Talk:Michelle Fields

Impact on Breitbart

Should the page mention that a number of Breitbart News writers including Ben Shapiro quit in protest of Breitbart’s treatment of Michelle Fields vis-à-vis the Corey Lewandowski Incident? 198.200.115.29 (talk) 14:02, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because it is about a journalist and political commentator. I am currently finding my sources and editing the entry. It should be done in a day or two. She is a very well documented political journalist who deserves a wikipedia entry.

This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because she is a well documented political journalist who deserves a Wikipedia entry. I am new to Wikipedia, so am still learning the etiquette, but I am adding my links and references. Please do not delete this. I should have something cohesive together very soon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jloveness (talk • contribs) 08:27, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because she is a notable political journalist. The article is well cited and researched. This journalist is an up and coming media head and should be documented on Wikipedia. — Sethward (talk) 09:35, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

This article should not be speedily deleted because it is now politically neutral — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.143.14.13 (talk) 02:52, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Where's the picture?

A picture or action photo always improves an article. -- AstroU (talk) 22:34, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Gateway blogger

An WP:SPA with an agenda placed a blogger's video here as a reference to make a claim Fields is lying. [1]. At this website, however, neither the 4-second video nor the 30-second video there, the latter of which has significantly obstructed views, confirm what the blogger's headline claims. That, in addition to the fact no WP:RS outlet reported on or corroborates it, makes it a WP:FRINGE claim. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:05, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

March 30th edits

A redlink editor with an apparent political agenda has been editing this and Corey Lewandowski in ways that violate WP:SYNTH by using uncited, cherry-picked facts and personal observations to push an argument, rather than being neural. I'd like to get other opinions on the below, with my comments in boldface.

Lewandowski also characterized Fields as "delusional," and suggested that she had fabricated the story just to attract attention to herself. [Anyone can "characterize" or "suggest"; aside from the fact that Lewandowski is not a mental-health professional re: "delusional", the pertinent point is his denial, which is mentioned and cited. The sentence amounts to a negative opinion, and not a fact. Additionally, we have the text of his tweet in a citation, so this sentence is not even needed even if it weren't inappropriate.] Thereafter, law enforcement officials retrieved surveillance video recordings of the incident, which showed Lewandowski behind Fields and Trump who were walking side-by-side in conversation, with Lewandowski suddenly approaching Fields from behind, reaching toward her and grabbing her arm, jerking her backward and away from Trump as he stepped past Fields and proceeded to walk with Trump. [This is a personal, POV description, aside from being uncited. The pertinent fact is the police released a video. Any uncited description of the video is pure POV.]

--Tenebrae (talk) 19:43, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree these edits are problematic and non-neutral, and think your comments are accurate. This page has been getting a ton of vandalism/POV edits due to being in the news. Do you think we should request page protection? It wouldn't be a silver bullet but could perhaps slow the tide of POV edits. Safehaven86 (talk) 19:52, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

I do, for this and Corey Lewandowski both. Anything involving politics brings out partisans who seek to use Wikipedia as a soapbox.--Tenebrae (talk) 19:55, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Ok, I will request page protection. Safehaven86 (talk) 19:56, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

I worked very hard to figure out the timeline of events for what happened with the Lewandowski allegations, and I just finished. However, after I was finished someone added something that sounds extremely biased and lacks any sources. Someone wrote this: "It was also revealed she is poised to release a newly published book which likely explains her desire to gain media attention, as most people are likely unfamilar with her. Throughout her largely failed career, she has shown a propensity for shameless self-promotion so this is likely a similar stunt." I am deleting it, just fyi. Skatz613 (talk) 07:45, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Look I am trying to be neutral here. We have to provide her version of the facts and the other side's version. Someone deleted the interview with the Secret Service that gives Trump's version of the events, as well as a report that the prosecutor is part of Hillary's Florida Democratic team. Someone also moved her allegations against the NYPD and instead of putting it in a different section, merged it into her career blurb. What gives? This was the original direct quote from the source BTW:

"A member of Trump's U.S. Secret Service detail stated that Fields made physical contact with Trump twice – and was warned by agents to stop – before Lewandowski pulled her away from the billionaire. In a statement, Lewandowski stated he is "absolutely innocent of this charge," and will plead not guilty.[23] At or around this time it emerged that Palm Beach County State Attorney Dave Aronberg, the prosecutor who charged Lewandowski, is a member of the 150-member Florida Leadership Council, which was established by the Democratic Party to promote Hillary Clinton’s presidential candidacy."

Why is this changed to support a pro-Fields version of what happened by providing her witness corroboration but denying Secret Service member's account? And the biggest offense is deleting the multiple sources that I provided and now I have to waste time finding and adding them here. There were two or so more sources, no time to find. I would like others to comment on this please, thank you! Skatz613 (talk) 16:31, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's accurate to claim that the article is pro-Fields, given the well-cited denials by the Lewandowski side, which suggests balance to me. Be that as it may, the first cite above has anonymously sourced claims by a tabloid. WP:BIO doesn't accept shadowy, unconfirmed, anonymously sourced claims even for something as prosaic as two celebrities allegedly breaking up. The other two cites comprise a WP:SYNTH argument that the prosecutor is biased, which is an opinion and not a confirmable fact. Aside from this being SYNTH generally, it accuses a living person of misusing his office and violating ethics, though he has not been charged with any such crimes. Such accusatory opinions are disallowed under Wikipedia guidelines at WP:BLPCRIME. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:47, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

@Skatz613: You know, I went back in and removed the pro-Fields content you mentioned, in order to make the section neutral. You should not then go in and violate WP:NOTTABLOID and WP:BLPCRIME. We've already warned one partisan, pro-Lewandowski editor about edit-warring. I hope we don't have to repeat that. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:06, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Removing the "pro-Field's" content just muddles things and makes it unclear as to what happened. A person has to be able to read this and understand what did she say and what did they say and what does the evidence say. Basically this is one version of facts and another version of facts. You have Fields and Terris and no other person among the hundreds there. Then you have Lewandowski and secret service and Trump on the other hand. Trump is saying that she touched him first and there are pictures of this. I didn't want to mention it like that, that is when it sounds partisan. But you are completely whitewashing things here. The opening quote which is straight from her own Breitbart article is the only printed allegation of what she said happened. How can you take that out? You are the one who is making it pro-Fields. And a secret service officer cannot do an interview on the record. This information is out there on TV media and there is a news source (not a tabloid) that covers this. The daily mail piece was authored by political journalists. Go and look at the article.

I do not want a war with you but I was the one who took the time to research the time line. Then you went and butchered it. I suggest you insert your proposed version and we discuss it here since it was I who took the time to do a time line of events. I request that another person who is not your friend chime in and comment. Skatz613 (talk) 17:31, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

One more thing, about the Clinton connection, this is a statement of fact and there is no slant on it as you suggest. The Boston Herald picked it up, not me. Did you read the sources? Did I slant the information? No. It is a fact that the prosecutor is a supporter. People should be aware and I believe that my version is extremely neutral since I work as a professional editor. Again please comments from others. Skatz613 (talk) 17:42, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't think you might be aware of all the pertinent WIkipedia policies and guidelines. With this edit, you changed the consensus version done by three editors — myself, Safehaven86, and Vesuvius Dogg. When I restored the status quo, you, per WP:BRD, were supposed to discuss the issue on the talk page. Instead, you began edit-warring here.

I've explained your violation of WP:BLPCRIME and WP:NOTTABLOID. Are you really arguing against those policies? --Tenebrae (talk) 17:43, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Wait so now you say that three editors were involved in the change but previously you stated "You know, I went back in and removed the pro-Fields content you mentioned, in order to make the section neutral." So was it three editors or just you? How come no one else signed off on the changes? Again, I believe that instead of butchering the time line that I spent a lot of time on with your one-sided edits, you should have discussed the edits and waited for others to comment instead of unilaterally changing what I wrote. I spent hours researching this. Wiki is a community of editors who do research to try to provide neutrality. I spent a lot of time trying to figure out for myself what each side said happened. So tell me why you are not answering my substantive questions about how you can possibly cover this in Wiki but not include "In her own words" what Fields wrote about what happened? How can you not include the fact (written in a highly neutral way) that the prosecutor is in Clinton's Florida team? The Clinton reference read as follows "Palm Beach County State Attorney Dave Aronberg, the prosecutor who charged Lewandowski, is a member of the 150-member Florida Leadership Council, which was established by the Democratic Party to promote Hillary Clinton’s presidential candidacy." It is a fact, no spin. It is written in an extremely neutral way and it is not implying anything, but the media has picked up on this and you cannot just omit facts. Omissions are a form of POV. Skatz613 (talk) 17:55, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

RE your first point: As I provided in the links, you reverted to a version from before the three other editors edited. And indeed you were correct that the balance had shifted to pro-Fields, so I corrected that. I'm not sure what your complaint is, other than that you want to make it pro-Lewandowski.

RE: your second point. Please read WP:BLPCRIME. As I have already stated here and you're apparently ignoring: "The other two cites comprise a WP:SYNTH argument that the prosecutor is biased, which is an opinion and not a confirmable fact. Aside from this being SYNTH generally, it accuses a living person of misusing his office and violating ethics, though he has not been charged with any such crimes. Such accusatory opinions are disallowed under Wikipedia guidelines at WP:BLPCRIME." Cherry-picking facts to imply someone is unethical or is committing a crime is not allowed, as per WP:SYNTH. So let's start with BLPCRIME. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:06, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

RE your first point: As I provided in the links, you reverted to a version from before the three other editors edited. And indeed you were correct that the balance had shifted to pro-Fields, so I corrected that. I'm not sure what your complaint is, other than that you want to make it pro-Lewandowski.

− OK so here is another article. Skatz613 (talk) 18:03, 31 March 2016 (UTC) And here is another article with pictures.

RE: your second point. Please read WP:BLPCRIME. As I have already stated here and you're apparently ignoring: "The other two cites comprise a WP:SYNTH argument that the prosecutor is biased, which is an opinion and not a confirmable fact. Aside from this being SYNTH generally, it accuses a living person of misusing his office and violating ethics, though he has not been charged with any such crimes. Such accusatory opinions are disallowed under Wikipedia guidelines at WP:BLPCRIME." Cherry-picking facts to imply someone is unethical or is committing a crime is not allowed, as per WP:SYNTH. So let's start with BLPCRIME. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:06, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

− I didn't say Fields lied. I didn't say Lewandowski lied. I am presenting the available facts and my version was extremely neutral. Yours was not because you omitted the allegations. Without the allegations and without the secret service statements it is a pro-Fields slant. Do you want to say that pictures emerged that Fields touched Trump before Lewandowski grabbed her? We can do that too, since the pictures are out there. You know that this is serious stuff. Your slant is serious. People come to Wiki for neutrality not partisan politics. Skatz613 (talk) 18:11, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

OK so include the fact as follows, this doesn't violateWP:BLPCRIME or WP:SYNTH : "Palm Beach County State Attorney Dave Aronberg, the prosecutor who charged Lewandowski, is a member of the 150-member Florida Leadership Council, which was established by the Democratic Party to promote Hillary Clinton’s presidential candidacy.". How is this insinuating the prosecutor is biased? It is a fact. We are not making inferences from this fact.Skatz613 (talk) 18:16, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Because you're cherry-picking facts and synthesizing them to make an argument. "The Prosecutor is a Clinton supporter." And that is relevant how?

The purported Secret Service statements are anonymous claims by a tabloid. Per WP:NOTTABLOID and per WP:RS, we don't use shadowy, anonymous, unverified claims in a reliable-source magazine, let alone a tabloid like the Daily Mail. Anyone can claim anything. An anonymous unverified claim is a rumor. Wikipedia can only state verifiable facts, not rumors. You do understand that we don't accept anonymous rumors even to say that Celebrity X and Celebrity Y broke up, or that so-and-so is pregnant, right? This is the same thing. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:20, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

I am not proposing that the Wiki article should state that the prosecutor is a Clinton supporter!!! Did you read this: "Palm Beach County State Attorney Dave Aronberg, the prosecutor who charged Lewandowski, is a member of the 150-member Florida Leadership Council, which was established by the Democratic Party to promote Hillary Clinton’s presidential candidacy.". It doesn't say that he is a supporter. Why are you willfully misquoting me? That's the point. I am not providing spin but facts. But you are spinning the truth by omitting the facts.Skatz613 (talk) 18:38, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

You quote that the prosecutor "is a member of the 150-member Florida Leadership Council, which was established by the Democratic Party to promote Hillary Clinton’s presidential candidacy." And yet you say you're stating that this suggests he is a Clinton supporter. Really?

You also didn't answer my question. The prosecutor's purported political beliefs are relevant to Michelle Fields how? --Tenebrae (talk) 19:20, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Here is my latest version: On March 8, 2016, Breitbart reporter Michelle Fields alleged that Trump campaign Manager, Corey Lewandowski forcibly grabbed her down as Donald J. Trump was walking out of his press conference at the Trump National Golf Club in Jupiter, Florida.[1] http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2016/03/10/3276486/

Fields penned an article on Breitbart on March 10, where she stated: "Trump acknowledged the question, but before he could answer I was jolted backwards. Someone had grabbed me tightly by the arm and yanked me down. I almost fell to the ground, but was able to maintain my balance. Nonetheless, I was shaken. The Washington Post’s Ben Terris immediately remarked that it was Trump’s campaign manager, Corey Lewandowski, who aggressively tried to pull me to the ground. I quickly turned around and saw Lewandowski and Trump exiting the building together. No apology. No explanation for why he did this."[2] http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2016/03/10/3276486/ Also on March 10, 2016, an audio recording of Fields' conversation with Ben Terris of The Washington Post was released, however no video footage had emerged yet.[3] http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-media/2016/03/transcript-corey-lewandowski-breitbart-reporter-attack-220589 In a series of tweets, fellow Breitbart reporter Patrick Howley suggested that Fields release a video of the alleged attack, and Breitbart indefinitely suspended Howley for casting doubt on Fields' account.[4]https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/03/10/donald-trumps-campaign-just-outdid-itself-with-its-brazen-disregard-for-the-truth/

On March 11, 2016, Breitbart issued a statement supporing Fields.  [4]https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/03/10/donald-trumps-campaign-just-outdid-itself-with-its-brazen-disregard-for-the-truth/

However, after Lewandowski denied that he had grabbed Fields and referred to her as "delusional," on March 11, Fields filed a police report with the Jupiter police department alleging simple battery.[5] Ravi Somaiya, Breitbart Journalist Files Police Report Alleging Battery at Trump Event, New York Times (March 11, 2016). The Trump campaign also denied Fields' account.[6][7][8] http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/11/politics/donald-trump-breitbart-reporter-michelle-fields-corey-lewandowski/ Fields resigned from Breitbart News on March 13, 2016 citing the site's response to her alleged assault.[9] http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/03/14/breitbart-reporter-editor-resign-over-response-to-alleged-assault-by-trump-campaign-manager.html On March 11, partial video footage emerged. http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/trump-breitbart-reporter-michelle-fields-made-alleged-lewandowski-assault-n536451

On March 29, Lewandowski turning himself in on the misdemeanor charge of simple battery.[11] The Jupiter police department stated that Lewandowski was released and his initial court appearance is scheduled for May 4.[11] The department also released new video provided by Trump National Golf Club that shows the alleged incident from an overhead angle.[11] A member of Trump's U.S. Secret Service detail stated that Fields made physical contact with Trump twice – and was warned by agents to stop – before Lewandowski pulled her away from the billionaire.[12] In a statement, Lewandowski stated he is "absolutely innocent of this charge," and will plead not guilty.[11] Palm Beach County State Attorney Dave Aronberg, the prosecutor who charged Lewandowski, is a member of the 150-member Florida Leadership Council, which was established by the Democratic Party to promote Hillary Clinton’s presidential candidacy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skatz613 (talk • contribs) 18:38, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

@Skatz613: Your version still suffers from WP:ICANTHEARYOU, in that you continue to ignore warnings that Wikipedia cannot use anonymous sources that allegedly spoke to a tabloid (the Daily Mail). You're willfully ignoring WP:NOTTABLOID and WP:RS. Anonymous tabloid claims are not usable. You need to address that.--Tenebrae (talk) 19:27, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Edits are most likely coming from the Donald Trump subreddit, I recommend locking the page.--Craigboy (talk) 18:45, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

@Skatz613: to be entirely honest, I didn't think a COATRACK would be coming from the other side on this article, but, we can't really give that much attribution to the Attorney General being a Hillary supporter, being as that violates WP:SYNTHESIS. DaltonCastle (talk) 20:20, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

For the record, I disagree that the source used was unreliable. The Boston Herald, is a reliable source, generally. But that does not justify inclusion. DaltonCastle (talk) 20:22, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, The Boston Herald is reliable. I was referring to anonymous "Secret Service agent" claims purportedly made to the Daily Mail, a generally non-RS tabloid. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:37, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Craigboy, I am not in any way related to Trump or reddit but I do agree that the piece should be locked. Before we lock it, I see that someone edited it again. It's not bad but we should consider adding: 1) On March 29th, Trump said Fields “shouldn’t have been touching me." 2) Palm Beach County State Attorney Dave Aronberg, the prosecutor who charged Lewandowski, is a member of the 150-member Florida Leadership Council, which was established by the Democratic Party to promote Hillary Clinton’s presidential candidacy. Basically the way I see it both parties have their point of view but the truth is always in the middle. Video clearly shows Fields touching Trump, and Lewandowski touching Fields. After that it is up to the judge to decide based on the relevant law. Police get a lot of police reports but the prosecutor decides what reports are followed through with. So the affiliation of Aronberg is important, and the source is the Boston Herald. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skatz613 (talk • contribs) 20:43, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

You're refusing to answer a key question: Why do you think the prosecutor's being a member of the council important?

You also appear to be saying Fields "deserved" being allegedly grabbed. Otherwise, what is the point including her allegedly touching Trump? --Tenebrae (talk) 20:57, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

I believe I answered it but I was typing and you beat me so I have to resolve the conflict. Police get a lot of police reports but the prosecutor decides what reports are followed through with. See this please. So the affiliation of Aronberg is important, and the source is the Boston Herald. So do you understand that I would never state that the prosecutor is a Clinton supporter in the Wiki text? That is clearly a leading statement. It is important and people have to know that he is part of that membership team of 150 people. I would add the following sentence "Palm Beach County State Attorney Dave Aronberg, the prosecutor who charged Lewandowski, is a member of the 150-member Florida Leadership Council, which was established by the Democratic Party to promote Hillary Clinton’s presidential candidacy." How can you not understand that this is important? This is like stating that Politician X's superpac is funded by Corporation Y. That is a fact that you can do whatever you want with but it is still a fact. Fact is he was announced as part of this 150 member team, I think I read last November. Why is that stating that it is politically motivated? It is something that the public should be aware of. It is a fact, and again it has a reliable source and must be kept, not deleted. After that you should lock the page until further updates.Skatz613 (talk) 21:13, 31 March 2016 (UTC) Skatz613 (talk) 21:13, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Again I am not the judge. I am trying my best to provide a balanced view because I know that people are up in arms blaming one side or the other. And that is wrong. But you present her side vividly by stating what she claims happened. And now you have video where there wasn't any, and we see she was touching Trump and then the guy touched her. I don't know how hard the touches were or what happened. Again we are not the judge. But when you have ANY situation you always have multiple versions of what happened. You should read some criminal cases and you will know what I am talking about. I am not saying she deserved it. How can I say that? I am saying that it has to be pointed out that she was in his space. Pardon me but whatever we might think about Trump, he is still a presidential candidate, and he was done answering questions. He was walking out. And here a reporter touches him. I don't see how you can omit that. It's on tape and there are pictures. You might not like it but there are always multiple understandings of a single event. You have to present a balanced version of what happened. Otherwise, the way this reads it looks like she was assaulted and he denied it. And yes you use the word assault, but whatever words you use you have to present the evolution of the facts. Skatz613 (talk) 21:13, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Once more: You keep saying that the prosecutor's affiliation with some group is important. Why is it important? Perhaps he belongs to the Kennel Club, or the Elks. People belong to a lot of things. Why makes this one important?

Secondly, let me say I agree with you that her detailed description does not belong here. We state what she alleges, and we cite it. Anything more than that seems imbalanced to me, and I remove her direct statements while leaving the citation to those statements. I removed them before and if other editors don't object, I'd liek to remove them again.

OK so not much time here I wasn't saying that but you should KEEP her description of what happened but maybe we can say that there have been further developments and that one cannot pass judgment either way until the court's decision.

As for someone being touched in a crowded room — so what? If Trump were to file assault charges against her, that would be notable. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:31, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Well Trump said he might but you don't include that here. That's why it is imbalanced; you only provide one side of the actual account. I am sure that no one noticed her when "it" actually happened otherwise a bunch of people would come forward. Probably what happened is that both Trump and his man forgot passing by her and even grabbing her because I don't see that it was an issue. The allegations came afterwards when her boyfriend sent out a tweet. It's not like everyone stopped and said oh no what happened to you and that someone tried to help her or whatever. All the allegations came after the fact. And it's like that doesn't even cross your mind to say that? You think it is imbalanced to include the fact that she touched him first? I don't and it's not because I am biased. I think anyone who knows the story line knows that this is relevant. It's a crowded room and she has only one witness, added to the fact that the allegations came later. This is important context. I do think that it would be informative to say that she touched him first because that is what he later claimed happened after everyone saw the video. So that is clearly relevant because this stuff didn't happen in a vacuum.

@Skatz613: while it is indeed interesting, that does not mean it belongs in the article. Perhaps, if revelations came out that there was a deliberate, concerted effort, then the best avenue to pursue would be creating a separate article. However, there have been no such revelations yet. So lets maintain neutrality - both ways. DaltonCastle (talk) 21:58, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

OK so here is the thing. IF this wasn't happening in an election cycle where Clinton was running against (probably) Trump, yes you are right. BUT give me a break, are you serious? You think that the fact that this prosecutor is on her select team is not relevant? I certainly think it is and I would want to know about this. Even after I am telling you that the prosecutor has discretion and chooses which cases to go forward with? Are you living under a rock or just naive? Prosecutors are elected officials in Florida! It is certainly a fact that is relevant in an election year. Shame on you if you allow partisan politics to blind your objectivity. Switch around the parties. Imagine for a second (yes it would be tough to imagine) that this wasn't Trump but Bernie. Or that the allegations were about Cruz's guy and the prosecutor was on a Trump team. This is extremely important. Again it is like disclosing the donor of a superpac. Is it saying more, no. Are we insinuating something? No. I want to hear other people (not your friends) discuss this. Can we flag the talk section for objective comments? Skatz613 (talk) 22:39, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

@Skatz613: I concur with DaltonCastle and Tenebrae, and prefer to keep the text pared down. Where would we draw the line? Should we include a line about the bruises? Should we write about the audiotape of the incident, and quote Fields' conversation with Terris which immediately followed the alleged assault? And what about Trump's recent counter-allegations and (potentially defamatory) retributive claims about Fields? He initially suggested she made it all up. Only since Lewandowski was charged, Trump has claimed Fields "grabbed" him twice, and has suggested to his supporters that the surveillance tape bears out such a claim (which it does not, in my view). The still image Trump tweeted (purporting to show him flinching from Fields' touch) is in fact a cropped image of a still from a sequence which shows him reaching with his right arm into his left jacket pocket to retrieve a pen, with which he subsequently signs an autograph. He's not flinching from anyone. It's all evident on tape, whether his supporters choose to see it that way or not.

So all that said, the article could easily become a coatrack of cross allegations, he-said, she-said. Wikipedia is not the venue to try the case. I'd prefer to keep it simple as it is, and let people argue these things out in other venues, pending the ultimate legal resolution. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 22:21, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

I disagree. It isn't a coatrack now. Her allegation must stand because it is the basis of her story and it was published by her in her own words. Skatz613 (talk) 22:39, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Again, no one is saying it isnt interesting. But its hearsay and conjecture. That's not what Wikipedia is. And above you made some statement that I do agree with. You said something along the lines of "maybe this sort of thing shouldn't be posted before the facts are ascertained". And I have been trying to do that. I recognize that, from your perspective, this and many other articles appear anti-Trump. But the solution is not to add pro-Trump content. The solution is to remove all bias. DaltonCastle (talk) 22:52, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Side note: any way we can create a new section now? This one is getting a little cumbersome to read through. DaltonCastle (talk) 22:53, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, let's have a new section. FWIW, Skatz613 deleted a paragraph of mine while replying to both you and me, so I have restored it. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 22:56, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

(talk) I don't know which paragraph you wrote. Please add it here in the talk before you change the text. Also, the second sentence was changed and it is misleading because the tone gives undue weight to Fields' account: "Writing in Breitbart Fields elaborated." This should be changed to "Writing in Breitbart, Fields claimed." And again her words must be preserved because that is the basis for everything that was stated publicly. We need many more people to chime in here though...But I will say that if you are a journalist you should sort of "recuse" yourself and refrain from commenting here. Because I know that the journalists are pro-Fields and we don't need bias. Skatz613 (talk) 01:01, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

You're certainly right on that point. And while my suspicions have been perked in the past by editors who were likely members of the press, I don't think Vesuvius Dogg is. That aside, I think this change is a simple and acceptable one. DaltonCastle (talk) 01:34, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

We can't use the word "claimed." Wikipedia guidelines are very clear on that.

In any case, since no one has raised objections to my suggestion of removing Fields' account since it doesn't add anything objectively factual, I will now do so, --Tenebrae (talk) 02:11, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Huh? With all due respect, I see nothing wrong with using that phrase. Its proper attribution of who said what. DaltonCastle (talk) 02:13, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Although I do like this new version. DaltonCastle (talk) 02:17, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. Plain vanilla is best with these kinds of things, I think. RE "claimed", please see Wikipedia Manual of Style at WP:CLAIM. --Tenebrae (talk) 02:45, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, exactly, as per WP:CLAIM we should avoid language that describes an allegation such as this as certain. Nothing has yet been proven. DaltonCastle (talk) 02:50, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Let's Try this Again

Who wrote this??? "On March 10, 2016, Fields wrote that, after she asked Donald Trump a question when he approached her after a March 8, 2016 press conference in Jupiter, Florida, she was jolted backward when someone grabbed her tightly by the arm and yanked her down; and that she almost fell to the ground but was able to maintain her balance." First of all HE didn't approach her. Second, where are your quotation marks??? Third, this is not a court of law. No bruise marks. This is not a trial. There are so many things that happened in the timeline. I am going to parse it down to the way it was. Remember Innocent Until PROVEN GUILTY. Less is more. Skatz613 (talk) 02:54, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

OK so I changed it to say that Fields said that Terris witnessed it. I would actually remove that because it doesn't add anything. If he is a witness in the court case, that is a different story, but again this is not a court case. I would just say: 1) she said X, 2) response from him and campaign was Y and charged on this date, with Z court date etc. Again, it is a big difference. There is so much material on what happened and so much passion on both sides we have to be careful to be as neutral as possible, and Tenebrae was right about keeping less information. I see the wisdom in that because people are cherry picking what is added and it gets to be annoying.Skatz613 (talk) 03:38, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Well said. Even my better angels couldn't keep me from adding something about the bruises, but I agree it's best to keep this simple since there is so much passionate argument right now. If we take the very long view, none of these details will be important years ahead from a biographical perspective. (We had a similar spat on Antonin Scalia regarding various Texas details, you know, pillow talk.) Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 15:25, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

References

Fields' mother

I have removed some material that was copy pasted from gotnews.com, and hence possibly violated copyrights. I also didn't want to paraphrase the contents of this source as gotnews.com likely won't pass as a reliable source anyway. It is likely that the LA Times piece that was referenced, but wasn't actually cited, isn't very helpful since connecting Xiomara Fields to Michelle Fields in this case requires at least some original research. Politrukki (talk) 21:41, 20 April 2016 (UTC)