Talk:E. Jean Carroll

message: This article's citations (current diff) need significant improvement. The refs themselves need to be formatted appropriately and placed in the body text with ref tags. See WP:FN, WP:REF and WP:CITET. Adrian M. H. 21:15, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The whole rape allegation is indeed just a cute story and should be deleted as Wikipedia is not a gossip column. An F in journalism would be valid a consideration in deeming the accuser non-credible. (PeacePeace (talk) 02:46, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Citation style

message: Time to lock this one.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:2C4:C480:19E7:7DF7:DB9F:BD82:1CA2 (talk) 01:02, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uh oh 

message: Do not remove the references section. Eyer (talk) 01:12, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: At least one source says that the "Trump photo" was at an NBC party (quote) with her then-husband news anchor John Johnson (unquote).
Shouldn't there be this kind of material included, assuming that it isn't ghost-written by the subject of the article? 2600:8807:4800:463:65B1:98A5:DB60:DA5B (talk) 04:00, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I added her husband and made n info-box, his page is already linked to hers so I don't see why her page shouldn't be linked to him. Frakkler (talk) 10:38, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  As regards Personal Life (no marriage info in template?) 

message: Could someone please include this person's Jewish ancestry in the article? It looks like a vandal removed the ancestry.
https://www.jpost.com/American-Politics/Jewish-American-columnist-E-Jean-Carroll-claims-Trump-raped-her-593302
P0G41oxepU (talk) 21:06, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: This edit  wasn't vandalism. Acroterion (talk) 21:11, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The source was bad but the information was excellent. P0G41oxepU (talk) 22:24, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: In general, Wikipedia articles don't mention religious identity or ethnicity along with nationality - "Jewish-American" is to be avoided, just as "Lutheran-American" would be inappropriate. Your edit to Paul Krugman's article was similarly inappropriate.  If a person's religious or ethnic makeup is a significant part of their identity, it may be mentioned in the article. Since there has been much mischief with agenda-driven editors tagging people as Jewish, such edits are regarded as red flags. Acroterion (talk) 22:31, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Why does the Jared Kushner article mention that they are jewish? P0G41oxepU (talk) 22:43, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Because he is and because it's a significant component of his personal identity,. But he's not described as "Jewish-American."  Acroterion (talk) 22:50, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  You said: "In general, Wikipedia articles don't mention religious identity." That observation is without a doubt false, I suggest you retract it. P0G41oxepU (talk) 22:54, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

text:  The sentence "Paul Krugman is a jew" is problematic because it sounds like it was written by someone who is a fascist or anti-semite. It is therefore better to write that someone is a Jewish American. P0G41oxepU (talk) 22:56, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I said "In general, Wikipedia articles don't mention religious identity or ethnicity along with nationality - "Jewish-American" is to be avoided, just as "Lutheran-American" would be inappropriate." Don't selectively quote me. Read how it is handled in the Kushner and Krugman articles. Acroterion (talk) 23:01, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Lutheran American is very good. Please fix it for me. P0G41oxepU (talk) 23:12, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

text:  hellowhy not mention her Jewish ancestry, while many other people are told having jewish ancestors even when they are not themselves jews? Now, if for you "jew" sounds antisemitic, does "american" sound antiamerican, or "chinese" sinophobic?It looks like her ancestry was hidden very conveniently, as a certain president denied to attack a certain country, and that upset another country which, somehow, has some ethnical links with the abovementionned woman who at the very same time pops out ex oblivio an alledged rape smany years ago so no one could even verify. Yet, I'm not accusing anyone about anything, that's just how things appear. Also, please get informed about Streisand effectRegards,2A01:E35:8BA5:E5B0:74AE:9BD7:38AC:68C7 (talk) 07:39, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandal removed ancestry 

message: ELC says she doesn't want to call the alleged aggression rape because she does not want to disrespect  women and children being attacked at the u.S.-Mexico border, but her description ("She continues, 'The next moment, still wearing correct business attire, shirt, tie, suit jacket, overcoat, he opens the overcoat, unzips his pants, and, forcing his fingers around my private area, thrusts his penis halfway — or completely, I'm not certain — inside me. It turns into a colossal struggle.' / 
Carroll added on The Last Word, 'It hurt, and it was against my will.'" (https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/writer-e-jean-carroll-no-disrespectful-rape-charges-trump-1220447)) is clearly one of rape. Should the Wikipedia article use this term in more than just saying the BBC called it (a) rape (allegation)? 37.99.49.67 (talk) 02:45, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: She didn't call it rape, so we call it rape (in wiki-voice) only if it is the majority viewpoint of the sources. The reason why we quote BBC is because it seems to be a minority viewpoint. starship.paint (talk) 03:00, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, Ms. Carroll has so far refused to refer to the incident as a rape,  yet what she describes fits the definition of rape in New York: "sexual intercourse ... by forcible compulsion." The Columbia Journalism Review reporting on the book excerpt published in New York Magazine, writes: "Despite the litany of claims against Trump, Carroll is only the second woman to publicly accuse him of rape." Despite her refusal to call it a rape, what she accuses Mr. Trump of doing fits the definition of rape and should be referred to as such.A.T.S. in Texas (talk) 01:54, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

text: Is "rape" a correct legal term in New York? It seems to me that most states now have "sexual assault" instead of "rape" as the crime. (PeacePeace (talk) 02:50, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: That is generally the case for criminal law, which is much more codified (for instance, see the Model Penal Code).  The suit here is civil in nature and basically for two torts: battery and defamation.  The wording is much looser when it comes to civil law.  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 00:51, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

text: Yes. "Rape" is defined in Article 130 of the New York State Penal Code. See the second reference in my comment above. I made a quick survey of the penal codes of the 10 most populous states. Only three — Texas, Florida, and Michigan — no longer define "rape" in their penal codes. A.T.S. in Texas (talk) 00:59, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a fair point, but again I feel the need to say this is not, and never was, a criminal trial. Dumuzid (talk) 01:01, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Rape' 

message: The Rape allegation is not based on a reliable source. The Anderson Cooper interview shows that the accuser is not a reliable source, thus any allegation is not based on a reliable source. There are not even any actual witnesses alleged. All references to this allegation are defamatory and should be deleted per our standards on Wikipedia.  Wikipedia is not a gossip column.  (PeacePeace (talk) 02:43, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not what 'reliable source' means in a Wikipedia context. It doesn't refer to Carroll herself, but to the media which have reported on her allegations; these have been reported widely in media sources considered reliable (such as Cooper's show), and as such are worth including here. (If the only source was Carroll herself, and her allegations hadn't been picked up anywhere else, they wouldn't be.) Their inclusion isn't making any judgment on the truth of those allegations; only recognising that they have been taken seriously by the media. Robofish (talk) 23:08, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  BLP Violation 

message: * https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/04/nyregion/jean-carroll-sues-trump.html
* https://www.politico.com/news/2019/11/04/e-jean-carroll-suing-trump-defamation-065423
* https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/04/politics/e-jean-carroll-trump-lawsuit-defamation/index.html
* https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/amberjamieson/e-jean-carroll-suing-trump-lawsuit
X1\ (talk) 23:52, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  add Trump defaming ? 

message: The section 'Sexual assault allegations' should be edited to fit WP:NPOV. The section places undue weight on whether or not her allegations should be described as "sexual assault" or "rape".  
The sentence "Carroll refused to say she was "raped", instead choosing to describe it thus: "My word is fight."(link) is not supported by the source material.  Carroll is not quoted as saying that and it is a misrepresentation of the article. I have removed this line as per WP:Vandal
I have flagged the article for 'Tone'.    --CopyTheEdit (talk) 17:44, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: It is supported by the source, which says:  M.Bitton (talk) 17:57, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The quote "My word is fight" cannot be found in the article. I have removed it.  Feel free to use the source to find a quote that she actually said, but we should be wary because the overuse of quotations is partly the reason why this section is flagged for "Tone" in the first place. --CopyTheEdit (talk) 18:15, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not that hard to find the transcript of the interview and other sources supporting that quote. Therefore, I will restore it. M.Bitton (talk) 19:20, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Very well.  Thank you.  I added more of the quotation for context and have been copyediting the rest of the article.  I am keeping "tone" tag in place because this section still has some serious issues. --CopyTheEdit (talk) 21:23, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tone in 'Sexual assault allegations' 

message: My edit of the text below in the Donald Trump sexual assault allegation section was removed. The reverter, SPECIFICO, claimed it was "poorly sourced". However, it contained 3 citations to sources that are considered generally reliable at WP:RSP, all 3 completely quoted her statement. I included the transcript from CNN itself for reference. I will remove the Rolling Stone citation, I thought this would be considered a "cultural matter" but it is a bit contentious. I see no reason to believe it's poorly sourced beyond the rolling stone citation. His second reason for reversal was that it "elevated right-wing chatter". This is not a valid reason for this content to not be included, all that matters is whether it's verifiable and WP:DUE, which appears to be the case with the RS coverage. Additionally, her "rape is sexy" comment was covered by NYT and the Guardian. Both could be cited with the text. I believe my text should be restored. 
Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 21:09, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Slate and the Guardian had far more insightful things to contribute than this quote in question which seems to border on victim blaming. Slate: “Carroll’s essay risks a great deal, in short, to acknowledge the blundering human complexity of the situation.” Both sources note that Carol’s writing style all throughout her life has been frank and unusual. I don’t think it is helpful to hone in on the comment Carol made about the tendency for rape fantasies to be common in the general public  while in reality no one actually wants to be sexually assaulted (keep in mind that she’s served for years as an advice columnist). The quote is too problematic and doesn’t need to be in an encyclopedic article about Caroll. Cedar777 (talk) 22:39, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  there is a current discussion about this a WP:BLPN with a differing proposal. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 22:42, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

text: The first sentence is OK. The second sentence was rejected for good reason clearly explained at BLPN, and shoud be removed. SPECIFICO talk 00:34, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  It was not rejected anywhere. The majority of editors at BLPN seemed to agree that this should be mentioned at some capacity. You are arguing against the pulse of the community, you were the only editor in the discussion who rejected this to be included at some capacity. You need to stop conflating you rejecting something with the community rejecting something, we're supposed to be cautious when accessing consensus of discussion we're involved. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 00:37, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I am afraid that I have come around closer to SPECIFICO'S point of view on this; I think maybe the first sentence is the important one, and the rest drags it down into needless and likely-to-be-forgotten detail.  That being said, I still don't have strident feelings one way or the other on this.  If we were to include the rest, I feel that it might be best to avoid "fear" being cited, even though it's in one of the sources.  I just feel it's too loaded in the context.  Eager to hear what others think.  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 02:22, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rape is "sexy" comment  

message: After a productive discussion at BLPN, I would like to propose this revision for inclusion in this article. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 00:07, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: The first sentence is OK. The second sentence was rejected for good reason clearly explained at BLPN, and shoud be removed. SPECIFICO talk 00:34, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  It was not rejected anywhere. The majority of editors at BLPN seemed to agree that this should be mentioned at some capacity. You are arguing against the pulse of the community, you were the only editor in the discussion who rejected this to be included at some capacity. You need to stop conflating you rejecting something with the community rejecting something, we're supposed to be cautious when accessing consensus of discussion we're involved. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 00:37, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I am afraid that I have come around closer to SPECIFICO'S point of view on this; I think maybe the first sentence is the important one, and the rest drags it down into needless and likely-to-be-forgotten detail.  That being said, I still don't have strident feelings one way or the other on this.  If we were to include the rest, I feel that it might be best to avoid "fear" being cited, even though it's in one of the sources.  I just feel it's too loaded in the context.  Eager to hear what others think.  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 02:22, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: New proposition

message: Please keep in mind WP:SUMMARYSTYLE, WP:NOTNEWS, and most of all WP:DUEWEIGHT. The lawsuit stuff was over twice as long as the entirety of her career, and much of it had nothing to do with her. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:39, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent removal 

message: How about the article on this book by this author?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.41.98.105 (talk) 16:24, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: What about it? Dumuzid (talk) 16:26, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

text: It's already mentioned and referenced several times in this article. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:43, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: [[What Do We Need Men For?: A Modest Proposal]]

message: So, I'm really fine with this, and I definitely don't want to create a stir like we have on the Trump page, but I was thinking that, perhaps, the order of this discussion of the jury finding doesn't make a ton of sense.
 (refs removed)
First, an uncontroversial factual error: the jury found that Trump had battered Carroll by committing sexual abuse—not assault, and the abuse and battery claims were not separate. I'd suggest. replaced "sexual assault, battery and defamation" with "sexual abuse and defamation".
Second, as to the order: I understand the concern—not wanting to imply that the jury found that Trump didn't rape Carroll. But my hesitation is that this ordering makes it seem as though the rape finding was somehow distinct from the other findings in terms of the burden of proof. To put it another way, we could (to be clear: we shouldn't), accurately, describe the verdict as follows:
What I'm trying to illustrate there is that all the claims were judged by the preponderance of the evidence standard and based on the evidence presented. So why only mention the preponderance standard in connection with the rape finding?---Jerome Frank Disciple 18:04, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I just deleted the mention of preponderance.  JSFarman (talk) 18:32, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

text: There are many places that report that Trump was found innocent of rape or something similar. These are not reliable sources, but it points to the need for clarity. I think the current phrasing is clear to careful readers, but could be misconstrued. I'm not sure the phrase "preponderance of evidence" needs to be there, but I suspect that it should be there in some way. RoyLeban (talk) 01:43, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: So, a couple of thoughts here.  Technically, the defamation had to be proven to a clear and convincing standard (at least as to actual malice), rather than preponderance.  I also don't like stating these in an ontological sort of way; I might suggest something like "Carroll had proven sexual abuse and defamation to a civil standard, but not her allegation of rape."  Or some such.  I am wrong plenty, though.  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 02:01, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Great point that the actual-malice and the falsity elements of the defamation claims were made on the clear and convincing standard! I didn't realize that Carroll had been termed a public figure. I'm okay with your suggestion! We could also merge it: "" (I usually don't use terms like "claims" or "allegation" per MOS:SAID ... but, here, we are actually talking about legal claims and allegations.--Jerome Frank Disciple 14:55, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

text: The withdrawal of Tacopina and his high profile firm, after lengthy representation, in the middle of the suit, is certainly notable and should remain in the article. Activist (talk) 17:14, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion of lawsuit 

message: Outcome of second defamation lawsuit is noted as January 26 2023. Should be 2024 91.153.39.243 (talk) 22:26, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed!  Thanks, and good eye.  Happy Friday. Dumuzid (talk) 22:42, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect date on lawsuit outcome 

message: The last sentence (On January 26, 2024...) of the segment before the last segment (On January 16, 2024...) of the section https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._Jean#Defamation_lawsuit should be chronologically ordered and moved to the end, imho. Like it is now, when looking for the latest developments, you think first they are missing, before hopefully scrolling and reading "backwards".
By the way, it cannot be said loud enough what a HERO E. Jean really is in bravery and dignity for standing up against all this hellfire of years-long smear terror and torture perpetrated by trump and all his horrible and violent cult devotees. She more than qualifies for any nobel price! --92.224.45.241 (talk) 01:19, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: @92.224.45.241 the whole article should be in chronological order. EJC seems to be editing this. this is currently organized like  promotional text. 3MRB1 (talk) 23:13, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chronological order 

message: please change "She launched an online version of her column, askejean.com, in 2007. Ten years later Carroll co-founded Tawkify" to "She launched an online version of her column, askejean.com, in 2007. Five years later Carroll co-founded Tawkify" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tawkify Wikieditorsupreme (talk) 05:12, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: changed it to "in 2012" Cannolis (talk) 06:41, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 27 January 2024 

message: Significant detail .. says in the mid 90s when pressed .. now says Quote "On June 21, 2019, E. Jean Carroll published an article in New York magazine which stated that Donald Trump had sexually assaulted her in late 1995 or early 1996.. more correct she .her words .. very revealing .. deceptive to not include this lack of certainity when challenging an ex president
The article should highlight this more as some would find this very odd creating reasonable doubt.  Deserves the phrase before Christams or after the New Year .. a woman would know ! https://www.google.com/search?q=jean+carol+late+96+early+97+trump&client=ms-android-rogers-ca&sca_esv=552091c792bf3734&sxsrf=ACQVn086h3WHHGHyKwdWXJsUnCzT9VlL_Q%3A1706573344854&ei=ID64ZeTjM4mdkPIP3vu94AU&ved=0ahUKEwjk84KQ6YOEAxWJDkQIHd59D1wQ4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=jean+carol+late+96+early+97+trump&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiIWplYW4gY2Fyb2wgbGF0ZSA5NiBlYXJseSA5NyB0cnVtcEj-IlAAWPAdcAF4AZABAJgBmQGgAYAHqgEDMC43uAEDyAEA-AEB-AECqAIUwgIHECMY6gIYJ8ICExAAGIAEGIoFGEMY6gIYtALYAQHCAhkQLhiABBiKBRhDGMcBGNEDGOoCGLQC2AEBwgIUEAAYgAQY4wQY6QQY6gIYtALYAQHCAgcQIRgKGKABwgIEECEYFeIDBBgAIEG6BgYIARABGAE&sclient=gws-wiz-serp 207.60.92.11 (talk) 00:15, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: We don't really consider reasonable doubt when creating our articles; Wikipedia is not a court room.  A google search is not a particularly persuasive source for you to link.  If you could find us something in a reliable source that explicitly says that the timing uncertainty is an important factor, we would consider it.  I personally would want to see multiple sources to that effect.  As someone who is plenty old enough to remember 28 years ago, I find it not at all remarkable that a memory might waiver over a period of two weeks or so.  But reasonable minds may certainly differ on the point.  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 00:24, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: RUIN HER CHRISTMAS . . remember that detail .. starting a New Year would be an impactful memory.. Conciousness does not just block that out and say NOT SURE IT AFFECTED MY HOLIDAYS .. ruin a person's Christmas for sure if that happened .. certainty of fact is important when daming an ex President .. removed the ability to give an alibi by a former President is a signifcant detail in law .. this lapse by Jean Carol deserves an extra sentence in the Jean Carol wiki article .. Christmas is a hook memories are build from and is not just any another irrelavant time of year for  most all people who celebrate Christmas and New Year  https://www.criminalnotebook.ca/index.php/Alibi#Notice_and_Disclosure 207.60.92.11 (talk) 01:39, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I mean, this is fine as an argument for your friends, but it's not really something with which we deal on Wikipedia.  Again, find it in a reliable source, and we can talk.  Until then, we're essentially dealing with original research.  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 01:53, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Was it before Christmas or after the New Year --  

message: seems to have wrong URL as it does not mention Fran Lebowitz “Why We Camp”  cover story from Outside Magazine, July/ August  1983 3MRB1 (talk) 23:37, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: There have been so many references added/moved around that I can't distinguish between them.  But this is the reference that was originally titled "NYT gonzo", and it includes exactly that information: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/29/opinion/e-jean-carroll-audacity-donald-trump.html ("She profiled Lyle Lovett and went camping with the notorious New York curmudgeon Fran Lebowitz for a cover story in Outside.")  Thanks for pointing it out! If you can sort out the references, perhaps you can fix it.  JSFarman (talk) 19:48, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: @JSFarman  which edit changed that? 3MRB1 (talk) 01:22, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: My mistake. The cite "NYT gonzo" is correct. It reports that she went on a camping trip with Fran Liebowitz (which is what I added to the article when I edited it in March 2021). JSFarman (talk) 02:07, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: @JSFarman  current URL is https://web.archive.org/web/20190627102400/https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/27/us/politics/jean-carroll-trump-sexual-assault.html 3MRB1 (talk) 02:14, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: WHEN DID https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/29/opinion/e-jean-carroll-audacity-donald-trump.html CHANGE TO https://web.archive.org/web/20190627102400/https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/27/us/politics/jean-carroll-trump-sexual-assault.html WHICH EDIT? 3MRB1 (talk) 02:16, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:  3MRB1 (talk) 02:20, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: The "NYT gonzo" ref wasn't "The Audacity of E. Jean Carroll" -- that was my mistake -- it was "Why E. Jean Carroll, ‘the Anti-Victim,’ Spoke Up About Trump" (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/27/us/politics/jean-carroll-trump-sexual-assault.html). The URL used was correct.  It appears that the incorrect Wayback Machine url was added yesterday. . JSFarman (talk) 02:46, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  <ref name="NYT gonzo">