Talk:Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations/Archive 2

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

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


 * Geez, forks of forks? Where does it end? Wait and see. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  08:19, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok, but I'm guessing that we don't want to dump a lot of content into this article about the status of the case. That's my concern, it's not really the purpose of this article to go into a lot of detail about her case, IMO. Pinging -- CaroleHenson (talk) 08:26, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * It seems to fall under the umbrella of sexual misconduct allegations. Are you saying it should be treated separately because there is a pending lawsuit? &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  08:33, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree it should be in this article. What I mean is that IMO this article should be about the accusations and not get into a ton of detail, for instance, I reversed this edit. Do you think that info should be covered here?-- CaroleHenson (talk) 08:39, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I think the question is whether it should be covered anywhere, per WEIGHT. I don't know about that. If yes, I don't think here would be inappropriate. But I'm feeling just a bit over my head on this question. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  08:44, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I could have set this up better. Here's where I propose:
 * Like you say, let's wait to see if the Jane Doe case is going to materialize into anything - and not create a new article at this time.
 * I suggest that we don't add much more information about Jane Doe to this article at this time.
 * Add a concise update about the October 16 hearing or anything major in the case at that time.
 * How does that sound?-- CaroleHenson (talk) 08:52, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * shrug* No objection. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  08:58, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Of the few media outlets that have gone into the details of this case (e.g. Vox, Guardian, Guardian again) most said, in nice words, that it's beyond dubious. Vox: "The allegations seem so likely to be untrue that even writing the words “Trump” and “allegedly raped a 13-year-old” in the same sentence feels sort of icky.". Guardian: "Court filings in California and New York against Trump, purportedly on behalf of a woman..." If this article has to cover this lawsuit (I'm not sure it should), then in fairness to Trump it should reflect what reliable sources think of this lawsuit. --Distelfinck (talk) 08:51, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Got anything stronger than Vox and Guardian? If U.S. mainstream is taking a pass on that, why is that? &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  08:58, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Yep, one of the articles compares Clinton's situation, which has aged over years and resulted in a huge settlement, to Trump's which is brand new. Of course, Clinton's case is clearer. The $1mil tape sounds weird, but I would agree that it would be good to see what hits the mainstream press. For instance, last night someone added Jennifer Murphy as an accuser with non-reliable sources, she had been kissed by Trump, but had absolutely no issue - she's not an accuser and was stunned that she was labeled one.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 09:07, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Jane Doe content ideas
, I am guessing that you have other thoughts about what needs to be added. To save us all some time, maybe we could discuss it here. What do you think?

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


 * Pinged and then un-pinged! This is my non-response! &#8213; Mandruss &#9742;  20:17, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * So sorry, Mandruss! I just know you're busy and didn't want to bother you unnecessary about this topic You are a great wordsmith - so if you wouldn't mind weighing in that would be great! (My mistake for the day is used up now? Oh, I better be really careful.)-- CaroleHenson (talk) 20:45, 15 October 2016 (UTC)


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


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


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


 * What do you think?-- CaroleHenson (talk) 20:45, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Excellent --Distelfinck (talk) 20:47, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Would you like to make the replacement in the article?-- CaroleHenson (talk) 21:07, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm on it --Distelfinck (talk) 21:16, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Great!-- CaroleHenson (talk) 21:30, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


 * Good question, how about putting it in the Behavioral history section?-- CaroleHenson (talk) 20:08, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅-- CaroleHenson (talk) 02:20, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Hmmmmm...--Jack Upland (talk) 09:55, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Jack Upland, I didn't see this earlier - are you thinking it should have been handled differently?-- CaroleHenson (talk) 19:37, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * See my comments below.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:56, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

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

Summer Zervos redirection
Why does a Wikipedia search of Summer Zervos lead to a page about Trump allegations? I can find the allegations anywhere on the net. I search her on Wikipedia to find factual information about this person I've never heard of. This makes Wikipedia seem biased. I'm no Trump apologist at all. I just want to know who she is. Pkimer (talk) 04:58, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Pkimer, You've got a good point! It's not unusual in Wikipedia to have what's called a "redirect" page that provides a link from a blank page (which can later, and in many cases, do become its own article) to an article with content about that person. I created the redirects so that if someone was in Wikipedia and wanted to search on a name of one of the accusers, it would bring her name in the search window. Then, they could get routed to this article.


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


 * These women are what we call "Notable for a single event" -- see WP:BIO1E.  E Eng  06:37, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed that this applies to most of the women. In any event, what do you think about the use of redirect pages for the people in the article?-- CaroleHenson (talk) 06:42, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what the issue is. Until someone wants to propose that one of these people (all women, I guess) is notable enough for her own article, then they won't have one. In default of that, they certainly should have a redirect each, since there's information about them in this article.  E Eng  06:55, 16 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I searched Wikipedia for "george houraney", a person mentioned in this article who does not have a redirect. I got this, which lists not only this article but another one that mentions him as well. So this gives me everything Wikipedia has on George Houraney. I had to know how to spell his name, since "george hourane" gives me a different guy George Hourani. If he had a redirect to this article, how would I know about the other article? &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  07:01, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm losing focus. We need a redirect/dab gnome, but I don't know any. But in the meantime, to be honest redirects and stuff don't matter nearly as much as people pretend, since in practice people come in via Goodgle, which does a good job of finding things, redirect or now.  E Eng  07:11, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I found 16 pages for Natasha Stoynoff. In looking at Redirects for discussion, it does not appear to meet the criteria for "keep" and the number 1 reason for deleting is: The redirect page makes it unreasonably difficult for users to locate similarly named articles via the search engine.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 07:31, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Just as soon a series of gnomes will show up to tinker with categories, there are gnomes who specialize in this redirect stuff, so I'd leave it to them. There's plenty to do making this article the best it can be, and I suggest you keep your talents focused on that.  E Eng  07:34, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

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


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


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


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


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


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


 * keep the category of allegations (level 2) separate but within that try to add the year also in level3 (as you have mentioned above), so that when somebody else adds a fresh allegation they know where it goes. J mareeswaran (talk) 21:04, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I see that the category is now level-1. so the decade can be level-2 then the name of the accusers can be level-3. would that be fine? J mareeswaran (talk) 21:10, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm lost. Are you saying have subsections by specific years? Wouldn't that make a lot of subsections with only one accuser (e.g., 1980s, 1997, etc.)?-- CaroleHenson (talk) 04:28, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, I went ahead and added the year into the section heading, like "Temple Taggart McDowell (1997)" which makes it easier to see the chronology. I saw a couple of days ago that someone tried to add a wikitable so that the information could be grouped and sorted, but it was deleted for several reasons. So, right now, adding the year seems to be the simplest solution. I have not seen anyone else weigh in the topic, so this might be the best way to go.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 23:55, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

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

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


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


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


 * I was not suggesting that the section be expanded, but that it should be renamed and offered a suggestion. I think "Pattern of sexist behaviour" accurately describes the content provided. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:24, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * It used to be "Sexist behavior", which is short and sweet.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 23:27, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm concerned about headings that — unintentionally or intentionally — invite a dirty laundry list. "Comparisons" is good because it limits the section to just that.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:15, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with Jack. I changed the heading to 'Comparisons of past behavior' and daughtered it to a reactions section specifically to ensure it was on topic. You could make the case that because it's now under 'Reactions to 2016 allegations' any patterns commented on must be reactions, but I think it makes it less clear to other editors. I prefer 'Comparisons to other behaviour', 'Comparisons to sexist behaviour', and 'Comparisons to misogynistic behaviour'. Madshurtie (talk) 08:03, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm confused by "Comparisons of past behaviors" or other comparison headings. It seems broad and open to interpretation. When I step back a sec, I think the primary goal is to have a heading that aptly describes the content. For me, "Objectification and sexual violence" or "The connection between objectification and sexual violence" summarizes the section. When I tried to break it down, that's what I come up with.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 08:24, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * How I see it is that "Objectification and sexual violence" or "The connection between objectification and sexual violence" sounds like a completely separate article. Including it an article called "Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations" makes it look like the section is purely there to build the case against Trump. If we make it clear that journalists and other pointed out his past behaviour in connection to these allegations, it maintains its relevance. If the content of the section looks closer to a heading like those two, then maybe it's better to change/add content, rather than change the heading. Madshurtie (talk) 08:36, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Absolutely there should be balanced coverage. Being pretty tired right now, my initial thought is:
 * If Trump is guilty, then the objectification / sexual violence connection is germane
 * If Trump is innocent, then all the accusers have to be part of a media and political conspiracy-- CaroleHenson (talk) 09:13, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * There's the other Trump campaign claim that these women are all trying to cash in on fame and publicity, though I think that would be a pretty unrealistic motive for anyone given the small gains and large retaliation. However, surely it's not Wikipedia's place to imply which situation is correct through its section headings? Madshurtie (talk) 09:55, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * What do you think about a "Theories" section with subsections for the prevailing theories, as they are reported in the media? -- CaroleHenson (talk) 10:07, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Perhaps by using the current Reactions section and modifying it to focus on the theories?-- CaroleHenson (talk) 10:50, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

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

==Reactions to 2016 allegations and key theories== There are two key theories about this issue, One is that Trump is guilty of having committed sexual assault, for which there has been a pattern of behavior of offensive and sexist comments and behavior. The other is that Trump is guilty and the accusers are coming forward through an organized political smear campaign, (Need source - Megyn Kelly said this on her "Kelly Report" show on Fox.) which has been tied to commence near the end of the presidential campaign and within a month of the elections. (lots of sources for this)

===Trump campaign reactions=== Regarding the number of accusations that have been reported in the media, Trump claims that "corporate media" are "political, special interest, no different than any lobbyist or other financial entity with a total political agenda." Leeds's and Crooks's allegations, published by The New York Times on October 13, were disputed by Trump's campaign as having "no merit or veracity". The campaign alleged that the Times had a vendetta against Trump. The Trump campaign issued this statement through its spokesman Jason Miller which states that "for The New York Times to launch a completely false, coordinated character assassination against Mr. Trump on a topic like this is dangerous. To reach back decades in an attempt to smear.

Trump's attorneys demanded a retraction of the Times article and an apology for what they said was a "libelous article" designed to destroy Trump's run for president. David McCraw, assistant general counsel for the Times, responded on October 13, 2016, to the libel claims from Trump's attorney. He stated that Trump's reputation is damaged and "could not be further affected" due to his own statements, like those he made on the Howard Stern show. McCraw continues, "it would have been a disservice not just to our readers but to democracy itself to silence [the accusers'] voices." In response to the request to retract the story, McCraw said, "We decline to do so" and stated that Trump was free to pursue the matter in court.

Trump's campaign staff also stated that the Stoynoff and McGillivray accusations were without merit.

===Pattern of behavior=== In response to the May 2016 New York Times article, Lisa Bloom pointed to research indicating that "[m]en who objectify women are more likely to become perpetrators of sexual violence, just as one with a long history of overtly racist comments is more likely to commit a hate crime." The Economist drew similar parallels after the October allegations. On October 13, a transcript from a 1994 Primetime Live interview was unearthed where Trump states "I tell friends who treat their wives magnificently, get treated like crap in return, 'Be rougher and you’ll see a different relationship.'"

Shaun R. Harper, executive director of the Penn Graduate Center for Education, has said that "many men talk like Donald Trump", objectifying women and saying offensive things about them; he puts Trump in a class of men whose behavior sometimes includes sexual assault and degrading women. NPR reported that Trump has exhibited questionable behavior in his treatment of women for some time, using offensive language to describe women including Megyn Kelly, Rosie O'Donnell, and former Miss Universe Alicia Machado. He has also spoken in a sexist manner, such as his statement in a 1991 Esquire Magazine interview that it "doesn't really matter what (the media) write as long as you've got a young and beautiful piece of ass."

-- CaroleHenson (talk) 15:54, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm slightly cautious about saying 'there are two key theories', because it might imply false balance. And possibly lumping a conspiracy theory in with another theory devalues the other one? Also I think there's at least one more theory: the fame and greed theory some Trump surrogates have offered. I personally prefer the section as its current structure (with slight debate over the wording of the subheading), though I'd like to hear other editors' opinions. Madshurtie (talk) 16:16, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Instead of theories, what do you think of "arguments"
 * Wouldn't the "fame and greed theory" have to be part of the overall conspiracy? I think it might be hard to show that each and every accuser decided on their own, or at the prompting of others, to come forward purely out of fame and greed? That could be added, but I think we have to tread the line of ensuring that it isn't heavy-handed or victim bashing (if Trump is guilty)-- CaroleHenson (talk) 16:22, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Same boat for me. I think most readers would expect the arguments in Trump's favour to be in that subsection. If a lawyer or journalist created a novel argument in his favour, that would also be a reaction to the allegations, so presumably we could just create a new subsection for it. I guess it's kind of splitting hairs whether we use the term reactions or arguments, but reactions just feels a bit more encyclopedic to me?
 * Trump has wondered aloud why no one has accused Obama and said Obama should be careful, so presumably Trump thinks they could have motives independent of this conspiracy. Also campaign spokesman have said stuff about the accusers wanting money and free publicity, which sounds like a different motive from being Clinton operatives. Madshurtie (talk) 16:39, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Is there any evidence at all that Obama may have been involved in this? IMO the article should keep it the to "key" arguments / reactions.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 16:56, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

I was starting to react to the "markup summary - sure" response and thought it might help to summarize where I think we are add, including a question about the summary:
 * If I've got this right, you're saying:
 * Leave the sections as they are right now, except for wording of the subsection
 * If a new, novel argument comes up from a journalist or lawyer then add a new section for that
 * It is preferable to use "reaction" vs. theory or argument
 * I'm saying / asking
 * IMO "greed and fame" shouldn't be a separate reaction category, unless there's proof that women were offered money to accuse Trump. Instead, it should be part of the larger conspiracy theory
 * IMO we should stick with key reactions, and not get into issues like is Obama involved unless there is proof
 * I'm asking, should we have a blurb at the top of the reactions section like:
 * There are two key types of reactions about this issue, One is that Trump is guilty of having committed sexual assault, for which there has been a pattern of behavior of offensive and sexist comments and behavior. The other is that Trump is innocent and the accusers are coming forward through an organized political smear campaign, (Need source - Megyn Kelly said this on her "Kelly Report" show on Fox.) which has been tied to commence near the end of the presidential campaign and within a month of the elections. (lots of sources for this)
 * I'm not saying greed and fame has anything to do with being offered money to come forward. I'm pointing to quotes like Trump spokesman Hope Hicks: "Mr Trump strongly denies this phony allegation by someone looking to get some free publicity. It is totally ridiculous". It sounds like he's saying they are looking for fame and money from interviews, which is a different motive from being paid by any conspirators. Sounds like the campaign is taking the kitchen sink approach to discrediting them, talking about conspiracies and publicity seeking.
 * Sorry if I was unclear about the Obama bit. I wasn't saying we should include anything about Obama, I was just saying that's an example of Trump talking about non-conspiracy motives for making allegations. If he thinks Obama's at risk of getting an allegation, presumably the allegation wouldn't be part of a Clinton conspiracy.
 * I don't personally think a blurb is necessary, because I think the subsection headings make the separate reactions clear, but I don't have a particularly strong opinion. One other thing is a summary blurb about the two types of reactions doesn't seem to encompass a reaction-to-a-reaction like the hashtag section. Madshurtie (talk) 10:48, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't personally think a blurb is necessary, because I think the subsection headings make the separate reactions clear, but I don't have a particularly strong opinion. One other thing is a summary blurb about the two types of reactions doesn't seem to encompass a reaction-to-a-reaction like the hashtag section. Madshurtie (talk) 10:48, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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


 * Astute and articulate observations. This could be an example in the hypothetical essay, How to edit Wikipedia peacefully and collaboratively. With the short-lived exception of this contributor, I have been surprised for days, considering the nature of the subject matter. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  11:28, 17 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Just wanted to specifically thank you Carole. You started working on the article almost immediately after the news broke, and worked through the night getting it up to scratch. You've been by far the biggest contributor, with half the text written by you. You've worked hard to keep it objective, and have given friendly and helpful comments to almost every discussion on the talk page. Elections in a country as big as America change a vast number of people's lives, so putting so much work into an encyclopedic resource like this is a valuable contribution to society. At the moment, your contribution is getting seen by about 10 000 people a day. Madshurtie (talk) 11:38, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks to both of you! It may sound trite, but it's true this has been a great team effort to ensure the quality of the article - and it's been a joy.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 11:48, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Unwanted, unwelcome
A minor question of language.

We use "unwanted" five times outside quotations, including one section heading. "Unwelcome advances" sounds more natural to my American ear than "unwanted advances", but we use "unwelcome" only once, in a quotation (in the voice of two New York Times writers). The meaning is the same, which is what makes this minor. Should we (1) use all "unwelcome", (2) mix it up to avoid being repetitive, or (3) leave it alone? &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  04:50, 17 October 2016 (UTC)


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


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


 * Are you saying that "unwelcome" would be more neutral and therefore preferred, like "claim" and "state"? In that case we should use all "unwelcome" in my view. Raised the paraphrasing on your talk page before I saw this. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  05:24, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * What do you think about leaning towards "unwelcome" most of the time - but using "unwanted" when it especially fits with the reported circumstance. I'd use "unwanted" for Natasha Stoynoff or Summer Zervos, for instance. Non-consensual is another option.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 05:54, 17 October 2016 (UTC)


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

Further references for the Jane Doe section

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

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


 * You've got LA Times, that's good - the only thing is I don't see Trump or Jane Doe mentioned. There's a separate conversation. Have you seen it? Please feel free to weigh in there.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 13:15, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The LA weekly (not LA Times) article gives background information about Norm Lubow. Trump and the underage girl (Jane Doe) are mentioned in the other three references i have given.The relevance of Lubow is that he is accused of coordinating the case of the underage girl against Trump. Soham321 (talk) 13:25, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Do you mind sharing this with the discussion above. I think it's called "What's the discussion?""-- CaroleHenson (talk) 13:30, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Table of accusers' allegations
Maybe you guys could make a table like they have at Bill_Cosby_sexual_assault_allegations ?

That one is a concise way to see all the information and the sources the information comes from all together.

Good luck, 69.50.70.9 (talk) 22:36, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Ivana Trump
the section on Ivana Trump needs to be removed for the following reasons:
 * Ivana has given a public statement just before the publication of her 1993 book: "[O]n one occasion during 1989, Mr. Trump and I had marital relations in which he behaved very differently toward me than he had during our marriage. As a woman, I felt violated, as the love and tenderness, which he normally exhibited towards me, was absent. I referred to this as a 'rape,' but I do not want my words to be interpreted in a literal or criminal sense."


 * As per an article in the New York Times, not only has Ivana endorsed Trump, she has also said he would make a great president.And she has also said the following:"I have recently read some comments attributed to me from nearly 30 years ago at a time of very high tension during my divorce from Donald. The story is totally without merit.”"

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

 10:56, 16 October 2016‎ Soham321 (talk | contribs)‎


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


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


 * Thoughts?-- CaroleHenson (talk) 16:46, 16 October 2016 (UTC)You are not taking into account six very important words of Ivana (as quoted in the New York Times article): "The story is totally without merit." I would prefer this section to be removed completely, since it is coming across as nothing more than gossip about a husband-wife quarrel in which the wife is admitting to making false accusations against her husband. But if the consensus is that it should stay than these six words of Ivana should be included in the section. Of course,the clarification given by Ivana that what she meant by "rape" when she made the accusation is not the dictionary meaning of the word should also be included. Soham321 (talk) 16:51, 16 October 2016 (UTC)


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


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


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


 * Just in case someone's editing, while I update this section. She has mentioned that it was rough sex and unlike anything she had experienced before. I am pretty sure it's in at least one of the cited sources for that section.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 17:27, 16 October 2016 (UTC) My interpretation of Ivana's words that he made love to her without "love and tenderness" is not "rough sex"; it is "mechanical sex". This is a fairly common feature in "loveless marriages" or marriages which are about to break up. Nothing noteworthy here.Soham321 (talk) 18:51, 16 October 2016 (UTC)


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


 * "Years later, Ivana said that she and Donald "are the best of friends".[2] In a July 2016 campaign endorsement, Ivana said, "I have recently read some comments attributed to me from nearly 30 years ago at a time of very high tension during my divorce from Donald. The story is totally without merit." You also need to somehow clarify, in my opinion, the fact that what she meant by "rape" is not the dictionary meaning of rape as per her own claim.Accusing someone of "rape" is a very serious accusation and it cannot be done lightly as Ivana seems to have done during her divorce with Donald.Soham321 (talk) 18:51, 16 October 2016 (UTC)That's already in that article section:  Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations. See the indented quote, which I just realized doesn't have a source or author any more.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 19:55, 16 October 2016 (UTC)


 * How is that?-- CaroleHenson (talk) 18:37, 16 October 2016 (UTC)Surely you're not going to blame Trump for something his aide said.Soham321 (talk) 18:51, 16 October 2016 (UTC)


 * , Didn't you provide the sources at the top of this discussion?-- CaroleHenson (talk) 19:18, 16 October 2016 (UTC)I gave the link to the NY Times article because of what Ivana says in the article, not because of what Donald's aide says in the article.Soham321 (talk) 19:23, 16 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Did I miss something? Why are you upset with me for using a source you provided?-- CaroleHenson (talk) 19:43, 16 October 2016 (UTC)i am not upset. i think there is a misunderstanding. i thought your words "How is that?" were a response to what Trump's aide said since you just gave the headline carrying the aide's words followed by your response of "How is that?" I think we have now gone off on a tangent, and this sub-thread should be hatted.Soham321 (talk) 19:49, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

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

I guess we threw each other for a loop, I was thinking it would be a quick - looks good - and we'd be done. I'm trying to figure out how to suppress the reflist. Sorry that cause confusion. I'll consider this ✅ unless you have anything further.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 20:34, 16 October 2016 (UTC)Much better. Thanks Soham321 (talk) 20:37, 16 October 2016 (UTC) i am doing a little tweaking to the main article. feel free to revert me if you disagree with my edits and we can get back to discussing here with ourselves and others.Soham321 (talk) 20:49, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm just curious about the weird use of in this thread. If a line break is needed without a blank line, you can use  which doesn't create all that extra clutter. Or you can just include a blank line. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  21:14, 16 October 2016 (UTC)


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

five lines with one indent. Is that what you meant? &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  03:54, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * This comment comprises


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

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


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


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

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

Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:30, 17 October 2016 (UTC)


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


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


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


 * I see your full question now, yes - everything I mentioned applies.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 03:48, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The source I gave just now is Politico, not Daily Beast. I will think about this some more.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:59, 17 October 2016 (UTC)


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


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

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


 * Ok, let's go ahead and take her out of the lead - shorter is better and the key legal case is the pending one. What do you thnk about this edit?-- CaroleHenson (talk) 04:22, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I think that's another way to solve the problem, thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:50, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Timeline
I tried to fix some errors in this section, but I feel that the timeline is confusing because in does not always follow chronological order: Comments? Politrukki (talk) 12:58, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * we have Ivana's statement from 1993
 * we have Donald calling the original allegation "obviously false" in 1993 (in Newsday)
 * we say that divorce was granted in 1990
 * we say that divorce was finalized in 1992 – but there are sources (e.g., ) saying March 1991
 * and finally we have Donald winning gag order in 1992 (April)


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


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


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


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

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


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

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

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

Why women don't report
I came across this article by accident, first of all compliments for what is mostly calm. objective and coherent coverage. However two sections, firstly the '#WhyWomenDontReport' and secondly the 'Comparisons to other behavior' sections are in danger of straying into 'sexual misconduct' in general, in ways that have an implied synth. I appreciate the #WhyWomenDontReport is partly noting a 'hashed' reaction, but noting the reasons in general why women don't report has no bearing on this instance. Noting why these women have said they didn't report would be relevant of course. In many of these particular accusations, 'guilt' or 'innocence' are unlikely to ever be legally established, and we are all going to have to make up our own minds at the end of the day. Pincrete (talk) 22:46, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * There are two conversations about those topics, one of which resulted in a reduction in content. Rather than starting another conversation and having people have to repeat their points, do you mind reading the applicable sections and then commenting about what people have posted? It's discussed in the SYNTH section, but more recently and specifically in.


 * is the other discussion.


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


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