Talk:Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations

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

Yes. In light of the conviction for falsifying documents to “disguise” hush money payments Trump Org/Trump made to women as “legal expenses” this 2016 rape allegation takes on new import.

Trump was convicted of falsifying documents to HIDE Daniels/McDougal infidelities to protect Trump’s odds in 2016 election per court testimony. Jane Doe & witness Tiffany Doe had a court date of 6 Dec 2016. But on 4 Nov 2016, the case was dropped. Four days before 8 Nov election. THOSE are FACTs. A second billionaire, Leon Black, was similarly accused in July 2023 of raping a teen at Epstein’s NY mansion. And, his case was similarly dropped in 2024. Black “settled” a case for $62M in Virgin Islands, where Epstein kept a separate residence.

98.169.185.169 (talk) 11:47, 15 June 2024 (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

Agree. The allegation was as real as any other allegations made. Trump has only been found liable ONCE although MANY MANY women have complained. Brainy86 (talk) 11:52, 15 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

• I agree. Go for it. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 01:32, 2 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

• 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

• Support, due to substantial coverage by RS. Alaexis_¿question? 11:49, 14 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
• Support Anonymous8206 (talk) 23:00, 17 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

• 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

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

This page, and others like it for other people, seem libelous/slanderous, at least as separate pages rather than part of any individual's page. 2601:182:800:8273:8C70:293D:3952:4007 (talk) 02:35, 3 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-jeffrey-epstein-documents-b2475210.html

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/us/before-marrying-melania-in-2005-what-new-documents-claim-about-trump-epstein/amp_articleshow/111465121.cms

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4154484/1/katie-johnson-v-donald-j-trump/ Victor Grigas (talk) 11:30, 4 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I recently expanded/clarified the section on "Jane Doe" aka "Katie Johnson". There is currently a LOT of misinformation circulating on social media, e.g. that somehow the most recent Epstein documents prove Trump raped somebody in 1994, or that the media purposefully ignored this incredibly explosive story.^[1][2][3] I corrected some inaccuracies that seemed to be based on a misreading of the primary documents, and also wonder if we should include any of the court documents as supporting references. For everything Trump has been accused or convicted of, this is one of the most lurid, salacious, and "big if true" accusations. Coincidentally, it also appears to be the only accusation in this article that has multiple primary court filings accompanying it, which I think raises issues of appropriateness via WP:BLPPRIMARY. Contrary to some people on Twitter/Facebook/Reddit/etc., these allegations were covered to the extent responsible media could cover them without promoting conspiracy theories or yellow journalism. Thoughts? --Animalparty! (talk) 22:38, 13 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Is this article even worthy of an "encyclopedic" presence? Was such a thing be found in a world book Encyclopedia, or encyclopedia Britannica? This is just another piece of the eight year, 24 / 7 / 365 attack on an an individual. These are ALLEGATIONS . Mikefilosa (talk) 13:05, 1 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Deletion of this article was proposed in 2016, here, and the result was a SNOW keep. Yes, eight years have passed since then, but the fundamental nature of the article has not changed. There is no rationale for relitigating the article's existence; that's a settled issue.

Yes, These are ALLEGATIONS (for the most part: a civil finding of liability is far more than an allegation), and they are presented as such. This is pursuant to Wikipedia content policy.

This is not to say the article can't be improved; see Talk:Donald Trump/Response to claims of bias. Feel free to help improve it after learning about the policy. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:34, 2 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

What's changed is we can have a more sober application of the WP:10YearTest, to say whether all the stuff based on WP:Primary news sources is actually justified in an encyclopedia article, versus being tightened into secondary sources and then possibly merged back into something of broader scope.

Just at a glance, the vast majority of sources are breaking news pieces from 2016. This kind of content in any history article -- and yes, the 2016 election is history -- could be summarily deleted. At the very least this is a great case for WP:TNT using only secondary retrospective sources (and the primary sources referenced by those secondary sources). SamuelRiv (talk) 17:13, 2 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Feel free to advocate whatever you want with a policy basis; that's what the discussion/consensus process is all about. I would suggest one or more separate threads since it's a big shift in topic. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:28, 2 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

OP was suggesting the article is not worthy of WP. I agree, and I have given policy reasons. Is this not now the correct thread to discuss radical rewrites/merge/deletion? SamuelRiv (talk) 17:36, 2 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Merge/deletion requires WP:AFD. It can't be done here, so any discussion of it here would be a pointless waste of time. I personally doubt a second AFD would result in merge/deletion, but it wouldn't be out of process.

As you say, radical rewrite is not what the OP proposed. Therefore one or more separate threads would be better organization. Just my educated opinion. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:44, 2 October 2024 (UTC)Reply