Talk:Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations/Archive 5

NPOVN review in progress
A discussion about the main article has been initiated by me in the NPOV board: NPOV - Issues at a Donald Trump page. Soham321 (talk) 22:56, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I posted a question about finding reviewers. If someone could respond if there is movement in terms of finding a reviewer, that would be great!-- CaroleHenson (talk) 03:41, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Side conversation

 * Summary:
 * From what I hear it's not unusual to have this kind of situation on a political article during a presidential campaign. In fact, I hear this is pretty tame. My sentiment from several days ago about the quality of the effort by those involved in this article was reiterated, so kudos!


 * Paraphrasing, I also hear that a bit of distance from responding to a lot of the content issues would be good. I'm "way cool" with that. And, I look forward to feedback from the NPOV approach. There are some unaddressed concerns about talk page dynamics, and I will let people that have those concerns address them. Thanks for the input that came in a number of ways!-- CaroleHenson (talk) 11:51, 23 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment This has been becoming very personal over the last couple of days.


 * If the issue with the page is me - I will happily resign from working on it. My goal has always been to ensure that content that is added is objective, balanced and meets WP guidelines. I have reverted content or voiced concern about content that showed Trump in a bad light as well, but that's not being tabulated. I am voting for the removal of the Jane Doe section - something that I have been divided about.


 * There is no question that I have put a lot of time and effort into this article - and so you're likely to run into me in your interactions. I've made mistakes, that's for sure - and I've apologized for them. If my backing off would keep the article balanced and objective, I have no problem doing that. My ultimate goal is a good article, not that I'm working on it. There are plenty of good senior editors that are working this article that I am not needed.


 * I am not throwing myself on the sword, though. If the accusations against me are what you think you need to do to be heard, and that's all it is, I'm very happy to remain and tough it out.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 23:36, 22 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I used the list of people from an earlier dispute, also opened by Soham 321, to ping people that work on this page:, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,


 * By the way, I don't need, and am not asking for, anyone to come to my defense. I want to hear from the detractors that they think the issue with the article is me. We just need to work out these issues so it will be easier for everyone.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 23:52, 22 October 2016 (UTC)


 * This is not about you, and not about any individual editor. Please continue assuming AGF. Since this is a very sensitive topic, i am only asking other editors to scrutinize the page for any NPOV related bias. The talk page discussions have not been fruitful, despite my pinging every editor who had done any editing on the talk page. For instance, with respect to the first dispute, wrote "This looks like one of those things where I feel over my head, so I think I'll sit this one out." And  completely misunderstood the first dispute thinking it is an organization-related dispute, and not the content dispute that it was as you and I both pointed out to him. I support the views expressed by  and  on this page; both of these editors have expressed concerns about bias in the main article. Soham321 (talk) 23:56, 22 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Ok, . The conversation about the importance of a potential lawsuit and it having become a major issue was a clue that this needed to be dealt with head on. A review is called for and I was thinking of opening the topic about request to add additional content to the Trump section - this just went from zero to 100 in a blink of an eye - before I had a chance to do that. Any chance that next time an issue could be brought before the article talk page before going to a noticeboard?-- CaroleHenson (talk) 01:08, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * , this is not just about the lawsuit; it is also about our earlier dispute which managed to confuse two editors who participated in the discussion (as i mentioned in my previous response). It is clear that in view of its importance, this article needs to be scrutinized by more people. No doubt this is why has endorsed my decision to take this matter to the NPOV board. Soham321 (talk) 01:14, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * , Yes, understood. I'm not sure how you think I'm disagreeing with you. I'll post something on your page about the earlier dispute, that's news to me.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 01:25, 23 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment -- comparing to some of the disputes I've found myself engaged (for example: "Stop lying" etc.), this has all been rather civil :-).


 * This is an important article and I believe it's been handled well by all involved. I've been pinged several times and I chimed in where I thought my input would be useful. It sounds like reaching out to the noticeboards is a good idea. If I can be of more help, I am happy to stick around. The issues do not seem to be unsurmountable overall, as i see it. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:06, 23 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the input! Good points!-- CaroleHenson (talk) 01:15, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

From my perspective, this is closed and we should just wait until we get the results of a NPOV review of the article. If there is something that someone would like to add, in the meantime, feel free to add it here.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 14:03, 23 October 2016 (UTC)


 * For several reasons, I think that it is best for me to leave this page. It seemed that my greatest value was getting it up running in the beginning and there are plenty of good people to manage it from here.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 07:30, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

About the neutrality banner
, about "The neutrality of this article is disputed." I see two sections at Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard but nothing on the page here on 13-year old. Should the banner be moved to a subsection? Even if it applies to more than one section, should it be on those? [Maybe in addition?] comp.arch (talk) 09:52, 24 October 2016 (UTC)


 * , The neutrality banner cannot be removed until the discussion has concluded in the NPOV board, as per my understanding. Several inaccuracies have been identified in the main article ( see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Donald_Trump_sexual_misconduct_allegations#Donald_Trump.27s_response_.28NPOV_related_issues.29 ), and the entire article needs to be carefully scrutinized for more inaccuracies. There is an RfC taking place about the 13 year old which you are welcome to comment on: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Donald_Trump_sexual_misconduct_allegations#RfC:_Jane_Doe_content


 * The issue with the 13 year old Jane Doe allegation is whether to include it in the main article or not. Initially, when this section was present in the main article (for several days), material from a news story in The Guardian, which had been endorsed by The Daily Beast, and corroborated by Jezebel, which was debunking the entire allegation, was not being allowed to be inserted in the main page on the ground that this was not RS. See the previous section of this talk page for three relevant diffs. Then the entire section was removed, and an RfC was initiated to decide whether the Jane Doe material should be reinserted into the main article. I was earlier in support of the removal on the ground of WP:DUE and WP:EXCEPTIONAL; but i am now in two minds after some criticism of the removal was expressed on the talk page. Essentially, without getting personal, the criticism is that the charge of the 13 year old has been so thoroughly debunked by The Guardian article (see https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jul/07/donald-trump-sexual-assault-lawsuits-norm-lubow ) that its presence in the main page actually enhances Trump's reputation since it detracts from the credibility of the other accusers; and therefore, removal of this material does Trump a disservice. As i mentioned i am in two minds about this issue since this is something so scandalous that there is really a question mark about its inclusion in the main article. I wonder whether would care to comment on this issue from an NPOV perspective taking into account WP:DUE and WP:EXCEPTIONAL. Soham321 (talk) 10:12, 24 October 2016 (UTC)


 * This is a very important comment by : | diff I tend to agree with Bastun's comment. I think the allegation can be re-inserted into the main page along with the debunking of the allegation by The Guardian, Daily Beast, and Jezebel. Soham321 (talk) 11:20, 24 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Soham321, thanks for the ping. Yes, the content should be restored, regardless of whether it helps or hurts Trump. It is covered in RS, so it deserves mention. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:06, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Comment and question - The "Jane Doe" issues are being discussed in the RfC: Jane Doe content section, and any lengthy discussion should take place there so that section is complete. Are there any key points here not already made in that section?-- CaroleHenson (talk) 04:38, 26 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I was thinking neutrality of this article, meant what is actually in it (at any point in time) was not neutral; and if the issue is out, then so should the template.


 * I'm not sure, thinking about this now, maybe an article can be thought of as not neutral for leaving stuff out.. (would there be a separate banner for that?). Then there seems a banner could be added to a lot of articles.. and could be put on by either side, no matter what is done to potential non-neutral material. comp.arch (talk) 10:23, 24 October 2016 (UTC)


 * comp.arch, NPOV only applies to editorial attitude and conduct, not to content. We must use all RS, and most are not neutral. If they were they wouldn't have anything to say. Our job is to present all sides of the issues without taking sides. More on this here: WP:NEUTRALEDITOR.-- BullRangifer (talk) 15:06, 24 October 2016 (UTC)


 * - From your perspective, what aspects of the article are unbalanced? How would you propose that should be rectified?--04:38, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Just as an aside, there's a way to format urls, like this or this Guardian article so that it's easier to read. (I've got a sensory/brain processing issue and, I don't know why my brain freezes on visuals it has to process with words, but it takes me a lot more time to process what you're saying (i.e., so part of this aside is a personal request)). Plus, it's a lot neater and is the standard way that people add urls to comments. Thanks!-- CaroleHenson (talk) 13:21, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

I think the allegation can be re-inserted into the main page along with the debunking of the allegation by The Guardian - See the message template near the top of this page: WARNING: ACTIVE ARBITRATION REMEDIES. Under that heading, see this statement: "Consensus required: 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." The Jane Doe content has been challenged. There is no consensus for it yet. Do not reinstate the edit. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  15:57, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * , is consensus required if a few editors insist on enforcing their own rules of wikipedia editing by, for example, declaring that The Guardian is not RS as far as the main article of this page is concerned. I don't think so in accordance with what Bastun has said earlier. And besides i don't believe consensus is with your self-made rules now. Soham321 (talk) 16:48, 24 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Agree with - there is no consensus for following made-up rules, and no consensus not to cover the allegation. It satisfies WP:V and WP:RS; excluding it is a breach of WP:NOTCENSORED. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 20:41, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Comment and question - This is seeming to be a "Jane Doe" issue, which are being discussed in the RfC: Jane Doe content section, and any lengthy discussion should take place there so that section is complete. Are there any key points here not already made in that section?


 * I'm super confused and it may be that I'm missing something - there are eight uses of Guardian citations in the article currently. I had mentioned that I had incorrectly thought that Guardian was not a RS based on experience years ago... but the Guardian has been used as a source and was on the List of sources as a reliable source - that I have removed the list from this talk page because it's taking us sideways. All the info from that list was based upon RSN info.


 * Who has removed content solely because it was from the Guardian? The info about unreliable sources is also from RSN. I'm not sure the point, we should be questioning what the RSN says?-- CaroleHenson (talk) 20:50, 24 October 2016 (UTC) (forgot to sign here, my apologies)

Guardian and the list of sources
The confusion about why and how the Guardian was not being considered an RS in the main article can be clarified by studying these three edits:
 * 1. Edit 1
 * 2. Edit 2,
 * 3. Edit 3 When the section about the 13 year old Jane Doe's allegation was present in the main article, material from The Guardian (debunking the allegation) was not being permitted to be used by Mandruss, and the consensus on the talk page at the time was in favor of what Mandruss was saying. This page was created by you,, on October 22: List of sources. The edit history of the page shows that there was an earlier version of this page which has been deleted now. In the earlier version of this page, The Guardian was not being recognized as RS. Even the present version of this page is unacceptable to me when it comes to your list of RS. For example, there is no reason why you should consider The Independent to not be an RS. Also, there is no reason why only your list of sources should be considered RS. Soham321 (talk) 21:22, 24 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Those discussions weren't about Guardian, per se, but a larger discussion about content that was added that had no mainstream media reporting. It wasn't a random change. It was discussed on the talk page.


 * Yes, I created the list of sources page, cutting and pasting the content from the archives - as is mentioned at the top of that page. I removed the link to it at the top of this page today, because it's taking us completely off-track . We don't need to use it, it was just meant to be a guide and help in finding new sources deemed to be unreliable or biased, reflecting RSN guidelines. There has also been the perspective of being particularly careful in the sources that we use because of this sensitive issue and POV claims. For instance, the RSN said Politico and Huffington Post were RS, but could be biased in opinion pieces, for instance. We also shouldn't report information, for instance, about an accusation that was not made in the mainstream media.


 * Yes, there was an earlier version that I had made as a subpage to the Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations, which was wrong, it should have been a subpage to a talk page. So, I moved the page. That page that had become a redirect in the move wasn't deleted until an administrator removed the redirect page created by the move, per a speedy delete tag that I applied.


 * There absolutely was an earlier discussion on this talk page where I had mistakenly put Guardian in the not RS section. Input from the talk page had me quickly put it in the right category. Since content from Guardian wasn't removed as part of this exercise and there are currently eight times Guardian shows up in the Reference section. I'm so confused, but I do see that this is a major issue for you. Most of the comments that I am making here are not new comments; they have also been made at the NPOV noticeboard posting you created.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 21:48, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The original reason for the list was to address a POV claim - and was a list of all the sources that were on the page.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 22:02, 24 October 2016 (UTC) I added a few more clarifying bits - and underlined them to easily ID additions.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 22:06, 24 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Should I post a question there about these sources to ensure that the viewpoint there has not changed?-- CaroleHenson (talk) 20:50, 24 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I went ahead and posted a question at the RSN - Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations - List of sources-- CaroleHenson (talk) 21:03, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I have no idea what made up rules and  are on about.  and  were searching for references to the anonymous lawsuit by looking at a limited selection of sources, but that hasn't affected the citation policy of the actual article. I added a Guardian citation just today. Madshurtie (talk) 21:11, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Just a quick note.... The Guardian article is pretty old. Lots of water has passed under the bridge since then. All we need to do is document the charges and that the trial date has been set and, without doing any OR, we can link to the actual court documents of the charges. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:47, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

A citation update that did not remove content
Notice the edit and the edit summary for this edit on the main page: | diff Soham321 (talk) 21:36, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Notice that I posted about that edit on this talk page already, and no one commented on it. You might have pinged me here rather than leaving a notice on my talk page. Funcrunch (talk) 21:53, 24 October 2016 (UTC)


 * - Yes, I'm not seeing the connection to this issue - there was an update to a citation - the other citation wasn't needed. I remember seeing that at the time. I haven't researched the Australian source on RSN to find out if it is an RS, but since it wasn't needed - I let it go. There had been discussion, though, that we do not need to be limited by US sources - it could come from another country if it is truly a reliable source. If this is related to this subsection, can you help me understand what the issue is? I don't see content changes in that edit.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 22:15, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The update was the addition of author, dates, website to the CNN source.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 00:36, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

RSN posting
So it doesn't get "lost in the sauce", I copied this statement here:


 * I went ahead and posted a question at the RSN - Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations - List of sources-- CaroleHenson (talk) 21:03, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The response at the RSN is that BLPN is the right place to go with this issue. This is the posted request.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 06:12, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

It's still a work in progress, but I have gotten some feedback from the this BLP Noticeboard posting. I have deleted the list of sources, which cannot be used because it is not possible to pin down the reliability of sources—due to factors that may impact under what circumstances a source is reliable and for what type of information.

There is some preliminary feedback from two people about excluding content about the rape, one of whom said it shouldn't be covered in their is a major development, like a court case. Because of the sensitivity of the situation there should be use of multiple reliable sources for any accusations added to the article. Guidelines that apply include 1) WP:WELLKNOWN, 2) WP:NOT, with There is no deadline and 3) WP:RECENTISM, with great context.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 15:10, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Daily Beast
Daily Beast keeps coming up. Here's the RSN discussion. Please see the last four paragraphs and bear in mind an intention to use clearly reliable sources.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 22:36, 24 October 2016 (UTC)


 * For instance, see this, "The daily beast has editors, names authors and takes responsibility for content, so it meets the spirit of RS, but their job is not to do journalism. Rather they are largely an opinion piece aggregator." The discussion concluded for Daily Beast should not be used, and there were varying opinions about whether its was a "good" source.


 * If you think that Daily Beast should be looked at again, in the context of this article, please add a post at RSN.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 01:30, 25 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Update--- it looks like the RSN approves of The Daily Beast, or more precisely, doesn't say that an article is not an RS for the mere reason of being from The Daily Beast. I don't think the article on the parties can be discredited this way: there is a person who was interviewed who is reporting on what he saw.  Furthermore, this article covers "allegations", not "things that happened".... the "extraordinary evidence" points to the fact that Andy Lucchesi has made allegations against Donald Trump. 168.88.65.6 (talk) 18:04, 27 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Apparently, two people are on the record about Donald Trump's parties: model Andy Lucchesi and fashion writer Michael Gross, who has now published two articles at The Daily Beast covering this subject, in addition to his 2000 book, "My Generation: Fifty Years of Sex, Drugs, Rock, Revolution, Glamour, Greed, Valor, Faith, and Silicon Chips" which includes interviewing he conducted with Donald Trump. The more well-known article relates to underage models and drug use ( http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/10/24/inside-donald-trump-s-one-stop-parties-attendees-recall-cocaine-and-very-young-models.html ) and the older article is about Trump's illicit practice of providing fringe benefits to potential partners in deals, casino high-rollers, and prospective condo clients (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/07/19/donald-trump-used-model-parties-to-seal-deals-industry-sources-say.html).  In addition to Lucchesi, Michael Gross himself is a source because of his writing and his synthesis of the facts, many of which are from sources who for clear reasons do not wish to be identified. Leaving out the material reported by the Daily Beast because of a 2009 RSN would be inappropriate, in my opinion.  Besides, this article is about "allegations" and the fact of the matter is that we know that these things being alleged is indisputable.  Just open the paper! 168.88.65.6 (talk) 18:26, 27 October 2016 (UTC)


 * From Amazon.com: "Michael Gross is one of America's most provocative non-fiction writers. A contributing editor of Departures, he's written for Vanity Fair, Esquire, GQ, Town & Country,the New York Times and New York, and authored twelve books--detective novels, biographies, exposes and social histories--among them, Rogues' Gallery, a history and expose of New York's Metropolitan Museum of Art, Unreal Estate, uncovering the secrets of the estate district of Los Angeles, and the critically-acclaimed best-sellers Model: The Ugly Business of Beautiful Women, House of Outrageous Fortune, the story of 15 Central Park West and its residents, and 740 Park: The Story of the World's Richest Apartment Building. He's just finished his next book, Focus, a look at the sexy, scandalous world of fashion photographers. Atria Books will publish it next year. " 168.88.65.6 (talk) 18:34, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Jezebel
Per the RSN noticeboard "Jezebel is part of Gawker media - like other Gawker products it is a low-quality source suitable for only basic information". Please see -- CaroleHenson (talk)

The Daily Beast: Model Paula Patrice accusation


Here's a suggested source for your consideration.

It appears to be a new individual coming forward.

Paula Patrice is a fashion model from Vogue magazine.

69.50.70.9 (talk) 16:34, 26 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Have you seen coverage in mainstream press yet about this yet, 69.50.70.9? There is a difference of opinion about use of Daily Beast as a reliable source. It seems next steps could include: 1) posting a question at the RSN about use of Daily Beast for this accusation and 2) waiting to see if there is more coverage in the mainstream press. There has already been an issue with someone adding coverage not published in mainstream press that was inaccurate. Since you specifically include Daily Beast in the header, would you like to take this to the RSN?-- CaroleHenson (talk) 16:42, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
 * thanks for responding. I think, for now, your option number 2 is best, waiting to see if there is more coverage in the mainstream press. I'll leave that up to you and others here what they want to do, and we'll see what other sources say about this issue. 69.50.70.9 (talk) 17:01, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks! There are a number of editors who watch this page and when they see sufficient coverage, add new allegations to the article. Thanks for your heads up, though, to be on the look out for this specific accuser / story.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 17:06, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

(1) The Daily Beast is a RS, also for this type of stuff; (2) I agree that it's a good idea to see if other RS pick this up before including it. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:32, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with on both points. It's just weird that this particular one has not gotten other sources covering it yet, but the others have. 69.50.70.9 (talk) 19:47, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Do Jane Doe and Tiffany Doe exist?
No names. No pictures. This whole thing seems fake.

Tai Hai Chen (talk) 22:06, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Trump Model Management
'Nuff said! 168.88.65.6 (talk) 16:44, 20 October 2016 (UTC)


 * http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/08/donald-trump-model-management-illegal-immigration Think about it... illegally in the country, depending on the company not just for everything, but if they approached any authority other than the company they would fear losing their job and career... These women need to speak up!!!!!!168.88.65.6 (talk) 16:55, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I am not making the connection between this and sexual misconduct. It speaks to the objectification of the models, used by Trump as "eye candy", but I don't see a mention of sexual impropriety. In fact, it's interesting that they women seemed to be exploited, and this would seem to be an optimal situation for the women to receive unwanted sexual attention.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 17:08, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
 * "Optimal situation" is exactly my point... but the threat of retaliation must be really really high in that business. I suppose that the whistleblower must be willing to exit modeling. 168.88.65.6 (talk) 17:01, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * There may be some connection here with the alleged parties that involved models. It's a developing story. See . If so, do you mind posting comments down there, since it's become a more active conversation it taking place there? Perhaps some of the content of this article will apply, if the media makes the connection to DT model management.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 02:36, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I was wrong: they wouldn't exit the modeling business, they would need to file personal bankruptcy, or perhaps enter the WPP. See this: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/07/19/donald-trump-used-model-parties-to-seal-deals-industry-sources-say.html The models all "sign ironclad non-disclosure agreements." 168.88.65.6 (talk) 16:48, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * This person is unhappy about Trump Models, too: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/10/25/1586568/-Daily-Beast-Inside-Donald-Trump-s-One-Stop-Parties-Attendees-Recall-Cocaine-and-Very-Young-Models   The writer, SwedishJewfish, identifies herself over at Twitter as Rebecca Mesle.  https://twitter.com/SwedJewFish 168.88.65.6 (talk) 14:03, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

New info for Miss Utah Temple Taggart - 'I Am Not Afraid of You, Mr. Trump'


Suggestion:

These sources could be used to update the info on Miss Utah Temple Taggart with new information as of new developments from 28 October 2016.

Happy editing ! 69.50.70.9 (talk) 01:04, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Point of order
It would be very helpful if we could just bring up an issue once - and make any comments in the original section. A norm that I've experience is that if a response is given to an issue and the person who raised it does not respond (but continues to have other postings on the page), is by a non-response indicating that there's no longer an issue. To make no comments, and then reopen the issue in another section is disruptive.

Is there anyone that disagrees with that premise?-- CaroleHenson (talk) 10:19, 25 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't really have a handle on the problem you describe, but I'll say that article talk pages are generally a messy and confused business, and you can only do so much about that. I don't hear you claiming bad faith, and attempts to make things less messy by group agreement usually fail. Most people will usually take offense if you remind them, hey, you're not doing what we agreed on! Hope that helps a little. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  10:58, 25 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I think there have been a couple of instances where there may have been inadvertent duplication of discussions. Maybe it's just a matter of me watching out for it. The few times I've asked people who have opened up a new subsection on an existing topic, and I've asked them to comment at an ongoing discussion, there has been no issue at all.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 12:53, 25 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Anyone that would like to comment one way or the other, that would be great! It could be that I'm used to different norms than others may be used to.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 12:56, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Often just a WP:REFACTOR to consolidate threads works just fine, especially if a new redundant thread is made a subthread of the earlier one (rather than directly merging the threads, which is more apt to raise overly proprietary "don't you touch my posts" whines).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  10:05, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Categories make it seem like he's already been found guilty
Categories like "Misogyny" and "sexual assault in the United States" imply Trump has been convicted of sexual assault by a court of law. He has not. These categories should be removed. Necropolis Hill (talk) 01:57, 29 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I have removed the misogyny category, since the category category itself warns that it "must not include articles about individuals, groups or media that are allegedly misogynist."


 * The other category I'm not so sure of – you may be right. However, it's worth noting that Bill Clinton's sexual misconduct allegations are also included in the same category. If one page is removed, they should both be removed.  Jasper  TECH (talk) 02:11, 29 October 2016 (UTC)


 * In my opinion, it should also be removed in the Clinton article. As should "violence against women" for both.  I mean, it's obvious Trump did at least some of what he's accused of, and Clinton could have, but "sexual assault" is a bit of a serious legal term to throw around without a conviction.  But hopefully everyone can weigh in and we can get a consensus.  Necropolis Hill (talk) 02:19, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Agree with both and, we should err on the side of caution and be the most conservative in the application of these categories on these sorts of pages. Hopefully visitors can then find the articles they want simply from the search bar itself. 69.50.70.9 (talk) 02:31, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed also. These categorization border on defamation in both cases, and do not comport with WP:BLP.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  10:07, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Underage sex and drug parties
Latest misconduct allegations involve sex and drug parties with girls as young as 15.

Donald Trump hosted wild parties with sex, cocaine and underage models: Donald Trump allegedly used to host cocaine-filled and sex-crazed parties at one of his luxurious Manhattan hotels — and invited models as young as 15 to attend them Octoberwoodland (talk) 03:30, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * We need to hear more before we can say whether to include this or not. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:35, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I am wondering the extent to which it relates to the parties that Trump allegedly attended at Jeffrey Epstein's house. There hasn't been widespread coverage of it, even though there is a claim of rape by a woman, who was 13 at the time. See.
 * I agree with, is there anyone else other than NY Daily News from mainstream press that is reporting this?-- CaroleHenson (talk) 05:35, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * So it looks like this was added to the article. Everything is sourced at the moment, but the sourcing doesn't look very strong. Given these are exceptional claims, I'd expect much stronger sourcing and less salacious details. Could we at least trim it back a bit? — Strongjam (talk) 13:55, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I imagine the ongoing dispute over the Jane Doe section is relevant to this section too. The topic is similar and, if anything, these claims have even less coverage by reliable sources. Madshurtie (talk) 14:25, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Condering the Jane Doe experience, I doubt open discussion would reach a consensus. There remains wide disagreement as to how to approach these things. So if someone wanted to dispute that content it would make sense to go straight to RfC. Thereby ensuring more accusations of bad-faith biased abuse of the system. My attempt to expedite the Jane Doe RfC died on the vine, meaning that the content will probably stay out until after the election, and I wouldn't expect any different for such a new RfC. We can't broaden the scope of the existing RfC at this late date. We could scrap it and start over with a new, broader RfC, but that would make it more difficult to reach a consensus - people would be divided too many ways. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  20:30, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I understand, but how about if someone took this to BLPN first?-- CaroleHenson (talk) 23:54, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

,, , , ,168.88.65.6, I see that content about this issue has already been added to the article at the new Allegations of underage sex parties section. Is there sufficient content to warrant this under WP:NOT, with There is no deadline and  WP:RECENTISM, from the WP:BLPN - as well as -  EXCEPTIONAL and Balancing Aspects, which says:
 * An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to the weight of that aspect in the body of reliable sources on the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news.

How's that for alphabet soup? I commented the section out, because it's cited with several reliable sources, in the event the vote is to add it back in.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 03:27, 26 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Not to be a pain, but if anyone is disputing the content it has to come out pending consensus to include, per the ArbCom restrictions. I think if we're discussing whether it should be in, that constitutes a dispute and it must come out. I don't currently have an opinion on the content, partly because I was the main target of the recent accusations of manipulating the system in bad faith. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  03:37, 26 October 2016 (UTC)


 * An item has been posted at WikiProject Biography - Underage Sex and Drug Parties.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 06:40, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I think we should tie the inclusion of this section to the inclusion of the Jane Doe section. It would be bizarre to include one and not include the other, considering the similar topic and even worse sourcing with this one. My suggestion is to keep it out until the Jane Doe RfC concludes. Madshurtie (talk) 10:56, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
 * So, keep out verifiable content until after the election? Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 11:57, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NOTCENSORED all apply. There is no need to give in-depth coverage to these new allegations, just as there is no need to give in-depth coverage to the Jane Doe allegations - but they do need to be covered. Coverage can be limited to the brief substance of the allegations, who has made them/reported them, and what Trump or his spokespeople/representatives have said in response, if anything. Using an RfC to prevent inclusion of verified, reliably sourced information is, I believe, an improper use of the RfC procedure. As to the question "are there any criminal charges or terms that should or should not be used", as always, we use what's in the sources. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 12:17, 26 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Side comment, I did suggest expediting the Jane Doe RfC to 4 days in light of the upcoming election, but my view was swayed by MrX, 22 October: "I am strongly opposed to letting the election date influence content decisions on Wikipedia, and infinitely opposed to the prospect of using Wikipedia to influence any election. However, I'm not opposed to closing it early if a clear consensus emerges." I now think we should edit (and debate) without November 8 as a primary focus. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  12:44, 26 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Acknowledged that you did indeed suggest an expedited RfC. As you are aware, I disagree that an RfC is an appropriate mechanism for what is essentially a content dispute. It seems to be a very moribund RfC, btw - only four new participants in the last three days. The inclusion of the latest allegations are also a content dispute. Repeating myself, WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NOTCENSORED all apply to them, too. The new allegations are not part of the RfC. I would contend that the ability to remove any content one doesn't like, effectively forcing a debate for re-inclusion, even without opening an RfC, is a pretty potent tool for anyone who wants to keep material out of view in the run up to the election.  I am not accusing you of this, I'm pointing out that it's possible.  I'm not sure that's what Arbcom intended. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 13:32, 26 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Are we really going to start this up again? Did you not learn anything in the ANI complaint? The fact that one admin found nothing actionable in your behavior is NOT a validation of your position on any of this. I disagree that an RfC is an appropriate mechanism for what is essentially a content dispute. That would be inconsistent with the very first sentence at WP:RFC: "Requests for comment (RfC) is a process for requesting outside input concerning disputes, policies, guidelines or article content." Emphasis mine. I am not accusing you of this, I'm pointing out that it's possible. Of course it's possible. And it happens. A lot, in political articles. Way too much. That fact does not mean that we should base our decision-making around the assumption that it will happen. Your position is the cynical ABF position, which is inconsistent with WP:AGF. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  13:46, 26 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I have resisted saying this because it should not be necessary. I am a strong Trump opponent. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  14:25, 26 October 2016 (UTC)


 * If sounds by your comments,, that you were not aware that there have been several attempts to come to consensus on this page and the NPOV noticeboard. Both discussions became very circular in nature - and were not getting anywhere close to a consensus. I'm not sure why using a means to vote on the issue is an improper attempt to resolve the issue, but it would be interesting to get your thoughts about another means to get these types of discussions resolved — for future reference — about inclusion or exclusion of content.


 * I don't know enough about the RfC process, but I do agree with you that these are related. His alleged sex parties are only a huge issue, IMO, because there were underage models involved - which would be statutory rape, right?


 * The policies you have stated are reflected in the posting at WikiProject Biography - Underage Sex and Drug Parties . But also,  EXCEPTIONAL and Balancing Aspects, which says: "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to the weight of that aspect in the body of reliable sources on the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial,but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic.  This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news." Please note the part addressing that it may be verifiable, but that doesn't mean in these kind of cases that it should be included.


 * Personally, I would really like to have the content added, because there does seem to be an issue here. And, the recent allegations bolster that viewpoint. I was quite certain of my previous position to include the content and could not have seen myself wavering. However, when looking beyond V, RS and |NOTCENSORED - to Balancing Aspects, EXCEPTIONAL, Recentism, and comments from two people on the BLPN - it seems clear to me why this should not be added until there is a major development, like a legal case. It is not WP's purpose to be a reflection of a newspaper, per NOTNEWS and What Wikipedia is not.


 * I have underlined pieces because there does not seem to be acknowledgment that these guidelines exist. I don't see how I can attempt to have a nuetral POV and ignore these guidelines. It is really ironic to me that I have been accused of not being neutral about this issue, when I am arguing against what I personally would like to have happen.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 14:54, 26 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Can you help me understand,, since balancing aspects addresses verifiability and says that even though content is verifiable, it does not automatically mean that it should be included in a WP article: How do you view the Exceptional, Balancing Aspects, Not News, and Recentism guidelines from that perspective?-- CaroleHenson (talk) 15:08, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:BRD, CaroleHenson. 168.88.65.6 (talk) 15:44, 26 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I've addressed some of this previously, but regarding balance/balancing aspects, there is no need to go into every detail of every allegation; I believe it is sufficient to state that the allegations exist, briefly state what they are, who has made them, and who has reported on them; and briefly include any response from Trump or his representatives. Mention of any past or impending court action should be included.  It is not necessary to go into lurid or sensational detail.  We are covering all of the other allegations that have emerged thus far - what differentiates those ones from the latest ones, or the Jane Doe allegations - which are the subject of court hearings?


 * Re "recentism" and "notnews" - sure, they're guidelines. But the Jane Doe rape allegation is not recent; it's been around for months. And if we're including updates to the Trump articles from recent days as news emerges, as we are, why we would not also do the same on this article?  Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 15:47, 26 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Add: re WP:EXCEPTIONAL - only the first bullet point could possibly apply: "surprising or apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources;" This part of the policy states "Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources." - and we have those. Remember we don't need sources to prove that the allegations are true or have foundation, just that they have been made, and, in the case of the Jane Doe rape allegations, a court hearing is due. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 15:58, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
 * That is helpful,, thanks! We have a different interpretation - but it is helpful to see your viewpoint and that the other guidelines are considered. Why question the Jane Doe and sex parties content when other allegations are reported? It is that they are claims of statutory rape. Regarding how recent the coverage has been, there was trickle of reporting in the June 2016 timeframe, but more in October 2016 in the "List of accuser" articles.
 * That is helpful,, thanks! We have a different interpretation - but it is helpful to see your viewpoint and that the other guidelines are considered. Why question the Jane Doe and sex parties content when other allegations are reported? It is that they are claims of statutory rape. Regarding how recent the coverage has been, there was trickle of reporting in the June 2016 timeframe, but more in October 2016 in the "List of accuser" articles.


 * Yes, your points about coverage on other DT articles is valid. My take is that this is the key place that these allegations go into any depth, so it makes more sense that we'd be thoughtful about the discussion. I believe it has been suggested, though, or reported on other DT talk pages that there are questions here about the inclusion of the child rape allegations. Or, am I wrong? It sounds like you have a better handle on that than I do.


 * We're very much in RfC territory with this discussion (so it would be great to see the Jane Doe part of the discussion there - and to your point Bastun that you've already commented on some of this). There are definitely intertwined, though.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 16:40, 26 October 2016 (UTC)


 * My issue with this allegation of sexual misconduct against minor females is not only is it sexual misconduct, the source is alleging statutory rape and is alleging that Trump supplied drugs/alcohol to minors. That's contentious material that falls under WP:BLP. The sources being used to support the content are - News.com.au, The Times of Israel, Courier Mail, NY Post and NY Daily News, and all those sources make it very clear - according to The Daily Beast. So really, there is actually only one single source (Daily Beast) to support these contentious allegations, I would argue under WP:BLP that makes the content poorly sourced and should stay out. WP:RS and WP:V and WP:NOTCENSORED are not the only policies in play here when making decisions about content inclusion, we must also adhere to WP:BLP.


 * And since there are discussions all over the place, including here, NPOVN, RSN and BLPN, I'm going to address all those issues at once. The topic of the article is allegations of sexual misconduct by Trump, which makes this topic contentious material under BLP. If you look at the allegations of sexual misconduct that involve the adult women, you'll find that we are using multiple reliabe sources like WaPo, NYT, CNN, etc. that have all conducted independent investigations of their own, so we're not relying on one singular source for the allegations. In contrast, the allegations of sexual misconduct that involve the minor females, are relying on one singular source for the contentious content, with multiple sources that just repeat The Daily Beast story. The same BLP argument applies to the allegations of sexual misconduct against the minors at the Miss Teen USA pageant, here we are using Buzzfeed as the singular source making the allegation of sexual misconduct, with NPR, Rolling Stone, People and NY Post repeating what was reported in Buzzfeed. My view is this material is poorly sourced (Buzzfeed) as well. My opinion is we should be requiring more independent sources of one another that have investigated and reported on the allegations of sexual misconduct that involve the minor females.-- Isaidnoway (talk)  16:25, 26 October 2016 (UTC)


 * The Daily Beast article is from an interview they conducted with known person Andy Lucchesi, a model. 168.88.65.6 (talk) 17:22, 26 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Suggestion May I make a suggestion? Can we wait until someone that has not already been involved in the discussions responds to the WikiProject Biography - Underage Sex and Drug Parties - or someone new to this discussion has a comment on Underage sex and drug parties?


 * And, not repost responses that we've already given about Jane Doe in this section? Please use the Jane Doe RfC section for voting and comments. I will watch out that I don't do that again as well. -- CaroleHenson (talk) 17:27, 26 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Regarding multiple conversations - I totally agree that we have all been making the same points repeatedly. Does anyone have a problem if I group all the Jane Doe sections under the Jane Doe RfC (Or a "Jane Doe discussions" section immediately under that section?


 * And, move the content from Bastun's "WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NOTCENSORED all apply...." comment down to the Jane Doe discussion so that we can consolidate these discussions better? Or, collapse that part of the conversation as redundant?-- CaroleHenson (talk) 17:27, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
 * , you have so many discussions open at so many different venues, it's hard to keep up with all of them, so I will reply here in relation to your recent post at WikiProject Biography. You included 3 references and this query in your post, but I think it's important to point out that this is circular reporting - a situation where a piece of information appears to come from multiple independent sources, but in fact is coming from only one source - The Daily Beast. Those 3 refs and all the sources in "this query", make it abundantly clear that The Daily Beast is the source for these allegations . So I believe the question is whether one singular source (TDB) is a reliable source for these contentious claims under our BLP policy. And it's the same situation with the Miss Teen USA allegations, it's circular reporting that all goes back to one single source - Buzzfeed.-- Isaidnoway (talk)  19:19, 26 October 2016 (UTC)


 * , I am so with you about the multiple conversations!!!!! In terms of me opening up issues at other places, I been tracking down issues raised against me.


 * This is my first opening of an issue about article content outside of this talk page that I can think of. If the team disagrees about getting input from that project about the underage sex parties and has a better solution, I am absolutely all for it. Please let me know what you'd recommend.


 * Yes, the circular reporting point is a good one! Is that specific to the Under age sex parties discussion? If it is, yes, perhaps we can resolve that here. Well, at least for now. Once it hits mainstream media, then we still have the issue of whether it should be covered due to Balancing Aspects, NOTNEWS, etc.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 19:37, 26 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Regarding my collapsing the conversation - yes, I will leave it uncollapsed.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 21:50, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Not sure why was so hostile about that. Madshurtie (talk) 22:32, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
 * It's a long story - and was perhaps a misunderstanding or mixed signals on both of our parts.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 23:42, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

or anyone else that may be interested, would you be interested in taking an approach that you believe would be the best way to move forward with the issue? I have zero interest in what approach is taken and it seems that it would be better to have someone else manage this.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 23:42, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Not sure I would be a better person to manage it at this point, and I suspect whoever imposes a new decision on this is going to get accused of abusing the process. My only preference is that we take a consistent approach to this stuff and the Jane Doe stuff. If we exclude the Jane Doe stuff because they are WP:EXCEPTIONAL WP:BLPCRIME allegations with weak sourcing, then we should exclude this; if we include the Jane Doe stuff because they are covered by WP:RELIABLE sources and Trump is a WP:PUBLICFIGURE, then we should include this (although, unlike the Jane Doe case, I'm not sure any reliable sources have reported on this one). Madshurtie (talk) 10:50, 27 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Obviously I'd go with the latter. Though please note that the Jane Doe case, as opposed to these allegations, is subject to an upcoming court hearing. This is an important differentiation between the two sets of allegations. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 11:31, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Fair point. I agree the Jane Doe case is more notable than this one. Maybe revise my preference: should we exclude the Jane Doe stuff, we should definitely exclude this stuff; should we include the Jane Doe stuff, we should probably include this stuff. Madshurtie (talk) 12:08, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I think that the Jane Doe case might be less notable for the reason that nobody there has identified themselves, whereas with the parties there is a person actually sticking his neck out: Andy Lucchesi. I think that if this Andy Lucchesi is willing to interview against possibly the most powerful and ruthless man in the free world, at said despot's most vulnerable moment, he would be trying to cover-up this reporting by now if he didn't know that it was true.  And since the wikipedia article's title is "allegations" and not "bad stuff that really happened," I think there's a prima facie disservice if the article doesn't include this. 168.88.65.6 (talk) 16:33, 27 October 2016 (UTC)  Include until agreed otherwise!!! 168.88.65.6 (talk) 16:35, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * This seems too under-reported to include, even if the Jane Doe case clearly is not (even opponents of its inclusion say that at least 16% of top RS cover that legal case, which is an actual formal legal proceeding and third such case, but we have nowhere near that level of coverage or formality with this "underage drug and sex parties" accusations, which have the earmarks of plain ol' character assassination, absent way more evidence.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  10:10, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Good survey overview of statements made by women so far - sources include NBC News, NY Magazine, Reuters and International Business Times
These sources have good timelines and lists of the statements made so far:



Maybe some of these can be used to double-check against the article content and see if it is up-to-date or if there is anything else that can be added from these sources.

Happy editing !

69.50.70.9 (talk) 19:17, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Mention in Washington Post
We just got commended in a Washington Post column for having a "somewhat orderly debate" on this page. I think there's a template that can be used when a Wikipedia page is linked from a major newspaper (or a site like reddit), in case it triggers a large influx of edits... Funcrunch (talk) 17:50, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Go us! The template is press and should be used for this talk page, and the Hillary email page. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:52, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for adding! Funcrunch (talk) 17:59, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Wow, that is really cool! Thanks for that!-- CaroleHenson (talk) 18:09, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Wish I could read that. Paywall. Should be able to read it next Tuesday, the 1st. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  19:39, 25 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Just clear your cookies, then it won't know how many articles you've read this month. Or read it in incognito mode (if using Chrome). Madshurtie (talk) 19:47, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Dude! Looks like Firefox's equivalent is "private window". I'm in, thanks for the tip! I assume I'll now be free of all such silly paywalls. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  19:50, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Madshurtie, Thanks, I wasn't able to see the article, either! That's a very good trick to know! — Preceding unsigned comment added by CaroleHenson (talk • contribs) 23:58, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Should work for any soft paywall that needs to track how many pages you've accessed. The Private, Incognito, etc. windows store cookies in a sandbox that is cleared when you close the window, so it's possible to hit the paywall limit if you stay in a private session for too long without closing it. Madshurtie (talk) 10:44, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Slightly "harder" paywalls work by IP address. These can be worked around using a combination of incognito/private mode and Web proxies.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  10:14, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * This isn't really the place for this conversation, but I find it unlikely a big news organization would wall by IP address. Most people have dynamic IP addresses, so the organization would get complaints when people go elsewhere and have mysteriously hit the limit. More importantly, it could cost them thousands of viewers each time a company IP address is maxed out by one user. Madshurtie (talk) 23:04, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Miss Finland - Ninni Laaksonen - sources from 27 October 2016
A Finnish participant in the 2006 Miss Universe contest reports that Donald Trump grabbed her buttocks right before their participation in the David Letterman show. This is in one of the Finnish newspapers on October 27. Would add this in the article but it seems to be locked. [] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.233.179.227 (talk) 03:25, 27 October 2016 (UTC)



Probably these are now enough sources covering this for it to be added to this article? 69.50.70.9 (talk) 19:40, 27 October 2016 (UTC)


 * There are plenty more RS now covering this. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:38, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I already added it earlier today. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:08, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Someone else since created it as a new page, at Ninni Laaksonen. 69.50.70.9 (talk) 04:15, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Muboshgu, I don't see any addition to this article. -- BullRangifer (talk) 18:33, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Donald_Trump_sexual_misconduct_allegations. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:41, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Muboshgu, I don't see any addition to this article. -- BullRangifer (talk) 18:33, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Donald_Trump_sexual_misconduct_allegations. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:41, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Introductory section - lawsuit reference
As of now the introductory section includes this sentence: "Three women have filed lawsuits alleging that they were sexually assaulted by Trump." There's no citation. An uncited statement in the introductory section is OK if it summarizes properly cited material in the body of the article. Here, the problem I see is that there are so many women listed that a reader who wants to skip the press-conference allegations and look only at litigation is left without guidance.

As to the count, the section on Jill Harth mentions a lawsuit. I'm guessing that Jane Doe is another, but what's the third?

There are so many different allegations that I think the introductory section should read something like "Three women (Name1, Name2, and Name3) have filed lawsuits alleging that they were sexually assaulted by Trump." JamesMLane t c 02:20, 31 October 2016 (UTC)


 * The third is Ivana Trump. J mareeswaran (talk) 10:31, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Article neutrality
Laura Chukanov needs to be in this article for balance. There is a NY Time inappropriate bikini story that made several news reports, the fact that they had a romance, after the bikini incident, and her stating she was misquoted. Otr500 (talk) 10:48, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Jill Harth paragraph 2, to add a sentence to conclude the paragraph
The paragraph uses Nicholas Kristof's article "Donald Trump, Groper in Chief," as a reference. To concluded the paragraph, this statement from the article should be included. "They dated for several months in 1998, when he was separated from Maples, she says. In the end, he was a disappointing boyfriend, always watching television and rarely offering emotional support, she says." This provides a more complete picture of Harth-Trump's "relationship" in the 1990's using the same source already referenced. Robd831 (talk) 15:34, 2 November 2016 (UTC)Robd831


 * I think that both of them dated post her divorce is an important information. Also in response to a may2016 article Trump termed her past rape/molestation accusations as a lie which resulted in her current stand-off against Trump J mareeswaran (talk) 18:51, 2 November 2016 (UTC) J mareeswaran (talk) 18:51, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Agree with J mareeswaran Robd831 (talk) 03:12, 4 November 2016 (UTC)Robd831

the Access Hollywood video and Trump kissing Adrienne Zucker
In the video, Trump says he kisses women without waiting, just kiss. After Trump met Adrienne Zucker, he kissed Adrienne without consent at the 2:08 mark. Does this constitute sexual misconduct?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ihMvO-IrXlQ&t=6s

Tai Hai Chen (talk) 20:41, 31 October 2016 (UTC)


 * There are multiple videos of Trump kissing women, taking them by surprise, (google miss universe autralia Trump), but unless they complain, I don't think it can be treated as a misconduct. maybe vulgar, lascivious or scandalous but I don't think it belongs in this article. J mareeswaran (talk) 10:27, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Interesting perspective. Has any woman complained? Tai Hai Chen (talk) 01:05, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * This touches on whether the included "allegations" should be limited to those made by the victims or by RS. Any and all allegations made by anyone, and noted in a RS, count. The RS mention is of course essential. Society (not the perpetrator), as mentioned in RS, determines whether an action is improper and/or related to sexual misconduct. In Trump's opinion, nothing he does would ever count as bad because he's "a star" and he can get away with doing things no ordinary person would be allowed without severe punishment. The allegations prove that he doesn't always get away with it. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:18, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * My point is, has any of these women complained? It appears to me they were okay with it. Tai Hai Chen (talk) 03:21, 3 November 2016 (UTC)


 * At least the following 4 women have not complained despite public reports:
 * Adrianne Zucker
 * Nancy O'Dell
 * Brande Roderick
 * miss Universe Australia J mareeswaran (talk) 06:04, 3 November 20


 * My point is, has any of these 12 women who went public explicitly complained? It appears to me they have not. It seems they went public and told the stories about Trump bringing sexual pleasures to them and them enjoying it. Tai Hai Chen (talk) 14:13, 3 November 2016 (UTC)


 * You may want to read #whywomendontreport section. J mareeswaran (talk) 15:28, 3 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Tai Hai Chen, please don't troll us. The ones complaining and retaining a lawyer to possibly sue him definitely didn't think that "Trump bringing sexual pleasures to them and them enjoying it." They were repulsed by his behavior. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:53, 4 November 2016 (UTC)