Misplaced Pages

Sources

Original 18 RS sources

status of original 18 RS sources as of 4th Nov

Original 18 RS sources:PRINT

• Weigel, David (October 9, 2016). "As Trump mulls attack on Clinton scandals, one source makes him a target". The Washington Post. Retrieved October 21, 2016. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |work= (help)
• "WOMAN ACCUSING DONALD TRUMP OF CHILD RAPE CANCELS PLAN TO BREAK SILENCE". newsweek.

Original 18 RS sources:TELEVISION

• Carmon, Irin (October 13, 2016). "The Allegations Women Have Made Against Donald Trump". NBC News. Retrieved October 15, 2016.

*Carmon, Irin (October 27, 2016). "The Allegations Women Have Made Against Donald Trump". NBC. Retrieved November 3, 2016.

• Desjardins, Lisa (October 14, 2016). "All the assault allegations against Donald Trump, recapped". PBS.org. Retrieved November 3, 2016.

Other sources

Other sources:US_PRINT

• Savan, Leslie (November 2, 2016). " The Rape Allegations Against Trump: If Jane Doe Breaks Her Silence, Will the Media Break Theirs? - Until the Access Hollywood video broke, TV news mostly ignored accusations against Trump". The Nation.
• BERZON, ALEXANDRA (October 9, 2016). "Video Puts Spotlight on Donald Trump's History of Lewd Comments". The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved November 3, 2016.
• Graham, David A. (October 13, 2016). "The Many Scandals of Donald Trump: A Cheat Sheet". The Atlantic. Retrieved November 3, 2016.
• Shepherd, Ken (October 14, 2016). "Donald Trump rape accuser gets Dec. 16 court date for federal civil suit: Report". The Washington Times. Retrieved November 3, 2016.
• Miller, Jenny (October 8, 2016). "Women Tweet Stories of Sexual Assault As Response to Trump Comments". New York Magazine. Retrieved November 3, 2016.
• McLaughlin, Dan (June 21, 2016). "Is There Anything to a Lawsuit Accusing Donald Trump of Raping a 13-year-old Girl With Bill Clinton's Billionaire Sex Buddy?". The National Review. Retrieved November 3, 2016.
• Kreps, Daniel (October 14, 2016). "NBC Delays Trump-Inspired 'Law & Order: SVU' Episode to After Election Day". Rolling Stone. Retrieved November 3, 2016.
• Wade, Peter (October 8, 2016). "Donald Trump Doesn't Just Talk about Sexual Assault, He Allegedly Does It". Esquire Magazine. Retrieved November 3, 2016.
• Koman, Tes (October 13, 2016). "Every Woman Who Has Accused Donald Trump of Sexual Assault So Far". Cosmopolitan Magazine. Retrieved November 3, 2016.
• Kahn, Mattie (October 13, 2016). "Every Woman Who Has Accused Donald Trump of Sexual Assault So Far". Elle Magazine. Retrieved November 3, 2016.
• Muller, Marissa G. (October 13, 2016). "A Timeline of Donald Trump's Inappropriate History With Women". Glamour Magazine. Retrieved November 3, 2016.
• Hautman, Nicholas (October 13, 2016). "These Are the Women Who've Accused Donald Trump of Sexual Misconduct Over the Past 30 Years — and How He Responded". US Magazine. Retrieved November 3, 2016.
• Greene, Leonard (June 20, 2016). "California woman's rape lawsuit against Donald Trump resurfaces in New York court". New York Daily News. Retrieved October 12, 2016. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)
• Bekiempis, Victoria (October 12, 2016). "Lawsuit accusing Trump of raping girl, 13, gets December hearing". New York Daily News. Retrieved October 15, 2016.

*"California woman accusing Donald Trump of raping her when she was 13 cancels press conference amid threats". New York Daily News.

• "Trump rape accuser abruptly cancels press conference". New York Post.

Other sources:US_ONLINE

• Mikkelson, David (October 11, 2016). "Lawsuit Charges Donald Trump with Raping a 13-Year-Old Girl". Snopes.com.
• Grim, Ryan (November 3, 2016). "Donald Trump Is Accused Of Raping A 13-Year-Old. Why Haven't The Media Covered It?". Huffington Post.
• Bloom, Lisa (June 29, 2016). "Why The New Child Rape Case Filed Against Donald Trump Should Not Be Ignored". Huffington Post.
• Merlan, Anna. "Here's How That Wild Lawsuit Accusing Trump of Raping a 13-Year-Old Girl Hit The Headlines". Jezebel.
• Merlan, Anna. "Woman Accusing Donald Trump of Raping Her At 13 Fails To Appear At Planned Press Conference". Jezebel.
• Bosch, Tori (October 27, 2016). "The Floodgates Are Open on Trump Sexual Assault Allegations". Slate Magazine. Retrieved November 3, 2016.
• Nelson, Libby; Crockett, Emily (November 3, 2016). "The controversy over a lawsuit accusing Trump of raping a 13-year-old girl, explained". Vox. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |website= (help)
• Nelson, Libby (October 12, 2016). "The sexual assault allegations against Donald Trump, explained". Vox. Retrieved 21 October 2016. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |website= (help)
• ZADROZNY, BRANDY (June 30, 2016). "The Billionaire Pedophile Who Could Bring Down Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton". The Daily Beast.
• ZADROZNY, BRANDY (July 21, 2016). "Trump Rape Accusers Turn On Each Other". The Daily Beast.
• ZADROZNY, BRANDY (November 3, 2016). "Trump's Teen Jane Doe Rape Accuser Disappears Again". The Daily Beast.
• GERSTEIN, JOSH; NOAH, TIMOTHY (November 2, 2016). "Trump teen rape accuser abruptly calls off news conference". Politico.
• Osborne, Samuel (October 12, 2016). "Federal judge orders status conference hearing after woman files lawsuit accusing Trump of rape". Business Insider. Retrieved November 3, 2016.
• Littleton, Cynthia (October 11, 2016). "NBC's 'Law & Order: SVU' Tackles Donald Trump-Like Character in Episode That Drew Internal Scrutiny". Variety Magazine. Retrieved November 3, 2016.
• Levy, Gabrielle (October 6, 2016). "Trump opens up about the one thing he won't use against Clinton". U.S. News & World Report. Retrieved November 3, 2016.
• "Federal Judge Orders Hearing in Donald Trump Rape Lawsuit". LawNewz.
• "The Friendship Between Trump And A Billionaire Pedophile That Nobody Wants To Talk About". The Daily Caller.
• "Donald Trump Rape Lawsuit: 5 Fast Facts You Need to Know". Heavy.com.
• "What You Need to Know About the Donald Trump Rape Lawsuit — and the Accuser Who Claims He Raped Her When She Was 13". People.com.
• "Donald Trump Child Rape Case December 16 Hearing: Facts To Know". Morning news USA.

Other sources:US_TELEVISION

• Sorkin, Andrew Ross. "The Donald Trump child rape case actually got mentioned on cable news". CNBC. Death_and_Taxes_(website).

Other sources:WORLD_PRINT

• Kumar, Rajeev (November 3, 2016). "Why Americans are searching 'trump rape' on Google today". The Financial Express.
• Pilkington, Ed (October 12, 2016). "Trump lawyers given court date over lawsuit alleging rape of 13-year-old". The Guardian. Retrieved October 14, 2016.
• Swaine, Jon (July 7, 2016). "Rape lawsuits against Donald Trump linked to former TV producer". The Guardian. Retrieved October 21, 2016. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |work= (help)
• Carroll, Rory (3 November 2016). "Woman accusing Trump of raping her at 13 cancels her plan to go public". The Guardian.
• Yuhas, Alan (4 November 2016). "Woman who accused Donald Trump of raping her at 13 drops lawsuit". The Guardian.
• Osborne, Samuel (October 10, 2016). "The Donald Trump underage rape accusation explained". The Independent. Retrieved November 4, 2016.
• Osborne, Samuel (October 9, 2016). "Donald Trump underage rape accusation: Judge sets date for hearing of lawsuit". The Independent. Retrieved November 3, 2016.
• "Donald Trump 'threatened to kill rape accuser if she reported him'". The Independent.
• "Woman who accused Trump of sexually assaulting her at age 13 to speak out for the first time". The Week.
• Fox-Bevilacqua, Marisa (October 9, 2016). "Trump's Pathological Fear of Women". Haaretz. Retrieved November 3, 2016.
• Bucktin, Christopher (April 29, 2016). "Woman who says she was raped by Donald Trump claims he assaulted her for 'poor quality sex". Daily Mirror. Retrieved November 3, 2016.
• Michael, Tom (October 4, 2016). "Donald Trump 'paedo' lawsuit re-filed accusing presidential candidate of raping girl, 13, at party hosted by sex offender Jeffrey Epstein in 1994". The Sun. Retrieved November 3, 2016.

Other sources:WORLD_ONLINE

• Lu, Anne (July 4, 2016). "Donald Trump accused of raping 13-year-old girl in 1994". International Business Times. Retrieved November 3, 2016.
• "Who Is Katie Johnson? Woman Accuses Donald Trump Of Raping Her In 1994". International Business Times.
• "Donald Trump Accused Of Raping 13-Year-Old Girl: Lawsuit From Casey Anthony Attorney Allowed In Federal Court". International Business Times.
• "The woman who sued Donald Trump alleging child rape has called off her press conference". Quartz.
• "Witness Alleges Donald Trump Raped 12-Year-Old 'Maria,' Threatened 13-Year-Old 'Jane Doe' Would Disappear Like 'Maria' If She Revealed She Was Also Raped". Inquisitr.
• "Trump rape accuser skips press conference, citing threats". The Times of Israel.

Other sources:WORLD_TELEVISION

• "Donald Trump Rape Trial Hearing Scheduled, Many Accusers Surface". The David Pakman Show.

Discussion on sources

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

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

• When was this RfC put into effect? - Wecarlisle.

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

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

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

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

RfC survey: Jane Doe content

• 1 - Shortly before the emergence of this issue, I listed 18 highest-quality sources in a discussion. It was subsequently shown by a different editor that, of those 18, only three  – 16.6%  – have reported anything about the lawsuit. My position, based primarily in WP:DUE and WP:EXCEPTIONAL, is that this amount of coverage does not justify content about these very serious allegations. I see little value in option 2. There has been some objection to using numbers (e.g. 16.6%) to help think about this, and I strongly oppose that objection. Details of my argument are available in the prior discussions but, in the interest of conciseness, I won't attempt to lay them out here.
  In my opinion, in this kind of situation, a "no consensus" result should mean no content. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:16, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

  We should update everyone on the new % of sources reporting on this lawsuit: It's now up to 50% (11 of 22) sources from CaroleHenson's original list of acceptable sources.wecarlisle (talk)

  I have updated source list & status: @Mandruss:,@Wecarlisle:,@CaroleHenson: As of today, I counted 75 different stories from 50 different sources (& 7 from original 18) J mareeswaran (talk) 20:46, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

  Here is my list of sources: bit.ly/DOEvTRUMP - I don't have the original list of 18, but do have a list from CaroleHenson that includes 22 sources. I have also, (with CaroleHenson's permission) added The Wall Street Journal and PBS to the list; Of those 24 sources, 16 have now reported on it (63%). @Mandruss:,@J mareeswaran:,@CaroleHenson: Wecarlisle (talk) 21:58, 4 November 2016 (UTC)wecarlisle (talk)

  Just as a reminder, we're not supposed to use that list. But, that's a very interesting development. Are they all mainstream media? (meaning not tabloid) Can you share your list of who is reporting on this?--CaroleHenson (talk) 20:57, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

  @CaroleHenson: See this list: bit.ly/DOEvTRUMP - which includes 93 publications, 3 of which are tabloids (Daily Mirror, Daily Mail, The Sun). Has there been a consensus on excluding tabloid sources? Wecarlisle (talk) 21:58, 4 November 2016 (UTC)wecarlisle (talk)

Oh, my goodness. @Wecarlisle, Mandruss, and J mareeswaran:, I had no idea that my responses could be seen as an attempt to have the list "live". In our discussion at User talk:CaroleHenson#Question regarding list of acceptable sources for Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations,

• I collapsed the list you posted on my page with the statement Collapse per BLPN and RSN statement that such a list should not be used
• After providing background that the list was originally used as an audit for POV and RS issues: I have since found out from the RSN talk page and the BLPN, that I shouldn't use such a list - because the reliability of a source may vary depending up the topic. (I think they also had an issue with " Anything else not on the "use" list unless it's a known reliable source (search noticeboard)", because the noticeboard addresses specific topics and content. But, that has been a good way for me to get a "take" on specific sources.) I've learned that it should not have been used as a guide for others.
• I made some comments about my personal opinion, but it is not my place to weigh in on what are reliable sources
• My last statements in the discussion were a follow-up to BullRangifer
  • If you have specific content that you would like to add from those sources , I would bring them up on the article talk page with respect to specific content.
  • You can get takes from the left and right using New York Times and Fox News, respectively. Again, that this is just my personal opinion.
  • There are a lot of really good folks working on the article that can weigh-in on this on the Talk:Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations page

I didn't know the context in which you were asking the questions, but I am sure that you asked these questions in good faith. I recommend that you work with the folks on this talk page to resolve questions about who to consider and not consider. Please ignore any comments that I have made about the list. I will not weigh in again - at all - on what sources. I am sure that the team of people on this group can help evaluate the list that you've prepared of sources of Jane Doe coverage. Even if I am pinged, I won't come back here, because I think it could be construed as me going against what I learned from WP:BLPN and WP:RSN, and that is not my intent.--CaroleHenson (talk) 01:37, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

• 1 - no content - I now believe that there should be no content. My change in opinion is based upon a discussion at this NPOVN discussion about Jane Doe, specifically the Balancing aspects guideline presented by TFD:

"'An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to the weight of that aspect in the body of reliable sources on the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news.' Since the story has received minimal coverage in proportion to all coverage of Donald Trump, it should be left out."--CaroleHenson (talk) 15:18, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

• 1 - no content as explained in CaroleHenson's posting above. TFD (talk) 16:13, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
• 3 - content - we aren't arbiters of truth, as the litmus for inclusion is Verifiabilty, not truth (V>T). Unless the argument is UNDUE (which would also fail on the grounds that the news story is literally everywhere now), we are bound to neutrally present the information and make damn sure that every word comes from a rock-solid source. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:35, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
• 3 - content - If the sources meet verifiability, then include the materials, and I have reviewed them, and they seem to meet these standards. Trump sexually assaulting a 13 year old girl is certainly a very notable event and seems to fall in line with his alleged conduct, especially given his behavior of scoping and stalking nude 15 y/o young girls in his beauty pageants, these type of allegations should come as no surprise. Octoberwoodland (talk) 18:12, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

  That argument will be a non-starter with any competent closer. You are making an assessment of the truth of the claims based on circumstantial evidence, and we are expressly forbidden to do that. Also, notability is about whether an article should exist, not about what content should be included in it. You might wish to use a viable argument or change your !vote. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:29, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

I am not making any assessment of the veracity of the sources, I am commenting on the number of verifiable sources and how they support each other in terms of content. I realize that this is a very serious type of allegation to place in a subject's article, but it seems very notable to me. Sorry if that does not align with your view on this issue. If the content is verifiable, there is no reason not to include it. It's not about truth but verifiability, and we can verify that a Jane Doe filed a lawsuit claiming Trump sexually assaulted her at the age of 13. Very notable event. Octoberwoodland (talk) 18:45, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

• 1 - No content - I'm not satisfied with the sufficiency of sources to justify including this very serious charge brought against a Presidential candidate more than two decades after the alleged crime. WP:PUBLICFIGURE and WP:NPOV seem to support omitting this entirely, at least until the usual blue chip sources report on it, if they ever do. The best sources have not shied away from heaping opprobrium onto Mr. Trump, but are tellingly quiet on this subject. As a side note, I'm concerned that there is an urgency expressed in the OP about closing this RfC before the election. I am strongly opposed to letting the election date influence content decisions on Misplaced Pages, and infinitely opposed to the prospect of using Misplaced Pages to influence any election. However, I'm not opposed to closing it early if a clear consensus emerges.- MrX 18:36, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

*:Yeah, the urgency thing is a sticky wicket. I think the election is potentially going to be influenced whether we like it or not. The question is whether to potentially influence it in a manner consistent with Misplaced Pages policy, or a manner inconsistent with Misplaced Pages policy. The article currently contains strongly disputed content – an entire strongly disputed level 3 subsection. Unless I'm mistaken, disputed content, and especially strongly disputed content, and especially in a BLP article under discretionary sanctions, is supposed to stay out until consensus is reached to include it. If that principle were being observed here, I would feel less urgency. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:47, 22 October 2016 (UTC) - Suggestion withdrawn and stricken above. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:08, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

• 3 - content - for what it's worth. This outrageous attempt to censor Misplaced Pages beggars belief. A presidential candidate faces a court hearing in December about the alleged rape of a minor, in the company of someone since convicted of being a paedophile. That this lawsuit is taking place has been reported on by multiple reliable sources. Excluding these facts is blatant censorship. Of course it can be written (as presented above) in a NPV manner. But discussion on article subpages between some editors about what sources to deem reliable and what ones to exclude, then to use that list as if it had some sort of official approval, then to use a percentage of this arbitrary list as an argument that something hasn't been covered enough to warrant inclusion in an article about a front-running presidential candidate?! Newspeak... WP:V and WP:RS are satisfied, the allegations are certainly noteworthy for inclusion, and to exclude the fact of the upcoming hearing amounts to nothing more than censorship of the highest order. "Here's the list of reliable sources"; "No consensus (on the RFC I opened) should mean no inclusion." These attempts to poison the well are noted... Bastun 19:20, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

  Wow. I had no idea I was such a bad-faith and/or incompetent Misplaced Pages editor! But it's not all my fault, somebody else could have said something during the past 3.5 years. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:27, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

  It isn't actually necessary for you to add a comment after every other contributor's point. Bastun 19:41, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

  True, I'm aware of WP:BLUDGEON and had already decided that I was flirting with it. But be assured that I'm not going to let unfounded accusations of bad faith, in violation of WP:AGF, go without a response. Consider yourself lucky I did it here instead of at WP:ANI. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:44, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

  To that point, Bastun, have you seen my response to you about how the list of sources came about at the NPOVN page, the background may help you understand why a list was put together to start with, why it's important to maintaining the POV of this controversial subject, and that other sources could be used if they were on the RSN as reliable sources? I also posted the background in the list subpage, now, too - since that seems to provide much better context than the link to the discussion in the archives.--CaroleHenson (talk) 19:55, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: I don't yet have an opinion on whether to add or not add the content. But I do have to disagree with an expedited time frame. It is important that we get this right - it is not important that we get it right now. The fact that there is an election coming up should have no weight on our deliberations here... One way or the other. Blueboar (talk) 22:40, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

*:@Blueboar: As I said (or at least strongly suggested) above, remove the content pending consensus to include any content, per Misplaced Pages policy, and I will withdraw my suggestion for expediting. I would much prefer to do things the right way. And we don't run RfCs just to force people to observe clear policy; this is not a matter of opinion or editorial judgment. Especially in this situation, disputed content stays out until consensus is reached to include it, full stop. You will find this concept conveyed under "WARNING: ACTIVE ARBITRATION REMEDIES" near the top of Talk:Donald Trump. So how about a little support for that very safe position? ―Mandruss ☎ 00:28, 23 October 2016 (UTC) - Suggestion withdrawn and stricken above. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:08, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

• 3 - content - how can a page about sexual misconduct allegations exclude a lawsuit alleging rape that has been reported by reliable sources all round the world? I don't think the percentage of sources is a valid guide on this issue. And I don't think a group of editors can set up their own list of approved sources. There are always media outlets that don't pick up stories. Globally, the sources that don't report a story will always outweigh those who do. It is enough that we have reliable sources that report the court case. And there is no doubt that the court case exists. There seems to be an underlying assumption that the threshold of evidence for a newspaper interview is higher than a lawsuit. This is not true. It is also worth noting that the case is mentioned on Legal affairs of Donald Trump without any controversy.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:09, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

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

• 1 – No content -- it has been reported, but in a limited fashion. If this legal action moves forward, it would perhaps warrant a separate article. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:49, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

  Comment: coverage is no longer limited. Sources that have verified the existence of these allegations now include: The Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, The Atlantic, The Boston Globe, NBC News, PBS, The Washington Times, The New York Daily News, The National Review, New York Magazine, Rolling Stone, Esquire Magazine, Al Jazeera, International Business Times, Business Insider, The Guardian, Independent, haaretz, Buzzfeed.com, The Daily Beast, The Huffington Post, Radar Online, Gothamist, Quartz, Lawnewz.com, The Daily Mail, Death & Taxes Magazine, Metro Magazine, ,Yahoo News, AOL News, Newsmax, The Spectator, The Inquisitr, The Week, Fusion.net, BET.com, Courthouse News Service, Vox, COMPLEX, LawNewz.com, Independent Journal Review, ,Citizen Oracle, The Stranger, Variety Magazine, Yahoo News, Morning News USA, Refinery29, Lawyer Herald, Heavy.com, The Quint, The Sun, Independent Journal Review, The Stony Brook Press,, Romper.com, TheRealDeal.com, The Intercept, WRTV Indianapolis, The New Daily, Mirror.co.uk, TheJournal.ie The Odyssey, The Daily Wire, News.com.au, Political Insider, The Blaze, Breitbart, MegynKelly.org, Newsy, Press Reader, thinkprogress.org, The Stranger, Variety Magazine, Australian Network News, Cosmopolitan, Elle Magazine, Glamour Magazine, Slate, US Magazine, and many many others. - Wecarlisle (talk)

• Query — What happens if the RfC decides "no content" and there are further developments or further reportage? Does the RfC become invalid, and who decides that???--Jack Upland (talk) 03:25, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

  I'm not sure, but perhaps the closer can address that in their close. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:33, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

• Comment -- If the legal action moves forward, then it would possibly warrant a separate article. Ah, I see that this is already covered in Legal_affairs_of_Donald_Trump#Rape_claim. If this is suitable for inclusion there, I don't see a reason not to include this link in "See also". K.e.coffman (talk) 02:03, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

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

• Other - A few sentences about the lawsuit without stating the nature of the allegations within it. Brief mention that the veracity of the allegations is challenged by reliable source(s). This might seem awkward at first, but it makes sense to me. If people check out the sources to do more research, they should do so with the knowledge that the claims within the sources are questionable, even if they don't yet know what the claims are.

What is so controversial about this lawsuit is that for its horrendous claims, so few reliable sources (16.6%) have covered it. Still, I can understand the worries of those who say we might be censoring Misplaced Pages, and the question about what to do if further developments happen. I don't see a problem with WP:BALASP here - it doesn't say not to cover things that aren't reported by the majority of sources, but to "treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to the weight of that aspect in the body of reliable sources on the subject." I like to think of it as covering "16.6%" of the case (by not discussing the nature of the allegations). My mind isn't extremely firm on this, so I may change my vote in the future. JasperTECH (talk) 14:47, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

• Comment - I don't understand the reluctance to add this content about Jane Doe (a minor), when we have a section titled - Allegations of underage sex parties - which alleges that "Trump had attended and partaken in sex parties filled with underage minor females as young as 15" and an "anonymous witness stated that Trump had sex with the girls", this would be legally classified as rape and/or statutory rape. We also have allegations of sexual misconduct against minors at the Miss Teen USA pageants. Why is this content about Jane Doe any different?-- Isaidnoway (talk) 03:25, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

  @Isaidnoway: I would personally oppose some of that, in particular the "had sex with the girls", especially if it is getting as little RS coverage as the Doe lawsuit. I suppose you could say I'm drawing the EXCEPTIONAL line at actual sex. But I'm treading lightly for awhile due to accusations of bad faith manipulation of the system, so I'll leave such dispute to others. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:23, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

  @Isaidnoway:, You may a great point about that section. It has been commented out. There's an ongoing discussion about it at the #Underage sex and drug parties section of this page.-CaroleHenson (talk) 08:08, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

• 3 – content per especially Jack Upland's very valid arguments above. --SI 07:18, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
• 1 - no content. I really struggled with this. WP:PUBLICFIGURE seems applicable, but at the end of the day I can't help but think that, in light of The Guardian's July 7 revelations about the plaintiff, we would be perpetuating libel, and just at a time when it could affect the outcome of the election no less. I don't think Misplaced Pages should have any part in that. Shame on the newspapers that have reported on this since July 7, and kudos to the many that haven't. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:34, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

It's not libel to report a court case.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:04, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

I didn't say it was. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 08:04, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

• 3 – content This content doesn't need a vote. It needs to be published immediately. The case is a matter of public record - it's been reported on by The Atlantic, International Business Times, New York Times, among others. Trump's legal counsel has given statements to the press regarding the lawsuit & allegations contained therein. Trump himself is on record with Radar Online giving a categorical denial of the allegations by Jane Doe. Seems to me like we've got some Misplaced Pages editors who want to pretend this lawsuit doesn't exist. There is plenty of information to warrant mention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wecarlisle (talk • contribs) 02:06, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

  @Wecarlisle: Seems to me like we've got some Misplaced Pages editors who want to pretend this lawsuit doesn't exist. Please confine your comments to content and policy and omit your perceptions of other editors' possible motives. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:35, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

  • agree this discussion has gone on far too long. All we need to do is quote Atlantic "Unrelatedly, Trump is facing a civil lawsuit from a Jane Doe who alleges that Trump raped her in 1994, when she was 13 years old, at parties hosted by the convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, who Trump called a friend. That lawsuit is scheduled to proceed in December, and Trump could be forced to testify under oath" and insert a See Also to the appropriate section in Legal affairs of Donald Trump where the case proceedings are tracked & updated. Many are quoting Guardian comment that this seems to be a fake case, that can also be added to this article as a comment. Censorship is against the core value of Misplaced Pages and has the potential to turn-off regular contributors. J mareeswaran (talk) 03:55, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
• 1 - no content Not WP:DUE -- as User:Mandruss mentions the major newsies just are not covering it, and my own Google doublecheck is showing 'Trump sexual' about 400 times more than 'Trump sexual Jane Doe'. Without notable presence among RS and having had no apparent impact to Trump, it has no significance to justify putting it into BLP at this time. It's also got the issues of WP:EXCEPTIONAL and WP:BLPGOSSIP, but I think we don't have to go there since it lacks DUE. If it wasn't for the WP:DUE, I'd be tempted to include it for completeness fighting against it sniffs of politics and tabloid. Though when I just follow the cites the story from the first three RS I got in Google was said with phrases "The mainstream media ignored the filing" Huffington, "Dismissed in California" (gave fake address and paid no court fees) Snope, and "bogus sex scandals follow just about everyone who makes it to the national level" National Review. That makes it look like it's got WP:FRINGE against it too. Markbassett (talk) 01:54, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
  • comment there seems, here, to be a mis-understanding of how Misplaced Pages works. If a Google search returned 3 RS sources then that is a strong case for including that content in Misplaced Pages. We can state that as per opinion of mainstream media /RS sources, this case seems to be without any basis & unlikely to succeed in court. But to not have any mention in spite of the 3 mentions you have pointed above implies censorship. J mareeswaran (talk) 04:08, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

• Make that Other - revising to make that none or state it is two dismissed cases in 2 lines or less - as a California case dismissed on false address and unpaid fees, refiled in NY and now discontinued as a no-show. Meh, frivolous lawsuit but if it's in then don't stop just at filing and leave out the creditibilty is a bit whiffy. p.s. And for goodness sake, use MAJOR sources as cites appropriate here -- if we've got more serious sources like Washinton Post and Times, WSJ, ABC, etcetera then use them. (And dailybeast or vox or jezebel or Rolling Stone or Cosmo should be disregarded for significance reason.) Markbassett (talk) 02:03, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

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

• This RFC is surreal: Legal_affairs_of_Donald_Trump#Rape_claim. Fences&Windows 23:20, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

• Yes. I pointed that out on 22 October.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:11, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

• no content Dismissed again. The case received little attention despite being around for awhile, I don't think it passes the WP:DUE/WP:BLP hurdle.LM2000 (talk) 02:57, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

• It wasn't dismissed this time: it was dropped. We don't yet know the reason. The dismissal of the first lawsuit was due to its legal validity (essentially trying to prosecute a state crime as a federal civil case), not because it wasn't factual.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:12, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

• It's unfathomable to include a case that we know so little about. The fact that Legal_affairs_of_Donald_Trump#Rape_claim relies mostly on tabloids and blogs speaks volumes.LM2000 (talk) 03:59, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

• 3, possibly 4, essentially per SMcCandlish. The "16% of sources" is, in my view, a red herring. If 75% of reliable sources cover a certain story, then it certainly should be in the article: but the reverse is not true. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. The news media is essentially trying to cover whatever topic seems of most current interest. Misplaced Pages, on the other hand, is trying to create a comprehensive article on every subject it covers; therefore, if something has received substantive coverage in reliable sources, we should be reporting it, including the doubts about its veracity. Vanamonde (talk) 04:44, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

  Good point. This is not actually anything like a 16% fringe-science view versus a 84% scientific consensus; all we're talking about is rates of coverage. Even a single reliable, major source can be enough to include something, especially if it generates public controversy/debate.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ≼  12:57, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Criticism of coverage in US mainstream media

(moving this to a separate subsection for more detailed discussion) J mareeswaran (talk) 14:28, 4 November 2016 (UTC) There are also mounting voices in Europe questioning the impartiality of American news media, lapping up recycled Clinton scandals but ignoring other stories altogether (not just Trump, but protests against fracking and other environmental issues, for example). On that basis any suggestion that reliance on news reporting in the USA is a good barometer for resolving this issue are in fact partisan arguments to extinguish some parts of reality from a record of it, which appears to be the explicit intention of American media owners. If the matter(s) under question have been scheduled for a hearing, officers of the court have determined that there is a case to be answered. To omit mention of such matters on a page specifically about such matters strikes me as an absurd proposition. I'm not sure what's achieved by waiting, except some imagined advantage for Trump. Invited to comment here by Legobot. Peter S Strempel | Talk 08:41, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

• I agree. It is no coincidence that the British Guardian is one of the major Anglophone sources covering the story. The American media is far from impartial in reporting an American election. Part of it relates to the idea of balance. When George W Bush was elected, the media manufactured a story that Al Gore was a liar in order to balance his perceived failings. Here, they appear to be wary of influencing the election with such a serious accusation against Trump. But Misplaced Pages is international. It should reflect global sources, not a select group of nationally specific sources.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:16, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

• comment This is a very good point, by @Peterstrempel:, @Jack Upland: regarding the silence of a section of media. Maybe, this(silence of mainstream US media) deserves its own Misplaced Pages post. As of now, I just added a couple of lines under the Reaction section on this. J mareeswaran (talk) 11:22, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

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

Lisa Bloom, who is acting as legal counsel to Jill Harth, said in a Huffington Post article that the media should not ignore the Jane Doe case:

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

Comment on the nature of the case & its coverage in mainstream media

following are the references, I have collected regarding the Media Coverage of this case. All this is pending the RfC resolution for Jane Doe... J mareeswaran (talk) 20:25, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Doubts on the Veracity of the Accusations

• Merlan, Anna. "Here's How That Wild Lawsuit Accusing Trump of Raping a 13-Year-Old Girl Hit The Headlines". Jezebel. A few note the special peculiarities that make the case so hard to report on and the red flags it raises: Katie Johnson isn't findable, nor is Tiffany Doe, and the allegations are almost cinematic in their depravity. But even given Trump's moderately disgusting track record with women, the fact is that a cadre of men have been shopping this Katie Johnson story around for nearly a year, while repeatedly refusing requests to interview the supposed victim. The facts speak less to a scandal and more, perhaps, to an attempt at a smear—one that finally, after months of clumsy maneuvering, is gaining speed.
• Merlan, Anna. "Woman Accusing Donald Trump of Raping Her At 13 Fails To Appear At Planned Press Conference". Jezebel. Despite planning a press conference, Bloom does not represent Doe in her current lawsuit. She is represented by Thomas Meagher, a New Jersey lawyer who usually does patent law. Casey Anthony's defense attorney J. Cheney Mason filed a motion asking to be her co-counsel, which was rejected by the court for procedural reasons but granted after he-refiled. On November 1, a lawyer named Evan L. Goldman also filed a request with the court to act as co-counsel, which was also rejected due to a filing error. Goldman is re-filing.
• GERSTEIN, JOSH; NOAH, TIMOTHY (November 2, 2016). "Trump teen rape accuser abruptly calls off news conference". Politico. In addition to the anonymity of the accuser and the supporting witnesses, some of the circumstances under which the story of the alleged rapes emerged earlier this year have led to questions about its credibility.Several other lawyers have joined the case on Doe's behalf, but there is still no indication that Trump or Epstein have been formally served with the suit.
• Morrow, Brendan (November 2, 2016). "Donald Trump Rape Lawsuit: 5 Fast Facts You Need to Know". Heavy.com. You might be wondering how Jane Doe can actually sue Trump, seeing as in the state of New York, the statute of limitations for rape in civil cases is five years. Jane Doe's lawyers have argued that this statute should be waived because she was too afraid to file the suit during the five years following the incident because she had allegedly been threatened by both Donald Trump and Jeffrey Epstein. Some legal experts have questioned whether Jane Doe has enough evidence to make any sort of successful case. "This woman does not indicate that she ever went to police. In addition, no other evidence like DNA or taped conversations has surfaced."

Comments defending the victim (for not coming out earlier)

• Wade, Kelvin (November 3, 2016). "Where's this story on Trump?". Daily Republic. It's a mystery as to why the mainstream media hasn't covered the fact that the nominee of the Republican Party is being sued for child rape. And the one question Trump apologists always ask is, why are they coming forward now? Someone who is assaulted by a famous, beloved person will be dismissed and/or attacked by their abuser's fans and followers. If you picked up the paper today and saw that a man was arrested for allegedly raping a teen girl, you'd feel contempt for that man. If that man happens to be your candidate for public office, you're immediately skeptical of the accuser. When you're a Michael Jackson, Bill Clinton, Bill Cosby or Donald Trump, you get a benefit of the doubt that no other alleged sex offender gets. "And when you're a star, they let you do it. You can do anything. Grab them by the . . . ." That silences victims.

Comments on the coverage of the Jane Doe case by mainstream media

• ZADROZNY, BRANDY (November 3, 2016). "Trump's Teen Jane Doe Rape Accuser Disappears Again". The Daily Beast. most reporters have been hesitant to report on Katie's claims. This caution is a result of a number of red flags: Katie's anonymity, some explosive claims in the original lawsuit (which were taken out in subsequent filings), and the motley crew of politically and financially motivated handlers pushing Katie's story. In one of hundreds of emails concerning Katie's case circulated by Baer, Bloom wrote (to Baer, who then forwarded the email with responses to dozens of reporters), "I am not willing to get involved in the case, not now, not in the future, not ever, not pro bono, not for any amount of money. Because Steve and Al, you have destroyed it." But things change. And with today's press conference, and Bloom's representation, the media blackout on Katie's case just might have ended. Instead, the reporters Bloom had criticized for failing to cover Katie's case were sent home.
• Grim, Ryan (November 3, 2016). "Donald Trump Is Accused Of Raping A 13-Year-Old. Why Haven't The Media Covered It?". Huffington Post. To go forward with an anonymous source shifts responsibility for the veracity of the claims from the accuser to the reporter. If the person is named and on record, the reporter can argue that he or she is merely reporting what the person is saying, and people are free to believe her or not. But giving anonymity says something different to an audience. It suggests, I, as a journalist, have investigated this person and these charges, and find them sufficiently credible to bring them forward without a name attached. that requires an extreme amount of confidence in the source. And the way the case rolled out did not inspire that confidence. In some ways, given the role of Facebook in disseminating news, it matters less this cycle than any other previous one that the media have largely ignored the case. But as the reality of the court date increasingly dawns on the press, coupled with Trump's own admission that he sexually assaults women, the case is getting harder to ignore. With Bloom's planned press conference on Wednesday, things might have changed. But Johnson's appearance was canceled at the last minute because Bloom said her client had received threats and was afraid of appearing in public.
• Cameron, Dell (November 3, 2016). "Unpacking the twisted child-rape allegation against Donald Trump". The Daily Dot. Doe hasn't trusted any reporters with her identity. For better or worse, Doe's anonymity is the primary reason her story hasn't gained much traction: Being forced to retract an anonymously sourced story, in the event the allegations of a serious crime are disproven, can swiftly end the career of a reporter if not permanently tarnish the reputation of his or her publisher. Compounding the problem, reporters who have started to investigate the veracity of Doe's claims encountered a cast of characters who appear financially and politically motivated to get the story out. Despite the lack of context surrounding the allegation, it is nevertheless newsworthy given its proximity to the presidential election.
• Noyes, Jenny (November 3, 2016). "'She is in terrible fear': Woman accusing Donald Trump of child rape backs out of public press conference". The Age. The allegations have been largely ignored in mainstream media due to a perception that there is a high likelihood they may be politically motivated; but just days out from the election that was set to change. The woman was scheduled to speak publicly for the first time on Wednesday, and the press were ready to listen. However, at the last minute she backed down, saying she had received death threats and was in "terrible fear."

Criticisms on the coverage of the Jane Doe case in mainstream media

• Savan, Leslie (November 2, 2016). " The Rape Allegations Against Trump: If Jane Doe Breaks Her Silence, Will the Media Break Theirs? - Until the Access Hollywood video broke, TV news mostly ignored accusations against Trump". The Nation.  a number of sites, including LawNewz, The Daily Beast, Buzzfeed, Vice News, and Fusion, have pointed out the various cautionary if, ands, and buts, and have nevertheless managed to report the story with neither knee-jerk credulity nor dismissiveness. Turn on or stream TV news, however, and there's nary a mention of the mere fact that this case exists.  Maybe television news has avoided the case because the accuser and her two witnesses are anonymous and, at least for now, won't do press interviews. The press can't question them directly, as they did with the named women who've accused Trump of sexual misconduct. before the Access Hollywood video broke, on October 7, it(TV Media) had a lousy record on reporting or even acknowledging the many sexual assault allegations against Trump. Through October 6, media in general ignored the well-established case of a woman (Jill Harth) who was not anonymous, who had filed a lawsuit, and who was willing to be interviewed. That mere risk (of being sued) can be enough to silence his critics, even the lawyered-up ones. The American Bar Association recently stifled its own study finding that Trump was a "libel bully," the ABA admitted, for fear of being sued.
• Bloom, Lisa (June 29, 2016). "Why The New Child Rape Case Filed Against Donald Trump Should Not Be Ignored". Huffington Post. In covering a story, a media outlet is not finding guilt. It is simply reporting the news that a lawsuit has been filed against Mr. Trump, and ideally putting the complaint in context. Unproven allegations are just that - unproven, and should be identified that way. Proof comes later, at trial. But the November election will come well before any trial. And while Mr. Trump is presumed innocent, we are permitted -- no, we are obligated -- to analyze the case's viability now.
• ROSE, JENN (November 4, 2016). "Since When Are Mishandled Emails Worse Than Rape Allegations? It's A Scary Double Standard". www.romper.com. If talking politics means bringing up unproven allegations against the candidates, so be it. But let's be fair. If we give merit to the claims that Clinton illegally deleted emails, the same weight must be given to scores of women who's accused Trump of predatory behavior.

RfC discussion: Jane Doe content

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

When you compound the fact that this list of "acceptable" sources is selected by an individual, and therefore somewhat arbitrary and necessarily inviting of bias, with an arbitrarily chosen percentage, I think you end up with an extremely bizarre methodology for determining the truth. We all have to think very deeply about how we ensure that undeserving parts of an article aren't , through chance, mistake, or bias, given too much attention--too many words, or too much visual space, to the detriment of the mission: to impart an impartial perspective of the truth. But that doesn't mean we can simply delete any and all mention of a lawsuit, because we fear the mere mention of these allegations will be received without a proper filter. No doubt some readers will, ill-advisedly, jump to conclusions. It's not our job to guess at the quality of our readers' interpretive capacity, imagine the worst, and then with an eye towards only the most negligent readres, censure only those pieces of information we fear will spark in them fires of strange untruth. We have no choice but to trust that our readers will evaluate all of the allegations as they are: Allegations. A lawsuit does not equate to a conviction. An allegation does not equate to a conviction. And this article is about allegations. A lawsuit is a formal list of a plaintiffs' allegations. That such allegations are submitted to a Federal court makes them neither any more, nor any less legitimate than any other allegation, and therefore I see absolutely no reason at all to exclude mention of this lawsuit from this page.

Moreover, the notion that major media coverage is required to make an objective 'encyclopedic' truth is silly. Using primary documentation for cases such as this is perfectly reasonable. And we have the primary documents in the form of affadavits / case files, which have been unsealed by the courts. It is an undeniable fact that this lawsuit exists. It is an undeniable fact that this lawsuit lists Donald Trump as the defendant. It is an undeniable fact that this lawsuit alleges sexual misconduct in the form of, among others, rape. It is, again, therefore, very very clear that this particular lawsuit should be included here.

And Finally, If we insist on sticking to the approved sources, and if we insist that 16.7% coverage is simply not enough to warrant mention of this case, let me just point out that it is in fact 50%. Of the 22 sources listed, 11 of them have covered the lawsuit: The Atlantic, Business Insider, Guardian, NBC News, The New York Daily News, New York Magazine, Slate, Vox, Variety, and Rolling Stone. In addition to the 11 "approved sources," other highly reputable sources have covered the lawsuit, including: The Wall Street Journal, The Boston Globe, PBS, The Washington Times, The National Review, Esquire Magazine, Al Jazeera, Business Insider, Independent UK, Haaretz, Quartz, Complex, US Magazine, and many, many, many others.

Any way you slice it, there isn't any reason to continue blocking mention of Jane Doe v. Donald J. Trump and Jeffrey E. Epstein. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wecarlisle (talk • contribs) 08:28, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

• Comment: Editors might find this new source relevant and informative: Grim, Ryan (November 2, 2016). "Donald Trump Is Accused Of Raping A 13-Year-Old. Why Haven't The Media Covered It?". The Huffington Post. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:02, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Valid RfC?

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

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

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

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

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

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

I was just typing up a summary/response for reliable sources and I saw that I typed a background blurb - that does mention the rape.--CaroleHenson (talk) 13:16, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

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

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

Comment: diff Soham321 (talk) 11:28, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

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

Removal of Jane Doe

It looks like Jane Doe has been removed without any discussion.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:00, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

@Jack Upland: Jane Doe content is under RfC and no such content can be added until consensus is reached, per the ArbCom remedies described near the top of this page. No such additional discussion is needed - or allowed. Them's the rulz, sorry. If you don't like them, take it up with ArbCom. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:03, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

The section was removed when the RfC was in progress.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:33, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

As per the ArbCom remedies. Disputed content stays out pending consensus to include. See the message box near the top of the page. To clarify, these particular remedies apply only U.S. politics articles, and only where an admin has applied them by adding that template, as admin Drmies did yesterday.
If this rule is not being followed for other content, it should be. But the consensus to include will generally not be by RfC but rather by regular open discussion. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:42, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

What was the process followed here? It seems that Jane Doe content was removed first, then RfC was set-up. My understanding is that it should be other way round. Based on RfC closure, action could should have been taken to remove content but now the process seems to have been inverted. J mareeswaran (talk) 21:47, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

@J mareeswaran: The Jane Doe content was disputed long before the RfC was started or even considered. It was under dispute in open discussion. If memory serves I removed it believing that the ArbCom restrictions automatically applied at this article because it's U.S. politics. After the RfC was open I added the template, thinking its absence was a mere oversight. Then I was informed that only admins can do that, and the remedies do not apply until they do. I took the question to WP:AN and Drmies then added the template. There was a good faith misunderstanding on my part, things were not done in the right order, but the end result is the same. Nothing sneaky occurred. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:58, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

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

"The facts speak less to a scandal and more, perhaps, to an attempt at a smear"--Brian Dell (talk) 04:54, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

@Bdell555: Then go !vote 1 in the RfC and mention that in your argument. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:17, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Jane Doe press conference scheduled for this afternoon (Nov 2)

Heads up as there is likely to be a flurry of edits related to this. Funcrunch (talk) 19:23, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Note her lawyer's release says, "The mainstream media has failed to cover the story...." That's why she is not in the article now. If her story attracts attention then we can add it. But note that attention means that third parties will weigh in on the likelihood of her story, including the allegations about "Maria," who supposedly was disappeared. Her lawyer btw is a vocal Clinton supporter and author of "Why The New Child Rape Case Filed Against Donald Trump Should Not Be Ignored", so it should be interesting. TFD (talk) 20:15, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

FWIW I heard about this from an update in The Guardian, which noted that they had reported on the story previously. I haven't weighed in on the RfC concerning this though, and am not doing so now; just sending a head-up. Funcrunch (talk) 20:31, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Aaaand the press conference was just cancelled (or at least postponed). Sorry for jumping the gun in even posting about it. Funcrunch (talk) 22:08, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

You should wait until after the press conference in any case. It is possible that it was mentioned in some mainstream media, but it never received the same attention of the other cases and the Clinton campaign did not mention her. The original Guardian story btw said, "Lawsuits accusing Donald Trump of sexually assaulting a child in the 1990s appear to have been orchestrated by an eccentric anti-Trump campaigner Norm Lubow with a record of making outlandish claims about celebrities." That infers the claim was not taken credibly at the time. It might make a good article on its own. TFD (talk) 22:21, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

You can hat this, but you can't stop discussion. The Guardian has, since that mention, regularly commented on the progress of this case without any type of skepticism or questioning. They have faithfully documented court dates, etc., and referred to the court documents, which we can also mention and link to without any BLP or OR danger. Failing to mention this inserts editorial censorship, which is a serious NPOV violation. We are not allowed to take sides. We must document it. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:29, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

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

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

BullRangifer, The Guardian article says, "The lawsuits alleging that Trump raped a young girl in the 1990’s were revealed by the Guardian as having been orchestrated by Lubow, who has a “record of making outlandish claims about celebrities.”" It even ran an article about him. That is not "without any type of skepticism or questioning." Vox has an article which mentions another in their words "shady" person pushing the story, who is an anti-abortion activist.

I have not missed the plethora of sources that have covered the story, just noted that mainstream media has largely avoided it and it is routinely ignored in stories about the women accusing Trump, which is the topic of this article. Your two new sources are an article about Lisa Bloom (Jane Doe's latest lawyer in Romper ("a site for a new generation of women figuring out what motherhood means for us") and a blog posting by Bloom where she complains that mainstream media have ignored the story.

But by all means create an article about the story and make sure that WP:FRINGE is followed. Just keep it out of this article, until mainstream media and the Clinton campaign take it seriously.

TFD (talk) 15:14, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO:, @The Four Deuces:, @BullRangifer: atleast 50 different news sources around the world have covered this topic. Please look-up sources listed above — Preceding unsigned comment added by J mareeswaran (talk • contribs) 18:20, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

You added a New York Times "source" that was a half-sentence aside by a columnist in an opinion piece. You added a Chicago Tribune "source" that appears to be nothing but a heading in a slideshow, at a URL starting with politics-chatter.chicagotribune.com, which is probably a blog, essentially an opinion page. And a Boston Globe piece clearly identified as opinion. At this point my eyes gloss over. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:49, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

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

Politico is now reporting that the Jane Doe lawsuit has been dropped (again). Funcrunch (talk) 23:18, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

That's two noteworthy sources, then. bd2412 T 23:22, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Jane Doe rape lawsuit dropped

Seems to me it was a hoax.

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

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

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

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/04/donald-trump-teenage-rape-accusations-lawsuit-dropped

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/woman-drops-suit-claiming-trump-raped-13-article-1.2858890

http://theslot.jezebel.com/the-woman-who-accused-trump-of-raping-her-at-13-just-dr-1788603598

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/donald-trump-rape-lawsuit-dropped-230770

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

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

Disagree. If it was dropped, it's little more than a rumor for our purposes. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:17, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

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

Please re-read what I said. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:40, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Jack Upland, I assume you know this and reply for the benefit of anyone following this conversation. Anyone who had $400 can file a claim in the U.S. federal court in Manhattan. The court does not investigate the claim and there is no penalty for deceitful claims. As in this case, the person does not have to identify themselves or as in her earlier filing may provide a false address and telephone number. The fact that someone has made a claim is not evidence of the truth of the claim. Indeed, that is why cases are sent to trial before a judge or jury determine the merits of a case.

Of course the media can weigh in on a claim pre-trial and this article covers what the media has reported on other cases. The media may also choose to ignore a case or provide it minimal coverage which has happened here.

TFD (talk) 05:59, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Donald Trump sued Bill Maher over his suggestion that Trump's father was an orangutan. Trump dropped the case, but that doesn't mean his father was an orangutan.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:28, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Actually Trump sued Maher because he promised to donate $5 to charity if Trump could show his birth certificate to prove his father was not an orangutan and Maher did not keep his promise. Maher's defense was that it was a joke hence he was not in breach of contract. I think Trump withdrew the claim because it had no merit, which is the usual reason claims are withdrawn. Of course claims that are withdrawn could be true, but then anything could be true, some people will believe anything. TFD (talk) 06:48, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

That's right. I've been arguing with people for a while saying it was a contract case. But there is a difference between the legal issues and the factual issues. The original rape lawsuit was dismissed because of procedural issues, without any judgment on the facts. We don't know the reason for this case being dropped now. But Trump has said all the allegations are false. If one of the accusers withdrew her claim would that allegation be deleted from the page? I don't think so. Actually, that would be unfair to Trump.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:08, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

I would add that the title of this article is sexual misconduct allegations, not sexual misconduct convictions or sexual misconduct confessions. Whether a lawsuit was filed or not, whether it is credible or not, an allegation has been made and has been covered in at least some reliable sources. It is certainly reasonable to question the credibility of this allegation based on other reporting about the motives of people promoting it and the withdrawal of the lawsuit. A complete discussion of the topic would include both sides. bd2412 T 15:36, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Miss Finland - Ninni Laaksonen - sources from 27 October 2016

A Finnish participant in the 2006 Miss Universe contest reports that Donald Trump grabbed her buttocks right before their participation in the David Letterman show. This is in one of the Finnish newspapers on October 27. Would add this in the article but it seems to be locked. ] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.233.179.227 (talk) 03:25, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

• Price, Greg (27 October 2016), "Who Is Miss Finland? Trump 'Grabbed My Butt,' Claims Ninni Laaksonen, Newest Sexual Assault Accuser", International Business Times, retrieved 27 October 2016
• "Thursday's papers: More Fennovoima delays? Ex-Miss Finland accuses Trump of groping, VR's costly graffiti war", Yle News, 27 October 2016, retrieved 27 October 2016
• "Former Miss Finland tells about her meeting with Donald Trump: "He squeezed my butt"", Ilta-Sanomat, 27 October 2016, retrieved 27 October 2016
• "Former Miss Finland Claims Trump 'Grabbed My Butt'", Haaretz, 27 October 2016, retrieved 27 October 2016

Probably these are now enough sources covering this for it to be added to this article? 69.50.70.9 (talk) 19:40, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

• "Former Miss Finland becomes 12th woman to accuse Trump of sexual assault", The Telegraph, 27 October 2016, retrieved 27 October 2016
• "Former Miss Finland is 12th woman to accuse Trump of sexual assault", The Guardian, 27 October 2016, retrieved 27 October 2016

There are plenty more RS now covering this. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:38, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

I already added it earlier today. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:08, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Someone else since created it as a new page, at Ninni Laaksonen. 69.50.70.9 (talk) 04:15, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Muboshgu, I don't see any addition to this article. -- BullRangifer (talk) 18:33, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Donald_Trump_sexual_misconduct_allegations#Ninni_Laaksonen_.282006.29. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:41, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Introductory section - lawsuit reference

As of now the introductory section includes this sentence: "Three women have filed lawsuits alleging that they were sexually assaulted by Trump." There's no citation. An uncited statement in the introductory section is OK if it summarizes properly cited material in the body of the article. Here, the problem I see is that there are so many women listed that a reader who wants to skip the press-conference allegations and look only at litigation is left without guidance.

As to the count, the section on Jill Harth mentions a lawsuit. I'm guessing that Jane Doe is another, but what's the third?

There are so many different allegations that I think the introductory section should read something like "Three women (Name1, Name2, and Name3) have filed lawsuits alleging that they were sexually assaulted by Trump." JamesMLane t c 02:20, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

The third is Ivana Trump. J mareeswaran (talk) 10:31, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

the Access Hollywood video and Trump kissing Adrienne Zucker

In the video, Trump says he kisses women without waiting, just kiss. After Trump met Adrienne Zucker, he kissed Adrienne without consent at the 2:08 mark. Does this constitute sexual misconduct?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ihMvO-IrXlQ&t=6s

Tai Hai Chen (talk) 20:41, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

There are multiple videos of Trump kissing women, taking them by surprise, (google miss universe autralia Trump), but unless they complain, I don't think it can be treated as a misconduct. maybe vulgar, lascivious or scandalous but I don't think it belongs in this article. J mareeswaran (talk) 10:27, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Interesting perspective. Has any woman complained? Tai Hai Chen (talk) 01:05, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

This touches on whether the included "allegations" should be limited to those made by the victims or by RS. Any and all allegations made by anyone, and noted in a RS, count. The RS mention is of course essential. Society (not the perpetrator), as mentioned in RS, determines whether an action is improper and/or related to sexual misconduct. In Trump's opinion, nothing he does would ever count as bad because he's "a star" and he can get away with doing things no ordinary person would be allowed without severe punishment. The allegations prove that he doesn't always get away with it. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:18, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

My point is, has any of these women complained? It appears to me they were okay with it. Tai Hai Chen (talk) 03:21, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

At least the following 4 women have not complained despite public reports:

• Adrianne Zucker
• Nancy O'Dell
• Brande Roderick
• miss Universe Australia J mareeswaran (talk) 06:04, 3 November 20

My point is, has any of these 12 women who went public explicitly complained? It appears to me they have not. It seems they went public and told the stories about Trump bringing sexual pleasures to them and them enjoying it. Tai Hai Chen (talk) 14:13, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

You may want to read #whywomendontreport section. J mareeswaran (talk) 15:28, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Tai Hai Chen, please don't troll us. The ones complaining and retaining a lawyer to possibly sue him definitely didn't think that "Trump bringing sexual pleasures to them and them enjoying it." They were repulsed by his behavior. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:53, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Article neutrality

Laura Chukanov needs to be in this article for balance. There is a NY Time inappropriate bikini story that made several news reports, the fact that they had a romance, after the bikini incident, and her stating she was misquoted. Otr500 (talk) 10:48, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

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 "relationship" in the 1990's using the same source already referenced. Robd831 (talk) 15:34, 2 November 2016 (UTC)Robd831

I think that both of them dated post her divorce is an important information. Also in response to a may2016 article Trump termed her past rape/molestation accusations as a lie which resulted in her current stand-off against Trump J mareeswaran (talk) 18:51, 2 November 2016 (UTC) J mareeswaran (talk) 18:51, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Agree with J mareeswaran Robd831 (talk) 03:12, 4 November 2016 (UTC)Robd831

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 14:56, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

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, Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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. Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

1. "Who Else Has Lisa Bloom Represented? The Attorney Works With Sexual Assault Survivors".
2. "Why The New Child Rape Case Filed Against Donald Trump Should Not Be Ignored".