This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

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

Balancing aspects

List of sources

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)

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)

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.

• 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)

• 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/?title=Donald_Trump_sexual_misconduct_allegations&diff=745237756&oldid=745233947, and https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Donald_Trump_sexual_misconduct_allegations&diff=745706477&oldid=745699707
• 4. Discussion about the first diff has taken place here: /info/en/?search=Talk:Donald_Trump_sexual_misconduct_allegations#Response_by_Trump_and_Trump.27s_attorney
• 5. Discussion about the second diff has taken place here: /info/en/?search=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)

• 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)

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)

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

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. ^[1] On no less than four occasions, the topic of bias has been brought up on the talk page and promptly refused or ignored. ^{[2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [Note 1]}

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. ^[7]

References

Citations

Notes

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)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RightNetwork.

Comment please.

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