Talk:Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations/Archive 7

Move
I went over the archives and noticed a previous discussion on moving to a title using "assault" rather than "misconduct", which appears to have been resolved as "don't move". I'm reopening this thread (and perhaps should have waited to move the article) because I think quite a different angle is involved: not that "assault" is insufficiently general but that "misconduct" is euphemistic. Evidently the theme of the article is assault, even if mere "misconduct" has also been alleged. A compromise might be a title with both terms or a term that conveys both. To me, however, it would be hard to swallow a title that implies it goes no further. Compare normal language use in which a term that lies on a spectrum may imply previous stages (assault implying misconduct) but not later stages (misconduct implying assault). Flipping Mackerel (talk) 18:25, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Moved from Talk:Donald Trump sexual assault allegations.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 18:29, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Copying and pasting the above into a move request. :) Flipping Mackerel (talk) 18:31, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 12 December 2016

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Consensus shows that the article covers a wider array of topics beyond sexual assault claims, and that the current title is broad enough to cover the relevant material; the proposed title, on the other hand, would require the removal of such relevant content, which consensus is against. Therefore, this is being closed as not moved. JudgeRM  (talk to me)  03:15, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations → Donald Trump sexual assault allegations – I went over the archives and noticed a previous discussion on moving to a title using "assault" rather than "misconduct", which appears to have been resolved as "don't move". I'm reopening this thread because I think quite a different angle is involved: not that "assault" is insufficiently general but that "misconduct" is euphemistic. Evidently the theme of the article is assault, even if mere "misconduct" has also been alleged. A compromise might be a title with both terms or a term that conveys both. To me, however, it would be hard to swallow a title that implies it goes no further. Compare normal language use in which a term that lies on a spectrum may imply previous stages (assault implying misconduct) but not later stages (misconduct implying assault). Flipping Mackerel (talk) 18:31, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Would the "compromise" be Donald Trump sexual assault and misconduct allegations? Or Donald Trump sexual misconduct and assault allegations? – Muboshgu (talk) 18:47, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

When making arguments about language, it's good practice to consult the dictionary first. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  19:06, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I dispute the assertion that the theme of the article is assault, although that will be the part that is most important to many readers who are Trump opponents (and, regrettably, some Wikipedia editors who are Trump opponents). I dispute that "misconduct" is euphemistic, and the dictionary definition says nothing about euphemism. Sense 3a, "improper behavior", says nothing about the severity of the offenses, so it does not "imply it goes no further". "Misconduct" is the most appropriate term proposed to date, and I can't propose a better one.
 * Muboshgu: Personally, I think the former fits better. Mandruss: When comparing two terms to see where they might fall on a spectrum, one ought to consult both definitions. The definition of assault from the same dictionary does not merely say "improper behavior," but "a violent physical or verbal attack" (1a), "a threat or attempt to inflict offensive physical contact or bodily harm on a person" (2a), and "rape" (2b), all of which certainly imply something more than "misconduct" does by its omission of such language. Now if such terms do apply to the sort of behaviour alleged of Trump, then to fail to imply them by the use of a weaker term is irresponsible. Flipping Mackerel (talk) 19:13, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * We should seek a word that is most descriptive of the article's content—all of it, not just the part that seems more important to any of us. "Misconduct" is a better overall descriptor than "assault". Your argument rests quite feebly on the baseless assertion of an assault "theme". I would also oppose adding more words to the title in a near-obsessive attempt to encapsulate the entire subject in ~7 words. I expect readers to read at least the lead. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  19:24, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Being that the lede (appropriately) uses the words "assault" and "harassment," it too provides good support for my analysis of the article's theme. And to rephrase my point below, even if the article were evenly balanced between assault and misconduct allegations, the word "assault" can imply both while "misconduct" cannot, both in natural speech and from a theoretical angle. Flipping Mackerel (talk) 19:33, 12 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose I agree with Mandruss that "misconduct" is the best title. Not all of the allegations in this article are of sexual assault. Making the title either "misconduct and assault" or "assault and misconduct" goes against the brevity we seek in article titles. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:15, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Accuracy trumps brevity. As for the mixed bag of allegations, see again the reference to the normal use of language in which a term further along a spectrum may imply previous stages but not the reverse. We would all agree that "assault" is necessarily "improper behavior," but not that "improper behavior" is necessarily "assault," whence the likelihood that the title will be misconstrued by the average reader. The idea that because the term "misconduct" is general enough to include the more advanced "assault," therefore the reader will understand that the latter has also been alleged, presumes a violation of the maxim of quantity, which by definition a reader does not assume. Flipping Mackerel (talk) 19:21, 12 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Support per proposer. Also I'm pretty sure "assault" was the consensus wording but someone changed it and then edit warred to keep it in until other people got tired of the argument.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:36, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose Though some allegations in this article allege sexual assault, others allege less serious sexual misbehavior by Trump. This article encompasses a wide array of events spanning several decades that give a general overview of Trump's sexual behavior, and controversies surrounding it, therefore "misconduct" better fits the topic. WClarke (talk) 22:29, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I must once again stress that if it is an evenly mixed bag, to the average reader the use of "misconduct" implies -- by a conversational maxim (which gives a theoretical angle to what is in any case common use of the language) -- that one could not go so far as to say "assault," whereas in fact sexual assault allegations have been made. I am most in favour of a two-term title at this point myself: Donald Trump sexual assault and misconduct allegations. This or a similar option ought to satisfy those who are concerned that not using "misconduct" leaves the non-assault allegations off the table, while doing justice to the severity of the assault allegations that "misconduct" does not imply. It is accurate and far from unreadable. Flipping Mackerel (talk) 22:59, 12 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Support - The word "assault" is used 66 times in the article, 30 of which are in the reference list as part of source titles. Compare this to the 12 uses of "misconduct", 10 of which are in the ref list. The article's primary topic is assault and WP:NPOV requires us to reflect the language predominately used by reliable sources (WP:NPOVTITLE). "Misconduct" alone is insufficient and not reflective of the scope of the article nor the nature of it. If we retain "misconduct" so the title reflects all behaviors discussed, it should be in the format of a title similar to those recommended as a compromise by above.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 22:38, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, thank you for raising the point that the source language used to support this article has often used "assault," even when referring to multiple allegations of different types. Flipping Mackerel (talk) 23:02, 12 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose — "misconduct" is a broader term that covers a wider range of behaviour.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:38, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * A broader term can suggest that a more specific term does not apply, which is misleading when the more specific term does apply. Flipping Mackerel (talk) 00:48, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Entering a change room might be misconduct, but it is probably not an assault.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:44, 13 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose per User:WClarke and User:Jack Upland, and also because I don't think we should give the impression that Wikipedia is confirming "assault", which suggests criminal behavior. --MelanieN (talk) 00:05, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - That rationale makes no sense! The word 'allegation' is right there! WP is confirming nothing. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 00:30, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Indeed; under this reading, WP is currently "confirming" Trump's "misconduct," which evidently neither is nor should be the case. Flipping Mackerel (talk) 00:48, 13 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment on opposition Flipping Mackerel: Though a broader term could potentially "suggest that a more specific term does not apply", using a more specific term explicitly implies that no other term applies at all, which is not the case in this situation, as the article outlines allegations of sexual exploitation and sexual harassment, in addition to sexual assault. The University of Iowa outlines the definition of "sexual misconduct" as "a broad term encompassing any unwelcome behavior of a sexual nature that is committed without consent or by force, intimidation, coercion, or manipulation", and goes on to explain 4 distinct types of sexual misconduct:
 * sexual assault (e.g. rape, groping)
 * sexual harassment (includes written or verbal sexual discrimination)
 * sexual exploitation (e.g. walking uninvited into pageant dressing rooms)
 * sexual intimidation (e.g. threatening sexual acts against a person)
 * Undoubtedly the actions described in the allegations and by Trump himself are disgusting, though I will say that using "assault" as opposed to "misconduct" is misleading, as the article covers much more than that. In addition to that, a reader unfamiliar with terminology relating to non-consensual and abusive sexual behavior may not be able to tell the difference between these different terms, and therefore may not be able to properly understand what is being alleged case by case. For these collective reasons, I find that "sexual misconduct" is the more appropriate term in this situation. Thanks. WClarke (talk) 02:41, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * A stronger term can indeed imply a weaker term. That said, being that non-assault types of misconduct have been alleged and would not be implied by "assault," the compromise title with both terms could be used.
 * I concede that the technical definition by the U of Iowa yields a very strong case in favour of "misconduct." That said, I still hold that the reader who spots this article by its title will likely not be led to gather the fact that more than what is implied by "improper behaviour" has been alleged, given the common usage and dictionary definition of "misconduct."
 * For this reason, my vote is still for a compromise title. Flipping Mackerel (talk) 04:15, 13 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Weak oppose - Yes, "misconduct" is a weaker word than "assault" but - without wanting to minimise the assault allegations - changing to "assault" would probably immediately result in someone removing all of the allegations that do not amount to criminal assault from the article. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 10:56, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * This confirms my intuition that the natural, if not the the technical, usage of the two terms places them on a spectrum. You might have a point about the effect on edits! Flipping Mackerel (talk) 03:10, 15 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment - If the article were moved to Donald Trump sexual misconduct and assault allegations, the next move request would point out the grammatical ambiguity and insist on the title Donald Trump sexual misconduct and sexual assault allegations. After all, he hasn't been accused of beating anybody with a blunt object, and The Article Title Must Not Be Potentially Misleading In Any Way. This is the trap we invariably get into when we insist that readers must not be expected to read any further than the title. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  21:30, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * My concern is that "misconduct" on its own may also be misleading given its standard connotations. If a reasonably readable and unambiguous title can be derived, that aim trumps brevity. There are articles with titles as careful and lengthy as the one you suggest as a reductio ad absurdum. Flipping Mackerel (talk) 02:55, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * That title would be Donald Trump sexual misconduct and sexual assault without intercourse or physical force allegations. I submit that's what would be absurdum. You can't say that the current ambiguity is a serious problem but your proposed ambiguity is not. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  03:17, 15 December 2016 (UTC)


 * strong supportis everyone else taking crazy pills? We don't euphemize for children here. If Trump grabbed a woman by the vagina and showed an 11-year old girl his genitals,, this is assault, not "misconduct." Misconduct is speaking in class without being called upon; it is NOT grabbing a woman by the birth canal without securing her consent for doing so. 63.143.194.80 (talk) 01:32, 14 December 2016 (UTC) - Struck !vote by blocked sock, per WP:TPO last bullet. &#8213; Mandruss &#9742;  02:56, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The above IP recently added paragraphs to multiple different articles calling Trump a bigger liar than Nixon and which were all-around unencyclopedic. I'd take that into account. Dustin  ( talk ) 01:36, 14 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Strong oppose - I think that prior talk mostly revolved around WP:COMMONNAME here being "misconduct" as well as it being the more appropriate, inclusive, and useful term. This RFC seems somewhat a rehash (but not WP:REHASH) to change the word without making mention re prior points, mentioning any matching change to article content, or having a basis in that anything external has changed.  It may be a critique that the article is conveying an impression a topic to the proposer that is incorrect.  I'll offer my prior mentions that 'assault' is a legal term, with many jurisdictions and the common public association for 'sexual assault' being that of sexual penetration by coercion involving doping or weapons.  A lot of hyperbolic sources use the phrase loosely and some jurisdictions use it for less severe charges, but in this article there were no roofies, guns, or knives.  And generally not even mention of sexual intercourse.   Markbassett (talk) 04:43, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I made reference to the previous discussion in my proposal and intended to add the angle that "misconduct" appears to imply that no allegations go as far as what other jurisdictions consider assault, e.g. physical intervention. There have been no replies to this point except a strong one by WClarke about the technical definition of "misconduct" according to the University of Iowa, which might indeed satisfy my concerns. The outstanding point is that many readers speaking naturally would be very unlikely to describe as "misconduct" the subjects of some of the allegations. Flipping Mackerel (talk) 02:55, 15 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose. I would like to point out that there is nothing non-neutral about the proposed title; as noted, "allegations" does not imply guilt, and as Trump has been accused of sexual assault and has been described as being accused of such in reliable sources, it's within naming policy. That being said, this is an inaccurate proposal, as this article also details sexual harassment claims that would not be classed as assault. Chase (talk &#124; contributions) 02:22, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Indeed, the veracity of the allegations is not at all germane. As for the "non-assault allegations" line of reasoning, see the above notes to the effect that the use of a stronger term is sufficient to imply weaker terms but not vice versa. (But I concede that some technical definitions of the terms may not place them on a spectrum at all.) Flipping Mackerel (talk) 02:55, 15 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment To reframe and refocus as a last-ditch effort, the core of the proposal runs as follows:
 * 1) In natural speech, what one describes as "misconduct" is usually not something one could classify as "assault." (For example, if someone gropes a woman and an onlooker says, "That was misconduct!" another onlooker is likely to reply, "That wasn't misconduct, that was assault!")
 * 2) The average reader who sees "misconduct" is therefore given to understand the allegations go no further, otherwise the stronger term would have been used.


 * -- A valid response to the first point has been that there exists a technical definition whereby "misconduct" includes "assault" and other points. If we agree that Wikipedia should stick to the technical term even when the natural term might be misleading, or if it's only a minority of us whose reading of the natural term agrees with mine, the point could be conceded.
 * -- Two responses to the second point has been that an unambiguous title would be too cumbersome, and that the lede can do the job of disambiguating instead. I'm less convinced by these points, on the grounds that a cumbersome title is better than a potentially misleading one, and that the title should agree with the lede (which uses the terms "assault" and "harassment").
 * Thoughts? Flipping Mackerel (talk) 03:10, 15 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment A requested move to Donald Trump sexual assault allegations was requested for this article on October 20th. The result of the discussion ended, obviously, in favor of the current article name. It's worth looking at before consensus is made in this discussion. Thanks. WClarke (talk) 20:46, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I read and unambiguously acknowledged that discussion and its result. I believe that my point is different. Flipping Mackerel (talk) 04:16, 16 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Jack Upland and WClarke, article details wide range of allegations. This article has a lot more in commons with Bill Clinton sexual misconduct allegations, which is not in the middle of a RM, than it does Bill Cosby sexual assault allegations or Jimmy Savile sexual abuse scandal.LM2000 (talk) 23:39, 15 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose - The accusations in this article range from walking in dressing rooms to rapes (once by Ivana Trump and the other by the unnamed 13 year old girl). Most of these accusations do not go past "alleged". Yoshiman6464 (talk)


 * These two responses don't contradict my premises. I'm aware that a range of behaviour has been alleged, but I believe that "misconduct" is insufficient to describe the extremes of that range in natural speech.
 * Evidently, there's a majority opposed to the proposal. But since the procedure for withdrawing a move request involves not only considering editors' preferences but evaluating arguments, I think it would be a shame to close the discussion before the basic argument has been addressed. I respectfully ask that editors either respond to my line of reasoning or else show that it's irrelevant, rather than reformulating the same thought. LM2000's comparisons to other articles are useful (at least for what is, if not what should be -- personally, I think that if 2/3 cases of misconduct involve assault then the use of "assault" would be warranted in the title of the Clinton article). WClarke also gave a pertinent response above by citing a definition of "misconduct" that can clearly cover the range I'm concerned it doesn't cover. (But I think it's a technical definition that readers would have to look up, rather than one they can intuit based on everyday and dictionary definitions.) Flipping Mackerel (talk) 04:16, 16 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I will give a simple editorial argument to your concern. If you were to take the standard for the title of an article of this nature to require it to include the maximum severity of the allegations (or to disqualify Clinton, the maximum for 2/3 of the allegations), then that would be sufficient grounds for an editor to cite your reasoning to want to move someone who for example is of high political office and has a very good strong case brought against them for sexual harassment and three very weak cases brought against them for groping/assault from disgruntled exes or a group of angry staffers or something. Even if it was the former case that brought about public controversy and dismissal from their job, your reasoning would justify the related article to be titled "sexual abuse allegations". Obviously your standards can be refined, but I'm just saying that they will by nature be somewhat arbitrary in how they are defined and applied.
 * Now this is where I often find myself repeating the term "editorial judgement", which is critical to writing in Wikipedia (and comes from journalistic writing) but is very much ignored in its official guidelines. In this case you wisely identified the editorial issue as controversial and put up an RfC, and clearly your editorial instinct is leaning one way, but that of most other editors here is in the other direction. If you wanted an clear-cut stylistic argument as to why your argument is objectively wrong you won't get it, because you've broken it down into an issue of degree. You are at the point of making a judgement call and have done everything right so far in doing so. In professional newsrooms, if there is a question of editorial judgement that comes up, all concerned editors are asked into a room to vote. (If it's an op-ed, policy change, or large-scale judgement call, then all editors have to come in to vote. Sometimes all votes count equally, sometimes Ed. in Chief has veto, sometimes owner has veto. WP obviously looks for consensus.) The consensus from your peers regarding editorial judgement (in whatever words they use) seems to be to stick with "sexual misconduct" for the title in this case. (Btw, for a serious newspaper the only reason the owner or E-in-C would veto is the vote isn't near 50-50 is if there is a clear financial/legal/political existential threat) . SamuelRiv (talk) 06:17, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Flipping Mackerel, please read the widely accepted essay Don't bludgeon the process, and in particular the section "No one is obligated to satisfy you". If the closer here feels that your arguments have a clearly stronger foundation in policy and guideline, the move will occur regardless of the !vote counts. And editors rarely change their !votes as a result of debate. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  18:10, 16 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Such a change would become a wikilawyering hammer to keep out very relevant material. This title is broad enough to deal with closely related issues, regardless of whether the words are assault, groping, harassment, inappropriate touching, or rape. Lechery and adultery cover many types of inappropriate sexual conduct, not all of them illegal. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:34, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose Misconduct covers a wider range of behavior. Not all of the allegations in the article are assault allegations. --DynaGirl (talk) 04:11, 17 December 2016 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.