Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:00, 18 October 2016

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9Auto-archiving period: 4 days

This article was nominated for deletion on October 13, 2016. The result of the discussion was Keep per WP:SNOW.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Crime and Criminal Biography Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Template:WikiProject Donald Trump Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Sexology and sexuality Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. United States Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9Auto-archiving period: 4 days

regarding jane doe trial:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-accused-underage-rape-lawsuit-a7352976.html

obviously another witness, Joan Doe, has come forward and confirmed allegations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.91.64.11 (talk) 12:08, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, unfortunately this is not a reliable source. I spent some time last night trying to find a reliable source that mentioned "Tiffany Doe" and I could not find one. I'm guessing as the story progresses over time, that will become available. There's a list below in List of sources of those that are considered reliable (RS).--CaroleHenson (talk) 19:22, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Update

I stayed up tonight to get this "roughed out" and unfortunately those words are too true. I'm sure that it would greatly benefit from copy editing - I got pretty punchy. There definitely needs work to ensure sufficient use of "allegedly", etc. verbiage.

I agree with some earlier points that it would be good to let the story mature a bit more, especially around the pageant contestants comments. I commented out Cassandra Searles info because it all refers to Facebook postings. It's worth asking, too, 1) how much really needs to be added regarding the pageants based upon Trump's comments? and 2) how much of it falls within the scope of this article?

As an FYI, I ignored information from articles if it didn't seem strong. A good example is the article I put in further reading - I found a lot of unsettling comments, but not a lot that seemed to fit within the scope of this article.

Hopefully the section groupings make sense, it's my pass as it.--CaroleHenson (talk) 13:03, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

The scope of the article seems open-ended. For example, Ashley Judd has complained about Trump — . Should this be included?--Jack Upland (talk) 19:55, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Good question, how about putting it in the Behavioral history section?--CaroleHenson (talk) 20:08, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

 Done--CaroleHenson (talk) 02:20, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Hmmmmm...--Jack Upland (talk) 09:55, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, Jack Upland, I didn't see this earlier - are you thinking it should have been handled differently?--CaroleHenson (talk) 19:37, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

See my comments below.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:56, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

I searched Summer Zervos on Misplaced Pages to learn who she is, nott to be redirected to the Trump allegations. Why did this happen? It makes the appearance of Misplaced Pages being biased. Pkimer (talk) 04:47, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Useful NPR source

A List Of The Accusations About Trump's Alleged Inappropriate Sexual Conduct EvergreenFir (talk) 18:51, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Really good, thanks! I'm using it.--CaroleHenson (talk) 21:00, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

@CaroleHenson: Thank you. I would have done some myself, but I'm trying to keep the political articles at arm's length just because they're a time sink and prone to debates. More following them to watch for vandalism. 21:18, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir:, Great! It's nice to know that you're part of the community that maintains the quality of the articles. What would our articles look like without you?--CaroleHenson (talk) 22:23, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Video is original research?

Hi @Mandruss:,

I was looking over WP:OR and I'm trying to sort out in what way creating a video file of a broadcasted event is OR. I'm seeing that videos can be considered primary sources. I am totally missing the point. Can you help me out?

I've seen your feedback and work around for some time, and think of you as a good resource, so I'm totally guessing that it's a nuance I haven't known of or considered before.--CaroleHenson (talk) 01:18, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm not 100% confident here, but it feels like WP:SYNTH to me (the edtitor stated that they "cut it together"). Pure gut feel, and I felt it at least warranted discussion so I reverted per WP:BRD. I think it warrants waiting for support from multiple editors more experienced than I. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:20, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

They're also copyright violations and have been deleted. - Mlpearc (open channel) 01:21, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Ok, thanks!--CaroleHenson (talk) 01:32, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

A couple of questions

I have a couple of questions to run by you:

• Should we have a section or address the criticism that all of the accusations, particularly in the month of October are politically motivated?
• Should we include any comments about Ivanka in the Behavioral history section? He has said three things that are particularly disturbing that he's said about her great body, wanting to date her, and a conversation with Howard Stern that was disturbing. Calling it out in that section, in that way could be very troubling to her - and so there may be a guideline around that. i just don't know.--CaroleHenson (talk) 02:29, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Re your first bullet: Yes, we should absolutely address claims of political motivation, with consideration for WP:WEIGHT. We all have our opinions and biases, but we should edit as if we don't know whether those claims are true or a diversionary tactic. We don't know that. None of us were present during those acts of abuse, nor were the reporters reporting the allegations, and I don't know that Democrats are too good to engineer something like this in order to get into the White House and save the country from Trump. Even a guy like Trump should be innocent until proven guilty in our eyes, despite overwhelming circumstantial evidence including his own words. But a separate section? I don't know. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:15, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Ok, I'll add a bit, without adding a new section. Thanks for your input!--CaroleHenson (talk) 05:02, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm super confused. We just talked about this. Why were my additions along this line removed?

By the way, I've got to consolidate and summarize some of the Trump camp comments - or put some of it in notes.--CaroleHenson (talk) 05:39, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

I share your confusion. What removal(s) are you referring to? If you mean this one, I didn't associate that with your comments about political motivation. It was also one-sided, as I said in my editsum. I thought we were talking about a paragraph or so devoted solely to the political motivation claims, not scattered statements about it. I also didn't realize it was you I was reverting. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:49, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

So, sorry!!! I had an old edit window open and so it showed recent edits dropping off. I got all mixed up when I opened an old version to get a citation that got lost and hadn't immediately closed it. I had two edit windows open at the same time, but was just looking at the old one. Yikes!--CaroleHenson (talk) 05:51, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Ok, that's your mistake for today (UTC). ―Mandruss ☎ 06:19, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Funny! Nice laugh as I'm starting to wrap up. Thanks for your input today.--CaroleHenson (talk) 07:04, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

New York Times response to Trump's lawyers

The response by NYT to the demands for retraction and apology, and the threat of the lawsuit, has become a story in itself and is directly related to the subject of this article. Here are some secondary sources: , , and a whole bunch more if needed.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:48, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Excellent, I just added a blurb a bit ago but it will be good to see what else is being reported. Thanks,--CaroleHenson (talk) 06:53, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Objectifying women

As reactions section

Madshurtie, As I mentioned there are two problems with the additions to the "Comparisons to past behavior" section. The biggest one is I made a HUGE mistake. We agreed to no more than 4-5 sentences no matter what else came up - it was an agreement made by a group of people and I messed up.

The second, which is really of lesser concern is that the source is a tabloid.

I apologize to you and mostly to Mandruss and the group that came together (@J mareeswaran, CaroleHenson, Tataral, Rrburke, Jack Upland, and Madshurtie:) to make the decision for handling this incorrectly.--CaroleHenson (talk) 10:23, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

@CaroleHenson: As Mandruss says in a recent edit, it's now a different beast. We're now focusing on how people have recently connected the allegations to past behaviour, which I think makes it a much less controversial section than it used to be. It's now just a reactions section. So I wouldn't worry so much about the size anymore. This Economist article is a better standard of source that also cites the research (about halfway down, though infuriatingly not with any specific citation). Maybe restore the text and add The Economist? Madshurtie (talk) 10:34, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

@Madshurtie and Mandruss: , I am sooo confused. Too bad that WP doesn't have group IM.

So I don't make any other crazy moves:

• I need to restore the main article and we'll use the Economist article
• I need to put back the template on this talk page that Mandruss had added because, the agreement was broken because of these developments, NOT me breaking the agreement

Is that right?--CaroleHenson (talk) 10:42, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Carole, the agreement was a compromise with the sole goal of eliminating all the tabloid crap. That goal has been achieved and I consider the agreement reasonably voided. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:42, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

• Ah, when I read "tabloid" I was thinking that you were referring to the source of addition in the article. I didn't realize that you were referring to the nature of the content that had been managed. Stick a fork in me, I'm done for the day.--CaroleHenson (talk) 10:46, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Ok, that's your mistake for today (UTC). Also mine for unclear comm. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:48, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
    • Thanks, it's funny - there's some magic that happened to the template (laughing at myself) and it makes perfect sense now. I had never seen that template before and it was just a shock - I felt so bad. Ok, talk to you later. Tomorrow is a new day!--CaroleHenson (talk) 10:54, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Duplicate Citations (minor)

@CaroleHenson: I removed those three citations because they were already in the adjacent note. Madshurtie (talk) 15:34, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Ok, cool. I'll remove them. The note now has the info about definitions by jurisdictions as the first sentence with the same citations, so that makes more sense to me now.--CaroleHenson (talk) 15:45, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

@CaroleHenson: Actually that change means the Lisa Bloom citation has been removed. Madshurtie (talk) 15:52, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I was tied up for a bit and then saw that someone came and replaced it with another source, I think Fox News, which is actually better. I'm not sure if it still stands, but the article had a lot of Lisa Bloom stuff (probably because of me).--CaroleHenson (talk) 19:35, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Timeline Organization of Events?

Just a thought, but the page seems to be organized based on when these events have been reported. It might be more helpful to organize this based on a timeline. This would allow a better picture for the reader and allow further additions as this continues to unfold. Casprings (talk) 19:14, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Casprings, The subsections of the key three areas are chronological and at one time the intro was, too. But, I get the point that readers are likely wanting to hit on the most recent events. Do you have an example of an article that does this - for discussion here?--CaroleHenson (talk) 19:27, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't have once off hand. I just think we should think about organization and flow. Casprings (talk) 19:55, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

would it better to mention the year next to the name of the women in the sub-headings? To make it clear that it is a chronological order? J mareeswaran (talk) 20:13, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Are you saying - instead of having separate sections for the accusers, have one main category and have them sorted chronologically, perhaps with the year of the initial incident with Trump (at least one crosses over several years) in the subsection heading, like: Jane Leeds (1980s), Rachel Crooks (2005), etc.?

My one thought is that it's dangerous mixing up the beauty pageant accusations with the others, because there hasn't been actual physical contact.--CaroleHenson (talk)

keep the category of allegations (level 2) separate but within that try to add the year also in level3 (as you have mentioned above), so that when somebody else adds a fresh allegation they know where it goes. J mareeswaran (talk) 21:04, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

I see that the category is now level-1. so the decade can be level-2 then the name of the accusers can be level-3. would that be fine? J mareeswaran (talk) 21:10, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm lost. Are you saying have subsections by specific years? Wouldn't that make a lot of subsections with only one accuser (e.g., 1980s, 1997, etc.)?--CaroleHenson (talk) 04:28, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I went ahead and added the year into the section heading, like "Temple Taggart McDowell (1997)" which makes it easier to see the chronology. I saw a couple of days ago that someone tried to add a wikitable so that the information could be grouped and sorted, but it was deleted for several reasons. So, right now, adding the year seems to be the simplest solution. I have not seen anyone else weigh in the topic, so this might be the best way to go.--CaroleHenson (talk) 23:55, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

This looks fine now. J mareeswaran (talk) 18:30, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Response from Donald Trump

I'm unclear as to the purpose of this section, as "Reactions from Trump's campaign" section already exists. It also appear to be coat rack as it mentions other instances of "smear campaigns". If anything, it's okay to include Trump's reference to the "smear campaign" in the existing section (Campaign reactions), but the rest should be removed. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:10, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

While I was typing this, another editor removed this section diff. I believe it should stay out as undue and coat racky. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:11, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Quality of Sources

I've removed a number of claims lacking RS cites. In a BLP, especially one with "sexual misconduct allegations" in its title, every editor should be mindful of source quality. Given the current feeding frenzy we may see a number of claims, some substantive others not; source quality will help us distinguish one from the other. James J. Lambden (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:49, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

James J. Lambden, Thanks for the work you're doing on this. I just reverted a section a few hours ago that was riddled with citation issues - using citations that didn't apply, introducing non-reliable sources, etc. I had to go back to an earlier version and get a "clean" version of the section and paste it back into the article. So, I'm wondering if we have other sections that used to have reliable sources that were replaced with non-reliable sources.--CaroleHenson (talk) 04:21, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

@CaroleHenson: That's going to take some work to figure out. I'll dig through the edit history. James J. Lambden (talk) 16:17, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

@James J. Lambden:,

No need, I did a pretty thorough review when I went through and improved resources based upon list of sources last night. Does this list seem accurate to you? Thanks!--CaroleHenson (talk) 17:06, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! I can't imagine it was easy. List looks good, James J. Lambden (talk) 17:30, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Misogynist behavior?

Misogyny - a hatred of women

In my opinion, it's quite possible to behave in this manner without hating women. It can happen out of mere cluelessness about boundaries, appropriate ways to behave toward others, etc. I think that heading assumes facts not in evidence, unless there is substantial RS support for it. I would suggest "Sexist behavior". ―Mandruss ☎ 23:56, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Agreed.--CaroleHenson (talk) 00:00, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Done. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:04, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

How to Get Rich

Related to the discussion, I believe that these statements are relevant because they come from Trump himself:

• In his book, How To Get Rich (2004), Trump mentioned that “All of the women on The Apprentice flirted with me — consciously or unconsciously. That’s to be expected. A sexual dynamic is always present between people, unless you are asexual.” He also said in the book, “It’s certainly not groundbreaking news that the early victories by the women on ‘The Apprentice’ were, to a very large extent, dependent on their sex appeal.”

References

1. Cite error: The named reference PBS Long history was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

Wasn't one of the drivers of the story the article about women on the Apprentice coming out about the host's behaviour? K.e.coffman (talk) 00:25, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

The vote was to keep the section short and not get into a lot of detail. His accusers met him in a variety of roles. I'm not sure that info should be added about just one of his roles. And, it's just further examples -- of which there are quite a few. I picked what I thought might be a very telling, unusual example. I've heard statements like the ones you mentioned quite a bit over my career.--CaroleHenson (talk) 00:51, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Relevance of referring to Bill Clinton in the "See also" section?

There is one item in the "See also" section, which is a link to Bill Clinton sexual misconduct allegations, and the following comment, "which Trump also alluded to at various points". I disagree that this item is relevant for an article about Donald Trump's sexual misconduct allegations.

I deleted the section and the item today. But User Mandruss un-deleted it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LukeStuartStar (talk • contribs) 01:24, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

I would agree with the removal of this section. The fact that Trump alluded to this subject is not relevant. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:26, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Seems we have different concepts of "relevance". But no strong opinion. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:54, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Since it appears that there are no strong opinions, I will remove. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:12, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

I also agree with removalCasprings (talk)

Eh, I think it's relevant enough. Trump has trotted out Paula Jones, Juanita Broadrick, and Kathleen Wiley. Some pubs are looking at the Clinton stuff at least to see the differences. Trump seems to have nothing else left for the next 25 days, so I'm sure we'll keep hearing about it. I think it's relevant enough to link there. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:10, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree it should be removed. Otherwise, what chaos would reign? Tons of see alsos on Clinton and Trump article pages anytime one of the candidates brings up references to something.--CaroleHenson (talk) 03:57, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

This Article is Mostly a Violation on NPOV, BLP, & Reliable Sources

It should be greatly reduced in size, removing all unprovable accusations. PeacePeace (talk) 04:06, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

We had a similar discussion at Contested deletion Reply above.

Do you have specific examples of the ways in which these guidelines are not being met?--CaroleHenson (talk) 04:14, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

PeacePeace, Regarding reliable sources, there are some issues and I'll work on that, but if you have specific sources to call out, that would be helpful!--CaroleHenson (talk) 04:39, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

List of sources

Just to ensure we're all on the same page, here's the summary that I've started of sources to use / not use to aid in this discussion and clean-up based on what we're seeing in this article:

Do you agree with this list?--CaroleHenson (talk) 05:28, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Houston Public Media is related to PBS and NPR. Seems fine. Slate and Variety are generally okay. Guardian is certainly RS in my experience (not seeing it roundly panned on rsn either). EvergreenFir (talk) 05:46, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

EvergreenFirThanks, do you think it would be ok to make changes to this list, or should it be copied and edited to maintain the history?--CaroleHenson (talk) 06:10, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

The updated list based upon these comments and a few more RSN searches:

Use:

• Atlantic - RS
• Business Insider - RS
• CNN, CNN Money - RS
• Deseret News - RS
• Fox News - RS, preferred from previous discussion
• Guardian - RS
• Houston Public Media
• Los Angeles Times - RS, preferred from previous discussion
• NPR - RS, preferred from previous discussion
• Network news: ABC, CBS, NBC - RS
• New York Daily News - RS
• New York Magazine - RS
• New York Times - RS
• Newsweek - RS
• NPR - RS
• Palm Beach Post - RS
• People - RS
• Rolling Stone - RS
• Slate - RS
• Time - RS
• Variety - RS
• VOX - RS
• Washington Post - RS

Don't use or find a better source, based on RSN

• Daily Beast - RS, but speculative opinion pieces
• DailyMail - not RS
• Donald J. Trump campaign site - better to get a secondary source. In cases where Trump's responses to specific allegations are present on his campaign site but not (within a reasonable time frame) covered in RS, we include his response noting that it came from the campaign site (added)
• Huffington Post - RS, better to find another source
• Independent - not RS
• International Business Times - not clearly RS, better to find another source (added)
• LawNews - not RS per RSN in this post (added)
• Politico - RS, but better to find another source
• Anything else not on the "use" list unless it's a known reliable source (search noticeboard)

Thanks for the help!--CaroleHenson (talk) 06:40, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Good list. My only comment: because this story's evolving rapidly and the accusations are very serious, in cases where Trump's responses to specific allegations are present on his campaign site but not (within a reasonable time frame) covered in RS, we include his response noting that it came from the campaign site. James J. Lambden (talk) 16:27, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

That makes sense! Thanks for the input!--CaroleHenson (talk) 17:11, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

put comment into the list, in blue with (added) parenthetical--CaroleHenson (talk) 17:19, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

I added LawNewz to the list - and am checking at this post to see if it's a reliable source.--CaroleHenson (talk) 18:10, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Mass Deletion

Hello,

Yesterday I added a section about former Apprentice Jennifer Murphy claiming that Trump suddenly grabbed her and kissed her on the lips, leaving her very surprised. That section was improved by other editors. Today an editor doing mass deletion deleted the whole section ( here)

He/she called Washington Times a non-reliable source, among others ( here ) Is it unreliable? Even if it is

These informations are covered by almost all sources, why mass-delete so fast? Maybe all those huge info deleted by that editor need to be restored. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haailo (talk • contribs) 06:08, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi, it was deleted because there weren't reliable sources - I think they were all gossip sites, not true news sites. I think I tagged the content with {{better source}} and then another user removed the section because of the visibility of the page at the moment. See Quality of Sources and This Article is Mostly a Violation on NPOV, BLP, & Reliable Sources. Are there reliable sources? See the list just above your posting for some reliable sources.--CaroleHenson (talk) 06:16, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

"Who do you complain to? He owns the pageant." I think this quote should be included. Source: http://nymag.com/thecut/2016/10/pageant-contestants-say-trump-walked-in-on-them-changing.html --Haailo (talk) 06:33, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Haailo , It has been in there. It's in the quote in this section.--CaroleHenson (talk) 18:16, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Jennifer Murphy

Should we include this in the article?

Jennifer Murphy was given a kiss by Trump, but it was not an issue for her. Early reports, from unreliable sources, had labeled her an accuser, which was upsetting to her.--CaroleHenson (talk) 07:57, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Jane Doe

@Al-Andalus and Mandruss: and anyone else that would like to comment, I'm wondering if there should be a separate article for "Jane Doe", perhaps Jane Doe (Donald Trump case), because this could be an evolving story with much more information to add - and start to overtake this article.

What do you think?--CaroleHenson (talk) 08:17, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Geez, forks of forks? Where does it end? Wait and see. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:19, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Ok, but I'm guessing that we don't want to dump a lot of content into this article about the status of the case. That's my concern, it's not really the purpose of this article to go into a lot of detail about her case, IMO. Pinging @Al-Andalus, Mandruss, and Distelfinck:--CaroleHenson (talk) 08:26, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

It seems to fall under the umbrella of sexual misconduct allegations. Are you saying it should be treated separately because there is a pending lawsuit? ―Mandruss ☎ 08:33, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I agree it should be in this article. What I mean is that IMO this article should be about the accusations and not get into a ton of detail, for instance, I reversed this edit. Do you think that info should be covered here?--CaroleHenson (talk) 08:39, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

I think the question is whether it should be covered anywhere, per WEIGHT. I don't know about that. If yes, I don't think here would be inappropriate. But I'm feeling just a bit over my head on this question. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:44, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

I could have set this up better. Here's where I propose:

• Like you say, let's wait to see if the Jane Doe case is going to materialize into anything - and not create a new article at this time.
• I suggest that we don't add much more information about Jane Doe to this article at this time.
• Add a concise update about the October 16 hearing or anything major in the case at that time.

How does that sound?--CaroleHenson (talk) 08:52, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

• shrug* No objection. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:58, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Of the few media outlets that have gone into the details of this case (e.g. Vox, Guardian, Guardian again) most said, in nice words, that it's beyond dubious. Vox: "The allegations seem so likely to be untrue that even writing the words “Trump” and “allegedly raped a 13-year-old” in the same sentence feels sort of icky.". Guardian: "Court filings in California and New York against Trump, purportedly on behalf of a woman..." If this article has to cover this lawsuit (I'm not sure it should), then in fairness to Trump it should reflect what reliable sources think of this lawsuit. --Distelfinck (talk) 08:51, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

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)

Yep, one of the articles compares Clinton's situation, which has aged over years and resulted in a huge settlement, to Trump's which is brand new. Of course, Clinton's case is clearer. The $1mil tape sounds weird, but I would agree that it would be good to see what hits the mainstream press. For instance, last night someone added Jennifer Murphy as an accuser with non-reliable sources, she had been kissed by Trump, but had absolutely no issue - she's not an accuser and was stunned that she was labeled one.--CaroleHenson (talk) 09:07, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Jane Doe content ideas

@Al-Andalus and Distelfinck:, I am guessing that you have other thoughts about what needs to be added. To save us all some time, maybe we could discuss it here. What do you think?

By the way, on the recent article edit, I returned the wording due to close paraphrasing and the use of the word "thrown", which is indelicate and not an encyclopedic tone. If you feel strongly, though, the word "thrown" could be added, but we should probably attribute it to someone.--CaroleHenson (talk) 20:11, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Pinged and then un-pinged! This is my non-response! ―Mandruss ☎ 20:17, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

So sorry, Mandruss! I just know you're busy and didn't want to bother you unnecessary about this topic You are a great wordsmith - so if you wouldn't mind weighing in that would be great! (My mistake for the day is used up now? Oh, I better be really careful.)--CaroleHenson (talk) 20:45, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Throwing money is indelicate wording, but if we are describing a lawsuit that is alleging the throwing of money, we should say so, instead of making it sound more proper by describing it as "providing money". This is simply describing reality, and reality sometimes includes things that are indelicate. We could certainly use quotes if that makes you happy --Distelfinck (talk) 20:26, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

It's not our job to be dramatic, and we'd be taking these words from a journalist, not someone involved in the case. I bet from all the editing you've seen, you know I'd keep it as brief and objective as possible, unless there was reason for dramatics. However, a potential revision could be:

"Some allegations, like claiming that Trump provided money for an abortion, are not included in the charges this time."

to

"Some allegations are not included in the charges this time. According to Leonard Greene, the charges that Trump "threw money at the plaintiff for an abortion" were not included."

What do you think?--CaroleHenson (talk) 20:45, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Excellent --Distelfinck (talk) 20:47, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Would you like to make the replacement in the article?--CaroleHenson (talk) 21:07, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm on it --Distelfinck (talk) 21:16, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Great!--CaroleHenson (talk) 21:30, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Statute of limitations

@Al-Andalus and Distelfinck: As an FYI, there are two statements about statute of limitations that are commented out in Jane Doe's section: the five year state statute, which has expired, and that there is no federal statute of limitation. I have been unable to find a reliable source yet, but I'll keep looking. If you find something, that would be Grrreat! As an FYI, if I haven't already told you, there's a list of reliable sources to use on this talk page.--CaroleHenson (talk) 00:05, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Current state

@Al-Andalus and Distelfinck: I got started working on this section when I was cleaning up unreliable sources. That, then, took me into a phrase or sentence-by-sentence review to 1) ensure that we had reliable sources, 2) that the sources matched the content, and as I did that 3) there were some points that were added. The version that captures the point in time when that was done is here, as an FYI.

Some of the content was removed because I couldn't find a reliable source, which speaks to the importance or lack of importance if mainstream media isn't picking it up. Some of it got put into notes, because I don't think it's needed for most readers - and those that want to read more can click on the note. You might have some thoughts on this, maybe it should go back in the section. Lastly, there is some info that's commented out but visible in edit mode - because the dates just confuse the matter or - the info we still need sources for re: statute of limitations and something else I'm forgetting. I am thinking that after October 16, 2016 there will be more info.

I know you like detail! And, so you might not be happy with the way the info was summarized to a higher level, but something to think about is:

• The citations give readers an opportunity to further explore the topic
• I have an editing thought process that is inspired by something the executive director said a few years back: Whether a reader will spend their time on an article is often based upon on long it is and how quickly they can get to the information that they want. If there's too much detail, people will click off the page pretty quickly. There's a related essay about this that you might enjoy Too long; didn't read.

I'd like people to stay around - because they can get to the key points quickly - and get into more detail if they want by clicking on the citation. Just thought I'd pass that along so you understand where I'm coming from. There will probably be more info coming in soon - and lots of people that will want to add something. Do you think you could help me manage this section so that it stays concise, but has the high-level key points, with reliable sources, etc.? --CaroleHenson (talk) 03:58, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Attacks on credibility

Re

@Madshurtie: - I don't know about that, but "attacks on the credibility of the accusers" generally implies that the attacks are false, no? Liars attack, truthers defend themselves. Any way we can be more neutral here? ―Mandruss ☎ 15:26, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

@Mandruss: Ah true, that might have made it worse. How about denials of? Denial seems to be the default word elsewhere and in legal situations. Madshurtie (talk) 15:41, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Not really, you deny claims or allegations, not credibility. You challenge credibility. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:45, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

@Mandruss: I think in widespread usage attempt to challenge is used equivalently to the traditional meaning of challenge, which makes just challenge sound more successful by comparison. If you attempt to challenge something, you're attempting to make the challenge successful (attempt to challenge the mountain, attempt to challenge the paperwork). I think both uses are correct, but just challenge might load it more. Maybe swap back? Madshurtie (talk) 15:51, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

@Madshurtie: I dunno. Maybe CaroleHenson or others have ideas or opinions. Status quo is ok for now. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:55, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

@Mandruss: How about my new attempt: 'claims the accusers lack credibility'? Madshurtie (talk) 16:17, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Still no warm fuzzy. I know the answer is out there, I just can't see it right now (probably sleep dep). Undermine credibility, attack credibility, both very common, neither neutral. I keep coming back to challenge credibility, so we may be stuck pending more participation. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:23, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

How about "questions the accuser's credibility"?--CaroleHenson (talk) 17:10, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

@CaroleHenson: Would have to be 'questions over the accusers' crediblity' because of the rest of the sentence, but could work. I personally vote for my most recent wording :-D Madshurtie (talk) 17:18, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

@Madshurtie: Absolutely, that works!--CaroleHenson (talk) 17:21, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Oddly, with the addition of the word "that", "claims that the accusers lack credibility" is working for me now. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:31, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

I had been feeling a 'that' as well, incidentally. Madshurtie (talk) 19:23, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

That's funny!--CaroleHenson (talk) 00:12, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Trump's Response to Zervos

Donald Trump rejected Summer Zervos advances and said no.--74.190.105.123 (talk) 16:36, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Better source: People Magazine. James J. Lambden (talk) 16:51, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

@James J. Lambden and 74.190.105.123: Do you mean "That was until Summer invited Mr. Trump to her restaurant during the primary and he said no." Unless I'm missing something, which trust me, is entirely possible - I'm not seeing that Zervos made sexual advances to Trump. I think it is a salient question: if she'd been assaulted, why did she invite him to her restaurant? I'll add it.--CaroleHenson (talk) 18:26, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Just as a side-note, when I was doing this I thought it could be a slippery slope and that it's important to avoid victim shaming. This was not coming directly from the campaign, but her cousin Barry -- who provided the quote -- is a major Trump supporter - which I'll add. I'm bringing it up in the event that this should not be added to the article.--CaroleHenson (talk) 18:51, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply Zervos had made advances - my "better source" comment was in response to the section header "Trump's Response to Zervos;" I think your article edit, based on the People source above, is excellent. James J. Lambden (talk) 19:07, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

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)

Comparisons of past behavior

This doesn't seem an appropriate heading because all the behaviour is in the past. Should it be "other behavior", or is that too vague? ..."other behavior towards woman"?--Jack Upland (talk) 23:05, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Could be "Pattern of sexist behaviour". Just throwing it out there. I think it's important to include "pattern" in the section heading as these allegations are not coming out of the blue. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:09, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

I think, as reflected in the previous discussion, we don't want a section devoted to all complaints about Trump's behaviour towards women. "Comparisons" ties the section directly to the sexual misconduct allegations.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:17, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

I was not suggesting that the section be expanded, but that it should be renamed and offered a suggestion. I think "Pattern of sexist behaviour" accurately describes the content provided. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:24, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

It used to be "Sexist behavior", which is short and sweet.--CaroleHenson (talk) 23:27, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm concerned about headings that — unintentionally or intentionally — invite a dirty laundry list. "Comparisons" is good because it limits the section to just that.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:15, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

@Jack Upland:@K.e.coffman:@CaroleHenson: I agree with Jack. I changed the heading to 'Comparisons of past behavior' and daughtered it to a reactions section specifically to ensure it was on topic. You could make the case that because it's now under 'Reactions to 2016 allegations' any patterns commented on must be reactions, but I think it makes it less clear to other editors. I prefer 'Comparisons to other behaviour', 'Comparisons to sexist behaviour', and 'Comparisons to misogynistic behaviour'. Madshurtie (talk) 08:03, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm confused by "Comparisons of past behaviors" or other comparison headings. It seems broad and open to interpretation. When I step back a sec, I think the primary goal is to have a heading that aptly describes the content. For me, "Objectification and sexual violence" or "The connection between objectification and sexual violence" summarizes the section. When I tried to break it down, that's what I come up with.--CaroleHenson (talk) 08:24, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

@CaroleHenson: How I see it is that "Objectification and sexual violence" or "The connection between objectification and sexual violence" sounds like a completely separate article. Including it an article called "Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations" makes it look like the section is purely there to build the case against Trump. If we make it clear that journalists and other pointed out his past behaviour in connection to these allegations, it maintains its relevance. If the content of the section looks closer to a heading like those two, then maybe it's better to change/add content, rather than change the heading. Madshurtie (talk) 08:36, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Absolutely there should be balanced coverage. Being pretty tired right now, my initial thought is:

• If Trump is guilty, then the objectification / sexual violence connection is germane
• If Trump is innocent, then all the accusers have to be part of a media and political conspiracy--CaroleHenson (talk) 09:13, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

• There's the other Trump campaign claim that these women are all trying to cash in on fame and publicity, though I think that would be a pretty unrealistic motive for anyone given the small gains and large retaliation. However, surely it's not Misplaced Pages's place to imply which situation is correct through its section headings? Madshurtie (talk) 09:55, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

What do you think about a "Theories" section with subsections for the prevailing theories, as they are reported in the media? --CaroleHenson (talk) 10:07, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps by using the current Reactions section and modifying it to focus on the theories?--CaroleHenson (talk) 10:50, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Markup

Relating to comments above, I took at stab at a "Reactions to 2016 allegations and key theories" section, from the "Reactions to 2016 allegations" section:

==Reactions to 2016 allegations and key theories==

===Trump campaign reactions===

===Pattern of behavior===

--CaroleHenson (talk) 15:54, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

@CaroleHenson: I'm slightly cautious about saying 'there are two key theories', because it might imply false balance. And possibly lumping a conspiracy theory in with another theory devalues the other one? Also I think there's at least one more theory: the fame and greed theory some Trump surrogates have offered. I personally prefer the section as its current structure (with slight debate over the wording of the subheading), though I'd like to hear other editors' opinions. Madshurtie (talk) 16:16, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Instead of theories, what do you think of "arguments"

Wouldn't the "fame and greed theory" have to be part of the overall conspiracy? I think it might be hard to show that each and every accuser decided on their own, or at the prompting of others, to come forward purely out of fame and greed? That could be added, but I think we have to tread the line of ensuring that it isn't heavy-handed or victim bashing (if Trump is guilty)--CaroleHenson (talk) 16:22, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

@CaroleHenson: Same boat for me. I think most readers would expect the arguments in Trump's favour to be in that subsection. If a lawyer or journalist created a novel argument in his favour, that would also be a reaction to the allegations, so presumably we could just create a new subsection for it. I guess it's kind of splitting hairs whether we use the term reactions or arguments, but reactions just feels a bit more encyclopedic to me?

Trump has wondered aloud why no one has accused Obama and said Obama should be careful, so presumably Trump thinks they could have motives independent of this conspiracy. Also campaign spokesman have said stuff about the accusers wanting money and free publicity, which sounds like a different motive from being Clinton operatives. Madshurtie (talk) 16:39, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Is there any evidence at all that Obama may have been involved in this? IMO the article should keep it the to "key" arguments / reactions.--CaroleHenson (talk) 16:56, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

@Madshurtie: I was starting to react to the "markup summary - sure" response and thought it might help to summarize where I think we are add, including a question about the summary:

If I've got this right, you're saying:

• Leave the sections as they are right now, except for wording of the subsection
• If a new, novel argument comes up from a journalist or lawyer then add a new section for that
• It is preferable to use "reaction" vs. theory or argument

I'm saying / asking

• IMO "greed and fame" shouldn't be a separate reaction category, unless there's proof that women were offered money to accuse Trump. Instead, it should be part of the larger conspiracy theory
• IMO we should stick with key reactions, and not get into issues like is Obama involved unless there is proof
• I'm asking, should we have a blurb at the top of the reactions section like:

There are two key types of reactions about this issue, One is that Trump is guilty of having committed sexual assault, for which there has been a pattern of behavior of offensive and sexist comments and behavior. The other is that Trump is innocent and the accusers are coming forward through an organized political smear campaign, (Need source - Megyn Kelly said this on her "Kelly Report" show on Fox.) which has been tied to commence near the end of the presidential campaign and within a month of the elections. (lots of sources for this)

@CaroleHenson:

• I'm not saying greed and fame has anything to do with being offered money to come forward. I'm pointing to quotes like Trump spokesman Hope Hicks: "Mr Trump strongly denies this phony allegation by someone looking to get some free publicity. It is totally ridiculous". It sounds like he's saying they are looking for fame and money from interviews, which is a different motive from being paid by any conspirators. Sounds like the campaign is taking the kitchen sink approach to discrediting them, talking about conspiracies and publicity seeking.
• Sorry if I was unclear about the Obama bit. I wasn't saying we should include anything about Obama, I was just saying that's an example of Trump talking about non-conspiracy motives for making allegations. If he thinks Obama's at risk of getting an allegation, presumably the allegation wouldn't be part of a Clinton conspiracy.
• I don't personally think a blurb is necessary, because I think the subsection headings make the separate reactions clear, but I don't have a particularly strong opinion. One other thing is a summary blurb about the two types of reactions doesn't seem to encompass a reaction-to-a-reaction like the hashtag section. Madshurtie (talk) 10:48, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

There is also a question below about removing the "Pattern of behavior" subsection entirely with Rrburke.--CaroleHenson (talk) 17:55, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Nightly snapshot

@Mandruss, K.e.coffman, and Muboshgu: and anyone else that would like to comment:

There's a number of us that spend this quiet time getting the article cleaned up and then content is sometimes copied over this clean copy of the article and then I know I've had to go back and find good clean copy with correct, reliable sources, sources that link up to the content, etc.

So, I thought it might be good to make a nightly snapshot of the article, perhaps in a subpage of this article.

I'm not sure of the best approach, but wanted to run it by you. I could post it on a user page under my or someone else's username, as a fall-back approach.

Any thoughts about this?--CaroleHenson (talk) 02:42, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Sounds like revisions to me, except that there is a revision for every edit instead of every day. Here's the revision as of your last edit last night: Here's the revision as of the last midnight UTC: And so on. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:53, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Ahhhh, one example didn't get me there, but two did. I thought you were referencing that specific edit. Ok! So, all I need to do is save the link to a version of the article. How smart!!!!--CaroleHenson (talk) 03:09, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

@CaroleHenson: Well any revision is accessible by clicking on the time/date link at the left of a line in the page history. That gets you the revision of the article as of that edit (and including it). So you don't really need to save any links, you can always get there from page history. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:12, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

@Mandruss: When I said link, what I really meant was the URL. I'm a very conceptual person - not always using technical terms correctly. Yep, got it. That will help to save the url to a clean version.--CaroleHenson (talk) 03:19, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Summer Zervos redirection

Why does a Misplaced Pages search of Summer Zervos lead to a page about Trump allegations? I can find the allegations anywhere on the net. I search her on Misplaced Pages to find factual information about this person I've never heard of. This makes Misplaced Pages seem biased. I'm no Trump apologist at all. I just want to know who she is. Pkimer (talk) 04:58, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Pkimer, You've got a good point! It's not unusual in Misplaced Pages to have what's called a "redirect" page that provides a link from a blank page (which can later, and in many cases, do become its own article) to an article with content about that person. I created the redirects so that if someone was in Misplaced Pages and wanted to search on a name of one of the accusers, it would bring her name in the search window. Then, they could get routed to this article.

I'm not sure how much it's helping and how many times people have the same experience that you do. It would be great to get feedback about whether the redirect pages (here) should be deleted.--CaroleHenson (talk) 05:16, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

These women are what we call "Notable for a single event" -- see WP:BIO1E. EEng 06:37, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Agreed that this applies to most of the women. In any event, what do you think about the use of redirect pages for the people in the article?--CaroleHenson (talk) 06:42, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the issue is. Until someone wants to propose that one of these people (all women, I guess) is notable enough for her own article, then they won't have one. In default of that, they certainly should have a redirect each, since there's information about them in this article. EEng 06:55, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

@CaroleHenson and EEng: I searched Misplaced Pages for "george houraney", a person mentioned in this article who does not have a redirect. I got this, which lists not only this article but another one that mentions him as well. So this gives me everything Misplaced Pages has on George Houraney. I had to know how to spell his name, since "george hourane" gives me a different guy George Hourani. If he had a redirect to this article, how would I know about the other article? ―Mandruss ☎ 07:01, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm losing focus. We need a redirect/dab gnome, but I don't know any. But in the meantime, to be honest redirects and stuff don't matter nearly as much as people pretend, since in practice people come in via Goodgle, which does a good job of finding things, redirect or now. EEng 07:11, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

I found 16 pages for Natasha Stoynoff. In looking at Redirects for discussion, it does not appear to meet the criteria for "keep" and the number 1 reason for deleting is: The redirect page makes it unreasonably difficult for users to locate similarly named articles via the search engine.--CaroleHenson (talk) 07:31, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Just as soon a series of gnomes will show up to tinker with categories, there are gnomes who specialize in this redirect stuff, so I'd leave it to them. There's plenty to do making this article the best it can be, and I suggest you keep your talents focused on that. EEng 07:34, 16 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 ) 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 "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)

Misplaced Pages 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 "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 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 Misplaced Pages: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.

• " 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 "t remains unclear whether similar associations would emerge with noncollegiate samples" and that "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 Misplaced Pages 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 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)

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:

  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[REDACTED] page? We must be careful not to allow[REDACTED] 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". In 2015, Ivana issued a statement saying that the original assault claim came "at a time of very high tension"."

Perhaps it could say: "Years later, Ivana said that she and Donald "are the best of friends", 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"." I referred to this as a 'rape,' but I do not want my words to be interpreted in a literal or criminal sense.

References

1. ^ "2 More Women Accuse Trump Of Inappropriate Sexual Conduct. Here's The Full List". NPR. 13 October 2016. Retrieved 16 October 2016.
2. ^ "Donald Trump Aide Apologizes for Saying, 'You Can't Rape Your Spouse'". The New York Times. 28 July 2016. Retrieved 16 October 2016.

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". 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

1. "Donald Trump Aide Apologizes for Saying, 'You Can't Rape Your Spouse'". The New York Times. 28 July 2016. Retrieved 16 October 2016.

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?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 Misplaced Pages 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. , ) 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. , )
• 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)

Unwanted, unwelcome

A minor question of language.

We use "unwanted" five times outside quotations, including one section heading. "Unwelcome advances" sounds more natural to my American ear than "unwanted advances", but we use "unwelcome" only once, in a quotation (in the voice of two New York Times writers). The meaning is the same, which is what makes this minor. Should we (1) use all "unwelcome", (2) mix it up to avoid being repetitive, or (3) leave it alone? ―Mandruss ☎ 04:50, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

It's nice to mix it up. I don't know if I'm the only woman that feels this way, but I 'have a visceral reaction to "unwanted" - it means more than "unwelcome" and seems to imply that someone is being forceful in their attempts and not concerned about how their actions might be taken. "Unwelcome" to me means even a nice person could do something that might not be appreciated for any number of reasons. By the way, we only need the quotes if it's the word used in the source, right?

Since we're talking about wording, do you mind looking at a change I made due to close paraphrasing, it's my last edit and it's about the request to drop out of the race.--CaroleHenson (talk) 05:14, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Are you saying that "unwelcome" would be more neutral and therefore preferred, like "claim" and "state"? In that case we should use all "unwelcome" in my view. Raised the paraphrasing on your talk page before I saw this. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:24, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

What do you think about leaning towards "unwelcome" most of the time - but using "unwanted" when it especially fits with the reported circumstance. I'd use "unwanted" for Natasha Stoynoff or Summer Zervos, for instance. Non-consensual is another option.--CaroleHenson (talk) 05:54, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

The word "advance" is also problematic. The Oxford Dictionary defines "advance" as "an approach made with the aim of initiating a sexual or amorous relationship or encounter". Yes, this word is used in media sources, but it really repeats the well known error of conflating consensual and non-consensual encounters. An "unwanted" or "unwelcome" "advance" could be just asking someone out and being turned down. But I don't think this is what Trump is being accused of. I think he is being accused of refusing to accept the refusal. Many things are "unwanted" or "unwelcome" but I think the allegations against Trump go far beyond this.--Jack Upland (talk) 12:09, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Thankfulness

Hi, I would like to take a minute to say how thankful I am to be working with such a great team of editors — with diverse, focused, and complementary skills — that continually work towards a good quality article about a difficult topic, in the middle of a media frenzy, and during a challenging political time. It's almost like it's choreographed, someone comes in and fixes grammar, another ensures that the tone is balanced, and then someone steps in to monitor that we're using reliable sources and are mindful of POV. And, that's just a few of the great efforts.

So, I hope you can have a nice mental break. Enjoy a minute or five of music. Take a deep breath. And, know that you're a magical part of the Misplaced Pages process.--CaroleHenson (talk) 06:56, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Astute and articulate observations. This could be an example in the hypothetical essay, Misplaced Pages:How to edit Misplaced Pages peacefully and collaboratively. With the short-lived exception of this contributor, I have been surprised for days, considering the nature of the subject matter. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:28, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

@CaroleHenson: Just wanted to specifically thank you Carole. You started working on the article almost immediately after the news broke, and worked through the night getting it up to scratch. You've been by far the biggest contributor, with half the text written by you. You've worked hard to keep it objective, and have given friendly and helpful comments to almost every discussion on the talk page. Elections in a country as big as America change a vast number of people's lives, so putting so much work into an encyclopedic resource like this is a valuable contribution to society. At the moment, your contribution is getting seen by about 10 000 people a day. Madshurtie (talk) 11:38, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you! It may sound trite, but it's true this has been a great team effort to ensure the quality of the article - and it's been a joy.--CaroleHenson (talk) 11:48, 17 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:

References

1. ^ Swaine, Jon (July 7, 2016). "Rape lawsuits against Donald Trump linked to former TV producer; Norm Lubow, formerly a producer on the Jerry Springer show, apparently coordinated lawsuits accusing Donald Trump of raping a child in the 1990s". The Guardian. Retrieved October 17, 2016.
2. Pilkington, Ed (October 12, 2016). "Trump lawyers given court date over lawsuit alleging rape of 13-year-old". The Guardian. Retrieved October 14, 2016.

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.Anythingyouwant (talk) 09:39, 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. 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 Misplaced Pages 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:

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)

• Oppose 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)
• Oppose 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)

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)

• Oppose the section in its current form and remove it. 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:59, 18 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages.- 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

Managing incoming edits

There are a lot of issues that have arisen regarding what content should be added and what should be excluded and I think I've gotten a little heavy-handed, particularly today, trying to stem the tide of incoming edits and ensuring quality. Having agreement about what to add and what not to add will make the edit-review process and discussions on this page a lot easier and faster for everyone.

My guiding thoughts has been that the content should stay focused on the actual accusation and not go into a lot of detail about the accuser, what people think or don't think about them, tangental issues. There has been information added though for a few accuser's where there appears to be a conflict between them being an abuser - but having campaigned for, worked for, endorse, or had social interaction after the alleged event.

The types of content that has come through that I've questioned includes:

• Discredit accuser's claims
• Cast the accuser in a poor light - one today was an edit to say that the plane that Jane Leeds said she flew in was not yet in production, I edited one for Summer Zervos where her cousin has claimed her story is made up - I think that should probably be removed
• Information about their age, location, or other personal information
• New accusers, that haven't hit the mainstream press
• Unusual claims that have not hit the mainstream press
• Attempts to litigate, one way or another, the likelihood of guilt
• Attempts to remove accusers, most notably Ivana Trump
• Attempts to add a lot of detail to the accusers section that goes beyond the accusation
• Attempts to remove the Reactions section, specifically the behavior subsection

I wanted to get this out while it's fresh on my mind, and can probably get fine-tuned a bit. Anyone that wants to type over / polish this up, feel free. Your comments about this will really help make the process easier to manage, especially as we get closer to the election. Your input at #Where's the discussion? would be great.--CaroleHenson (talk) 12:28, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Just as an FYI, because I've been spending quite lot of time here, I've overtaxed myself and need a break at least for today so I can do a better job. And, "I'll be back" and then synch up with folks when I can do a better job.--CaroleHenson (talk) 17:39, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Further references for the Jane Doe section

• 1. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jul/07/donald-trump-sexual-assault-lawsuits-norm-lubow
• 2. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/07/21/trump-rape-accusers-turn-on-each-other.html
• 3. http://jezebel.com/the-source-pushing-the-trump-rape-lawsuits-may-not-be-w-1783270283
• 4. http://www.laweekly.com/la-life/how-to-be-a-successful-jerry-springer-guest-2161091

I object to the removal of the edit made by Anythingyouwant from this section. The edit should be reinstated giving other references including the ones i have given above. Soham321 (talk) 12:59, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
pinging CaroleHenson for feedback. Soham321 (talk) 13:00, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

You've got LA Times, that's good - the only thing is I don't see Trump or Jane Doe mentioned. There's a separate conversation. Have you seen it? Please feel free to weigh in there.--CaroleHenson (talk) 13:15, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

The LA weekly (not LA Times) article gives background information about Norm Lubow. Trump and the underage girl (Jane Doe) are mentioned in the other three references i have given.The relevance of Lubow is that he is accused of coordinating the case of the underage girl against Trump. Soham321 (talk) 13:25, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Do you mind sharing this with the discussion above. I think it's called "What's the discussion?""--CaroleHenson (talk) 13:30, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha> tags or {{efn}} templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}} template or {{notelist}} template (see the help page).

• Biography articles of living people
• All unassessed articles
• C-Class biography articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• C-Class Crime-related articles
• Low-importance Crime-related articles
• WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography articles
• C-Class Sexology and sexuality articles
• Low-importance Sexology and sexuality articles
• WikiProject Sexology and sexuality articles
• C-Class United States articles
• Low-importance United States articles
• C-Class United States articles of Low-importance
• WikiProject United States articles