Talk:Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 9

The word "conspiracy" in the lede

Should the word "conspiracy" appear in the lede? I believe it is undue, as the word is POV. It suggests that Trump believes in "conspiracy theories"--give me a break! He may believe this is a witch-hunt, but that's different.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:21, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Well we could use his words e.g. something like Trump called it a "big fix". I'm not sure how to summarise his statements as anything other then calling it a conspiracy. — Strongjam (talk) 16:27, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Witch-hunt sounds good. Can we please agree on this?Zigzig20s (talk) 16:37, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

No, he didn't call it anything sounding like a witch hunt. He called it a "big fix" and said that "the media conspires and collaborates with the Clinton campaign". — Strongjam (talk) 16:42, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Let's replace "conspiracy" with "big fix" then, shall we?Zigzig20s (talk) 16:45, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Let's stick with what the sources say, "conspiracy". To do anything else would be spinning this. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 16:49, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

The source is POV. It's from The Washington Post. They have endorsed HRC.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:51, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

If they were relaying facts, that would be fine, but they are interpreting here. Ergo, "big fix" is NPOV and the best choice for Wikipedia.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:53, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

The WSJ and CNN however have not given an endorsement and both use the word conspiracy. Even Trump used the word "conspire". — Strongjam (talk) 16:54, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Can you please link to those WSJ and CNN articles? I would like to double-check the context. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:59, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Those sources are linked right behind the word "conspiracy" in the lead. Trump is talking about a conspiracy of the election being "rigged" against him. Also, WaPo is not POV. Editorial boards across the country have endorsed HRC, but they are separate from the journalism of those papers. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:00, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, it depends. In this case it is POV, because they appear to be re-interpreting what he said.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:02, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Why don't we use his direct quote from CNN, "one of the great political smear campaigns in the history of our country"? This is perfect.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:05, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Or we can just stick to the sources. See also Fortune, NBC News, FOX32 Chicago, and Chicago Trubune. — Strongjam (talk) 17:06, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

This sentence is about his response though. I think it makes sense to let him speak.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:10, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

It's funny, how Zigzig is always saying "follow what the sources say", but here sources say something he/she doesn't like, and is now trying to disregard them. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:10, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, the direct quote is backed up by an RS.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:12, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

How about using words from the campaign, either character assassination or smear? See the Jason Miller quote in the reactions section.--CaroleHenson (talk) 17:47, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

That would certainly be a better option, too.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:01, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Although the titles of the article include the word conspiracy, I am not seeing that Trump used that word--but that's what he seems to be getting at conceptually-- in the cited sources, but maybe I missed it. Trump does call it a "political smear campaign" in the cited CNN article. There are no new com;ments. So, how about if I make that change and if anyone has an issue, please say so here.--CaroleHenson (talk) 22:11, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Donald Trump has described things as a conspiracy. And this. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:26, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Are you saying "political smear campaign" from the cited CNN article is a poorer word choice than conspiracy and should be replaced? Is that particular word important? Thanks.---CaroleHenson (talk) 05:49, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

I object to the word "conspiracy"; it is POV. The current edit, a direct quote with "political smear campaign", is fine. I think we can close this specific topic. We've fixed the problem and reached consensus and there's no need to keep discussing this endlessly.Zigzig20s (talk) 06:19, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

"Conspiracy" is not POV, Trump said the media and the Clinton campaign "conspire", said it was a "big fix" and that involved Carlos Slim. I can't see anyway to summarise that then as alleging a conspiracy. What is POV is not sticking to the sources. — Strongjam (talk) 14:14, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree that conspiracy is not POV, but it is also not the prevailing way in which Trump and his campaign have described the events. Isn't a political smear campaign an example of a conspiracy?- Please help me understand why it is so important to use the actual word "conspiracy". Thanks.-CaroleHenson (talk) 16:09, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Reactions that are victim bashing and conspiracy theories

It is appropriate to have conversation about denial of the claims, further of objectivity women by saying trump wouldn't be attracted to them is not appropriate.

As far as the many conspiracy theories that Trump has identified, that could be an article in itself. I know that there is interest to slant the article because of upcoming election, but it is starting become very unbalanced and ugly.--CaroleHenson (talk) 18:02, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

The fact that Trump would not be attracted to these women is a defense offered by Trump's attorney and also Trump himself. The sources, and also wikipedia guidelines, have decided that this content needs to stay in the main article.Soham321 (talk) 18:14, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Lack of objectivity

This recent edit shows a lack of objectivity. The edit removed the word "purportedly":

“ Until that point she purportedly had conflicting emotions common among victims of assault, combined with embarrassment and confusion. ”

The edit summary says, "Stoynoff is the only person who can be a source for her own emotions, no need for the WP:ALLEGED wording here." Actually, reliable sources could conceivably confirm Stoynoff's story based upon evidence, and in that case it would be appropriate to remove the "purportedly". The reason we need that word is because reliable sources have not done so, and we should not seek to convey that they have done so. Per WP:Alleged, "alleged and accused are appropriate when wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined". Omitting such a word wrongly tells our readers that wrongdoing has been determined.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:40, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Stoynoff's having emotions is not an accusation of wrongdoing. Attempting to cast doubt on her saying how she felt is ridiculous. — Strongjam (talk) 01:47, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

We cannot say she is among the "victims of assault". That would potentially be libelous.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:50, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

The article doesn't say that. It just said she had conflicting emotions. Attempting to cast doubt on how she said she felt is not appropriate. — Strongjam (talk) 01:52, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

The sentence is not merely about emotions. It is also about being a victim of assault, which at this point is undetermined.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:55, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

We apparently have a good compromise: "Until that point, she said, she had conflicting emotions common among victims of assault, combined with embarrassment and confusion."Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:06, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

OK I really object to this edit by User:CaroleHenson. If we're going to have a long article about allegations, we should at least give the Trump campaign some space to respond.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:49, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

But you don't have a problem when I support your point. I am going to comment at the New sections below, where you have also commented.--CaroleHenson (talk) 18:20, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Hashtag #WhyWomenDontReport

Does this warrant inclusion? According to this report, peak tweets per hour over the last 24 hours are below those of #HalloweenMusicals and #AMJoy, and declining. James J. Lambden (talk) 16:47, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

There was a fair bit of related media commentary. Possibly the subheading could be changed to focus less on the Twitter part. Madshurtie (talk) 16:50, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

If you type 'credibility victims' into google, three of the top six news stories are about it. Madshurtie (talk) 16:54, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Hmm, my first page results for 'credibility victims' are mostly law journals, nothing about twitter. James J. Lambden (talk) 16:59, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, meant Google News. :-/ I was talking specifically about the news stories. Madshurtie (talk) 17:01, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

No problem, that makes sense because Google News search defaults to "Recent." I changed the range to 2016 (using Custom Range) and the hashtag doesn't show up in the first three pages. James J. Lambden (talk) 17:34, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Presumably that's because of the small proportion of days in 2016 since the articles were put up? Not all of the relevant articles are about the hashtag, some of them are about general victim doubting over the allegations. Madshurtie (talk) 17:53, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't think the hashtag is notable.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:22, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

@Jack Upland: Do you think changing the subheading to refer to the general topic rather than just the hashtag is a good solution? Madshurtie (talk) 08:10, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

But what is the topic???--Jack Upland (talk) 09:14, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

@Jack Upland: Commentators opposing the suggestions that the timing seems political and/or that no one would wait to come out. There has been a lot of media comment on this. 'Credibility of timing' or 'Reluctance to report' might work as subheadings, though I'm sure there are better wordings. Madshurtie (talk) 09:40, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

@Pincrete: Commentators have pointed out the general reasons why women don't report in response to these allegations, so it's purely a reaction, which is why it's in a reactions section. Adding a sentence on why these women said they didn't report might be valuable, but it would have to be from a secondary source reacting to these allegations, or the section would then start verging on synth. As far as I'm concerned, this section (and the comparisons section) is fine so long as we only use comments made by quality publications specifically in response to these allegations. Madshurtie (talk) 09:41, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Ummmm? I realised the article was 'triggered' by the Trump allegations (though as I recall they are only mentioned at the beginning). When something like this happens, all kinds of 'responses' become topical, there may well be articles out there asking why rich powerful men feel entitled to behave as they wish. All kinds of general discussion is triggered around related 'topic area', but what direct bearing do these have on this case? Newspapers' only restraints are staying within the laws of libel (which I'm sure they are careful to do in this instance), as long as they stay within those, they can focus their articles on misconduct in general, misconduct and power, why women often don't report, or any aspect they choose, WP has a stricter set of values, which include remaining 'on-topic'. I don't have the interest in the topic to get deeply involved here, so I'm not going to press my point, but I think there is unintended synth in the inclusion, which goes beyond saying that discussion/debate/controversy was sparked about the time delay, to implying why THESE women have delayed reporting, it may be easy for us to understand those reasons, but it is still synth to apply the general to the particular. The article is a fairly strong article, I don't think it needs to go beyond collecting the neutral facts. Pincrete (talk) 23:48, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

WP:SYNTH in Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations#Pattern of behavior

The first two sentences of this section are examples of WP:SYNTH: the reasoning appears to run like this:

• Men who make sexist or degrading comments about women are more likely to commit sexual assault.
• Donald Trump made sexist and degrading comments about women.
• Therefore, Donald Trump is more likely to have committed sexual assault (i.e. the allegations of sexual assault against him are more likely to be true).

This inference is not actually stated in either article -- rather, it is merely implied -- and mirroring that implication in the article is WP:SYNTH.

Moreover, the study from Psychology of Violence (see [1]) which both articles appear to be referring to, sought to discover whether "sexual objectification may be an important mechanism through which heavy drinking is associated with sexual aggression", not simply whether a history of making lewd and sexist remarks makes sexual assault more likely. As well, test subjects were all undergraduate males, and the authors concede that "[i]t remains unclear whether similar associations would emerge with noncollegiate samples. The relations from this study may be limited to college campuses." Finally, the study itself refers to the evidence that "sexual objectification may be associated with sexual violence" as "anecdotal".

In short, the implication that Trump is more likely to have committed sexual assault because he has made sexist and degrading comments about women is WP:SYNTH. The study doesn't really say what those citing it say it does, and its limitations and focus on the role of alcohol limit its applicability.

I think these flaws question the basis for the inclusion of the entire "Pattern of behaviour" section, and that this section ought therefore to be removed. -- Rrburke (talk) 15:06, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia editors did not come to the conclusion, the author and legal analyst Lisa Bloom and the Economist article did. From Bloom's article:

• "An anonymous “Jane Doe” filed a federal lawsuit against GOP presumptive nominee Donald Trump last week, accusing him of raping her in 1994 when she was thirteen years old. The mainstream media ignored the filing."
• "No outsider can say whether Mr. Trump is innocent or guilty of these new rape charges. But we can look at his record, analyze the court filings here, and make a determination as to credibility - whether the allegations are believable enough for us to take them seriously and investigate them, keeping in mind his denial and reporting new facts as they develop. I have done that. And the answer is a clear “yes.”"
• "The rape case must be viewed through the lens of Mr. Trump’s current, longstanding and well documented contempt for women. Men who objectify women are more likely to become perpetrators of sexual violence, just as one with a long history of overtly racist comments is more likely to commit a hate crime"

This article says:

• "Lisa Bloom pointed to research indicating that "[m]en who objectify women are more likely to become perpetrators of sexual violence, just as one with a long history of overtly racist comments is more likely to commit a hate crime."

The Economist article makes the connection between his behavior and the likelihood that he may have committed sexual assaults

I moved two other a sources about the connection between objectification of women and how that can tie to sexual violence, these did not mention Trump. If these two articles had been used alone, then I would get the WP:SYNTH claim.

I don't see how WP editors have performed original research / SYNTH. If you think this section needs to provide some of the background, like the connection to the rape case, that might help clarify things.

As mentioned in a topic above, Comparisons of past behavior, I do think that there should be balanced reporting - so it is not just this viewpoint that is represented.--CaroleHenson (talk) 15:32, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

I made a suggested markup in the section above.

If we get rid of this section, then I think we need to really streamline the Trump campaign's reaction. So much of it is redundant and the other position is totally unspoken, and is unbalanced in Trump's favor. The key point is "Trump claims that "corporate media" are "political, special interest, no different than any lobbyist or other financial entity with a total political agenda." ("HPM Feeling Burned" citation) And that the charges are without merit. Otherwise, it's just having the same sentiment stated from four of the Trump camp's perspectives: Trump, his campaign, his spokespeople and his attorney.--CaroleHenson (talk) 16:06, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

@CaroleHenson: Oh, hadn't noticed you'd also condensed the Trump reactions bit. The fact that the section is large may be a WP:DUE problem, but I don't know that it's large enough to count. We could also avoid WP:DUE by adding more content to other reactions sections, or even creating a new reactions section if anyone can think of one. As for the behaviour section, I personally think it's OK in it's current form and agree it's not SYNTH (though suspect the new heading makes its purpose a bit less clear:-D ) Madshurtie (talk) 16:26, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Ok, what do you think about adding the blurb at the top of the markup re: two arguments (theories) under the "Reactions" heading?--CaroleHenson (talk) 16:40, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

@CaroleHenson: A markup summary? Might as well. Madshurtie (talk) 16:44, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi, CaroleHenson. Both the Lisa Bloom piece and the Economist article are op-ed pieces, more in the realm of news analysis than news. Op-ed pieces reflect nothing more than the opinion of the writer and are not to be relied upon for facts, never mind to justify the inclusion of a section in an article.

More importantly, the study Lisa Bloom links to and the Economist article also appears to refer to doesn't say what Bloom says it does. Its focus is on the mediating role of sexual objectification between heavy drinking among college students and sexual assault. It is simply not on point, to begin with, and its findings, as the authors acknowledge, may not be applicable outside of a college environment. It even refers to evidence directly linking sexually objectification and sexual assault as merely "anecdotal". And yet I note that the abstract of this article is being cited to anchor the claim of a relationship between the use of sexist language and the propensity for sexual assault. How can that be when the study itself doesn't even say that?

Above, you assert that "Without the Lisa Bloom's statement, or something else that ties past behavior to proclivity for sexual misconduct, I agree, it shouldn't be in the article." I happen to agree with you, and since, first, Bloom's piece is merely on op-ed, and, second, she misstates the findings of the study that her claim is based on, I can see no basis for including the quote from her. And since, as you state, the merits of the section stand or fall with Bloom's claim, I think since it doesn't belong, neither does the section. -- Rrburke (talk) 17:21, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I said "Without the Lisa Bloom's statement, or something else that ties past behavior to proclivity for sexual misconduct, I agree, it shouldn't be in the article." because then it would be OR / SYNTH. It isn't that it falls on Bloom's or the Economist claim, It gets back to your original argument - we cannot make a statement that says that Trump objectifies women, which could lead to sexual assault, without a source.--CaroleHenson (talk) 17:34, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Right, and that's what I'm claiming: that there isn't a reliable source that says that. First, because the pieces that say that are op-eds. Here is WP:NEWSORG on op-eds:

Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact.

Second, the study[2] upon which the op-ed authors base their claim that objectifying and demeaning women verbally increases the propensity for sexual assault doesn't actually say that at all. What it says is that, among male college students, objectifying behaviour plays a mediatory role between heavy drinking and sexual assault. Both Bloom and the Economist have completely misstated the findings of the study.

So we do not currently have a reliable source that says that prior use of sexist or demeaning language increases a person's propensity for sexual assault, so the article shouldn't say that. The absence of such a source nullifies the stated rationale for including this section in the article, so it ought to come out. -- Rrburke (talk) 18:20, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello again Rrburke,

Re: Lisa Bloom — I am getting from your statement above is that editorial opinions "are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author" - which is what happened, it's attributed to her. The sourcing, especially the article title <inserted>for the research source she used<inserted> is unfortunate. Did you read the entire article or just the abstract? However: For now, it seems wise to comment out her info. I'd remove it, but there are others that contributed to that section and it would be good to give them time to weigh in.

 Done - No feedback re: keeping the Bloom info and because of the number of concerns around it, I went ahead and removed the commented text in this edit.--CaroleHenson (talk) 04:01, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Re: Economist article — Deborah Cameron, the author of “The Myth of Mars and Venus”, states that objectifying comments can be "used to build fraternal bonds", and not necessary convey fact. Even so, "locker room talk" is not an acceptable behavior, "such talk can pave the way to harassment and assault." She says that "Research on fraternities and sports teams suggests that, by reducing women to objects and ostracising men who do not join in, banter can make sexual assaults more likely—and make it less likely that men on the scene will intervene, or report the culprits later." I don't see that it's the same research that Bloom mentions. I think this info should be added.

Re: Shaun R. Harper — I added <inserted>the first part of the<inserted> paragraph after a discussion about finding a better source. I don't hear an issue with that paragraph.

Balance — I noticed very recently that Judge Jeanine, an attorney and Fox commentator/host, has spoken up quite a bit about how she doesn't see the connection between Trump's statements and sexual violence, so if I can find that in print, or something like that it could be added. Or, we could leave Cameron's statement to cover that angle.

Thoughts on that?--CaroleHenson (talk)

This is a bit over my head. It doesn't seem suited for RfC so, if we can't reach agreement here, I would suggest asking for input at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard. Or I could ping one or two people who I know to be competent at this level, but I don't want to be seen as canvassing. Probably you two could think of one or two yourselves. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:00, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Two things: One, I went ahead and took care of the first two items - the Bloom info has been commented out until other contributors can weigh in. There are enough questions that get raised about it, though, IMO it's probably best to remove it. I also provided info from the Economist article in this edit. It doesn't sound like we need a change to Harper's info. I do think we should add something that counters the assumption of a connection between what Trump says and the likelihood that he would have committed an assault, like comments that have been made in the media recently by Jeanine Pirro or someone else. I'll look around.

And, from what I'm hearing you say, Mandruss, we should give others a chance to weigh in and if we don't reach consensus, then go to the No OR noticeboard. I do know a couple of senior editors that would be objective, but I'd rather go directly to the noticeboard and avoid any POV questions.--CaroleHenson (talk) 22:00, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Not to put too fine a point on it, but they would need to be both objective and competent in this area, which is a difficult area to do well. I'd guesstimate about 10% of editors do it really well. Me, I can't begin to get my head around this, although I can handle SYNTH involving one or two sentences. I just felt this is too major to resolve between two competent editors. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:09, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

@CaroleHenson:@Rrburke:@Mandruss: Late on this because of sleeping (based in the UK here!). Agree with Carole on the following points: 1) Use of Op-eds has been handled fine. They are not being used to cite a fact, they are being used to cite "statements attributed to that editor or author" as per the style guide. 2) This isn't SYNTH, because it's clear we are talking about other people's reactions. 3) Rrburke appears not to have read the whole paper Bloom cites: it clearly does have a section discussing and citing research on the link between objectification and sexual violence. 4) The Economist is a separate article referring to separate research, so the relevance of Bloom's citation doesn't affect it.

Two other things I'll add: 1. I'm not sure if op-ed is even the right word to refer to The Economist's article, because The Economist deliberately hides its authors' identities to maintain its "collective voice" policy. 2. Re. Carole's comments about HuffPo, I agree it's not an ideal source because of its reliance on blogged content, however this particular article appears to come under the exceptions in wiki's content guidelines because the author is a "professional in the field on which they write".

I don't see any obvious reasons here to remove the sentence, so I'll tentatively restore it pending further comment. Madshurtie (talk) 10:09, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Sounds good!--CaroleHenson (talk) 10:25, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Sounds good! to me, too, but anything would sound good to me since I don't know what I'm doing. :D But thanks for the courtesy ping anyway. What would we like to do with the WP:NORN thread? ―Mandruss ☎ 10:57, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

@Mandruss: Maybe wait for Rrburke to respond? Madshurtie (talk) 11:44, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi, all. A few quick points:

• "this particular article appears to come under the exceptions in wiki's content guidelines because the author is a 'professional in the field on which they write'"

Lisa Bloom is not a professional in the field of psychology. She is a lawyer.

• "Use of Op-eds has been handled fine."

No it hasn't. WP:NEWSORG states that op-eds are "reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." In other words, op-eds are fine for the purpose of establishing the fact that someone stated something, not for trying to establish the truth of the statement. In other words, it would be fine to include in the article Lisa Bloom the statement that Lisa Bloom believes that making sexist and degrading comments about women increases a person's propensity for sexual assault, but it cannot be used as evidence that making such comments does indeed increase that propensity.

• "I'm not sure if op-ed is even the right word to refer to The Economist's article, because The Economist deliberately hides its authors' identities to maintain its "collective voice" policy."

It's still an opinion piece, editorial or work of news analysis.

• "[Shaun Harper] puts Trump in a class of men whose behavior sometimes includes sexual assault."

Two things: first, the Harper piece again is an op-ed. But more importantly, nowhere in his piece does Harper draw any connection between sexist or degrading talk and sexual assault. I disagree that he places Trump in any "class of men whose behavior sometimes includes sexual assault." I don't think the piece supports that claim.

• "Rrburke appears not to have read the whole paper Bloom cites"

Um, yes he has. In fact, if you'll look above, you'll see I linked to it and cited passages from it several times.

• There is now a troubling passage that wrongly attributes direct quotes to Deborah Cameron. The quotes "used to build fraternal bonds," "pave the way to harassment and assault" and "banter can make sexual assaults more likely" belong to the editorial writer, not to Ms Cameron, as the passage makes it appear. If someone wants to quote Cameron, she or he should look at Cameron's book to find out what she actually says and what she's basing her claim on, not cite an editorial writer's paraphrase as is it were direct speech.

But my overarching question is what is the justification for including this section? It appears to me to be the implication that engaging in sexist and degrading talk about women increases a person's propensity for sexual assault, and since Donald Trump has undoubtedly engaged in such talk, the sexual assault allegations against him are more likely to be true; the sexist talk belongs on a continuum with sexual assault, and therefore the section should be included.

But, for my part, I don't think we have sufficient evidence to support this implication, and this is why I oppose including this section. We have a single study that states that, among college students (the authors concede that "[i]t remains unclear whether similar associations would emerge with noncollegiate samples" and that "[t]he relations from this study may be limited to college campuses") "body evaluation," which, in my opinion, is ill-defined in the study, but includes "objectifying gazes," was positively associated with sexual violence. How strongly associated we really don't know -- or at least I don't: perhaps someone could decipher the numbers in the diagram on page 4. At any rate, I see nothing in this study that that explicitly states that sexist and degrading talk about women increases a person's propensity for sexual assault. I'd appreciate you pointing it out to me if you do.

Next we have an Economist editorial writer's paraphrases of Deborah Cameron. The writer states that "Such talk can pave the way to harassment and assault." "Pave the way" seems vague and weasel-worded to me, but more importantly we don't know either the accuracy of the paraphrase or the source of this claim. Is it a paraphrase of a passage in Cameron's book, where she backs up the claim with evidence, or is it from an interview with Cameron conducted by the editorial writer, and lacking the sort of scholarly apparatus that would qualify it as a high-quality source? There would be a great difference in the reliability (in the Wikipedia sense) of the claim depending on which it is.

I don't think that the two of these together are sufficient to establish the claim that sexist and degrading talk about women increase a person's likelihood of committing a sexual assault, or that, by implication, Donald Trump's sexist and degrading talk about increase the likelihood that the allegations against him are true. I think this is an exceptional claim, and "exceptional claims require exceptional sources." WP:EXCEPTIONAL states that an "exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources." Moreover, our sources in this case, only one of which, the University of Nebraska study, is "high quality", are marked by limitations and caveats. The University of Nebraska study concedes that its results "may be limited to college campuses," and Cameron herself "cautions against always interpreting words like Mr Trump’s as accounts of things that actually happened. Their boasts, coarse language and demeaning of women are not necessarily used to convey facts, she notes."

I think the article should stick closely to the allegations of "misconduct" (a word I'm not totally happy with), and avoid muddying the waters with examples of sexist and degrading talk. -- Rrburke (talk) 15:23, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

@Rrburke: Hi Rrburke, on the six bullets:

• 1) True, though she's a civil rights lawyer. The guidelines seem unclear on related fields.
• 2) Carole and I have both already pointed out that the current text only establishes 'the fact that someone stated something'. Don't see anything new here.
• 3) True, though see 2).
• 4) It's an Op-ed, but see 2). It's a reactions section. It provides reactions. As for the content, it does seems like Harper is vaguely drawing a link between sexist talk and sexual assault. For example, sentences a) 'The Trump on that video is a sexist, misogynistic, womanizing cheater who degrades and sometimes sexually assaults women. I know this man and so many like him. I wish I didn’t, yet I do, and I have for a long time.' b) 'When men fail to challenge other men on troubling things they say about and do to women, we contribute to cultures that excuse sexual harassment, assault and other forms of gender violence.' And c) 'By excusing their words and actions, I share some responsibility for rape, marital infidelity and other awful things that men do.' Sentence a) in particular seems equivalent to the wiki sentence 'he puts Trump in a class of men whose behavior sometimes includes sexual assault and degrading women.'
• 5) I'm still not seeing evidence you've read the whole paper. You said 'second, the study upon which the op-ed authors base their claim that objectifying and demeaning women verbally increases the propensity for sexual assault doesn't actually say that at all' (your emphasis), when it clearly does in the section 'Sexual Objectification and Sexual Violence'. I'll quote a sentence for you: 'In the only published study to examine this potential link, Rudman and Mescher (2012) found that people who implicitly associated women with objects were more likely to report sexually aggressive attitudes toward women (see also Cikara et al., 2011); when men more quickly associated women with objects (e.g., objects, tools, things) in an implicit association test, they responded higher on rape proclivity.'
• 6) I agree the new Deborah Cameron passage is troubling. It should make it clear this is The Economist's interpretation and possibly cite her directly. Maybe it should be removed.

As for the rest, the section is not claiming that Donald Trump's past statements make these accusations more likely to be true, at worst it's saying that other commentators have reacted to the accusations by implying his past statements make these accusations more likely to be true. Though really it's just saying other other commentators have reacted to the accusations by saying sexually abusive people tend to behave like Trump. This is true: commentators have. Madshurtie (talk) 16:48, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

No comment on anything else, but because of their massive conflict of interest I oppose citing Lisa Bloom, unless it's about their client. Bloom represents Jill Harth, which makes giving Bloom any prominence WP:UNDUE. Politrukki (talk) 15:03, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Politrukki, hadn't noticed that. Based on the new developments in the Jane Doe section of the talk page, we have another reason to view the Lisa Bloom article with more suspicion. I'll remove her, and reword/remove the Deborah Cameron bit, though I think the rest of the section should probably stay. Madshurtie (talk) 16:16, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

No OR Noticeboard posting

@Rrburke, Mandruss, and Madshurtie: This issue has been posted: No OR noticeboard - Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations--CaroleHenson (talk) 02:59, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

It appears with recent edits that this is no longer an issue, because the Bloom and Economist content has been removed and the other content was not questioned.--CaroleHenson (talk) 01:49, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Carlos Slim's influence

• "Trump accuses Mexico's Carlos Slim of trying to help Clinton". Reuters. October 14, 2016. Retrieved October 17, 2016.

Trump suggests that Mexican billionaire Carlos Slim, a major shareholder in The New York Times, published these allegations to help HRC's campaign. This seems to parallel the argument found in Ann Coulter's Adios, America: The Left's Plan to Turn Our Country Into a Third World Hellhole that Slim supports illegal immigration because he makes millions of dollars off remittances every year.

If we're going to mention Russia's alleged involvement in HRC's speeches and e-mails, we should mention Mexico/Carlos Slim here--both in the lede and in a subsection. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 12:18, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Not in the lede. Maybe in the 'Trump campaign reactions' section. Madshurtie (talk) 12:23, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

I think it should be in the lede because apparently it wouldn't have been published without Slim. By the way, since Slim is a foreign national, is there an official statement from the USFG (maybe the DHS) about this? They have one about Russia; why not Mexico?Zigzig20s (talk) 12:44, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

@Madshurtie and Zigzip20s: I am concerned about how objective this article can be if it becomes a place to park all the conspiracy theories. Aren't we getting into WP:UNDUE territory. I wonder if there should be a separate article for conspiracy theories. Not sure at the moment what the title might be.--CaroleHenson (talk) 12:52, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

It's not a "conspiracy theory". (That is the phrase the Clinton campaign has been using since the end of the summer to dismiss any and all criticisms by the way.) He is a major shareholder and Trump has called him out on it. I agree with you that it would help to get an official statement from the DHS or FBI, since he is a foreign national and they have one about the alleged Russian influence on the other side of the aisle. But this is very due indeed. Besides, there are many reliable third-party sources about this (look it up on Google News). We won't cite Trump's words obviously (unless it's a direct quote), but what the mainstream media have said about this. (We've had the same argument about HRC's speech transcripts and e-mails. This is basic Wikipedia policy to add referenced content.) Zigzig20s (talk) 12:56, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

We may have a different definition of what it means to be a conspiracy - I totally get the overuse of the term. If there's another term that I could use, I'm happy with that - my point is: 1) Trump believes the allegations are politically motivated, 2) if he's innocent, it is unquestionably as the result of an organized political agenda, 3) if it's an organized political agenda there could be many theories. Perhaps if they're going to come in we just wait and see what the volume becomes and then, if necessary, create another article. I'm totally exhausted and not well, which could be playing into my fear tonight about a tidal wave of content coming in that is tangental (sp?) to the allegations.--CaroleHenson (talk) 13:12, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

They have one about Russia because there's forensic evidence Fancy Bear and other Russian hacker groups were behind attacks on voter systems and Democrats emails. At the moment there is no evidence Slim directed these allegations, we just know he is a big shareholder in the New York Times who doesn't even have the majority power to impose decisions (only owns about 17%). These are not equivalent. Where is your source for 'it wouldn't have been published without Slim' other than a quote from Trump? At the moment it's just a Trump assertion and would only belong in that section. What's more, it only relates to two of the allegations. If it somehow came out that Slim did direct these allegations, then we could discuss putting it in the lede. Madshurtie (talk) 13:13, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

It is absolutely a conspiracy theory, if not an outright fabrication to distract the public from Trump's alleged sexual misconduct and create a false equivalency. It does not belong in the lead. At most, it deserves a brief mention attributed directly to Trump in the 'Trump campaign reactions' section.- MrX 13:17, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

How do you know? The bottom line is, it looks like both Russia and Mexico may be trying to influence the US presidential election. The million-dollar question is, since the DHS is supposed to be non-partisan, why haven't they released a statement about Mexico/Slim yet? It would be good if an editor could let us know when they do. (I won't have time to keep track of this, too busy at work these days.) In any case, I think we should add referenced content about Slim's influence as per weight of RS.Zigzig20s (talk) 13:25, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

I know because I'm able to take in information, apply reason and logic, and form conclusions. If you want to believe these ridiculous theories, that's your choice, but please don't promote them on Wikipedia.- MrX 13:33, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

It is not just DHS: independent firms have found forensic evidence for Russian hackers. The bottom line is there is substantial evidence Russian is trying to influence the election, and there is no evidence Mexico is. When the DHS tells us that a man without the shareholding power to dictate NYTimes decisions has somehow got them to fabricate the allegations, please let us know. Madshurtie (talk) 13:36, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't have time to double-check if those firms have links to the Clinton Foundation or whatnot. I trust the DHS, though their statement is conditional. By the way, Russia has denied it. In any case, I don't think we should be doing Original Research as you did earlier with the 17%; we should just cite reliable sources about Carlos Slim like Reuters.Zigzig20s (talk) 14:20, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

You're not accepting the totals of publicly listed stock shares? Fine. Do you believe all the sources that have said he owns just under 17% of the organization? Is the Wall Street Journal agreeable enough for you? It's bordering on absurd for Wikipedia to say that someone who doesn't control the organization controls the organization, just because Donald Trump has said so. Madshurtie (talk) 14:27, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, as a major shareholder, you do exert an influence, yes. In any case, I think we should do what Reuters, etc., have done--relay the information.Zigzig20s (talk) 15:03, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Only if enough other (non-Mexican) shareholders agree. Basically: 1) Mexican nationals don't control the New York Times. 2) Slim isn't under orders by the Mexican government. 3) There's still no evidence Slim has influenced the NYTimes's journalism here. 4) We can only say Reuters, etc say Slim ordered a fabrication when Reuters, etc say Slim ordered a fabrication. They have not. They say Trump says Slim ordered a fabrication. Trump is not a reliable source.

As such, the only possible home for this accusation would be in the Trump reactions section. Madshurtie (talk) 17:48, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

As we're now seem to be intent on adding this nonsense to the BLP at Carlos Slim, can someone clarify why this passing, nonsensical claim is worthy of note anywhere? Has there been any traction to it, other than the usual eye rolls? This appears to be, as noted above, a simple distraction, and not worthy of inclusion here. Certainly not worthy in a BLP. Kuru (talk) 01:49, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

We are not saying we agree or disagree with Trump. But we should be able to relay the information that Trump suggests Slim is trying to influence the US presidential election with libel in a newspaper where is a major shareholder. You may disagree with Trump's suggestion, but that shouldn't guide your editing. Reuters is as NPOV as Wikipedia should be, yet they published the information, and so should we.Zigzig20s (talk) 02:21, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

This is not a newspaper, we have different standards to the enduring notability to the claim vs. just reporting last week's whistle stop. I would suggest you resolve the issue here before attempting to add it to his biography again. Kuru (talk) 02:42, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree with you that these unproven allegations should not be on Wikipedia because they are unencyclopedic and pure gossip. But since they are here, we should give the full context, just as the mainstream media do.Zigzig20s (talk) 02:57, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

No, this is ridiculous.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:46, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree with you that these allegations are indeed ridiculous, but since they are here, we should give the full context as per RS.Zigzig20s (talk) 02:57, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

No that's not how any of this works. Just because Trump throws out random accusations with no basis in fact and a RS runs a story on it doesn't mean we parrot them here. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:45, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

So why are we parroting these unfounded allegations? We would only be providing context.Zigzig20s (talk) 03:51, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

The women accusing Trump are quite credible. You want to provide spin. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:54, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

You're free to believe them if you want to, but Trump has denied their allegations and Wikipedia should not take sides. We should be NPOV. Reuters is NPOV in their article, too, and it should therefore be included.Zigzig20s (talk) 04:01, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Your M.O. whatever the content is is to say "it's in an RS so it's NPOV to include". I believe you're too smart to actually believe that. You know how this works. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:10, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Who knows. It doesn't matter. This is not about me. This is about factual information that Reuters is relaying, and so should we. We already have a "Trump campaign reactions" subsection, and even the lede says Trump denies this. Why can't we add that Trump's response includes Slim's possible influence? It just makes no sense to leave this out. We shouldn't intentionally obfuscate information. That would make Wikipedia look bad. Let's be serious.Zigzig20s (talk) 04:19, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

It could be put in the Trump campaign reactions section, but you'll have to convince other editors first. It should not be put in any other part of the article. Madshurtie (talk) 10:22, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Do we need to start an RfC to add this? I don't have magical powers to persuade people who believe unproven allegations are encyclopedic in the first place. Nobody knows if the allegations are true. At least with what Trump said, we all know what he said--so his full critique should appear in the "Trump campaign reactions"--including his position on Carlos Slim. Zigzig20s (talk) 15:27, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

A quick review of the responses to your proposals show five editors opposed, one that would be comfortable adding it to the "reactions" section, and you. So yes, you'll need to find a more persuasive way to articulate your position, wait for more responses, or start an RFC to get a wider range of opinions. I presume from your edit history that simply accepting the consensus of the other editors and moving on is out of the question. Kuru (talk) 15:40, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

There is no need whatsoever for you or anyone else to presume or assume anything about me. Only my boyfriend may do this, because after we fight we can make up. The only thing I care about on Wikipedia is improving content. If Trump blames Carlos Slim for the content of this article and some editors are actively blocking this content, your suggestion to start an RfC may make sense. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 15:50, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

I know Kuru, Muboshgu, and Volunteer Marek opposed giving the conspiracy any credibility, but the actual quote looks so ridiculous I saw no harm in adding it. Madshurtie (talk) 13:17, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Response from Melania Trump

I watched both interviews--she did not use the word "conspiracy" as far as I can remember. Can we please rephrase what she said and perhaps even add a direct quote?Zigzig20s (talk) 17:22, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

We could say she blamed Billy Bush for "egging on" her husband to tell "locker-room banter" "like teenagers" perhaps? And that she doesn't believe the allegations because a woman said she'd met him later that day and she never did--she wouldn't even recognize her.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:18, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm confused. We're going to say that a 60 or so year old man (in 2005) is not responsible for his actions when he was egged on? I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. Are you suggesting we could say that's a possible explanation or there is a direct quote?--CaroleHenson (talk) 09:21, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Response by Trump and Trump's attorney

Discussion

it is inappropriate in my opinion for CaroleHenson to remove the section 'Response by Trump and Trump's attorney' in view of the serious nature of the allegations.This section needs to be reinstated keeping in mind WP:DUE and WP:BALANCE. Making a lengthy WP attack page on Trump without giving a detailed rejoinder to the allegations by Trump and his attorney violates WP:IMPARTIAL and does not respect the guidelines described at WP:BLP. Soham321 (talk) 17:54, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

I did because I had no other edits in the last 24 hours on this page. I hope that's OK. I did it to protect Wikipedia against lawsuits frankly. Let's not be silly, guys. If these women want to get sued by Trump, that's fine, but Wikipedia should avoid that.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:56, 19 October 2016 (UTC

I raised this and the.Jane Doe issue at the Wikipedia talk:Teahouse.--CaroleHenson (talk) 18:26, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Okay, Teahouse wasn't the right place to go, The advice from the Help Chat line is to give this a bit more time, then if still needed take it this and the Jane Doe issue to the NPOV noticeboard. I am ready to leave this topic for the day, so we'll see if others weigh in in the meantime.--CaroleHenson (talk) 19:21, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Soham321, I see that you have been making a lot of edits to the Trump's response section. I haven't been doing anything because we have the debates and there may be a flurry coming in on all sides. It appears that the Trump section is becoming heavy-handed, and introducing POV issues. If we're going to get into this much detail about Trump's reactions - then it seems that we need to get more information about the accusers - people that corroborate the story, their reactions, etc. for balance. I just hate for you to be adding so much to the article that might have to be removed - or balanced out.--CaroleHenson (talk) 01:10, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Soham321, This article is becoming a mess. I am beginning to think we need to back to a clean point. Comments are getting mixed up in the sections, citations are getting lost, which means content is likely getting lost or the wrong citations attributed to it. I could take it back to the point where I organized the info.--CaroleHenson (talk) 01:15, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

CaroleHenson I'll just point out that you have now been reverted by two different editors (one of them myself) when you tried to entirely remove the response of Trump and his attorney. Let other editors give their feedback on this issue; as far as i am concerned the Trump response needs to be increased significantly more to give appropriate weightage on this page in accordance with the rules of wikipedia, specifically WP:DUE,WP:BALANCE,WP:IMPARTIAL, and WP:BLP. Soham321 (talk) 01:16, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Soham321, I absolutely know that there is a concerted effort to blow this section out. Please at least 1) don't duplicate comments in the accuser's sections, mix-up the comments by the differnt Trump affiliates, remove citations, duplicating comments. I did revert to a clean copy.--CaroleHenson (talk) 01:21, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

I just wish to point out that in my opinion editor CaroleHenson is repeatedly introducing bias into the main article, in violation of the rules of Wikipedia editing, by removing or minimizing the response of Trump and Trump associates in defending Trump against these very serious allegations. I will of course bow to consensus. Soham321 (talk) 01:24, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Soham321 We can work together, if you make constructive edits. I posted a warning on your page of what the issues are. I needed to return the article to a clean condition due to the number of disruptive edits - removing citations and duplicating comments from the accuser's sections are two big issues.--CaroleHenson (talk) 01:28, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

CaroleHenson, you are entitled to accuse me of disruptive editing, but i do not believe i am guilty of doing so and i consider the warning you have left on my talk page to be frivolous. In my opinion you are the person who has been doing disruptive editing on the main page by repeatedly removing or minimizing the response of Trump and his associates to these very serious allegations and thereby introducing bias into the article in violation of the rules of wikipedia editing. I strongly believe in consensus, and if other editors agree with your accusation against me, i will stop editing on the main page. Soham321 (talk) 01:59, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't know what to say to you, I have given specifics in the edit summary, here and on your user page.

• Lost citations, please look at the reference section in this version - are there missing citations
• Check the Natasha Stoynoff section - are there reactions by Trump there - and also now reactions in the first Trump reaction section?
• Is there duplication of the attorney's quote in the notes? Why would that be?

That's a start.--CaroleHenson (talk) 02:14, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

This is with respect to the article before your most recent revert:

• 1. No missing citations from what i can see.
• 2. I am not seeing a duplication of Trump's reactions on the Natasha Stoynoff accusation and the Trump's Defense section.It is only in Trump's Defense section that we see him defending himself against the accusation. And this is how it should be. If Trump defends himself against the accusation of another of his accuser by name then that defense also needs to go into the Trump's Defense section.
• 3.The duplication of the attorney quote in the notes is something i pointed out myself on this talk page (in the section below). This is a minor clerical error because i could not at short notice figure out how to give a reference to the attorney's quote in a single note, while referring to this note twice. The note needs to be referenced twice--once to give details about the attorney's argument (since the argument applies to all the accusers), and the other time when mentioning that Trump has used his attorney's argument in responding to Natasha Stoynoff's charge as per what the referenced source says.Soham321 (talk) 02:29, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

1. Citations - The cool think is if you go to the Reference section, then are bright red. Are you looking at your last version? If you look at what's up now, it's the reverted / last clean copy of the page.

• [75] The named reference CT_1 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
• [68] NY Mag. 19 October 2016 http://nymag.com/thecut/2016/10/trumps-lawyer-accusers-arent-women-hed-be-attracted-to.html. Retrieved 19 October 2016. Missing or empty |title= (help) Cite error: Invalid (ref) tag; name "NY_Mag" defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).

2. Natasha Stoynoff

• Her section: Trump sent out a tweet on October 13, 2016, in which he said it had not happened and wondered why she had not mentioned the event in her People article of 2005. ref name="NPR List" />
• Reaction section: Responding to Natasha Stynoff's accusation, Trump indicated that the allegation is false by using an argument put forward by his lawyer Michael Cohen. ref name="NY Mag"/> Followed by the quote about her unappealing appearance.
• By the way, during the presidential debate tonight, Trump said he didn't say these things - so I question whether any comment about the attractiveness of the women should be mentioned, besides the fact that it is not encyclopedic content, is POV, and victim bashing.

3. Attorney quote - it was attached at two points, let me check.--CaroleHenson (talk) 03:04, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

• Trump's subsection: Responding to Natasha Stynoff's accusation, Trump indicated that the allegation is false by using an argument put forward by his lawyer Michael Cohen.<ref name="NY Mag"/>{{efn|{{Quote|Beauty is in the eye of beholder … thesee aren’t even women he’d be attracted to. I think what Mr. Trump is really trying to say is that they’re not somebody that he would be attracted to, and therefore, the whole thing is nonsense.”|author=Donald Trump's attorney Michael Cohen<ref name="NY Mag">{{cite news|url=http://nymag.com/thecut/2016/10/trumps-lawyer-accusers-arent-women-hed-be-attracted-to.html |work=NY Mag|date=19 October 2016|accessdate=19 October 2016}}</ref>}}}} According to Trump: {{Quote|Take a look — you take a look, look at her, look at her words, you tell me what you think — I don’t think so.I don’t think so.<ref name="NY Mag"/>}}
• Trump attorney's subsection: Trump's attorney Michael Cohen has defended Trump by noting that the accusers are not women Trump would find to be attractive. {{efn|According to Cohen:{{Quote|Beauty is in the eye of beholder … these aren’t even women he’d be attracted to. I think what Mr. Trump is really trying to say is that they’re not somebody that he would be attracted to, and therefore, the whole thing is nonsense.<ref name="NY Mag">{{cite news|url=http://nymag.com/thecut/2016/10/trumps-lawyer-accusers-arent-women-hed-be-attracted-to.html |title=Donald Trump’s Attorney Says Trump’s Accusers ‘Aren’t Women He’d Be Attracted To’ |work=NY Mag |date=19 October 2016|accessdate=19 October 2016}}</ref><ref name="Business Insider">{{cite news|url=http://nymag.com/thecut/2016/10/trumps-lawyer-accusers-arent-women-hed-be-attracted-to.html |title=Donald Trump's attorney: Trump's sexual assault accusers 'aren't even women he'd be attracted to' |work=Business Insider |date=19 October 2016|accessdate=19 October 2016}}</ref>}}}}

My point was, why does the attorney making a quote have to be mentioned in Trump's section and the attorney's section. The note is just want brings it so clearly to light.--CaroleHenson (talk) 03:16, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

• 1. The citations were in fact defined, but with different content on one occasion, and an erroneously spelled refname on another occasion.(The ref name given in the reference needed to be adjusted for both cases.) Again, a minor clerical error which can easily be fixed.
• 2. We can say that Trump denied saying this in the third debate by using RS. But the unattractive argument cannot be removed unilaterally by you since there exists RS for Trump's lawyer making this defense. The fact that Trump was using the unattractive argument of his lawyer was mentioned by the RS, not by Trump. Trump was somewhat vague in his defense (deliberately so i imagine) when making his defense against Stoynoff which is why i thought it advisable to give his full quote.
• 3. Of course the attorney note was attached at two different points and i have now gone into great detail explaining why this was the case. Soham321 (talk) 03:18, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Please read what I've typed. I am sure that if you're willing, we can work together.

Yes, all of these can be fixed. I've given you three examples of the types of issues. You missed the key point about #2 and #3, except the side comment about Trump refuting making the comments. I don't think it will do any good for me to repeat myself. I have said what the issues are so many times, but it's beginning to feel like you're not open to hearing that there may be ways to work together better. Are you willing to give it a try?

If so, I would be happy to work with you.--CaroleHenson (talk) 03:28, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Eppstein comments

It might be helpful, too, to look at the comments of David Eppstein in the article history.--CaroleHenson (talk) 03:31, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Something that I didn't mention in that edit summary is that we need to be very careful about WP:BLP violations against other people than Trump in this article. The allegations against Trump himself can be handled by presenting what reliable sources on both sides say about those particular events. But when Trump or a supporter says "what about X? they did it too!" we can't repeat that without going into proper and properly sourced detail about what the reliable sources actually say about X, and that would take us too far off-topic. And anyway that sort of argument doesn't have much bearing on what Trump himself may have done. So I think we're better off just leaving those arguments out. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:09, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

David Eppstein, I would like to ensure that I understand what you are saying. Is this in response to discussion of other people who have been involved in sexual misconduct, content in the article about the reason why Trump wouldn't make sexually inappropriate actions, theories about who might be responsible, or something else? Thanks!--CaroleHenson (talk) 09:33, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

The first: discussion of other people who have been involved in sexual misconduct. I think we should largely avoid such discussions, even when quoting Trump people who try to go that direction. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:19, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Dispute

In view of the dispute between CaroleHenson and me, I am pinging all non-IP editors who have commented on this talk page with a request to offer their feedback so that we can have a consensus on the main article : Pkimer, EEng, Mandruss, Madshurtie, Jack Upland, Rrburke, J mareeswaran, Anythingyouwant, Zigzig20s, Politrukki, MrX, Distelfinck, Kuru, Volunteer Marek, Muboshgu, K.e.coffman, Strongjam, Smallbones, My very best wishes, Pincrete Soham321 (talk) 04:16, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

What is the nature of the dispute? K.e.coffman (talk) 04:20, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

I would also like a concise summary. But I'll state that disputed content should stay out until consensus is reached to include it. That principle is often ignored, sometimes in good faith for the sake of expediency, but it should not be ignored in this article. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:25, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Details about the dispute have been described in the "Discussion" sub-section of this section ("Response by Trump and Trump's attorney") of the talk page. What it really boils down to is three reverts made by CaroleHenson. The diffs are:

• 1. Diff 1
• 2. Diff 2 (this revert was reverted by editor Zigzig20s)
• 3. Diff 3 (this revert was reverted by me) Soham321 (talk) 04:29, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. This looks like one of those things where I feel over my head, so I think I'll sit this one out. But my comment about process stands. If any content in the article is disputed and under discussion, it should be removed. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:38, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

From my perspective, the summary of the issue is: I reverted Soham321s edits here to a clean copy of the page, because there had been unintended disrupted editing that involved:

• Comments by Trump or the campaign in both the accuser's section and in the Trump's reaction section
• There was duplication of the comment (and an unintentionally duplicated note) from Trump's attorney in his section and Trump's section
• There was a mix-up of citations involving three citations: 1 lost and 2 with the same name but different content
• Additional information added over the day to the Trump reaction section including conspiracy theories and comments about the unattractiveness of the accusers being the reason that the Trump wouldn't have been inappropriate. In general, all of these comments IMO were creating balance and POV issues.--CaroleHenson (talk) 04:38, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Executive summary of the dispute from my perspective:

• 1. CaroleHenson's first revert was of content that i had added which gave the response of Trump and Trump's attorney to the allegations.(She was in turn reverted by me.)
• 2. Carole's second revert was when she reverted me again. (She was now reverted by Zigzig20s.)
• 3. I then went on to add more information about the defense against the allegations by Trump, and Trump's attorney; and also the reactions of Mike Pence and Hillary Clinton to the allegations. Carole's third revert was when she again reverted all the additions i had made to the article.
• 4. When giving details about the response of Trump, Trump's attorney, Mike Pence, and Hillary Clinton to the allegations in the main page, i am invoking WP:DUE,WP:BALANCE,WP:IMPARTIAL, and WP:BLP.
• 5. I have given my explanation about the duplication of the same notes on two occasions, and also for incorrectly labelled ref names on two occasions. These are minor clerical errors which can easily be fixed. But surely the minor clerical errors cannot be used to change the entire thrust of the main article in violation of the rules of wikipedia editing.Soham321 (talk) 04:40, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

I wonder why you put an {{od}} at the beginning of every comment. You are adding unnecessary clutter. Have you seen any other editor do that? See WP:THREAD for how to thread a discussion. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:44, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

My summary starts at Soham321's 3+4. Their edits were returned and not reverted from that point. I reorganized the section, though, and added subsections because the section had become unorganized with the additions.--CaroleHenson (talk) 04:47, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

No idea what you mean by "3 + 4". You did the reorganization after being reverted twice by two different editors. And then you did a third revert. Right now you're at 3RR as far as the main article is concerned.Soham321 (talk) 04:52, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Added "unintentionally" to the parenthetical in my summary.--CaroleHenson (talk) 04:57, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

• Comment -- since I was asked, here's my input: I prefer CaroleHenson's version. It's cleaner and avoids duplication of material. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:15, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

• Agree with comment above -- It seems to me that this is a dispute about organization rather than content. I back CaroleHenson's changes as it makes it cleaner. If there is a any specific content removed(& not just moved from 1 section to another) we can discuss on that further. J mareeswaran (talk) 12:50, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Comment: From my perspective, this is essentially not an organization dispute but a content dispute. This becomes clear if you study the relevant diff carefully: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_Trump_sexual_misconduct_allegations&diff=745237756&oldid=745233947Soham321 (talk) 13:12, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Comment - Yes, J mareeswaran, it's mostly about content. There's a summary of issue from my perspective in this subsection, starting with "From my perspective, the summary of the issue is" in this subsection, made at 04:38, 20 October 2016, and Soham321's comments immediately follow that.--CaroleHenson (talk) 14:21, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

• Clarification - I was trying to back you up Soham321 - that the note was unintentionally duplicated. I clarified it a bit. I think the disruptive editing was absolutely unintentional. I made tweaks above.--CaroleHenson (talk) 05:19, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Notes Help

Notes [e] and [g] in the main article are the same. Could someone please do the necessary fix so that there is only one note which is being referred to in two different places in the main article. Soham321 (talk) 00:55, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

It was too much of a mess - for some reason the attorney's comments were replicated in a section outside of the attorney section. That is just one of the many reasons why the article was reverted to a clean copy.--CaroleHenson (talk) 01:31, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

See the efn template info.--CaroleHenson (talk) 09:40, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Michelle Obama's reaction

the FLOTUS reaction seems to be regarding the Trump Tapes rather than Allegations against Trump or any other misconduct. As such, IMO, it belongs to the "Access Hollywood tapes" article rather than here. J mareeswaran (talk) 13:02, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

@J mareeswaran: No, it's about both. The section even quotes her saying: 'And to make matters worse, it now seems very clear that this isn’t an isolated incident.' It could be added to the other article as well. Madshurtie (talk) 13:20, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 20 October 2016

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

The result of the move request was: not moved per WP:SNOW. SSTflyer 09:39, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

---

Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations → Donald Trump sexual assault allegations – The word assault appears in the first sentence of the lede and nearly 50 times on this page. The title protects Mr. Trump by use of "allegations" but the allegations are unambiguously reported by RS as allegations of assault and described throughout the article as allegations of assault. SPECIFICO talk 16:49, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Some of the allegations are about kissing without consent, so maybe the broader term is more appropriate? Madshurtie (talk) 17:06, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

They're described in rather more reptilian terms than "kissing" -- tongue thrusts, etc. and RS describe them as "assault." That seems to be the thinking of the editors who've worked on this article. SPECIFICO talk 17:08, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Not everything described on this page is an "assault". Going into the Miss USA dressing rooms is creepy, but not "sexual assault". The broader title captures more incidents. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:10, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Don't move I agree, sexual assault narrows the topic. IMO, it could only clearly include the legal proceedings section.--CaroleHenson (talk) 17:11, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Don't move Per Muboshgu and Carole above. The title also has precedent with the Bill Clinton page. Madshurtie (talk) 17:14, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

This article is about two types of allegations: sexual misconduct and sexual assault. Thus, could the title possibly be changed to "Donald Trump sexual assault and misconduct allegations"? LeeBobBlack (talk) 17:19, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

• comment I think I understand the view of those who want to leave the title broader than "assault" despite the fact that most of the allegations are assault allegations. We could say "assault and abuse" to include walking in on the underage women. On the other hand, consider that the current title -- "misconduct" would also need to include his adultery and other misconduct that was not intended for this article. SPECIFICO talk 17:25, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Misconduct doesn't generally refer to adultery. It includes things like manipulation and intimidation, without necessarily including assault. See here and here. The Bill Clinton page doesn't have any adultery sections. Madshurtie (talk) 17:51, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

WP policy tells us not to compare articles to justify editing decisions. I don't think adultery would rank high on the concerns of a college. Not all misconduct, even extramarital, is of policy or legal concern. SPECIFICO talk 17:57, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

WP policy tells us not to compare articles to justify editing decisions - @SPECIFICO: Please give me a pointer to that policy, as I'd like to start using it instead of the essay WP:OSE. Granted, OSE is considered a "widely accepted" essay (in my opinion), but a policy would be better. Things get very complicated when the degree of acceptance of an essay is itself a matter of opinion. But that's the Wikipedia Way—make things as incomprehensible as humanly possible. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:49, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

User:SPECIFICO, I think that I've been pretty clear in my comments, but I see that you've posted statements that seem to indicate you have decided upon the veracity and the type of claims. It would be WP:OR on our part to determine that these cases are sexual assault, unless we have sources that state explicitly that they are assault. How many of the victims can you say are reported in the media to have "sexual assault" allegations? How about the beauty contestants, the women that were kissed that say they didn't want to be? These are just allegations - we don't know the veracity of the allegations, whether they are sexual assault, and it is absolutely not our role to litigate that. Would it be worth it to you to rename the article, but have to have large chunks of it removed to only those that are clearly "sexual assault" allegations?--CaroleHenson (talk) 22:06, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

@CaroleHenson: - I don't think veracity is an issue, we're not proposing Donald Trump sexual assaults. What's at issue is the nature of the allegations covered in this article. If the law considers a certain alleged act to be sexual assault, do we require sources to use that term? These things don't seem so complicated that we need legal interpretations from our sources. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:16, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

@Mandruss: - Agreed. Perhaps there's a misunderstanding or I wasn't clear, so I just struck out that part of my comment. What I am trying to say is that we cannot decide if all of the allegations are sexual assault claims. Due to the seriousness of the issue, if there's a question between "Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations" and "Donald Trump sexual assault allegations" we should be sure that we have source to back up the claim that each of the accusers claims are sexual assault if they are to be included in the article.--CaroleHenson (talk) 22:28, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

@CaroleHenson: - Then your answer to my question is "yes"? ―Mandruss ☎ 22:33, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

@Mandruss: Short answer: Yes. Two things: 1) I see your point about "If the law considers a certain alleged act to be sexual assault, do we require sources to use that term?" Based on the visibility of this article, the sensitivity of it due to the political campaign, the seriousness of the term "sexual assault" - if we're going to use that in the title of the article, I would think we'd need to have someone say for each allegation that the act is sexual assault , per WP:EXCEPTION. That's my opinion, others may disagree. 2) I haven't been stuck so much on the situations that are clearly assault, like the groping and other activities that the Department of Justice defines as sexual assault. I am more concerned about the claims of the beauty pageant contestants, unwelcome kissing, etc. that seem as if they'd need to be dropped from the article if it's renamed "Donald Trump sexual assault allegations". If I am missing something, though, please let me know.--CaroleHenson (talk) 23:00, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

@CaroleHenson: - Ok, see my new Oppose !vote. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:05, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

I did not intend the meaning @CaroleHenson: has apparently inferred from my words here. My point is that 1) Hundreds of RS describe the allegations as allegations of assault, and 2) This article, citing those sources, also refers to the allegations as allegations of assault. Since Trump continues to deny everything and since none of this has been adjudicated in a court of law, none of this behavior can be called anything other than alleged assault, alleged misconduct, or alleged whatever. I have no opinion about any of this and I don't think it's particularly interesting or important. For the record, I have never been to Mar-a-lago. SPECIFICO talk 22:24, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

I apologize if I misunderstood. It is seeming that most of the votes are not to move the article, I just wanted to find out if it was ok with you that if the article was renamed to "Donald Trump sexual assault allegations" that some content would then, by definition likely need to be removed - and we'd have even greater POV, etc. scrutiny? I think I have beaten my points to death and then some, so I'll just let others make comments and see how it shakes out.--CaroleHenson (talk) 22:35, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Don't Move Per Muboshgu and Carole. I don't think that there are even convincing technical reasons for a move, but I do think having a tag at the top of the article detracts from it, as if we are having a major disagreement here. Little or no benefit, possible down side, + distracting tag. Please just close it. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:37, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

How does this square with 45 instances of "assault" in the article, including in the first sentence of the lede? SPECIFICO talk 17:58, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Comment I can't seem to form an opinion on this, but for interest's sake, according to Google Trends, people are searching for "Donald Trump assault" more than "Donald Trump harassment," and more than "Donald Trump misconduct." That probably doesn't matter though. JasperTECH (talk) 18:02, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Agree with you, and on that note: His misconduct has been known for at least 30 years. The other stuff was less widely known until recently. And this article is a result of the recent disclosures, not the longstanding misconduct stories. SPECIFICO talk 18:04, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

• Support -- the reason why this made headlines is because many were "assault allegations" and the subject himself discussed same on the AH tape. The "misconduct" was described much earlier, such as by NYT. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:36, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
• Comment. RMCD bot will not edit war over the article-space notice of this move. If there is a consensus that requested moves of this nature shouldn't be more widely advertised, simply replace the tag with{{bots|deny=RMCD bot}} at the top of the article source. wbm1058 (talk) 20:26, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
• Comment. Sources such as this are using the term "misconduct", not "assault". Do we have confirmation that 13 women literally said "he assaulted me", or are we synthesizing assault allegations from groping and other related allegations, by defining groping as a form of assault? Groping "may be considered sexual assault"... can this be interpreted to mean that it may not be as well? wbm1058 (talk) 20:26, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

• Non-consensual groping of genitalia is sexual assault. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:31, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Right, the Sexual assault article certainly gives that impression. So why does the groping article use the more indecisive language "may be considered sexual assault" rather than flat out saying is sexual assault. wbm1058 (talk) 20:52, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

I added "genitalia" above to clarify. Groping of other parts is not considered to be sexual assault as I understand it. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:08, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

• Don't move. "Assault" describes some but not all of the allegations. Some (such as misogynistic language used by Trump or walking in on women changing) are arguably weaker than assault. Some (in particular the alleged child rape case) are definitely stronger than assault. "Misconduct" is a better title because it covers all the allegations, not just the middle-level ones. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:38, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
• Comment - other similar articles - As an food for thought, similar articles are Bill Clinton sexual misconduct allegations, which includes groping without consent allegations, rape, sexual harassment, and sexual misconduct allegations — and Bill Cosby sexual assault allegations, which include rape, drug facilitated sexual assault, sexual battery, child sexual abuse, and/or sexual misconduct..--CaroleHenson (talk) 21:12, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Please see WP:OSE. SPECIFICO talk 21:28, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

• There have been so many POV and other claims to shut down this article or sections of the article.
• I think that if the article was made "Donald Trump sexual assault allegations", then I think there would be an increase in POV claims and Rfc tags. IMO, there would be a legitimate claim for questioning the title. I don't know that we could find enough sources to support that title and we'd have to remove most of the content.
• I would support "Donald Trump sexual assault and misconduct allegations", but it is a tad long.
• Would it be worth it to rename the article and have it shut down - or go through endless talk conversations about the validity of the article. It is not going to lighten up before the election, so I'm wondering —Why push it?--CaroleHenson (talk) 21:47, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose use redirects - I have previously already created a redirect to this article with the same title as proposed Donald_Trump_sexual_assault_allegations so this may satisfy the discussion about renaming the article since there is already a redirect with this title. The allegations span several legal areas since Trump has been accused of not only sexual assault but also sexual harassment (which is a work related charge for scoping nude Beauty Pageant contestants in their dressing rooms). Sexual assault is just one example of Trump's conduct but he also has been accused of sexual harassment and sexually hostile work environment, all very different legally. So to summarize, Trump is alleged to have engaged in sexual assault, sexual harassment, and sexually hostile work environment, and all of these categories should have redirects to this article. Octoberwoodland (talk) 21:32, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

• The redirect makes sense; I'm okay with keeping the article where it is now. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:50, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
• @Octoberwoodland: To clarify, are you !voting for status quo? If so, that's an Oppose to this move proposal. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:00, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out, changed to oppose use redirects. Octoberwoodland (talk) 22:05, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose - If someone cares to provide solid (highest-quality sources) citations in the article to support "sexual assault" term for every alleged act covered in it, then I will support the move. Until then, the move would seem cart before horse, and I would prefer to err on the side of safety. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:41, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, which of the 45 uses of the word "assault" in this article do you feel is not highest-quality sourced? SPECIFICO talk 23:33, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

I have reviewed all of the citations in Mariah Billado's section and none of them refer to that as sexual assault. In point of fact, this source has a list of assault accusations, followed by a list of "entering dressing room" accusations. Thereby explicitly showing that they do not consider that sexual assault. Provide the solid citations for Billado and then we can take it from there. I don't think you can. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:56, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

No, I'll be more generous. Show me solid sourcing that says any of Trump's "entering dressing rooms" was sexual assault, and then we can take it from there. I don't think you can do that, either. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:03, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

I am not understanding why you're asking me to check all the references in this article. Thanks to diligent editors such as yourself, I assume that the article is more or less reliably sourced. I came here only to see whether the title could better match the sourced content of the article text. As I said, I have little interest in these sordid details of Trump's life. But if you are saying that the title should not reflect the subject, allegations of assault then I suggested you could remove any uses of that term, assault, that fail verification and are not cited to proper RS references. I'm not going to show you anything, but if I see that the allegations of assault are removed from the article, then it would be obvious to me that the title similarly should not refer to assault. SPECIFICO talk 00:32, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: I am saying that I oppose this move unless "sexual assault" accurately describes all of the allegations in it, as per solid sourcing. It does not. The fact that the words "sexual assault" occur a lot in the article does not mean that those words accurately characterize the whole of the article. I think Donald Trump sexual assault and misconduct allegations would be excessively long, but it would be an improvement over this proposal. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:25, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

And if someone proposed Donald Trump sexual assault and misconduct allegations, I have no doubt someone else would point out the grammatical ambiguity and say that it should be clarified as Donald Trump sexual assault and sexual misconduct allegations. Mustn't expect readers to actually read the damn article, or even just its lead. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:55, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Got it. Well, "misconduct" doesn't occur in the article text at all. So assault trumps misconduct, 45 to zip -- SPECIFICO talk 02:10, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: Except that assault is a far more serious allegation and should therefore be used with far more caution. Given the limitations of title length, we should err on side of less serious as to the title. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:21, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Just to clarify, Trump actually making unwanted physical contact with his victims is sexual assault. Trump offering to buy a woman furniture and in one case I recall where Trump was interacting with woman business associates and making lewd proposals is sexual harassment -- if they are linked through business or employment relationships. Trump Scoping nude beauty pageant contestants in their dressing rooms is stalking and sexually hostile work environment if he owns the Pageant. Octoberwoodland (talk) 02:36, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

So the list of offenses trump is alleged by his victims to have committed fit comfortably under the category of sexual misconduct. The list is sexual assault, sexual harassment, sexual hostile work environment, and stalking. Octoberwoodland (talk) 02:45, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

I think that's a reasonable and neutral position. Thank you. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:49, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

---

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

Attribution of statement in Jane Doe section

Regarding: According to Libby Nelson of Vox, most media outlets haven't covered the case because of the unobtainable plaintiff, and apparent connections to both a former Jerry Springer producer and an anti-Trump activist.[22][23]

The tags were applied and ultimately I added attribution because it's an opinion. The way it sounded, there had been a survey of news outlets that didn't report Jane Doe's claim.--CaroleHenson (talk) 15:30, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:33, 21 October 2016 (UTC)