Talk:Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Dubious quality of "opposing view" addition

I have reverted the addition of this content pending further discussion. It's non sequitur content for several reasons:

1. It contradicts Trump's own description/bragging about how he actually did this type of thing.
2. It is not a witness account, but an account from non-witnesses. Obviously only those who noticed it happening would state it happened to them. Those who didn't notice didn't notice. Their comments have no weight.
3. The fact that Melania accompanied Trump on this one visit totally changes the situation and is irrelevant to the nature of the other stories. His creepy behavior (obviously!) didn't occur when his wife was present, but when he did it on his own. He did it and bragged about it, thus providing corroboration that these accounts should be trusted, just as his bragging about grabbing women's p***y should be trusted because it is also corroborated by numerous women. These are two situations where he actually told the truth.

I'm not saying we can't use this content in some very pared down manner, even though the source isn't the greatest. Please share your opinions. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:07, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

The dubious claim is the idea that it would even be possible for Trump to barge in on women changing at a moment's notice—as the five contestants quoted in my edit make clear, only someone lacking even the most basic understanding of how those pageants are actually run could believe such a thing (or pretend to believe it). The only non sequitur here is your insistence that the accounts I cited are of "non-witnesses" and carry "no weight" because they don't agree with the accusers: In fact, these witnesses testify to the fact that they were given two-and-a-half hours to prepare, that Trump and Melania did not greet them until after a fifteen minute warning and a further five minute warning, and that chaperones were always present—thus demonstrating how impractical it would be for Trump to engage in the behavior described. Moreover, the version you reverted to misrepresents the eleven women from 1997 by suggesting they merely "didn't notice" Trump's presence; we know from the published reliable sources that "most dismissed the possibility of Trump walking in on them." (Evidently, Wikipedia knows better.) Finally, it may be plausible to you that America has such a pronounced "rape culture" that Trump would candidly confess to spying on naked women and that Howard Stern—along with his co-hosts, listeners, and society at large—would find this hilarious at the time, but if you've heard the whole conversation or are familiar with The Howard Stern Show it's pretty obvious that Trump and Stern were joking. (In context, Stern was goading Trump into suggesting hypothetical scenarios by which he might exploit his position, with seeing the contestants undressed being "the funniest.") In any case, I'm not aware of the Wikipedia policy that says only primary sources are reliable, and anything that "contradicts" them should be mass deleted.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 18:32, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

• Both or neither - Unless there is more cites, then the topic does not pass WP:N and particularly BLP guideline WP:PUBLICFIGURE "If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out." If it is here use all sides according to the WP:NPOV "describe disputes, but not engage in them", and "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources". Also WP:BLPSTYLE talks further about Balance. Markbassett (talk) 02:37, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
• I agree, we should fully and dispassionately lay out the information reported in reliable sources, and let the reader sort it out for themselves. bd2412 T 03:28, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

• Trump's boasts have been widely reported by RS and his actions have been confirmed by numerous victims. We need to avoid editors' OR on the subject. As a matter of fact, very few commentators have given any credence to Mr. Trump's denials or claims that his actions were just his wishes or fantasies. Moreover, it's not up to us as editors to cherry pick a few women who apparently have been recruited to support the candidate's denials. If there were knowledgeable RS of credible objective judgment who bought into these denials, that would be different. SPECIFICO talk 04:00, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

• User:TheTimesAreAChanging, Trump has clearly boasted of doing this, and girls have confirmed he did it. End of that matter. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:40, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
• Just for clarification, WP:N does not determine the content of articles, but only whether the topic should have its own article. As far as the teen contestants are concerned, I think the quotes from Granata, Bowman and Hughes should be re-inserted, their quotes in the Inquisitr article are backed up by the orginal source for the allegations which is Buzzfeed, and Buzzfeed said they interviewed 15 women (with an additional one who came forward after the article was published), so the ratio is 5 who said he did enter the dressing room, (Billado and 4 anonymous) and 11 (Granata, Bowman, Hughes and 8 anonymous), who said they don't remember him coming in or it was possible it happened while they weren't present or didn't notice, but most were dubious or dismissed the possibility out of hand. So 5 are in the minority saying he did and 11 are in the majority giving a different view, so we should be giving the pov of those 11 due weight. All 3 of the sources used in that sub-section for the teen contestants, NY Post, LA Times and NPR, (which all make very clear they are only repeating what was said in the Buzzfeed piece), give due weight to those 11, so we shoud as well. I also think that sub-section should be re-titled, it's not NPOV to name that sub-section "Mariah Billado" when she is in the minority, it should be re-titled to something like "Teen contestants" or "Miss Teen USA contestants".-- Isaidnoway (talk) 05:59, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
• Retitling is a good idea. That he did this is not in doubt because he bragged about doing it, and multiple girls from different years have told about it happening to them.

We are dealing with several basic things which should be kept in mind and/or mentioned:

1. It happened on several different occasions on different dates.
2. Some girls experienced him entering unannounced, with them in various states of dress and undress. Some felt embarrassed and described it as "creepy", among other descriptions, while others were dressed and greeted him. It apparently didn't bother them. Why should it? They were dressed.
3. Some didn't notice it happen or were elsewhere, so these are not even witnesses. They can only speak to what didn't happen to them because they weren't there, or that they were not witnesses to what was happening to others. No court would ever allow their testimony in the matter.
4. Some who experienced it were young and rather naive at the time, but after they became older and reflected on it, they realized just how inappropriate it was.
5. There was apparently never any type of sexual talk or assault from Trump on these occasions. He greeted them and just looked at them. According to his own descriptions, he saw a lot and enjoyed the sight.
6. When he visited a dressing room on one occasion with his wife, a totally different procedure was followed, one which says nothing about how he entered dressing rooms the other times.

There may be other things in the sources which we should mention, but those are the basic things which should be kept in mind and/or mentioned. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:37, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Except the sources explicitly say "most dismissed the possibility of Trump walking in on them." You can repeat the same WP:OR argument second-guessing the witnesses ad infinitum, but that won't make it any more convincing or true (please don't, though; we're already well past the point of diminishing returns).TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 06:55, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Some said that, but they were clearly wrong because it did happen to others. They cannot speak to what happened to others or to what they did not witness. It's that simple. If they didn't see it happen, then they didn't see it happen. That doesn't mean it didn't happen. Do you see the difference?

You seem to be using OR to make the sources disagree. I am accepting them all and just showing that they have differing POV that don't necessarily mean anyone is lying, as you are implying. In fact, you are making Trump, and those who back him up, liars, when in fact this is one of the few times he actually told the truth. -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:03, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

I want to make it clear that I am only discussing the teen contestants. WP:RS says we should make sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered. The Buzzfeed piece covered what the 11 contestants said and gave them due weight, so we should as well per our guideline. The only source we have for those allegations about the teens is not exactly stellar, we're using Buzzfeed (the original source) for contentious BLP content that alleges in this article that Trump engaged in sexual misconduct against minor females. No where in the Buzzfeed article, or any of the other 3 sources that repeat what Buzzfeed reported, (NY Post, LA Times or NPR) do they describe these dressing room visits as sexual misconduct, which is the topic of this article. The Buzzfeed article quotes the contestants as describing his unannounced visits as "creepy", "shocking" and Billado said it “was more of a pompous ‘I own this place’ rather than a perverted thing.” The article also states "of the 15 women who were interviewed, none accused Trump of saying anything sexually explicit or of making physical contact in the dressing room". So in reality, the content about the teen contestants fails verification because nobody, the sources or the contestants, describe it as sexual misconduct. So I believe if we are going to retain this content about the teen contestants, then we should be giving equal weight to the 11 contestants POV. I also totally agree that Trump has admitted to entering the dressing rooms, but I think we need a reliable source describing those visits as sexual misconduct, otherwise it seems like we are simply implying that it was sexual misconduct without any sources to back up that claim.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 07:04, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

"Some said that, but they were clearly wrong because it did (allegedly) happen to others." Thanks again for your personal opinion, BullRangifer, but I'm afraid you're not in the canon of reliable sources.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 07:14, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

No, Trump and the girls who made the accusations are the RS, and you seem to be the one creating an OR interpretion to nullify their testimony. My interpretation accepts them all, as I have written above. Your interpretation is faulty. -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:26, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm not the one mass deleting content: You are. I'm not the one "creating an interpretation": You are. Wikipedia should quote all of the RS verbatim and let the readers decide. You are explicitly arguing that we can't quote all of the RS because then some readers might draw the "wrong" conclusion (i.e., that the accusers are lying). In fact, readers could just as easily "create" the same "interpretation" as you. That "my interpretation accepts them all" (how lovely), BTW, has no bearing on whether it is true or not—nor is Wikipedia supposed to determine the WP:TRUTH.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 07:47, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

User:Isaidnoway, if I understand you correctly, you're trying to make a case for excluding this content because there was no overt sexual contact. Well, our RS describe this behavior as improper "sexual misconduct". You see, this type of behavior is judged differently in different countries, cultures, and times. In the USA, this is considered very improper behavior of a sexual nature, even if no words are spoken or contact made. It's a type of voyeurism. "Misconduct" is a broad term. These sources include the dressing room incidents with the other more overt sexual incidents:

1. A timeline of Donald Trump's alleged sexual misconduct: who, when and what, The Guardian
2. A list of the accusations of sexual misconduct that Trump dismisses as 'all fiction', LA Times

There may be more, but they are enough to establish that RS group this behavior together as various forms of sexual misconduct. -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:24, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Both those sources make it crystal clear about the teen contestants that they are repeating what Buzzfeed reported, which does not describe it as sexual misconduct. I realize that they lump these teens in with all the other allegations under headlines that scream sexual assault and sexual misconduct and editor's want to offer opinions and WP:OR about what they think constitutes sexual misconduct, but the only source that actually interviewed the teens is Buzzfeed, which does not describe it as sexual misconduct, nor do the teens. Having said that, I will readily concede there's not a chance in hell this content will be removed. So like I said earlier, if the content is to remain, then all the views of the teens should be reported per WP:NPOV. Trump said he walked in and 5 girls said he walked in, but we have also have the POV of 11 other girls, and per our guidelines, we report that as well, and it's perfectly fine if their stories are in conflict with one another. WP:NPOV says Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject. That's what we have here is competing views that were both represented in reliable sources, we don't take sides on who is telling the truth, we report what the sources said in a neutral manner, and then we also report what Trump has said as well. That's why I think Granata, Bowman and Hughes quotes/statements should be re-inserted.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 07:59, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Isaidnoway, I very largely agree with you. As you may have noticed from my opening remarks, I never said we shouldn't include this content at all. I was dissatisfied with the original format and weight given the topic and thought it needed further discussion. That's what we've been doing, and things are moving along. We're getting closer to finding a better way to use this content.

TheTimesAreAChanging, my deletion was temporary, and my original remarks make that pretty clear. There is nothing unusual going on here. When content is disputed, we discuss it here and work out a better way to deal with it. What you added will likely be included in some manner. I just think it doesn't deserve so much weight, and that the huge quote is trivia which borders on special pleading and gossip.

Our attempts, on this talk page, to make sense of conflicting information, include plenty of discussion and OR. That's okay on a talk page. We obviously won't include the OR in the article. It's our way of figuring out how to present as much of what RS say in a manner which doesn't mislead readers, and which allows them to come to their own conclusions.

There are times (and I don't think this is one of them) where conflicting sources appear and one of them is totally false. Journalists sometimes get it totally wrong. They may write "didn't say that" when they should have written "did say that". If that false information becomes part of the narrative in society, and is picked up by other RS, then we include the false statements, along with the evidence from other RS that it's false. When it's a blip, amounting to how we'd treat a typo in the NY Times, then we have decided to not even mention it, even though a prominent journalist in a normally RS wrote the opposite of the truth. It was an error which didn't affect the narrative, and was ignored by other sources because it was obviously a typo.

As editors we must use common sense. In this case we have conflicting POV because they literally did have different experiences because of very different timing, perspective, and circumstances. For you to imply that the one POV makes the other POV impossible is a bit naive. I have already explained how the girls who say it couldn't have happened must be mistaken. They aren't lying, but what they say is untrue. (Lying has to do with motives.) It's their POV, but it doesn't mean that Trump didn't do on all those different occasions, or that the girls who experienced him walking in on them are lying. Trump and those girls are telling the truth, and their statements are more factual than those who claimed it could never have happened.

We already include the statement from the eleven girls. We must not include additional content in such a manner that we imply that Trump never did it or that the girls who corroborate his admission are wrong. Now we need to figure out how to word it. Please start suggesting a better way to do it. -- BullRangifer (talk) 18:05, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

BullRangifer - No we should not be writing towards a goal, we should be conveying what sources say. (1) Better in WP:NPOV and WP:BLP Balance sense is to include, in due weight of prominence, other views. This would obviously include Trump denials as covered, where Trump camp puts forward witness to refute claims when covered, and skeptical other contestants if covered. (2) Better in WP:WELLKNOWN sense is to put forward only what is in a multitude of major sources -- use something other than tabloids or advocacy cites when able. and (3) Better is just follow the cites and convey carefully their content, in particular second-person attribution rather than stating in WP-voice as facts. If such content implies he did or did not do something should not be our consideration -- that might not be faithful to the sources or their prominence, or accurately convey the situation of dispute. Markbassett (talk) 20:07, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

???? Markbassett, we are actually in agreement. If I've written anything that makes you feel otherwise, I'm sorry for my poor expression of my thoughts, which are definitely not all expressed here. I've been here since 2003 and have helped write some of our policies, so I know a bit about these things. -- BullRangifer (talk) 22:12, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

@BullRangifer: Four of the six contributors here favor inclusion of the disputed material. While 4-2 may be a weak consensus and consensus can always change, I've seen disputes "settled" on a weaker basis than that. This discussion has primarily focused on the question of inclusion, because you purged my edit entirely and have not submitted an alternative version. (If you trimmed the Imdieke blockquote, for example, I would not object.) But demanding that all six of us unanimously agree on the exact wording of every sentence is an impossibly high standard by which we could never achieve consensus for anything. I also note that everyone who has commented thus far supported renaming the "Mariah Billado" section, which SPECIFICO nevertheless reverted.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:01, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Consensus doesn't allow for ARBAP2 violations. Even if it were not true, the consensus is weak at best. Consensus is not the standard that's been prescribed by WP:SHAM.2604:3400:DC1:43:216:3EFF:FE6B:497F (talk) 00:25, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:43, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree with the reversion. Compromise, collaboration and consensus is what we need in order to get past this content dispute. And TheTimesAreAChanging (talk · contribs), please don't misrepresent my comments by implying that I favored inclusion of the disputed material, I've made it clear in the discussion above that my comments were solely about the teen contestants, I've offered no opinion on the "Opposing views" section. The only content I semi-agree with you about in your edit is the change of the title to an alternative other than Billado, and I would support a brief summary of what Granata, Bowman and Hughes stated since they were also interviewed. I would not support starting that sentence with "However, most dismissed the possibility of Trump walking in on them".-- Isaidnoway (talk) 01:06, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:43, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

All of the material is "disputed," so, yes, you do favor including "at least some" of the "disputed material." I'm not surprised to learn that you only "semi-agree" with your own proposal ("I also think that sub-section should be re-titled, it's not NPOV to name that sub-section 'Mariah Billado' when she is in the minority, it should be re-titled to something like 'Teen contestants' or 'Miss Teen USA contestants"), given your waffling, but it's difficult to count a vote of "semi-agree." "I would support a brief summary of what Granata, Bowman and Hughes stated ... I would not support starting that sentence with [direct quote from source]." That's all well and good, but what would you support? No-one has suggested any alternative to my edit besides blanket deletion, which is why this debate has thus far been about whether counter-claims are permissible—two editors have argued that, by definition, this article is exclusively limited to claims.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 02:05, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

TheTimesAreAChanging, the decision about whether a consensus exists isn't determined by one person, but by those engaged in the discussion. (We haven't begun the discussion about whether we have a consensus because we aren't ready for it.) It's not determined by a simple majority count either. As long as a discussion is in progress, we don't get to short circuit the decision making process. We wait until a decision has been made. If a clear consensus, like 15 to 1, doesn't arise, and there is a locked situation, then dispute resolution is the next step, not edit warring over the content. It stays out until a very clear consensus version has been developed. In this case we are working towards a better way to include the material, and we'll likely get there within the next couple days. Be patient. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:42, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

I'll just leave this here: "Ultimately, Amy Colley Tyson providing her account is by no means a way to negate the statements alleged victims’ of the 1997 Miss Teen USA..." [1] That's what we also must keep in mind. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:22, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

BullRangifer - re your "???? Markbassett, we are actually in agreement. " above ... I don't think we are. I'm saying that the line "We must not include additional content in such a manner that we imply that Trump never did it" seems improper in proposing a goal or limit on what we would allow, when NPOV means we are to state what all sources and BLP Balance explicitly that we must include what defending or opposing sources say. We should not OR source it -- but if outside sources imply or outright state he did not do something, it's part of the topic and belongs in. And if they say some third version of events, then that too goes in. Just follow he cites, just follow the WP guidelines. Markbassett (talk) 00:18, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Markbassett, my wording "that we imply" is very important. By that I meant that it must not appear to readers that editors ("we") imply anything. We do not side with them. Obviously some girls said things which can be understood in that manner, but "we" must not do it. Does that help? Even though logic (because Trump himself says he DID do it, and several girls in different years confirm he wasn't lying) dictates that the implication of those who say it couldn't have happened is untrue (because it DID happen!), we must resist any temptation to take part in their reasoning by stating anything without using RS.

Our OR reasoning on this page must stay here, IOW we must not give their word so much weight that an untruth is made to appear true. That's what I saw happening, and was a small part of why I reverted the addition pending discussion. Their statements must stand on their own without us giving it undue weight.

Fortunately their own wording allows for readers to understand that their failure to experience anything negative was because "it was possible that he entered while they were somewhere else, or that they didn’t notice.[73]" That wording is still in the article and makes sense of it all. Any statements beyond that by any of them was political posturing and special pleading, as is obvious from the source. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:48, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

BullRangifer - no, I'm at my stated Both or neither. For WP:N and WP:PUBLICFIGURE, and WP:NPOV, either claims are not put in at all, or else all views, particularly where Trump denies them and other witnesses imply he did not or state outright that he could not. Where other instances have support that imply he did is also to go in. Unless it has so little coverage to fail WP:N. Again -- all of it goes in, or none of it goes in. Markbassett (talk) 01:02, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

I must be missing something. Have I suggested we should not cover some aspect of the subject? -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:54, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Proposition 1

I'd like to propose that we start by making this one change, IOW we start doing things in increments we can agree on:

• Change the section title from "Mariah Billado" to "Teen contestants" or "Miss Teen USA contestants", as suggested above.

Can we agree on this one change? Please respond below with a Yes or No, and which version. I'll start. (More suggestions after we have dealt with this one.) -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:22, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

• Miss Teen USA contestants -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:22, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
• Miss Teen USA contestants and a "Yes" would be superfluous. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:47, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
• Miss Teen USA contestants I approve this heading. SPECIFICO talk 17:06, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
• Miss Teen USA contestants per NPOV.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 17:31, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

It appears we have a very clear consensus here. Isaidnoway, since you originally suggested this change (AFAIK), would you like to do the honors? -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:57, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Pinging Isaidnoway. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:02, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

 Done-- Isaidnoway (talk) 19:12, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Proposition 2

My proposal is to change the second paragraph in that section to this version. It basically adds the fifth contestant who has now come forward and was interviewed by Buzzfeed, it also removes a redundant statement by Billado and moves Trumps denial up to this paragraph. Please respond with include or exclude or offer alternative suggestions or no change at all. (note to BullRangifer (talk · contribs), I made your proposition a sub-heading for easier editing, hope that's OK)-- Isaidnoway (talk) 17:31, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

• Trump also entered the dressing room of the Miss Teen USA pageant in 1997 while the girls were dressing. According to Victoria Hughes, Miss New Mexico Teen USA, the youngest girl was 15 and she was the oldest at 19. Of the 15 16 former contestants who were interviewed by Buzzfeed News, none alleged Trump said anything sexually explicit or made physical contact in the dressing room. Trump's campaign stated the allegations of him entering the dressing room “have no merit and have already been disproven by many other individuals who were present.

Isaidnoway, it was good you added that subheading. Thanks!

To make this easier, I'm adding the existing wording below to make comparison easier. I think your version is an improvement, but I have highlighted a part that should not be deleted. With that restored, I'd be okay with your version:

• Trump also entered the dressing room of the Miss Teen USA pageant in 1997 while the girls were dressing. The youngest contestants were 15 years old. He told the girls, "Don't worry, ladies, I've seen it all before."[38][69][72] Of the 15 former contestants who were interviewed, none alleged Trump said anything sexually explicit or made physical contact in the dressing room.[73]

I also think it's good you included the denial at the end. Discerning readers will be able to read the obvious discrepancy between the denial and Trump's own bragging. So be it. Your way of laying it out helps to obviate any need for a separate "criticism/denial" type section. While they are not totally forbidden, we are supposed to try to avoid them by mixing the criticism/denial into the article in the logical places. Here you have done so by writing the description of what happened and then the denial right afterwards. That's exemplary editing! -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:14, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

The reason I removed the part you highlighted is because that is a quote from Billado and it's also included in her section, it's redundant to have it in both places, don't you think. I think a direct quote like that should be attributed to who said it, which is why I left it in her section.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 06:24, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Isaidnoway, good explanation. That makes sense to me. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:06, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

• Yes to this version, unless others wish to add their suggestions. Then I'll reevaluate. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:06, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Proposition 3

This proposal is an expansion for the Miss Teen USA sub-section, which adds another paragraph, the Miss USA allegations has 4 paragraphs, so I don't feel 2 for the teen contestants is undue. The first paragraph is Billado's statements, some minor copy editing, an expansion for Ivanka, which clarifies why she was there, and adds the statement from Victoria Hughes, the fifth contestant who came forward. The second paragraph is the eleven girls which includes statements from Granata, Bowman and Crystal Hughes.

Mariah Billado, Miss Vermont Teen USA, one of four five women to confirm the dressing room visit said: "I remember putting on my dress really quick, because I was like, 'Oh my god, there's a man in here,' she recalled Trump saying something like, “Don’t worry, ladies, I’ve seen it all before.” Billado also said she told Ivanka Trump, who served as co-host of the pageant, about Trump entering the dressing room while the girls were changing, Billado remembers Ivanka stating, “Yeah, he does that.” Victoria Hughes, Miss New Mexico Teen USA, said she remembered chaperones telling them that they "had a visitor and to get covered up,” she went on to say: “the black curtains opened and in walks Mr. Trump smiling. He wished us all good luck, did not stay very long and left." Hughes told Buzzfeed News that “it was certainly the most inappropriate time to meet us all for the first time.”

Eleven girls who were also interviewed by Buzzfeed News said that they did not see Trump enter the dressing room, which had 51 stations for the contestants, some said it was possible that he entered while they were somewhere else, or that they didn’t notice. Jessica Granata, Miss Massachusetts Teen USA, one of the eleven girls, said: “There were so many chaperones I can’t even fathom” him doing that. Allison Bowman, Miss Wisconsin Teen USA, said she doubted whether it happened. Bowman said, “If anything inappropriate had gone on, the gossip would have flown.” Crystal Hughes, Miss Maine Teen USA, also one of the eleven girls said, “If that was something he did, then everybody would have noticed.”

Isaidnoway 17:33, November 7, 2016‎ (UTC)

• Nonsense This only validates everything we know about sexual abuse, particularly of young women who assume that if "it" happened then it must be OK, so that their own concerns are instead assumed to be the problem. Very bad, and certainly unfit for WP. SPECIFICO talk 18:22, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Your personal opinion is duly noted, my proposal is based on policy - WP:NPOV - which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 19:15, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Well this is not RS this is the opinion of a cherrypicked woman with no stature for the opinion "if...then.." which is her non-expert opinion about social dynamics or abuse in general and not a factual observation, let alone the factual observation of a randomly and impartially selected young witness. BTW I slightly edited my previous comment for clarity. I suggest you sign each of your !votes, because it's not clear that they are yours. SPECIFICO talk 19:46, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Buzzfeed interviewed 16 women, 5 said they remembered it, 11 said they didn't remember it, 5 gave their opinions how they felt about it, 11 gave their opinions how they felt about it. Apparently, Buzzfeed thought the 5 women who remembered it and the 11 women who didn't remember it were significant enough to include in their article, so did NPR, so did the NY Post, the LA Times, the Washington Post, Salon, etc...and Buzzfeed again repeated the 11 women's stories when they interviewed the 5th contestant. We're not stating any of the 16 women's stories in WP's voice as facts, we quote them directly. 11 women have an opposing view, it's prominent enough that all the sources inluded it, so it's sourced and verifiable, and we're not giving undue weight to any of the women, so I believe it should be included per WP:NPOV.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 22:32, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

It may be a news report of what those writers did, but there is no information in it. It's full of unstated and unadjusted biases and it has *no* factual value whatsoever. SPECIFICO talk 00:07, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

SPECIFICO argues that virtually all RS suffer from 'ingrained misogyny' or 'rape culture,' so editors should simply ignore what the RS say and write whatever they want. Brilliant!TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 01:26, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Actually, I said nothing of the sort. The point is that these are the recollections of young women in a new, exciting, and very stressful setting whose attention was focused on their preparation for the competition. Their sense of whether Trump was lurking about in other areas of a large and compartmentalized locker room is not apt to be very accurate, except in the cases where he was directly intruding on their own personal and private space. Please do not misrepresent other editors. It's a form of personal attack. Read the relevant policies and Arbcom principles about aspersions, etc. Thx. SPECIFICO talk 01:59, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

I came up with the best guess I could for whatever "It may be a news report of what those writers did, but there is no information in it. It's full of unstated and unadjusted biases and it has *no* factual value" is supposed to mean: You're bound to be misinterpreted if you write in code. Of course, I support quoting the witnesses deemed significant by RS—with emphasis not on "whether Trump was lurking about in other areas of a large and compartmentalized locker room," but rather on the abundance of security/chaperones/warnings demonstrating how pageants actually work—and why Trump could not in fact simply do as he pleased.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 02:18, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Juveniles preoccupied with this beauty event hullabaloo have no knowledge judgment or expertise on the matter of how the larger pageant works, where the owner roams, or anything of that sort. The nature of sexual predation is that it victimizes the naive unsuspecting and vulnerable victim. SPECIFICO talk 02:51, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

• I think it better to work only on one single version, so will speak to #3 : Buzzfeed said a total of 5 support tht he visited the dressing room (not "5 confirm"), and of 11 others interviewed, "some said it was possible that he entered while they were somewhere else, or that they didn’t notice", and "Most of the former contestants were doubtful or dismissed the possibility that Trump violated their changing room privacy." And I think we're flying only on the Buzzfeed reportn or echoes of it, so should get some independent investigator report if possible. After these lines should come the Trump denial statement and any other aspect with significant prominence. Markbassett (talk) 00:37, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

• We have a serious procedural problem here. This section deals with the same content as section two right above, including some of the same wording and sources. This situation makes it too complicated. We need to deal with one section at a time. We find an approved version, install it, and then seek to improve it more. Smaller increments make it easier to do. That's my opinion. I really think we should hat this section and turn attention to section two. We can return to this later. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:30, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Agree. SPECIFICO talk 04:49, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Maybe I should have been more clear. The paragraph that you added up above (the existing wording) is the second paragraph under the section heading Allegations of pageant dressing room visits, and then in the sub-section titled Mariah Billado, this paragraph is the existing wording:

Miss Vermont Teen USA, is one of four women to mention such a dressing room visit incident in 1997.[73] Billado said of the visit: "I remember putting on my dress really quick, because I was like, 'Oh my god, there's a man in here.' Trump, she recalled, said something like, Don't worry, ladies, I've seen it all before." (redundant) There were also eleven girls who said that they did not see Trump enter the dressing room, which had 51 stations for the contestants, some said it was possible that he entered while they were somewhere else, or that they didn’t notice.[73] When Billado talked to Ivanka, Trump's daughter, she said "Yeah, he does that."[6] Trump's campaign stated the allegations of him entering the dressing room “have no merit and have already been disproven by many other individuals who were present.”

So proposition 2 addresses the second paragraph under the section heading Allegations of pageant dressing room visits, and proposition 3 addresses the paragraph in the sub-section titled Mariah Billado. If editor's think it's too confusing to figure out, I wouldn't object to hatting proposition 3 until there is a consensus (or not) for proposition 2. If editor's think there shouldn't be any changes at all, and that is the consensus, I'm fine with that too. I personally don't see it as a serious procedural issue, but rather as a proposed path forward in a content dispute.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 06:57, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Isaidnoway, yes, I think we should wait until we're finished with Proposition 2. That will avoid any confusion. A temporary hat here will help. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:12, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Accuser Lisa Boyne

What about including Lisa Boyne, who accuses Trump of looking up skirts in a 1996 report? She is another accuser. 47.151.22.243 (talk) 20:51, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

We should only mention cases that are generally mentioned in mainstream media, per weight. Stories that only appear in tabloids and which the tabloid writers cast doubt on do not belong in articles. TFD (talk) 01:41, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

I tend to agree with TFD. This needs coverage in more RS. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:07, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 November 2016 Jill Harth paragraph 2...

Jill Harth paragraph 2, to add a sentence to conclude the paragraph. The paragraph uses Nicholas Kristof's article "Donald Trump, Groper in Chief," as a reference. To concluded the paragraph, this statement from the article should be included. "They dated for several months in 1998, when he was separated from Maples, she says. In the end, he was a disappointing boyfriend, always watching television and rarely offering emotional support, she says." This provides a more complete picture of Harth-Trump's "interactions" in the 1990's using the same source already referenced.Robd831 (talk) 17:06, 4 November 2016 (UTC)robd831

Robd831 (talk) 17:06, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

•  Not done. Seems unnecessary and may lend WP:undue weight. GAB^gab 14:56, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. I don't see how it lends to undue weight considering it's just a completion of the article already referenced. By referencing "Groper in Chief" wikipedia should include the entire Harth-Trump "interaction/relationship", and not just pick and chose parts of said "interaction/relationship." Robd831 (talk) 17:45, 7 November 2016 (UTC)Robd831

Any response would be appreciatedRobd831 (talk) 00:03, 9 November 2016 (UTC)Robd831

BumpRobd831 (talk) 14:29, 11 November 2016 (UTC)Robd831

After six days of silence, it's clear there is no interest in this thread. But your account is now autoconfirmed, so you don't need to submit edit requests at this or any other semi-protected article. Just perform the edit you think is needed. If you are then reverted, which seems very possible even if you avoid the long verbatim quote from the source that you propose above, you can choose to start a new thread about the issue. Being at the bottom, it will probably get more attention. If the edit gains consensus it will be reinstated. If not, it won't. But I think you're wasting your time in this thread. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:15, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

RfC Closure for Jane Doe discussion

The discussion on Jane Doe RfC has been archived by bot. The discussion is yet to be closed. What is the process for closure? J mareeswaran (talk) 13:00, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Restored from premature archive. Default duration is 30 days (about 22 Nov) but we can request early close if consensus is reached here. I am not opposed to that. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:31, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Archiving bots do not respect unclosed discussions. They work purely on how long it has been since a discussion was last posted to, as compared to the archive configuration settings. In this case, the last post to the thread was at 02:03, 6 November 2016 and the {{User:MiszaBot/config}} template has |algo=old(4d) - so the thread became eligible for archiving at 02:03, 6 November 2016 plus 4 days, i.e. 02:03, 10 November 2016, so archiving at 05:01, 10 November 2016‎ should not have been unexpected. Four days is very short. I would suggest that in general, any page which has one or more open RfC should not have the archiving set to anything less than |algo=old(30d) --Redrose64 (talk) 14:58, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

I think a preemptive {{DNAU}} would be preferable to that. I would have done that but I mistakenly believed that the archive bot treats RfCs differently. Now I know. Actually I don't see why {{Rfc}} couldn't call {{DNAU}}, for that matter, but I'm not in a VPR mood at the moment. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:09, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

User:Mandruss - I suggest you as poster close it per WP:RFCEND since inputs came quick circa 22 Oct and seems to have been fairly thrashed over then tapered off, plus that we now know how much it grew in the weeks after, and finally that the circumstances have shifted if the case has been withdrawn. I don't know what summation you might make of it all but as I don't expect much more or anything new to come in, seems time to close. Markbassett (talk) 22:58, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

@Markbassett: I don't know what summation you might make - I am involved and therefore won't be making any summation. When it's time to close, early or not, any of us can request an uninvolved closer at WP:ANRFC. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:34, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

I think it should be left open. I don't see a clear consensus. The circumstances have shifted. The case has been withdrawn, and the election is over. It would be good to get some input in the present context. It's possible that Trump's triumph will bring more people here.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:54, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

I doubt it. The only thing driving editor interest in this article and particularly this case was that it might affect the election outcome. TFD (talk) 01:40, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Image change

This is the only article on enwiki that uses File:Trump in 2013.jpg, change to File:Donald Trump August 19, 2015 (cropped).jpg? ∼∼∼∼ Eric0928Talk 01:14, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

You don't like variety? What's the advantage of inter-article consistency as to Trump photos? ―Mandruss ☎ 14:29, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Bill Cosby sexual assault allegations also uses a different picture from his article, it even uses a different title, Bill Cosby sexual assault allegations, for this one, Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations. ∼∼∼∼ Eric0928Talk 15:38, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Witness undue?

SPECIFICO has suggested that any witnesses the Trump campaign put forward to refute these allegations should be excluded from the article, because alleged witnesses provide "no encyclopedic content," despite being reported in RS. This standard isn't applied anywhere else on Wikipedia (see, e.g., Bill Clinton sexual misconduct allegations) and seems rather bizarre for an article built entirely around vague recollections from decades ago with no substantiating evidence (e.g., Democratic operative claims Trump kissed her on the cheek for "a little too long"). If it were not for the fact that women are extraordinarily privileged in modern American society, these claims would not be considered "encyclopedic" at all, and would never have been reported—in the same way it would not be reported if some random guy claimed sans a police report or any other evidence that Donald Trump stole his watch decades ago. Yet I'm not the one deleting large swathes of material because WP:IDONTLIKEIT.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:55, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Don't misrepresent views stated by other editors. Confine your comments here to content not contributors. SPECIFICO talk 15:58, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

(Er, ditto?) What substantive distinction are you trying to make—that you support including only alleged witnesses against Trump, not those that spoke out in his defense? Such a stance would violate WP:NPOV.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 20:35, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Butler's testimony

• 1. This is with respect to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump_sexual_misconduct_allegations#Natasha_Stoynoff_.282005.29
• 2.SPECIFICO has left the following edit on my talk page: diff. My response is that the butler's testimony was present even before i did any editing in this section of the main article, although i expanded this section by adding one additional sentence at the end of the section.
• 3. I did give another reference for the butler's testimony. I do not agree with Specifico that this second reference is *not* RS (see my edit summary), particularly since it is only corroborating what the first reference (the Independent article) is saying.
• 4. Even if the consensus is that the second reference is not an RS, the section pertaining to the butler's testimony still stands on the strength of what the first reference (the Independent article) is saying.
• 5. Specifico's claim that the butler is not "independent", that he is being "loyal" etc. may or may not be true but all this is surely Specifico's unsubstantiated speculation without any supportive evidence; the butler's testimony does need to be included in the main article per WP:DUE, particularly since the accuser has claimed that the butler was a witness to the incident in which she accuses Trump of groping her.
• 6. Note that the 85 year old butler is actually a 'former butler' who used to work for Trump. In other words, he does not work for Trump currently. (He is probably leading a retired life.)Soham321 (talk) 16:33, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for coming to talk. Please undo your reinsertion, which violates Arbcom ARBAP2 Discretionary Sanctions. The butler has been revealed in countess respected news media to be erratic, and his racist and other rants deprecate his credibility more or less to zero. Trump's own denials are important, but not the statements of a possibly demented former employee. SPECIFICO talk 16:50, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Since the accuser has herself named the butler as a witness, not including the butler's testimony would be a violation of WP:DUE. Secondly, the butler's testimony already existed in the main article before i touched this section. I am quite confident that including the butler's testimony does not violate any Arbcom sanctions. Soham321 (talk) 16:58, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

That doesn't address the butler's bias and apparent senility. SPECIFICO talk 17:03, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

calling the butler 'biased' and 'senile' without any supportive evidence is a violation of WP:BLP. Please don't do it again. Soham321 (talk) 17:15, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

I said apparent senility, which is simply a fact that's been reported in the media. Lighten up and stick to the point. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 17:31, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

The 'Cassandra Searles' section needs to be rewritten

In my opinion the Cassandra Searles section needs to be rewritten to mention that all the sources being cited are giving information about the accusation based on two Facebook posts allegedly written by Searles (one FB post, and one comment to her own FB post). Searles has not made this claim in any news conference or to any news reporter, nor has Searles confirmed the authenticity of these Facebook posts. Certainly if anyone can find a source(s) where Searles confirms the authenticity of her FB posts or discusses her accusations then these should be included in this section and the section could even be expanded. But if that is not the case then this section needs a significant rewrite to indicate that all three sources being used in this section are relying on two alleged Facebook posts of Searles. Soham321 (talk) 22:37, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Witness undue?

(Hoisted from the archives by me. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 06:07, 7 December 2016 (UTC))

SPECIFICO has suggested that any witnesses the Trump campaign put forward to refute these allegations should be excluded from the article, because alleged witnesses provide "no encyclopedic content," despite being reported in RS. This standard isn't applied anywhere else on Wikipedia (see, e.g., Bill Clinton sexual misconduct allegations) and seems rather bizarre for an article built entirely around vague recollections from decades ago with no substantiating evidence (e.g., Democratic operative claims Trump kissed her on the cheek for "a little too long"). If it were not for the fact that women are extraordinarily privileged in modern American society, these claims would not be considered "encyclopedic" at all, and would never have been reported—in the same way it would not be reported if some random guy claimed sans a police report or any other evidence that Donald Trump stole his watch decades ago. Yet I'm not the one deleting large swathes of material because WP:IDONTLIKEIT.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:55, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Don't misrepresent views stated by other editors. Confine your comments here to content not contributors. SPECIFICO talk 15:58, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

(Er, ditto?) What substantive distinction are you trying to make—that you support including only alleged witnesses against Trump, not those that spoke out in his defense? Such a stance would violate WP:NPOV.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 20:35, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

I have hoisted this from the archives for discussion, since it was never resolved. It is probably notable that the Trump campaign put forward this witness as a rebuttal, but those same sources who reported this matter also noted the following:

• This person would have been a teenager at the time of the incident. (The Daily Mail)
• He has no evidence for his claims except for his "photographic memory". (NY Post)
• He has a long history of making fantastic claims, the most well-known of which is the claim that he procured underage boys (all of the politicians were dead at the time he made the claim) for Tory politicians. (Daily Mirror, BuzzFeed Mother Jones).
• He has admitted to the court in a libel trial of lying in the past (The Guardian, Mother Jones).

In my view, either some mention of these things should be made in the article, or this person should be removed. The sources take an extremely skeptical view of his testimony. See The Independent, The Telegraph and LA Times for more sources. Since this matter was never resolved, I have removed the material from the article, pending discussion. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 06:07, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

The credibility of a witness is not a reason to exclude their mention. This is not a U.S. courtroom. Of course we should also mention their perceived credibility. There are also questions about the credibility of the accusations against Trump, yet we report them anyway. TFD (talk) 08:55, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Whether something should be included in the article or not, is an editorial decision. The format for most of the sections here seem to be allegation, followed by Trump's response. This is a somewhat different case, where a third person put himself forward as a witness to the incident. In my opinion, it is entirely legitimate to consider their credibility as a criterion for whether to include them and in what manner. As I said above, in my opinion, either both the things (the testimony and the doubts raised about their credibility) should be mentioned or none of them should be mentioned. This has nothing to do with courtroom procedure, since none of the allegations on this page have been decided in court. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 11:30, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Kingsindian, I agree with The Four Deuces here. As long as WP:RS and WP:V are satisfied, it is not appropriate in my opinion to editorially exclude the testimony of the witness on the ground that there is a question mark on his credibility. Of course we can mention in the main article that there is a question mark on the credibility of this witness. If we continue with this approach we would be obliged to similarly remove some of the accusations in their entirety since there is a question mark on the credibility of some of the accusers as well. Soham321 (talk) 16:41, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Everything included in every article is an editorial decision. But editors are supposed to base their decisions on policy and guidelines. The relevant policy is "Balancing aspects": "An article...should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject." The reference to courtroom procedure is that we do not exclude evidence based on lack of "credibility" (your term), but on lack of coverage in reliable sources. None of the witness statements are reliable sources for what actually happened. We must rely on reliable secondary sources for that. TFD (talk) 17:54, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Zerothly, I stress that I have only removed the text pending discussion, not permanently. Firstly, there is nothing in TFD's comment which conflicts with my own (if we take the path of including the guy's testimony as well as the comments on the credibility of the testimony). Secondly, WP:RS and WP:V are necessary conditions for inclusion but not sufficient, per WP:ONUS. We are under no obligation to include everything that is in the newspapers; indeed, the original version did not include the comments skeptical of the testimony (which are a big part of virtually every mention of this guy), even though these comments satisfy WP:V and WP:RS. The things we choose to include in any article are decided by consensus; there is no shortcut. I have given my own view as to the correct path(s) to follow; people may or may not agree with me. Lastly, there must be a cutoff for the number of hops one follows. One person says X, the other person counters with Y, the original party counters Y with Z, then someone counters Z with U or X with W, and so on. This never ends. I suggested that the most of the sections follow the pattern: "allegation, followed by response from Trump". That's one hop for each party. All other hops should have good justifications for inclusion. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 18:05, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

My own view is that we should allow unlimited "hops" in this article as long as WP:RS and WP:V are satisfied, taking into account WP:BALASP, mentioned by TFD. Soham321 (talk) 18:14, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Trump is entitled to have his first person denial in the article as reported by RS. We know Trump was present. The butler's stuff remains UNDUE and was not taken seriously by the mainstream press. SPECIFICO talk 21:20, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Stoynoff says "Trump's longtime butler burst into the room," and the butler denies her account. If we include the former, we should include the latter, per WP:NPOV. There is no doubt that the butler was present, because Stoynoff confirmed it. SPECIFICO has previously argued that the butler's Facebook posts criticizing Obama mean he is "senile" (a WP:BLP violation) and has no credibility; merely disliking something or someone, however, is not an argument for deleting it from Wikipedia—even if your dislike is really, really strong.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 21:45, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

I did not say that and I suggest you strike your misrepresentation of my words. The butler has, however, credibly said that he never "bursts into" a room, says the butler always knocks, etc. RS don't give weight to Butler's statement. SPECIFICO talk 22:39, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm not here to engage with you, SPECIFICO, because I know that's impossible; I'm just here to state my opinion, which seems to be in the majority. For the record, the butler's statement was widely reported in reliable sources. You can deny that you called the butler "senile," and demand that I strike my comment, but others can easily check the diff for themselves. (And yes, SPECIFICO also alleged that "his racist and other rants deprecate his credibility more or less to zero" in reference to the butler's anti-Obama Facebook posts—apparently claiming sweeping veto power over any source she deems "racist.")TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:58, 7 December 2016 (UTC)