Talk:Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations/Archive 4

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

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

This is the conversation posted to Anythingyouwant's user page, with "Talk:" added to the links

We had someone yesterday who wanted to post the same information. The discussion is at Talk:Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations at Distelfinck (talk) 08:51, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

I keep thinking that it might make sense to make this its own article, but it's not hit mainstream press yet, but I think that might change after the hearing tomorrow. Do you mind glancing at Talk:Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations? Can we touch base in a couple of days and see if this is going to hit the major news outlets?

Until then, doesn't it seem to be a notability issue? Do they know something we don't about why the story isn't taking off? What do you think? -- CaroleHenson (talk) 09:14, 17 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I hope you don't mind if I continue this at the article talk page, since it's purely a content discussion. Thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 09:18, 17 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Absolutely!-- CaroleHenson (talk) 10:17, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

I'd like to make sure, though, that I've not missing anything. I am super-super tired right now and want to make sure that I'm clear-headed when I respond, so I'll work on that in the a.m. to make sure I haven't missed any points.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 10:45, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not upset when I get reverted if there's a good reason for it. The problem here is that you're omitting reliable information that's needed to assess credibility of child rape accusations.  Without that information, people will assume it's a credible allegation.  People will come here and then decide to vote against Trump because they think there's a credible child rape allegation.  Or decide to call him an alleged child rapist in the lead of the main Donald Trump article.  Omitting the credibility information from the Guardian is essentially the same as saying that the allegation is credible.  IMHO.Anythingyouwant (talk) 11:11, 17 October 2016 (UTC)


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


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


 * I get the feeling that you're a very experienced editor and don't need the guidelines for these, but I'm happy to get them for you in the a.m.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 11:40, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * If we use the Guardian, I'm against using it selectively, e.g. to describe the charges but omitting very illuminating info about who's orchestrating the charges. I've said my piece and will watch this discussion to see if any other comments are made.Anythingyouwant (talk) 11:45, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Sounds good.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 11:51, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

when a reliable publication delves as deeply as possible into an issue (as the Guardian has here) it's not uncommon for other publications to defer instead of reinventing the wheel. It would not reinvent a wheel to report the essentials of that story, independently fact-checked, without in-depth investigative reporting. I have no objection to removing any content that is (1) quite controversial, and (2) supported only by The Guardian. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  12:14, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Here's mine, but you won't like it. I would ask again, if U.S. mainstream is taking a pass, why is that? If you're implying that they are all in fact complicit in the vast left-wing conspiracy against Trump, please say so and we can take it from there. To my eye, it's more likely that U.S. mainstream is applying more caution than The Guardian as to fact-checking on that story. You have one reliable source reporting that, and I have twenty or so reliable sources choosing not to report it—although they all read each other and are no doubt aware of that Guardian story. I would like to see similar content in one or two U.S. mainstream reliable sources. It's quite possible that The Guardian isn't as infallibly reliable as you seem to believe. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  11:52, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Mandruss, you've asked me a direct question about why U.S. mainstream is taking a pass, so I'll answer. First, Daily Beast is not taking a pass as I already said (and linked).  Second, when I search this BLP, I find eight mentions of "Guardian"; if you get rid of them on the same basis that they're not U.S. mainstream then your argument would be more persuasive.  Third, this encyclopedia is supposed to take a global view, and publications in England regarding the U.S. can offer valuable perspective.  Fourth, when a reliable publication delves as deeply as possible into an issue (as the Guardian has here) it's not uncommon for other publications to defer instead of reinventing the wheel.Anythingyouwant (talk) 12:02, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry for being unclear. Daily Beast is not what I meant by U.S. mainstream. Forget I used that term if it helps. If there is real substance to these claims, they will not go unreported by every one of The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Los Angeles Times, The Chicago Tribune, ABC News, CBS News, NBC News, CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, NPR, and probably 5 more than don't come to mind at the moment.
 * Probably with Anythingyouwant on this one. The Guardian is certainly not 'infallibly reliable', but it's one of the traditional broadsheet newspapers in the UK, wins a lot of Newspapers of the Year awards, and is the only UK newspaper whose US arm has won a Pulitzer prize. It might be left-leaning, but if anything that cuts in its favour in this case, because the investigation is in Trump's favour. I don't see an obvious reason to doubt their investigatory journalism, their investigation is interesting and relevant to that case, and Anythingyouwant's text did make clear it was only 'according to The Guardian'. Madshurtie (talk) 12:15, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Time, Newsweek, U.S. News & World Report, Christian Science Monitor, Boston Globe . There's four five more. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  12:27, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Mandruss, when you say "If there is real substance to these claims...." I guess you aren't referring to the child rape claim (which is already included in this article), and so you must be referring to claims such as that the child rape lawsuit is being orchestrated by some guy from the Jerry Springer Show. Is that correct?  It's omission of the latter claims that make the former more controversial because the omission increases the credibility of the child rape claim.Anythingyouwant (talk) 12:31, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The child rape claims have been widely reported among sources I listed above, no? I mean, there is a pending lawsuit about that. If the child rape claims have only been reported by one non-U.S. source (and unreliable LawNewz), I retract my argument with apologies. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  12:33, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Two things: I started a section for help in developing criteria for the kind of content that get added to the article -and what should be scrutinized more closely than others. I think your thoughts there will make these kind of discussions smoother for everyone. That is part of my question here.
 * Another point is, there's going to be a hearing on the 16th - is that today? If it's not a viable case, it will be thrown out. Since the content is so wacky, noone else is picking it up, can't we just wait and see what the media reports after the hearing? If the claim above is likely, wouldn't the media be jumping on it?-- CaroleHenson (talk) 12:41, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The article said at one point October 16 for the hearing, but I corrected that per the LawNewz source and, I can't recall, possibly one other. It's December 16, and I think it was LawNewz that used the phrase "well after the election". &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  12:45, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Bummer. That would have been very helpful. Am I the only one that thinks it's a wacky claim - not in mainstream media. We're so close to election season, I think we are likely to be barraged with wacky claims. Should we put them all in?-- CaroleHenson (talk) 12:56, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * We shouldn't make judgments about wackiness, we should include any claims that are adequately supported by U.S. blue chip sources. We can debate "adequately", but I'd say more than one. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  12:59, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Why do they have to be U.S.? It seems like we're going down a rabbit hole if we arbitrarily decide some reputable newspaper investigations to be too suspicious to include. Madshurtie (talk) 13:18, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Fair point. So include some overseas blue chips. BBC to start. I don't know enough about UK press to say more, but, while I recognize The Guardian as a "reliable source", I wouldn't put them in the same league as BBC. I'd call BBC "Tier 1" and The Guardian "Tier 2", and there are probably four or five tiers ending with blogs. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  13:26, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Honestly I wouldn't personally put Fox News in the same league as BBC, either, but the clamor that would result from excluding them would probably make that impossible. I recognize that many sane people feel the same about The New York Times. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  13:57, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

What The Guardian article is saying is corroborated by an article in jezebel.com : http://jezebel.com/the-source-pushing-the-trump-rape-lawsuits-may-not-be-w-1783270283 could i get a clarification on whether Jezebel (website) is considered an RS? The Guardian story has been endorsed by The Daily Beast: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/07/21/trump-rape-accusers-turn-on-each-other.html Soham321 (talk) 13:42, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't know whether they are regarded as "reliable source", but I guarantee they are not blue chip. They don't approach any of those I listed above. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  13:45, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * when such a serious charge is being made against someone, it is unreasonable to only look for material presenting his defense only in "blue chip" sources. RS is good enough for wikipedia. Soham321 (talk) 13:57, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I disagree, as per my arguments in this thread. Don't know what else to say. I defer to consensus that I strongly disagree with. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  14:00, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The Guardian is one of the biggest news websites in the world, with even more visits than BBC News. The BBC is notable for its public service commitment and almost complete commercial independence, so I don't mind ranking it above the other UK news organizations, but all of the traditional UK broadsheets (inc. Times, Telegraph, FT) should be considered reliable sources for investigatory journalism. Madshurtie (talk) 14:08, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * No comment on the rest at this point, but readership does not correlate very well to reliability. I wish it did. I believe the most visited web sites are pornography sites. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  14:12, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

The Guardian has been used as a reference in many WP pages. It is very definitely an RS. Right now we have three editors who want material from The Guardian to be reinstated in the main article, and two who are opposed to this move. Unless other editors intervene here, the majority view must prevail and the material from The Guardian reinstated into the main article.Soham321 (talk) 14:17, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The Guardian has been used as a reference in many WP pages. I think you're missing the essential point here. This is not "many WP pages", but rather a very controversial article about a candidate for leader of the free world. It merits special treatment. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  14:19, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with you to an extent (even though there is nothing in Wikipedia policy which indicates that certain WP pages require "special treatment".) Never the less, The Guardian is not a tabloid. It is a reputed British newspaper and it is definitely an RS and there is no reason not to include material from it in the main article of this page.Soham321 (talk) 14:23, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, agree to disagree, but we are not going to declare a consensus here 5.5 hours after the inception of this discussion. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  14:25, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

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

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


 * Now that's what I call a strong argument, assuming you're correct. Give me some time to look into that. I'm overdue for sleep, so I may not respond for 8 hours or so. Or someone else could beat me to it. If that's in fact all the coverage in blue chips, I would seriously have to consider argue for removing the content about the rape allegations per WP:DUE. Fifteen of those blue chips don't feel the lawsuit is worth reporting, and that should mean something to us. You're technically within my suggestion of "more than one" blue chip there (2) (3), but I'm not going to argue that for the most serious of all the allegations by far. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  16:37, 17 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I note that the Google search of site:bbc.com returned two hits (that happen to be unrelated), but the same search at bbc.com returned nothing. Suggest converting all the site searches in the table to Google searches. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  17:16, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The thing with Google is that for some sites, it also gives results when the search term is just appearing in the sidebar, and not in the article itself. Which seems to be the case for the results you mentioned, so the BBC's own search engine seems to work fine. But I'll add Google links for double checking Distelfinck (talk) 17:28, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * At least some of that Google search hits article text, such as "Mike Tyson following his rape conviction". &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  17:47, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * For that result, a part of the search terms is in the article text, but the word "Trump" is not in the article text. So it's a result you don't want, i.e. not a reason to not use the BBC's search engine. --Distelfinck (talk) 18:02, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I understand, I just felt it would be better to use the less selective search and use human intelligence to filter out the unrelated. If the table provides both searches and someone has verified that both yield the same answer, it doesn't matter. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  18:07, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, was a bit unscientific to preselect different search engines without stating why --Distelfinck (talk) 18:13, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * All searches need to be trump epstein rape. If you say "Jeffrey Epstein" to ignore "Theo Epstein" hits, you may miss a "Jeff Epstein", a "Jeffrey Edward Epstein", a "Jeffrey E. Epstein", and so on. We'll use human intelligence to filter out the Theos or any other Epsteins. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  18:37, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm removing the quotes. Now all variants of his name should be found --Distelfinck (talk) 18:49, 17 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Remove content about the Jane Doe rape allegations per WP:DUE. This is the most serious of all the allegations by far, and only two of the seventeen previously listed (no cherry picking) blue chip sources, plus PBS, (16.6%) have deemed the lawsuit newsworthy. This is somewhat tentative because the search arguments need to be cleaned up, and because the results need verification by more than just me and the OP. I'll modify this !vote if there is enough change to the table to change my mind. Hint: Four of eighteen wouldn't get me there. It would appear that the vast left-wing conspiracy is in fact a vast right-wing conspiracy. With almost full complicity by the rabid conservative mainstream media. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  18:56, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Remove content about the Jane Doe rape allegations per WP:DUE and WP:EXCEPTIONAL. But if the consensus is that this section should remain, then relevant material from The Guardian article which is endorsed by The Daily Beast and corroborated by jezebel.com should also be used in the section. Soham321 (talk) 19:45, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - Is PBS a qualifying source? (I literally know nothing about PBS) As for whether to include Jane Doe, I don't have a strong opinion and agree the case looks sketchy. Perhaps noting in the article that it hasn't been deemed newsworthy by several major news outlets and including The Guardian research would be a decent warning? Madshurtie (talk) 19:59, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah, PBS Newshour. I'll add that to the table. I object to "the case looks sketchy"; what we should look at is the amount of coverage in reliable sources, and It Just Ain't There. Perhaps noting in the article that it hasn't been deemed newsworthy by several major news outlets and including The Guardian research would be a decent warning? No, I don't think that's how we treat low coverage of very serious allegations in BLPs. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  20:07, 17 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Remove the section in its current form. Then basically do what Madshurtie is considering -- mention the suit in a sentence or two, not in its own section though (that might give it undue weight), and include criticism from reliable sources like The Guardian. If we don't mention the lawsuit at all, then readers who have otherwise heard it will be wondering why. They then might do their own thinking and conclude that the reason we don't mention it is that there doesn't seem to be much to it. I like to not have to rely on that, and explicitly mention it. --Distelfinck (talk) 20:21, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * They will wonder why, and they will suspect Wikipedia of a biased coverup, like they always do. We don't edit based on expected public reactions to our content. If any suspicious reader asks about it on this page, they will be referred to the applicable Wikipedia policy. conclude that the reason we don't mention it is that there doesn't seem to be much to it. Yes. There doesn't seem to be much to it, per WP:DUE. Also WP:EXCEPTIONAL as cited above. That refers to "exceptional claim", and I feel that accusations of repeated rape of a 13-year-old rise above "exceptional claim". That's prison time territory for most folks. Therefore requiring more than "multiple high-quality sources". Like, say, six blue chips? I think that's reasonable. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  20:39, 17 October 2016 (UTC)&#8213; Mandruss   &#9742;  20:30, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * No opinion right now about whether to totally remove this from the BLP, but certainly remove it from the lead. Furthermore, if it's not completely removed from the BLP, then I support making it vastly less contentious and harmful to the BLP subject by mentioning in the BLP that, according to The Guardian, lawsuits by this "Jane Doe" against Trump "appear to have been orchestrated by an eccentric anti-Trump campaigner with a record of making outlandish claims about celebrities", a former producer on the The Jerry Springer Show.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:34, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: Just want to point out something to those who have been insisting that The Guardian article, which gives evidence to suggest that the Jane Doe allegation is frivolous, not be used since according to them The Guardian is not a "blue chip" source. If you go over the main article carefully you will find The Guardian being used as a source for some of the accusations against Trump.Should only "blue chip" sources be used when it comes to the accusations?Soham321 (talk) 01:40, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll repeat what I said in the parent section: I have no objection to removing any content that is (1) quite controversial, and (2) supported only by The Guardian. No, I'll modify that here. I have no objection to removing any content that is (1) quite controversial, and (2) supported only by The Guardian, Daily Beast, and/or that Jeezebel thing or whatever. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  01:59, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Here is another reference source on this issue: http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/yes-donald-trump-was-accused-of-raping-a-13-year-old-but-this-lawsuit-has-little-chance-of-succeeding/ Soham321 (talk) 02:26, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The founder of the lawnewz "legal news" website is this gentleman: Dan Abrams Soham321 (talk) 02:32, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * We have a consensus on this page (or its archive, not sure) that LawNewz is not RS. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  03:34, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Suggest reducing Jane Doe content to one or two sentences as discussed above & remove from the lead. I feel it almost cheapens the allegations from the other women who offered extensive detail, went on the records, etc. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:05, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Proposal Remove all reference to Jane Doe from any other section inc. lede. Reduce Jane Doe section to one line saying something like 'An anonymous lawsuit was filled against Trump for the third time in October 2016. An investigation by The Guardian has revealed that it appears to be covertly coordinated by sensationalist Norm Lubow.' and then cite only the only the Washington Post article (as the only one of Mandruss's blue chips that has analyzed the case) and the first Guardian article (as the only reliable soure that has bothered to do any investigatory journalism). Put a message in the wikitext instructing other editors that adding anything else to the section may violate BLP. Madshurtie (talk) 10:17, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * This way we are acknowledging the existence of the lawsuit but not giving its contents any weight. We also steer readers away from dangerous territory, as recommended by . Madshurtie (talk) 10:20, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 1. You're proposing that we mention a lawsuit without saying word one about what it's about? That doesn't seem very useful to me. More importantly, 2. I'm puzzled. This is your second out-of-process proposal in this !voting to try to get some small mention of this into the article. It isn't all that unusual to omit an allegation completely, and in fact omitting allegations completely is what WP:EXCEPTIONAL is about. Can you say what Wikipedia principle you are thinking about here? &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  10:38, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Does it look like I'm trying 'to get some small mention of this into the article'? My first comment was mainly about the source, where I also wondered if clear context is sufficient. My formal response was a stricter variation on what and  have suggested; I thought it looked like a compromise. My only contribution before that was to support  saying the section should be made more skeptical with the Guardian research. Don't see what the agenda there is. I've only worked on the odd BLP before, so ignore me if I'm giving bad advice. Madshurtie (talk) 11:18, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I didn't mean to imply an agenda, sorry. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  11:24, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * No worries, maybe I overreacted. Madshurtie (talk) 11:29, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

All this being said, I don't question the reliability of The Guardian, and I would actually put them above many of these "blue chips". Politrukki (talk) 14:39, 18 October 2016 (UTC); edited 09:11, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Remove - oppose a dedicated section for Jane Doe per WP:WEIGHT and WP:BLPGOSSIP. Table above suggests that the lawsuit is not very newsworthy. Some sources (cherrypicking alert!) are very skeptical: "mysterious, anonymous lawsuit ... no one has been allowed to speak to the plaintiffs – a major red flag.", "lawsuit appeared to have been coordinated by a former producer on the Jerry Springer TV show who has been associated in the past with a range of disputed claims involving celebrities", and "[a] bizarre lawsuit" (the last two we have cited). Taking account the tone used in previously mentioned articles, that they use anonymous sources – media outlets have not even been given a change to interview Doe – many claims appear WP:BLPGOSSIPish. If, however, something about Jane Doe is to be included, caveats expressed in the high-quality sources, for example in The Guardian, should be given due weight.
 * After thinking this through, I notice that I have been too fixated on whether the section should be removed or retained. Dedicating a section for Jane Doe gives and impression that the amount of exposure of this story has been given is somewhat equal to for example Jill Harth's story. If there's a way to merge Jane Doe content under another section using 50–70 words (say that a lawsuit has been filed + denial of wrongdoing + caveats), I don't believe that would be WP:UNDUE. I just don't see how that could be done in the current format, but maybe someone else does. Politrukki (talk) 09:11, 21 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep the Jane Doe section She is in all the lists of accusers and is the only one with a pending legal case . And as the table shows is well covered by the media. It seems to me that removing her would be OR, to come to a conclusion that she should not be in the list of accusers. But I have been out of the loop for a day. if recent developments question the veracity of her claims, I agree to a much shorter section, with an explanation of why it's not a claim-- CaroleHenson (talk) 17:18, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that removing her would be OR, to come to a conclusion that she should not be in the list of accusers. Then WP:DUE would appear to violate WP:NOR. The WP:DUE argument for omission is that only 16.6% percent of 18 blue chip sources (no one has disputed their stature as blue chips; aside from PBS, no one has sought to add more sources to the table as blue chips) have reported this. The other 83.3% obviously know about the lawsuit but have apparently felt it was not newsworthy. In my opinion we should look at the number 16.6, not the number 3 in isolation. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  20:24, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Not sure why we're including the news magazines, not least because they cover fewer stories. However, there's probably the odd organization I would add, so I won't argue with the percentage too much. Madshurtie (talk) 21:21, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * - they cover fewer stories - But they would cover "Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations" at least once, no? If not in a separate article on that subject, at least as part of an article with wider scope. (Can you show that they have not?) And they would either mention the lawsuit or not in that story, no? &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  21:37, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Newsweek doesn't appear to cover all of them, and the Time list isn't comprehensive. Because news magazines publish fewer stories, I expect they have a higher likelihood of missing or deciding not to cover an allegation. On this topic, The Atlantic has covered it. Madshurtie (talk) 10:14, 19 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep it. The table in the beginning of the thread was based on incorrect search by red-linked account. In fact this received a significant coverage in press. No judgement if this is true. My very best wishes (talk) 18:45, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Do you have evidence of that? The only other decent news organization I've seen cover it is Vox, who think it's silly, and aren't one of the established sources Mandruss is seeking. Madshurtie (talk) 19:37, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I attempt to explain my rationale for this approach at User talk:Mandruss/Archive 4. I stand by it. I don't understand incorrect search by red-linked account. but, if there are any inaccuracies in the table, please correct them with explanation. As I said above, my !vote is changeable and I'd hope the !votes of others would be, too. We could ping !voters if needed. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  20:09, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * established sources -- For clarity I think we should use the term "blue chips". Vox and many others are "established sources" but not blue chips - not the best of the best, the cream of the crop, the few best exemplars of solid journalism principles. There's "good" and then there's "excellent", and for this purpose we should confine ourselves to "excellent". As I said in the user-talk thread I link above, I have no problem using other reliable sources in the article if the subject passes WP:DUE per this process of decision-making. Belatedly, that was never my intent; I didn't mean to suggest that the content should be entirely taken from three sources. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  21:05, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I meant established in the dictionary sense '1. having existed or done something for a long time and therefore recognized and generally accepted.' Presumably that is one thing that sets many of these sources apart from an upstart like Vox. 'Blue chip' itself is a vague term; we've hardly used a vigorous method for designating sources. We could also call them 'big' sources because their budget and number of journalists are measurable ways they are the cream of the crop. Digression aside, most 'reliable sources' aren't touching it either. Madshurtie (talk) 21:21, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification. As to the term "blue chip", this is just my perception of how the editing community feels about quality of sources, and as I've said I'm open to additions or subtractions from the table. As to " vigorous method for designating sources", I've long felt Wikipedia should do that, creating a tier classification of sources such as what I described the other day. It wouldn't be practical to do that just for this one decision, however, and I think this is the best we can do. most 'reliable sources' aren't touching it either - Right, but, as I said on my user talk page, that universe would simply be too large to manage for this purpose. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  21:30, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Meant to say 'rigorous' but guess it still made sense. General google searches mostly shows up gossip, celebrity, and rumor sources, so it seems likely most reliable sources are leaving it. Madshurtie (talk) 10:14, 19 October 2016 (UTC)


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


 * In fact this received a significant coverage in press. appears to support keeping it, not removing it. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  20:16, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, absolutely, I mean to keep it. I did not edit this subject, but after looking at this section and referencing, I think it belongs to the page and well written. My very best wishes (talk) 01:32, 19 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep — the fact that a court is considering a claim is notable, and it definitely belongs in a page that deals with "allegations".--Jack Upland (talk) 21:36, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * - I'm approaching WP:BLUDGEON territory at this point, but could you please respond to the well-articulated WP:DUE argument? Notability is about whether an article should exist, not about what to include in one. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  22:47, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The Keep supporters also need to respond to the WP:EXCEPTIONAL argument. Soham321 (talk) 23:27, 18 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Regarding [WP:EXCEPTIONAL]], which is: Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources.[12] Red flags that should prompt extra caution include:
 * surprising or apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources;
 * challenged claims that are supported purely by primary or self-published sources or those with an apparent conflict of interest;[8]
 * reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character, or against an interest they had previously defended;
 * claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community, or that would significantly alter mainstream assumptions, especially in science, medicine, history, politics, and biographies of living people. This is especially true when proponents say there is a conspiracy to silence them.


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


 * "...I feel that accusations of repeated rape of a 13-year-old rise above 'exceptional claim'. That's prison time territory for most folks. Therefore requiring more than 'multiple high-quality sources'."—Me &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  00:19, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

I would like to express my objection to the multiple Keep arguments with weak, incorrect, or no policy basis, that completely sidestep the WP:DUE argument that is the entire point of this subsection. Do people actually read the discussion before !voting? Do we have to request a closer for this discussion? &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  00:23, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * , I am unclear what the point is - do you not think it is widely covered, that another more stringent guideline should apply, or something else?-- CaroleHenson (talk) 00:29, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll try to write an executive summary. 1. We should look at percentage of the whole who have reported it, not simply the number who have reported it. We should consider that the others have not reported it, despite the fact that they must know about it. They have made a positive decision that it is not newsworthy, not simply overlooked it. We have to assume that. 2. I have essentially proposed limiting our "universe" to 18 of the highest quality sources for the purpose of judging WP:DUE. The alternative is to expand the universe to all reliable sources, research all of them, and then calculate a new percentage who report it. That would be completely unworkable for multiple reasons. 3. 16.6% of our current universe have reported it. 83.3% of our current universe, 5 times as many, have deemed it not newsworthy. That does not justify content about accusations of the repeated rape of a 13-year-girl. Accusations don't get much more serious, short of murder. 4. I have said in multiple places that this rationale is only for the purpose of deciding whether to include any content. If we decide to do so, then we can use other reliable sources to determine content. &#8213; Mandruss   &#9742;  00:37, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I understand your point. Thanks for clarifying your change of thought. The analysis does seem to be a valuable exercise, especially in light of the accusations . I do not feel comfortable in having the section totally removed, because that means we are now questioning something that has been reported by mainstream media. It seems a slippery slope to me, but of course the group must weigh in on the analysis you mention and then take it from there. It might be interesting to know how much reporting this got before October. I will check back in later.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 01:28, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Presumably EXCEPTIONAL doesn't apply to the lawsuit itself, which clearly does exist, it just applies to the claims in the lawsuit? Though presumably DUE could apply to the lawsuit itself. Madshurtie (talk) 10:14, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I did not not-vote "keep", but I don't find WP:EXCEPTIONAL particularly relevant here. There's no question that a lawsuit has been filed. That's easy to verify using court documents, which is exactly what at least some reliable sources have done. Politrukki (talk) 09:23, 21 October 2016 (UTC)


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

And while this doesn't specifically apply to you, I see a whole lot of arguments about this whole Trump sex thing that appear to be coming from both emotion about the sex abuse aspect and political leanings. Those who are known to hate Trump are seen consistently arguing for content unfavorable to him, and vice versa, working very hard to find whatever thin policy basis they can to support their argument. That is strong evidence that people are not keeping their biases out of their editing. This is not new or unusual, but it's unusually dangerous in this election situation. We're talking about a battle for not only the White House, but the Congress and the Supreme Court, not Gamergate. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  07:22, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm guessing they don't want to air an explosive allegation for fear they will be seen as unduly influencing the election. But that's only a guess. Yes it is, and it's a guess that is precluded by Wikipedia policy, so there is no reason to even mention it in a content discussion. I don't even let my mind go places like that while I'm editing, but that's me. The fact that a court is hearing the case is a strong argument for inclusion I'm not sure I agree with that either. We routinely make editorial judgment calls like that, but I feel this is a case where we should strictly limit ourselves to strong policy connections.


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


 * Ok. We may need a closer here, then, and they will have to decide whose guess is better. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  07:35, 19 October 2016 (UTC)


 * As I have failed to sway a single one of the Keeps, and the very premise of my argument is now under attack, I'm going to drop the issue unless I can get sufficient support against that challenge. I know a losing battle when I see one, and I have better things to do with my time. At this rate the election would be over before we resolved this question. I received your latest pings. &#8213; Mandruss   &#9742;  10:26, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not a committed keep (I haven't actually put forward a vote yet), and have less experience on a dispute like this than you, so don't take me too seriously. Since this is a pretty serious issue, I think we need to get more editors involved. It doesn't just affect this article. Madshurtie (talk) 10:46, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. I posted a discussion notice at Talk:Donald Trump 34 hours ago, so we probably won't get much more participation via that. The only other way to increase participation, aside from more notices elsewhere, is an RfC. That would automatically give us a closer, if I'm not mistaken. I'm not opposed to starting an RfC, although the default duration is 30 days and we would have to agree to close it much earlier to beat the election by any significant degree. Call me cynical, but in this contentious situation I would expect the minority to oppose the early close in the hopes of becoming the majority. (Sheer numbers count for more than we would like to believe.) &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  11:00, 19 October 2016 (UTC)


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

Because it seems the prevailing thought is to entirely remove or reduce the section, I removed the most salacious content from her section and the use of the word rape from the intro until this gets resolved.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 16:41, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Have we made any progress towards RfC or otherwise getting this section out of limbo? Because at the moment it's in the worst of all worlds, where there's still a decent amount of content, but no mention of the caveats that most of the reliable sources analysing it have mentioned. Madshurtie (talk) 12:46, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Madshurtie, I'm on it. The direction that I got from the Help Chat line about the Jane Doe issue and another issue was to report it to the WP:NPOVN - but to first wait til after the debate for things to sort themselves out a bit more. Since the issue about the Trump reaction section seems to have been resolved, we're good there. This issue, as you say, has been hanging out there for awhile. I realize now that I shouldn't have, but I had made edits to the intro and her section to tone down the rhetoric because of the points that you are making. If anyone disagrees with me about the NPOVN approach, please say so. In the meantime, I'll start drafting the posting. I'll post a draft here to ensure that it accurately reflect the issue.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 23:36, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The draft is posted in the subsection. Any comments before we post it?-- CaroleHenson (talk) 01:28, 21 October 2016 (UTC)


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


 * Jack Upland, that's interesting information. Do you have reliable sources from the versus a tabloid and a blog?-- CaroleHenson (talk) 23:36, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about?--Jack Upland (talk) 23:42, 20 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Jack, I simply feel it's dangerous to start analyzing our sources' motivations. That invariably gets us into trouble, since it is very vulnerable to our own biases, and quite unconsciously so. It's not that different from making claims about the liberal bias of the media in our arguments. I'm not aware of anything in policy that says we should consider such things. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  23:42, 20 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, I already hear you saying I'm analyzing our sources' motivations. This is a conundrum that I suspect is above the competence level of 80% of editors, so I don't think RfC is a good solution. I think it belongs at either WP:NPOVN or WP:VPP, and I'd lean toward the latter . &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  00:07, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

This issue is now posted at WP:NPOVN site.--03:31, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

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


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


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


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

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


 * Not bad, but you removed my underscoring for emphasis in a couple of places, which I felt improved communication. (I often use underscoring instead of italics for emphasis of shorter phrases because I can't easily see italicization in shorter phrases.) &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  00:12, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok,, I added the underlines - there were also some bolds in the source info, so I wasn't quite sure what was what. If you're ok with the underlines, are you saying that from your perspective this is good enough to post?-- CaroleHenson (talk) 01:24, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  01:30, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I should have asked this earlier,, since you performed the analysis - do you want to post it on the NPOVN?-- CaroleHenson (talk) 01:32, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Not really. :D &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  01:34, 21 October 2016 (UTC)


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

This issue is now posted at WP:NPOVN site.--03:30, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

New allegations as of Oct 22
And yet another victim has come forward and this one is an adult film star, Jessica Drake -- Woman Says Trump Sexually Assaulted Her, Offered Her $10,000 For Sex Jessica Drake said Trump kissed her and her friends without permission and offered her money to spend the night with him. Octoberwoodland (talk) 00:41, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Never mind, Noticed someone already has written this one up. Octoberwoodland (talk) 00:44, 23 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Tell her to take a seat and wait for her number to be called. Now Serving ... &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  00:44, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I suggest we close this one topic about an "adult film star".Zigzig20s (talk) 01:01, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Removing WP:SCAREQUOTES from lead
The terms "media bias" and "political smear campaign" have quotes around them in the lead. Presumably this is because Trump has used those exact terms. However, because the phrases are attributed to him and there is nothing specific to their formulation requiring quotation, they can also be interpreted as scare quotes. That would mean, editorial doubt of his claim broadcast to the readers.

It's not clear this is the point of the quotes, but the ambiguity is reason enough to remove them. Nobody will be confused about whether Trump alleges bias or a smear campaign against him without the quotes. -Darouet (talk) 00:12, 23 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi, Good point about the reasons to remove the quotes. I don't see how that could be a contentious move, I was the one that added them to begin with, and yes it was because they were Trump's words. I'll make the change if you haven't already done so.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 00:22, 23 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Hell, anything that challenges Trump's unique take on truth is labeled 'liberal bias'. Good catch. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 00:23, 23 October 2016 (UTC)


 * It's not "anything that challenges..." it's non-neutral writing. Legitimate challenges to Trump's declarations can appear in the lead or article body with attribution. It's the difference between writing "lawyers responded to Trump's statement..." or "the Clinton campaign has dismissed these allegations..." and "But we here at wikipedia know Trump is full of shit."


 * Also, I didn't accuse anyone of liberal bias. -Darouet (talk) 04:15, 23 October 2016 (UTC)


 * No,, you didn't. I think, in general, comments right now are being taken a little differently than they might after the election.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 04:27, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

"settled" in lede
The lede presently says: "Three women have filed lawsuits alleging that they were sexually assaulted by Trump. Trump settled the other cases." This doesn't make sense, either factually or semantically. It's unclear, first, what "other cases" are being referenced exactly. If only three lawsuits were filed, then there aren't any "other cases." If it's referring to the other accusers, who haven't filed lawsuits, then it's factually incorrect that he "settled" those allegations. The line should be removed. I did so, but was reverted, so bring it up here, now. Brianga (talk) 13:54, 23 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I reverted because I thought you removed it because you didn't know what "settled" means. I don't know about factually, but I don't see the semantic issue. Agree it could use some clarification, but I don't think outright removal is the answer. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  14:00, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * [Conflict edit] Your reversion and reinsertion seems inappropriate, as per "All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion). If in doubt, don't make the edit.".Zigzig20s (talk) 14:07, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, I'm an attorney - I know what settled means :). I removed it (again) because it makes no sense, as explained above. Of course it makes no sense factually - he clearly hasn't entered into a settlement arrangement with each and every one of the other accusers. I can't even rewrite it because I have no idea what the intent behind the words was. Whoever wrote it to begin with can try again, if they want. Brianga (talk) 14:05, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok. Didn't know you were a lawyer. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  14:09, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Trump wants to sue and condemns his accusers
Hi ,

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


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


 * Trump plans to sue all the accusers.


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


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


 * I have no idea if it applies in your case, but please note that has been pasted at the top of the page, and your edits were reverted per WP:NPOV.
 * You're funny! Now it's a problem to add an "in use" flag for a few minutes?-- CaroleHenson (talk) 20:36, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * No. Please assume good faith. Why are you actively removing referenced content? Besides, my understanding is that we are discouraged from making too many edits on the same day, to avoid giving the impression that we own the article.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:42, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * See recent fairly analagous situation here. Please take any accusations of editor misconduct to WP:ANI. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  20:38, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't have time for Wikidrama. My concern here is that Trump may sue the Wikimedia Foundation if this is an attack page. It makes sense to add that he wants to sue every single accuser (which suggests he believes they are lying).Zigzig20s (talk) 20:42, 22 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Accusations against fellow editors on an article talk page are Wikidrama. Just without the possibility of boomerang for making false ones. Keep it up and you'll be at ANI. I for one don't tolerate that sort of thing for the sake of peace. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  20:45, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I apologize. Can you please confirm that I am allowed to make 10 edits to this and other political articles in one day? Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:48, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I know of no limit on contribution to any article. That has nothing to do with WP:OWN to my knowledge. WP:OWN is about type of edits, not number of them. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  20:50, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * OK. How do we know the difference between the three-revert rule and 10 edits in one day? I have been told that edits can count towards the "three-revert rule". Sorry, I am genuinely confused.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:54, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Trust me, our 3RR policy confuses me, too. It's a poorly designed experiment that has failed, in my opinion. Every edit is reverting somebody, when it comes down to it, except for those adding entirely new content. But somehow I'm able to avoid getting into trouble in that area, I guess because I try hard to keep a cool head on the article side. I'd suggest taking any questions to Village Pump or a noticeboard, where the high priesthood can explain things to you. Let me know what you find out. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  21:00, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I've never heard anything about 10 edits in one day, and I've exceeded that many many times on many many articles. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  21:09, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Me too, but not on political articles (unless they're about an obscure state politician from the 19th century). How do we make sure that making 10 edits a day, including removal of cited content, is not a violation of the three-revert rule please? I think we all deserve to know, so we can stop walking on eggshells. If we suddenly decide to ignore the three-revert rule however (assuming it applies here, which we're not sure about), that is fantastic news and I might be tempted to give Carole a barnstar for her good work.Zigzig20s (talk) 21:15, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * If you can point me to where somebody told you about this 10 edits per day thing, maybe I can help sort it out. I'd suggest doing that on your talk page or mine, to avoid further clutter here. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  21:23, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Not ten, just three in 24 hours.Zigzig20s (talk) 21:44, 22 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment -- for now Trump says he will sue his accusers. This may just be a rallying cry for the final stretch of the campaign. Let's wait until he files or at least has his lawyers go on the record that they are filing. For now, I would not support the inclusion of this material. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:49, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * How do we protect the WMF if our content does not reflect both perspectives to the same extent? Shouldn't we be concerned? That is my worry.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:54, 22 October 2016 (UTC)


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

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

In short, I believe a short paragraph about the threat, including the quote above, should be included. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 22:03, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * While Trump's statement itself may not be noteworthy, I believe there's substantial press coverage on his proclivity to issue these threats in a wide variety of situations. Those might provide RS sourcing for a brief mention of his threat.  I believe the Times also published an exchange of letters with Trump's attorney.  SPECIFICO  talk  22:12, 22 October 2016 (UTC)


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


 * I agree that the reverted content is WP:NOTNEWS. It becomes a slippery slope to add content that is not notable, but interesting, particularly as there is SO MUCH press out there right now and will be for the next couple of weeks. I'm wondering - does someone want to start a blog? Because these kinds of things seem to be good blog discussions, whichever camp you're in.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 22:20, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * My point was that NOTNEWS is more appropriate than what I called it, which was a POV issue.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 23:08, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Of course you agree with your own deletion of cited content. You agree with yourself. As for a blog, you're welcome to start one, but that sounds like going off on a tangent. If there is no consensus to add the fact that Trump wants to sue all of the accusers, that's fine, but it looks to me like the accusers are getting undue weight as opposed to Trump's response. I believe that's problematic, as it makes it look like even more of an attack page.Zigzig20s (talk) 22:31, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Please don't edit my comments. By the way, it's not a personal attack by any stretch of imagination to say someone agrees with their own edits if that's the truth. I love Carole and I might be tempted to give her a barnstar, as I said before. Regarding the lawsuits, I guess we can wait and see if there is consensus for inclusion or not. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 22:45, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * You are being disruptive and repeatedly violating WP:AGF. You have been warned and called it harassment. Your disruption has been removed and you have restored it. Patience is wearing thin, and you need to back away for awhile and cool off. Consider this fair (further) warning. I also Oppose the disputed content, per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:CRYSTAL. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  22:52, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi. User:Smallbones agrees with me that this should be included (see above). It's not disruptive at all to bring people together. I am encouraging constructive collaboration for the inclusion of NPOV cited content.Zigzig20s (talk) 22:58, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I also feel like this entire article is NOTNEWS. Articles about political campaigns always are. Two weeks ago, we would not have known the first thing about these women.Zigzig20s (talk) 23:01, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * This article was AfD'd and the result was SNOW keep - as clearly shown at the top of this page. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  23:51, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't see the lawsuit threat as a novel topic, not brought up in the mainstream press. see e.g. The Washington Post. There are about 4 other similar articles from equally reliable sources that stress that the threat itself is the news. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 22:54, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I also believe it merits a short paragraph and the quote. Furthermore, I also think Trump should have his own separate section for his denials, lawyers statements, etc. his accusers have their own sections, the accused should as well, and the other reactions should be moved to it's own section.-- Isaidnoway (talk)  23:02, 22 October 2016 (UTC)


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


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

Sorry I haven't been following all of the discussion on the talk page as there's so much. Relevant to the threatened lawsuits, I made this edit yesterday, before seeing this discussion, and this edit after reading it, this morning; if anyone has a problem with any of my contributions and wants to edit or revert, I understand. Funcrunch (talk) 16:41, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

1RR violations
If you scroll to the top of the talk page you will find mentioned "Limit of one revert in 24 hours: This article is under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24-hour period)." I have just noticed the WP:1RR warning myself, and so wanted to point this out to regular editors on the main page, some of who have already reverted on the main article more than once today. Also, can someone give here the template for the warning for " discretionary sanctions for pages relating to all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people" that one can leave on the talk page of an editor who does not respect the 1RR rule on the main page. Soham321 (talk) 22:28, 23 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't see such a warning template offhand, but we're not required to use templates. One could just write a carefully worded note pointing to the 1RR notice.


 * But thanks for bringing up the 1RR, since it's problematic anyway. If you revert a bad drive-by edit, you're out of service for 24 hours as to reverts. If I revert the next one, I'm out of service for 24 hours. If CaroleHenson reverts an edit that she disputes, drive-by or otherwise, she's out of service for 24 hours. It doesn't take long before reverts by the article regulars are impossible under the rule, which brings development of the article to a grinding halt until people's 24 hours have expired. It also leaves the article wide open to clearly bad edits during that period. Unworkable in my view. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  23:00, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Only admins can place articles under discretionary sanctions.- MrX 23:03, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * ...and Mandruss, you did it.- MrX 23:06, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm aware I did it, and I stand corrected. I'm communicating, or attempting to communicate, with admin NeilN about that. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  23:16, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * NeilN is traveling and unavailable. This issue is now at WP:AN. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  00:24, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

I appreciate that Soham321 brought this up, so that people who regularly edit the article and engage in conversations on this talk page are aware of the template and it's guidelines. That won't help the editors who don't engage in conversation about this article and make edits, but it's the best that can be done in terms of a "heads up" right now.

I hope we notifying users of the 1RR before bringing it to ANI, since most people are used to the 3RR rule, and that the template has been  recently applied. Is the user given the opportunity to understand the guideline and have an opportunity to correct themselves?

There is a conundrum about the 1RR rule applying to everyone, when there are active participants monitoring the article to ensure it's within WP guidelines. The nature of the exercise means that they are more likely to come across issues that may require that content is reverted.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 01:06, 24 October 2016 (UTC)


 * You're aware that MrX removed the template because it can only be added by an admin? That's the subject of the AN thread. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  01:15, 24 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I see now that the AAR template was removed, so is 1RR a moot point right now - or should it be covered because the AAR template is on Donald Trump's main article talk page - and if I interpret it correctly, the ARR guidelines would apply to any DT articles?-- CaroleHenson (talk) 01:17, 24 October 2016 (UTC)


 * My take is that the remedies automatically apply to all U.S politics articles, per the comments within the message box generated by the template. But apparently that decision has to be made for each individual article by an admin, I guess because in some cases it's not clear whether the article is in fact about U.S. politics. We are not trusted with that decision. I suppose it makes some sense. I'm at WP:AN trying to get the template back. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  01:20, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Discretionary sanctions are allowed per WP:ARBAP2, the 1RR sanction doesn't currently apply to all US politics articles however. That particular template was created by for a limit set of pages, listed at WP:DSLOG, it doesn't look like they has given a blanket sanction. However they may have, I haven't looked too deep into it, and any admin can put this page under 1RR (and probably should.) — Strongjam (talk) 01:30, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * }It sounds to me as if could be interpreted two ways. Should we apply the 3RR guideline until the template is returned? And, either way, do we warn them and give them a change to self-correct?-- CaroleHenson (talk) 01:33, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Should we apply the 3RR guideline until the template is returned? Yes. Or until 1RR is imposed independently, as I understand the above comment from Strongjam. And, either way, do we warn them and give them a change to self-correct? As opposed to what? If you mean simply correcting them with a revert, that is never valid. There are no righteous reverts and unrighteous reverts, only reverts. No distinction between the good guys and the bad guys, as everybody thinks they are the good guy. The exception is that reverts of clear vandalism and BLP vio are always righteous and exempt from the count, 1 or 3. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  01:36, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I had said and asked earlier in this thread, I hope we notifying users of the 1RR before bringing it to ANI, since most people are used to the 3RR rule, and that the template has been recently applied. Is the user given the opportunity to understand the guideline and have an opportunity to correct themselves?-- CaroleHenson (talk) 01:48, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I misunderstood. Yes, at least one user talk page warning is needed before going to ANI about anything. Usually more than one, usually more than two. Not to mention other paths described at WP:DR. ANI should be the last resort, although many people don't understand that. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  01:51, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok, good. I'm a three-warning girl.
 * I see the template is back!! Great work.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 02:14, 24 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Whether you believe the allegations are part of a media conspiracy or not, it's pretty clear that this is US 2016 material. Note the specifications in the little pull-down menu: "Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked without warning by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence." So yes, we can shoot on sight, to put it crudely, but note the second bullet point, which makes a (sensible) exception for drive-by vandalism and all that. Which makes it extra important to write up good edit summaries, but I'm sure I don't have to tell you all that. Happy editing, Drmies (talk) 02:16, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Only 3 hours to resolve, not too bad as these things go. Thanks for doing that, and thanks to MrX for today's education. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  02:22, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Current template
Should this article have the current template, which says "This article documents a current event. Information may change rapidly as the event progresses, and initial news reports may be unreliable. The last updates to this article may not reflect the most current information. (October 2016)"?

Thanks!-- CaroleHenson (talk) 04:18, 24 October 2016 (UTC)


 * No, per the guidelines in that template doc. Template:Current. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  04:20, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks!-- CaroleHenson (talk) 13:08, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Ivana Trump section
,

Thanks for bearing with me today. You did a great job on the edits to the Ivana Trump section and identification of a citation tag that needed to be corrected.

Earlier, you had put a tag on the sentence that said that the rape charge was dismissed as part of the settlement agreement. Now that it's quieter, I've been doing some research and found that that came from a Huffington Post article - which had been questioned on the talk page and found in the RSN archives to have POV concerns - I forget how it was worded. I've not been able to find a source for that statement - there are sources that dance around it - but no clear statement, so it should stay out.

I attempted to try to fix the issue by adding the "According to NBC, Trump's attorneys "previously disclosed that under the terms of the settlement, Ivana Trump needs prior permission from her ex-husband to speak about him." statement - but that seems duplicative and unnecessary detail so I just removed it. I regrouped things so that all the divorce/settlement/gag order info is in one paragraph - and there's a separate paragraph starting "Years later..."

Do you mind seeing how the section looks to you now? And, continuing what you were doing? I will stay out of your way. If you've moved on to other things, though, I can go back and do another content/citation audit. I think you're doing more than that.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 03:47, 23 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Ok, I am going to go through and do another citation audit - I haven't done one in quite awhile now - and will pick up where left off.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 02:34, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * It seems that you didn't fully understand the purpose of my comment in the archived discussion (the reason I didn't reply until now was because I briefly lost motivation after my research findings disappeared – twice), for which I blame myself. I wanted to ask if content in this section could be re-arranged, but now that the content ("The accusation, which Trump said was "obviously false", was withdrawn as part of a settlement agreement.") after the long quote has been revised on re-arranged, that's a moot point.


 * In the archived discussion you said I wonder if something happened to cause them to renegotiate the final settlement in 1992. That was the question I asked myself and all I can say is "it's complicated". Here's a short list of what some sources say:
 * ivanatrump.com: "we were separated in 1990 and our marriage ended in divorce in 1992"
 * WaPo, March 21, 1991: "This afternoon, just three weeks before they were to begin thrashing out their differences in court, the ex-spouses will sign an agreement that brings more than a year of financial wrangling to a close. Rats.". Hilariously the next day they say Ivana was no-show, and on March 25 the settlement is "official"
 * NYT, March 24, 1991: "Donald and Ivana Trump finally reached a post-divorce settlement of their property Friday night, lawyers for both sides said yesterday."
 * WaPo April 18, 1992: "In the Trumps' celebrated divorce settlement last year, Ivana received $10 million plus custody of the children, but agreed to the gag. Later, a New York judge removed the order."
 * NYT, May 3, 1993: "In the latest installment of the saga of DONALD and IVANA TRUMP, the former couple kissed and settled the disputes that have kept them in court since they divorced in 1991 ... approved the agreement that ended their legal quarrels." but this doesn't seem to be a divorce settlement even though it is closely related "Donald had sued Ivana to get back $25 million in cash, real estate and other property she received as part of their divorce settlement on May 22, 1991."
 * NYT, October 23, 2015: "In the midst of all of this, Donald reached a property settlement with Ivana Trump after their divorce. According to a 1991 New Jersey regulatory report, the settlement called for ..." – why would NYT use 1991 records if final settlement was reached in 1992?
 * So yes, they did have several settlements, but I can't make head or tail of this mess. Everything else seems to be in order. Politrukki (talk) 10:30, 24 October 2016 (UTC)


 * The purpose of my statement was: 1) to give a heads up - since there was a question about the number of content additions and edits I have made on this article and I'm named in several places in the NPOV claim and 2) to acknowledge your work. I didn't mean anything more than that, I'm sorry if that created a misunderstanding, it was absolutely not intended.


 * See what you think of this edit. I don't know why there's a discrepancy and NPR and NYDT would report 1992. I put this into a footnote, since the settlement is mentioned later (i.e., it seems that this is needed for context). Does that work?-- CaroleHenson (talk) 13:49, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Donald Trump's response (NPOV related issues)
I placed Donald Trump's response in a separate section to make it more prominent and thereby help ensure that this section is made as accurate as possible. Some NPOV related issues with this response:


 * 1. "He blamed the New York Times report on minority shareholder Carlos Slim, because he "comes from Mexico"" [Comment: The reference given, a Time magazine article, mentions Trump using the words "largest shareholder" (of the New York Times) to describe Carlos Slim. Since this Time magazine article is the only reference being used for this information, describing Slim as a "minority shareholder" is forbidden OR. It is easy to see that there is a huge difference between "largest shareholder" and "minority shareholder" at least in terms of connotation. Also, these are the words Trump uses for Slim and the New York Times, in the Time magazine article being given as reference:"And no paper is more corrupt than the failing New York Times. The good news is it is failing, it won’t be around too much longer. But they are really, really bad people. The largest shareholder in the Times is Carlos Slim. Now Carlos Slim, as you know, comes from Mexico. He’s given many millions of dollars to the Clintons and their initiatives. So Carlos Slim, largest owner of the paper, from Mexico. Reporters at the New York Times, they’re not journalists, they’re corporate lobbyists for Carlos Slim and for Hillary Clinton. We’re going to let foreign corporations and their CEO’s decide the outcomes of the — you just can’t do this.We can’t let this happen. We are not going to let it happen where they decide the outcome of our elections. They can’t do it and we’re not going to let it happen. This is our last chance to save our country and reclaim it for we the people, and it’s going to happen."

So Trump's problem with Carlos Slim is not just that Slim is a Mexcian, but also that, according to Trump, Slim has given "many millions of dollars to the Clintons and their initiatives." ]


 * 2."and Hillary Clinton, saying "character assassination" is her "speciality"." [Comment: These words of Trump describing Clinton are not present in the Time magazine article currently being used as reference. They are actually present in a CNN article: http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/14/politics/donald-trump-sexual-assault-allegations/ These words had been correctly referenced to the CNN article, before this revert which introduced inaccuracy into the article: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_Trump_sexual_misconduct_allegations&diff=745237756&oldid=745233947 ]


 * 3. "He went on to wonder why President Barack Obama hadn't been accused yet," [Comment: The words about Obama are again being incorrectly referenced to the Time magazine article; the actual words are again from the CNN article whose url is given in point 2. The CNN article had been correctly referenced when giving this comment, before a revert was done. This is the same revert whose diff is given in point 2. The words pertaining to Obama, in the CNN article, are: "Trump also suggested that the allegations against him were so unfounded that "they could say it about anybody," including President Barack Obama." Trump's response given in the main article seems to be a distortion of what Trump says in the CNN article which is the source of this comment.]


 * 4. "and denied the Jessica Leeds allegation by saying "she would not be my first choice"." [Comment: Trump's words about Jessica Leeds are again not present in the Time magazine article being given as reference. They are perhaps OR. The CNN article (link given in point 2) has this to say about Trump's response to the Jessica Leeds allegation: "Trump also attacked the women who have accused him of inappropriate behavior, calling Jessica Leeds, the woman who accused him of groping her on a plane in the early 1980s, a "horrible woman," apparently suggesting she was not attractive enough for him to grope. "When you looked at that horrible woman last night, you said, 'I don't think so! I don't think so!'" Trump said.] Soham321 (talk) 04:36, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 1. Trump seems to be saying coming from Mexico is why Slim supports Clinton. Giving the campaign money is not a motivation, it's a consequence. Wikipedia doesn't have to use the description conferred by Trump when referring to Slim. He is a minority shareholder, as the wikilinked Carlos Slim article shows. What's more, multiple editors opposed including anything about Carlos Slim because of it being a ridiculous WP:FRINGE conspiracy, so the context is probably welcome. 2. Good spot, I'll swap that for a different quote. 3. No, they're in that Time transcript. 4. No, they're in that Time transcript, the beginning summary, and the subtitle. It is the only reason he gives in that speech for not assaulting her. Madshurtie (talk) 12:38, 24 October 2016 (UTC)


 * ,This is the Time magazine article: http://time.com/4532181/donald-trump-north-carolina-accusers-speech-transcript/


 * 1. First, Trump's words for Slim that Slim is the "largest shareholder" of the New York Times need to placed in the article. We are quoting Trump in the main article, not random wikipedia editors or some other source even if it is RS. And we are attributing Trump's comment to him giving an RS. Second, your argument about "motivation vs consequence" is clearly OR. We only have to report the facts on wikipedia, we don't report the "truth" as per the rules of wikipedia editing. A few editors cannot come together, make up their own rules of WP editing, and then declare consensus. Because now more editors have got involved in this page and the consensus is no longer with the earlier editors.
 * 2. ok we agree on this.
 * 3.Obama is definitely mentioned in the speech given in the Time magazine article.But nowhere in the article will you find the claim that "He went on to wonder why President Barack Obama hadn't been accused yet". Why don't you give the relevant sentence pertaining to Obama from the article instead of arguing about this?
 * 4. Go ahead and do a CTRL-F of either "Jessica" or "Leeds" in the Time article and see if you come up with something. You won't come up with anything, so the words ascribed to Trump specifically for Jessica Leeds are completely bogus since they are not present in the source being given. Soham321 (talk) 17:17, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 1. a) No they don't. There is no policy that we have to describe a living person's position/role using a quote. b) Trump's comments on Slim are barely coherent. The most apparent motive he talks about is Slim's nationality, so that is what's included. If you look at a previous talk section, you'll see five other editors oppose mentioning Slim at all because of the bizarreness of the remarks. 3. If you actually read or watched the speech, it would save us a lot of trouble here. The Time transcript excerpt regarding Obama: "And why doesn’t some woman maybe come up and say what they say falsely about me, they could say about him. They could say it about anybody, they could say it about anybody. I’ll tell you what, he better be careful, because they could say it about anybody, anybody at all." 4. Seriously, why are you arguing over this page's description of a speech you clearly haven't read or watched? From the Time transcript: "And the only way they figure they can throw it down is to come up with people that are willing to say, I was with Donald Trump in 1980. I was sitting with him on an airplane, and he went after me on the plane. Yeah, I’m going to go after. Believe me, she would not be my first choice, that I can tell you." Trump is clearly talking about Jessica Leeds, because she's the only accuser who talked about a plane. Madshurtie (talk) 18:34, 24 October 2016 (UTC)


 * 1. The point is that you cannot claim in the main article that Trump called Carlos Slim a "minority shareholder" of New York Times, when in fact Trump called Slim the "largest shareholder" of New York Times. That is a misrepresentation of what Trump said.
 * 3. I went over the article using CTRL-F, and the reason i missed this sentence was because he used the word "him" to refer to Obama. Now, there is one further issue with the reference to Obama. The main article says "He went on to wonder why President Barack Obama hadn't been accused yet." But Trump's comments were not just about Obama; according to Trump, these accusations can be made against anyone including Obama. I propose that the sentence in the main article be modified to something like: "Trump went on to suggest that such accusations can be made against anyone, including Obama."
 * 4. This involves OR to my knowledge. You have to give an additional reference to show that Jessica Leeds is the only accuser who talked about a plane. Since Trump is not referring to Jessica Leeds by name in the Time article, nor is Jessica Leeds's name mentioned anywhere in the Time article. However, since Trump is unambiguously referring to Leeds in the CNN article, why can't we use the CNN article as a reference for Trump's response to Leeds? Soham321 (talk) 18:53, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 1. The article doesn't say Trump called him minority shareholder, it says he is minority shareholder, to show the connection with the New York Times. This section will look silly if there's a quote around everything. 3. This seems trivial. The most notable bit is the Obama bit, so that's the bit included. 4. Have you checked where the CNN article quote came from ... It's the same speech. The reason CNN says he's talking about Jessica Leeds is because he's talking about Jessica Leeds, just like they say he's talking about Jessica Leeds in their coverage of the "she would not be my first choice" quote from the same speech. He doesn't have to name her to be talking about her. Madshurtie (talk) 20:00, 24 October 2016 (UTC)


 * 1. The article contain does *not* say Slim is a minority shareholder of the New York Times. This is OR on your part. The article gives the following quote of Trump: "And no paper is more corrupt than the failing New York Times. The good news is it is failing, it won’t be around too much longer. But they are really, really bad people. The largest shareholder in the Times is Carlos Slim. Now Carlos Slim, as you know, comes from Mexico. He’s given many millions of dollars to the Clintons and their initiatives. So Carlos Slim, largest owner of the paper, from Mexico." Any remark about Carlos Slim's relationship with the New York Times that is attributed to Trump must use the words "largest shareholder" and/or "largest owner", (and not "minority shareholder") as per what Trump has himself said. Care must be exercised not to misrepresent Trump.
 * 3. Hardly trivial. It changes the entire meaning, context and connotation of what Trump said. Let others weigh in to determine consensus on this.
 * 4. Let me give links to the CNN and Time magazine articles for the benefit of others: http://cnn.com/2016/10/14/politics/donald-trump-sexual-assault-allegations and | Time Link. Now note the following:
 * (a)From the CNN article: "Trump also attacked the women who have accused him of inappropriate behavior, calling Jessica Leeds, the woman who accused him of groping her on a plane in the early 1980s, a "horrible woman," apparently suggesting she was not attractive enough for him to grope."When you looked at that horrible woman last night, you said, 'I don't think so! I don't think so!'" Trump said."


 * (b)From the Time magazine article: "Speaking in front of a rowdy crowd in Greensboro Friday afternoon, Trump said all of the allegations were lies, called one accuser a “horrible woman,” told his followers to look another up on Facebook and said another accuser “would not be my first choice.”"


 * So, according to the Time article, Trump referred to three of his women accusers in his speech one of who he called "horrible woman" and another about whom he said she "would not be my first choice." There is no mention of Jessica Leeds in the Time article, but the CNN article unambiguously identifies Jessica Leeds to be the woman Trump called "horrible woman". This means that if we take both the CNN and Time magazine into account together, it was some other woman (and not Jessica Leeds) about who Trump said she "would not be my first choice" as per the CNN and Time articles. Claiming Trump's words "she would not be my first choice" were meant for Jessica Leeds is clearly OR. Soham321 (talk) 20:26, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 1. I meant the wiki article. Obviously my reply didn't refer to the speech transcript.
 * 3. No it doesn't. I doubt anyone cares.
 * 4. Wow, Soham. 1) Read the TIME transcript of the speech, not the little summary 2) Compare the quotes in the CNN article with the transcript 3) Search for the words "Greensboro", "North Carolina", and "Friday" in both articles 4) Read what I said again.
 * Madshurtie (talk) 20:45, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Madshurtie (talk) 20:45, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Appearance of problematic edits - need to revert to a clean copy?
Based upon this slice of the reference section, it looks like there are a lot of edits that are resulting in the loss of well-cited content. This was taken from this version

A one block section of the references (i.e., no editing to get the worst of it) - this is a copy of a block of references:
 * "Lawsuit Charges Donald Trump with Raping a 13-Year-Old Girl".
 * Cite error: The named reference Harthlawsuit was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
 * Cite error: The named reference Janedoe was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
 * Cite error: The named reference trumpnatreview was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
 * Donald Trump Again Accused of Rape in New Federal Lawsuit [DOCUMENTS]
 * ‘Jane Doe’ Plans to Re-File Sexual Assault Lawsuit Against Trump With ‘Additional Witness'
 * [1]
 * Doe v. Trump et al
 * [2]
 * Trump Attorney Fires Back After ‘Jane Doe’ Refiles Rape Lawsuit with New Witness
 * v. Trump et al
 * Rape Allegations Refiled Against Trump. Friday, September 30, 2016
 * Federal Judge Orders Hearing in Donald Trump Rape Lawsuit. 12:34 pm, October 7th, 2016
 * [3]

My suggestion would be that we look to see how far back this had taken the article and potentially revert to a "clean copy".-- CaroleHenson (talk) 19:08, 23 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Pinging, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , The state of the reference section often tells me a lot about the state of the article and the types of changes that have been made. It looks as if uncited material is replacing cited material.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 19:12, 23 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what's happened since this version, which appears to be a clean version-- CaroleHenson (talk) 19:17, 23 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks so much, ! You fixed it!-- CaroleHenson (talk)
 * ✅ An IP user copy pasted content from Legal affairs of Donald Trump in one edit. Some of the content should probably there as well, but that seems to much work for me right now since I know nothing about editing culture on that article. Opening a talk page discussion was proper action, but pinging multiple users to do the revert wasn't, in my opinion. Or at least I don't want to be pinged to revert anything. Politrukki (talk) 20:06, 23 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I think that's a very good point. Do you have a suggestion, ?-- CaroleHenson (talk) 20:12, 23 October 2016 (UTC)


 * So, post the issue here - don't ping anyone.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 20:26, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

I apologize to all that were pinged today, in the future issues will be posted here, but there won't be a mass ping.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 20:56, 23 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't see the issue with the mass pings. We're at an article that generally needs more active particpation than it is getting. For something important, I see no problem with pinging prior participants. Carole, I'd suggest respecting people's individual requests not to be pinged, but don't change the whole behavior on the basis of one personal objection. Politrukki supports this approach with the statement, Or at least I don't want to be pinged to revert anything. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  21:28, 23 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Responding here since I was pinged... Here is relevant discussion. It does not show consensus for unilateral removal of sufficiently well sourced material based on bogus "BLP concerns". My very best wishes (talk) 21:51, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Would you be willing to be pinged if an editing issue arose?
,, ,, , , , , , , ,  , , , Would you mind voting whether you'd like - or not like - to be part of the ping distro should another issue arise like today that required content review in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines? Do you feel comfortable that you have a good grasp of the Wikipedia policies and guidelines?


 * To ping or not to ping, if an editing issue arises: (updated per comments below)


 * Ok to ping:, , , , ,


 * Don't ping: ,

Thanks!-- CaroleHenson (talk) 22:14, 23 October 2016 (UTC)


 * LOL. For the love of Jimbo, this could be opt-out, not opt-in. I'd assume in unless you hear otherwise, which only requires one statement for a given user. Endearing but unnecessary. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  22:13, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I guess that's the way I roll, in any event, I just sent out the pings. I would hate for someone to get a succession of pings that they don't want and weren't aware of this list.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 22:16, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok, you can add me to the "mailing list". &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  22:17, 23 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Don't ping. My watchlist works just fine.- MrX 22:22, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I am ok with being pinged. Soham321 (talk) 22:31, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I've made the updates to the list.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 01:10, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I have this page on my watchlist, and while I haven't been active the past couple days, I do review most changes. I don't mind a ping to discuss any issues though. — Strongjam (talk) 01:31, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Strongjam.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 02:19, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I am making an edit to the sentence referring to the policies and guidelines below - but they have been removed. I added a link to the template and removed the word below.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 02:30, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with being pinged. -- Rrburke (talk) 15:20, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, your name has been moved down to the list.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 20:39, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Happy to be pinged, though I will busier over the next few weeks, so may not always respond. Madshurtie (talk) 10:34, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks!-- CaroleHenson (talk) 10:48, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Use of biased sources is required by policy
I haven't been participating in the discussions above, but was alerted to this discussion at NPOV/N started by Soham321. Here are my thoughts.

I was shocked to read that some editors had chosen not to use some sources because they were biased. That's a misunderstanding of policy. We are actually required to use them. Failure to do so violates NPOV because it is editorial censorship of sources and content based on their POV.

Editors wear a "hat" (attitude), and one quality of the editor's hat is a type of bias which editors are required to adopt. That is a bias in favor of using all types of reliable sources, regardless of the sources' points of view. Refusal to use a source because "it is biased" is totally wrong, because most reliable sources are biased; they were written to make some point, otherwise they would not exist. After all, persuasion is a major purpose of communication. Writers don't write, and speakers don't speak, just to say "I have no point of view." Of course they have points of view and biases, and our job is to document them. We actually want such content!

Editors must ensure that articles not show any "declared or intentional bias" coming from editors, only the bias found in the sources. Because points of view and criticisms are by nature not neutral, editors must make sure that the opinions and biases found in sources shine through, unaffected by the editorial process.

Wikipedia does not take sides, but the sources often do, and article content must document the sides and explain any conflict between them. Wikipedia does not take part in the discussion between those sides. It merely describes them and does not erase or neutralize any of the sides in an article.

The NPOV policy does forbid the inclusion of editorial bias and editorial POV, but does not forbid content bias and content POV, which is the type of bias found in reliable sources, many of which are far from neutral. All significant points of view must be documented, and all types of reliable sources, including biased ones, should be used: "While Wikipedia is required to present a neutral point of view, sources on the other hand are not expected to be neutral." Therefore, content bias must remain evident and unaffected by editors. They must include content bias, must preserve it, and must remain neutral in how they do it.

BullRangifer (talk) 04:57, 24 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't know why one would be "shocked" to read that. This is not the only area that been made so complex and nuanced as to be incomprehensible to 90% of boots-on-the-ground editors. knows what I mean by that. I would be shocked if a small group of ordinary editors didn't fail to understand this. This is a fundamental problem that the community has so far preferred to ignore, especially those with the stature to actually do something about it. &#8213; Mandruss   &#9742;  05:16, 24 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Many thanks for this note . I was shocked myself when i found Trump's responses to the allegations periodically removed or drastically reduced and, as it turns out, in many cases distorted. Soham321 (talk) 06:13, 24 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I notice that has now hatted the discussion ( see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Donald_Trump_sexual_misconduct_allegations#Discussion_at_NPOV_board ) on the NPOV board. I think this is a mistake, and improper hatting, since the discussion has not yet concluded either on the NPOV page or on this talk page. It was because of the NPOV discussion that BullRangifer was alerted to this article only a short while back. I would request some uninvolved Admin to reopen the discussion related to this page on the NPOV board.Soham321 (talk) 06:59, 24 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Looked like the Cob was omitted, causing far too much to be collapsed. Fixed. Note that a collapse is not a close. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  07:22, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you Soham321 (talk) 07:30, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * ah. Was about to protest that I had done no such thing, but yes it is possible I did this accidentally. I am unfamiliar with this syntax and may well have gotten it wrong. If so I apologize. I am only peripherally involved in the Donald Trump thread, with only a single comment, that Canadians would not necessarily be neutral either Elinruby (talk) 07:36, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I see we are on the talk page. FWIW, I have never edited this article, ever, just to be clear. The remark mentioned above is on the NPOV noticeboard. Elinruby (talk) 07:45, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I think the list of approved sources was compiled with good intentions, but I think it is totally inappropriate. This page has developed with a unique form of WP:OWNERSHIP which fuels the concern that it is not neutral.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:42, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I am not sure what this editor is talking about, although the indent makes it appear that he is answering me Elinruby (talk) 07:45, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

The "list of approved sources" is probably the reason why BullRangifer expressed "shock" in his comment. It is in complete violation of the rules of wikipedia editing. Soham321 (talk) 07:55, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Exactly. We don't get to make private rules which supersede or modify WP:RS. -- BullRangifer (talk) 14:52, 24 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Here is 's justification for why he does not consider The Guardian to be an RS as far as this article is concerned: | diff Soham321 (talk) 08:03, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * If you look into my argument you'll find that I have said that all reliable sources should be eligible for use in the article - after we have decided to include any Jane Doe content at all. That includes The Guardian. Now that we have an active RfC on whether to include any content, my argument against that content based on the 16.6% of those "blue chips" is relegated to my !vote in the RfC. You're free to !vote against it. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  08:23, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * You are now contradicting yourself with what you have said earlier: | diff ; your "modified" comment: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Donald_Trump_sexual_misconduct_allegations&diff=prev&oldid=744888841  Soham321 (talk) 08:29, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * No, I'm not, trust me. I am too tired to try to compose the essay required to explain to you why I am not contradicting myself, even if I felt inclined to do that for the one user who doesn't understand the situation. Just !vote in the RfC and move on. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  08:36, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * @ Aren't you confusing "Biased Sources" with "Referentiable Sources"? So far, it seems to me we have agreed to include "Biased Sources" but not non-Referentiable Sources. (My understanding is Guardian falls under biased but it is also a referentiable source.) I hope we are clear now on what sources can be included. There is one more question on balance. That is how much weightage should be given to each person's reaction such as Michelle Obama or Mike Pence. I would (include everybody but) keep everybody's reaction brief except for Trump & his Lawyers J mareeswaran (talk) 10:19, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't care about "biased source" or "referentiable source" nor have i ever used these terms anywhere. I only care whether a source is RS (by which i mean reliable source) or not as per the rules of WP editing.And to my mind The Guardian is definitely a reliable source. (Note that a source you consider biased may not be considered biased by another editor; and a source you consider unbiased may be considered biased by another editor.) Soham321 (talk) 10:28, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * What is the difference between Reliable & Referentiable?
 * @ You have mentioned above a list of "approved" sources. Is it same as RS or are you referring to un-biased in this context?
 * For the record, I think all RS sources should be included and no additional list should be created J mareeswaran (talk) 12:23, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Only very fringe and notably unreliable sources should be excluded, such as conspiracy theory websites and other sites known to not only NOT use fact checking, but deliberately producing untrue information. The Guardian is a very notable RS. -- BullRangifer (talk) 14:57, 24 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree with BullRangifier. This is also my understanding of WP policy. The "List of approved sources" you mention is a list of sources prepared by a few editors on this talk page through mutual agreement. According to these editors only their "list of sources" should be considered RS as far as this page is concerned.I have protested against this, but then one has to respect consensus according to the rules of WP editing, which was at that time against me on the talk page. Soham321 (talk) 16:45, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

RSN posting and response to the above comments
I can see how the list, originally created from the sources in the article to do an audit for a POV and use of unreliable sources claim based upon RSN info, has led to an idea of bias of the use of sources. See This is mostly a violation of NPOV, BLP and RS claim. I have to say I didn't foresee that it's continued use, just meant to be an aid, would be construed the way it has been, but I've learned something. The link to it has been removed from the top of this page.

Rather than repeat myself once again
 * there are three subsections in the About the neutrality banner section that provide more detail
 * a posting at RSN - Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations - List of sources.

I am sure that I am not the only editor who has searched for better sources when they've seen content from an unreliable source and improved the source, unless there was an issue that went beyond the particular source.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 00:29, 25 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Carole. I have no doubt that you acted in good faith. Carry on with the good work. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:30, 25 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Thank you for that.  may then want to consider that not having a "list of approved sources" renders the "only 16% coverage of the Jane Doe allegations" argument a moot point. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 16:45, 25 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Rather than repeat myself, there is an update from the BLPN in the About the neutrality banner section about reliable sources, and more expected to follow.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 17:12, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Wrong info in so-called "parallel suit"
Upon reading this wiki page, I checked the source referenced, and according to the Guardian, the suit was withdrawn "later after Trump settled an outstanding business lawsuit from her partner Houraney," not a parallel suit as a written in the wiki article. How do you go about changing this misinformation? Robd831 (talk) 05:57, 26 October 2016 (UTC) Robd831


 * Hi, Welcome to Wikipedia! It was a quick edit, why don't you take a look at this comparison or the Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations article and see what you think. Sometimes, I'm not sure why, the original citations get replaced - but the content isn't synched up to the new source. Time for another audit, it looks like.


 * I posted a welcome message on your talk page. The third bullet there links to an article about how to edit a page. If you look that over and would like to tweak the wording, feel free. This is a very collaborative process, and you may see that someone comes along to give it another tweak, too. If you have any questions, please feel free to leave a message here if it is about this article and its content - or on my talk page or the other places mentioned in the welcome message, if it's about how to edit or questions about Wikipedia. Thanks for finding this!-- CaroleHenson (talk) 06:57, 26 October 2016 (UTC)