Talk:Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations/Archive 8

RfC: Jane Doe content
There is was a pending Jane Doe (unnamed plaintiff) lawsuit alleging that Donald Trump repeatedly raped Doe when she was 13 years old. The suit was dropped on 4 November. RS coverage of the lawsuit has been relatively low. What content should we include about these allegations, if any? &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  08:56, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Restored from premature archive. &#8213; Mandruss &#9742;  13:27, 10 November 2016 (UTC) Restored from premature archive. Added 10-year DNAU. &#8213; Mandruss &#9742;  19:14, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Background There is was a pending lawsuit filed by a Jane Doe alleging that Trump raped her on multiple occasions in 1994, when she was 13, at the home of convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. The suit was filed this month, in October and dropped on 4 November, and it is was Doe's third attempt to litigate the case in civil court. The next court date, a preliminary hearing, is was scheduled for December 16, 2016.

The dispute is centered on this being an unusual situation –  an allegation of multiple child rape against a presidential candidate  –  that does have reliable sources that have reported the allegation, but is not widely reported. There are also a few articles that claim that the plaintiff is making these claims unjustly. One article came out in June from The Guardian and another was released on October 21 stating that the reason it has not been picked up is that there are serious concerns about the veracity of the lawsuit.

On one side, there are people who feel that, since Doe is covered by mainstream media sources as an accuser, there should be a section in the article that speaks to that claim. That section includes the questions about the claim and comments from Trump and his attorney.

And there are others who believe that, due to the the very serious nature of the allegations, the questions about them, the fact that the suit was dropped, and the relatively low RS coverage, they should not be included in the article's content.

Prior discussions: Talk:Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations/Archive 4 Neutral point of view/Noticeboard

status of original 18 RS sources as of 4th Nov

 * Comment - the heading of "Original 18 RS sources" is completely arbitrary and unofficial. The "status of original 18 RS sources as of 4th Nov" is completely arbitrary and unofficial. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 22:46, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Original 18 RS sources:TELEVISION
*

Other sources:US_PRINT
*

Discussion on sources
, I wouldn't spend too much time working on this list of sources, to be honest. There are sources quoting Trump talking about the allegations and the hearing, but we can't include any of them, because there's an RfC on, because, um... all of those sources listed here are "not many sources" and... um... Anyway, yeah, it can't be included until after the election. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 19:55, 3 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Well at least they're all there for when the RfC is lifted. -.


 * When was this RfC put into effect?   -.

Early close is needed

With the election 17 days away, there is a need to expedite this RfC. This will still be an important question after the election, but it will be far less time-sensitive then. I would suggest a close after about 4 days; that should be long enough for the major policy arguments to be made.

!Vote options

1 –  No content. 2 –  A few sentences about the lawsuit without stating the nature of the allegations within it. No mention of rape or Doe's then-age. 3 –  A few sentences about the lawsuit, touching on the nature of the allegations within it, including mention of rape and Doe's then-age. Brief mention that the veracity of the allegations is challenged by reliable source(s). 4 –  More thorough discussion including the allegations and the questions about their veracity. Other –  None of the above.

If any content is included, details will be negotiated separately. They would be too much to take on in this RfC, and no RfC should be necessary for that.

No need to explain what you mean by the number, e.g. 1 - no content, as that is already stated above. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  13:16, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

RfC survey: Jane Doe content
In my opinion, in this kind of situation, a "no consensus" result should mean no content. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  13:16, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 1 - Shortly before the emergence of this issue, I listed 18 highest-quality sources in a discussion. It was subsequently shown by a different editor that, of those 18, only three –  16.6%  –  have reported anything about the lawsuit. My position, based primarily in WP:DUE and WP:EXCEPTIONAL, is that this amount of coverage does not justify content about these very serious allegations. I see little value in option 2. There has been some objection to using numbers (e.g. 16.6%) to help think about this, and I strongly oppose that objection. Details of my argument are available in the prior discussions but, in the interest of conciseness, I won't attempt to lay them out here.
 * We should update everyone on the new % of sources reporting on this lawsuit: It's now up to 50% (11 of 22) sources from CaroleHenson's original list of acceptable sources.wecarlisle (talk)
 * I have updated source list & status: ,, As of today, I counted 75 different stories from 50 different sources (& 7 from original 18) J mareeswaran (talk) 20:46, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Here is my list of sources: bit.ly/DOEvTRUMP - I don't have the original list of 18, but do have a list from CaroleHenson that includes 22 sources.  I have also, (with CaroleHenson's permission) added The Wall Street Journal and PBS to the list; Of those 24 sources, 16 have now reported on it (63%). ,, Wecarlisle (talk) 21:58, 4 November 2016 (UTC)wecarlisle (talk)
 * Just as a reminder, we're not supposed to use that list. But, that's a very interesting development. Are they all mainstream media? (meaning not tabloid) Can you share your list of who is reporting on this?-- CaroleHenson (talk) 20:57, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * See this list: bit.ly/DOEvTRUMP - which includes 93 publications, 3 of which are tabloids (Daily Mirror, Daily Mail, The Sun). Has there been a consensus on excluding tabloid sources?   Wecarlisle (talk) 21:58, 4 November 2016 (UTC)wecarlisle (talk)

Oh, my goodness. , I had no idea that my responses could be seen as an attempt to have the list "live". In our discussion at User talk:CaroleHenson,
 * I collapsed the list you posted on my page with the statement Collapse per BLPN and RSN statement that such a list should not be used
 * After providing background that the list was originally used as an audit for POV and RS issues: I have since found out from the RSN talk page and the BLPN, that I shouldn't use such a list - because the reliability of a source may vary depending up the topic. (I think they also had an issue with " Anything else not on the "use" list unless it's a known reliable source (search noticeboard)", because the noticeboard addresses specific topics and content. But, that has been a good way for me to get a "take" on specific sources.) I've learned that it should not have been used as a guide for others.
 * I made some comments about my personal opinion, but it is not my place to weigh in on what are reliable sources
 * My last statements in the discussion were a follow-up to
 * If you have specific content that you would like to add from those sources [Breitbart, Huffington Post, etc], I would bring them up on the article talk page with respect to specific content.
 * You can get takes from the left and right using New York Times and Fox News, respectively. Again, that this is just my personal opinion.
 * There are a lot of really good folks working on the article that can weigh-in on this on the Talk:Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations page

I didn't know the context in which you were asking the questions, but I am sure that you asked these questions in good faith. I recommend that you work with the folks on this talk page to resolve questions about who to consider and not consider. Please ignore any comments that I have made about the list. I will not weigh in again - at all - on what sources. I am sure that the team of people on this group can help evaluate the list that you've prepared of sources of Jane Doe coverage. Even if I am pinged, I won't come back here, because I think it could be construed as me going against what I learned from WP:BLPN and WP:RSN, and that is not my intent.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 01:37, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 1 - no content - I now believe that there should be no content. My change in opinion is based upon a discussion at this NPOVN discussion about Jane Doe, specifically the Balancing aspects guideline presented by :
 * "'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.' Since the story has received minimal coverage in proportion to all coverage of Donald Trump, it should be left out." -- CaroleHenson (talk) 15:18, 22 October 2016 (UTC)


 * 1 - no content as explained in CaroleHenson's posting above. TFD (talk) 16:13, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 3 - content - we aren't arbiters of truth, as the litmus for inclusion is Verifiabilty, not truth (V>T). Unless the argument is UNDUE (which would also fail on the grounds that the news story is literally everywhere now), we are bound to neutrally present the information and make damn sure that every word comes from a rock-solid source. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:35, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 3 - content - If the sources meet verifiability, then include the materials, and I have reviewed them, and they seem to meet these standards.  Trump sexually assaulting a 13 year old girl is certainly a very notable event and seems to fall in line with his alleged conduct, especially given his behavior of scoping and stalking nude 15 y/o young girls in his beauty pageants, these type of allegations should come as no surprise. Octoberwoodland (talk) 18:12, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * That argument will be a non-starter with any competent closer. You are making an assessment of the truth of the claims based on circumstantial evidence, and we are expressly forbidden to do that. Also, notability is about whether an article should exist, not about what content should be included in it. You might wish to use a viable argument or change your !vote. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  18:29, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I am not making any assessment of the veracity of the sources, I am commenting on the number of verifiable sources and how they support each other in terms of content. I realize that this is a very serious type of allegation to place in a subject's article, but it seems very notable to me.  Sorry if that does not align with your view on this issue.   If the content is verifiable, there is no reason not to include it.  It's not about truth but verifiability, and we can verify that a Jane Doe filed a lawsuit claiming Trump sexually assaulted her at the age of 13.  Very notable event.  Octoberwoodland (talk) 18:45, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

*:Yeah, the urgency thing is a sticky wicket. I think the election is potentially going to be influenced whether we like it or not. The question is whether to potentially influence it in a manner consistent with Wikipedia policy, or a manner inconsistent with Wikipedia policy. The article currently contains strongly disputed content – an entire strongly disputed level 3 subsection. Unless I'm mistaken, disputed content, and especially strongly disputed content, and especially in a BLP article under discretionary sanctions, is supposed to stay out until consensus is reached to include it. If that principle were being observed here, I would feel less urgency. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  18:47, 22 October 2016 (UTC) - Suggestion withdrawn and stricken above. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  02:08, 23 October 2016 (UTC) *: As I said (or at least strongly suggested) above, remove the content pending consensus to include any content, per Wikipedia policy, and I will withdraw my suggestion for expediting. I would much prefer to do things the right way. And we don't run RfCs just to force people to observe clear policy; this is not a matter of opinion or editorial judgment. Especially in this situation, disputed content stays out until consensus is reached to include it, full stop. You will find this concept conveyed under "WARNING: ACTIVE ARBITRATION REMEDIES" near the top of Talk:Donald Trump. So how about a little support for that very safe position? &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  00:28, 23 October 2016 (UTC) - Suggestion withdrawn and stricken above. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  02:08, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 1 - No content - I'm not satisfied with the sufficiency of sources to justify including this very serious charge brought against a Presidential candidate more than two decades after the alleged crime. WP:PUBLICFIGURE and WP:NPOV seem to support omitting this entirely, at least until the usual blue chip sources report on it, if they ever do. The best sources have not shied away from heaping opprobrium onto Mr. Trump, but are tellingly quiet on this subject. As a side note, I'm concerned that there is an urgency expressed in the OP about closing this RfC before the election. 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.- MrX 18:36, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 3 - content - for what it's worth. This outrageous attempt to censor Wikipedia beggars belief.  A presidential candidate faces a court hearing in December about the alleged rape of a minor, in the company of someone since convicted of being a paedophile.  That this lawsuit is taking place has been reported on by multiple reliable sources.  Excluding these facts is blatant censorship.  Of course it can be written (as presented above) in a NPV manner.  But discussion on article subpages between some editors about what sources to deem reliable and what ones to exclude, then to use that list as if it had some sort of official approval, then to use a percentage of this arbitrary list as an argument that something hasn't been covered enough to warrant inclusion in an article about a front-running presidential candidate?! Newspeak... WP:V and WP:RS are satisfied, the allegations are certainly noteworthy for inclusion, and to exclude the fact of the upcoming hearing amounts to nothing more than censorship of the highest order. "Here's the list of reliable sources"; "No consensus (on the RFC I opened) should mean no inclusion."  These attempts to poison the well are noted... Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 19:20, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Wow. I had no idea I was such a bad-faith and/or incompetent Wikipedia editor! But it's not all my fault, somebody else could have said something during the past 3.5 years. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  19:27, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * It isn't actually necessary for you to add a comment after every other contributor's point. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 19:41, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * True, I'm aware of WP:BLUDGEON and had already decided that I was flirting with it. But be assured that I'm not going to let unfounded accusations of bad faith, in violation of WP:AGF, go without a response. Consider yourself lucky I did it here instead of at WP:ANI. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  19:44, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * To that point,, have you seen my response to you about how the list of sources came about at the NPOVN page, the background may help you understand why a list was put together to start with, why it's important to maintaining the POV of this controversial subject, and that other sources could be used if they were on the RSN as reliable sources? I also posted the background in the list subpage, now, too - since that seems to provide much better context than the link to the discussion in the archives.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 19:55, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: I don't yet have an opinion on whether to add or not add the content. But I do have to disagree with an expedited time frame. It is important that we get this right - it is not important that we get it right now.  The fact that there is an election coming up should have no weight on our deliberations here...  One way or the other.   Blueboar (talk) 22:40, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 3 - content - how can a page about sexual misconduct allegations exclude a lawsuit alleging rape that has been reported by reliable sources all round the world? I don't think the percentage of sources is a valid guide on this issue. And I don't think a group of editors can set up their own list of approved sources. There are always media outlets that don't pick up stories. Globally, the sources that don't report a story will always outweigh those who do. It is enough that we have reliable sources that report the court case. And there is no doubt that the court case exists. There seems to be an underlying assumption that the threshold of evidence for a newspaper interview is higher than a lawsuit. This is not true. It is also worth noting that the case is mentioned on Legal affairs of Donald Trump without any controversy.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:09, 22 October 2016 (UTC)


 * 3 - content - Amen to Jack Upland above. Wikipedia should not do Censorship. J mareeswaran (talk) 10:13, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Additional Comment - I came across this from the Atlantic today. (Hope there is a consensus that this is a Reliable Source). "Unrelatedly, Trump is facing a civil lawsuit from a Jane Doe who alleges that Trump raped her in 1994, when she was 13 years old, at parties hosted by the convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, who Trump called a friend. That lawsuit is scheduled to proceed in December, and Trump could be forced to testify under oath". I think the concern expressed here, by a few posters, is that adding a few lines now means we have no control on who can come in and add more later resulting in unwanted hands & legs being added to the story. If that is the case we can just add a See Also to this case in trump's Legal Affairs post. But if we completely remove any mentions from this article, it would be totally wrong as other posters have commented. J mareeswaran (talk) 19:48, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Some More Comments - The more I look into this, the more convinced I am that it is Blatant Censorship to remove Jane Doe rape accusation content from this article. One of the NBC references covers this allegation in detail. So we can't say we'll cherry pick information from the same source. If a particular story/link has been referenced, then everything mentioned in that article should be allowed to be posted in Wikipedia, unless there is a Libel issue. J mareeswaran (talk) 20:41, 25 October 2016 (UTC)


 * 1 – No content -- it has been reported, but in a limited fashion. If this legal action moves forward, it would perhaps warrant a separate article. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:49, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: coverage is no longer limited. Sources that have verified the existence of these allegations now include: The Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, The Atlantic, The Boston Globe, NBC News, PBS, The Washington Times, The New York Daily News, The National Review, New York Magazine, Rolling Stone, Esquire Magazine, Al Jazeera, International Business Times, Business Insider, The Guardian, Independent, haaretz, Buzzfeed.com, The Daily Beast, The Huffington Post, Radar Online, Gothamist, Quartz, Lawnewz.com, The Daily Mail, Death & Taxes Magazine, Metro Magazine, ,Yahoo News, AOL News, Newsmax, The Spectator, The Inquisitr, The Week, Fusion.net, BET.com, Courthouse News Service, Vox, COMPLEX, LawNewz.com, Independent Journal Review, ,Citizen Oracle, The Stranger, Variety Magazine, Yahoo News, Morning News USA, Refinery29, Lawyer Herald, Heavy.com, The Quint, The Sun, Independent Journal Review, The Stony Brook Press,, Romper.com, TheRealDeal.com, The Intercept, WRTV Indianapolis, The New Daily, Mirror.co.uk, TheJournal.ie The Odyssey, The Daily Wire, News.com.au, Political Insider, The Blaze, Breitbart, MegynKelly.org, Newsy, Press Reader, thinkprogress.org, The Stranger, Variety Magazine, Australian Network News, Cosmopolitan, Elle Magazine, Glamour Magazine, Slate, US Magazine, and many many others. - Wecarlisle (talk)
 * Query — What happens if the RfC decides "no content" and there are further developments or further reportage? Does the RfC become invalid, and who decides that???--Jack Upland (talk) 03:25, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure, but perhaps the closer can address that in their close. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  03:33, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment -- If the legal action moves forward, then it would possibly warrant a separate article. Ah, I see that this is already covered in Legal_affairs_of_Donald_Trump. If this is suitable for inclusion there, I don't see a reason not to include this link in "See also". K.e.coffman (talk) 02:03, 28 October 2016 (UTC)


 * 1 – No Content Brought here by the bot. I'm leaning towards a few sentences, however, BLP presents a high hurdle that is not met here. LavaBaron (talk) 04:31, 26 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Other - A few sentences about the lawsuit without stating the nature of the allegations within it. Brief mention that the veracity of the allegations is challenged by reliable source(s). This might seem awkward at first, but it makes sense to me. If people check out the sources to do more research, they should do so with the knowledge that the claims within the sources are questionable, even if they don't yet know what the claims are.
 * What is so controversial about this lawsuit is that for its horrendous claims, so few reliable sources (16.6%) have covered it. Still, I can understand the worries of those who say we might be censoring Wikipedia, and the question about what to do if further developments happen. I don't see a problem with WP:BALASP here - it doesn't say not to cover things that aren't reported by the majority of sources, but to "treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to the weight of that aspect in the body of reliable sources on the subject." I like to think of it as covering "16.6%" of the case (by not discussing the nature of the allegations). My mind isn't extremely firm on this, so I may change my vote in the future.  Jasper  TECH (talk) 14:47, 24 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment - I don't understand the reluctance to add this content about Jane Doe (a minor), when we have a section titled - Allegations of underage sex parties - which alleges that "Trump had attended and partaken in sex parties filled with underage minor females as young as 15" and an "anonymous witness stated that Trump had sex with the girls", this would be legally classified as rape and/or statutory rape. We also have allegations of sexual misconduct against minors at the Miss Teen USA pageants. Why is this content about Jane Doe any different?-- Isaidnoway (talk)  03:25, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I would personally oppose some of that, in particular the "had sex with the girls", especially if it is getting as little RS coverage as the Doe lawsuit. I suppose you could say I'm drawing the EXCEPTIONAL line at actual sex. But I'm treading lightly for awhile due to accusations of bad faith manipulation of the system, so I'll leave such dispute to others. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  04:23, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
 * , You may a great point about that section. It has been commented out. There's an ongoing discussion about it at the section of this page.- CaroleHenson (talk) 08:08, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 3 – content per especially Jack Upland's very valid arguments above. --SI 07:18, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 1 - no content. I really struggled with this. WP:PUBLICFIGURE seems applicable, but at the end of the day I can't help but think that, in light of The Guardian's July 7 revelations about the plaintiff, we would be perpetuating libel, and just at a time when it could affect the outcome of the election no less. I don't think Wikipedia should have any part in that. Shame on the newspapers that have reported on this since July 7, and kudos to the many that haven't. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:34, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
 * It's not libel to report a court case.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:04, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I didn't say it was. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 08:04, 27 October 2016 (UTC)


 * 3 – content This content doesn't need a vote. It needs to be published immediately.  The case is a matter of public record - it's been reported on by The Atlantic, International Business Times, New York Times, among others.  Trump's legal counsel has given statements to the press regarding the lawsuit & allegations contained therein.  Trump himself is on record with Radar Online giving a categorical denial of the allegations by Jane Doe.  Seems to me like we've got some Wikipedia editors who want to pretend this lawsuit doesn't exist.  There is plenty of information to warrant mention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wecarlisle (talk • contribs) 02:06, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Seems to me like we've got some Wikipedia editors who want to pretend this lawsuit doesn't exist. Please confine your comments to content and policy and omit your perceptions of other editors' possible motives. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  09:35, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * agree this discussion has gone on far too long. All we need to do is quote Atlantic "Unrelatedly, Trump is facing a civil lawsuit from a Jane Doe who alleges that Trump raped her in 1994, when she was 13 years old, at parties hosted by the convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, who Trump called a friend. That lawsuit is scheduled to proceed in December, and Trump could be forced to testify under oath" and insert a See Also to the appropriate section in Legal affairs of Donald Trump where the case proceedings are tracked & updated. Many are quoting Guardian comment that this seems to be a fake case, that can also be added to this article as a comment. Censorship is against the core value of Wikipedia and has the potential to turn-off regular contributors. J mareeswaran (talk) 03:55, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 1 - no content Not WP:DUE -- as User:Mandruss mentions the major newsies just are not covering it, and my own Google doublecheck is showing 'Trump sexual' about 400 times more than 'Trump sexual Jane Doe'. Without notable presence among RS and having had no apparent impact to Trump, it has no significance to justify putting it into BLP at this time.  It's also got the issues of WP:EXCEPTIONAL and WP:BLPGOSSIP, but I think we don't have to go there since it lacks DUE.  If it wasn't for the WP:DUE, I'd be tempted to include it for completeness fighting against it sniffs of politics and tabloid.   Though when I just follow the cites the story from the first three RS I got in Google was said with phrases "The mainstream media ignored the filing" Huffington, "Dismissed in California" (gave fake address and paid no court fees) Snope, and "bogus sex scandals follow just about everyone who makes it to the national level" National Review.  That makes it look like  it's got WP:FRINGE against it too.  Markbassett (talk) 01:54, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * comment there seems, here, to be a mis-understanding of how Wikipedia works. If a Google search returned 3 RS sources then that is a strong case for including that content in Wikipedia. We can state that as per opinion of mainstream media /RS sources, this case seems to be without any basis & unlikely to succeed in court. But to not have any mention in spite of the 3 mentions you have pointed above implies censorship. J mareeswaran (talk) 04:08, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Make that Other - revising to make that none or state it is two dismissed cases in 2 lines or less - as a California case dismissed on false address and unpaid fees, refiled in NY and now discontinued as a no-show. Meh, frivolous lawsuit but if it's in then don't stop just at filing and leave out the creditibilty is a bit whiffy.  p.s. And for goodness sake, use MAJOR sources as cites appropriate here -- if we've got more serious sources like Washinton Post and Times, WSJ, ABC, etcetera then use them.  (And dailybeast or vox or jezebel or Rolling Stone or Cosmo should be disregarded for significance reason.) Markbassett (talk) 02:03, 6 November 2016 (UTC)


 * 1 - no content. – Wikipedia is not the place to adjudicate serious criminal allegations; leave it to the courts in December. Also, let's show restraint wrt obvious attempts to influence the election by smearing either candidate's reputation. — JFG talk 07:32, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * comment Wikipedia is not the place to adjudicate serious criminal allegations - that is exactly why this case needs mention in this article because we cannot arbitrarily pronounce Trump as guilty/innocent. We can say that a case has been filed but very poor coverage in mainstream media because the accuser is unknown & accusers/witnesses remain unavailable to contact by Media & further sources such as Guardian have questioned the veracity of the claim based on who is behind the case etc. J mareeswaran (talk) 10:47, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 3 - content: reliable sources are covering it, it's pertinent to the article, and it's useful information. (summoned by bot). Prcc27🌍 (talk) 05:18, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 3 – content, possibly even 4 - more content. If at least 16% of highly reliable sources take this seriously enough to keep reporting on it, then it's encyclopedically relevant and readers will be coming here for info about it, including the fact that the veracity of the allegations is hotly disputed. Just the fact that such an allegation has been made, in actual court, for the third time, and it has attracted major coverage repeated, and been leapt upon by Trump's opposition, and is thus affecting his position in voter opinion polls, is all a long string of encyclopedic facts we should not be pretending do not exist.  WP's job is not trying in vain to protect the supposed fairness of one country's election system, nor is it to over-protect the public image of a highly public and controversial figure (who, under the public figure laws of his own country, has lowered privacy and defamation protection than an average private citizen).  WP's job is to accurately reflect what reliable sources are writing about notable topics, whether what they're reporting is favorable or not, and whether it is controversial or not. The very fact of the controversy is itself important for us to cover.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  09:55, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 3 - content - We don't base inclusion on whether we think the allegations are true. During the 2004 campaign, politically motivated lies about John Kerry's service in Vietnam were dutifully noted in Wikipedia, because he was running for President and that made the allegations newsworthy.  Wikipedia also presented the information about U.S. Navy records and other evidence that contradicted the smears.  With the Jane Doe case, we should follow the same model -- include the charges, but also include all the significant facts that are being invoked by those who would discredit the allegations against Trump.  This proposed treatment would be undue weight in the main bio article but that's why we have daughter articles like this one. JamesMLane t c 02:11, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 3 - content This is sufficiently RS'd that there IS such an allegation, the wording does not 'take sides' as to the truth of the accusation. Pincrete (talk) 15:40, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 4 Though it may be difficult for some Anglophone editors to verify this, there are mounting foreign language news sources referring to Donald Trump's legal history, some citing the inherent corruption of a legal system in which money alone can lead to the dismissal of soundly based charges (a previous legal affair linking him to Russian Mafia money is a case in point).  Peter S Strempel  &#124;  Talk  08:41, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment. I'm uneasy with no mention, but the case is v sketchy: http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/3/13501364/trump-rape-13-year-old-lawsuit-katie-johnson-allegation.  Any mention must reflect that.  Fences  &amp;  Windows  23:11, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * This RFC is surreal: Legal_affairs_of_Donald_Trump. Fences  &amp;  Windows  23:20, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes. I pointed that out on 22 October.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:11, 5 November 2016 (UTC)


 * no content Dismissed again. The case received little attention despite being around for awhile, I don't think it passes the WP:DUE/WP:BLP hurdle.LM2000 (talk) 02:57, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
 * It wasn't dismissed this time: it was dropped. We don't yet know the reason. The dismissal of the first lawsuit was due to its legal validity (essentially trying to prosecute a state crime as a federal civil case), not because it wasn't factual.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:12, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
 * It's unfathomable to include a case that we know so little about. The fact that Legal_affairs_of_Donald_Trump relies mostly on tabloids and blogs speaks volumes.LM2000 (talk) 03:59, 5 November 2016 (UTC)


 * 3, possibly 4, essentially per SMcCandlish. The "16% of sources" is, in my view, a red herring. If 75% of reliable sources cover a certain story, then it certainly should be in the article: but the reverse is not true. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. The news media is essentially trying to cover whatever topic seems of most current interest. Wikipedia, on the other hand, is trying to create a comprehensive article on every subject it covers; therefore, if something has received substantive coverage in reliable sources, we should be reporting it, including the doubts about its veracity. Vanamonde (talk) 04:44, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Good point. This is not actually anything like a 16% fringe-science view versus a 84% scientific consensus; all we're talking about is rates of coverage.  Even a single reliable, major source can be enough to include something, especially if it generates public controversy/debate.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  12:57, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 3: This means I support mention, following due weight. Otr500 (talk)
 * Comments: I am going to give impartial reasoning that some can dislike, but it will be fair reasoning, backed by policy, without need for ARBCOM, or any other outside involvement but that is always options. The hype about a need to expedite was reasoning to hold off. Wikipedia is not a primary news reporting vehicle because the last I checked it is still considered an encyclopedia. Shame on anyone trying to push "there is urgency so we need to include content now". Just the thought screams "biased tabloid new reporting".
 * A suit was brought and cancelled more than once. While it is "possible" the allegations could be true, it could just as likely been a discrediting tactic. Trump was elected and the case has again gone away. He (or someone) "might" have paid her off, or even threatened her. It is not our "job" to try to spin any direction other than verified content following the elevated criteria of a BLP. The allegations are serious (hoax or not), there is reporting in some certainly acceptable reliable sources, and encyclopedic coverage of an event related to the title of this article, being excluded is unfair to Wikipedia and readers, when it is encyclopedic and not tantalizing news reporting. Content must follow the relevant policies and guidelines (or applicable essays that have broad community support) for inclusion.


 * Identifying reliable sources: "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.", remembering that "Proper sourcing always depends on context; common sense and editorial judgment are an indispensable part of the process.".
 * WP:BLPSOURCES: This policy extends that principle (WP:Verifiability), adding that contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion. This applies whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable, and whether it is in a biography or in some other article. Material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism. When material is both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources.
 * Verifiability: "Do not leave unsourced or poorly sourced material in an article 'if it might damage the reputation of living people or existing groups, and do not move it to the talk page.".


 * Some content might need in-text attributions but ultimately content, that does not violate policies and guidelines or WMF mandates, is governed by consensus. "While information must be verifiable in order to be included in an article, this does not mean that all verifiable information must be included in an article.".


 * There is ample policy based reasoning why there should be verifiable content just "do it right". If it can not be agreed upon without bias-it does not belong, and don't overdo primary sources. Otr500 (talk) 12:12, 18 November 2016 (UTC)


 * 3: Support short mention, per Otr500. I couldn't have said it better. Censorship is not allowed here. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:45, 18 November 2016 (UTC)


 * At Wikipedia, the word "censorship" applies to the suppression of content because some readers might find it objectionable or offensive. That is not the rationale for anybody's omit arguments here, as far as I know. Certainly not mine. Not that I expect that to change your position, your "per Otr500" is sufficient. I just don't like seeing that word used so indiscriminately. "Vandalism" is another. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  17:37, 18 November 2016 (UTC)


 * 1 - no content per DrFleischman and Mandruss. Wikipedia should not be an outlet for fringe theories or libel.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 20:38, 24 November 2016 (UTC)


 * 3 - content - Relevant information for the subject of the article. I see no reason why should it be not incloded with proper references and balanced wording. Arcillaroja (talk) 07:57, 25 November 2016 (UTC)


 * 1 - not content per JfG DarjeelingTea (talk) 20:51, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 3 - content - With such a comprehensive article, skipping one of the most major allegations comes across as a glaring omission. We can neutrally discuss what reliable sources have to say about the lawsuit, while ensuring any coverage is due. gobonobo  + c 04:57, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Criticism of coverage in US mainstream media
(moving this to a separate subsection for more detailed discussion) J mareeswaran (talk) 14:28, 4 November 2016 (UTC) There are also mounting voices in Europe questioning the impartiality of American news media, lapping up recycled Clinton scandals but ignoring other stories altogether (not just Trump, but protests against fracking and other environmental issues, for example). On that basis any suggestion that reliance on news reporting in the USA is a good barometer for resolving this issue are in fact partisan arguments to extinguish some parts of reality from a record of it, which appears to be the explicit intention of American media owners. If the matter(s) under question have been scheduled for a hearing, officers of the court have determined that there is a case to be answered. To omit mention of such matters on a page specifically about such matters strikes me as an absurd proposition. I'm not sure what's achieved by waiting, except some imagined advantage for Trump. Invited to comment here by Legobot. Peter S Strempel &#124;  Talk  08:41, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree. It is no coincidence that the British Guardian is one of the major Anglophone sources covering the story. The American media is far from impartial in reporting an American election. Part of it relates to the idea of balance. When George W Bush was elected, the media manufactured a story that Al Gore was a liar in order to balance his perceived failings. Here, they appear to be wary of influencing the election with such a serious accusation against Trump. But Wikipedia is international. It should reflect global sources, not a select group of nationally specific sources.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:16, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * comment This is a very good point, by,  regarding the silence of a section of media. Maybe, this(silence of mainstream US media) deserves its own Wikipedia post. As of now, I just added a couple of lines under the Reaction section on this. J mareeswaran (talk) 11:22, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

the following content was removed from criticism of media silence section:

Lisa Bloom, who is acting as legal counsel to Jill Harth, said in a Huffington Post article that the media should not ignore the Jane Doe case: "In covering a story, a media outlet is not finding guilt. It is simply reporting the news that a lawsuit has been filed against Mr. Trump, and ideally putting the complaint in context. Unproven allegations are just that - unproven, and should be identified that way. (Mr. Trump’s lawyer says the charges are “categorically untrue, completely fabricated and politically motivated.”) Proof comes later, at trial. But the November election will come well before any trial. And while Mr. Trump is presumed innocent, we are permitted -- no, we are obligated -- to analyze the case’s viability now."

I feel it is time to close the Jane Doe RFC, so that we can (stop this absurd censorship) & move on and make further changes as necessary. J mareeswaran (talk) 14:37, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Comment on the nature of the case & its coverage in mainstream media
following are the references, I have collected regarding the Media Coverage of this case. All this is pending the RfC resolution for Jane Doe... J mareeswaran (talk) 20:25, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

RfC discussion: Jane Doe content

 * comment/query Wait, CaroleHenson has brought forth an RfC and an NPOVN discussion? Smells like forum-shopping to me. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:24, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Jack Sebastian, Please see the comment posted by Mandruss at the NPOVN page:
 * "Being that the debate in this thread has become largely circular, after almost 5 days of discussion about this question, I think it's time to get that RfC started. There has been no acknowledgement of my above comment about the RfC, let alone any comments about the draft. So, unless I hear an objection here within about an hour, with some cogent rationale, I'm starting the RfC as currently drafted, at Talk:Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations." &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  10:49, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Do you have a vote?-- CaroleHenson (talk) 16:30, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I wanted to also clarify that the reason for pushing this is the upcoming election which is not far away. And, that should give you zero idea about who I am voting for in the presidential election. I just changed my vote on the Jane Doe issue as we started working on the RfC. This RfC was mentioned on the NPOVN site - so that folks there could vote, rather than spinning on the same issues over and over and over again.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 16:42, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I missed the comment; thanks for pointing it out to me. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:35, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * It's pretty clear who brought forth this RfC. Look for a signature very near the top of it. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  17:27, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

I was concerned about getting this resolved in a timely manner, which we talked about and I had input to the RfC - I have self-reported at the Consensus talk page. Any further conversation about JS's claim can be discussed there.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 17:39, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Following comments moved from after my !vote, too much for the Survey section. Also added Template:Unsigned. &#8213; Mandruss &#9742;  08:43, 28 October 2016 (UTC)


 * When you compound the fact that this list of "acceptable" sources is selected by an individual, and therefore somewhat arbitrary and necessarily inviting of bias, with an arbitrarily chosen percentage, I think you end up with an extremely bizarre methodology for determining the truth. We all have to think very deeply about how we ensure that undeserving parts of an article aren't, through chance, mistake, or bias, given too much attention--too many words, or too much visual space, to the detriment of the mission: to impart an impartial perspective of the truth.  But that doesn't mean we can simply delete any and all mention of a lawsuit, because we fear the mere mention of these allegations will be received without a proper filter.  No doubt some readers will, ill-advisedly, jump to conclusions.  It's not our job to guess at the quality of our readers' interpretive capacity, imagine the worst, and then with an eye towards only the most negligent readres, censure only those pieces of information we fear will spark in them fires of strange untruth.  We have no choice but to trust that our readers will evaluate all of the allegations as they are: Allegations.  A lawsuit does not equate to a conviction.  An allegation does not equate to a conviction.  And this article is about allegations.  A lawsuit is a formal list of a plaintiffs' allegations.  That such allegations are submitted to a Federal court makes them neither any more, nor any less legitimate than any other allegation, and therefore I see absolutely no reason at all to exclude mention of this lawsuit from this page.
 * Moreover, the notion that major media coverage is required to make an objective 'encyclopedic' truth is silly. Using primary documentation for cases such as this is perfectly reasonable.  And we have the primary documents in the form of affadavits / case files, which have been unsealed by the courts.  It is an undeniable fact that this lawsuit exists.  It is an undeniable fact that this lawsuit lists Donald Trump as the defendant.  It is an undeniable fact that this lawsuit alleges sexual misconduct in the form of, among others, rape.  It is, again, therefore, very very clear that this particular lawsuit should be included here.
 * And Finally, If we insist on sticking to the approved sources, and if we insist that 16.7% coverage is simply not enough to warrant mention of this case, let me just point out that it is in fact 50%. Of the 22 sources listed, 11 of them have covered the lawsuit: The Atlantic, Business Insider, Guardian, NBC News, The New York Daily News, New York Magazine, Slate, Vox, Variety, and Rolling Stone.  In addition to the 11 "approved sources," other highly reputable sources have covered the lawsuit, including: The Wall Street Journal, The Boston Globe, PBS, The Washington Times, The National Review, Esquire Magazine, Al Jazeera, Business Insider, Independent UK, Haaretz, Quartz, Complex, US Magazine, and many, many, many others.
 * Any way you slice it, there isn't any reason to continue blocking mention of Jane Doe v. Donald J. Trump and Jeffrey E. Epstein. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wecarlisle (talk • contribs) 08:28, 28 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Can you show a Wikipedia policy basis for your arguments? If so, I suggest you post a !vote in the Survey section above, stating that basis, and hopefully far more concise. The RfC's closer will decide who has the stronger policy basis. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  09:10, 28 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Never mind, after correcting your signature I now see that you have already !voted. But you might want to show some policy basis if you want your !vote to have any effect on the outcome. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  09:26, 28 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Well, the policy basis of 's contribution are right there in plain English - verifiable reliably sourced content should not be censored - as a closing admin will no doubt draw from what they wrote. It's not a requirement to add alphabet soup to comment... ;-)  Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 11:58, 28 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment: I haven't voted on this RfC, but I notice that several editors have referred to the WP:CENSOR policy, perhaps without understanding it. From my reading and interpretation, the sort of materials that policy refers to include profane words and images, not controversial lawsuits like this one (though the coverage and details of said suit might include profanity). Funcrunch (talk) 14:26, 28 October 2016 (UTC)


 * There is quite a bit of policy shortcut abuse here. Not that that is at all unusual here, but it's probably more important to avoid that here. I encourage all editors to read a good part of any policy before you invoke it. Not being perfect yet, I've been guilty of this tendency too much myself. Reading policy is boring. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  17:18, 28 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment: Editors might find this new source relevant and informative: --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:02, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Valid RfC?
wrote yesterday "How can a page about sexual misconduct allegations exclude a lawsuit alleging rape that has been reported by reliable sources all round the world?" - and that one sentence articulates perfectly what I'd been trying to say myself, only badly. Namely - is this RfC in any way a valid thing to hold? If an article about allegations of sexual misconduct by Donald Trump excludes the most serious of the allegations, and the only one that I'm aware of that's currently due to come before the courts, then we're at a very weird place indeed. WP:V and WP:RS are satisifed. WP:NPOV can certainly be satisfied. WP:BALASP doesn't arise - it's one allegation among many. Wikipedia policy trumps a group of editors deciding not to include verified and sourced material. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 14:56, 23 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Jack Upland stated an argument in a !vote in an RfC. I don't think he meant to challenge the very legitimacy of the RfC. I have never seen anyone do that until now. It's called content dispute. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  15:05, 23 October 2016 (UTC)


 * This section isn't about Jack Upland, it's about the validity of this RfC, which I am challenging. I don't know what your reference to content dispute means. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 10:56, 24 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree with @ & @ above. "How can a page about sexual misconduct allegations exclude a lawsuit alleging rape that has been reported by reliable sources all round the world?" . RfC on this should not have the option of complete removal of reference to Jane Doe Rape allegations. Please note that  Legal affairs of Trump still retains this topic and there is even a see also pointing back to this article. J mareeswaran (talk) 10:11, 25 October 2016 (UTC)


 * RfC on this should not have the option of complete removal of reference to Jane Doe Rape allegations. That is simply false, sorry. The RfC can present any option at all, and it would not be illegitimate. If you don't like the option, don't !vote for it. The closer will decide who has the strongest arguments; if the 1 option does not have the strongest arguments, the closer will not deem it to have consensus, no matter how many editors support it. Please see WP:CONSENSUS. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  10:41, 25 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment I have been following up on the reliable sources issue with the BLPN and although I didn't bring it up the two people who responded said that it was good that the rape content was not in the article. Anyone interested in seeing that discussion, it's here. I have asked them to post their vote/comments on this talk page. I don't know the about procedure, like if we can take their written word from the talk page.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 13:08, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I was just typing up a summary/response for reliable sources and I saw that I typed a background blurb - that does mention the rape.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 13:16, 25 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment Trying this again based upon Bastun's comment below: During a separate discussion at BLPN, two people who responded said that it was good that the rape content was not in the article. Anyone interested in seeing that discussion, it's here.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 16:57, 25 October 2016 (UTC)


 * This subsection is about the validity of the RfC. Why are you bringing up the RS issue with the BLPN here? Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 13:22, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Comment: | diff Soham321 (talk) 11:28, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Just 'cause I'm a curious kind of gal, what is this diff here for? Is it a straggler from a previously posted comment?-- CaroleHenson (talk) 13:08, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Removal of Jane Doe
It looks like Jane Doe has been removed without any discussion.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:00, 25 October 2016 (UTC) If this rule is not being followed for other content, it should be. But the consensus to include will generally not be by RfC but rather by regular open discussion. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  21:42, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Jane Doe content is under RfC and no such content can be added until consensus is reached, per the ArbCom remedies described near the top of this page. No such additional discussion is needed - or allowed. Them's the rulz, sorry. If you don't like them, take it up with ArbCom. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  21:03, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The section was removed when the RfC was in progress.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:33, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * As per the ArbCom remedies. Disputed content stays out pending consensus to include. See the message box near the top of the page. To clarify, these particular remedies apply only U.S. politics articles, and only where an admin has applied them by adding that template, as admin Drmies did yesterday.
 * What was the process followed here? It seems that Jane Doe content was removed first, then RfC was set-up. My understanding is that it should be other way round. Based on RfC closure, action could should have been taken to remove content but now the process seems to have been inverted. J mareeswaran (talk) 21:47, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The Jane Doe content was disputed long before the RfC was started or even considered. It was under dispute in open discussion. If memory serves I removed it believing that the ArbCom restrictions automatically applied at this article because it's U.S. politics. After the RfC was open I added the template, thinking its absence was a mere oversight. Then I was informed that only admins can do that, and the remedies do not apply until they do. I took the question to WP:AN and Drmies then added the template. There was a good faith misunderstanding on my part, things were not done in the right order, but the end result is the same. Nothing sneaky occurred. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  21:58, 25 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I did not see an issue with the removal. Seems the process is working as expected. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:15, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

"The facts speak less to a scandal and more, perhaps, to an attempt at a smear"--Brian Dell (talk) 04:54, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Then go !vote 1 in the RfC and mention that in your argument. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  05:17, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Jane Doe press conference scheduled for this afternoon (Nov 2)
Heads up as there is likely to be a flurry of edits related to this. Funcrunch (talk) 19:23, 2 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Note her lawyer's release says, "The mainstream media has failed to cover the story...." That's why she is not in the article now.  If her story attracts attention then we can add it.  But note that attention means that third parties will weigh in on the likelihood of her story, including the allegations about "Maria," who supposedly was disappeared.  Her lawyer btw is a vocal Clinton supporter and author of "Why The New Child Rape Case Filed Against Donald Trump Should Not Be Ignored", so it should be interesting.  TFD (talk) 20:15, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * FWIW I heard about this from an update in The Guardian, which noted that they had reported on the story previously. I haven't weighed in on the RfC concerning this though, and am not doing so now; just sending a head-up. Funcrunch (talk) 20:31, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Aaaand the press conference was just cancelled (or at least postponed). Sorry for jumping the gun in even posting about it. Funcrunch (talk) 22:08, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * You should wait until after the press conference in any case. It is possible that it was mentioned in some mainstream media, but it never received the same attention of the other cases and the Clinton campaign did not mention her.  The original Guardian story btw said, "Lawsuits accusing Donald Trump of sexually assaulting a child in the 1990s appear to have been orchestrated by an eccentric anti-Trump campaigner Norm Lubow with a record of making outlandish claims about celebrities."  That infers the claim was not taken credibly at the time.  It might make a good article on its own.  TFD (talk) 22:21, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * You can hat this, but you can't stop discussion. The Guardian has, since that mention, regularly commented on the progress of this case without any type of skepticism or questioning. They have faithfully documented court dates, etc., and referred to the court documents, which we can also mention and link to without any BLP or OR danger. Failing to mention this inserts editorial censorship, which is a serious NPOV violation. We are not allowed to take sides. We must document it. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:29, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

I question the legitimacy of even hatting this discussion. As long as we refer to RS, we are safe. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:30, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Nothing "BLP sensitive" here that hasn't already been covered in much greater detail on this page (and its archives). TFD has obviously missed the plethora of reliable sources covering the allegation. Because someone hatted them, too. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 14:17, 4 November 2016 (UTC)


 * BullRangifer, The Guardian article says, "The lawsuits alleging that Trump raped a young girl in the 1990’s were revealed by the Guardian as having been orchestrated by Lubow, who has a “record of making outlandish claims about celebrities.”" It even ran an article about him.  That is not "without any type of skepticism or questioning."  Vox has an article which mentions another in their words "shady" person pushing the story, who is an anti-abortion activist.
 * I have not missed the plethora of sources that have covered the story, just noted that mainstream media has largely avoided it and it is routinely ignored in stories about the women accusing Trump, which is the topic of this article. Your two new sources are an article about Lisa Bloom (Jane Doe's latest lawyer in Romper ("a site for a new generation of women figuring out what motherhood means for us") and a blog posting by Bloom where she complains that mainstream media have ignored the story.
 * But by all means create an article about the story and make sure that WP:FRINGE is followed. Just keep it out of this article, until mainstream media and the Clinton campaign take it seriously.
 * TFD (talk) 15:14, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

This should not even be on the talk page until an editor can propose a well-sourced reference that demonstrates it's noteworthy beyond all the other material on this subject. SPECIFICO talk  15:20, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * ,, atleast 50 different news sources around the world have covered this topic. Please look-up sources listed above — Preceding unsigned comment added by J mareeswaran (talk • contribs) 18:20, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * You added a New York Times "source" that was a half-sentence aside by a columnist in an opinion piece. You added a Chicago Tribune "source" that appears to be nothing but a heading in a slideshow, at a URL starting with politics-chatter.chicagotribune.com, which is probably a blog, essentially an opinion page. And a Boston Globe piece clearly identified as opinion. At this point my eyes gloss over. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  21:49, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

This is now covered in People magazine, which is definitely a noteworthy source. bd2412 T 23:11, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Politico is now reporting that the Jane Doe lawsuit has been dropped (again). Funcrunch (talk) 23:18, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * That's two noteworthy sources, then. bd2412  T 23:22, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Jane Doe rape lawsuit dropped
Seems to me it was a hoax.

https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/5b6zyo/trump_rape_lawsuit_dismissed/

Tai Hai Chen (talk) 01:58, 5 November 2016 (UTC)


 * That would be WP:Original research. Find a reliable source saying that, and the opinion will matter to the encyclopedia. bd2412  T 02:10, 5 November 2016 (UTC)


 * https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/04/donald-trump-teenage-rape-accusations-lawsuit-dropped
 * http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/woman-drops-suit-claiming-trump-raped-13-article-1.2858890
 * http://theslot.jezebel.com/the-woman-who-accused-trump-of-raping-her-at-13-just-dr-1788603598
 * http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/donald-trump-rape-lawsuit-dropped-230770

Tai Hai Chen (talk) 02:49, 5 November 2016 (UTC)


 * We don't know why the case was dropped. I still think it should be included as it is a valid part of the allegations made against Trump.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:15, 5 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Disagree. If it was dropped, it's little more than a rumor for our purposes. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  03:17, 5 November 2016 (UTC)


 * How is filing a lawsuit a rumour? That makes no sense.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:22, 5 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Please re-read what I said. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  03:40, 5 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Jack Upland, I assume you know this and reply for the benefit of anyone following this conversation. Anyone who had $400 can file a claim in the U.S. federal court in Manhattan.  The court does not investigate the claim and there is no penalty for deceitful claims.  As in this case, the person does not have to identify themselves or as in her earlier filing may provide a false address and telephone number.  The fact that someone has made a claim is not evidence of the truth of the claim.  Indeed, that is why cases are sent to trial before a judge or jury determine the merits of a case.
 * Of course the media can weigh in on a claim pre-trial and this article covers what the media has reported on other cases. The media may also choose to ignore a case or provide it minimal coverage which has happened here.
 * TFD (talk) 05:59, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Donald Trump sued Bill Maher over his suggestion that Trump's father was an orangutan. Trump dropped the case, but that doesn't mean his father was an orangutan.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:28, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually Trump sued Maher because he promised to donate $5 to charity if Trump could show his birth certificate to prove his father was not an orangutan and Maher did not keep his promise. Maher's defense was that it was a joke hence he was not in breach of contract.  I think Trump withdrew the claim because it had no merit, which is the usual reason claims are withdrawn.  Of course claims that are withdrawn could be true, but then anything could be true, some people will believe anything.  TFD (talk) 06:48, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
 * That's right. I've been arguing with people for a while saying it was a contract case. But there is a difference between the legal issues and the factual issues. The original rape lawsuit was dismissed because of procedural issues, without any judgment on the facts. We don't know the reason for this case being dropped now. But Trump has said all the allegations are false. If one of the accusers withdrew her claim would that allegation be deleted from the page? I don't think so. Actually, that would be unfair to Trump.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:08, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I would add that the title of this article is sexual misconduct allegations, not sexual misconduct convictions or sexual misconduct confessions. Whether a lawsuit was filed or not, whether it is credible or not, an allegation has been made and has been covered in at least some reliable sources. It is certainly reasonable to question the credibility of this allegation based on other reporting about the motives of people promoting it and the withdrawal of the lawsuit. A complete discussion of the topic would include both sides. bd2412  T 15:36, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

BD2412, I couldn't have said it better. Our job is to document without taking sides. Editorial censorship is one of the most egregious violations of NPOV. We document what RS say, and also whether they deem a matter true, false, or doubtful.

If lots of factual matter is revealed (names of those involved, convictions, reliable witnesses, court records, etc.), then we give it more weight. If it's a passing event which gets little coverage in major sources because those sources deem there is "nothing there", then we give it less weight, but it still gets mentioned here. The fact major sources mention something makes it notable enough for inclusion here. If only fringe and known unreliable sources (National Enquirer, Breitbart, etc.) mention something, and major sources never mention it, then we ignore it. It gets zero weight and no mention here. The Guardian is a very major source, and it's not the only major one to document this particular matter.

Such mention can also, without editorial twisting, serve the purpose of putting weight behind the documentation that it may be a spurious matter, and thus serve the purpose of putting weight behind defense/vindication of the accused. The opposite can also be true.

We must allow the chips to fall where they may. Failure to mention leaves the public guessing and leaves a hole in our coverage of "the sum total of human knowledge." We cover truth, lies, facts, rumors, conspiracy theories, deceptions, credible and incredible matters, and all sorts of other matter. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:25, 5 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I disagree that the answer to this question is as clear as you seem to believe. Wikipedia policy does allow us, in exceptional cases, to completely omit things that have been reported in a relatively few reliable sources (and in fact it suggests that we should do so). The purpose of this RfC is to decide whether this is such a case, and I note that you have not !voted in it. My suggestion is that you do so, with as strong a policy case as you can make. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  20:23, 5 November 2016 (UTC)


 * "...completely omit things that have been reported in a relatively few reliable sources (and in fact it suggests that we should do so)" - except, of course, the Jane Doe allegations were covered in a wide variety of American and international reliable sources... Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 16:34, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Call for close
This RfC has had no new contributions since (I think) 5th November and at this stage is unlikely to attract anyone adding something that hasn't already been said. It's served its purpose, and I call for it to be closed. The wider question of the use of an RfC to keep content out of "US political articles" per Arbcom's decision is something I, for one, would like to come back to, however. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 16:34, 14 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Support early close now, per you. As for the meta discussion you describe, it seems worth having (assuming you're not still asserting a bad faith motive), and I would probably participate, but at WP:VPP, not at article level. Either that or WP:AN, I'm not entirely sure which would be more appropriate. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  16:58, 15 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I think if you put this together with the discussion below, there is a consensus for a close. I think it's unfortunate that there hasn't been any further input, but there hasn't been a new contribution for 10 days.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:49, 15 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. Close requested. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  05:48, 16 November 2016 (UTC)


 * , agreed, it needs to be a central discussion not confined to this article, or indeed to Trump. I'd been thinking a Request for Clarification at Arbcom as the venue, as it'd potentially result in a clarification of Arbcom decision. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 12:31, 17 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Ok, you may know more about that area than I do. Keep us posted. Just be careful to keep good/bad faith out of the debate please. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  12:53, 17 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Seems strange to not include the Jane Doe content and rape allegations when we still publish this reference [numbered 134 as of today]: "" 168.88.65.6 (talk) 16:09, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Neutrality - This article reads like a prosecutor's notes or a political campaign pamplet
When reading this article, great detail is provided with regard to the alleged events but the text often fails to note what, if any, corroborating evidence was given by the accuser.

When there is discussion of "Trump side", the refutations are dealt with in broad terms without equal weight. Given that most accusations are purely one person's claims versus another person's claims, this is not a neutral presentation for such a sensitive topic.

As I said in the title, this article reads like a prosecutor's cliff notes or a political campaign pamphlet.

Also, I am not a Trump supporter. I am a lawyer who does not like unsubstantiated accusations being given significant credence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.113.51.192 (talk) 02:35, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * has commented that the accusations come across as a "classical political hit job" on Trump. According to Crowley this "coordinated attack" could backfire and end up generating sympathy for Trump._ ow dear, that was the outcome, these allegations appear to have helped Trump into the white house. Govindaharihari (talk) 21:14, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Legal Proceedings?
Should the name of the section be modified? We are discussing the allegations that went to court here. The actual "legal proceedings" are available in the linked article Legal Affairs of Donald Trump. J mareeswaran (talk) 08:10, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Jane Doe lawsuit - filed in court?
Should the Jane Doe lawsuit (later dropped) be mention in section 'filed in court' as it technically fits that definition? &#124; MK17b &#124;  (talk)  21:51, 17 January 2017 (UTC)


 * See the | RfC last month. There was no consensus for adding.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:28, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Jack Upland is correct. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  09:06, 18 January 2017 (UTC)


 * He is accused of raping and beating a 13 year old girl...threatening to kill her and her family if she talked and getting away with it because he has money..why isn`t this in the article?

http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/3/13501364/trump-rape-13-year-old-lawsuit-katie-johnson-allegation

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-rape-case_us_581a31a5e4b0c43e6c1d9834

Jeffrey Epstein 152.18.26.72 (talk) 19:12, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Accusations are ten a penny and this one is worthless http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/donald-trump-rape-lawsuit-dropped-230770 - no consensus to include either. Govindaharihari (talk) 19:47, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Not everyone is charged with rape, but, no, there is no consensus.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:57, 29 January 2017 (UTC)


 * See Talk:Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations/Archive 8. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  21:06, 29 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Mainstream media decided this case was not worth reporting and ignored it, so we should ignore it too, per weight. Anyone can file any claim whatsoever against anyone whomsoever.  BTW you cannot call yourself Jeffrey Epstein.  TFD (talk) 02:48, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

2600:1:b11b:69aa:48ea:4e45:ffce:6c7 Attempted to G10 this page
I reverted it because he/she/it had no good reason, and is probably some star struck version of user talk:DaddyDonnyTrump. Just wanted to let y'all know L3X1 My Complaint Desk 03:22, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not a sock of that user. I tagged it because I found profane quotations contained within the article. If they were to be censored, then its content would eventually violate WP:LIBEL. 66.87.64.138 (talk) 03:37, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * You geolocate within 12 miles of "that user"...  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 06:15, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment I was nto accusing him to be a sock, I was stating that the above IP probably slots int he same catergory of people, which was a polite version of saying people who think Trump is God and is awesome and who can do no wrong. And you're going to get investigated for sockpuppetry if you continue to IP hop. You could get a warning for not logging in. L3X1 My Complaint Desk 14:33, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Innocent until found guilty in a court of law
Is that sentence anywhere in the article? It should be a disclaimer because it involves US law and the current president. Ralphw (talk) 17:07, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * IMO it's implied in the word "allegation". Don't sweat it. L3X1 My Complaint Desk 17:26, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not really correct, in any case. Innocent until found guilty applies in criminal proceedings. It does not apply to civil proceedings, such as the Zervos defamation suit or the Jane Doe suit mentioned above.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:47, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

The Daily Show
This pagewas mentioned and discussed on The Daily Show with Trevor Noah: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WRmNsRq8J-M (from 3:17). Mentioned was the lenght of this page, the amount of subsection and amount of footnotes, and that half of all donation to Wikipedia goes to maintain this page. (t) Josve05a  (c) 16:35, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Added to press template. Madshurtie (talk) 11:19, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * For some reason it's not appearing on WP:PRESS 17. If anyone can fix it, that would be great. Madshurtie (talk) 11:20, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * This is fake news. I contributed to this page, and I didn't get any money at all.--Jack Upland (talk) 12:45, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I think it's mainly server and admin costs. If they paid us too, this page might bankrupt the foundation. Madshurtie (talk) 13:12, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * It must be rotten from the top down. The level of deception that Wikipedia has created here is astounding. EyePhoenix (talk) 05:57, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * This has always been my lot: I become involved in corrupt organisations, but no ill-gotten gains trickle down into my dirty hands. Sad.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:38, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

withdrawn "and/or settled", alleging that they were sexually assaulted by Trump
As per the source: "the lawsuit, which Harth brought forward in 1997. She dropped it weeks later after Trump settled an outstanding business lawsuit from her partner Houraney claiming he broke contract by backing out of the American Dream festival. (Houraney sued for $5m but settled with Trump for a smaller, undisclosed amount.)". harth did not settle with Trump. The settled court case was in regard to breaking a legal contract with Houraney that trump caused when he backed out of the American Dream festival. Trump, as far as the sources in this article, has never settled in regard to allegations of sexually assault. 2001:470:1F15:1A45:A9D0:4C1B:5B0C:BDE2 (talk) 21:20, 14 July 2017 (UTC).

Splitting the article
The article currently stands at about 93kb, I think dividing the article into multiple smaller article might improve readability, as per WP:SIZESPLIT. Fangfufu (talk) 16:02, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
 * You aren't using the right number for that guideline. The article is 92 kB of wiki text, but 35 kB in prose size (text only). Therefore it doesn't need to be split. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:22, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Definitely not too large. It's actually not that big an article. We have many which are MUCH larger. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:23, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay, Muboshgu was right, I used the wrong guideline. I will get rid off the tag then. Fangfufu (talk) 14:35, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Jennifer Murphy?
The Advocate ran an article, based on a series of tweets attributed to Judd Legum. He listed 14 names. 13 were present on Wikipedia. The missing one was Jennifer Murphy.

''Jennifer Murphy. Apprentice contestant says Trump kissed her on the lips after a job interview in 2005. — Judd Legum (@JuddLegum) October 9, 2017''

I've read a few articles on her reaction to the event. I don't know much about sexual assault or the standard for this page, but I thought it should be discussed on the talk page.

Mdnahas (talk) 15:04, 12 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Haven't looked too deep, but my first two Google hits are headlined "Trump Kissed Her—But It's Okay" and "Trump kissed me, I wasn't offended". Sounds like she is not making an allegation of sexual misconduct. I don't think a welcome kiss clears the bar. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  15:43, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Edits about Jane Doe and further series of edits
The lead says: “Three of those women filed lawsuits, which were eventually settled or withdrawn, alleging that they were sexually assaulted by Trump.” This refers to Ivana Trump, Jill Harth, and a Jane Doe case that was dropped. That last item was the subject of an RFC at this talk page which resulted in exclusion of the info from this page. I will rephrase the lead accordingly.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:40, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ along with some other edits to this BLP.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 10:23, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

100% neutral heading, read on for details
I have reverted a string of edits that insinuate that various statements concerning allegations of harassment are untrue. Any such edits should be proposed one by one here on talk so that policy-based consensus can be determined. SPECIFICO talk  19:06, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Please give me at least one example. I am not going to debate with you whether dead urls should be fixed.  Editing policy says “Preserve appropriate content.“  You have violated this policy by removing content that is very clearly appropriate, on the basis that other content is inappropriate, while keeping secret what that other content is.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:13, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support fixing dead URLs. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  19:18, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support following policy which says to preserve appropriate content. This was an indiscriminate revert, and it would be 100% absurd to have a survey about every trivial edit. See WP:Editing policy.  &#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:20, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I suggest you try one small edit and see if it stands. If not, come here and discuss it. Rinse. Repeat. This approach will make it easier to see if anybody is being obstructionist or disruptive. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  19:22, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I waited for more than six hours before continuing with these recent edits. You think I should have waited for more than six hours between each of them?  It would take weeks.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:26, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Suggestions? You can see my talk for a little more context. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  19:45, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Mixed into the fog of little tinkers and tidbits are egregious POV spins of language that cast undue unsourced doubt on women who state that they have been harassed. Repeatedly reinserting these and quick-draw editing, effectively preventing participation by editors less frequent and constantly watching than yourself, is not OK. And restoring this brand new POV language on the premise that it's preserving content? Makes no sense. SPECIFICO talk  20:03, 14 October 2017 (UTC) This page has 123 watchers. Give it 2-3 days and you'll get a broader representation of the reaction to these edits. SPECIFICO talk  20:04, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Still not one example of inappropriate content, no acknowledgment that some of the removed edits were appropriate beyond “tinkers and tidbits”, no acknowledgment that I posted at this talk page before editing, no acknowledgment that I paused for more than six hours in the middle of editing to allow input, and no acknowledgment that WP:Editing policy bars indiscriminate reverts that remove appropriate content. What is the language that you claim is POV?  You want to defy the RFC mentioned at the top of this immediately-preceding talk page section by having the lead refer to the Jane Doe suit?  Apparently so.  You want the section on litigation to exclude the Zervos litigation?  Apparently so.  If not, then what is your objection, and why won’t you follow the editing policy?&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:09, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Saying Ivana "recanted" without saying this was in the context of settlement of her divorce action? There's an example.  My undo was not about your RfC.  Patience is a virtue.  3 days from now, we will know what others think.  SPECIFICO  talk  23:02, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Of course it was in the context of divorce: “Ivana made a rape claim during their 1989 divorce litigation but later recanted that claim”. How does that omit context?  The divorce was in 1989, she recanted in 1993, and again in 2016.  The proposed language is as factual as it gets.  Readers can also go look at the top picture caption if they want, plus there’s a whole subsection about it.  There was a gag order that was part of the divorce settlement, but gag orders do not require people to affirmatively say anything such as “he never raped me”.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:15, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Well then why not say she recanted the allegation pursuant to a settlement agreement of their litigation. and many other sources. That's just what popped up.  Gotta hop now.  SPECIFICO  talk  23:43, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Nothing in the December 1990 settlement agreement apparently required her to recant the allegation three years later, in 1993, or to say in 2015 that the allegation was “without merit”. That New Yorker article by Jane Mayer doesn’t say otherwise, but merely quotes a supposition by a book author named Hurt: “Hurt said that he considers the note [by Ivana in 1993] a non-denial denial, and believes that Ivana agreed to amend her words in order to secure the divorce settlement, in which she reportedly received fourteen million dollars in cash.”  Maybe she also said in 2015 that the charges were without merit because she had a financial incentive then too.  We don’t know.  What we do know is that her recantations in 1993 and 2015 were both years after the divorce was granted.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:59, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Survey
Aside from little tinkers and tidbits, are every single one of the edits that were removed in this edit POV violations, including (1) moving the Zervos material into the litigation section, (2) the removal from the lead of the material related to the Jane Doe lawsuit discussed at the beginning of this the immediately-preceding talk page section, (3) inclusion of a denial by Trump in the lead paragraph, (4) inline attribution of a quote to an opinion piece by Kristof, (5) mentioning Trump’s apology in the lead, (6) expanding the Trump quote about going backstage for context, (7) including Stern’s imitation of a contestant for context, and (8) including this quote for NPOV: “Most of the former contestants were doubtful or dismissed the possibility that Trump violated their changing room privacy”?&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:54, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * No, they were not all POV violations. (In fact, none of them were, and no reason to the contrary has been offered.)&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:54, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with many of the changes, particular to paragraphs two and three of the lede. The WP:LEAD must summarize the article and leaning one way or the other is a violation. Several of these allegations preceded Trump's candidacy for president... Then how come our article only describes two and not "several"? Anythingyouwant's version is more exactly and less NPOV. The inclusion of "three lawsuits" is in direct violation of the "Jane Doe" RfC even if we don't mention her explicitly. Adding denials and details of witnesses with conflicting accounts is also closer to WP:NPOV, we must keep WP:DUE weight in mind.LM2000 (talk) 22:15, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Anythingyouwant's changes were a vast improvement. The lead should reflect the body, yet this article's lead alludes to a third lawsuit (the "Jane Doe" hoax) that goes unmentioned in the body, while avoiding any summary of the relevant litigation. Consider the difference:
 * Current lead: "Three of those women filed lawsuits, which were eventually settled or withdrawn, alleging that they were sexually assaulted by Trump. Additionally one accuser filed a defamation lawsuit in 2017 after Trump called her a liar."
 * Anythingyouwant's revision: "Those accusations resulted in the following widely-reported litigation: his then-wife Ivana made a rape claim during their 1989 divorce litigation but later recanted that claim; businesswoman Jill Harth sued Trump in 1997 alleging breach of contract and nonviolent sexual harassment and the latter suit was withdrawn when the former was settled; and, in 2017, former game show contestant Summer Zervos filed a defamation lawsuit after Trump called her a liar."
 * SPECIFICO has argued that these basic, uncontroversial facts undermine the credibility of Ivana and Harth's allegations, but—whether she is right about that or not—she has it backwards: The lead is supposed to summarize the body, including all of the essential facts; censoring relevant information to push a given narrative is anathema to Wikipedia policy, particularly in a WP:BLP. In any case, we are literally bound by long-standing consensus and a formal RfC to avoid discussing the "Jane Doe" lawsuit, so eliminating it from the lead should be an urgent priority. Furtheremore, as I have noted previously, Wikipedia's summary of the "Miss Teen USA" allegations diverges dramatically from the sources, which do in fact explicitly state: "Most of the former contestants were doubtful or dismissed the possibility that Trump violated their changing room privacy"; in past discussions on this talk page, I was told that exculpatory material should not be included because this article is devoted entirely to the accusations against Trump (e.g., here and here). Unfortunately, editors can and do abuse the "do not restore challenged edits" discretionary sanction to effectively override RfC consensus and cherrypick the content from sources. SPECIFICO, who has done this systematically across numerous articles, knows what she is doing—as does everyone else familiar with her Wikipedia history. (To give just one example, it is solely due to SPECIFICO's personal biases that Donald Trump's disclosures of classified information includes Erick Erickson but not Vladimir Putin:, , .)TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:34, 15 October 2017 (UTC)