Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Accusations of rape against United States presidents (second nomination)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result was delete. Veinor (talk to me) 14:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Accusations of rape against United States presidents (3rd nomination)

 * Note, this is the third nomination: 1st AFD & 2nd AFD, per Smmurphy's comment below.
 * Note, this is the third nomination: 1st AFD & 2nd AFD, per Smmurphy's comment below.

(View AfD) (View log)

Results of 1st Nomination: (No Consensus)
 * Delete/Merge=12
 * Keep=8

Results of 2nd Nomination: (No Consensus)
 * Delete/Merge=10
 * Keep=7

The section on Jefferson includes the relationship between him and Sally Hemings, which is covered extensively on Hemings' and Thomas Jefferson's pages. The accusation of rape is merely speculative. The accusation against Ronald Reagan contains only the account by the accuser. There is simply not enough evidence for this to be considered a notable accusation, an argument which is supported by the brevity of the section. Perhaps the only notable accusation on this page is the one against Bill Clinton, but that accusation is already covered on Juanita Broaddrick's page. The accusation against Bush is a joke. The demented ramblings of a crazy person are non-notable. Because the only worthwhile accusation (made against Clinton) is already covered elsewhere, I'm nominating this page for deletion. Pablothegreat85 19:16, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. I don't think this is necessary. Any notable -- and verifiable -- information would already be covered in the applicable biographical articles, and I have WP:BLP concerns regarding the sections about living presidents. 23skidoo 21:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. If it were just 1 accusation I too would be for deletion, but it is presidents. I think this article should stay.Lilkunta 21:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC).
 * Keep per last AFD: Perhaps the charges are ludicrous, almost certainly the most recent is (as the article makes fairly clear). They are also notable and well-known. The article does not endorse or promote the validity of any of these charges. It does provide a neutral and well-sourced exposition of them. The issue of Jefferson and his slave is certainly speculation by its very nature, but this article does not speculate. It reports notable speculations and research of others; that's exactly what Wikipedia is supposed to do. Smmurphy(Talk) 22:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Note, this is the third AFD, the first was under a different title: Articles for deletion/Accusations of rape against U.S. presidents, and the second I linked to above. Smmurphy(Talk) 22:32, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep as per last AFD. Well sourced, neutral, notable. Derex 22:51, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Article created for the sole purpose of disparaging its subjects.  Violates WP:NPOV because of undue weight problems, and as such, is violative of WP:BLP.  Also, "allegations" and "accusations" kinds of pages are WP:OR, as they call for "connecting the dots" and synthesis of published materials in order to advance a position, which is prohibited by WP:SYNT.  Wikipedia is not a soapbox for every accusation and notion out there folks, let's try to be an encyclopedia, not a tabloid.    MortonDevonshire  Yo  · 01:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * False and slanderous. I created the article for exactly the opposite purpose. Anon's kept jamming the Reagan, Bush, and Clinton articles full of this stuff. I got sick of it and decided to spin it off to a sub-article. That avoids the undue weight problem that was in fact present in the main articles. It certainly does not disparage, but makes quite clear that there's not much evidence in any of these notable accusations. It's plainly equal-opportunity politically, so I can't imagine what soapbox you think I was standing on. "Accusation" is not OR, what a bizarre statement, there clearly was an accusation. The article reports the accusation and the evidenced adduced for it elsewhere. It does not make the accusation itself. If you care to make an argument without shrill hysteria about the nefarious motives of other authors, it would be welcome. Derex 01:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It sounds to me like you were upset that anonymous users were vandalizing those pages with this stuff (as well you should be), so you created this page and filled it with the content with which these anonymous users were vandalizing the page. If this is the case (and it may not be), why would vandalism on the presidents' individual pages be acceptable for a separate page?  Pablothegreat85 01:27, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No, I said nothing of the kind. It wasn't vandalism or I would simply have deleted it. This is a perfectly legitimate subject for Wikipedia; it meets all criteria. The problems was that the material violated the undue weight section of NPOV policy given the emphasis in the main article. I created this at approximately the same time that Arbcom itself recommended the exact same remedy for the John Kerry article. The point is to keep the main article on a subject to the main points; that doesn't imply that other lesser points can't be included elsewhere in Wikipedia. If it does, we'll delete half the damn thing. Derex 01:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * delete POV fork to address vandals, undue weight, etc but POV fork nonetheless. It needs to be in the articles with apropriate weight which is less than a sentence.  Or better yet, if the accuser is notable, it should be in the accusers bio and leave the details out of the presidents' bio completely.  Even having an article that addresses presidential rape accusations is undue weight.  --Tbeatty 01:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No, because it doesn't promote or take a POV. There's nothing at all POV about the article. Arbcom itself endorsed this approach to the John Kerry mess, which is about when I created this article, with that experience and remedy in mind. Derex 01:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep The accusations against Clinton have never been shown to be unreasonable and there's always been a lot to them. To blather on about slander shows a partisan spirit and POV. If accusations against the other presidents have something to them or don't, we might as well present them fairly. It's a public service not to leave it only to conspiracy theorists and cranks. Noroton 01:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No one has said that the Clinton allegation is unreasonable. In my nomination, I wrote, "Perhaps the only notable accusation on this page is the one against Bill Clinton."  Furthermore, no one has suggested that the allegations should be presented unfairly.  The whole issue here is how to fairly present the accusations, if at all (which only the Clinton one should be).  Pablothegreat85 01:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I shouldn't participate in these things when I'm too tired. Noroton 04:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * But that's simply not accurate. The Reagan accusation received quite wide coverage at the time, though it was not widely believed. Jefferson is hugely well known and publicized, though it is admittedly of a different character than the others (and was added by someone else). Clinton goes without saying. The Bush accusation is the most tenuous; it surely would have gone without note in the pre-internet age. However, it is in fact widely known, and the coverage here does a public service I think because neutral coverage pretty clearly implies that the poor woman was desperately ill. Many of the highly partisan sources on the web make it sound like there was a cover-up. I personally think that none of these accusations is accurate, but then the article is not titled "rapes by presidents". Derex 01:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I think we can put the Clinton discussion to rest. It seems to be consensus that that accusation is notable.  Jefferson's relationship with Sally Hemings is widely known, and it is clearly notable.  What I don't like is that there is no evidence of rape in the article.  Instead, the article quotes speculative sources, and in turn, appears speculative itself.  I'm not sure that the Bush rape is that well-known.  Should we include content every time a crazy person accuses the president of a misdeed (and I'm sure they've been accused of far worse deeds than rape)?  Pablothegreat85 02:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Some argue that consent is not possible between slave and owner, thus rape by modern standards. The point is arguable, but the accusation has clearly been made. If you feel the article is not clear enough about the issues, then constructive response is to edit the article to improve it, rather than delete it. Derex 03:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

KeepI do not think that this page will promote the harm that is alledged, as long as they stay only accusations. Clay hatcher 02:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete I understand why the article was created, but much of this is spurious and without credibility...even though it supposedly cross examines each issue. I don't think that the information in here is notable enough to warrant inclusion. Allusion to crimal acts in biographies should be avoided at all costs or all we are is a repository of indiscrimnate misinformation.--MONGO 04:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your AGF Mongo. I understand your concern. However, when a story has been covered by the likes of the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the Los Angeles Times as each of the Reagan, Clinton, and Jefferson cases was, it's not indiscriminate information. It's already notable, we're not adding to that. Its notability that means we have a role to play as a neutral repository of information whether or not the accusations are true. Certainly a great many of the crazy claims against the Clintons are completely unsubstantiated and meritless, and yet we have articles on those which received national coverage and rightly so. Derex 04:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The Bush accusation was only printed in the Fort Bend Star, it says so in the article. What makes the Bush allegation notable?  I just cannot see how it is such.  Pablothegreat85 04:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete because it cannot help but give undue weight to events which are in every case admittedly not proven rapes. Guy (Help!) 09:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Any material like this we include should be presented in context in the person's biography. Tom Harrison Talk 13:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per Mongo. Add any WP:ATT reliable sources to the article on the President. As for Jefferson, if it was impossible for a slave to consent to sex, it was also legally impossible for a master to rape a slave under the applicable laws of the time. Edison 14:14, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak keep But needs major clean up... it seems sourced enough, but might be better off to include each section directly into each subjects' article. Support deletion if the info is merged by the closing admin to the respective articles... - Denny 17:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, Fork and POV playground. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 20:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Combining all these allegations together because they were made on presidents seems pretty crufty. This information should be kept on articles (or spinout articles) dealing with the individuals involved.-Andrew c 22:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. I have no particular objection to that. I object to the material being deleted. Putting them together seemed a reasonable solution at the time. Note that someone already created a Broaddrick article by cut-n-paste of the section here. Same could be done for the others, with references to each other or see-also's for context. Derex 22:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe the Clinton and Jefferson allegations are covered in the articles on the presidents and their accusers. That just leaves the Reagan and Bush accusations. Perhaps we could create an article on Selene Walters and Schoedinger? Or perhaps these accusations aren't notable enough to merit inclusion. I understand your concern about deleting content, and I believe that creating articles on the 2 aforementioned accusers could work.-Andrew c 22:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Seems to have all been covered before in other artcles. It's full of weazel words and he said/she said. I don't see the reason for it to exist as it's own article. It's like having an article called 'Actors that played Tarzan' totaly pointless. [[Image:Flag_of_Australia.svg|25px]] Mobile 01 Talk 23:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as POV magnet and playground. The "information" is based on frivolous accusations, and the thing is the title of the article just targets United States presidents. Should it be more neutral by being titled Accusations of rape against world leaders? Even if were to be renamed as such, WP:BLP issues/concerns would make it hard to maintain. JungleCat    Shiny! / Oohhh!  23:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Very imformative. ==  Taxico  00:18, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, soapbox. --kingboyk 00:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete because there are only these small number of accusations, the 1 or 2 notable ones are worth separate articles, and the others go into the general bios article. DGG 01:51, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete IMHO, this is not encyclopedic. Wikipedia is not for the sum total of all human knowledge. Content about presidents from the USA that have actually raped might be more noteworthy, but that would belong in the biographies of those presidents. — Rico 16:42, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Accusations of criminal misconduct against a US president is of historical value. --FateClub 02:41, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. The notable cases are/should be discussed in each individual bio; the rest is unencyclopedic chatter which doesn't belong on Wiki.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 15:52, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete and merge the relevant bits into the relevant bios as was mentioned above, otherwise it is forking, really.. Baristarim 00:44, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per majority votes in previous elections, AND clear POV fork--Sefringle 02:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.