bias of the media in our arguments. I'm not aware of anything in policy that says we should consider such things. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:42, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I already hear you saying I'm analyzing our sources' motivations. This is a conundrum that I suspect is above the competence level of 80% of editors, so I don't think RfC is a good solution. I think it belongs at either WP:NPOVN or WP:VPP, and I'd lean toward the latter. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:07, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

This issue is now posted at WP:NPOVN#Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations - Child rape claim site.--03:31, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Draft: NPOVN post for Jane Doe

Draft

Within the Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations page is a claim by a woman, called "Jane Doe", who says that at the age of 13 she was raped by Donald Trump on multiple occasions. She first filed a suit in California, but it was thrown out due to filing issues; The plaintiff filed the case by herself, without a lawyer. A civil lawsuit was filed in New York earlier this year, and a third attempt at litigating the case began with an October 2016 filing.

Although there has been widespread press coverage of allegations against Donald Trump of sexual assault or misconduct since the second presidential debated on October 9, 2016 — this case has not received significant press. Although we have reputable mainstream press sources that have reported that a suit was filed and that a hearing is scheduled for December 2016, there is not widespread coverage.

Please see analysis performed by Mandruss:

1. We should look at percentage of the whole who have reported it, not simply the number who have reported it. We should consider that the others have not reported it, despite the fact that they must know about it. They have made a positive decision that it is not newsworthy, not simply overlooked it. They have made a positive decision that it is not newsworthy, not simply overlooked it. We have to assume that.
2. I have essentially proposed limiting our "universe" to 18 of the highest quality sources for the purpose of judging WP:DUE. The alternative is to expand the universe to all reliable sources, research all of them, and then calculate a new percentage who report it. That would be completely unworkable for multiple reasons.
3. 16.6% of our current universe have reported it. 83.3% of our current universe, 5 times as many, have deemed it not newsworthy. That does not justify content about accusations of the repeated rape of a 13-year-girl. Accusations don't get much more serious, short of murder.
4. I have said in multiple places that this rationale is only for the purpose of deciding whether to include any content. If we decide to do so, then we can use other reliable sources to determine content.

Due the visibility of Donald Trump during his campaign and the severity of the claim, we would like to have your assistance to settle the issue of whether or how accusations by this woman should be included in the page.

This is a start. Please feel free to make edits directly to the draft.--CaroleHenson (talk) 23:58, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Not bad, but you removed my underscoring for emphasis in a couple of places, which I felt improved communication. (I often use underscoring instead of italics for emphasis of shorter phrases because I can't easily see italicization in shorter phrases.) ―Mandruss ☎ 00:12, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Ok, Mandruss, I added the underlines - there were also some bolds in the source info, so I wasn't quite sure what was what. If you're ok with the underlines, are you saying that from your perspective this is good enough to post?--CaroleHenson (talk) 01:24, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

@CaroleHenson: Yes. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:30, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

I should have asked this earlier, Mandruss, since you performed the analysis - do you want to post it on the NPOVN?--CaroleHenson (talk) 01:32, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

@CaroleHenson: Not really. :D ―Mandruss ☎ 01:34, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Ok, I posted the link to this subsection in the previous subsection where all the discussion took place about whether or not to remove Jane Doe. I'd like to give a little bit of time for folks to react - and then I'll post it, say within the next hour or so.--CaroleHenson (talk) 01:37, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

This issue is now posted at WP:NPOVN#Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations - Child rape claim site.--03:30, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Carlos Slim's influence

• "Trump accuses Mexico's Carlos Slim of trying to help Clinton". Reuters. October 14, 2016. Retrieved October 17, 2016.

Trump suggests that Mexican billionaire Carlos Slim, a major shareholder in The New York Times, published these allegations to help HRC's campaign. This seems to parallel the argument found in Ann Coulter's Adios, America: The Left's Plan to Turn Our Country Into a Third World Hellhole that Slim supports illegal immigration because he makes millions of dollars off remittances every year.

If we're going to mention Russia's alleged involvement in HRC's speeches and e-mails, we should mention Mexico/Carlos Slim here--both in the lede and in a subsection. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 12:18, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Not in the lede. Maybe in the 'Trump campaign reactions' section. Madshurtie (talk) 12:23, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

I think it should be in the lede because apparently it wouldn't have been published without Slim. By the way, since Slim is a foreign national, is there an official statement from the USFG (maybe the DHS) about this? They have one about Russia; why not Mexico?Zigzig20s (talk) 12:44, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

@Madshurtie and Zigzip20s: I am concerned about how objective this article can be if it becomes a place to park all the conspiracy theories. Aren't we getting into WP:UNDUE territory. I wonder if there should be a separate article for conspiracy theories. Not sure at the moment what the title might be.--CaroleHenson (talk) 12:52, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

It's not a "conspiracy theory". (That is the phrase the Clinton campaign has been using since the end of the summer to dismiss any and all criticisms by the way.) He is a major shareholder and Trump has called him out on it. I agree with you that it would help to get an official statement from the DHS or FBI, since he is a foreign national and they have one about the alleged Russian influence on the other side of the aisle. But this is very due indeed. Besides, there are many reliable third-party sources about this (look it up on Google News). We won't cite Trump's words obviously (unless it's a direct quote), but what the mainstream media have said about this. (We've had the same argument about HRC's speech transcripts and e-mails. This is basic Wikipedia policy to add referenced content.) Zigzig20s (talk) 12:56, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

We may have a different definition of what it means to be a conspiracy - I totally get the overuse of the term. If there's another term that I could use, I'm happy with that - my point is: 1) Trump believes the allegations are politically motivated, 2) if he's innocent, it is unquestionably as the result of an organized political agenda, 3) if it's an organized political agenda there could be many theories. Perhaps if they're going to come in we just wait and see what the volume becomes and then, if necessary, create another article. I'm totally exhausted and not well, which could be playing into my fear tonight about a tidal wave of content coming in that is tangental (sp?) to the allegations.--CaroleHenson (talk) 13:12, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

They have one about Russia because there's forensic evidence Fancy Bear and other Russian hacker groups were behind attacks on voter systems and Democrats emails. At the moment there is no evidence Slim directed these allegations, we just know he is a big shareholder in the New York Times who doesn't even have the majority power to impose decisions (only owns about 17%). These are not equivalent. Where is your source for 'it wouldn't have been published without Slim' other than a quote from Trump? At the moment it's just a Trump assertion and would only belong in that section. What's more, it only relates to two of the allegations. If it somehow came out that Slim did direct these allegations, then we could discuss putting it in the lede. Madshurtie (talk) 13:13, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

It is absolutely a conspiracy theory, if not an outright fabrication to distract the public from Trump's alleged sexual misconduct and create a false equivalency. It does not belong in the lead. At most, it deserves a brief mention attributed directly to Trump in the 'Trump campaign reactions' section.- MrX 13:17, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

How do you know? The bottom line is, it looks like both Russia and Mexico may be trying to influence the US presidential election. The million-dollar question is, since the DHS is supposed to be non-partisan, why haven't they released a statement about Mexico/Slim yet? It would be good if an editor could let us know when they do. (I won't have time to keep track of this, too busy at work these days.) In any case, I think we should add referenced content about Slim's influence as per weight of RS.Zigzig20s (talk) 13:25, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

I know because I'm able to take in information, apply reason and logic, and form conclusions. If you want to believe these ridiculous theories, that's your choice, but please don't promote them on Wikipedia.- MrX 13:33, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

It is not just DHS: independent firms have found forensic evidence for Russian hackers. The bottom line is there is substantial evidence Russian is trying to influence the election, and there is no evidence Mexico is. When the DHS tells us that a man without the shareholding power to dictate NYTimes decisions has somehow got them to fabricate the allegations, please let us know. Madshurtie (talk) 13:36, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't have time to double-check if those firms have links to the Clinton Foundation or whatnot. I trust the DHS, though their statement is conditional. By the way, Russia has denied it. In any case, I don't think we should be doing Original Research as you did earlier with the 17%; we should just cite reliable sources about Carlos Slim like Reuters.Zigzig20s (talk) 14:20, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

You're not accepting the totals of publicly listed stock shares? Fine. Do you believe all the sources that have said he owns just under 17% of the organization? Is the Wall Street Journal agreeable enough for you? It's bordering on absurd for Wikipedia to say that someone who doesn't control the organization controls the organization, just because Donald Trump has said so. Madshurtie (talk) 14:27, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, as a major shareholder, you do exert an influence, yes. In any case, I think we should do what Reuters, etc., have done--relay the information.Zigzig20s (talk) 15:03, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Only if enough other (non-Mexican) shareholders agree. Basically: 1) Mexican nationals don't control the New York Times. 2) Slim isn't under orders by the Mexican government. 3) There's still no evidence Slim has influenced the NYTimes's journalism here. 4) We can only say Reuters, etc say Slim ordered a fabrication when Reuters, etc say Slim ordered a fabrication. They have not. They say Trump says Slim ordered a fabrication. Trump is not a reliable source.

As such, the only possible home for this accusation would be in the Trump reactions section. Madshurtie (talk) 17:48, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

As we're now seem to be intent on adding this nonsense to the BLP at Carlos Slim, can someone clarify why this passing, nonsensical claim is worthy of note anywhere? Has there been any traction to it, other than the usual eye rolls? This appears to be, as noted above, a simple distraction, and not worthy of inclusion here. Certainly not worthy in a BLP. Kuru (talk) 01:49, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

We are not saying we agree or disagree with Trump. But we should be able to relay the information that Trump suggests Slim is trying to influence the US presidential election with libel in a newspaper where is a major shareholder. You may disagree with Trump's suggestion, but that shouldn't guide your editing. Reuters is as NPOV as Wikipedia should be, yet they published the information, and so should we.Zigzig20s (talk) 02:21, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

This is not a newspaper, we have different standards to the enduring notability to the claim vs. just reporting last week's whistle stop. I would suggest you resolve the issue here before attempting to add it to his biography again. Kuru (talk) 02:42, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree with you that these unproven allegations should not be on Wikipedia because they are unencyclopedic and pure gossip. But since they are here, we should give the full context, just as the mainstream media do.Zigzig20s (talk) 02:57, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

No, this is ridiculous.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:46, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree with you that these allegations are indeed ridiculous, but since they are here, we should give the full context as per RS.Zigzig20s (talk) 02:57, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

No that's not how any of this works. Just because Trump throws out random accusations with no basis in fact and a RS runs a story on it doesn't mean we parrot them here. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:45, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

So why are we parroting these unfounded allegations? We would only be providing context.Zigzig20s (talk) 03:51, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

The women accusing Trump are quite credible. You want to provide spin. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:54, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

You're free to believe them if you want to, but Trump has denied their allegations and Wikipedia should not take sides. We should be NPOV. Reuters is NPOV in their article, too, and it should therefore be included.Zigzig20s (talk) 04:01, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Your M.O. whatever the content is is to say "it's in an RS so it's NPOV to include". I believe you're too smart to actually believe that. You know how this works. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:10, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Who knows. It doesn't matter. This is not about me. This is about factual information that Reuters is relaying, and so should we. We already have a "Trump campaign reactions" subsection, and even the lede says Trump denies this. Why can't we add that Trump's response includes Slim's possible influence? It just makes no sense to leave this out. We shouldn't intentionally obfuscate information. That would make Wikipedia look bad. Let's be serious.Zigzig20s (talk) 04:19, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

It could be put in the Trump campaign reactions section, but you'll have to convince other editors first. It should not be put in any other part of the article. Madshurtie (talk) 10:22, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Do we need to start an RfC to add this? I don't have magical powers to persuade people who believe unproven allegations are encyclopedic in the first place. Nobody knows if the allegations are true. At least with what Trump said, we all know what he said--so his full critique should appear in the "Trump campaign reactions"--including his position on Carlos Slim. Zigzig20s (talk) 15:27, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

A quick review of the responses to your proposals show five editors opposed, one that would be comfortable adding it to the "reactions" section, and you. So yes, you'll need to find a more persuasive way to articulate your position, wait for more responses, or start an RFC to get a wider range of opinions. I presume from your edit history that simply accepting the consensus of the other editors and moving on is out of the question. Kuru (talk) 15:40, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

There is no need whatsoever for you or anyone else to presume or assume anything about me. Only my boyfriend may do this, because after we fight we can make up. The only thing I care about on Wikipedia is improving content. If Trump blames Carlos Slim for the content of this article and some editors are actively blocking this content, your suggestion to start an RfC may make sense. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 15:50, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

I know Kuru, Muboshgu, and Volunteer Marek opposed giving the conspiracy any credibility, but the actual quote looks so ridiculous I saw no harm in adding it. Madshurtie (talk) 13:17, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

The word "conspiracy" in the lede

Should the word "conspiracy" appear in the lede? I believe it is undue, as the word is POV. It suggests that Trump believes in "conspiracy theories"--give me a break! He may believe this is a witch-hunt, but that's different.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:21, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Well we could use his words e.g. something like Trump called it a "big fix". I'm not sure how to summarise his statements as anything other then calling it a conspiracy. — Strongjam (talk) 16:27, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Witch-hunt sounds good. Can we please agree on this?Zigzig20s (talk) 16:37, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

No, he didn't call it anything sounding like a witch hunt. He called it a "big fix" and said that "the media conspires and collaborates with the Clinton campaign". — Strongjam (talk) 16:42, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Let's replace "conspiracy" with "big fix" then, shall we?Zigzig20s (talk) 16:45, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Let's stick with what the sources say, "conspiracy". To do anything else would be spinning this. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 16:49, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

The source is POV. It's from The Washington Post. They have endorsed HRC.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:51, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

If they were relaying facts, that would be fine, but they are interpreting here. Ergo, "big fix" is NPOV and the best choice for Wikipedia.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:53, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

The WSJ and CNN however have not given an endorsement and both use the word conspiracy. Even Trump used the word "conspire". — Strongjam (talk) 16:54, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Can you please link to those WSJ and CNN articles? I would like to double-check the context. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:59, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Those sources are linked right behind the word "conspiracy" in the lead. Trump is talking about a conspiracy of the election being "rigged" against him. Also, WaPo is not POV. Editorial boards across the country have endorsed HRC, but they are separate from the journalism of those papers. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:00, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, it depends. In this case it is POV, because they appear to be re-interpreting what he said.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:02, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Why don't we use his direct quote from CNN, "one of the great political smear campaigns in the history of our country"? This is perfect.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:05, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Or we can just stick to the sources. See also Fortune, NBC News, FOX32 Chicago, and Chicago Trubune. — Strongjam (talk) 17:06, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

This sentence is about his response though. I think it makes sense to let him speak.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:10, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

It's funny, how Zigzig is always saying "follow what the sources say", but here sources say something he/she doesn't like, and is now trying to disregard them. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:10, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, the direct quote is backed up by an RS.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:12, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

How about using words from the campaign, either character assassination or smear? See the Jason Miller quote in the reactions section.--CaroleHenson (talk) 17:47, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

That would certainly be a better option, too.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:01, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Although the titles of the article include the word conspiracy, I am not seeing that Trump used that word--but that's what he seems to be getting at conceptually-- in the cited sources, but maybe I missed it. Trump does call it a "political smear campaign" in the cited CNN article. There are no new com;ments. So, how about if I make that change and if anyone has an issue, please say so here.--CaroleHenson (talk) 22:11, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Donald Trump has described things as a conspiracy. And this. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:26, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Are you saying "political smear campaign" from the cited CNN article is a poorer word choice than conspiracy and should be replaced? Is that particular word important? Thanks.---CaroleHenson (talk) 05:49, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

I object to the word "conspiracy"; it is POV. The current edit, a direct quote with "political smear campaign", is fine. I think we can close this specific topic. We've fixed the problem and reached consensus and there's no need to keep discussing this endlessly.Zigzig20s (talk) 06:19, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

"Conspiracy" is not POV, Trump said the media and the Clinton campaign "conspire", said it was a "big fix" and that involved Carlos Slim. I can't see anyway to summarise that then as alleging a conspiracy. What is POV is not sticking to the sources. — Strongjam (talk) 14:14, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree that conspiracy is not POV, but it is also not the prevailing way in which Trump and his campaign have described the events. Isn't a political smear campaign an example of a conspiracy?- Please help me understand why it is so important to use the actual word "conspiracy". Thanks.-CaroleHenson (talk) 16:09, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Corraboraters

We have a detractor in the Summer Zervos section, which would lead me to think it's ok to add collaborators. This article came out from the reliable Washinton Post: Clinton and Trump collaborators, which applies to the related Clinton article.

My question is: should we have content from corroborators and detractors? --CaroleHenson (talk) 21:47, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Why women don't report

I came across this article by accident, first of all compliments for what is mostly calm. objective and coherent coverage. However two sections, firstly the '#WhyWomenDontReport' and secondly the 'Comparisons to other behavior' sections are in danger of straying into 'sexual misconduct' in general, in ways that have an implied synth. I appreciate the #WhyWomenDontReport is partly noting a 'hashed' reaction, but noting the reasons in general why women don't report has no bearing on this instance. Noting why these women have said they didn't report would be relevant of course. In many of these particular accusations, 'guilt' or 'innocence' are unlikely to ever be legally established, and we are all going to have to make up our own minds at the end of the day. Pincrete (talk) 22:46, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

There are two conversations about those topics, one of which resulted in a reduction in content. Rather than starting another conversation and having people have to repeat their points, do you mind reading the applicable sections and then commenting about what people have posted? It's discussed in the SYNTH section, but more recently and specifically in #Comparisons of past behavior.

#Hashtag #WhyWomenDontReport is the other discussion.

Thanks.--CaroleHenson (talk) 23:31, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Clarification: please comment in the previous, applicable sections.--CaroleHenson (talk) 23:47, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Lack of objectivity

This recent edit shows a lack of objectivity. The edit removed the word "purportedly":

“ Until that point she purportedly had conflicting emotions common among victims of assault, combined with embarrassment and confusion. ”

The edit summary says, "Stoynoff is the only person who can be a source for her own emotions, no need for the WP:ALLEGED wording here." Actually, reliable sources could conceivably confirm Stoynoff's story based upon evidence, and in that case it would be appropriate to remove the "purportedly". The reason we need that word is because reliable sources have not done so, and we should not seek to convey that they have done so. Per WP:Alleged, "alleged and accused are appropriate when wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined". Omitting such a word wrongly tells our readers that wrongdoing has been determined.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:40, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Stoynoff's having emotions is not an accusation of wrongdoing. Attempting to cast doubt on her saying how she felt is ridiculous. — Strongjam (talk) 01:47, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

We cannot say she is among the "victims of assault". That would potentially be libelous.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:50, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

The article doesn't say that. It just said she had conflicting emotions. Attempting to cast doubt on how she said she felt is not appropriate. — Strongjam (talk) 01:52, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

The sentence is not merely about emotions. It is also about being a victim of assault, which at this point is undetermined.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:55, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

We apparently have a good compromise: "Until that point, she said, she had conflicting emotions common among victims of assault, combined with embarrassment and confusion."Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:06, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

OK I really object to this edit by User:CaroleHenson. If we're going to have a long article about allegations, we should at least give the Trump campaign some space to respond.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:49, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

But you don't have a problem when I support your point. I am going to comment at the New sections below, where you have also commented.--CaroleHenson (talk) 18:20, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Response from Melania Trump

I watched both interviews--she did not use the word "conspiracy" as far as I can remember. Can we please rephrase what she said and perhaps even add a direct quote?Zigzig20s (talk) 17:22, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

We could say she blamed Billy Bush for "egging on" her husband to tell "locker-room banter" "like teenagers" perhaps? And that she doesn't believe the allegations because a woman said she'd met him later that day and she never did--she wouldn't even recognize her.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:18, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm confused. We're going to say that a 60 or so year old man (in 2005) is not responsible for his actions when he was egged on? I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. Are you suggesting we could say that's a possible explanation or there is a direct quote?--CaroleHenson (talk) 09:21, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Reactions that are victim bashing and conspiracy theories

It is appropriate to have conversation about denial of the claims, further of objectivity women by saying trump wouldn't be attracted to them is not appropriate.

As far as the many conspiracy theories that Trump has identified, that could be an article in itself. I know that there is interest to slant the article because of upcoming election, but it is starting become very unbalanced and ugly.--CaroleHenson (talk) 18:02, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

The fact that Trump would not be attracted to these women is a defense offered by Trump's attorney and also Trump himself. The sources, and also wikipedia guidelines, have decided that this content needs to stay in the main article.Soham321 (talk) 18:14, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Response by Trump and Trump's attorney

Discussion

it is inappropriate in my opinion for CaroleHenson to remove the section 'Response by Trump and Trump's attorney' in view of the serious nature of the allegations.This section needs to be reinstated keeping in mind WP:DUE and WP:BALANCE. Making a lengthy WP attack page on Trump without giving a detailed rejoinder to the allegations by Trump and his attorney violates WP:IMPARTIAL and does not respect the guidelines described at WP:BLP. Soham321 (talk) 17:54, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

I did because I had no other edits in the last 24 hours on this page. I hope that's OK. I did it to protect Wikipedia against lawsuits frankly. Let's not be silly, guys. If these women want to get sued by Trump, that's fine, but Wikipedia should avoid that.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:56, 19 October 2016 (UTC

I raised this and the.Jane Doe issue at the Wikipedia talk:Teahouse.--CaroleHenson (talk) 18:26, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Okay, Teahouse wasn't the right place to go, The advice from the Help Chat line is to give this a bit more time, then if still needed take it this and the Jane Doe issue to the NPOV noticeboard. I am ready to leave this topic for the day, so we'll see if others weigh in in the meantime.--CaroleHenson (talk) 19:21, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Soham321, I see that you have been making a lot of edits to the Trump's response section. I haven't been doing anything because we have the debates and there may be a flurry coming in on all sides. It appears that the Trump section is becoming heavy-handed, and introducing POV issues. If we're going to get into this much detail about Trump's reactions - then it seems that we need to get more information about the accusers - people that corroborate the story, their reactions, etc. for balance. I just hate for you to be adding so much to the article that might have to be removed - or balanced out.--CaroleHenson (talk) 01:10, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Soham321, This article is becoming a mess. I am beginning to think we need to back to a clean point. Comments are getting mixed up in the sections, citations are getting lost, which means content is likely getting lost or the wrong citations attributed to it. I could take it back to the point where I organized the info.--CaroleHenson (talk) 01:15, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

CaroleHenson I'll just point out that you have now been reverted by two different editors (one of them myself) when you tried to entirely remove the response of Trump and his attorney. Let other editors give their feedback on this issue; as far as i am concerned the Trump response needs to be increased significantly more to give appropriate weightage on this page in accordance with the rules of wikipedia, specifically WP:DUE,WP:BALANCE,WP:IMPARTIAL, and WP:BLP. Soham321 (talk) 01:16, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Soham321, I absolutely know that there is a concerted effort to blow this section out. Please at least 1) don't duplicate comments in the accuser's sections, mix-up the comments by the differnt Trump affiliates, remove citations, duplicating comments. I did revert to a clean copy.--CaroleHenson (talk) 01:21, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

I just wish to point out that in my opinion editor CaroleHenson is repeatedly introducing bias into the main article, in violation of the rules of Wikipedia editing, by removing or minimizing the response of Trump and Trump associates in defending Trump against these very serious allegations. I will of course bow to consensus. Soham321 (talk) 01:24, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Soham321 We can work together, if you make constructive edits. I posted a warning on your page of what the issues are. I needed to return the article to a clean condition due to the number of disruptive edits - removing citations and duplicating comments from the accuser's sections are two big issues.--CaroleHenson (talk) 01:28, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

CaroleHenson, you are entitled to accuse me of disruptive editing, but i do not believe i am guilty of doing so and i consider the warning you have left on my talk page to be frivolous. In my opinion you are the person who has been doing disruptive editing on the main page by repeatedly removing or minimizing the response of Trump and his associates to these very serious allegations and thereby introducing bias into the article in violation of the rules of wikipedia editing. I strongly believe in consensus, and if other editors agree with your accusation against me, i will stop editing on the main page. Soham321 (talk) 01:59, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't know what to say to you, I have given specifics in the edit summary, here and on your user page.

• Lost citations, please look at the reference section in this version - are there missing citations
• Check the Natasha Stoynoff section - are there reactions by Trump there - and also now reactions in the first Trump reaction section?
• Is there duplication of the attorney's quote in the notes? Why would that be?

That's a start.--CaroleHenson (talk) 02:14, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

This is with respect to the article before your most recent revert:

• 1. No missing citations from what i can see.
• 2. I am not seeing a duplication of Trump's reactions on the Natasha Stoynoff accusation and the Trump's Defense section.It is only in Trump's Defense section that we see him defending himself against the accusation. And this is how it should be. If Trump defends himself against the accusation of another of his accuser by name then that defense also needs to go into the Trump's Defense section.
• 3.The duplication of the attorney quote in the notes is something i pointed out myself on this talk page (in the section below). This is a minor clerical error because i could not at short notice figure out how to give a reference to the attorney's quote in a single note, while referring to this note twice. The note needs to be referenced twice--once to give details about the attorney's argument (since the argument applies to all the accusers), and the other time when mentioning that Trump has used his attorney's argument in responding to Natasha Stoynoff's charge as per what the referenced source says.Soham321 (talk) 02:29, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

1. Citations - The cool think is if you go to the Reference section, then are bright red. Are you looking at your last version? If you look at what's up now, it's the reverted / last clean copy of the page.

• [75] The named reference CT_1 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
• [68] NY Mag. 19 October 2016 http://nymag.com/thecut/2016/10/trumps-lawyer-accusers-arent-women-hed-be-attracted-to.html. Retrieved 19 October 2016. Missing or empty |title= (help) Cite error: Invalid (ref) tag; name "NY_Mag" defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).

2. Natasha Stoynoff

• Her section: Trump sent out a tweet on October 13, 2016, in which he said it had not happened and wondered why she had not mentioned the event in her People article of 2005. ref name="NPR List" />
• Reaction section: Responding to Natasha Stynoff's accusation, Trump indicated that the allegation is false by using an argument put forward by his lawyer Michael Cohen. ref name="NY Mag"/> Followed by the quote about her unappealing appearance.
• By the way, during the presidential debate tonight, Trump said he didn't say these things - so I question whether any comment about the attractiveness of the women should be mentioned, besides the fact that it is not encyclopedic content, is POV, and victim bashing.

3. Attorney quote - it was attached at two points, let me check.--CaroleHenson (talk) 03:04, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

• Trump's subsection: Responding to Natasha Stynoff's accusation, Trump indicated that the allegation is false by using an argument put forward by his lawyer Michael Cohen.<ref name="NY Mag"/>{{efn|{{Quote|Beauty is in the eye of beholder … thesee aren’t even women he’d be attracted to. I think what Mr. Trump is really trying to say is that they’re not somebody that he would be attracted to, and therefore, the whole thing is nonsense.”|author=Donald Trump's attorney Michael Cohen<ref name="NY Mag">{{cite news|url=http://nymag.com/thecut/2016/10/trumps-lawyer-accusers-arent-women-hed-be-attracted-to.html |work=NY Mag|date=19 October 2016|accessdate=19 October 2016}}</ref>}}}} According to Trump: {{Quote|Take a look — you take a look, look at her, look at her words, you tell me what you think — I don’t think so.I don’t think so.<ref name="NY Mag"/>}}
• Trump attorney's subsection: Trump's attorney Michael Cohen has defended Trump by noting that the accusers are not women Trump would find to be attractive. {{efn|According to Cohen:{{Quote|Beauty is in the eye of beholder … these aren’t even women he’d be attracted to. I think what Mr. Trump is really trying to say is that they’re not somebody that he would be attracted to, and therefore, the whole thing is nonsense.<ref name="NY Mag">{{cite news|url=http://nymag.com/thecut/2016/10/trumps-lawyer-accusers-arent-women-hed-be-attracted-to.html |title=Donald Trump’s Attorney Says Trump’s Accusers ‘Aren’t Women He’d Be Attracted To’ |work=NY Mag |date=19 October 2016|accessdate=19 October 2016}}</ref><ref name="Business Insider">{{cite news|url=http://nymag.com/thecut/2016/10/trumps-lawyer-accusers-arent-women-hed-be-attracted-to.html |title=Donald Trump's attorney: Trump's sexual assault accusers 'aren't even women he'd be attracted to' |work=Business Insider |date=19 October 2016|accessdate=19 October 2016}}</ref>}}}}

My point was, why does the attorney making a quote have to be mentioned in Trump's section and the attorney's section. The note is just want brings it so clearly to light.--CaroleHenson (talk) 03:16, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

• 1. The citations were in fact defined, but with different content on one occasion, and an erroneously spelled refname on another occasion.(The ref name given in the reference needed to be adjusted for both cases.) Again, a minor clerical error which can easily be fixed.
• 2. We can say that Trump denied saying this in the third debate by using RS. But the unattractive argument cannot be removed unilaterally by you since there exists RS for Trump's lawyer making this defense. The fact that Trump was using the unattractive argument of his lawyer was mentioned by the RS, not by Trump. Trump was somewhat vague in his defense (deliberately so i imagine) when making his defense against Stoynoff which is why i thought it advisable to give his full quote.
• 3. Of course the attorney note was attached at two different points and i have now gone into great detail explaining why this was the case. Soham321 (talk) 03:18, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Please read what I've typed. I am sure that if you're willing, we can work together.

Yes, all of these can be fixed. I've given you three examples of the types of issues. You missed the key point about #2 and #3, except the side comment about Trump refuting making the comments. I don't think it will do any good for me to repeat myself. I have said what the issues are so many times, but it's beginning to feel like you're not open to hearing that there may be ways to work together better. Are you willing to give it a try?

If so, I would be happy to work with you.--CaroleHenson (talk) 03:28, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Eppstein comments

It might be helpful, too, to look at the comments of David Eppstein in the article history.--CaroleHenson (talk) 03:31, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Something that I didn't mention in that edit summary is that we need to be very careful about WP:BLP violations against other people than Trump in this article. The allegations against Trump himself can be handled by presenting what reliable sources on both sides say about those particular events. But when Trump or a supporter says "what about X? they did it too!" we can't repeat that without going into proper and properly sourced detail about what the reliable sources actually say about X, and that would take us too far off-topic. And anyway that sort of argument doesn't have much bearing on what Trump himself may have done. So I think we're better off just leaving those arguments out. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:09, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

David Eppstein, I would like to ensure that I understand what you are saying. Is this in response to discussion of other people who have been involved in sexual misconduct, content in the article about the reason why Trump wouldn't make sexually inappropriate actions, theories about who might be responsible, or something else? Thanks!--CaroleHenson (talk) 09:33, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

The first: discussion of other people who have been involved in sexual misconduct. I think we should largely avoid such discussions, even when quoting Trump people who try to go that direction. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:19, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Dispute

In view of the dispute between CaroleHenson and me, I am pinging all non-IP editors who have commented on this talk page with a request to offer their feedback so that we can have a consensus on the main article : Pkimer, EEng, Mandruss, Madshurtie, Jack Upland, Rrburke, J mareeswaran, Anythingyouwant, Zigzig20s, Politrukki, MrX, Distelfinck, Kuru, Volunteer Marek, Muboshgu, K.e.coffman, Strongjam, Smallbones, My very best wishes, Pincrete Soham321 (talk) 04:16, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

What is the nature of the dispute? K.e.coffman (talk) 04:20, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

I would also like a concise summary. But I'll state that disputed content should stay out until consensus is reached to include it. That principle is often ignored, sometimes in good faith for the sake of expediency, but it should not be ignored in this article. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:25, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Details about the dispute have been described in the "Discussion" sub-section of this section ("Response by Trump and Trump's attorney") of the talk page. What it really boils down to is three reverts made by CaroleHenson. The diffs are:

• 1. Diff 1
• 2. Diff 2 (this revert was reverted by editor Zigzig20s)
• 3. Diff 3 (this revert was reverted by me) Soham321 (talk) 04:29, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. This looks like one of those things where I feel over my head, so I think I'll sit this one out. But my comment about process stands. If any content in the article is disputed and under discussion, it should be removed. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:38, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

From my perspective, the summary of the issue is: I reverted Soham321s edits here to a clean copy of the page, because there had been unintended disrupted editing that involved:

• Comments by Trump or the campaign in both the accuser's section and in the Trump's reaction section
• There was duplication of the comment (and an unintentionally duplicated note) from Trump's attorney in his section and Trump's section
• There was a mix-up of citations involving three citations: 1 lost and 2 with the same name but different content
• Additional information added over the day to the Trump reaction section including conspiracy theories and comments about the unattractiveness of the accusers being the reason that the Trump wouldn't have been inappropriate. In general, all of these comments IMO were creating balance and POV issues.--CaroleHenson (talk) 04:38, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Executive summary of the dispute from my perspective:

• 1. CaroleHenson's first revert was of content that i had added which gave the response of Trump and Trump's attorney to the allegations.(She was in turn reverted by me.)
• 2. Carole's second revert was when she reverted me again. (She was now reverted by Zigzig20s.)
• 3. I then went on to add more information about the defense against the allegations by Trump, and Trump's attorney; and also the reactions of Mike Pence and Hillary Clinton to the allegations. Carole's third revert was when she again reverted all the additions i had made to the article.
• 4. When giving details about the response of Trump, Trump's attorney, Mike Pence, and Hillary Clinton to the allegations in the main page, i am invoking WP:DUE,WP:BALANCE,WP:IMPARTIAL, and WP:BLP.
• 5. I have given my explanation about the duplication of the same notes on two occasions, and also for incorrectly labelled ref names on two occasions. These are minor clerical errors which can easily be fixed. But surely the minor clerical errors cannot be used to change the entire thrust of the main article in violation of the rules of wikipedia editing.Soham321 (talk) 04:40, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

I wonder why you put an {{od}} at the beginning of every comment. You are adding unnecessary clutter. Have you seen any other editor do that? See WP:THREAD for how to thread a discussion. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:44, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

My summary starts at Soham321's 3+4. Their edits were returned and not reverted from that point. I reorganized the section, though, and added subsections because the section had become unorganized with the additions.--CaroleHenson (talk) 04:47, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

No idea what you mean by "3 + 4". You did the reorganization after being reverted twice by two different editors. And then you did a third revert. Right now you're at 3RR as far as the main article is concerned.Soham321 (talk) 04:52, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Added "unintentionally" to the parenthetical in my summary.--CaroleHenson (talk) 04:57, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

• Comment -- since I was asked, here's my input: I prefer CaroleHenson's version. It's cleaner and avoids duplication of material. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:15, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

• Agree with comment above -- It seems to me that this is a dispute about organization rather than content. I back CaroleHenson's changes as it makes it cleaner. If there is a any specific content removed(& not just moved from 1 section to another) we can discuss on that further. J mareeswaran (talk) 12:50, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Comment: From my perspective, this is essentially not an organization dispute but a content dispute. This becomes clear if you study the relevant diff carefully: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_Trump_sexual_misconduct_allegations&diff=745237756&oldid=745233947Soham321 (talk) 13:12, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Comment - Yes, J mareeswaran, it's mostly about content. There's a summary of issue from my perspective in this subsection, starting with "From my perspective, the summary of the issue is" in this subsection, made at 04:38, 20 October 2016, and Soham321's comments immediately follow that.--CaroleHenson (talk) 14:21, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

• Clarification - I was trying to back you up Soham321 - that the note was unintentionally duplicated. I clarified it a bit. I think the disruptive editing was absolutely unintentional. I made tweaks above.--CaroleHenson (talk) 05:19, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Notes Help

Notes [e] and [g] in the main article are the same. Could someone please do the necessary fix so that there is only one note which is being referred to in two different places in the main article. Soham321 (talk) 00:55, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

It was too much of a mess - for some reason the attorney's comments were replicated in a section outside of the attorney section. That is just one of the many reasons why the article was reverted to a clean copy.--CaroleHenson (talk) 01:31, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

See the efn template info.--CaroleHenson (talk) 09:40, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Michelle Obama's reaction

the FLOTUS reaction seems to be regarding the Trump Tapes rather than Allegations against Trump or any other misconduct. As such, IMO, it belongs to the "Access Hollywood tapes" article rather than here. J mareeswaran (talk) 13:02, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

@J mareeswaran: No, it's about both. The section even quotes her saying: 'And to make matters worse, it now seems very clear that this isn’t an isolated incident.' It could be added to the other article as well. Madshurtie (talk) 13:20, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Trump Model Management

'Nuff said! 168.88.65.6 (talk) 16:44, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/08/donald-trump-model-management-illegal-immigration Think about it... illegally in the country, depending on the company not just for everything, but if they approached any authority other than the company they would fear losing their job and career... These women need to speak up!!!!!!168.88.65.6 (talk) 16:55, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

I am not making the connection between this and sexual misconduct. It speaks to the objectification of the models, used by Trump as "eye candy", but I don't see a mention of sexual impropriety. In fact, it's interesting that they women seemed to be exploited, and this would seem to be an optimal situation for the women to receive unwanted sexual attention.--CaroleHenson (talk) 17:08, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 20 October 2016

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved per WP:SNOW. SSTflyer 09:39, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

---

Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations → Donald Trump sexual assault allegations – The word assault appears in the first sentence of the lede and nearly 50 times on this page. The title protects Mr. Trump by use of "allegations" but the allegations are unambiguously reported by RS as allegations of assault and described throughout the article as allegations of assault. SPECIFICO talk 16:49, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Some of the allegations are about kissing without consent, so maybe the broader term is more appropriate? Madshurtie (talk) 17:06, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

They're described in rather more reptilian terms than "kissing" -- tongue thrusts, etc. and RS describe them as "assault." That seems to be the thinking of the editors who've worked on this article. SPECIFICO talk 17:08, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Not everything described on this page is an "assault". Going into the Miss USA dressing rooms is creepy, but not "sexual assault". The broader title captures more incidents. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:10, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Don't move I agree, sexual assault narrows the topic. IMO, it could only clearly include the legal proceedings section.--CaroleHenson (talk) 17:11, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Don't move Per Muboshgu and Carole above. The title also has precedent with the Bill Clinton page. Madshurtie (talk) 17:14, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

This article is about two types of allegations: sexual misconduct and sexual assault. Thus, could the title possibly be changed to "Donald Trump sexual assault and misconduct allegations"? LeeBobBlack (talk) 17:19, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

• comment I think I understand the view of those who want to leave the title broader than "assault" despite the fact that most of the allegations are assault allegations. We could say "assault and abuse" to include walking in on the underage women. On the other hand, consider that the current title -- "misconduct" would also need to include his adultery and other misconduct that was not intended for this article. SPECIFICO talk 17:25, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Misconduct doesn't generally refer to adultery. It includes things like manipulation and intimidation, without necessarily including assault. See here and here. The Bill Clinton page doesn't have any adultery sections. Madshurtie (talk) 17:51, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

WP policy tells us not to compare articles to justify editing decisions. I don't think adultery would rank high on the concerns of a college. Not all misconduct, even extramarital, is of policy or legal concern. SPECIFICO talk 17:57, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

WP policy tells us not to compare articles to justify editing decisions - @SPECIFICO: Please give me a pointer to that policy, as I'd like to start using it instead of the essay WP:OSE. Granted, OSE is considered a "widely accepted" essay (in my opinion), but a policy would be better. Things get very complicated when the degree of acceptance of an essay is itself a matter of opinion. But that's the Wikipedia Way—make things as incomprehensible as humanly possible. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:49, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

User:SPECIFICO, I think that I've been pretty clear in my comments, but I see that you've posted statements that seem to indicate you have decided upon the veracity and the type of claims. It would be WP:OR on our part to determine that these cases are sexual assault, unless we have sources that state explicitly that they are assault. How many of the victims can you say are reported in the media to have "sexual assault" allegations? How about the beauty contestants, the women that were kissed that say they didn't want to be? These are just allegations - we don't know the veracity of the allegations, whether they are sexual assault, and it is absolutely not our role to litigate that. Would it be worth it to you to rename the article, but have to have large chunks of it removed to only those that are clearly "sexual assault" allegations?--CaroleHenson (talk) 22:06, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

@CaroleHenson: - I don't think veracity is an issue, we're not proposing Donald Trump sexual assaults. What's at issue is the nature of the allegations covered in this article. If the law considers a certain alleged act to be sexual assault, do we require sources to use that term? These things don't seem so complicated that we need legal interpretations from our sources. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:16, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

@Mandruss: - Agreed. Perhaps there's a misunderstanding or I wasn't clear, so I just struck out that part of my comment. What I am trying to say is that we cannot decide if all of the allegations are sexual assault claims. Due to the seriousness of the issue, if there's a question between "Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations" and "Donald Trump sexual assault allegations" we should be sure that we have source to back up the claim that each of the accusers claims are sexual assault if they are to be included in the article.--CaroleHenson (talk) 22:28, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

@CaroleHenson: - Then your answer to my question is "yes"? ―Mandruss ☎ 22:33, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

@Mandruss: Short answer: Yes. Two things: 1) I see your point about "If the law considers a certain alleged act to be sexual assault, do we require sources to use that term?" Based on the visibility of this article, the sensitivity of it due to the political campaign, the seriousness of the term "sexual assault" - if we're going to use that in the title of the article, I would think we'd need to have someone say for each allegation that the act is sexual assault , per WP:EXCEPTION. That's my opinion, others may disagree. 2) I haven't been stuck so much on the situations that are clearly assault, like the groping and other activities that the Department of Justice defines as sexual assault. I am more concerned about the claims of the beauty pageant contestants, unwelcome kissing, etc. that seem as if they'd need to be dropped from the article if it's renamed "Donald Trump sexual assault allegations". If I am missing something, though, please let me know.--CaroleHenson (talk) 23:00, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

@CaroleHenson: - Ok, see my new Oppose !vote. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:05, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

I did not intend the meaning @CaroleHenson: has apparently inferred from my words here. My point is that 1) Hundreds of RS describe the allegations as allegations of assault, and 2) This article, citing those sources, also refers to the allegations as allegations of assault. Since Trump continues to deny everything and since none of this has been adjudicated in a court of law, none of this behavior can be called anything other than alleged assault, alleged misconduct, or alleged whatever. I have no opinion about any of this and I don't think it's particularly interesting or important. For the record, I have never been to Mar-a-lago. SPECIFICO talk 22:24, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

I apologize if I misunderstood. It is seeming that most of the votes are not to move the article, I just wanted to find out if it was ok with you that if the article was renamed to "Donald Trump sexual assault allegations" that some content would then, by definition likely need to be removed - and we'd have even greater POV, etc. scrutiny? I think I have beaten my points to death and then some, so I'll just let others make comments and see how it shakes out.--CaroleHenson (talk) 22:35, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Don't Move Per Muboshgu and Carole. I don't think that there are even convincing technical reasons for a move, but I do think having a tag at the top of the article detracts from it, as if we are having a major disagreement here. Little or no benefit, possible down side, + distracting tag. Please just close it. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:37, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

How does this square with 45 instances of "assault" in the article, including in the first sentence of the lede? SPECIFICO talk 17:58, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Comment I can't seem to form an opinion on this, but for interest's sake, according to Google Trends, people are searching for "Donald Trump assault" more than "Donald Trump harassment," and more than "Donald Trump misconduct." That probably doesn't matter though. JasperTECH (talk) 18:02, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Agree with you, and on that note: His misconduct has been known for at least 30 years. The other stuff was less widely known until recently. And this article is a result of the recent disclosures, not the longstanding misconduct stories. SPECIFICO talk 18:04, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

• Support -- the reason why this made headlines is because many were "assault allegations" and the subject himself discussed same on the AH tape. The "misconduct" was described much earlier, such as by NYT. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:36, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
• Comment. RMCD bot will not edit war over the article-space notice of this move. If there is a consensus that requested moves of this nature shouldn't be more widely advertised, simply replace the tag with{{bots|deny=RMCD bot}} at the top of the article source. wbm1058 (talk) 20:26, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
• Comment. Sources such as this are using the term "misconduct", not "assault". Do we have confirmation that 13 women literally said "he assaulted me", or are we synthesizing assault allegations from groping and other related allegations, by defining groping as a form of assault? Groping "may be considered sexual assault"... can this be interpreted to mean that it may not be as well? wbm1058 (talk) 20:26, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

• Non-consensual groping of genitalia is sexual assault. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:31, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Right, the Sexual assault article certainly gives that impression. So why does the groping article use the more indecisive language "may be considered sexual assault" rather than flat out saying is sexual assault. wbm1058 (talk) 20:52, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

I added "genitalia" above to clarify. Groping of other parts is not considered to be sexual assault as I understand it. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:08, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

• Don't move. "Assault" describes some but not all of the allegations. Some (such as misogynistic language used by Trump or walking in on women changing) are arguably weaker than assault. Some (in particular the alleged child rape case) are definitely stronger than assault. "Misconduct" is a better title because it covers all the allegations, not just the middle-level ones. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:38, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
• Comment - other similar articles - As an food for thought, similar articles are Bill Clinton sexual misconduct allegations, which includes groping without consent allegations, rape, sexual harassment, and sexual misconduct allegations — and Bill Cosby sexual assault allegations, which include rape, drug facilitated sexual assault, sexual battery, child sexual abuse, and/or sexual misconduct..--CaroleHenson (talk) 21:12, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Please see WP:OSE. SPECIFICO talk 21:28, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

• There have been so many POV and other claims to shut down this article or sections of the article.
• I think that if the article was made "Donald Trump sexual assault allegations", then I think there would be an increase in POV claims and Rfc tags. IMO, there would be a legitimate claim for questioning the title. I don't know that we could find enough sources to support that title and we'd have to remove most of the content.
• I would support "Donald Trump sexual assault and misconduct allegations", but it is a tad long.
• Would it be worth it to rename the article and have it shut down - or go through endless talk conversations about the validity of the article. It is not going to lighten up before the election, so I'm wondering —Why push it?--CaroleHenson (talk) 21:47, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose use redirects - I have previously already created a redirect to this article with the same title as proposed Donald_Trump_sexual_assault_allegations so this may satisfy the discussion about renaming the article since there is already a redirect with this title. The allegations span several legal areas since Trump has been accused of not only sexual assault but also sexual harassment (which is a work related charge for scoping nude Beauty Pageant contestants in their dressing rooms). Sexual assault is just one example of Trump's conduct but he also has been accused of sexual harassment and sexually hostile work environment, all very different legally. So to summarize, Trump is alleged to have engaged in sexual assault, sexual harassment, and sexually hostile work environment, and all of these categories should have redirects to this article. Octoberwoodland (talk) 21:32, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

• The redirect makes sense; I'm okay with keeping the article where it is now. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:50, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
• @Octoberwoodland: To clarify, are you !voting for status quo? If so, that's an Oppose to this move proposal. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:00, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out, changed to oppose use redirects. Octoberwoodland (talk) 22:05, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose - If someone cares to provide solid (highest-quality sources) citations in the article to support "sexual assault" term for every alleged act covered in it, then I will support the move. Until then, the move would seem cart before horse, and I would prefer to err on the side of safety. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:41, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, which of the 45 uses of the word "assault" in this article do you feel is not highest-quality sourced? SPECIFICO talk 23:33, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

I have reviewed all of the citations in Mariah Billado's section and none of them refer to that as sexual assault. In point of fact, this source has a list of assault accusations, followed by a list of "entering dressing room" accusations. Thereby explicitly showing that they do not consider that sexual assault. Provide the solid citations for Billado and then we can take it from there. I don't think you can. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:56, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

No, I'll be more generous. Show me solid sourcing that says any of Trump's "entering dressing rooms" was sexual assault, and then we can take it from there. I don't think you can do that, either. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:03, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

I am not understanding why you're asking me to check all the references in this article. Thanks to diligent editors such as yourself, I assume that the article is more or less reliably sourced. I came here only to see whether the title could better match the sourced content of the article text. As I said, I have little interest in these sordid details of Trump's life. But if you are saying that the title should not reflect the subject, allegations of assault then I suggested you could remove any uses of that term, assault, that fail verification and are not cited to proper RS references. I'm not going to show you anything, but if I see that the allegations of assault are removed from the article, then it would be obvious to me that the title similarly should not refer to assault. SPECIFICO talk 00:32, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: I am saying that I oppose this move unless "sexual assault" accurately describes all of the allegations in it, as per solid sourcing. It does not. The fact that the words "sexual assault" occur a lot in the article does not mean that those words accurately characterize the whole of the article. I think Donald Trump sexual assault and misconduct allegations would be excessively long, but it would be an improvement over this proposal. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:25, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

And if someone proposed Donald Trump sexual assault and misconduct allegations, I have no doubt someone else would point out the grammatical ambiguity and say that it should be clarified as Donald Trump sexual assault and sexual misconduct allegations. Mustn't expect readers to actually read the damn article, or even just its lead. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:55, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Got it. Well, "misconduct" doesn't occur in the article text at all. So assault trumps misconduct, 45 to zip -- SPECIFICO talk 02:10, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: Except that assault is a far more serious allegation and should therefore be used with far more caution. Given the limitations of title length, we should err on side of less serious as to the title. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:21, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Just to clarify, Trump actually making unwanted physical contact with his victims is sexual assault. Trump offering to buy a woman furniture and in one case I recall where Trump was interacting with woman business associates and making lewd proposals is sexual harassment -- if they are linked through business or employment relationships. Trump Scoping nude beauty pageant contestants in their dressing rooms is stalking and sexually hostile work environment if he owns the Pageant. Octoberwoodland (talk) 02:36, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

So the list of offenses trump is alleged by his victims to have committed fit comfortably under the category of sexual misconduct. The list is sexual assault, sexual harassment, sexual hostile work environment, and stalking. Octoberwoodland (talk) 02:45, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

I think that's a reasonable and neutral position. Thank you. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:49, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Attribution of statement in Jane Doe section

Regarding: According to Libby Nelson of Vox, most media outlets haven't covered the case because of the unobtainable plaintiff, and apparent connections to both a former Jerry Springer producer and an anti-Trump activist.[22][23]

The tags were applied and ultimately I added attribution because it's an opinion. The way it sounded, there had been a survey of news outlets that didn't report Jane Doe's claim.--CaroleHenson (talk) 15:30, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:33, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

RfC: Jane Doe content

There is a pending Jane Doe (unnamed plaintiff) lawsuit alleging that Donald Trump repeatedly raped Doe when she was 13 years old. RS coverage of the lawsuit has been relatively low. What content should we include about these allegations, if any? ―Mandruss ☎ 13:16, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Background
There is a pending lawsuit filed by a Jane Doe alleging that Trump raped her on multiple occasions in 1994, when she was 13, at the home of convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. The suit was filed this month, and it is Doe's third attempt to litigate the case in civil court. The next court date, a preliminary hearing, is scheduled for December 16, 2016.

The dispute is centered on this being an unusual situation  – an allegation of multiple child rape against a presidential candidate  – that does have reliable sources that have reported the allegation, but is not widely reported. There are also a few articles that claim that the plaintiff is making these claims unjustly. One article came out in June from The Guardian and another was released on October 21 stating that the reason it has not been picked up is that there are serious concerns about the veracity of the lawsuit.

On one side, there are people who feel that, since Doe is covered by mainstream media sources as an accuser, there should be a section in the article that speaks to that claim. That section includes the questions about the claim and comments from Trump and his attorney.

And there are others who believe that, due to the the very serious nature of the allegations, the questions about them, and the relatively low RS coverage, they should not be included in the article's content.

Prior discussions:
Talk:Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations#The lawsuit didn't receive much coverage / Remove Jane Doe?
Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations - Child rape claim

Early close is needed
With the election 17 days away, there is a need to expedite this RfC. This will still be an important question after the election, but it will be far less time-sensitive then. I would suggest a close after about 4 days; that should be long enough for the major policy arguments to be made.

!Vote options
1  – No content.
2  – A few sentences about the lawsuit without stating the nature of the allegations within it. No mention of rape or Doe's then-age.
3  – A few sentences about the lawsuit, touching on the nature of the allegations within it, including mention of rape and Doe's then-age. Brief mention that the veracity of the allegations is challenged by reliable source(s).
4  – More thorough discussion including the allegations and the questions about their veracity.
Other  – None of the above.

If any content is included, details will be negotiated separately. They would be too much to take on in this RfC, and no RfC should be necessary for that.

No need to explain what you mean by the number, e.g. 1 - no content, as that is already stated above. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:16, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

RfC survey: Jane Doe content

• 1 - Shortly before the emergence of this issue, I listed 18 highest-quality sources in a discussion. It was subsequently shown by a different editor that, of those 18, only three  – 16.6%  – have reported anything about the lawsuit.[43] My position, based primarily in WP:DUE and WP:EXCEPTIONAL, is that this amount of coverage does not justify content about these very serious allegations. I see little value in option 2. There has been some objection to using numbers (e.g. 16.6%) to help think about this, and I strongly oppose that objection. Details of my argument are available in the prior discussions but, in the interest of conciseness, I won't attempt to lay them out here.
  In my opinion, in this kind of situation, a "no consensus" result should mean no content. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:16, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
• 1 - no content - I now believe that there should be no content. My change in opinion is based upon a discussion at this NPOVN discussion about Jane Doe, specifically the Balancing aspects guideline presented by TFD:

"'An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to the weight of that aspect in the body of reliable sources on the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news.' Since the story has received minimal coverage in proportion to all coverage of Donald Trump, it should be left out."--CaroleHenson (talk) 15:18, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

• 1 - no content as explained in CaroleHenson's posting above. TFD (talk) 16:13, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
• 3 - content - we aren't arbiters of truth, as the litmus for inclusion is Verifiabilty, not truth (V>T). Unless the argument is UNDUE (which would also fail on the grounds that the news story is literally everywhere now), we are bound to neutrally present the information and make damn sure that every word comes from a rock-solid source. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:35, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
• 3 - content - If the sources meet verifiability, then include the materials, and I have reviewed them, and they seem to meet these standards. Trump sexually assaulting a 13 year old girl is certainly a very notable event and seems to fall in line with his alleged conduct, especially given his behavior of scoping and stalking nude 15 y/o young girls in his beauty pageants, these type of allegations should come as no surprise. Octoberwoodland (talk) 18:12, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

  That argument will be a non-starter with any competent closer. You are making an assessment of the truth of the claims based on circumstantial evidence, and we are expressly forbidden to do that. Also, notability is about whether an article should exist, not about what content should be included in it. You might wish to use a viable argument or change your !vote. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:29, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

I am not making any assessment of the veracity of the sources, I am commenting on the number of verifiable sources and how they support each other in terms of content. I realize that this is a very serious type of allegation to place in a subject's article, but it seems very notable to me. Sorry if that does not align with your view on this issue. If the content is verifiable, there is no reason not to include it. It's not about truth but verifiability, and we can verify that a Jane Doe filed a lawsuit claiming Trump sexually assaulted her at the age of 13. Very notable event. Octoberwoodland (talk) 18:45, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

• 1 - No content - I'm not satisfied with the sufficiency of sources to justify including this very serious charge brought against a Presidential candidate more than two decades after the alleged crime. WP:PUBLICFIGURE and WP:NPOV seem to support omitting this entirely, at least until the usual blue chip sources report on it, if they ever do. The best sources have not shied away from heaping opprobrium onto Mr. Trump, but are tellingly quiet on this subject. As a side note, I'm concerned that there is an urgency expressed in the OP about closing this RfC before the election. I am strongly opposed to letting the election date influence content decisions on Wikipedia, and infinitely opposed to the prospect of using Wikipedia to influence any election. However, I'm not opposed to closing it early if a clear consensus emerges.- MrX 18:36, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

  Yeah, the urgency thing is a sticky wicket. I think the election is potentially going to be influenced whether we like it or not. The question is whether to potentially influence it in a manner consistent with Wikipedia policy, or a manner inconsistent with Wikipedia policy. The article currently contains strongly disputed content – an entire strongly disputed level 3 subsection. Unless I'm mistaken, disputed content, and especially strongly disputed content, and especially in a BLP article under discretionary sanctions, is supposed to stay out until consensus is reached to include it. If that principle were being observed here, I would feel less urgency. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:47, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

• 3 - content - for what it's worth. This outrageous attempt to censor Wikipedia beggars belief. A presidential candidate faces a court hearing in December about the alleged rape of a minor, in the company of someone since convicted of being a paedophile. That this lawsuit is taking place has been reported on by multiple reliable sources. Excluding these facts is blatant censorship. Of course it can be written (as presented above) in a NPV manner. But discussion on article subpages between some editors about what sources to deem reliable and what ones to exclude, then to use that list as if it had some sort of official approval, then to use a percentage of this arbitrary list as an argument that something hasn't been covered enough to warrant inclusion in an article about a front-running presidential candidate?! Newspeak... WP:V and WP:RS are satisfied, the allegations are certainly noteworthy for inclusion, and to exclude the fact of the upcoming hearing amounts to nothing more than censorship of the highest order. "Here's the list of reliable sources"; "No consensus (on the RFC I opened) should mean no inclusion." These attempts to poison the well are noted... Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 19:20, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

  Wow. I had no idea I was such a bad-faith and/or incompetent Wikipedia editor! But it's not all my fault, somebody else could have said something during the past 3.5 years. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:27, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

  It isn't actually necessary for you to add a comment after every other contributor's point. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 19:41, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

  True, I'm aware of WP:BLUDGEON and had already decided that I was flirting with it. But be assured that I'm not going to let unfounded accusations of bad faith, in violation of WP:AGF, go without a response. Consider yourself lucky I did it here instead of at WP:ANI. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:44, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

  To that point, Bastun, have you seen my response to you about how the list of sources came about at the NPOVN page, the background may help you understand why a list was put together to start with, why it's important to maintaining the POV of this controversial subject, and that other sources could be used if they were on the RSN as reliable sources? I also posted the background in the list subpage, now, too - since that seems to provide much better context than the link to the discussion in the archives.--CaroleHenson (talk) 19:55, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: I don't yet have an opinion on whether to add or not add the content. But I do have to disagree with an expedited time frame. It is important that we get this right - it is not important that we get it right now. The fact that there is an election coming up should have no weight on our deliberations here... One way or the other. Blueboar (talk) 22:40, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
• 3 - content - how can a page about sexual misconduct allegations exclude a lawsuit alleging rape that has been reported by reliable sources all round the world? I don't think the percentage of sources is a valid guide on this issue. And I don't think a group of editors can set up their own list of approved sources. There are always media outlets that don't pick up stories. Globally, the sources that don't report a story will always outweigh those who do. It is enough that we have reliable sources that report the court case. And there is no doubt that the court case exists. There seems to be an underlying assumption that the threshold of evidence for a newspaper interview is higher than a lawsuit. This is not true. It is also worth noting that the case is mentioned on Legal affairs of Donald Trump without any controversy.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:09, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

RfC discussion: Jane Doe content

Off topic about process

comment/query Wait, CaroleHenson has brought forth an RfC and an NPOVN discussion? Smells like forum-shopping to me. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:24, 22 October 2016 (UTC) Jack Sebastian, Please see the comment posted by Mandruss at the NPOVN page: "Being that the debate in this thread has become largely circular, after almost 5 days of discussion about this question, I think it's time to get that RfC started. There has been no acknowledgement of my above comment about the RfC, let alone any comments about the draft. So, unless I hear an objection here within about an hour, with some cogent rationale, I'm starting the RfC as currently drafted, at Talk:Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations." ―Mandruss ☎ 10:49, 22 October 2016 (UTC) Do you have a vote?--CaroleHenson (talk) 16:30, 22 October 2016 (UTC) I wanted to also clarify that the reason for pushing this is the upcoming election which is not far away. And, that should give you zero idea about who I am voting for in the presidential election. I just changed my vote on the Jane Doe issue as we started working on the RfC. This RfC was mentioned on the NPOVN site - so that folks there could vote, rather than spinning on the same issues over and over and over again.--CaroleHenson (talk) 16:42, 22 October 2016 (UTC) I missed the comment; thanks for pointing it out to me. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:35, 22 October 2016 (UTC) It's pretty clear who brought forth this RfC. Look for a signature very near the top of it. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:27, 22 October 2016 (UTC) I was concerned about getting this resolved in a timely manner, which we talked about and I had input to the RfC - I have self-reported at the Consensus talk page. Any further conversation about JS's claim can be discussed there.--CaroleHenson (talk) 17:39, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Trump wants to sue and condemns his accusers

Hi Zigzig20s,

I reverted your edit here, because this seems to be another attempt to add content that is unnecessary. Adding a statement that Trump says he wants to sue his accusers is not notable content. Content is also unnecessary and inappropriate that calls the accusers liars, etc. There is plenty of content already that provides commentary about how Trump, his attorney, and his campaign disavow the allegations.--CaroleHenson (talk) 20:29, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

User:CaroleHenson, who made 10 edits and even added an "in use" tag on 22 October, deleted some referenced content about the prospective lawsuits:

Trump plans to sue all the accusers.(Diamond, Jeremy; Scott, Eugene (October 22, 2016). "Trump says he'll sue sexual misconduct accusers". CNN. Retrieved October 22, 2016.)(Faulders, Katherine; Santucci, John; Windsor, Morgan (October 22, 2016). "Donald Trump Vows to Sue Sexual Assault Accusers, Lays Out Plan for First 100 Days in Office". ABC News. Retrieved October 22, 2016.)

Every woman lied when they came forward to hurt my campaign. Total fabrication. The events never happened. Never. All of these liars will be sued after the election is over.

— Donald J. Trump, October 22, 2016 speech in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania (CNN reference)

Can we please restore this? Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:31, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

I have no idea if it applies in your case, but please note that {{COI editnotice}} has been pasted at the top of the page, and your edits were reverted per WP:NPOV.

You're funny! Now it's a problem to add an "in use" flag for a few minutes?--CaroleHenson (talk) 20:36, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

No. Please assume good faith. Why are you actively removing referenced content? Besides, my understanding is that we are discouraged from making too many edits on the same day, to avoid giving the impression that we own the article.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:42, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

See recent fairly analagous situation here. Please take any accusations of editor misconduct to WP:ANI. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:38, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't have time for Wikidrama. My concern here is that Trump may sue the Wikimedia Foundation if this is an attack page. It makes sense to add that he wants to sue every single accuser (which suggests he believes they are lying).Zigzig20s (talk) 20:42, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Accusations against fellow editors on an article talk page are Wikidrama. Just without the possibility of boomerang for making false ones. Keep it up and you'll be at ANI. I for one don't tolerate that sort of thing for the sake of peace. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:45, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

I apologize. Can you please confirm that I am allowed to make 10 edits to this and other political articles in one day? Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:48, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

I know of no limit on contribution to any article. That has nothing to do with WP:OWN to my knowledge. WP:OWN is about type of edits, not number of them. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:50, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

OK. How do we know the difference between the three-revert rule and 10 edits in one day? I have been told that edits can count towards the "three-revert rule". Sorry, I am genuinely confused.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:54, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Trust me, our 3RR policy confuses me, too. It's a poorly designed experiment that has failed, in my opinion. Every edit is reverting somebody, when it comes down to it, except for those adding entirely new content. But somehow I'm able to avoid getting into trouble in that area, I guess because I try hard to keep a cool head on the article side. I'd suggest taking any questions to Village Pump or a noticeboard, where the high priesthood can explain things to you. Let me know what you find out. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:00, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

I've never heard anything about 10 edits in one day, and I've exceeded that many many times on many many articles. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:09, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Me too, but not on political articles (unless they're about an obscure state politician from the 19th century). How do we make sure that making 10 edits a day, including removal of cited content, is not a violation of the three-revert rule please? I think we all deserve to know, so we can stop walking on eggshells. If we suddenly decide to ignore the three-revert rule however (assuming it applies here, which we're not sure about), that is fantastic news and I might be tempted to give Carole a barnstar for her good work.Zigzig20s (talk) 21:15, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

If you can point me to where somebody told you about this 10 edits per day thing, maybe I can help sort it out. I'd suggest doing that on your talk page or mine, to avoid further clutter here. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:23, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Not ten, just three in 24 hours.Zigzig20s (talk) 21:44, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

• Comment -- for now Trump says he will sue his accusers. This may just be a rallying cry for the final stretch of the campaign. Let's wait until he files or at least has his lawyers go on the record that they are filing. For now, I would not support the inclusion of this material. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:49, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

How do we protect the WMF if our content does not reflect both perspectives to the same extent? Shouldn't we be concerned? That is my worry.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:54, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

I believe such statements fall under WP:NOTNEWS; not every thing a politician says belongs in the encyclopedia. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:09, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

I find the threat to sue individuals after the election to be quite remarkable. Even the threat to sue the NY Times (already included in the article) is quite remarkable. Sure Trump has a right to deny the allegations; he has; and it's included in the article multiple times. Perhaps not every denial, though. But suing people who say nasty things about you during a presidential election? It sounds like he is trying to prevent free speech during the time it is needed the most. I believe it is unprecedented during my lifetime. I wouldn't be surprised if it is unprecedented period (though perhaps the Jackson-JQ Adams election might have had something like this).

In short, I believe a short paragraph about the threat, including the quote above, should be included. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 22:03, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

While Trump's statement itself may not be noteworthy, I believe there's substantial press coverage on his proclivity to issue these threats in a wide variety of situations. Those might provide RS sourcing for a brief mention of his threat. I believe the Times also published an exchange of letters with Trump's attorney. SPECIFICO talk 22:12, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

The exchange between Trump's attorney and the Times - and their response is in the article already.

I agree that the reverted content is WP:NOTNEWS. It becomes a slippery slope to add content that is not notable, but interesting, particularly as there is SO MUCH press out there right now and will be for the next couple of weeks. I'm wondering - does someone want to start a blog? Because these kinds of things seem to be good blog discussions, whichever camp you're in.--CaroleHenson (talk) 22:20, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

My point was that NOTNEWS is more appropriate than what I called it, which was a POV issue.--CaroleHenson (talk) 23:08, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Of course you agree with your own deletion of cited content. You agree with yourself. As for a blog, you're welcome to start one, but that sounds like going off on a tangent. If there is no consensus to add the fact that Trump wants to sue all of the accusers, that's fine, but it looks to me like the accusers are getting undue weight as opposed to Trump's response. I believe that's problematic, as it makes it look like even more of an attack page.Zigzig20s (talk) 22:31, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Please don't edit my comments. By the way, it's not a personal attack by any stretch of imagination to say someone agrees with their own edits if that's the truth. I love Carole and I might be tempted to give her a barnstar, as I said before. Regarding the lawsuits, I guess we can wait and see if there is consensus for inclusion or not. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 22:45, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

You are being disruptive and repeatedly violating WP:AGF. You have been warned and called it harassment. Your disruption has been removed and you have restored it. Patience is wearing thin, and you need to back away for awhile and cool off. Consider this fair (further) warning. I also Oppose the disputed content, per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:CRYSTAL. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:52, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi. User:Smallbones agrees with me that this should be included (see above). It's not disruptive at all to bring people together. I am encouraging constructive collaboration for the inclusion of NPOV cited content.Zigzig20s (talk) 22:58, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

I also feel like this entire article is NOTNEWS. Articles about political campaigns always are. Two weeks ago, we would not have known the first thing about these women.Zigzig20s (talk) 23:01, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't see the lawsuit threat as a novel topic, not brought up in the mainstream press. see e.g. The Washington Post. There are about 4 other similar articles from equally reliable sources that stress that the threat itself is the news. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 22:54, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

• I also believe it merits a short paragraph and the quote. Furthermore, I also think Trump should have his own separate section for his denials, lawyers statements, etc. his accusers have their own sections, the accused should as well, and the other reactions should be moved to it's own section.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 23:02, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

• Well, perhaps a couple of sentence, as in "Speaking at a campaign rally, Trump vowed to sue his accusers. Responding to these comments, attorney Gloria Allred, who represents three of the accusers, stated in this case they will counter sue" -- or something to this effect. Including a full quote from Trump seems to give this too much weight.

What the article does best is provide a summary of all of the accusations; doing day-to-day back & forth does not seem to be needed. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:10, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Discussion at NPOV board

A discussion about the main article has been initiated by me in the NPOV board: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Issues_at_a_Donald_Trump_page Soham321 (talk) 22:56, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

• Comment This has been becoming very personal over the last couple of days.

If the issue with the page is me - I will happily resign from working on it. My goal has always been to ensure that content that is added is objective, balanced and meets WP guidelines. I have reverted content or voiced concern about content that showed Trump in a bad light as well, but that's not being tabulated. I am voting for the removal of the Jane Doe section - something that I have been divided about.

There is no question that I have put a lot of time and effort into this article - and so you're likely to run into me in your interactions. If my backing off would keep the article balanced and objective, I have no problem doing that. My ultimate goal is a good article, not that I'm working on it. There are plenty of good senior editors that are working this article that I am not needed.

I am not throwing myself on the sword, though. If the accusations against me are what you think you need to do to be heard, and that's all it is, I'm very happy to remain and tough it out.--CaroleHenson (talk) 23:36, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

• I used the list of people from an earlier dispute, also opened by Soham 321, to ping people that work on this page: Pkimer, EEng, Mandruss, Madshurtie, Jack Upland, Rrburke, J mareeswaran, Anythingyouwant, Zigzig20s, Politrukki, MrX, Distelfinck, Kuru, Volunteer Marek, Muboshgu, K.e.coffman, Strongjam, Smallbones, My very best wishes, Pincrete, Soham321