Talk:Donald Trump Access Hollywood tape/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Woman in video

There's a related discussion here: Talk:Arianne Zucker#Trump controversy. --MZMcBride (talk) 00:24, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Other Videos cited

• Fahrenthold, David A. "Trump recorded having extremely lewd conversation about women in 2005". Washington Post. Retrieved 2016-10-08.

• Arianne Zuker: 2005 "SoapTalk" Part 1 - Laurencia7 (YouTube)
• Access Classic: Donald Trump's Election Day Disaster – A Look Back (2004) - Access Hollywood (YouTube)

Xb2u7Zjzc32 (talk) 03:27, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Naming the women

I strongly object to naming Nancy O'Dell in the article. I removed her name once, replacing it with "a married woman," but someone restored it. But she is not identified in the tape except as "Nancy", and in effect she is a victim, the target of Trump's lewd comments about a situation in which she was entirely innocent. Per BLP she should not be dragged into this, at least not by Wikipedia.

I had also removed Zucker's name from the lewd comments about her, replacing Zucker's name with "the woman who was meeting the bus". I feel less strongly about this, because Trump's and Bush's comments about her were less dramatic, and it is obvious from context who they were talking about.

But I would like to see consensus that O'Dell's name should be removed from the article, with an invisible comment not to re-add it. What do others think? --MelanieN (talk) 14:17, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Nancy O'Dell is a notable person, and her name has been openly associated with the scandal, although I do agree that she is a victim. She has also issued a statement. Although I'm in favor of protecting victims, I actually think including her name in the article is informative. On a more visceral level, I think including her name is actually empowering to her, and the other victims of such atrociousness.- MrX 14:51, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

He reportedly fired women who refused [1]... This should be noted. My very best wishes (talk) 15:21, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Wow.- MrX 15:27, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

I'd thought that naming O'Dell was questionable, but with her statement it was less so. With the story given just above it looks inevitable. BTW, I can't get the original Washington Post article now, but if it resembles the Daily Beast article Donald Trump Tried to Fire Nancy O’Dell After She Rejected His Sexual Advances then that incident and her name have to be included. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 15:56, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

The removal of the name is normally appropriate. However, this is not a normal case, but one of massive public importance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theoallen1 (talk • contribs) 18:44, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

OK, well, since she has issued a statement and thus acknowledged it publicly, it should stay. It sucks that she got dragged into this, but I guess that's show business. Or politics. Or something. --MelanieN (talk) 19:32, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Yeah. She should definitely be in the article. She has openly said she was talked about. Allanana79 (talk) 04:47, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Order of reactions and Trump response

Why is "Trump response" listed last, after everyone else's reaction is given priority? Like for example why are we putting what Hillary said in the subsequent debate before Trump's pre-debate defense?

Given the huge size of the 'reactions' section, I think we should split it into pre-Trump reactions (statements made before he weighed in) and post-Trump reactions (statements made after). Ranze (talk) 23:26, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Define "weighed in". Is the dividing line his first apology? His second apology? The debate? I don't think this is practical. --MelanieN (talk) 23:40, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Dropping Out

For these reasons, calls for Trump to drop out of the presidential race have been largely regarded as symbolic.

Yes, it already says that in the article. With a source. --MelanieN (talk) 05:04, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Sorry I had a computer problem and dropped out myself. What I was going to add was: I don't think this is exactly true. Trump could drop out. They can't force him against his wishes to become President. Clearly, if he did drop out, this would cause problems for the election. But so would his death. That does not mean that Trump cannot die. I don't think Wikipedia should echo the opinions of columnists as if they were definitive.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:10, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

I think the point was that even if he drops out (or if they decide to kick him out) he can't be taken off the ballots. Of course, there are dodges, like announcing "vote for Trump and the electors will all cast their votes for Pence (or whoever)." We've occasionally seen this kind of thing happen where the voters deliberately elect a dead man. What do you think the wording should say, to make it more accurate? --MelanieN (talk) 05:15, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

I would replace this sentence and the following sentence with: "For these reasons, commentators have said that it is very difficult, if not impossible, to replace Trump as Republican nominee." The CNN source only says it's difficult, not impossible. I don't see where the "symbolic" comment comes from. I think Trump and those calling for him to drop out have taken the calls very seriously.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:39, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

That sounds good to me. I'd say go ahead and do it. --MelanieN (talk) 11:52, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Sexual Assault

@MrX: Let's make the status of groping very clear for all editors. Groping is sexual assault (see that first paragraph). See the Department of Justice site. Or see the law in New York, where Trump is based. Grabbing someone by the pussy is groping and sexual assault. The quote is 'You know I'm automatically attracted to beautiful—I just start kissing them. It's like a magnet. Just kiss. I don't even wait. And when you're a star, they let you do it, you can do anything. ... Grab them by the pussy. You can do anything.' Trump says he doesn't have to wait and can do anything with women, initially talking about kissing, then talking about grabbing genitals. Unwanted kissing and groping is sexual assault. 'To grab' is to grasp something roughly or surprisingly. Doing that to a vulva is sexual assault. Multiple media sources, the moderator of a nationally broadcast debate, and members of Trump's own party are already calling what Trump describes sexual assault, so the term hardly lacks notability. Wikipedia should not be normalizing sexual assault by refusing to call it what it legally and obviously is. That is not WP:NPOV. Trump said to Billy Bush that he sexually assaulted women. Whether or not he did it, he certainly said it. That is the biggest part of the controversy. Wikipedia should reflect that. Madshurtie (talk) 13:03, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't object to describing what Trump said as sexual assault; I object to writing "Trump then said women let him sexually assault them" which is blatantly false. He never said those words at all.- MrX 13:28, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

@MrX: Sounds like pretty accurate paraphrasing to me. He explicitly says women let him do it because he's a star, when 'it' refers to unsolicited kissing and groping. Seems pedantic to say he didn't say those exact words when the meaning is the same. Madshurtie (talk) 13:38, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Madshurtie, we can't paraphrase someone's words and attribute the paraphrased words to them. It so obviously violates WP:BLP that I'm stunned that I have to explain it. In fact, I think it would be libelous. - MrX 13:49, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

@MrX: I thought it was clear it was paraphrasing the subsequent quotation, so I was trying to spell out what it meant, since many readers would be fuzzy about the definition of sexual assault. I wasn't trying to imply he was saying more about sexual assault than what was in the given quotation. If that wording gave that impression, then I guess it's fair enough to remove it. Madshurtie (talk) 14:06, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree that we can call it sexual assault because multiple reliable third party sources have called it that. For example, in an article from the New York Times today, they summarized Trump’s conversation as “a 2005 recording in which he bragged about sexual assault.” Samboy (talk) 17:21, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, we can call it sexual assault, but we can't say that Trump called it sexual assault. I hope that distinction is clear enough.- MrX 20:06, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

@MrX: I see you're right. That was probably the impression my wording gave, so it was a mistake. Madshurtie (talk) 21:20, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

I think it is sexual assault, but it could be argued that because he said women let him do it it is consensual. I think it would be better to say that commentators have described it as sexual assault.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:13, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

@Jack Upland: Not so sure about that. He explicitly says that he kisses them without waiting, which could be assault by itself, and the word 'grab' has strong connotations of being forceful or unexpected. If you grope someone and they don't stop you that doesn't mean the groping is wanted, it can just mean they feel shocked or helpless. Furthermore, he says they let him because he's a star (not because they want it) which is exactly the sort of power imbalance where someone could feel helpless. Madshurtie (talk) 21:20, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

I said that I thought it was, but that it was arguable that it wasn't. If a woman gives a man an unsolicited kiss, I don't think that is sexual assault. And if a woman feels she has to submit to a sexual advance because the man is powerful I don't think that is either. I think Trump's language goes beyond this, but in keeping with NPOV I don't think Wikipedia should state this as a fact.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:44, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

So if hypothetically a billionaire sees his maid, gets lust at first sight and immediately grabs her vulva and she feels like kicking him in the balls for it but doesn't say anything cause it's 2009 and she's undocumented and struggling to make end meet that is not sexual assault? Silence is not always consent. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 03:32, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

@Jack Upland: Giving someone an unsolicited kiss can be sexual assault, and it can certainly be harassment in a work environment. A women feeling disempowered to refuse a sexual advance does not stop it from being a crime. See 'unwelcome does not mean "involuntary"'. Put it this way. Trump said he gropes women ('you can do anything ... grab them by the pussy'), and said they let him. So they let him grope them. Groping is almost always sexual assault. Madshurtie (talk) 09:36, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Since both of you have completely ignored what I said, this "debate" is even more pointless than it was in the first place.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:53, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

@Jack Upland: I think you might be the one ignoring what people are saying. You said you thought Trump was describing sexual assault but that some people might argue otherwise because of similar situations that you don't think are sexual assault. I'm saying those situations often would be sexual assault and aren't that relevant anyway. Sorry if I didn't phrase it clearly. Regards. Madshurtie (talk) 10:13, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Ok, two points. First, I don't think the lede should say (as it now does) "grab them by the pussy" (a description of sexual assault). We say in the body of the text that commentators identify this as sexual assault, and it's cited, and that's fine. But for us to say, in Wikipedia's unattributed voice, "a description of sexual assault" in the lede is wrong in my opinion. Point two, there used to be a definition of pussy in the lede, (a slang term for a woman's genital area), and I think that should be restored. Not everyone who reads this is a native English speaker; they shouldn't have to wonder what he was talking about. MelanieN alt (talk) 04:19, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Agree on both points. Regarding the first one, Vox.com has a good explainer here (TL;DR: "many Trump supporters and surrogates bristle at that 'sexual assault' label", but according to a legal expert "The actions described by Mr. Trump, if true, constitute sexual assault in most jurisdictions in the United States" - unambiguously so in New York, in California likely so but with some grey area regarding the definition of restraint).

What's clear though is that the lede needs to mention in some form that this quote was widely interpreted as describing sexual assault. This is at the core of the controversy; and even with the suggested slang explanation, less knowledgeable readers (e.g. many from other countries) will otherwise likely receive the mistaken impression from the lede that this affair was basically just a case of prudish Americans getting upset about the use of explicit language, or mainly concerned language that is merely disrespectful to women (such as Trump's habit of rating female attractiveness on a numerical scale).

Regards, HaeB (talk) 07:57, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

@MelanieN alt: It wasn't unattributed, it cited the Department of Justice (which clearly calls that behaviour sexual assault) and four media sources. Someone removed the references because of WP:LEADCITE, which I really think was a mistake because this clearly falls under 'complex, current, or controversial'. My problem with the newest wording is it makes sexual assault seem like a matter of opinion, which is not the impression wikipedia should create. Madshurtie (talk) 09:36, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I don't think Wikipedia should act as a barrack room lawyer, but just cite what people say. The analysis of what Trump said is really beside the point from a criminal law point of view. The real question is what he actually did. As I said repeatedly (but other editors have ignored), I think what he described is sexual assault. But that's just my opinion. Legally, it depends on what actually happened, and that would be determined (if at all) in a court. And Wikipedia is not a court.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:43, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

@Jack Upland: No one's trying to convict Donald Trump or even insist that he actually did grope anyone. The real question for the purpose of this controversy isn't just whether he's telling the truth. It's notable to a lot of major media sources that he's bragging about sexual assault, and so it should be notable to wikipedia. Since groping is almost always sexual assault, wikipedia should make that clear to the reader. Madshurtie (talk) 09:36, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Madshurtie, I think the best way to handle an explosive comment like this is to quote his actual words, as we do. We should not try to interpret or explain. In fact that could be WP:Original research. Our job is to reflect what reliable sources say, and to make it clear what those sources are - by reference link at least. The interpretation belongs in the text, and it should be from neutral sources talking explicitly about this case. Not a DOJ generality. In other words, I oppose saying in Wikipedia's voice that what he is describing is sexual assault. Especially in the lede. MelanieN alt (talk) 12:36, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

@MelanieN alt: I accepted we shouldn't interpret his words after MrX's last comment above. However, I do think wikipedia should be presenting facts about whether or not groping is sexual assault, given the large share of the population (i.e. potential readers) who don't take unwanted touching seriously. The lede of a high-publicity brag about sexual assault is exactly where it's important to provide people with relevant factual information. Madshurtie (talk) 12:56, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Madshurtie, I am disappointed (to say the least) to see you re-adding your own version to the article while we are discussing it. Wikipedia works by consensus, and the purpose of talk pages is to allow people to discuss so they can reach consensus. You absolutely do not have consensus on your side at this point, and it is a form of WP:Edit warring for you to keep inserting your own version of contentious material. At this point the lede should include only Trump's own words, while we discuss whether to add a clarification or not. MelanieN alt (talk) 15:04, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

MelanieN alt, I think that might be overreacting slightly. My first addition included text MrX opposed (rightly) because it implied Trump himself called the actions sexual assault. Then HaeB re-added the sexual assault text, modified to make it clear this was how news organizations were interpreting it. My second addition was not to return to the above criticised text, but to remove the implication of opinion in HaeB's text. Then you, HaeB, and Jack Upland said that we should not state outright that it describes sexual assault, so my third addition was just to present, next to the quote about groping, factual context saying how groping is sexual assault almost everywhere in the US (unfortunately Epicgenius buried the sources out of style preference). I never re-added anything, I took both criticisms to the talk page, and I modified my contributions to address the criticisms. It's a bit offensive to call that edit warring. No one said they opposed presenting facts about groping next to a quote about groping, so I'm not sure why you're talking about consensus. What's more, it seems like you are the only person who opposes mentioning sexual assault in the lead, which is a strange attitude considering it's the main part of the controversy. Madshurtie (talk) 16:12, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

I inadvertently got involved in this issue when I made edits to the "sexual assault" sentence in the intro so that it was in synch with article content. I just now realized that there was a discussion about use of the term "sexual assault" here. I totally agree that it "sexual assault" should be mentioned in the intro. 1) It's commonly discussed in the media, as mentioned in the article, 2) Attorneys weighed in that it's sexual assault to grope a woman (I don't think that there's anything about that in the article, but it seems that there should be), 3) The key reason why many people are so upset about the comment is that it's downplayed as "locker room talk", when it's a description of illegal activity, and 4) feeling free to kiss and grope woman because he's a celebrity is highly offensive and supports claims of his objectification of women. Downplaying it, and not calling the act he describes as sexual assault in essence condones the activity.--CaroleHenson (talk) 18:04, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

This article is not the place to (1) educate readers about what sexual assault is, or (2) take a stand against Trump.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:37, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Regarding my comments:

1) "It's commonly discussed in the media, as mentioned in the article" pertains to MOS Lead section

2) "Attorneys weighed in that it's sexual assault to grope a woman (I don't think that there's anything about that in the article, but it seems that there should be)" - relates to justification of calling it a "sexual assault" and that it's notable. I did add one source for this.

3) "The key reason why many people are so upset about the comment is that it's downplayed as "locker room talk", when it's a description of illegal activity" is covered in the media

4) Regarding "feeling free to kiss and grope woman because he's a celebrity is highly offensive and supports claims of his objectification of women" is already covered in the article

I also added information that was tucked into a citation about Trump's supporter's view of the use of "sexual assault".--CaroleHenson (talk) 20:03, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Just to substantiate my point made earlier, there is a law professor who argues that Trump's claimed behaviour might not be sexual assault: [2].--Jack Upland (talk) 20:33, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

I added that after the Trump supporter feedback in the paragraph in the "Reactions" section. Perhaps the sentence in the intro should be amended to include a summary of the feedback from Trump supporters and the notion of implied consent.--CaroleHenson (talk) 20:48, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

@Jack Upland: OK Jack, you've convinced me. Banzhaf does go on to say that if it were a grab it would constitute sexual assault (not in that article, but in this one and others), which is all my most recent edits said, but if Banzhaf says there's room for doubt that's what Trump is actually saying, then providing context on what a crotch grab constitutes might be misleading. However there's nothing wrong with mentioning the widespread interpretation of the comments in the intro, since that's the biggest part of the controversy, so I do think that should remain, if not in the form I wrote. I now support the current wording of that part of the lede. Madshurtie (talk) 20:58, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

The sexual assault accusation should definitely be mentioned in the lead. It's been made by many people, and was mentioned in the debate.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:10, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

References

Update on timing of publication

This is my edit, it tightens the timeline, I used 15 minutes instead of 14, meaning it was a quarter of an hour, NBC was exactly 15 minutes later and the incidental Wikileaks release was also exactly 15 minutes after NBC.

Making correction to ET, so the Twitter record shows WP 2:05 ET, NBC 2:17 ET and Wikileaks Podesta emails which would have been a big story at 2:32 ET. I was unsure if I should have entered the name 'Twitter' into the story but it is the only source with a time stamp and has its links to WP and NBC stories. We are replacing 'before 4' for WP and ,shortly after' for NBC. I am open about an argument questioning if the Wikileaks report 15 minutes later is of interest or relevant. I was surprised they happened so closely together.

"and broke the story on Twitter shortly after 2 PM ET,[8] NBC reporter Katy Tur followed via Twitter just 15 minutes later.[9]Incidentally Wikileaks originally was expected to make a damaging release of its cache of emails on Oct 3, published the Podesta emails 15 minutes later.[10]"Redtobelieve (talk) 11:04, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

As noted on your talk page and here: Please base your edits on reliable sources and avoid original research (it looks like it has already caused you to insert false information due to a time zone mixup), including the WP:SYNTH connection with Wikileaks. Regards, HaeB (talk) 12:44, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Justification for article?

I'm not sure about the justification for this article. It doesn't seem to convey much of substance beyond what is in the section in the campaign article. It is simply a list of reactions by a number of people, including sportsmen, and some speculative analysis by various "experts". While this is hot news at the moment, I doubt many people will read this when the election is over.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:19, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Because some people (like me - I had to go through social media to find this) may not know the full extent of the controversy, and so may turn to Wikipedia (whether they are Clinton supporters, Trump supporters, Johnson supporters, Stein supporters, too young to vote, to lazy to vote, too dissatisfied to vote, or from another country and can't vote). Also, notability is not temporary. epicgenius (talk) 22:17, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

The tapes may have come out during the campaign, but it's a 2005 recording—long before the campaign. It also concerns Billy Bush, who is not involved in the campaign. Madshurtie (talk) 22:27, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

This looks like an attack page. An AfD may be appropriate.Zigzig20s (talk) 00:10, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Which would be quickly snowballed into keep because this is actually notable. Regardless of whether you like Trump or not, please don't insert political motivations into wiki. epicgenius (talk) 02:08, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

This article is completely POV. It's an attack page. At the very least, there should be an AfD to let the community decide.Zigzig20s (talk) 02:15, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't know. For a page explaining a controversy, it seems just fine. Can you give me some examples of blatant POV toward a certain side? If you think this is POV, should articles like Hillary Clinton email controversy and Mitt Romney's March 3 speech also be deleted because they are attack pages? Thank you in advance. epicgenius (talk) 02:28, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

I've no objection to an AfD, but I would wager real money it would fail. We are driven by the media no matter how it makes Trump look. Nothing is exaggerated or undue weight per sources. I say let the AfD begin. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:29, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) (BTW I did look through this, and I found one of several example of something that does sounds like it's against Trump at first: Grab them by the pussy. You can do anything. — Donald Trump In this case, this is a quote of what he said. If it were POV, it may make some certain insults that are BLP violations, which he is most definitely not.

I'll maybe set up an AFD or a RFC tomorrow, but it's getting late.) epicgenius (talk) 02:32, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Speaking as an editor and administrator who has been here near a decade, I would give you 100000:1 odds that an articles for deletion discussion would be closed as keep, likely closed early to boot. A {{POV}} tag at this point is pure overtagging and using a template to itself push a point of view. I'm removing it; please do not add it back without consensus. NW (Talk) 02:48, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

How can you get a consensus for a POV tag???--Jack Upland (talk) 02:55, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Good point. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:10, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

If anyone opens an AfD I would move to delete. There have been plenty of scandals on both sides this year, and it's not really notable on it's own as a scandal detached from the election.TJD2 (talk) 19:15, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

At the moment, it's basically just a "quotefarm". Unless something else happens, it could be merged back into the campaign article. However, it looks like that is unlikely to happen.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:37, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Article title

It is time to discuss the title of this article. While it mentions Donald Trump, and Access Hollywood, and a controversy that is said to link the two, the title isn't really descriptive enough.

Should we think about other monikers?

How about:

• October 2016 Donald Trump controversy
• October 2016 Trump and Bush controversy
• Donald Trump leaked video controversy
• Trump and Bush leaked video controversy
• Donald Trump recording controversy
• Trump and Bush recording controversy

Other suggestions? epicgenius (talk) 22:23, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

All of those are much too vague. When I think of a "Bush", Billy is pretty far down the list. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:32, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree and have been thinking about this since Sunday; the current title isn't really a good encapsulation of the problem. The first one is definitely not specific enough: this is neither the only big controversy involving Trump this month and there will certainly be more. Ideally, we want something like Donald Trump talking crudely about sexual assault and associated controversy...but in encyclopedic language. The problem as I see it is that there is no noun for "talking crudely about sexual assault". I like Donald Trump recording controversy, but it seems a little too vague as well. NW (Talk) 22:37, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

@Muboshgu and NuclearWarfare: If we're talking specific, how about Donald Trump and Billy Bush recording controversy? It is less vague but it's a long title. I'll think of more options in the meantime. epicgenius (talk) 23:49, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with the current title.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:46, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

I do. It's not descriptive enough. I thought the article was about a controversy that actually involved Access Hollywood as a party (not as a medium). Other people may think so too. epicgenius (talk) 02:05, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

I like it too. I'm going to go ahead and move it to that, without prejudice to changing it to something else as the discussion progresses. NW (Talk) 02:41, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks NW. epicgenius (talk) 02:49, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

• Can we just call it the "grab 'em by the pussy" scandal? Does it really have to just be about the person and date and not what was actually said? It's like we're using euphemisms. I dont have time to look into it right now, but it's undisputed that he used those words, the words are what created the controversy, and I think that we could find examples of other articles with.... colorful titles if that's what their subject matter is. But I could be wrong! AgnosticAphid talk 15:50, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
  • That would be a violation of WP:BLP, and then these undecided voters in Florida might just vote against Wikipedia this November. (Seriously, though, the threats that frequently follow from Trump isn't worth the colorful and somewhat humorous title. He just today threatened to file a complaint against New York Times for this.) epicgenius (talk) 21:08, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

The New York Times allegation/rumor

See also: Talk:Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016 § The New York Times: "Two Women Say Donald Trump Touched Them Inappropriately"

The New York Times just came out with this report: "Two Women Say Donald Trump Touched Them Inappropriately". The article contains a video with one of the woman explaining the sexual aggression Donald Trump used against them. This story in all likelihood will receive widespread media coverage, especially with him denying that he has groped women in the debate three days ago. These allegations seem completely credible and from my personal viewpoint may be the end of his campaign, if the last video wasn't enough. This should defiantly be included in this article, though what should we mention in the campaigns main article? Thanks. WClarke (talk) 23:31, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
User:Epicgenius & User:NuclearWarfare: If this report from the NYT makes a large impact, then the 2005 video controversy may expand to include these allegations also. That may be a reason to rename this article to something more broad, though we will have to wait longer to make that kind of decision. WClarke (talk) 23:44, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

If you'd like, I can add a blurb to this article, but I wonder if this article is starting to morph into a sexual allegations article - that could also include sexual allegations/rape information from the Legal affairs of Donald Trump article. Examples are Bill Clinton sexual misconduct allegations and Bill Cosby sexual assault allegations articles.

There's another woman, I have forgotten her name, but she says she received unwanted sexual advances, but then dated him for a time after her divorce. So, not as credible as these two.--CaroleHenson (talk) 23:40, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

We can split part of this into a wider article about Trump and allegations of sexual misconduct against him (being careful of WP:BLP in the process), then add the 2005 NYT article there. Or we can add a few-sentence summary about the 2005 NYT article in this wiki page. epicgenius (talk) 23:51, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

User:CaroleHenson: If we can put together enough reliable sources on Donald Trump's sexual misconduct, then I would support the creation of that article. But then the question is, what does that mean for this article? Also, right now the Trump Campaign has claimed this new article is fiction (what a surprise), and nobody else has confirmed them, so I assume we should correctly refer to them as allegations for now. WClarke (talk) 23:52, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

WClarke I don't think we'll have trouble finding enough reliable sources - this article, the article that you identified, and sexual misconduct/rape info from the Legal affairs of Donald Trump article would be a good starting point. I could put together a list of sources, but I really don't think we're going to have trouble finding plenty of reliable sources.

I wonder if this article could be rolled into the sexual allegations article. There's content here, like comments from Apprentice contestants that is germane.--CaroleHenson (talk) 00:05, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

This sounds like a BLP violation to me and should be removed from this talkpage immediately.Zigzig20s (talk) 00:09, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

No, it's sourceable. I think it would be too early to create a Donald Trump alleged sexual misconduct controversies article, but some of this content should go into the campaign article. If more witnesses come forward and the controversies snowball, then maybe a separate article would be justifiable.- MrX 00:13, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Zigzig20s: The New York Times is one of the most established news source in human history and has won 117 Pulitzer Prizes. We are simply discussing the content they have recently put out and what we should add because of it; there is no reason what so ever to take this down. Just because something controversial about a person comes out doesn't mean we are not allowed to discuss it. It's a talk page; removing this from the talk page is a little dramatic. WClarke (talk) 00:22, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

[edit conflict]

In the short run, I'll start a blurb from this article Two Women Say Donald Trump Touched Them Inappropriately that WClarke identified. Due to the POV tag, should I post the markup here first?--CaroleHenson (talk) 00:23, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

I am sorry. The New York Times has endorsed Hillary Clinton. They are not neutral. This story is a rumor. Again, we are not a gossip magazine.Zigzig20s (talk) 00:27, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

The New York Times editorial board endorsed Hillary Clinton, along with numerous other news outlets. There is a difference. WClarke (talk) 00:36, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

They've endorsed her: they are actively trying to get her elected. And this is a rumor. This is not a factual article. Anybody can accuse anybody of touching them inappropriately; this is ridiculous.Zigzig20s (talk) 00:41, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Zigzig20s: Refer to the list of newspaper endorsments for the 2016 election. Please note that not a single newspaper on that list endorsed Donald Trump, the majority of which endorsed Hillary Clinton. Now think about how many articles on Wikipedia cite those newspapers. Should we get rid of all references to them because they're all "biased"? WClarke (talk) 01:00, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

No, but there is a context here. They've endorsed her and they are actively trying to get her elected. It is only a few weeks before election day, and they are publishing an unprovable rumor meant to discredit her opponent. I guess Fox News or The Wall Street Journal could spread similar rumors about her. This is not encyclopedic content; the timing is too suspicious; it sounds defamatory.Zigzig20s (talk) 01:03, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Oops, my blurbs gone. I went ahead and posted the blurb, though because there seems to be consensus on NYT being a reliable source. I did realize, though, that there is not one Fox News source in the article. I think it might be good to use Fox News sources as well - and see if there's anything else that bubbles up.--CaroleHenson (talk) 01:05, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

There is certainly no consensus to add this recentist rumor/personal attack to the article.Zigzig20s (talk) 01:07, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

What if we use this Fox News article as the source and edit the drafted blurb accordingly?--CaroleHenson (talk) 01:35, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

No. This is a recentist rumor/unprovable allegation spread by The New York Times, which is actively trying to get HRC elected. If other news outlets are echoing it, it is simply to get more ad revenue thanks to click bait. If this could be proved, and stopped being a rumor, and it wasn't so recentist, perhaps. But right now this is just gossip.Zigzig20s (talk) 01:37, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Zigzig20s that New York Times does have a slightly more liberal leaning (well, at least the opinion board does, the rest of the paper is more neutral than that) than, say, CNN or FOX. However, that's because it's headed in NYC, which has a political leaning toward Democrats. (Washington Post is also liberal, though less so than NYT.) It would be prudent to also use sources from a slightly conservative source, like FOX or Wall Street Journal. Media bias is not very pronounced at all, unless you're talking about Breitbart or the Occupy Wall Street newspaper. epicgenius (talk) 02:17, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

It's unprovable character assassination, and too recentist anyway. Leave it out.Zigzig20s (talk) 02:20, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

There are plenty of sources from across the bias spectrum that have already covered this. By this time tomorrow, there will likely be many more. We don't leave relevant material out simply because it's unflattering to the subject. WP:DUEWEIGHT and WP:WELLKNOWN apply.- MrX 02:30, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

There is no rush. That would be recentist. Wikipedia is not news. Surely you can wait a week at least?Zigzig20s (talk) 02:33, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree there's no rush, although waiting a week is probably excessive.- MrX 02:36, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

The following comments were added to the thread on the original talk page, but were deleted before archiving, presumably because of an edit conflict. Bovlb (talk) 17:53, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Where does it say that this is a rumor? How does one evaluate news articles from reliable sources and conclude that it's rumor, if it's not stipulated as rumor?

Anyway, because this is in discussion, here's my draft of content from the NYT article:

Two women have come forward since the second United States presidential election debates, 2016 between Trump and Hillary Clinton. Both women allege that Trump made sexual advances without their consent. Jessica Leeds stated that she was assaulted more than 30 years ago when she sat next to Trump in the first-class cabin of an airplane. He tried to put his hands up her skirt after grabbing her breasts. Rachel Crooks was a 22-year-old receptionist at real estate development firm in Trump Tower when she introduced herself to Trump in 2005. Without warning, he began kissing her and then kissed her on the lips. In both cases, the women were upset about the unwanted advances and extricated themselves from the situation immediately. In Crooks' case, she avoided situations where she would come face-to-face with Trump.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by CaroleHenson (talk • contribs) 2016-10-13T00:49:52 (UTC)

If we want to create or rename this article to cover all the allegations, then we might take Bill Clinton sexual misconduct allegations as a model. That was created in 2011, largely to separate the material from the main Bill Clinton article. By that point the allegations had been widely discussed.

An editorial endorsement of a political candidate would not normally cause us to treat the publication as an unreliable source. If you disagree, I suggest you raise the issue on RS/N. Cheers, Bovlb (talk) 00:54, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

We should not add such baseless "allegations" on Wikipedia. It is not encyclopedic content. How will you disprove it if two men make similar allegations about Hillary? This is ridiculous.Zigzig20s (talk) 00:55, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

New POV tag

Someone claims that the neutrality of this article is disputed, so I'm opening this section so that they may explain why they believe this.- MrX 00:31, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

I boldly removed it; I don't see an explanation on the talk page for why the article is a POV. epicgenius (talk) 02:06, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Please add it back. I had left a note at "Justification for article?".Zigzig20s (talk) 02:13, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

OK. epicgenius (talk) 02:20, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Zigzig20s You wrote "This article is completely POV. It's an attack page." That's a bare assertion. Please explain how this is anything other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT.- MrX 02:23, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Attack page.Zigzig20s (talk) 02:27, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps you should read it, or at least read it more carefully. It applies to "biographical material that is entirely negative in tone and is unsourced or poorly sourced." - MrX 02:33, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

No, please read the first sentence until "or": "An attack page is a page, in any namespace, that exists primarily to disparage or threaten its subject".Zigzig20s (talk) 02:35, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

If that's what the article is, I'm sure it's a pretty poor job of fulfilling its purpose as an attack page, focusing on a previously unknown allegation when you can attack him for, say, virtually everything John Oliver says here (and then again maybe more). Not that I'm against Trump, but a lot of people are. epicgenius (talk) 02:41, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

User:NuclearWarfare: Why did you remove the POV tag please? I offered a policy-based explanation for it here: "An attack page is a page, in any namespace, that exists primarily to disparage or threaten its subject".Zigzig20s (talk) 03:47, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

exists primarily to disparage or threaten its subject - An empty assertion unless you can provide evidence that is the purpose here. There is ample evidence against the assertion, such as the fact the same editors who have developed this article have opposed anything about this in the lead of Donald Trump. If they were being driven primarily by a desire to bring Trump down, they would not have done that. They would be looking for any thin policy justification for that lead content, and arguing it endlessly. Please try to base your suspicions on objective, empirical evidence. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:01, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

You're off topic. The POV tag was on this article, and should be restored. It is this article which is "an attack page is a page, in any namespace, that exists primarily to disparage or threaten its subject".Zigzig20s (talk) 04:04, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

You're right, I am in fact off topic. The heading of this thread is not Zigzig20s's accusations of POV editing. I didn't feel the situation warranted a separate section. Would you prefer a template on your user talk page? We can certainly go down that path if you like, and I probably will if you continue these baseless assertions.
As for the tag, I couldn't care much less if it's present. It wouldn't void the usual requirement for consensus, etc. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:11, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Please tone down your personal attacks. An editor removed the POV tag and wrote in the edit summary that we shouldn't revert it without discussing it here, so I pinged them here. This was a simple question. It had nothing to do with you and your veering off topic is not helpful. Please stop. Please stop. Please stop.Zigzig20s (talk) 04:21, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Stop the baseless assertions in clear violation of WP:AGF. And stop characterizing my calling you on them as a personal attack. No please. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:25, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Zigzag, you're joking right? You don't know why this article exists? Or why this topic is notable? This has been so widely covered by media around the world and has resulted in 1/5 of top Republicans in retracting support or declaring lack of support for Trump... it's unprecedented. This is beyond notable, even if the topic is about a negative controversy. It sounds like IDLI EvergreenFir (talk) 04:16, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

No, I believe that this article is POV. It's an attack page. This minor incident could perhaps be included in Trump's campaign article, but it is completely undue and POV to have created this separate article.Zigzig20s (talk) 04:21, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

I think WP:DUE disagrees. This is a major turning point in the campaign. But if you think it's an attack page, go AFD the article. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:26, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

If we wait until after their other Trump AfD crashes and burns, maybe we can dispense with one here. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:39, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Too bad for that other AFD. I nominated it for deletion (as an uninvolved, of course) and then !voted keep. Apparently, there one person who wants the other article to be deleted, but there are 21 others, including me, who want it kept. epicgenius (talk) 18:28, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

@Epicgenius: - Not challenging your action, but I didn't understand why you didn't just let Zigzig20s start the AfD—or not—after their speedy was removed. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:14, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

@Mandruss: I did. At least, I let them start an AFD for this article, since they suggested such. They still haven't started it yet. I started the other AFD because they actually put a speedy on the other article, which was then reinstated by another editor. epicgenius (talk) 21:36, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations

I just created Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations. Please contribute if you are interested. Thank you! aqwfyj ^Talk/_Contribs 02:15, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

This information would be better suited for Legal affairs of Donald Trump (Sk5893 (talk) 02:39, 13 October 2016 (UTC))

TMZ -- does this belong?

I'm a bit surprised to see gossip being cited to TMZ:

• The celebrity news website TMZ reports a different chronology: when top executives at NBC learned about the video, they thought it was too early in the presidential campaign season to release it with maximum effect, and (according to TMZ) those executives publicly said they learned of the video long after they actually learned about it.

References

Should this be removed? K.e.coffman (talk) 03:34, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Keep. HuffPost is widely treated as a reliable source at Wikipedia. The HuffPost writer is Julia Brucculieri, one of The Huffington Post's entertainment writers, based in NYC. She previously covered fashion and style for HuffPost Canada. TMZ "is increasingly seen as credible by other news agencies."[3]. TMZ has recently been nominated for an Emmy as an "Outstanding Entertainment News Program". They have broken many major stories. Combining these two sources is especially respectable, and we provide in-text attribution.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:49, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Who are these sources that TMZ relies on? JoJo Eumerus mobile (talk) 09:16, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Can we get a longer video?

The video we provide is three minutes and seven seconds long and seems to start in the middle of a conversation. Can we get a longer video?Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:53, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

I've not heard of or seen a longer one. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:03, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Nor I. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:33, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

I was the one who changed that from linking to the WaPo article to linking to YouTube. Come to think of it, I remember that they were the same length to the second. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:36, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Well hell, why rely on my memory? WaPo - 3:06 - YouTube - 3:06. I don't know why we show 3:07 now in the box. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:41, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Fixed. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:48, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

"grabbing pussy" is not necessarily sexual assault

This act happens in both sexual assault and consensual sex. In the tape nowhere did Trump state he does that without consent. It therefore cannot be concluded that Trump was talking about sexual assault in the tape. 207.245.44.6 (talk) 16:43, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

This topic has already been discussed above, see Talk:Donald Trump and Billy Bush recording#Sexual Assault. --MelanieN (talk) 16:57, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

kissing women without waiting is not necessarily sexual assault

It could be sexual assault if done on the lips. If done on the cheeks it is not considered sexual assault. In the tape Trump never said he kisses women on the lips. In the tape Trump kissed Adrienne Zucker on the cheeks not on the lips.

207.245.44.6 (talk) 17:05, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Right. He is on tape talking about "moving on" a married woman and "grabbing them by the pussy", but he's going to kiss just on the cheek because he's such the gentleman. No, I don't think he has earned the benefit of that doubt. Please go away. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:12, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

He gave no details regarding moving on a married woman. Maybe he just verbally asked her for sex. He certainly didn't talk about grabbing a married woman's pussy. You cannot assume anything he did not describe in the tape.

207.245.44.6 (talk) 17:22, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Where does this article say that his kisses were sexual assault? I'm not seeing that. If you demand that level of precision, you need to be equally precise. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:38, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Article states "I don't even wait" indicates assault in Wikipedia's voice. This is obvious POV infringing BLPCRIME as quoted words are highly ambiguous re: consent

The phrase "I don't even wait" is presumed by the article, in Wikipedia's voice, to refer specifically to sexual consent. A fig leaf disclaimer is allowed, but it too is inaccurate.

The fig leaf is the line "It has been argued, however, that despite Trump having stated "I don't even wait," his full remarks could imply something akin to consent."

The use of the word "despite" in Wikipedia's voice clearly indicates that Wikipedia believes that the most obvious interpretation of the phrase "I don't even wait" refers to sexual consent. This is illogical, as Trump makes explicit reference to consent with the "they let you do it" phrase.

For the defenders of the article in its current state, please provide a cogent, sensible end to the following statement: "I know the phrase "I don't even wait" refers to sexual consent and nothing else in the universe because..."

I'll give everybody a reasonable opportunity to come up with some plausible rejoinder to the foregoing, but if they remain silent, or produce illogical word salad, I think their failure to defend the claim merits its deletion.

I think this article needs to be locked, and all references to sexual consent deleted until it is arbitrated upon by grammarians and lexicographers. At a minimum, we need the defenders to produce at least one dictionary which specifies sexual consent in the definition of the verb "wait".

As an exercise for the reader, why not brainstorm all the various plausible meanings that "I don't even wait" could have without having any bearing on consent. I'll brainstorm one to start the ball rolling: "I don't even wait until we get back to Trump tower, we get busy right there in the limo!"

Remember, consent can be indicated by body language, facial expression and other nonverbal cues. Any presumption of absence of consent needs independent evidence. Our only source of info for the sexual encounters Trump was describing is Trump himself (presuming for argument's sake the sexual encounters are not simply invented). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.255.206.160 (talk) 13:11, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Nice try. The article does not say that kissing is sexual assault. It says that grabbing women by the crotch is sexual assault. I think that is pretty clear - and many Reliable Sources think so too. He doesn't say he fondles them or caresses them; he says he grabs them. Please look up the definition of "grab"[4]. Anyhow, the article already goes into considerable detail about alternative interpretations of his statements. --MelanieN (talk) 18:13, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

You forgot to finish this sentence Melanie: "I know the phrase "I don't even wait" refers to sexual consent and nothing else in the universe because..."

It is simply a false claim that all crotch-grabbing is sexual assault. It may be a consensual act depending on context, context we lack.

What is the sum total of your evidence that this supposed crotch-grabbing was not engaged in against her indicated will?

Remember, you have no reason to believe these supposed women exist, let alone that they were unwilling participants in anything they may have done with Trump? When I hear men rambling about their conquests, I know that most of it is extreme fabrication.

The article doesn't have enough information about the supposed "encounters" to allow Wikipedia to make a judgement upon it in her voice. The article has no reason whatsoever to believe that the encounters ever happened. It places several contentious opinions in Wikipedia's voice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.255.206.160 (talk) 23:28, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

First, I don't even wait is a figure of speech. No one can do something in less than a nanosecond. Second, kissing women on the cheeks is not considered sexual assault even if there is no consent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.245.44.6 (talk) 21:28, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Actually, they are those who do consider kissing women on the cheek to be sexual assault even if there is no consent. That's a major part of the rationale for the saying that you have a 1 in 4 or 5 of being raped in college: unwanted kiss = sexual assault = rape.

Whether you or I agree with this rationale is, of course, irrelevant. Let's try to report what opinion leaders think about this. --Uncle Ed (talk) 13:23, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Re: "Tiny Hands"

I added "Tiny Hands" to the "See also" section, but my addition was reverted. I think this link is appropriate since the song samples comments made by Trump during the recording. Thoughts? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:39, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

I reverted because it's a protest song. The fact that it includes samples makes it even worse. It's sly and WP:COATRACK and not an appropriate See also.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:57, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

I couldn't disagree more, since the two are directly related, but I'll move on to other projects and let others discuss the link's appropriateness. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:02, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Alright,

why exactly is this being removed? It appears to be obviously related to the subject of this article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:15, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

It is obviously related, the relevance is straightforward, and it's not a synthesis. It is an illustration of the impact that the recording had on many people.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:36, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Does a source explicitly connect the protestor with the incident, and did a connection between this or similar protest signs receive widespread coverage in RS? James J. Lambden (talk) 06:43, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

It's an image. By your rationale 90% of images in most Wikipedia articles should be removed. The "explicit connection" between the protestor and "this incident" is obvious.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:44, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree. It's an invalid argument.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:46, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Although it would probably be worthwhile to add something about how Trump's recorded statement are being invoked by the protesters.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:47, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Unless sources make the connection it's WP:UNDUE. There are numerous, published "Hillary for Prison" protest images and I'd make the same argument if an editor tried to SYN that into the article on her email investigation. James J. Lambden (talk) 06:52, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

So you'd be wrong both times.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:22, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Protestor Image

@James J. Lambden, Bbb23, and Volunteer Marek: - Hey guys, I'm a little surprised this image got removed. Before I start edit warring it, I thought we could come together to discuss it a little. I was surprised when Bb said "this image has no relevance to this article". Surely it is very relevant to the article? It is a woman apparently protesting comments from the Billy Bush recording outside Trump's hotel in DC. What could be more relevant? As to the WP:UNDUE comment; I'm curious how the image would qualify as undue. Thousands of people protested Trump's comments. Showing one of them is undue? NickCT (talk) 09:10, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree. It's not undue.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:21, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree too.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:56, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

If you want to make a sourced connection between the recording and the Women's March, find a reliable source that does it. A picture is a primary source, and putting it in this article means that we are establishing that connection as an encyclopedia, which is inappropriate. Even Nick's comment about the woman in the picture "apparently protesting comments from the Billy Bush recording" is Nick's inference. And even if her sign said something explicit, it would just be one woman doing that without any commentary from reliable sources. The Women's March is huge, and it is protesting Trump's attitude and conduct toward woman on all sorts of fronts. Are we going to put this self-made image into any Trump article? The only way this image is relevant to the article is if Wikipedians say it is relevant, which is impermissible. I don't agree with UNDUE, but I do agree with the last editor who also labeled it synthesis.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:49, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

@Bbb23: - So is the contention then that we need to verify people at the women's march were protesting Trump's comments? It would seem slightly remarkable if people at the women's march weren't protesting widely reported and apparently misogynistic comments by Trump, no? Sorta seems too self evident to have to verify. Surprising anyone would think this is synthesis or an inference. If you like, I could probably find a source saying people were carrying these posters.

I think simple logic establishes relevancy. Trump made a comment about "grabbing pussy". Protesters carry signs about "grabbing pussy" outside his hotel. Protesters are apparently protesting Trump's comments.

I'm not sure what you mean by "self-made image". NickCT (talk) 17:55, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

I misunderstood the comments at the image file. I struck that part of my comments.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:01, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Keep per NickCT. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:32, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Interpretations

People disagree about what Trump meant by his "do anything ... grab them" remarks. I'd rather we contributors would not add our own ideas - even if they match my own. [5] Yes, I'll come right out and confess my personal bias, but I hope I can avoid biased contributions.

Instead of us contributors trying to interpret Trump's remarks, perhaps we could quote reliable sources who have given their opinions of what Trump meant. On the left, there are numerous easy-to-locate quotes from journalists and politicians who are quite sure that the Trump remarks amount to a confession of past wrongdoing on his part:

• "you can" => "I have"

Much harder to find are opinions of those who suppose Trump was speaking in general terms

• "they let you" => celebrities are permitted

I don't pretend to know what he meant, but I'd like to see more attributed opinion. I don't care if it's 90-10 anti-Trump, as long as our readers can see that it's not Wikipedia making the interpretation, but Wikipedia reporting that "A said B about C". --Uncle Ed (talk) 13:19, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree. Accordingly, I've removed the recently added unsourced interpretation. —Granger (talk · contribs) 16:05, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

This should start with the word "some"

"_SOME_ commentators and lawyers have described such an action as sexual assault", as not all commentators said so, and most lawyers would not say that it is considered sexual assault on the presumption that they wanted to be grabbed.

 Not done this page is not currently protected. — xaosflux ^Talk 11:17, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Billy Bush op-ed in NYT

Billy Bush: Yes, Donald Trump, You Said That

Of the many opinion pieces on this subject, perhaps one by Bush himself warrants some kind of mention in this article. His name is in the title of this article. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:40, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Support If any opinion piece warrants mention in this article it is that. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:11, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, this clearly deserves a mention. Neutrality^talk 04:44, 13 December 2017 (UTC)