Talk:Donald Trump Access Hollywood tape

Woman in video

There's a related discussion here: Talk:Arianne Zucker#Trump controversy. --MZMcBride (talk) 00:24, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Other Videos cited

• Fahrenthold, David A. "Trump recorded having extremely lewd conversation about women in 2005". Washington Post. Retrieved 2016-10-08.

• Arianne Zuker: 2005 "SoapTalk" Part 1 - Laurencia7 (YouTube)
• Access Classic: Donald Trump's Election Day Disaster – A Look Back (2004) - Access Hollywood (YouTube)

Xb2u7Zjzc32 (talk) 03:27, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Naming the women

I strongly object to naming Nancy O'Dell in the article. I removed her name once, replacing it with "a married woman," but someone restored it. But she is not identified in the tape except as "Nancy", and in effect she is a victim, the target of Trump's lewd comments about a situation in which she was entirely innocent. Per BLP she should not be dragged into this, at least not by Wikipedia.

I had also removed Zucker's name from the lewd comments about her, replacing Zucker's name with "the woman who was meeting the bus". I feel less strongly about this, because Trump's and Bush's comments about her were less dramatic, and it is obvious from context who they were talking about.

But I would like to see consensus that O'Dell's name should be removed from the article, with an invisible comment not to re-add it. What do others think? --MelanieN (talk) 14:17, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Nancy O'Dell is a notable person, and her name has been openly associated with the scandal, although I do agree that she is a victim. She has also issued a statement. Although I'm in favor of protecting victims, I actually think including her name in the article is informative. On a more visceral level, I think including her name is actually empowering to her, and the other victims of such atrociousness.- MrX 14:51, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

He reportedly fired women who refused [1]... This should be noted. My very best wishes (talk) 15:21, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Wow.- MrX 15:27, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

I'd thought that naming O'Dell was questionable, but with her statement it was less so. With the story given just above it looks inevitable. BTW, I can't get the original Washington Post article now, but if it resembles the Daily Beast article Donald Trump Tried to Fire Nancy O’Dell After She Rejected His Sexual Advances then that incident and her name have to be included. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 15:56, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

The removal of the name is normally appropriate. However, this is not a normal case, but one of massive public importance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theoallen1 (talk • contribs) 18:44, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

OK, well, since she has issued a statement and thus acknowledged it publicly, it should stay. It sucks that she got dragged into this, but I guess that's show business. Or politics. Or something. --MelanieN (talk) 19:32, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Yeah. She should definitely be in the article. She has openly said she was talked about. Allanana79 (talk) 04:47, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Order of reactions and Trump response

Why is "Trump response" listed last, after everyone else's reaction is given priority? Like for example why are we putting what Hillary said in the subsequent debate before Trump's pre-debate defense?

Given the huge size of the 'reactions' section, I think we should split it into pre-Trump reactions (statements made before he weighed in) and post-Trump reactions (statements made after). Ranze (talk) 23:26, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Define "weighed in". Is the dividing line his first apology? His second apology? The debate? I don't think this is practical. --MelanieN (talk) 23:40, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Dropping Out

For these reasons, calls for Trump to drop out of the presidential race have been largely regarded as symbolic.

Yes, it already says that in the article. With a source. --MelanieN (talk) 05:04, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Sorry I had a computer problem and dropped out myself. What I was going to add was: I don't think this is exactly true. Trump could drop out. They can't force him against his wishes to become President. Clearly, if he did drop out, this would cause problems for the election. But so would his death. That does not mean that Trump cannot die. I don't think Wikipedia should echo the opinions of columnists as if they were definitive.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:10, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

I think the point was that even if he drops out (or if they decide to kick him out) he can't be taken off the ballots. Of course, there are dodges, like announcing "vote for Trump and the electors will all cast their votes for Pence (or whoever)." We've occasionally seen this kind of thing happen where the voters deliberately elect a dead man. What do you think the wording should say, to make it more accurate? --MelanieN (talk) 05:15, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

I would replace this sentence and the following sentence with: "For these reasons, commentators have said that it is very difficult, if not impossible, to replace Trump as Republican nominee." The CNN source only says it's difficult, not impossible. I don't see where the "symbolic" comment comes from. I think Trump and those calling for him to drop out have taken the calls very seriously.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:39, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

That sounds good to me. I'd say go ahead and do it. --MelanieN (talk) 11:52, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Sexual Assault

@MrX: Let's make the status of groping very clear for all editors. Groping is sexual assault (see that first paragraph). See the Department of Justice site. Or see the law in New York, where Trump is based. Grabbing someone by the pussy is groping and sexual assault. The quote is 'You know I'm automatically attracted to beautiful—I just start kissing them. It's like a magnet. Just kiss. I don't even wait. And when you're a star, they let you do it, you can do anything. ... Grab them by the pussy. You can do anything.' Trump says he doesn't have to wait and can do anything with women, initially talking about kissing, then talking about grabbing genitals. Unwanted kissing and groping is sexual assault. 'To grab' is to grasp something roughly or surprisingly. Doing that to a vulva is sexual assault. Multiple media sources, the moderator of a nationally broadcast debate, and members of Trump's own party are already calling what Trump describes sexual assault, so the term hardly lacks notability. Wikipedia should not be normalizing sexual assault by refusing to call it what it legally and obviously is. That is not WP:NPOV. Trump said to Billy Bush that he sexually assaulted women. Whether or not he did it, he certainly said it. That is the biggest part of the controversy. Wikipedia should reflect that. Madshurtie (talk) 13:03, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't object to describing what Trump said as sexual assault; I object to writing "Trump then said women let him sexually assault them" which is blatantly false. He never said those words at all.- MrX 13:28, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

@MrX: Sounds like pretty accurate paraphrasing to me. He explicitly says women let him do it because he's a star, when 'it' refers to unsolicited kissing and groping. Seems pedantic to say he didn't say those exact words when the meaning is the same. Madshurtie (talk) 13:38, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Madshurtie, we can't paraphrase someone's words and attribute the paraphrased words to them. It so obviously violates WP:BLP that I'm stunned that I have to explain it. In fact, I think it would be libelous. - MrX 13:49, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

@MrX: I thought it was clear it was paraphrasing the subsequent quotation, so I was trying to spell out what it meant, since many readers would be fuzzy about the definition of sexual assault. I wasn't trying to imply he was saying more about sexual assault than what was in the given quotation. If that wording gave that impression, then I guess it's fair enough to remove it. Madshurtie (talk) 14:06, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree that we can call it sexual assault because multiple reliable third party sources have called it that. For example, in an article from the New York Times today, they summarized Trump’s conversation as “a 2005 recording in which he bragged about sexual assault.” Samboy (talk) 17:21, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, we can call it sexual assault, but we can't say that Trump called it sexual assault. I hope that distinction is clear enough.- MrX 20:06, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

@MrX: I see you're right. That was probably the impression my wording gave, so it was a mistake. Madshurtie (talk) 21:20, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

I think it is sexual assault, but it could be argued that because he said women let him do it it is consensual. I think it would be better to say that commentators have described it as sexual assault.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:13, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

@Jack Upland: Not so sure about that. He explicitly says that he kisses them without waiting, which could be assault by itself, and the word 'grab' has strong connotations of being forceful or unexpected. If you grope someone and they don't stop you that doesn't mean the groping is wanted, it can just mean they feel shocked or helpless. Furthermore, he says they let him because he's a star (not because they want it) which is exactly the sort of power imbalance where someone could feel helpless. Madshurtie (talk) 21:20, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

I said that I thought it was, but that it was arguable that it wasn't. If a woman gives a man an unsolicited kiss, I don't think that is sexual assault. And if a woman feels she has to submit to a sexual advance because the man is powerful I don't think that is either. I think Trump's language goes beyond this, but in keeping with NPOV I don't think Wikipedia should state this as a fact.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:44, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

So if hypothetically a billionaire sees his maid, gets lust at first sight and immediately grabs her vulva and she feels like kicking him in the balls for it but doesn't say anything cause it's 2009 and she's undocumented and struggling to make end meet that is not sexual assault? Silence is not always consent. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 03:32, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

@Jack Upland: Giving someone an unsolicited kiss can be sexual assault, and it can certainly be harassment in a work environment. A women feeling disempowered to refuse a sexual advance does not stop it from being a crime. See 'unwelcome does not mean "involuntary"'. Put it this way. Trump said he gropes women ('you can do anything ... grab them by the pussy'), and said they let him. So they let him grope them. Groping is almost always sexual assault. Madshurtie (talk) 09:36, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Since both of you have completely ignored what I said, this "debate" is even more pointless than it was in the first place.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:53, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

@Jack Upland: I think you might be the one ignoring what people are saying. You said you thought Trump was describing sexual assault but that some people might argue otherwise because of similar situations that you don't think are sexual assault. I'm saying those situations often would be sexual assault and aren't that relevant anyway. Sorry if I didn't phrase it clearly. Regards. Madshurtie (talk) 10:13, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Ok, two points. First, I don't think the lede should say (as it now does) "grab them by the pussy" (a description of sexual assault). We say in the body of the text that commentators identify this as sexual assault, and it's cited, and that's fine. But for us to say, in Wikipedia's unattributed voice, "a description of sexual assault" in the lede is wrong in my opinion. Point two, there used to be a definition of pussy in the lede, (a slang term for a woman's genital area), and I think that should be restored. Not everyone who reads this is a native English speaker; they shouldn't have to wonder what he was talking about. MelanieN alt (talk) 04:19, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Agree on both points. Regarding the first one, Vox.com has a good explainer here (TL;DR: "many Trump supporters and surrogates bristle at that 'sexual assault' label", but according to a legal expert "The actions described by Mr. Trump, if true, constitute sexual assault in most jurisdictions in the United States" - unambiguously so in New York, in California likely so but with some grey area regarding the definition of restraint).

What's clear though is that the lede needs to mention in some form that this quote was widely interpreted as describing sexual assault. This is at the core of the controversy; and even with the suggested slang explanation, less knowledgeable readers (e.g. many from other countries) will otherwise likely receive the mistaken impression from the lede that this affair was basically just a case of prudish Americans getting upset about the use of explicit language, or mainly concerned language that is merely disrespectful to women (such as Trump's habit of rating female attractiveness on a numerical scale).

Regards, HaeB (talk) 07:57, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

@MelanieN alt: It wasn't unattributed, it cited the Department of Justice (which clearly calls that behaviour sexual assault) and four media sources. Someone removed the references because of WP:LEADCITE, which I really think was a mistake because this clearly falls under 'complex, current, or controversial'. My problem with the newest wording is it makes sexual assault seem like a matter of opinion, which is not the impression wikipedia should create. Madshurtie (talk) 09:36, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I don't think Wikipedia should act as a barrack room lawyer, but just cite what people say. The analysis of what Trump said is really beside the point from a criminal law point of view. The real question is what he actually did. As I said repeatedly (but other editors have ignored), I think what he described is sexual assault. But that's just my opinion. Legally, it depends on what actually happened, and that would be determined (if at all) in a court. And Wikipedia is not a court.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:43, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

@Jack Upland: No one's trying to convict Donald Trump or even insist that he actually did grope anyone. The real question for the purpose of this controversy isn't just whether he's telling the truth. It's notable to a lot of major media sources that he's bragging about sexual assault, and so it should be notable to wikipedia. Since groping is almost always sexual assault, wikipedia should make that clear to the reader. Madshurtie (talk) 09:36, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Madshurtie, I think the best way to handle an explosive comment like this is to quote his actual words, as we do. We should not try to interpret or explain. In fact that could be WP:Original research. Our job is to reflect what reliable sources say, and to make it clear what those sources are - by reference link at least. The interpretation belongs in the text, and it should be from neutral sources talking explicitly about this case. Not a DOJ generality. In other words, I oppose saying in Wikipedia's voice that what he is describing is sexual assault. Especially in the lede. MelanieN alt (talk) 12:36, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

@MelanieN alt: I accepted we shouldn't interpret his words after MrX's last comment above. However, I do think wikipedia should be presenting facts about whether or not groping is sexual assault, given the large share of the population (i.e. potential readers) who don't take unwanted touching seriously. The lede of a high-publicity brag about sexual assault is exactly where it's important to provide people with relevant factual information. Madshurtie (talk) 12:56, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Madshurtie, I am disappointed (to say the least) to see you re-adding your own version to the article while we are discussing it. Wikipedia works by consensus, and the purpose of talk pages is to allow people to discuss so they can reach consensus. You absolutely do not have consensus on your side at this point, and it is a form of WP:Edit warring for you to keep inserting your own version of contentious material. At this point the lede should include only Trump's own words, while we discuss whether to add a clarification or not. MelanieN alt (talk) 15:04, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

MelanieN alt, I think that might be overreacting slightly. My first addition included text MrX opposed (rightly) because it implied Trump himself called the actions sexual assault. Then HaeB re-added the sexual assault text, modified to make it clear this was how news organizations were interpreting it. My second addition was not to return to the above criticised text, but to remove the implication of opinion in HaeB's text. Then you, HaeB, and Jack Upland said that we should not state outright that it describes sexual assault, so my third addition was just to present, next to the quote about groping, factual context saying how groping is sexual assault almost everywhere in the US (unfortunately Epicgenius buried the sources out of style preference). I never re-added anything, I took both criticisms to the talk page, and I modified my contributions to address the criticisms. It's a bit offensive to call that edit warring. No one said they opposed presenting facts about groping next to a quote about groping, so I'm not sure why you're talking about consensus. What's more, it seems like you are the only person who opposes mentioning sexual assault in the lead, which is a strange attitude considering it's the main part of the controversy. Madshurtie (talk) 16:12, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

I inadvertently got involved in this issue when I made edits to the "sexual assault" sentence in the intro so that it was in synch with article content. I just now realized that there was a discussion about use of the term "sexual assault" here. I totally agree that it "sexual assault" should be mentioned in the intro. 1) It's commonly discussed in the media, as mentioned in the article, 2) Attorneys weighed in that it's sexual assault to grope a woman (I don't think that there's anything about that in the article, but it seems that there should be), 3) The key reason why many people are so upset about the comment is that it's downplayed as "locker room talk", when it's a description of illegal activity, and 4) feeling free to kiss and grope woman because he's a celebrity is highly offensive and supports claims of his objectification of women. Downplaying it, and not calling the act he describes as sexual assault in essence condones the activity.--CaroleHenson (talk) 18:04, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

This article is not the place to (1) educate readers about what sexual assault is, or (2) take a stand against Trump.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:37, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Regarding my comments:

1) "It's commonly discussed in the media, as mentioned in the article" pertains to MOS Lead section

2) "Attorneys weighed in that it's sexual assault to grope a woman (I don't think that there's anything about that in the article, but it seems that there should be)" - relates to justification of calling it a "sexual assault" and that it's notable. I did add one source for this.

3) "The key reason why many people are so upset about the comment is that it's downplayed as "locker room talk", when it's a description of illegal activity" is covered in the media

4) Regarding "feeling free to kiss and grope woman because he's a celebrity is highly offensive and supports claims of his objectification of women" is already covered in the article

I also added information that was tucked into a citation about Trump's supporter's view of the use of "sexual assault".--CaroleHenson (talk) 20:03, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Just to substantiate my point made earlier, there is a law professor who argues that Trump's claimed behaviour might not be sexual assault: [2].--Jack Upland (talk) 20:33, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

I added that after the Trump supporter feedback in the paragraph in the "Reactions" section. Perhaps the sentence in the intro should be amended to include a summary of the feedback from Trump supporters and the notion of implied consent.--CaroleHenson (talk) 20:48, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

@Jack Upland: OK Jack, you've convinced me. Banzhaf does go on to say that if it were a grab it would constitute sexual assault (not in that article, but in this one and others), which is all my most recent edits said, but if Banzhaf says there's room for doubt that's what Trump is actually saying, then providing context on what a crotch grab constitutes might be misleading. However there's nothing wrong with mentioning the widespread interpretation of the comments in the intro, since that's the biggest part of the controversy, so I do think that should remain, if not in the form I wrote. I now support the current wording of that part of the lede. Madshurtie (talk) 20:58, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

The sexual assault accusation should definitely be mentioned in the lead. It's been made by many people, and was mentioned in the debate.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:10, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

References

Update on timing of publication

This is my edit, it tightens the timeline, I used 15 minutes instead of 14, meaning it was a quarter of an hour, NBC was exactly 15 minutes later and the incidental Wikileaks release was also exactly 15 minutes after NBC.

Making correction to ET, so the Twitter record shows WP 2:05 ET, NBC 2:17 ET and Wikileaks Podesta emails which would have been a big story at 2:32 ET. I was unsure if I should have entered the name 'Twitter' into the story but it is the only source with a time stamp and has its links to WP and NBC stories. We are replacing 'before 4' for WP and ,shortly after' for NBC. I am open about an argument questioning if the Wikileaks report 15 minutes later is of interest or relevant. I was surprised they happened so closely together.

"and broke the story on Twitter shortly after 2 PM ET,[8] NBC reporter Katy Tur followed via Twitter just 15 minutes later.[9]Incidentally Wikileaks originally was expected to make a damaging release of its cache of emails on Oct 3, published the Podesta emails 15 minutes later.[10]"Redtobelieve (talk) 11:04, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

As noted on your talk page and here: Please base your edits on reliable sources and avoid original research (it looks like it has already caused you to insert false information due to a time zone mixup), including the WP:SYNTH connection with Wikileaks. Regards, HaeB (talk) 12:44, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Justification for article?

I'm not sure about the justification for this article. It doesn't seem to convey much of substance beyond what is in the section in the campaign article. It is simply a list of reactions by a number of people, including sportsmen, and some speculative analysis by various "experts". While this is hot news at the moment, I doubt many people will read this when the election is over.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:19, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Because some people (like me - I had to go through social media to find this) may not know the full extent of the controversy, and so may turn to Wikipedia (whether they are Clinton supporters, Trump supporters, Johnson supporters, Stein supporters, too young to vote, to lazy to vote, too dissatisfied to vote, or from another country and can't vote). Also, notability is not temporary. epicgenius (talk) 22:17, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

The tapes may have come out during the campaign, but it's a 2005 recording—long before the campaign. It also concerns Billy Bush, who is not involved in the campaign. Madshurtie (talk) 22:27, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

This looks like an attack page. An AfD may be appropriate.Zigzig20s (talk) 00:10, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Article title

It is time to discuss the title of this article. While it mentions Donald Trump, and Access Hollywood, and a controversy that is said to link the two, the title isn't really descriptive enough.

Should we think about other monikers?

How about:

• October 2016 Donald Trump controversy
• October 2016 Trump and Bush controversy
• Donald Trump leaked video controversy
• Trump and Bush leaked video controversy
• Donald Trump recording controversy
• Trump and Bush recording controversy

Other suggestions? epicgenius (talk) 22:23, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

All of those are much too vague. When I think of a "Bush", Billy is pretty far down the list. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:32, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree and have been thinking about this since Sunday; the current title isn't really a good encapsulation of the problem. The first one is definitely not specific enough: this is neither the only big controversy involving Trump this month and there will certainly be more. Ideally, we want something like Donald Trump talking crudely about sexual assault and associated controversy...but in encyclopedic language. The problem as I see it is that there is no noun for "talking crudely about sexual assault". I like Donald Trump recording controversy, but it seems a little too vague as well. NW (Talk) 22:37, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

@Muboshgu and NuclearWarfare: If we're talking specific, how about Donald Trump and Billy Bush recording controversy? It is less vague but it's a long title. I'll think of more options in the meantime. epicgenius (talk) 23:49, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with the current title.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:46, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

The New York Times allegation/rumor

See also: Talk:Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016 § The New York Times: "Two Women Say Donald Trump Touched Them Inappropriately"

The New York Times just came out with this report: "Two Women Say Donald Trump Touched Them Inappropriately". The article contains a video with one of the woman explaining the sexual aggression Donald Trump used against them. This story in all likelihood will receive widespread media coverage, especially with him denying that he has groped women in the debate three days ago. These allegations seem completely credible and from my personal viewpoint may be the end of his campaign, if the last video wasn't enough. This should defiantly be included in this article, though what should we mention in the campaigns main article? Thanks. WClarke (talk) 23:31, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
User:Epicgenius & User:NuclearWarfare: If this report from the NYT makes a large impact, then the 2005 video controversy may expand to include these allegations also. That may be a reason to rename this article to something more broad, though we will have to wait longer to make that kind of decision. WClarke (talk) 23:44, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

If you'd like, I can add a blurb to this article, but I wonder if this article is starting to morph into a sexual allegations article - that could also include sexual allegations/rape information from the Legal affairs of Donald Trump article. Examples are Bill Clinton sexual misconduct allegations and Bill Cosby sexual assault allegations articles.

There's another woman, I have forgotten her name, but she says she received unwanted sexual advances, but then dated him for a time after her divorce. So, not as credible as these two.--CaroleHenson (talk) 23:40, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

We can split part of this into a wider article about Trump and allegations of sexual misconduct against him (being careful of WP:BLP in the process), then add the 2005 NYT article there. Or we can add a few-sentence summary about the 2005 NYT article in this wiki page. epicgenius (talk) 23:51, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

User:CaroleHenson: If we can put together enough reliable sources on Donald Trump's sexual misconduct, then I would support the creation of that article. But then the question is, what does that mean for this article? Also, right now the Trump Campaign has claimed this new article is fiction (what a surprise), and nobody else has confirmed them, so I assume we should correctly refer to them as allegations for now. WClarke (talk) 23:52, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

WClarke I don't think we'll have trouble finding enough reliable sources - this article, the article that you identified, and sexual misconduct/rape info from the Legal affairs of Donald Trump article would be a good starting point. I could put together a list of sources, but I really don't think we're going to have trouble finding plenty of reliable sources.

I wonder if this article could be rolled into the sexual allegations article. There's content here, like comments from Apprentice contestants that is germane.--CaroleHenson (talk) 00:05, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

This sounds like a BLP violation to me and should be removed from this talkpage immediately.Zigzig20s (talk) 00:09, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

No, it's sourceable. I think it would be too early to create a Donald Trump alleged sexual misconduct controversies article, but some of this content should go into the campaign article. If more witnesses come forward and the controversies snowball, then maybe a separate article would be justifiable.- MrX 00:13, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Zigzig20s: The New York Times is one of the most established news source in human history and has won 117 Pulitzer Prizes. We are simply discussing the content they have recently put out and what we should add because of it; there is no reason what so ever to take this down. Just because something controversial about a person comes out doesn't mean we are not allowed to discuss it. It's a talk page; removing this from the talk page is a little dramatic. WClarke (talk) 00:22, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

[edit conflict]

In the short run, I'll start a blurb from this article Two Women Say Donald Trump Touched Them Inappropriately that WClarke identified. Due to the POV tag, should I post the markup here first?--CaroleHenson (talk) 00:23, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

I am sorry. The New York Times has endorsed Hillary Clinton. They are not neutral. This story is a rumor. Again, we are not a gossip magazine.Zigzig20s (talk) 00:27, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

The New York Times editorial board endorsed Hillary Clinton, along with numerous other news outlets. There is a difference. WClarke (talk) 00:36, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

They've endorsed her: they are actively trying to get her elected. And this is a rumor. This is not a factual article. Anybody can accuse anybody of touching them inappropriately; this is ridiculous.Zigzig20s (talk) 00:41, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Zigzig20s: Refer to the list of newspaper endorsments for the 2016 election. Please note that not a single newspaper on that list endorsed Donald Trump, the majority of which endorsed Hillary Clinton. Now think about how many articles on Wikipedia cite those newspapers. Should we get rid of all references to them because they're all "biased"? WClarke (talk) 01:00, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

New POV tag

Someone claims that the neutrality of this article is disputed, so I'm opening this section so that they may explain why they believe this.- MrX 00:31, 13 October 2016 (UTC)