Talk:Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

RfC: Katie Johnson[edit]

Should Katie Johnson rape allegations be included in Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations article?Ordinary Person (talk) 01:30, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's been seven years since the original RfC on this topic. I'd like to reopen the discussion. I only have a few points to make:
a) The court documents relating to Johnson's lawsuits are available to the public. It's not a matter of reasonable dispute that this allegation of sexual misconduct by Donald Trump took place. The case numbers were 1:16-cv-04642 and 5:16-cv-00797-DMG-KS.
b) The cases were noteworthy enough to receive full coverage in the Daily Mail, PBS, MSNBC, The Guardian, Newsweek, Politico: in some instances she is referred to as Katie Johnson, elsewhere as Jane Doe. The level of coverage was similar to the that related to Summer Zervos, Kristin Heller or Lisa Boyne, whose cases are covered in this Wikipedia article.
c) The cases are referenced elsewhere in Wikipedia: in Legal affairs of Donald Trump and List of lawsuits involving Donald Trump.
In terms of the letter of Wikipedia rules, or in terms of consistent practice, I don't see any logical reason to exclude this notable sexual misconduct allegation against Donald Trump from this article on Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations. Ordinary Person (talk) 01:31, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support[edit]

  • Support though I feel I should make clear I don't agree with all of the proposer's rationales. The mere fact that legal allegations are public or in a court document doesn't itself render them worthy of inclusion. (After all, the vast, vast majority of allegations made in a lawsuit will be public—exceptions include sealed or restricted cases—at least those are the terms most federal courts use.) Also, I'd be particularly wary of relying on case documents, which are primary sources, particularly concerning in BLPs. Rather, the decisive factor for me is the second point: according to the proposer, the story has now received far more coverage than it had by the time of the first RFC. As long as we stick to the reliable secondary sources, I think it's clear the information should be included.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 14:10, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- Enix150 (talk) 18:01, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. This is a sub-article devoted specifically to that topic, and there's substantial coverage supporting the fact that the allegations took place, and are sufficiently significant to play a part in the overall history of sexual misconduct allegations against Donald Trump. Summaries of sexual misconduct allegations against him frequently mention it in a way that shows WP:SUSTAINED coverage, eg. [1][2]. --Aquillion (talk) 09:10, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - yes it is relevant and should be included.Downinit9 (talk) 03:23, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose[edit]

  • Weak oppose or the briefest mention in the interest of completeness. At the time of the last RfC there appear to have been only 4 RS covering this, (+Daily Mail) some of which were no more than a passing mention in articles mainly about other topics, or merely covered the suit being dropped. I don't see any reason to think that coverage has increased - though one might expect it to have done so given other ongoing accusations against Trump. I think we should resist any tendency to think that because some accusations have been taken up - and indeed gone to trial - therefore all accusations are worthy of inclusion - RS, don't seem to think so. It may seem inconsistent to 'list' these accusations but there is an argument that listing needs a lower level of sourcing than coverage. What actually could be said apart from the fact that accusations were made but then withdrawn? If it was disproportionate WP:WEIGHT to include them in the past, what has changed? (Summoned by bot) Pincrete (talk) 05:44, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose Largely due to Pincrete's comments, as well as the rationale at the closure of the last RfC on this issue. The most coverage this ever received was when the lawsuit was actually dropped, it has received largely passing mentions since then. I understand that this is mentioned elsewhere, and that's WP:OTHERSTUFF; this probably should be mentioned at Lisa Bloom as she represented the accuser, along with other women who came forward in 2016, and that ended up being a notable story in its own right.LM2000 (talk) 12:05, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

I just came across this and am reading up, but given that a prior RFC was mentioned I thought I'd link it:

  • RFC: Jane Doe content, closed December 23, 2016, discussed whether a pending lawsuit against Trump should be included. The result of the discussion was "no consensus". The lawsuit was, per a table in the RFC, covered by four outlets, and not covered by a substantial number of notable outlets. The dispute largely concerned whether WP:PUBLICFIGURE or WP:EXCEPTIONAL should take precedence, as, per the closer: "Coverage in sources that are traditionally considered "mainstream" was rare and generally limited to brief mentions that the lawsuit is pending." There were also concerns about recency.

--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 14:00, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Closing discussion with the result being inclusion per WP:AVALANCHE. Enix150 (talk) 19:04, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, you're an active participant and the RfC has not had much feedback. Let a neutral party close it.LM2000 (talk) 10:26, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings, I have concerns about the wording. If this article is subjected to the BLP policy, and I would agree with recent concerns, Wikipedia editors should be careful not to hang a person without due process. As far as I understand Trump was not convicted of a crime. There is breaking news that Trump was found liable for battery and defamation, a civil tort, and not a crime of rape. Wording from editors such as "Katie Johnson rape allegations", or comments such as "there's substantial coverage supporting the fact that the allegations took place". Even if there is "substantial coverage" claiming Trump's "alleged acts", that is not the verdict of the civil trial. A note states; Note: A living person accused of a crime is presumed not guilty unless and until the contrary is decided by a court of law. Editors must give serious consideration to not creating an article on an alleged perpetrator when no conviction is yet secured. In this case that has not happened. This was stated above: "It's not a matter of reasonable dispute that this allegation of sexual misconduct by Donald Trump took place". Again, the jury, as for as I know, did not render a verdict of any sexual misconduct even though the type of "battery" was sexual in nature. I admit it was a strange verdict. Culpability for battery, with testimony offered, would seem to have not been a stretch to find sexual misconduct or worse. That did not happen and I would imagine there could be an appeal. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and a local consensus, even if stretching this to include "Ignore all rules" would be ignoring WP:policies and guidelines. Also, there is absolutely no doubt this is controversial so an Admin should close. There are policy issues at stake, maybe even some legal issues, so this needs a closing by someone that can take that into account. At any rate, the wording used by some editors above surely indicates some WP:bias. Concerns of NPOV are also evident. If this is allowed editors should be cautioned that wording has to be used that is neutral as Wikipedia is not a court of law. -- Otr500 (talk) 23:59, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Underage sex parties section[edit]

On October 25, 2016, allegations were made by two men stating that Trump had attended and partaken in sex parties filled with underage minor females as young as 15 years old who were induced with promises of career advancement.[1] Illegal drugs were also alleged to have been provided to the minors.[2]

One man was identified as model and actor Andy Lucchesi, while the other was identified as a fashion photographer who spoke on condition of anonymity. Both men claim to have been acquaintances of Trump during that decade, which one described as his "Trump days".[3]

The anonymous witness said Trump had sex with the girls, going from room to room, saying "[Trump would] wander off with a couple girls. I saw him. He was getting laid like crazy. Trump was at the heart of it. He loved the attention and in private, he was a total f*cking beast." He claimed the parties were attended by minors as young as 15 years of age, adding "I was there [only] to party myself. It was [other] guys with younger girls, sex, a lot of sex, a lot of cocaine, top-shelf liquor."[4]

Lucchesi, for his part, claimed that he saw Trump engage in sexual activity with the girls but did not witness him taking illicit drugs. In regards to the age of the girls, Lucchesi said he himself never specifically asked about their ages, only remarking of the attendees "a lot of girls, [aged] 14, look 24."[5]

References

  1. ^ "Shocking claims of Donald Trump's wild parties". news.com.au. October 25, 2016. Archived from the original on July 7, 2019. Retrieved June 8, 2023.
  2. ^ ToI Staff (October 25, 2016). "Report: Trump hosted cocaine-fueled parties with underage girls". The Times of Israel. Archived from the original on January 12, 2023. Retrieved June 8, 2023.
  3. ^ "Shocking claims of Donald Trump's wild parties". The Courier Mail. October 25, 2016. Archived from the original on June 9, 2023. Retrieved June 8, 2023.
  4. ^ Daniel Halper (October 25, 2016). "Trump partied with teen girls at cocaine-fueled romp in '90s: report". New York Post. Archived from the original on March 27, 2023. Retrieved June 8, 2023.
  5. ^ Chris Sommerfeldt (October 25, 2016). "Donald Trump hosted wild parties with sex, cocaine and underage models: report". New York Daily News. Archived from the original on August 30, 2022. Retrieved June 8, 2023.

Enix150 (talk) 00:52, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely ridiculous to go off hearsay at best. They couldn't even give specific ages. Oh they look 24, but lots of girls look 24 at 14.
We know how the media just copies each other stories, so citing more articles that provide no further details but just repeat the same points is Not supporting the original charge.
How low do wikipedia standards go to include this? 1.47.132.122 (talk) 03:07, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Judge confirms Trump raped Carroll[edit]

Judge Hanlon said Carroll can still call Trump a rapist and clarified that NY definition is unusually narrow (penile penetration only) whilst most states, and certainly common understanding would term what Trump did (penetration with finger) as rape. So by general understanding Trump is a rapist. 2A00:23C7:130F:4A01:1AA:14CB:CD1F:467C (talk) 13:47, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Modifying the page title[edit]

Why is Bill Clinton's page titled "Bill Clinton sexual assault and misconduct allegations," but Trump's page is titled "Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations"? Shouldn't the two have parallel titles (so the Trump page title would be "Donald Trump sexual assault and misconduct allegations"), especially since multiple women have alleged that Trump sexually assaulted them, and he was found liable in court for sexual assault? Biden's page is also titled "Joe Biden sexual assault allegation." FactOrOpinion (talk) 18:27, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. While we should not change the title simply to harmonize articles, the situations are similar and would justify similar titles. In the interests of keeping titles short, I'd favor the format Whomever's sexual misconduct allegations. That covers assaults, rapes, etc. A title does not need to cover everything. (I added wikilinks to your comment.) -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:34, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Experience tells us that overthink of article titles is a bad idea. Anyway, I think prior attempts to say "sexual assault" in this article's title have failed; see archive. What happens for Bill Clinton has no bearing on this article, or vice versa. Not to say one shouldn't go to the Clinton article and suggest a move, if such a move hasn't already been proposed and failed, but not solely for consistency with this article. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:17, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Mandrusss, I found the previous discussions in Archives 3 and 7; thanks for alerting me to those. At the time of those discussions (2016), Clinton's page was titled "Bill Clinton sexual misconduct allegations," and Biden's assault allegation page did not exist. Clinton's page title was changed in 2020 without discussion, with an editor explanation "moved page Bill Clinton sexual misconduct allegations to Bill Clinton sexual assault and misconduct allegations: The word 'misconduct', linked in the opening paragraph, says misconduct is for less-than-rape charges, but one of these charges is explicitly a rape." FWIW, the page for "sexual misconduct" no longer says that. I do think that WP:AVOIDBIAS applies, as right now, the phrase "sexual assault" only appears in the titles for Democratic (former) Presidents, but not the Republican former President. Changing the other two to just "misconduct allegation(s)" is acceptable to me. And Valjean, thanks for adding the wikilinks to my comment. -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 02:56, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Inadequate Context, potential bias?[edit]

I could not help but to notice that near the top of the page it reads "Trump was recorded bragging that a celebrity like himself "can do anything" to women, including "just start kissing them ... I don't even wait" and "grab 'em by the pussy"."

While Trump did say those words, the page does however twist the words of the former present and omit words to the point that it sounds like he's saying that celebrities can just rape women as they please. On a personal level, I do think that may be true to an extent, celebrities do have a privilege there but this is Wikipedia and that kind of bias is not acceptable. In context, Trump actually said "And when you're a star, they let you do it. You can do anything."

While the comments are still inappropriate and disgusting, that is still a subjective opinion. While his words can be interpreted the same way if you so choose, they can easily be interpreted otherwise. It's wrong to include choppy quotes from a person to fit a narrative. Wikipedia should either include all the words in their proper context or omit them all together. To further drive my point home, I'm not even a supporter of this clown yet I still think this page is in the wrong for maliciously twisting a living person's words with the possible intent to defame him. MountainJew6150 (talk) 17:36, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Donald_Trump_sexual_misconduct_allegations&oldid=1213557057"