Talk:Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations/Archive 1

Contested deletion
This page should not be speedily deleted because this is just continuation of attempts by this user to thwart additions to Wikipedia that do not shed positive light on Donald Trump. This is occurring at a time when there are a number of news stories that have broken in the past few weeks about women who have claimed unwanted sexual advances or attacks. See a pres. campaign discussion page discussion, an Access Hollywood controversy discussion, and POV discussion, the last of which related to a tag that was put on the article, but never substantiated. -- CaroleHenson (talk) 02:31, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Contested deletion Reply
This page should not be speedily deleted because it is not an attack page. It meets all WP:BLP criteria and is properly sourced. --aqwfyj Talk/Contribs 02:31, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * A problem I noticed is that is in bad shape. I don't know if it meets WP:G10, but, it has to be properly written, otherwise this falls into a WP:QUOTEFARM. ©   Tb hotch ™ (en-2.5). 02:34, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * It definitely doesn't meet WP:G10 since Bill Clinton sexual misconduct allegations doesn't, but I agree expansion is needed. Working on it currently aqwfyj Talk/Contribs 02:37, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, absolutely, this is actually under construction. I added a tag to the article. See the an Access Hollywood controversy discussion about obtaining more sources, ensuring we meet BLP requirements, etc. This is just getting started.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 02:40, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * For more on the debate about sources for such allegations see Talk:Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016. For those afraid of liberal bias in this article, we have advocated for the use of right-wing news sources, in addition to liberal news sources, and their response to the allegations. WClarke (talk) 03:07, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Precautionary tagging for CSD G10
As a precaution, I have tagged for CSD G10. If an administrator clears this page as not being an attack page, I have no problem with it being, properly, expanded. Safiel (talk) 02:42, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I have declined the speedy, with reasoning. However, if some sources tying all of these individual allegations together are not added to the article very soon, I will will take the article to AfD. As it stands, the article appears to be WP:SYNTH.- MrX 02:44, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Welp, someone AfDed it while I was writing that comment.- MrX 02:46, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The allegations have been compiled together in third-party reliable sources, e.g. http://www.npr.org/2016/10/13/497799354/a-list-of-donald-trumps-accusers-of-inappropriate-sexual-conduct Samboy (talk) 11:54, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Sandox?
My goodness! All these changes (delete, don't delete, review, needs editing, removal of under construction tag, etc.) have my head reeling. I was hoping "under construction" tag would help clarify that it's very much a work in progress. The article is very much in its infancy. It still needs a wider range of sources, more context, and more information about the history of sexual allegations.

Should we move this to a sandbox until it's ready for prime-time?

I'm doing the best I can as fast as I can... but I am just getting started.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 03:45, 13 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Is there any way we can coordinate what we're doing? I'm really have a tough time making progress when I have edit conflicts every single time I edit... and I could be undoing edits your making. I'm working right now on the intro and moving down any detail (now commented out) down to the sections - but first making sure the info is summarized.
 * It is probably taking me five times longer than it should. I really thought I'd be on to researching and writing by this time.
 * Another option: I could stop working on this for awhile. Whatever works.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 04:45, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

AfD
Why was the AfD tag removed? Was it by mistake?--Jack Upland (talk) 04:05, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Contested deletion
This page should not be speedily deleted because... (extremely relevant information. of course trump supporters would not want it out there but these claims do exist.) --67.243.137.158 (talk) 04:45, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Introduction
Can we discuss the intro here. There have been a lot of edits that really confuse the matter - and mix-up the timing of the events.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 18:17, 14 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Here's the current structure, with which you may or may not agree, but it's a plan:
 * The 1st paragraph is an overall summary
 * The 2nd and 3rd paragraph is about allegations of physical contact made in the media
 * The 4th paragraph is about the pageant dressing rooms
 * The last is about the legal suits


 * The blurb about women who said that they had no issue with Trump was removed - as well as some of the feedback from the Trump campaign. I was trying to go for balance. Is there a reason why these were removed?-- CaroleHenson (talk) 19:25, 14 October 2016 (UTC)


 * It swiftly got to a good place. The "ten" keeps bothering me, because there are more than 10 actual accusations of physical contact if you include the legal proceedings, albeit two were settled and withdrawn. I just think it is confusing to someone if they see the word "ten" but there are many more accusers.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 20:23, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Intro 2nd paragraph
Hi,

There was an editing frenzy for awhile on the introduction, but it got to a good place in the end. The second paragraph of the intro has been replaced several times.

This
 * ..Trump bragged about kissing and groping women's bodies. He said that because he was a celebrity, "they let you do it" and "I don't even wait." During the debate, Trump publicly denied that his comments in the recording constituted sexual assault in the recording

was changed to
 * ..Trump appeared to brag about committing sexual assault. During the debate, Trump publicly denied having condoned sexual assault in the recording and denied ever having inappropriately touched a woman. His comments provoked many of his accusers into going public with their charges.

I'm just wondering why.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 00:41, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Year of Summer Zervos encounter
Zervos was on the Apprentice show in 2005 and 2006, but she says that she met him afterwards, in 2007. It was then that she said the assault occurred. The date in the timeline shoudl reflect this.Dogru144 (talk) 19:53, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I saw that you made the correction and another addition. Thanks so much, Dogru144!-- CaroleHenson (talk) 20:48, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Useful NPR source
A List Of The Accusations About Trump's Alleged Inappropriate Sexual Conduct  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 18:51, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Really good, thanks! I'm using it.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 21:00, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * , 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 ,

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. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  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)

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)

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. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  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. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  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). &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  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)

Duplicate Citations (minor)
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)
 * 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)

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)

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". &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  23:56, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 00:00, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Done. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  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.”

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. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  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)

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  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)

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)

Objectifying women
should any incidents that describe alleged behavior that objectifies women but which is either consensual or no way criminal also be included in this article? If he were not a presidential candidate such Lewd behavior may not be newsworthy for a celebrity associated with the media world I guess. J mareeswaran (talk) 07:57, 14 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I would say not. The title of the article is Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations, not Donald Trump sexist behavior allegations. There is a ton of bad stuff to say about this guy, and we're already saying most of it in the various articles about him. Much of the press is in an all-out feeding frenzy on this stuff, and I think we risk becoming a tabloid encyclopedia if we go too far. I know that many editors would point to WP:WEIGHT and say that the feeding frenzy is beside the point. They might be right, but this is my take at this time. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  08:07, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree. I went searching to see if the few articles like this one covered affairs and they don't. Then, I thought, who's had a lot of affairs and I thought of John F. Kennedy. If anyone was going to have an article about their extramarital affairs, I would think it would be JFK. But, there's no article that explores that, just a section within his main article.


 * I think, too, it would really muddy the waters to combine sexual affairs or consensual sex with this article.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 08:21, 14 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I also had in mind the the cases where he was accused of talking dirty, that is speaking of/treating women as sex objects but without violating anybody's consent. For example the accusation that he looked under skirts of models who were standing/walking/dancing (voluntarily, I guess) on a dining table. This behavior sounds very dirty but doesn't prima facie look like a forced or non-consensual activity. J mareeswaran (talk) 13:38, 14 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I should pay better attention. I thought we were talking about introducing this sort of thing to the article, but I now see that we already had a level 2 section with over 500 words about "Behavioral history", nicely organized into subsections for "Derogatory comments" and "Sexist comments and behavior". Really? No subsection for "Inappropriate looks and facial expressions", yet, although we do report that Ashley Judd called him a breast gazer. I'm sorely tempted to yank the whole section based on this discussion to date, but it would probably just start an edit war with me being accused of being a rabid Trump apologist. Unless we can get substantially more participation here, this may need to go to RfC. But for now I'll just post a discussion notice at the bio article. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  10:55, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the Behavioral history section could be reduced / summarized. It has been widely reported that Trump exhibits behavior towards women that is derogatory and sexist - and Bloom stated that people that do this are more likely to assault. It doesn't have to be so long and/or some could be moved to comments.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 14:50, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Mandruss, I made some edits to the Sexist comments and behavior section - and could actually see just having the main Behavioral history section header with an added summary statement and putting all the content from the two subsections into notes.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 15:02, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

I believe this section is relevant to the topic of the article and should stay. While it might not be specific acts of "misconduct" in itself, it is clearly linked to those allegations and revelations, in the way that his views and behaviour towards women form the basis of specific acts of misconduct. As such, it constitutes directly relevant background information in relation to the article's topic. --Tataral (talk) 15:30, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

I think this section should be removed unless someone can justify this behavior as a form of sexual misconduct; I agree with User:Mandruss. -- Rrburke (talk) 17:58, 14 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Tataral and User:Mandruss, Are there two different votes: 1) it is relevant and should stay and 2) it should be removed?-- CaroleHenson (talk) 19:30, 14 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's how I see it and think it should be framed, per my first comment in this thread. Obviously I'm !voting Oppose. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  19:40, 14 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I think this section should stay as argued by @Tataral above. However care should be taken that it is kept as brief as possible because it should not dilute the primary purpose of this article. J mareeswaran (talk) 19:51, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Can you define "as brief as possible"? Apparently you would draw a line somewhere, but you don't say where. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  19:56, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I am not sure, I can define a line. obviously his offensive behavior/statements gives an indication of alleged unwanted aggression activities, so a brief write-up is required. I am not sure how to do it tho J mareeswaran (talk) 20:18, 14 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I think it should be removed. Otherwise you're including anything that any woman complained about. I commented about Judd's remarks above, questioning how far this would go, and it was promptly incorporated into the article. People have argued that this is not an attack article, but in the closing weeks of the campaign, with so much media attention on Trump's behaviour towards women, it seems inevitably it will develop that way. No doubt these complaints will receive media coverage in these context, but I don't think they belong in an encyclopedia.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:56, 14 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I think it should stay, but reduce to a paragraph. I think that it can be reduced to one paragraph using summary language from sources about derogatory comments and sexual behavior and including the first statement by Lisa Bloom (or a similar statement from another attorney/judge type person).-- CaroleHenson (talk) 20:11, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

I think there is a place for it on wikipedia, but it looks inappropriate in this article given that it is specifically about sexual misconduct. My suggestion is to move the relevant bits to the Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016 controversies section, and leave just a section with 'for further information see' on this article. Possibly with a very short summary. Madshurtie (talk) 20:37, 14 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Madshurtie, 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 will look for another source / info beyond Bloom to tie the behavior. I'm also happy to dramatically reduce this to a paragraph.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 20:52, 14 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I would support the spirit of 's one-paragraph proposal, but it's problematic in those terms. We can produce one paragraph by removing all line breaks from the current content. Oppose 's suggestion because I disagree that there is a place for it on Wikipedia. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  20:46, 14 October 2016 (UTC)


 * That's funny! I meant reduced to 4 or 5 sentences.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 20:56, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I would accept 4-5 not overly long sentences. You and I could share the task of keeping it to that length in the face of continuous efforts to expand, at least through the election. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  21:08, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * , Sure.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 21:13, 14 October 2016 (UTC)


 * There's a bunch of sources here and here, and I'm sure an academic search would produce a load those editors missed. Might be a starting point? Not really sure what the best compromise is at this point. Maybe RfC? Madshurtie (talk) 21:06, 14 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm finding some articles, like this one, which gives a more well-rounded view of the situation, but have many more in my search queue to look at. Thanks though for the help. I may look at the articles you mentioned next to check the reference section for names of people that generally comment on these types of issues.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 21:17, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

The Henson Proposal
PROPOSED per discussion above: Continue to include tangential content about sexism, but limit it to 4 to 5 not overly long summary sentences. This replaces the entire current Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations section. Pinging prior participants:


 * Support as reasonable compromise. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  21:33, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Support-- CaroleHenson (talk) 21:35, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Support include brief summary of offensive behavior/statements that can provide a background to the sexual misconduct allegations. J mareeswaran (talk) 21:41, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - I see we're adding tangential content outside the Behavioral history section, with no participation in this discussion. That has nothing serious to do with the truth of the allegations, and is more pure tabloid gossip. Anything of that nature would obviously also be replaced and kept out if this proposal passes. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  21:59, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree. I think the reason people add it is because it's "victim blaming". But, there are also "smear campaign", "rape culture", "political agenda" and other topics that could take the article sideways. So far, talented and experienced editors have been doing a great job at keeping an objective tone. It seems best to stay focused on the actual accusations.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 23:20, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: Shortening the section somewhat would be ok, but I think 4 or 5 sentences (a length of roughly 20–25% of the current length) would be too short, and that we should accept a length of around 50% of the current length, provided that the content is sufficiently relevant. --Tataral (talk) 22:08, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks. We'll count that as an Oppose to this proposal. The discussion is in the previous section. To keep things somewhat manageable, any modifications should be separate proposals. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  22:15, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Support — I think this is reasonable, but it will need to be policed.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:01, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose It makes no sense to me having a shrunken section with less clear relevance to the rest of the article. We should either agree to have it or remove it entirely. My new suggestion is to create a 'Reactions' section as per the Bill Cosby article, and merge in only the comparisons to sexist behaviour the media have drawn since the allegations came out. We could also then merge in the Trump campaign reactions and add new media commentary (like #whywomendontreport). Madshurtie (talk) 08:06, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

As reactions section
, 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 and the group that came together  to make the decision for handling this incorrectly.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 10:23, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * , 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. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  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. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  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)

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)


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


 * , 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:

Use:
 * Atlantic - RS
 * Business Insider - RS
 * CNN, CNN Money - RS
 * Deseret News - RS
 * Fox News - RS, preferred from previous discussion
 * Los Angeles Times - 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, preferred from previous discussion
 * Palm Beach Post - RS
 * People - RS
 * Rolling Stone - RS
 * Time - RS
 * Washington Post - RS

Don't use or better to find another source, based on RSN
 * Daily Beast - RS, but speculative opinion pieces
 * DailyMail - not RS
 * Guardian - not RS
 * Huffington Post - RS, better to find another source
 * Independent - not RS
 * Politico - RS, but better to find another source

Not sure yet:
 * Donald J. Trump campaign site - better to get a secondary source?
 * Houston Public Media
 * Variety
 * VOX
 * Slate

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).  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 05:46, 15 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks, 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  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,, It has been in there. It's in the quote in this section.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 18:16, 15 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)
 * 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)

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)

Attacks on credibility
Re

- 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? &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  15:26, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 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. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  15:45, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * I dunno. Maybe or others have ideas or opinions. Status quo is ok for now. &#8213; Mandruss   &#9742;  15:55, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 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. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  16:23, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * How about "questions the accuser's credibility"?-- CaroleHenson (talk) 17:10, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  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)

Nightly snapshot
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. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  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)


 * 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. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  03:12, 16 October 2016 (UTC)


 * 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)