Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 62

Archive 55

←

Archive 60

Archive 61

Archive 62

Archive 63

Archive 64

Archive 65

Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations - Child rape claim

Within the Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations page is a claim by a woman, called "Jane Doe", who says that at the age of 13 she was raped by Donald Trump on multiple occasions. She first filed a suit in California, but it was thrown out due to filing issues; The plaintiff filed the case by herself, without a lawyer. A civil lawsuit was filed in New York earlier this year, and a third attempt at litigating the case began with an October 2016 filing.

Although there has been widespread press coverage of allegations against Donald Trump of sexual assault or misconduct since the second presidential debated on October 9, 2016 — this case has not received significant press. Although we have reputable mainstream press sources that have reported that a suit was filed and that a hearing is scheduled for December 2016, there is not widespread coverage.

Please see argument presented by Mandruss (emphasis his):

1. We should look at percentage of the whole who have reported it, not simply the number who have reported it. We should consider that the others have not reported it, despite the fact that they must know about it. They have made a positive decision that it is not newsworthy, not simply overlooked it. We have to assume that.
2. I have essentially proposed limiting our "universe" to 18 of the highest quality sources for the purpose of judging WP:DUE. The alternative is to expand the universe to all reliable sources, research all of them, and then calculate a new percentage who report it. That would be completely unworkable for multiple reasons.
3. 16.6% of our current universe have reported it. 83.3% of our current universe, 5 times as many, have deemed it not newsworthy. That does not justify content about accusations of the repeated rape of a 13-year-girl. Accusations don't get much more serious, short of murder.
4. I have said in multiple places that this rationale is only for the purpose of deciding whether to include any content. If we decide to do so, then we can use other reliable sources to determine content.

Due the visibility of Donald Trump during his campaign and the severity of the claim, we would like to have your assistance to settle the issue of whether or how accusations by this woman should be included in the page. Conversation about this issue is posted at The lawsuit didn't receive much coverage / Remove Jane Doe?.

Thanks so much!--CaroleHenson (talk) 03:23, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

This section became difficult to manage and find the discussions, so as requested, I created subsections. I collapsed them, then, too - hoping that makes any further content easier to edit + it highlights that it would be good, if you have an opinion, to vote on approaches at the RfC.--00:54, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Early discussion

Early discussion

In addition to WP:DUE, WP:BALASP and WP:EXCEPTIONAL may also apply. EXCEPTIONAL says, "Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources." In my view this accusation rises above what EXCEPTIONAL means by "exceptional claim", so the requirement should correspondingly rise above "multiple high-quality sources". This is not an allegation of, say, wife beating. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:58, 21 October 2016 (UTC) That said, I don't know whether EXCEPTIONAL refers to the woman's "claim" that the rapes occurred or our "claim" that she made that claim. If the latter, I withdraw the EXCEPTIONAL part of the argument. There is little question that a lawsuit is pending, so that is not at all exceptional. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:21, 21 October 2016 (UTC) We now have multiple witnesses and a court taking the case seriously. This is not some nuisance or frivolous claim. There is no doubt that the case exists and is being covered in reliable sources. If leading metropolitan dailies are treating this as valid, who are we to say otherwise? The truth or otherwise of the allegations will be tested in court. We are not a court. --Pete (talk) 07:56, 21 October 2016 (UTC) They are taking it seriously because it is linked to someone already convicted, who had ties to a high-ranking member of the British Royalty. It has yet to be determined if it is nuisance or frivolous, but the circumstances are probably why its not being shouted from the rooftops. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:01, 21 October 2016 (UTC) We are not a court. - I agree, and I don't propose to be a court. I'm looking only at amount of coverage, which has nothing to do with the merits of the case. You're the one looking at the merits, with the statement, This is not some nuisance or frivolous claim. How can you or anyone else besides the woman herself, Trump, probably Epstein, and maybe a few more people know that? Were you present during the rapes? ―Mandruss ☎ 08:22, 21 October 2016 (UTC) I don't think we should look at the amounts of coverage. Firstly, we have a court case. Secondly, we have several reliable sources that report the court case. That should be enough. The case is clearly relevant to the article. I think a court case is more significant than a media interview. The consequences are greater for both sides. As discussed at the article's talk page, we don't exactly know why some media outlets have ignored the story. But I don't think that's relevant. If there was no reliable source, that would be different. But given that we have reliable sources, how can the article ignore an allegation that has come to court? Even if you think the allegations are false, that is not a reason to ignore it.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:48, 21 October 2016 (UTC) I don't know if that's a generic you but I have no opinion about whether the allegations are true or false. If I did, I wouldn't bring it with me to Wikipedia. In stark contrast, many involved editors clearly have an opinion, and too many of those do bring it with them to Wikipedia. This is not some nuisance or frivolous claim. This is a not necessarily a reference to you, but if the shoe fits... ―Mandruss ☎ 10:20, 21 October 2016 (UTC) @Skyring: Basically the only reliable sources that have analysed it are treating it as a nuisance claim. WaPo: "Lawsuits like that offer a chance at getting unconfirmed (or false) information into the headlines." The Guardian: "Lawsuits accusing Donald Trump of sexually assaulting a child in the 1990s appear to have been orchestrated by an eccentric anti-Trump campaigner with a record of making outlandish claims about celebrities." Vox: "So most media outlets haven’t written about the Katie Johnson lawsuit. The allegations seem so likely to be untrue that even writing the words “Trump” and “allegedly raped a 13-year-old” in the same sentence feels sort of icky." Madshurtie (talk) 09:53, 21 October 2016 (UTC) I think this cuts both ways. If the claim is valid, it obviously harms Trump. But if the claim is groundless it could harm those making other allegations against Trump. Either way, I don't think that Wikipedia, being neutral, should exclude it.--Jack Upland (talk) 11:28, 21 October 2016 (UTC) @Jack Upland: I don't think that's how we normally treat WP:BLPGOSSIP (assuming it's agreed this is gossip). Madshurtie (talk) 12:13, 21 October 2016 (UTC) It does seem to be BLPGOSSIP, assuming by "source" it refers to Ms. Doe. We can't know anything about her reliability, one way or the other. But I hate that we're stuck using the word "gossip" in this case, as it seems to trivialize the allegation. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:34, 21 October 2016 (UTC) Stepping back for a second, I think that there are two key questions about this significant, exceptional claim of "rape" - that has arised during an exceptional time, Trump's presidential campaign: 1) Should content be included if only 16% of key mainstream media has picked up the story? 2) If it is included, because of the nature of the story and the uneven reporting, should we tone down the verbiage, such as eliminating the word "rape" and mention of Epstein and his parties?--CaroleHenson (talk) 14:44, 21 October 2016 (UTC) Its only being treated seriously because its related to Epstein. Presenting it without that context would be pointless. I dont think it should be in there at all really, but if you remove any link to Epstein it lacks the appropriate context. More than 16% of the mainstream media have picked up on it, but they are overwhelmingly treating it as 'likely bogus'. Which is another reason not to include it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:48, 21 October 2016 (UTC) How to we know why it is or isn't being treated seriously? Do we have quotes from editors or journalists of the newspapers covering/not covering the story?--CaroleHenson (talk) 14:53, 21 October 2016 (UTC) I've only seen Vox comment on why other news outlets are leaving it. I guess that fact that both the other RS that have discussed it are very skeptical is some clue. Madshurtie (talk) 15:40, 21 October 2016 (UTC) "I have essentially proposed limiting our "universe" to 18 of the highest quality sources for the purpose of judging WP:DUE. The alternative is to expand the universe to all reliable sources, research all of them, and then calculate a new percentage who report it. That would be completely unworkable for multiple reasons." Well, yes. So don't impose self-created rules that are impossible to enforce. Multiple reliable sources cover the rape allegation, the tie-in to Epstein, and an impending court date. Wikipedia is not censored and both WP:V and WP:RS are satisfied. Not really seeing why this is an issue, of course it should be included (in neutral language (but not hiding the fact that it is rape that is alleged) and without sensationalising it. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 15:48, 21 October 2016 (UTC) How about when the three reliable sources discussing it seem to consider it WP:BLPGOSSIP? Madshurtie (talk) 15:54, 21 October 2016 (UTC) While correct, that covers 'can it be included'. At this point editorial judgement kicks in and the question is 'Should it?'. If the sources were less obviously treating it as rubbish I would say go ahead, but as Madshurtie points out, the reliable sources are treating it as bogus. We do not *have* to include every piece of information available even if it is sourced. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:59, 21 October 2016 (UTC) We all apply editorial judgment every day. If we rejected things because they have not been done before, nothing could ever be improved; no new ideas could be brought forward to benefit Wikipedia. Please don't oppose things simply because they are new to you. I'm certainly not proposing any "rules" or proposing to "enforce" anything. Not really seeing why this is an issue - I can see that. both WP:V and WP:RS are satisfied - How about WP:DUE, WP:EXCEPTIONAL, and WP:BLPGOSSIP? ―Mandruss ☎ 16:01, 21 October 2016 (UTC) "The three reliable sources discussing it seem to consider it WP:BLPGOSSIP" Do they? Even if that were the case, and even if that were to preclude inclusion, what about these reliable sources do not. There are many more such reliable sources. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 18:49, 21 October 2016 (UTC) @Bastun: Do they? I said they seem to, but, based on BLPGOSSIP, they seem to. Apart from the Washington Times, you've cited two tabloids, a social news site, and an Independent article that is citing Buzzfeed and LawNewz. I had missed the Washington Times article, though it barely discusses the case, and if the best other source you can find is the Washington Times, you've got a lot of convincing to do. There are many more such reliable sources. Prove it. Madshurtie (talk) 20:14, 21 October 2016 (UTC) I think there are good arguments both for inclusion and exclusion. It is indeed widely covered, as everything about any hyper-notable person such as a US Presidential candidate is widely covered. However, as a matter of WP:DUE it is clearly not covered as widely as most of the other allegations of impropriety in that article. Any attempt to create numerical thresholds is going to fail because you can't really compare sources that way. But I do think the sources are applying their own equivalent of BLPGOSSIP, downplaying the story considerably because it is more salacious than the others and not nearly as well documented. Our standards are higher than theirs, and unlike the news sources we have no deadline, so on balance I would excluded it. If anything comes of it we can reconsider. If nothing further emerges, no charges are brought, it is not verified by credible investigative journalists, no case proceeds far, it is not a turning point in the campaign etc., then in the end it would not be includable. So let's not jump the gun to include it now. Just my opinion here. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:59, 21 October 2016 (UTC) Whoah. Five different conditions for inclusion (none of which are backed by policy, obviously). Are you sure you've done enough to rule any possible mention out, there, Wikidemon? :-P It's a civil case, not a criminal one. Investigative journalists don't normally cover court cases, that's left to court reporters. The next hearing takes place after the election. Not as well documented - we get to see in December, then, possibly, in 2017, if the case proceeds. The facts are an allegation of rape has been made and a hearing will be held on the case in December. That has been covered, neutrally, by multiple reliable sources, and not including those facts would be pretty blatant censorship. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 20:12, 21 October 2016 (UTC) @Madshurtie: sorry, missed this earlier. Yes, apart from the reliable sources I listed, there are indeed others, which you admit you had missed. I found mine with one quick Google search. I do not have to "prove" anything here... BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 21:11, 21 October 2016 (UTC) It's all backed by policy. I stand by every last thing I said. You happen to disagree, apparently. Crying censorship isn't really going to advance a content argument very far. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:57, 21 October 2016 (UTC) @Bastun: You found one reliable source. You said there are "many more" that have discussed it. You have not demonstrated that. Madshurtie (talk) 08:30, 22 October 2016 (UTC) A note to interested editors, this content is in a section titled Legal proceedings, where there is a link to the Main article - Legal affairs of Donald Trump, where this same content (with more details) is in a sub-section titled Rape claim, which is sourced to - The Daily Mail, HuffPo, National Review, LawNewz, NY Daily News, Snopes, and primary documents. So even if the consensus is to remove and/or reduce the material from this particular article, it still remains in another article.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 21:57, 21 October 2016 (UTC) There are good points on both sides of the issue, but it isn't clear how we can come to a conclusion or compromise. As a previous voter to keep the section as-is, may I throw out a compromise proposal until we know more, using articles by reliable sources that specifically refer to this case (versus the articles that are a list of accusers) "Trump has been accused of sexually assaulting a 13-year-old. Now a woman, she has filed civil lawsuits against Trump and Jeffrey Epstein. A case filed in California was dismissed and an October 2016 filing is a third attempt made to litigate the allegation in New York. Federal Judge Ronnie Abrams ordered a status hearing for pre-trial or settlement preparation on December 16, 2016, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. Lawyers for the plaintiff, for Trump, and for Epstein are to appear This case has only been picked up by a small percentage of the mainstream media and the claims are denied by Trump and his lawyer, who state that the claim is untrue, an "obvious publicity stunt", and a "hoax". It was reported in June 2016 that this case is connected to a former Jerry Springer producer Norm Lubow, as well as to an anti-Trump activist. Libby Nelson of Vox states that this is the reason why the story has not been picked up widely by the media. References This solution doesn't meet the request to "keep" it as-is or to "remove" it, but it is a point in between that acknowledges that that there is an allegation, without using the word "rape", and states that there are doubts about the claim.--CaroleHenson (talk) 23:12, 21 October 2016 (UTC) Another option is to make this footnote to the applicable sentence in the intro.--CaroleHenson (talk) 23:20, 21 October 2016 (UTC) Any attempt to create numerical thresholds is going to fail because you can't really compare sources that way. - Sorry for the late response. The first sentence at WP:DUE uses the word "proportion", so it says we should "compare sources that way". The world uses numbers for clarification, and it has done for thousands of years. It is not useful to say, "Relatively few sources have reported this", since the immediate response is, "Oh yeah? What are you calling 'relatively few'?". Using numbers simply saves us that time. In response to people who are afraid to fly because airliners crash in a scary way and kill a lot of people, is it more useful to say, "Well the rate of fatalities per passenger mile is really, really low", or "There are x fatalities per one million passenger miles"? This is not the first time I have encountered resistance to quantifying things, as if only fuzzy thinking is useful, and I strongly oppose such resistance. Percentages represent proportions very effectively and clearly. This is not to say that numbers should be our only thinking tool, that they should be codified in policy, or that they should represent bright lines, only that such things should not be forbidden or dismissed in thinking and discussion. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:47, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Balancing aspects

Balancing aspects

The relevant pollicy is "Balancing aspects": "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. If we decide to place a different emphasis on topics than mainstream sources do, then articles will emphasize a different "point of view", which is against the neutrality policy. Neutral in Wikipedia of course does not mean neutral to the information, but reflecting the balance used in mainstream sources. Of course Wikipedia could have a different criterion for inclusion, but it needs some criterion otherwise editors could never agree on what to include. There is nothing for example in the Hillary Clinton article about Juanita Broaddrick's claim that Clinton threatened her to remain silent about an alleged rape, that she laughed about her defense of a child rapist, or that according to someone claiming to be Bill Clinton's ex-lover, Clinton had a "lumpy body...her fat ankles and her thick calves covered with black hair".[1] TFD (talk) 02:09, 22 October 2016 (UTC) You can't compare this to the Hillary Clinton article, TFD. We are talking specifically about an article related to sexual misconduct.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:04, 22 October 2016 (UTC) I'm sorry, Jack, you've lost me. It was just an example of "balancing aspects". I have been a voter for keeping something in the article, and this is making me question that.--CaroleHenson (talk) 03:22, 22 October 2016 (UTC) Perhaps not the best example. But consider NPR's article, "1 More Woman Accuses Trump Of Inappropriate Sexual Conduct. Here's The Full List", which is extensively used in the article. There is no mention of the child rape allegation. And bear in mind that while one could argue whether the writer is neutral or hostile to Trump, no one could argue that she is a Trump supporter. I do not know why most reporters ignore the child rape allegations, but I do not think we can rebalance what mainstream sources write, unless we change policy. As thinking people, all editors must question what the media choose to emphasize, but similarly we could never agree among ourselves what they should emphasize. Conservapedia was founded to specifically to redress mainstream bias to a U.S. conservative perspective and there have been similar attempts to redress it to other viewpoints. None of them though have the same following as Wikipedia, so there must be a demand for Wikipedia's approach. TFD (talk) 03:56, 22 October 2016 (UTC) @The Four Deuces: My problem with BALASP is that it could, not unreasonably, allow "just a little" content about an allegation that Trump repeatedly raped a 13-year-old girl. That's not going to work for me. Put it this way, if this situation doesn't warrant complete omission, what kind of situation would? ―Mandruss ☎ 06:23, 22 October 2016 (UTC) There are a lot of theories that get bounced around the "echo chamber" and some spill into right-wing reliable sources such as Fox News and the Daily Mail. Occasionally the bounce into mainstream media. Once they get there, the accused parties are forced to respond, journalists examine the evidence and experts are consulted. For example, the birther theory was covered in mainstream media and thoroughly discredited. Because of the attention it received, we could write an article about it because per "Wikipedia:Fringe theories", "Statements about the truth of a theory must be based upon independent reliable sources....[and] the relationship of the marginal idea to the mainstream idea in a serious and substantial manner." If the theory is ignored in high quality reliable sources, we do not have informed opinion about its veracity and the accused parties generally do not reply. For example, Ted Cruz was forced to respond to allegations in the National Enquirer that his father was involved with Lee Harvey Oswald after the allegations became reported in mainstream media. And of course, the media provided information that debunked the involvement. But suppose the story had never received mainstream coverage and we decided to cover it in Cruz's article. We would then be disseminating a story to a wide audience that would otherwise never have heard about it, without explaining how reasonable the theory was. We would put Cruz in the position of having to deny the story and push it into mainstream media or ignore leaving some Wikipedia editors believing it to be true. Its role would then be the same as news media, deciding what is or is not important and driving coverage in other news media. That is beyond neutrality, which is to merely reflect what is reported, rather than driving what is reported. TFD (talk) 07:02, 22 October 2016 (UTC) There is a court case. This is fact. This is not gossip. This is not a fringe theory. This is not a claim. How can we not mention this case in such an article?--Jack Upland (talk) 07:11, 22 October 2016 (UTC) Because there is no policy or guideline that says something should be included because there is a court case, it is fact, it is not gossip, it is not a fringe theory or it is not a claim. And policy says to exclude it. If you want the story to reach a wide audience of readers, then persuade NPR and mainstream media to cover it. Why are we supposed to accept your opinion that the information is significant and reject the judgment of mainstream sources?  ::Incidentally, an unproved, unsubstantiated allegation that has received little media attention is by definition fringe. TFD (talk) 07:43, 22 October 2016 (UTC) Jack Upland - I totally understand where you are coming from; I have felt the same way - which is clear from my suggested compromise approaches earlier today. Two things. 1) The longer the conversation has gone on, the more I've questioned why this hasn't been picked up widely by mainstream media - especially since all the allegations came out after October 9. 2) Most important, since we have guidelines that prevent content being added in these kinds of situations, it seems we should follow the guidelines. Filing a lawsuit does not mean that the claim is true. For fun, here's a screenshow of crazy lawsuits.--CaroleHenson (talk) 08:02, 22 October 2016 (UTC) FYI, it wasn't looking like we were going to get a consensus here, either, so CaroleHenson and I have been putting together an RfC with a suggestion for 4 day duration. Any comments are welcome, even if it's "I don't think we'll need an RfC". There is an attached talk page. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:46, 22 October 2016 (UTC) The court case is fact. And there is plenty of mainstream media reporting:[2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]. It's being reported all over the world. It's just that some American sources have avoided it. Filing a lawsuit doesn't make it true, nor does giving an interview to a journalist make it true. I would rather give an interview than front court. But we don't have to make a judgement whether the claims are true. In fact, we shouldn't.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:03, 22 October 2016 (UTC) Two of the sources have been identified as unreliable: DailyMail and Independent. The list of all the media outlets that are not covering the story would be a much longer list - per the discussion at the very top of this section.--CaroleHenson (talk) 08:08, 22 October 2016 (UTC) What??? They are major newspapers. Anyway, I was responding to TFD's comment about that mainstream media did not cover it. The list of all global media not covering any story would always engulf those who did. Wikipedia is not American. It is not a mirror site of the New York Times.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:34, 22 October 2016 (UTC) @Jack Upland: You think the Daily Mail is reliable?? The Independent one is unreliable because it mainly cites Buzzfeed and LawNewz. To add a third, the Daily Mercury is a Queensland tabloid. Also note that three of the other sources only have a few sentences on the case in list articles on the general accusations. That's why I didn't consider them reliable sources that actually discuss the case. Thanks for adding the Sydney Morning Herald though. Madshurtie (talk) 08:47, 22 October 2016 (UTC) So we agree that mainstream and reliable sources report the case. It's pretty obvious that the proposed exclusion of the Jane Doe case is not neutral. It seems to be motivated by the idea that this case could detract from the other allegations. Well, that is not neutral. Don't hide behind "BLP" when you're pushing your own agenda.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:21, 22 October 2016 (UTC) @Jack Upland: In response to your comments: There's never been a dispute that reliable, mainstream sources have reported on Jane Doe. Most of the coverage, though, is in connection with the list of accusers and often has been limited in the information that is published. There are a few stories just about Doe even though there have been lawsuits filed throughout this year. Doesn't it seems a bit strange to you that "16.6% of our current universe have reported it. 83.3% of our current universe, 5 times as many, have deemed it not newsworthy." from the review of a universe of top mainstream media? During a presidential campaign? One in which sexual assault or other misconduct has been reported in a frenzied manner? And, that there wasn't much reporting on this until October? Please note that there have been a number of attempts to add content that is unflattering and offensive about the accusers. The reasoning was the same as yours as to why it should have been included. What changed my mind about removing the Jane Doe section is the Balancing aspects guideline--CaroleHenson (talk) 09:52, 22 October 2016 (UTC) @Jack Upland: So we agree that mainstream and reliable sources report the case. So we can agree that mainstream and reliable sources are mostly ignoring the case. We can also agree that there is a lot of doubt among the remainder. So far people have produced only eight reliable sources that have covered it. Three of those eight barely mention it in list articles, three of the the remaining five are very skeptical, and the last two are lower calibre sources. Who said we should exclude this case because it would detract from other allegations? You've talked about it; I haven't yet found anyone else. Madshurtie (talk) 09:55, 22 October 2016 (UTC) It is not "obvious" that the exclusion of the Jane Doe story is not "neutral" as defined in Wikipedia policy. Neutrality does not mean that we should provide equal weight to different details, but that we should apply the weight that mainstream sources do. And yes, that makes Wikipedia "a mirror site of the New York Times." If a Wikipedia article contains all the facts and opinions that one would expect to find in a New York Times article on the subject, then it passes neutrality with flying colors. If you think that we should have a different standard for including material then write up a proposal and get it approved. The accusations may be really, really important or trivial. But we defer to editors of mainstream news media to make the call. TFD (talk) 15:10, 22 October 2016 (UTC) Most legitimate news outlets have picked up the story, so the argument of UNDUE seems silly at this point. Something that has been bothering me about this discussion is the inherent discounting of a rape accusation. It doesn't matter who its leveled at, its serious and those sorts of accusations should always be taken seriously. If we have sources, that should be the sole point governing whether to include or not. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:02, 22 October 2016 (UTC) Jack Sebastian I have felt the same way until late last night / early this morning and that may be clear by my attempt to come to a compromise to have some content about Jane Doe in the article. I now believe that there's a reason why 83% of the universe of reliable sources didn't report it - and that falls under "balancing aspects", which I was not aware of til last night. I absolutely agree that any claim of rape should be taken seriously by the police, the court, and the media. TFD's comments that are already posted speak to why we should consider that the majority of the media doesn't report this case.--CaroleHenson (talk) 17:21, 22 October 2016 (UTC) CaroleHenson That was a part of the discussion that threw me. The percentages of outlets reporting, and the list of "official" news outlets. I hadn't seen such a list before. I consider news sources to be like Reuters, BBC, Agence France-Presse (etc.) as wel as most news and television news outlets that are not pointedly partisan. It seems like a different scorecard is being used here. Might I have a link to said scorecard? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:12, 22 October 2016 (UTC) Jack Sebastian It's at the very top of The lawsuit didn't receive much coverage / Remove Jane Doe? and a list of sources developed on the talk page is on this subpage--CaroleHenson (talk) 18:17, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

List of sources

List of sources

CaroleHenson seriously? Some self-selecting group editors decide now, on a subpage of an article, what is and isn't a reliable source? And use their list of approved sources to determine what can and can't be included? Jebus... I don't think so. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 19:00, 22 October 2016 (UTC) Bastun Let's back up about three steps. This wasn't created willy-nilly - there was a chain of events that led to be it being included: There was an initial discussion before the article was started to attempt to use Fox News, NPR, and LA Times - due to POV issues that came up on this subject on another DT page. i.e., this page was created knowing that there were going to be POV and a lot of other claims to have the entire article or sections of the article deleted. After the article was created, the list was compiled due to several claims in the article including POV and use of non-reliable sources. At the top of the page is the link directly to the archived discussion. I reviewed the article and found that, indeed, there were sources that I found in RSN archives had POV issues with: Politico and Huffington Post. Since we'd already agreed not to use sources with POV issues, it seemed best to replace them. There were also Independent and another source I cannot remember at the moment that RSN deemed was not a reliable source So, I cleaned up the article and started a list using the sources that have been used in the article. People provided feedback about the list of the sources. For instance, I thought Guardian was not a reliable source - based on previous experience years ago. RSN was checked to verify the sources and there was some additional input. The last line of the list of sources is exclude "* Anything else not on the "use" list unless it's a known reliable source (search noticeboard)" Meaning don't use Jezebel (which has been tried a lot with inaccurate stories/content), other tabloid newspapers, etc. without ensuring that they are a RS.--CaroleHenson (talk) 19:15, 22 October 2016 (UTC) Jack Sebastian, the fact that legitimate news outlets have picked up the story, does not make the argument of UNDUE seems silly. First, UNDUE is about reporting opinions, but the concept is similar. The fact something has been reported does not mean it belongs in an article, it must have received prominence in reliable sources on the subject. NPR carried a "Full List" of the women accusers, and did not mention Jane Doe. That's how prominent she is in mainstream sources and how prominent she should be in the article. If the fact something had been report was sufficient to include it, we would not need UNDUE. So long as it met RS (reliably sourced) it would be good to go. TFD (talk) 18:36, 22 October 2016 (UTC) I agree with what Jack Sebastian and Bastun said. I've been editing Wikipedia for more than a decade, and I've never seen a list of approved sources or an an analysis of percentages of coverage.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:33, 22 October 2016 (UTC) Fine. I have already said enough about why the list of sources was created - which was only intended as an aid and to help resolve a POV claim, nothing more than that. There's tons of commentary already about how and why the analysis of the number of sources was done. Which is what led to the RfC so we could get votes instead of having a lot of circular conversations. Did you vote, Jack, on the article talk page, by the way?--CaroleHenson (talk) 22:45, 22 October 2016 (UTC) CaroleHenson I am a little bowled over at your note of Politico's as biased. During the election, it has been the only one to consistently act as fact-checker, calling out each party when they "fib". It only looks like they are biased because there are so many "fibs" on the part of the Republicans and their nominee (you can blame that on Karl Rove, btw). That Fox was even considered a neutral source is likely the source of your traction problem. Fox News is about as biased as you can get in America, apart from some of the more racially-charged altnews groups. Huffington post does have a liberal bias, as it was created to counter the Drudge report (and yeah, it is pretty effing sad that we have to create biased news sources to counter other biased news sources). I get that maybe you were trying to source-balance the story left (LA Times), right (Fox News) and center, but NPR has a specific and very public pro-feminism stance - they cannot be considered neutral in any discussion of the treatment of any woman. That's why NPR doesn't identify the rape suspect, The Four Deuces; the rape accusation is treated as if the victim is still a minor, even if they are past the age of majority. NPR will always respect the privacy of a rape victim, and esp. an under-aged one. Basing an argument of UNDUE based upon NPR's respect of privacy is, imo, a mistake. We aren't reporting an opinion: its a court filing, so its well past the 'opinion' phase. It isn't just one outlet breaking the story and the others following suit. Different media outlets are covering it from different angles, and that's where we take our sources. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 23:55, 22 October 2016 (UTC) Lastly, if this discussion is going to continue further, can someone drop in some arbitrary breaks, so I'm not scrolling trough a wall of text to try and find a reply I was notified about? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 23:57, 22 October 2016 (UTC) Jack Sebastian No kidding about the breaks of this long discussion!!! To your points, Jack, that didn't come from me, it came from the RSN and, I think because we've tried to not be biased, no one disagreed about RSN's assessment of Politico or Huffington Post. It wasn't that Fox was considered a neutral source, it's that there's often a claim that most mainstream media is biased towards liberal perspectives. Ironically, although we intended to have FoxNews as a source for balance, I don't think it's used much - perhaps not at all. Although there has been interesting coverage by Megyn Kelly that I think has been fairly balanced about this issue and Judge Jeanine (I think is her name) for Trump. It sounds like it would have been helpful to have had your input when we were working the POV and unreliable sources claim. I will be signing off of DTsma conversation for the moment, hopefully what I've had to say explains how we got to the list. If you think the list needs to come down, you can remove it by editing the top of the page. It's the last of a series of boxes before discussion begins.--CaroleHenson (talk) 00:13, 23 October 2016 (UTC) CaroleHenson "there's often a claim that most mainstream media is biased towards liberal perspectives" - Carole, the only people who ever say that are Republicans and conservatives who think they are entitled to their own facts (in addition to their opinions). Anytime facts are championed over innuendo and opinion, they are labeled liberal. Sorry - I get to deal with that sort of daily knucklehead in likely the only conservative neighborhood in Chicago (mine is the only house without a Trump sign littering it in the neighborhood). Next time you come across a discussion about that, please drop me a line. :) - Jack Sebastian (talk) 00:20, 23 October 2016 (UTC) Jack Sebastian, there is a POV discussion about the article that has started at the bottom of the page.--CaroleHenson (talk) 00:27, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

RfC at article talk page

Being that the debate in this thread has become largely circular, after almost 5 days of discussion about this question, I think it's time to get that RfC started. There has been no acknowledgement of my above comment about the RfC, let alone any comments about the draft. So, unless I hear an objection here within about an hour, with some cogent rationale, I'm starting the RfC as currently drafted, at Talk:Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:49, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

I added a "Votes" section and cast the first vote.--CaroleHenson (talk) 15:24, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

trying again: Tchaman vs Ébrié

The question got archived without being answered; if nobody knows, or has an opinion, fine; I am just trying to assess whether there is any reason NOT to make the change I propose, since these are deep waters about which I know little. But I have come back to the article where this arises, and hope to finish it some day... (It's long and on a list for translation cleanup. But notable enough to chip away at the cleanup).

The issue is this -- French wikipedia uses Ébrié. Just about the only thing that the stublet says for Ebrié language is that these are the same people as the Ébrié, but the latter is a derogatory name that they are called by another ethnicity. Their own name for themselves is the Tchaman, which the english wikipedia redirects to Ebrié, which is a misspelling as well. If I don't hear otherwise I plan to remove the redirect, and possibly point it in the other direction, and I guess translate the part about derogatory. (Apparently it means unclean). However there are no sources provided for any of this and I am a little wary of taking French wikipedia's word unsupported on tribal/ethnic issues. Any thoughts?

Since this doesn't seem to be a burningly controversial issue I may see if there is an Ivory Coast portal or something where someone may know Elinruby (talk) 08:27, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

For thoroughness' sake: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 61#Ebrie people. Ibadibam (talk) 22:32, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

The proper mechanism for this is WP:RM#CM. Request that Ebrié be moved to whichever term you prefer. In your submitted rationale, be sure to point out that WP:NCET#Self-identification indicates we should prefer autonyms over derogatory terms. Ibadibam (talk) 22:47, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Elinruby (talk) 09:42, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

I have not done this yet but I will Elinruby (talk) 23:51, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

this is answered and suggested resolution is implemented Elinruby (talk) 03:31, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Misophonia ... need help with NPOV

Dear editors, the Misophonia article needs help in regard to NPOV.

I have misophonia. I suffer from it. It has affected my life since childhood but i didn't know what it was, just thought i had a weird shameful problem. Only recently, like a lot of people who also have the condition, i heard that there is in fact a specific condition with those very specific symptoms, and found some relief in this, knowing that it seems to actually be a psychological condition. I have no other unusual psychological conditions or disorders of which i know. Otherwise i'm a fully functioning adult in the world. But i've always had serious problems with chewing sounds and a few other very specific sounds. It's driven me to distraction and i sometimes have an involuntary feeling of rage against the sound or its origin. I've learned to cope with it by many strategies. I never understood it, until i heard of the existence of misophonia and read papers like this one about the condition. Now at least i know something about it.

I found this article about a subject i know intimately, and have been learning more about through scientific literature. I made a few edits, along with a few other editors. The article seemed fairly decent.

Then, a single editor recently went there and made 27 edits in under an hour, nearly all significant cuts of the work of other editors, and said they were "removing advocacy" whereas the article was really based on WP:MEDRS sources reported fairly well. Look at the article's edit history. It's been heavily edited recently and very much transformed.

We are not seeming to be able to have good dialog about the topic. I've been trying on the talk page to figure out and resolve what the issues are. Apparently the editor doesn't think misophonia is a "condition" despite good sources calling it such, like the most recent review article on the subject by Cavanna and Seri 2015.

I've tried at length to discuss this in a reasonable way on the talk page Talk:Misophonia especially here and yet seem to be hitting a wall.

I've tried to place a POV tag on the article twice and got reverted promptly each time.

Anyway, the NPOV issues are subtle but real. There is a real difference between the lede simply saying:

Misophonia is condition in which negative emotions, thoughts, and physical reactions are triggered by specific sounds.

and what it says now:

Misophonia, literally "hatred of sound," was proposed in 2000 as a proposed disorder in which negative emotions, thoughts, and physical reactions are triggered by specific sounds.

There is a real difference between what it used to say a few days ago:

Misophonia can adversely affect ability to achieve life goals and to enjoy social situations.

and what it says now:

Proponents suggest misophonia can adversely affect ability to achieve life goals and to enjoy social situations.

In both cases, first simpler version is directly supportable by MEDRS sources -- review articles in the relevant field of science. But a particular editor does not want to allow the simple statements, but rather this arms-length it's-not-really-real sort of language of denialim. What is the article on global warming were written like that. "Global warming is a proposed hypothesis..." instead of following reliable sources consensus?

Imagine if the article on Autism said something like "Autism is a proposed disorder proposed in 1943 by Leo Kanner" instead of what it actually reads, "Autism is a neurodevelopmental disorder characterized by impaired social interaction, verbal and non-verbal communication, and restricted and repetitive behavior." Maybe there are issues with that lede sentence, but at least it speaks of autism as if it exists. Imagine if the article said "Those who believe it exists say that it affects their lives" instead of "It affects people's lives" as is obvious from reliable sources?

There are not as many sources on misophonia as on autism, as it's a less frequent and generally less life-affecting condition, but it's real and there are a good number of reliable sources on it. We need an article that reflects the reliable sources on the topic.

Please, we need some more eyes on this topic with a goal of neutral point of view as following reliable sources.

SageRad (talk) 11:20, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

• Autism is in the DSM and ICD, Misophonia is not. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:22, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

• Yes, i know this of course. That's a different question and the article reflected that accurately. Sometimes things take time with DSM and maybe it'll never be in there, but there are still multiple MEDRS sources that sy misphonia is a condition that exists, and describe it, and why should the article not follow this? That's the very essence of the best practice in Wikipedia. SageRad (talk) 11:37, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

• Its not a different question, its the core of the issue. Because they do not actually say 'it exists' like your autism example (which is a recognised condition). They say its something people clearly suffer from (have symptoms for) and have proposed a condition for it, but that was 16 years ago and in that time it has yet to be proven it exists, can be reliably defined etc or that the symptoms are not related to other conditions. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:02, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

• But, there are multiple reliable sources within psychological science. The DSM is not the only source. Please understand that. SageRad (talk) 00:13, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

• the double use of "proposed" is simply a mistake, unkindly repeated here. There is no "agenda" but rather following the MEDRS sources which are clear that the condition may not be a self-contained "thing" - the field is uncertain. I've copied the three bits from three most recent MEDRS sources twice now for the OP, who is ignoring them:
  • Bruxler (PMID 26508801) handles this in an interesting way. He says "Misophonia is a symptom associated with obsessive-compulsive disorder and anxiety disorders and may be a syndrome in itself associated with significant distress and avoidance."
  • Cavanna 2015 (PMID 26316758 PMC 4547634 )is even more careful. "Jastreboff et al first reported original clinical observations of subjects complaining of decreased sound tolerance with or without tinnitus. Interestingly, classic descriptions of hyperacusis (as characterized in patients who respond consistently to sounds above a certain intensity and whose reactions can be correlated with the physical parameters of the sound) did not fit majority of the reported cases. The authors therefore proposed misophonia as a new medical entity and defined misophonia as present when an abnormally strong reaction occurs to a sound with a specific pattern and/or meaning to an individual, with the context in which sound is presented frequently playing a role as well."
  • Duddy 2014 (here) goes though an analysis of what it may be and what it isn't, and then summarizes (so that she has a working definition) "The definition of misophonia for purposes of this article is an abnormally strong reaction to certain sounds"

NPOV says we reflect what reliable sources say and there is very clear uncertainty in the sources. The OP seems to confusing questions about whether this is a definable condition on its own, and questions over whether people experience these symptoms. There is doubt that it is a condition; there is no doubt that people experience these symptoms. The question is how to consider those symptoms. Jytdog (talk) 16:19, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

• Dear SageRad First, my apologies for your ailment. Despite the unfeeling approach of certain editors that seem to only wish to write a well-sourced article, it must be a struggling existence to live with these symptoms. That being said, I went to the article before reading any argument or debate with fresh eyes. What I came away with was a very negative slanted belief that this "condition" was not to be believed and was not proven - and that those suffering from these symptoms were seen with unsympathetic editorial contributions.
• In the lede, the second sentence states: "Misophonia has no classification as an auditory, neurological, or psychiatric condition, there are no standard diagnostic criteria, it is not recognized in the DSM-IV or the ICD-10, and there is little research on its prevalence or treatment." This is good WP article writing? To me it smacked of personal agenda right out of the gate. IMHO.
• Third sentence: "Proponents suggest misophonia can adversely affect ability to achieve life goals and to enjoy social situations." Advocates "suggest"? and then further paint those suffering in a negative removal from life light. This is all that advocates can state in this entire article?
• Classification Ok. We get it. So where is the other side? The "but current research shows ... " There was a time when Fibromyalgia was unclassified, not diagnosed, not believed, but in time, with research, it is now a medical condition. I think certain editors get too caught up in the "up until now" rather than in the on-going progress statistics in building a good article to even out the neutrality.
• Signs and Symptoms "As of 2016 the literature on misophonia was very limited." Come on. "Some small studies show ..." Subjective. "These sounds are apparently...", "People with misophonia are aware they experience it and that it is not normal ..." negative choice for inclusion once again.
• Society and culture "The press has sometimes overemphasized the strength of misophonic reactions" Out of that entire article, which had wonderfully positive, supportive quotes, this is the one single quote an editor chooses?

Over all, I walked away with not one point-counter point, or feeling that this was not agenda driven. I can't imagine someone else stumbling across this article for the first time (without invested time in editing it), who would not feel the same way towards its subject. The phrasing and wording is in desperate need of editing by a separate party not listed on the history page and not associated with the subject. With all due respect. Maineartists (talk) 17:23, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

• • I tend to agree with the above, that while this is a condition that is not classified under any of the medical systems listed, to treat it as if it doesn't exist is problematic. "Misophonia has no classification as an auditory, neurological, or psychiatric condition, there are no standard diagnostic criteria, it is not recognized in the DSM-IV or the ICD-10, and there is little research on its prevalence or treatment." is bad. It could be worded. "Misophonia, first documented in 2000, has limited research to determine its prevalence or treatment, and it is currently not classified as an auditory, neurological, or psychiatric condition within DSM-IV or ICD-10." Saying the same thing, but putting the fact that this is sufficiently recent that we may not known enough about it to say if it does exist or not. (I don't see anything in the article that proves out "nope, this is a psychosomatic condition and not a real condition". We do need to be careful to not impress that it is a established medical condition, but not to act like it has been proven outright to not exist. --MASEM (t) 17:44, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

So, there are some fundamental misunderstandings expressed here, not in the least from those who intend to help. Comparisons to autism or fibromyalgia are irrelevant, because they are currently accepted diseases. However, if Wikipedia were written before that we would not have claimed they were accepted, because that is to engage in WP:CRYSTALBALL. And to Masem I can only say: where did you get the idea that psychosomatic conditions aren't real, or that anyone is of that mind? Without going into the politics of nosology and overmedicalization — it suffices to say: it is questionable because it isn't accepted, not because it is psychosomatic.

(There is a whole field aimed at psychosomatic disorders, it's called psychiatry. You may have heard of it.)  I'm sorry that was uncalled for.
Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 22:02, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

• I will say here what I said on Misophnia Talk Page: [10]: CFCF your lack of WP:ETIQ, excessive editing warring, and WP:POINT is leaning toward a warrant of admin warning. Your comment to Masem was uncalled for: similar to your many comments left in your rv edits on [[11]] i.e. "Plain English in the lede!" I highly recommend that you take an editorial hiatus from the topic article for a while. In all best interest. Maineartists (talk) 22:20, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

You accuse me of having a COI without a smidgen of evidence, tell me that I'm edit-warring with people I haven't been in conflict with at all, and say that my insistence on using plain language in the lede is a breach of etiquette? And then you have the stomach to tell me that I should take an editorial hiatus? I suggest you reevaluate your position before it is disregarded entirely. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 22:33, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

• From what I can see of the sources, it does not appear to be the case that Misphonia is fully discredited/not accepted, but also far from being readily accepted either. There is certainly doubt from experts this is a "new" symptom, and there's a several lack of necessary studies to support a conclusion in any direction. To that end, the language in the present article has the tone "This doesn't exist", which doesn't seem to reflect the state that the sources give, which is the issue that I see at the end of the day. We can't write this to act that it does exist (since sources are far from this stance), obviously and I can understand the concerns others have to push the article in that direction. --MASEM (t) 00:37, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Yeah the "sides" thing is weird. We follow the sources, and per MEDRS sources it is clear that a) putting these symptoms into a bucket called "misophonia" was proposed 16 years ago; and b) doing that has not been widely adopted or integrated into any diagnostic scheme. Look at the three quotations above, for pete's sake. Again nobody is denying the symptoms exist... it is just that the MEDRS sources are clear that this bucket called "misophonia" is a valid thing. There isn't even a big debate about it. All three sources just go - "yep, it was proposed and pretty much everything about this is uncertain" To put a stake in the ground, compare Morgellons which is a condition that definitely does not exist but that some people passionately believe they have. Misophonia is not that far over on the scale of nonexistent-to-existent, but misophonia is closer to the nonexistent pole than say breast cancer, which definitely exists.

Something like chronic lyme disease might be a more useful parallel (although very much not in some ways - mainstream medicine denies that longterm B. burgdorferi is a real thing but some doctors passionately believe in it and give very dangerous treatments (long term antibiotics delivered through a central line... which has a high risk of infections from the central line, which that have killed people).. and there is high profile public controversy)... but misophonia is similar in being a proposed diagnostic category that has attracted some people who believe this names what is going on with them and want it addressed. Just in that regard. I am just trying to show that diseases/conditions get proposed that are not necessarily valid and that the scientific problem gets tangled up with advocacy.

And again, for misophonia -- it was proposed 16 years ago and has not really gone anywhere scientifically and remains in limbo.

WP cannot become a vehicle for advocacy to try to push it one way or other. Our role is not to be "encouraging" or "discouraging" to anybody, and anybody applying that metric is doing something we are NOT up to here in WP. Jytdog (talk) 22:22, 24 October 2016 (UTC) (restated below Jytdog (talk) 22:58, 24 October 2016 (UTC))

• CFCF Your response says it all. With kind regards. PS I still think you owe Masem an apology. Maineartists (talk) 22:50, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Yeah the "sides" thing is weird. We follow the sources, and per MEDRS sources it is clear that a) putting these symptoms into a bucket called "misophonia" was proposed 16 years ago; and b) doing that has not been widely adopted or integrated into any diagnostic scheme. Look at the three quotations above, for pete's sake. Again nobody is denying the symptoms exist... it is just that the MEDRS sources are clear that this bucket called "misophonia" might not be a valid thing; it is uncertain. There isn't even a big debate about it. All three sources just go - "yep, it was proposed and pretty much everything about this is uncertain" The Bruxler article is really great and I encourage folks to read it. It was written by a doctor, recently, who stumbled over this and went and read the literature and produced a review. Fresh eyes.

To provide context, compare Morgellons which is a condition that definitely does not exist but that some people passionately believe they have. Misophonia is not that far over on the scale of nonexistent-to-existent, but misophonia is closer to the nonexistent pole than say breast cancer, which definitely exists. It might even be better to say it floats above the continuum - proposed but not accepted or fully rejected. It is... uncertain.

In my work on this topic, it has become clear to me that there are people who experience strong reactions to soft sounds, and yet other people who are very sympathetic to them and try to get attention and money to study this and help people who have strong reactions to soft sounds. People who have the reactions, have come to the article and tried to add all kinds of poorly sourced stuff about it, and bizarrely, the studiers and helpers have abused our WP article to promote their own work and/or denigrate others, again using poor sources. With regard to that latter group (the studiers and helpers) this was obvious from their editing, and they have admitted as much on their own talk pages when I asked them.

If you study the article history carefully, as I did when I first came across it last February, this will also become very clear to you. I urge anybody who wants to get involved in this article, to do as I did.

There is a dearth of decent sources about all that, which is why the article doesn't say much about it. (unlike the Mogellons article, which is entirely "society and culture" stuff, based on good sources.) There aren't even many high quality nonMEDRS sources we can use for the "Society and Culture" part of the misophonia article... and opening the misophonia article to poor quality sources just invites all the nonsense I described above back in, and that would be very unwise - impossible to referee. We need to keep source quality high in light of the advocacy. If anybody finds more high quality sources, content based on them will be great to add. The article is minimal because there is not that much that can be said about "misophonia" based on high quality sources.

WP cannot become a vehicle for advocacy to try to push this one way or other. Our role is not to be "encouraging" or "discouraging" to anybody, and anybody applying that metric is doing something we are NOT up to here in WP. Jytdog (talk) 22:54, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

I am very very thankful to those people above who actually heard what i'm saying and also looked at the article with fresh eyes. Thank you.

I also see quite plainly what Jytdog believes about the condition in the above statement. That's ok. It's quite an odd way to see the article, to see conspiracy of misophonia researchers trying to get funding and to take over the article, [not sure Jytdog thinks this, don't want to attribute motivations] but perhaps most are simply people like me -- people who edit Wikipedia and have an interest because they or a friend seem to have this condition. Not everyone needs to think it's real, just like not everyone needs to think racism exists, but people who are not in line with the bulk of reliable sources are not supposed to dominate an article. Reliable sources, in a WP:DUE fashion, are supposed to. NPOV and RS policies are critical.

Thanks so much. Just know that misophonia is not Morgellons. I've read about that, and it's a quite different thing. It's a form of hallucination apparently, or delusion. On the other hand, misophonia is a directly triggered involuntary emotional response, not anything like a delusion. These mind things can be "real" at the same time as "not real" in other senses. There is also trypophobia -- fear of patterned holes. This seems to be a real thing as well. The human mind is quite complex, of course, and there are many aspects where a slight difference from the typical mind makes a "glitchy" response that is often livable, sometimes even enjoyable, and sometimes a real pain.

Perhaps it's neurological. Perhaps it's cultural. Perhaps it's a product of a certain neurological disposition with cultural and life-history factors. That is not known to medical science. The article should reflect this. But it has been recognized as a condition by medical science.

I'm grateful for the eyes and minds of everyone here who has expressed themselves with kindness and civility, even those with whom i may not see the world identically. SageRad (talk) 00:29, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Editing Wikipedia has nothing to do with what you or I or anyone believes. Nothing. And I never said that misophonia = morgellons. Not even close. Just argh. The Trypophobia article is a kind of interesting parallel. Not really a phobia, rather a revulsion. Interestingly parallel. Why do you find that article so much better? Jytdog (talk) 03:49, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Issues at a Donald Trump page

• 1. The problem is with respect to this page: Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations.
• 2. The issue is the extent to which Trump's version, and his defense against the sexual misconduct allegations, can be included in the main article. Also, whether the views of people who have defended Trump from the allegations, like Mike Pence, can be included in the page; and whether any comment of Hillary Clinton on these allegations can be included in the main article. Finally, whether Trump's claim that he intends to sue all the women who have been making these allegations can be included in the main article; and whether Trump's claim that the Clinton campaign could be responsible for these allegations can be included in the main article. The consensus on the talk page seems to be to reduce Trump's defense against the sexual misconduct allegations to the bare minimum. However, i believe this is in violation of WP:DUE,WP:BALANCE,WP:IMPARTIAL, and WP:BLP.
• 3. The diffs in question are: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_Trump_sexual_misconduct_allegations&diff=745237756&oldid=745233947, and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_Trump_sexual_misconduct_allegations&diff=745706477&oldid=745699707
• 4. Discussion about the first diff has taken place here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Donald_Trump_sexual_misconduct_allegations#Response_by_Trump_and_Trump.27s_attorney
• 5. Discussion about the second diff has taken place here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Donald_Trump_sexual_misconduct_allegations#Trump_wants_to_sue_and_condemns_his_accusers
• 6. The first diff involved a reversion of my edit by CaroleHenson. The second diff involved a reversion of Zigzig20s's edit by CaroleHenson.Other editors who have participated in the talk page discussions involving the two diffs are: Smallbones,SPECIFICO, K.e.coffman, Mandruss, and J mareeswaran
• 7. I am posting my query here so that more editors can participate on this very sensitive issue since more editor participation is the best way to eliminate or reduce any possible bias in this very sensitive page. Soham321 (talk) 22:51, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

• Comment - For several reasons, I posted a comment about this on the article talk page.--CaroleHenson (talk) 23:40, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

This article covers an obviously very contentious, emotional, and very, very important topic. So obviously it is a very difficult article to edit. In 10 years of editing on Wikipedia, I've made perhaps 2 dozen edits related to presidential elections and generally have regretted it. Too many sharp elbows. Too many emotional POV editors. I don't see this article as much different, though it actually falls on the calmer side of things. Also CaroleHenson has done a good job trying to keep editing within the rules, though I have disagreed with her a couple of times. I also have given up on editing the article, but have commented several times on the talk page. All in all, I'd say it's about as well written as can be expected and the process is working about as well as can be expected. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 00:03, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

I would generally concur with all of that. But on something like this I don't know we need an extended debate at NPOVN. One or two experienced and uninvolved editors could review the article for NPOV and give opinions. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:07, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

I think that anyone who stands to benefit from Trump emerging innocent/guilty of rape charges cannot be use, as they are hopelessly biased. Of course, HRC wants this out in front, since it only benefits her political campaign. Of course Pence is going to dismiss it...for now. If his ride to the White House is later kicked out, he becomes the driver. Nope, nobody political - and we are going to have to stay very, VERY vigilant on this matter, as other political articles of different politicians (Guliani and his ilk) are going to try and sneak in commentary about it. We use neutral articles and court records, and vet out any others collaboratively. The election is 2 weeks away; depending on whether Trump "keeps us in suspense" over conceding defeat. Some of this will die down afterwards.

I hate politic-related articles. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:06, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps all American editors should step back and allow only truly uninvolved editors to examine the article for bias, NPOV, and undue weight issues. --Taivo (talk) 03:11, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Leave it to the Russians!--Jack Upland (talk) 03:18, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Good idea. Thankfully, I live in Uganda. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:39, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

I think its good to have some foreign input but, having lived outside the US myself in both Africa and Asia, their news media tends to be far more biased than ours. Using lots and finding the healthy medium of neutral, reliable sources seems the best course to plot. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:41, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Comment: Jack Sebastian, please explain why you believe Mike Pence's comments defending Trump from the allegations should not be included in the main article, considering that Michelle Obama's comments criticizing Trump because of these allegations have been included in the page.Soham321 (talk) 07:53, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

I've noted elsewhere that we shouldn't include anyone with a vested interest in the outcome of the election, which presents a reason to be disingenuous or manufactured. Pence fulfills this criteria; Trump wins the election and is then convicted of any one of these crimes which could easily force him from office. Pence would assume the presidency. Defending his ride to the White House could result in him staying there when Trump leaves. The same doesn't apply to Michelle Obama; she has nothing to gain from the election. Thus, her comments are notable and honest. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:23, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

@Jack Sebastian:@Soham321:I don't see a problem with listing the most notable reactions by American politicians. The politicians may have conflict of interest, but they have generated a lot of the media comment, so their reactions are very notable. The context of many of these events happening within a campaign season is relevant to this article. We can't include every politician, but I think we should continue to include the notable ones in a balanced way. Madshurtie (talk) 09:23, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Madshurtie, this is also my view. But note one more thing. As per WP:WEIGHT, it cannot be that there are 10 lines in the main article dealing with Michelle's statement, and 1-2 lines for Pence's statement. Either Michelle's statement should be reduced/condensed, or Pence's statement be given equal weightage. Right now, bizarrely enough, Michelle Obama's criticism of Trump on account of these allegations is being given more weightage than Trump's defense of himself in the main article.Soham321 (talk) 09:39, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

I find it bizarre that you would find it bizarre, as it is blindlingly obvious as to why Mr. Pence's commentary cannot be given the same weight as Mrs. Obama's. He has something to gain from his comments (ie, his ticket to the White house, as either VP or successor should Trump be impeached after being convicted for a crime). Thusly, anything he might comment on in this regard is tainted. Obama, OTOH, has absolutely nothing to gain by her comments. I am not saying we should ignore Pence, but anyone who stands to gain from their viewpoint should be discounted, despite their prominence. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:30, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Jack Sebastian Since no one has commented yet, I thought I'd take a crack at this. While Pence does have a significant vested interest in the outcome of the election, one could argue that so does Michelle Obama. She has been campaigning since this year's graduation season when she gave at least one commencement address and spoke of her concerns if Trump was to become president. Michelle has been actively campaigning for some time. Some have said that may be one of the most effective orators on HRC's behalf. She's the wife of the man who told the National Black Caucus Convention that he would take it as an insult to his administration if Democrats don't vote for Hillary. She is leaving a legacy as First Lady - and both POTUS and FLOTUS have been standard-bearers for the country - so I would think she has a strong interest about whether a Democrat becomes the next president. My two cents, I have no idea how someone would analyze the weighting of Pence and Michelle Obama's interest, though. --CaroleHenson (talk) 16:52, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

CaroleHenson I think that thinking represents a false equivalency. While Pence stands to gain by discounting the rape rumors as a Trump surrogate (for reasons noted earlier), Michelle Obama gains nothing from Trump's winning or losing the election. She gains no office (nor, by all accounts, does she seek such), receives no compensation and garners no more fame than she already has as FLOTUS and as her own woman. If Pence said, 'screw this, I'm not partnering with this clown' and wrote himself off the ticket, then that would be something, because - again - he wouldn't stand to gain anything from his remarks.

Because he stands to gain by his comments, they should have less standing in the article. Since Mrs. Obama stands to gain nothing, her words carry considerable weight. Selflessness will always be more convincing than self-interest. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 22:22, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

"She gains no office (nor, by all accounts, does she seek such)".. Do we really know that? HRC did, Mrs. Obama could. comp.arch (talk) 12:56, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Seeing that such would be fortune-telling. I think its been said in several interviews that she doesn't really like Washington, and is only sticking around in DC after they leave the White House to wait for their remaining daughter to finish school. In any case, she doesn't stand to foreseeably gain, and that's the divider here. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:45, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

@Soham321: WP:WEIGHT says we should give viewpoints weight 'in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.' Michelle Obama has had more coverage than Mike Pence, so I see no problem there. Pence is also included in the Trump campaign, whose reaction we've already given, so it may cause duplication. That said, I don't see much of a problem adding Pence if he has a novel and widely covered reaction we can add. Madshurtie (talk) 10:06, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Also note that we haven't added Clinton. Madshurtie (talk) 10:09, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Madshurtie is correct, neutrality does not mean equal treatment. And that misunderstanding may be part of the reason we're here. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:10, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Ok, you added the neutrality tag a few minutes before being shown that you don't understand neutrality, so I won't fault you on that. But you might reasonably consider self-reverting that. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:21, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Mandruss, I am not reverting the neutrality tag until an uninvolved Admin or senior editor has closed this discussion, and neither should you in my opinion. Soham321 (talk) 10:25, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

I promise not to touch it. And I'm not aware that noticeboard discussions have closes or closers. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:26, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Madshurtie, you did not comment on whether you also believe that Michelle's statement criticizing Trump on account of these allegations should be given more weightage than Trump's defense of himself in response to these allegations. Note that Trump addressed this issue in the third presidential debate, and also in several campaign speeches and interviews.Soham321 (talk) 10:28, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

@Soham321: Trump's own statements by themselves have been given more content than Michelle Obama. In the Trump campaign reaction section alone, my screen shows more lines discussing Trump's reaction (including the note) than Michelle's. That's not to mention that Trump gets a quote in most of the womens' sections, and in the intro. On top of that, we are giving additional space for reactions by his affiliates, who are clearly directed by Trump. The only person we have included who has spoken for the Hillary Clinton campaign is Michelle. Basically, 1) Trump gets more coverage in the reactions section 2) Trump gets far more coverage in the whole article 3) The Trump campaign gets massively more coverage than the Clinton campaign. If anything, the article is biased in the other direction. Madshurtie (talk) 11:18, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Madshurtie, on my 15 inch laptop, Donald Trump's defense against the allegations get approximately six lines of coverage (5 1/2 lines + the word "choice"), in a sub-sub section titled "Donald and Melania Trump" within the sub-section "Trump and affiliates' reactions" in the "Reactions" section. Michelle's comments on the allegations against Trump get 9 1/2 lines of coverage. Michelle's comments are included in a sub-section titled "Michelle Obama" in the "Reactions" section. So I cannot agree if your contention is that Donald Trump's defense is being given more coverage and more prominence than Michelle's reaction. This, mind you, is just one NPOV related issue; there are in fact multiple NPOV related issues in the article which spring from the fact that details about Trump's defense of himself against the allegations, which have been inserted in the main page, have been either removed or drastically reduced. That is why it is important that uninvolved editors and/or Admins get involved in this page. Two other editors have expressed support for my position on the talk page of the article: Isaidnoway, and Zigzig20s. Soham321 (talk) 12:07, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

@Soham321: This is the most inane discussion, because you have ignored the point that Trump is quoted multiple times in other sections of the article so that you can nit-pick these paragraphs. However, I have word counted the two sections. The two paragraphs about Trump's reactions inside "Donald and Melania Trump", excluding the Melania paragraph, and including the quote note, add up to 239 words. The one paragraph in the Michelle Obama section, plus the quote box, adds up to 234 words. So you don't have a case, even if we balanced articles like this based on word count. Madshurtie (talk) 12:45, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi there, There's a comment from David Eppstein that is relevant to previous discussions about content additions. I am not sure which diff that's listed above that it might apply to. As the review proceeds, would you please take a look the question I asked (in gray) and his response from this edit? That would be great!--CaroleHenson (talk) 10:50, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

@CaroleHenson: As the review proceeds, - Que? If you mean this discussion, this is not what I've meant when I used the word review. I have suggested soliticing an experienced and uninvolved editor to review the article for NPOV so we can dispense with this debate, which is not likely to be very productive. We have already seen that at least one editor present didn't even know what neutrality means. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:14, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Ok, Mandruss, when you bring someone in to review the article for NPOV, could David's comments be included as well, perhaps a #8? I would be happy to type it up in a summary if that would help. It pertains to comments about the accusers. He's not a regular here, I just wanted to make sure it didn't fall through the cracks. It came up at the first dispute, and since the content about accusers was backed-out in editing, it was a non-issue until now.

I was just informed that my ping did not work with this mention because I did not sign it. It sounds l ike that's immaterial, but I thought I'd give you a "heads up". --CaroleHenson (talk) 11:36, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

What I would do would be to ask David Eppstein if he would care to do a review, something similar to a GA review but perhaps less time-consuming for the reviewer. He appears to have the competence, and I think he qualifies as uninvolved. So he could write a list of points for improvement. We would then make those improvements and use that review as a guide for future editing. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:48, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Lovely idea! Oh, if that doesn't work out, I do have experience with a number of GA editors - you and others probably do, too! Yes, there are sections of the GA that wouldn't need to be followed, but that's a great template - or mindset - for reviewing issues!!!--CaroleHenson (talk) 11:56, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Obviously, certain editors who don't agree with his points for improvement will accuse him of bias, just because that's how they roll (anyone who disagrees with them is obviously a POV pusher), but I think we can deal with that. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:00, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I think you have much more experience with disputes, RfCs, etc. and know how to manage the process. You may not need this, but there are a number of different templates, this is my favorite GATable, which might be a good reference to determine what sections might apply for a NPOV review.--CaroleHenson (talk) 12:06, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

I'd let Eppstein decide how to do it, should he choose to accept the mission. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:10, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Off topic

Cool! I just had my comments on the talk page reverted. I put them back in but made two sections: 1 for the review and the 2nd for a side conversation that I am closing out. I had actually typed an FYI in here awhile ago, but decided that noone would care, and it's best tp close that chapter. Soham321, Please don't revert comments that I make to the talk page.--CaroleHenson (talk) 12:18, 23 October 2016 (UTC) See [12] ―Mandruss ☎ 12:23, 23 October 2016 (UTC) Sorry, I think I am too biased wrt Trump to be a good reviewer. I have tried to limit my contributions to this article to BLP issues involving other people than Trump. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:13, 23 October 2016 (UTC) CaroleHenson, I am aware of talk page etiquette and would not have reverted you but for the fact that you closed the discussion on the talk page which was following immediately after i gave a link to this discussion on the talk page. You were closing not just your comments, but the comments of other editors, including myself, and you are very much an involved editor in this discussion. I still find it objectionable that you should close the discussion on the talk page which is related to this discussion which continues to take place here, given that you are very much an involved party. Soham321 (talk) 12:28, 23 October 2016 (UTC) Yours was the WP:BATTLEGROUND reaction to a WP:BOLD edit. That is not how disagreements are peacefully resolved. Your decision to take a break from the article is a good one in my view. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:31, 23 October 2016 (UTC) I disagree that it was a battleground reaction. I just made one revert, and i have not reverted Carol again leaving it for other editors to do so if they wish to. There seems to a pattern in your editing behavior: of mixing up content disputes with conduct disputes. Only a short while back you have requested an Admin to place a ban on Zigzig20s after you had a content dispute with Zigzig on this very page we are disputing. You and Carol are welcome to take me to ANI if you wish to, but do watch out for the boomerang. As far as my talk page message to Carol is concerned, it was just a polite way (the opposite of battleground behavior) of telling CaroleHenson that i did not wish to interact with her on my talk page on this dispute after she made this edit on my talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Soham321&diff=745744878&oldid=745743728 ; and i did take a break from the article after telling her i would do so. Soham321 (talk) 12:54, 23 October 2016 (UTC) Again you're incorrect. I sought a discretionary temp block against that user because they were being disruptive, not because of any content disagreement. And I got strong support from two other experienced editors, one by email. Of course you would fail to recognize disruption, it's your m.o. as well. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:59, 23 October 2016 (UTC) Not sure why I am constantly getting pinged here. I only wanted to add referenced content about the lawsuits to protect the Wikimedia Foundation. I don't have time to read endless Wikidrama. Several editors agree with me that this content should be included, so please understand that this content is not about me--if anybody is finding themselves thinking about me, please forget me, I am a nobody. Just focus on the content as per weight of reliable third-party sources. Thanks.Zigzig20s (talk) 13:03, 23 October 2016 (UTC) Soham321 Is there anything that I've said here that would make you think that I didn't understand and support this review? How many people do you know who self-report in a situation like this, specifically ask people not to come to their defense, and leave themselves open that way? You're offended because I closed that question out? I just didn't want anyone else to be pulled into any more drama than necessary. Please WP:AGF and talk about things. So much gets smoothed out that way - and so much festers if you don't talk things out, which can then lead to unconstructive efforts and animosity believe the other person is evil . Just so I can understand, what is the benefit of leaving that open?--CaroleHenson (talk) 13:33, 23 October 2016 (UTC) (UTC) ping and sign again Based on your responses, I wonder if you read it. Did you see this: Paraphrasing, I also hear that a bit of distance from responding to a lot of the content issues would be good. I'm "way cool" with that. And, I look forward to feedback from the NPOV approach.--CaroleHenson (talk) 12:47, 23 October 2016 (UTC) I reworded the last sentence in this portion of the blurb to: And, I look forward to feedback from the NPOV approach. on the article talk page and this discusssion--CaroleHenson (talk) 12:56, 23 October 2016 (UTC) Okay, let's move on. Yesterday, I had a knee-jerk reaction and exceeded my quota of more than one mistake a day . So, let's just move on. I reworded the section a little and identified a place where people can put comments. By the way, about one quarter of the feedback that I received is in the collapsed box.--CaroleHenson (talk) 14:56, 23 October 2016 (UTC) For what it's worth, I support collapsing everything from my "Cool!" exclamation at 12:18, 23 October 2016 (UTC) to this point, since it is not in keeping with the goal of this page.--CaroleHenson (talk) 16:56, 23 October 2016 (UTC)  Done ―Mandruss ☎ 17:01, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

• OMG y'all, you're talking not about allegations but about responses to allegations. Why not include responses to those responses? An encyclopedic suggestion would be to leave out the responses. Pence's response or whatever isn't relevant to the allegations; it's only relevant to the campaign, so it doesn't even go in here--one could argue. Drmies (talk) 03:34, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

• Personally, i don't see a problem with adding responses to the responses, given the importance of the individual concerned. And in fact these are being added in the main article. See diff. Soham321 (talk) 07:28, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

• Once again tonight, I am confused. I'm not sure how adding that posting diff bolsters your point. For one thing, there was a discussion recently about adding content about what might happen. And, I'm not seeing how this is an adequate response to a good scope question. It almost seems as if referral to this kind of reaction bolsters Drmies point about the scope of the article content.--CaroleHenson (talk) 08:00, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

• You make some good points, Drmies, and I'm afraid it might get lost here. This relates to some of TFD's comments at the bottom of the Arbitrary break 1 section. What do you think about moving your question there?--CaroleHenson (talk) 07:13, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

• My question was really rhetorical. Drmies (talk) 17:43, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

• Finding the content mix is a balancing act. My apologizes to Soham321. I should have let you speak for yourself, Drmies.--CaroleHenson (talk) 18:04, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 1

One of my NPOV concerns is the section titled Allegations of pageant dressing room visits. The section doesn't explain how these "dressing room visits" are considered sexual misconduct, which is the topic of this article. None of the people mentioned in that section allege sexual misconduct, sexual assault, sexual harassment or even anything of a sexual nature. In fact, one of the sources used in that section explicitly states that: none accused Trump of saying anything sexually explicit or of making physical contact in the dressing room. Seems like we are trying to imply that something of a sexual nature happened during these "dressing room visits" without identifying what the actual sexual misconduct was. If the former contestants themselves aren't saying it was sexual misconduct, then why are giving so much weight to these allegations in the article. None of the sources used in that section allege that Trump engaged in sexual misconduct during these dressing room visits. If this section is to remain, then we need to explain to the reader, via reliable sources, how these allegations of pageant dressing room visits constitute sexual misconduct.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 17:07, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

It wasn't sexual misconduct in a literal sense, but the media seems to agree that it was a completely improper thing to do. Therefore it has a place in the article. If you can propose a title that is not too long and better encompasses the subject matter, please do. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:12, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Has anyone besides me noticed that this has been nothing but an extension of article talk? Is anything being done here that can't be done there? ―Mandruss ☎ 17:19, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

The dressing room visits are considered sexually hostile work environment under the law. I am a former retired CEO of several companies and have had to deal with sexual harassment issues with employees for many years. They are sexual misconduct per se under the law. His visits to the dressing rooms are stalking and sexual harassment. Octoberwoodland (talk) 18:26, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Do we have any reliable sources that describe or consider these dressing room visits as a "sexually hostile work environment under the law" or "stalking" or "sexual harassment" or "sexual misconduct"? Have any former contestants described these dressing room visits as sexual misconduct or stalking or sexual harassment or a sexually hostile work environment? If not, then why are we implying that these dressing room visits fall under the topic of sexual misconduct without any reliable sources or contestants making that specific assertion. Just because the media seems to agree that it was a completely improper thing to do, doesn't mean WP should take that opinion of it being improper and imply that these dressing room visits constitute sexual misconduct. That doesn't appear to be neutral.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 18:54, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Many of the sources are explicit about claiming Trumps conduct is sexual harassment. Sexually Hostile Work environment is a form of sexual harassment. You need to go and read up on sexual harassment because from what I can tell, most of the folks editing around the dressing room allegations don't understand that. Octoberwoodland (talk) 19:35, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I would think that there has to be sources that are abel to make some sort of sexual harassment or other claim. I am not sure that sexually hostile workplace is the right fit. Here's a thought: check out the Department of Justice definitions - it's one of the sources in the article and see what that says and check for how this type of behavior is categorized. I think that I read that it's a step in the evolutionary process of many people who end up sexually assaulting. I mean to be peeping toms. There has to be something if the girls are as young as 15. I am happy to do some researching.--CaroleHenson (talk) 19:02, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

The sexual crime that seems to apply is Voyeurism#Criminology, or "noncontact sex-related crimes, per the This Department of Justice doc p. 3.. Voyeurism is defined as a criminal act and sexual abuse. It appears that there are varying state laws for this. It seems federal laws, too. Oh, there was a lawyer on earlier, right? We could use him or her.

I will research for reliable sources that address Isaidnoway's question.--CaroleHenson (talk) 19:39, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Because Trump owned the beauty pageant at the time, his conduct falls under the civil statutes of sexual harassment and hostile work environment. From a criminal perspective, his conduct could easily fit in the category of stalking and other laws which vary by state dealing with peeping and invasion of privacy. Octoberwoodland (talk) 19:44, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Ok, thank you for that. Yes, so that ties into the article link I provided and the Department of Justice document.

Would it be helpful for me to research for reliable sources that describe the dressing room acts as criminal acts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CaroleHenson (talk • contribs) 19:49, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

As I said earlier, there is no reason that we can't make the title fit the content rather than the other way around. Also I generally oppose overthinking in article titles. It's exceedingly difficult to embody complex sets of content in so few words. The more precise you make a title, the more important precision becomes in that title, and this can become an endless feedback loop. I expect readers to read at least the lead—not arrive, read the title, and leave, believing they are now informed about the issue. We should do the best we can with a title but not obsess over it. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:41, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

I haven't studied WP:TITLE in detail, but I just browsed its WP:CRITERIA and I don't see anything that says we have to do this kind of thinking. And we've seen that it's a bad idea to invent neutrality rules that are not in policy. Is there something in WP:NPOV that says we have to think like this? Another general opinion, this job is hard enough without our making it harder. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:50, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure how many people saw Eppstein decline the review request, as he for some reason put it in the collapsed off-topic above. "Sorry, I think I am too biased wrt Trump to be a good reviewer. I have tried to limit my contributions to this article to BLP issues involving other people than Trump." (As if anybody who cares a whit about political articles could have a neutral opinion about Trump!) Back to square one on neutrality. I wouldn't know where to otherwise request such a review if not right here on the neutrality noticeboard. Consistent with my experience, this noticeboard discussion, which is supposed to get attention and input from editors more experienced in neutrality, is an extension of article talk. And it will end up in the wrong archive. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:33, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Is there a way that we could find someone from Canada, Australia or the UK?--CaroleHenson (talk) 00:45, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Or perhaps Mars? It seems that everyone has an opinion regarding Trump, and it's not a very good one, unfortunately. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:44, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

I am Canadian. I do not think this will solve anything. Most other Canadians I have spoken to about Trump are not neutral on the subject. Ditto Europeans, although I know fewer of those Elinruby (talk) 05:26, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Unless you are quite right-wing (UKipper or French NF) the European perspective is generally going to be 'what a clown, how the hell do you guys let him be in the position where he could be president' while throwing its hands up and leaving the US to it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:56, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Comment: In which i describe some inaccuracies in the main article under consideration: Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations - Donald Trump's response - NPOV related issues In view of these inaccuracies, the entire article needs to be scrutinized carefully for similar inaccuracies. Soham321 (talk) 05:46, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Soham321, based on our discussions, I hope you don't mind that I formatted a url.--CaroleHenson (talk) 23:39, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

I am not seeing that there are some inaccuracies in the main article from that discussion -- but it does look as if you are concerned about content that is not added, which seems mostly to be about inclusion of Trump's claims, theories, and derogatory statements made by Trump about the accusers. That link is a good place to go, though, to see the discussion about your points.--23:51, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Actually, it appears that many of the involved editors are non-American, including myself.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:38, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Okay, there have been very good points that whether someone is an American or not does not necessary mean that they don't have a clear opinion.

That's actually really good to know, Jack Upland. I wonder if we should find someone that hasn't been working on the article? Perhaps others can way in on that.

How about the Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee or Wikipedia:WikiProject Politics/American politics, being that my name is mentioned in the initial posting I won't ask around, but maybe someone else could ask at one of these places - or somewhere else that might be a good place to find a viable reviewer? Do you have any ideas, Soham321 or Mandruss, of where we might find a reviewer so that we can move this along?--CaroleHenson (talk) 01:07, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Pretty much everyone commenting on the case in reliable sources has a viewpoint. Editors are supposed to report them according to the degree of acceptance they have, which does not necessarily mean providing greater weight to neutral commentators. And Michelle Obama is not neutral. Her husband is the Democratic president who says that Clinton will maintain his legacy, while Trump will destroy it. Don't forget too that Michelle Obama's speaking fees (and her husband's) will be greater under Clinton. Incidentally most non-Americans overwhelmingly prefer Democratic presidents. The "We are the greatest country in the world and do not care about what the rest of the world thinks" messaage is always stronger among Republicans and alienates people outside the U.S. This election has been slightly different because Trump has suggested he would decrease hostility toward Russia and other U.S. rivals. TFD (talk) 04:02, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Neutrality banner and list of sources

There have been a lot of comments about the list of reliable sources on the DTsma - About the neutrality banner discussion —here—and other DTsma discussions.

At the About the neutrality banner discussion, I have explored 1) Guardian and the list of sources, 2) Daily Beast, and 3) Jezebel, each in their own subsections.

I have also I posted a question at the RSN - Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations - List of sources and discussed the list of sources use - and how that has caused problems.

The questions are: Is there any reason why we should not be using RSN as a resource to determine whether sources are reliable? Is it inappropriate to find replacement sources based upon RSN postings?

I posted this here, because there has been so much talk about this, and seems to be a major part of the NPOV claim.--CaroleHenson (talk) 23:36, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

The response at the RSN is that BLPN is the right place to go with this issue. This is the posted request.--CaroleHenson (talk) 06:14, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Content disputes related to election elsewhere

I've been following parts of this conversation, and would like to ask if editors would consider giving feedback on another article where the election and surrounding debates have an impact on editing there. At 2016 Democratic National Committee email leak, there has been a great deal of controversy over what to include, what not to include, and how to give different aspects of the story prominence. One example is the issue of possible Russian involvement, and where that material should go in the article. Should it precede a description of the leak timeline and contents? Should it follow?

The reason I'd like input is that it's hard to fail to notice that the decision about where to place the material is one that both the Trump and Clinton campaigns are battling over every day.

Is this a good place for comment? What about an RfC? @Mandruss: while we've disagreed in the past, I've appreciated your strict dedication to BLP issues, and would welcome your opinion. I saw you formulated an RfC recently for a pretty complicated topic (which I don't feel qualified to weigh in on). Input from all appreciated. -Darouet (talk) 00:53, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

@Darouet: I'm really not that strong on things like what to include, what not to include, and how to give different aspects of the story prominence. I can't seem to get my head around things like that. This is probably because I have an attention problem that prevents me from reading and absorbing large amounts of source material.
In my experience RfC is the only way to break an impasse in open discussion, and they can be wastes of time if the question is not well formulated. E.g., an RfC shouldn't ask only, "How should the article treat balancing aspects?" - that is probably too vague to produce a consensus discernible by the closer. You would have to nail down a group of options, such as in that Jane Doe RfC. If you decided to go to RfC, I might be able to give some useful input on it; just hit me up on my talk page. I and two others worked on that RfC in a sandbox before copying-and-pasting to the article talk page. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:58, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

@Mandruss: I appreciate the advice, and will run text by you before proposing RfC, if I do that. -Darouet (talk) 03:54, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Simple inclusion of a notable recurring character

In lieu of entering a lengthy Talk Page debate of back-and-forth opinions or launching an edit war (of which I have never been a party), I would like to address this matter of neutrality here regarding the simple inclusion of the recurring character "Charlie the Bartender" played by Danny Wells on the The Jeffersons WP page. I am inviting editor Quis separabit? to the discussion. My first inclusion was rv'd by Rms125a@hotmail.com (and rightly so). After having sought advice from editors and admins as to how I could improve the situation, notability via expansion of the actor's WP page was suggested: which I diligently accomplished. I made it known on the actor's talk page [13] of my intent as well as the The Jeffersons's talk page [14] and felt confident to reinstate "Charlie" from the overwhelming evidence that I had found in my research from reliable sources claiming the recurring role and notability for the character in relation to others already included. Within hours, it was rv'd on the basis that there had been no consensus on the talk page. With all due respect and with the highest regard to all contributors on WP, including Rms125a@hotmail.com, with the long standing history of deletions by him/her, I felt it to be non-neutral to the article. I would appreciate a side-by-side discussion as to why this character is being deleted in relation to the others that remain; a few of whom are equal, if not less than equal, to that of Danny Wells in notability and recurrence. This is not my opinion, but cited within the resources on the very same pages that claim the other characters. Thank you. Maineartists (talk) 16:22, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Comment Setting personal opinion aside and focusing on existence of comparison evidence on WP and reliable sources for subjects and articles, here is my argument for inclusions. Please keep in mind, when presenting "evidence" for televisions shows in this genre, "evidence" (even that which is found in the WP article itself, is mostly "trivia" and should be seen and treating equally for inclusion as well as exclusion. That being said:

• Since the show has little support to claim an actual definitive "starring cast" except that of credit titles, the opening spot for The Jeffersons listed as follows: “Starring: Sherman Hemsley, Isabel Sanford, Roxie Roker, Franklin Cover, Mike Evan/Damon Evans, Zara Cully (until her death), Berlinda Tolbert & Paul Benedict”. In the 6th season it was just Hemsley, Sanford, Roker, Cover, Benedict and Gibbs. Evans and Tolbert are not listed even though they are listed as "Main" on the WP. Wertimer and Hammer are never listed; yet they are listed in the Infobox on the WP as "Starring". This term places them there at a certain level on the basis of their notability from their either their WP pages, appearances in episodes/seasons, or sources that directly either used that term or terms relative to that status: "recurring", "supporting", "guest appearance", etc. Even main stars such as Marla Gibbs (who is considered the 3rd main cast star after Hemsley and Sanford has been titled: "recurring", "supporting", by the same sources that have placed Wertimer and Hammer on the Jefferson page, yet exclude Wells on all acounts. Even on this WP page, Florence Johnston is said to be a "recurring" role at the beginning,[15] and also listed here at TV.com[16]
• In External Links on The Jeffersons WP page, source [17] lists Danny Wells directly after Ned Wertimer and before Jay Hammer.
• Regarding the term "recurring" in Main Cast (which is misleading and an incorrect title for this section), here are links that refer to Wells and his character as a recurring character on The Jeffersons: The Today Show [18], TV.com [19], Variety [20], Entertainment Weekly [21], TV.com #2 [22], Wikia [23], this source directly talks about a specific episode focused on Well's character (alcoholism) as being a "pressing social issues: [24].
• Character is named "Supporting" [25], "Starring" in order: [26], Most notable across multiple seasons: [27], Listed above Jay Hammer [28], Featured Cast: [29], Jefferson cast: [30], Cast [31], Cast Members: [32], Day Time Royality: [33], Famous: [34]
• Character "Charlie the Bartender" and actor Danny Wells is actually mentioned in this book: "Historical Dictionary of African American Television" [35]
• In the 11th season "Charlie the Bartender" became a staple character, along with his bar, in the series.[36]
• The character of Jay Hammer[37] (Season 5 only - 8 episode) and Ralph the Doorman (11 seasons - recurring)[38], equal (or less) in notability to Wells, are included in The Jeffersons WP page with no reliable sources for inclusion. Wells has been rv'd twice in same categories (even after article expansion) without reason.

Thank you. Maineartists (talk) 21:52, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

• Regardless the outcome, extra editorial eyes would greatly be appreciated on this subject to form a consensus before the topic is archived. Thanks so much! Maineartists (talk) 13:23, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Danny Wells appears to be notable. I believe he should be mentioned in The Jeffersons, including in the infobox. Maproom (talk) 12:33, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Protests against early modern witch trials

See also: Important information related to current exaggerations(?) in the article related to 'misogyny' aspect that were introduced by a user who previously, to the contrary, complained about its use

Article link: Protests against early modern witch trials

Hi. The potential issue here is that it is only 'Protest'. In my humble opinion this may constitute a kind of a fork that is forbidden by NPOV. There was a discourse. Initially in favour of witch-hunts and gradually it changed to overwhelming opposition. BTW. Please also see article Strixology. --Asterixf2 (talk) 21:37, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

For example, I feel like it would be a gross violation of NPOV if I had linked (in see also) only to this article without accompanying complementary description of those who were in favor of witch-hunts. This is a kind of systemic abuse, perhaps. --Asterixf2 (talk) 21:43, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

BTW2: Section: Reception (this is a fresh addition)

UPDATE: Section Reception in Malleus Maleficarus was hidden with HTML tag by Ryn78, permalink: [39] (corresponding diff: [40]) Removal by commenting out with html tag doesn't show up as removal of a lot of valuable content in history of an article. I comment on this section in article's talk page. He has not raised any substantial arguments regarding this vital section. --Asterixf2 (talk) 21:53, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Malleus Maleficarum

Malleus Maleficarum

This page is in clear violation of the rule of Neutral Point of View and thus Manual of Style. User Asterixf2 (talk), presumably of WikiProject Feminism, has made over 230 edits to this page under the guise of "major expansion," when it was really an ocean of bias and biased sources. On no less than four occasions, the topic of bias has been brought up on the talk page and promptly refused or ignored.

In addition, though I (Vami_IV) have thus far warranted it unnessacery to do to apply to the Edit Warring noticeboard, Asterixf2 has on at least occasion reverted thousands of bytes of constructive material, most notably added by Ryn78, complete with more credible sources no less. I feel insulted that I have to do this, but it is obvious to me that this editor is not editing in good faith. It is, however, funny to me that Asterixf2 has done this while informing others that he has reverted their edits, telling them not to do it again, and then cites "Wikipedia is not censorship.

Discussion

WikiProject Feminism wasn't involved. --Asterixf2 (talk) 12:52, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

This section was added by User:Vami IV and not signed [41]. It was created immediately after I have filed to ANI a related case [42]. --Asterixf2 (talk) 12:57, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

I have added 7th citation. :) Apparently 6 is not enough to be convincing. --Asterixf2 (talk) 13:16, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

I too have cited sources. At the time, I was unable to sign because of time constraints. Class had began and it was highly imperative that I departed the computer I was using ASAP. I would also like to say that I had no idea there was an ANI claim filed as I had just arrived at the school, saw Asterixf2 was up to his old tricks again, and filed this complaint. --Vami IV (talk) 15:08, 27 October 2016 (UTC) Dues Vult!

PS. link to previous revision (current was changed by reintroduction of the content that has been previously discussed). Therefore the revision with the 7 citiations I was talking about and the one that was current at the time of this complaint is here: Malleus Maleficarum, previous revision with last edit by Asterixf2

• The "of WikiProject Feminism" bit smells of a rather gross failure of WP:AGF, as if feminists or members of the feminism WikiProject aren't allowed to edit here or something (then again, OP is a Gamergater who likes to refers to people he thinks might be feminists as "cretins"). Vami IV has taken issue with labeling a book that says that women are weak servants of Satan as misogynistic and is only riding on the coattails of Ryn78's complaints regarding other issues. Ryn78 left in the word misogynistic as well and made no complaints about that particular point on the talk page -- so it is disingenuous to pretend that he shares Vami IV's complaints. Again, this is a book that says that women should be targeted for superstitious persecution on the assumption that they are naturally evil. Complaining about calling this work misogynistic is like complaining that article on The Protocols of the Elders of Zion article calls that book antisemitic.

Move to close. Were this ANI, I would push to topic ban Vami IV from gender related topics. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:59, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

This has already been addressed. I am finished here and look like to forget about this. --Vami IV (talk) 02:19, 28 October 2016 (UTC) Non Nobus

Looking forward to your new ideas. --Asterixf2 (talk) 02:25, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

• See also: Important information related to current exaggerations(?) in the article related to 'misogyny' aspect that were introduced by a user who previously, to the contrary, complained about its use
  --Asterixf2 (talk) 20:03, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

AfD of possible relevance

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RightNetwork.

Comment please.

jps (talk) 13:23, 31 October 2016 (UTC)