Talk:Donald Trump

Page views for this article over the last 30 days
Detailed traffic statistics

Why no lead citations?

There doesn't appear to be a single citation in the lead. Shouldn't there be, e.g. for assertions such as "Many of his statements in interviews, on Twitter, and at campaign rallies have been controversial or false"? WP:LEAD suggests that at least one or two wouldn't be out of order. Sleety Dribble (talk) 13:38, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

General consensus for this article is not to have citations in the lead. Please see talk page archives for more detail.- MrX 14:09, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Also WP:LEADCITE. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:04, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Let's fix the General Election campaign section

Right now, that section is quite messy, clutered with dozens of sources and literally an entire copy-pasted essay on taxes for some reason. And all in all, it's waaaaay too long. I'm proposing this:

General election campaign

Main article: United States presidential election, 2016

After becoming the presumptive Republican nominee, Trump's focus shifted to the general election, urging remaining primary voters to "save [their] vote for the general election." Trump began targeting Hillary Clinton, who became the presumptive Democratic nominee on June 6, 2016, and continued to campaign across the country. One month before the Republican National Convention, Secret Service agents thwarted an assassination attempt on Trump by a 20-year-old British man illegally residing in the U.S. during one of his rallies in Las Vegas.

Trump accepting the Republican nomination at the RNC, July 2016

Clinton had established a significant lead in national polls over Trump throughout most of 2016. In early July, Trump and Clinton became tied for the first time following the FBI's conclusion of its investigation into Clinton's ongoing email controversy. FBI Director James Comey concluded Clinton had been "extremely careless" in her handling of classified government material.

On July 15, 2016, Trump announced Indiana Governor Mike Pence as his running mate. Trump and Pence were formally nominated by the Republican Party on July 19, 2016, at the Republican National Convention. Two days later, Trump officially accepted the nomination in a 75-minute speech inspired by Richard Nixon's 1968 acceptance speech. The historically long speech was watched by nearly 35 million people and received mixed reviews, with 40% of Americans reacting positively while 48% of Americans saying it did not reflect their views.

Following the RNC, Trump became tied in national polls with Clinton following a 3 to 4 percentage point convention bounce. A week later, Clinton received a 7 percent convention bounce after her appearance at the DNC, extending her lead significantly in national polls at the start of August.

Two days before the second presidential debate, a 2005 recording surfaced in which Trump is heard discussing women using vulgar language and talking about his efforts to seduce a married woman. The recording, largely referred to by the media as the Trump Tapes, prompted Trump to make his first public apology during the campaign.

References

As far as I know, this covers the issue pretty well. Feel free to leave suggestions for adding or adapting certain parts, perhaps a part on the taxes etc. But I do believe this is already a big improvement on what we currently have. Let's work on this together, alright? :) —User1937 (talk) 16:24, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

I think this would be an improvement; it has gotten too cluttered for a biography. I think your simplification of the convention section is good, although you may have lost or misplaced a reference in the process. And I do think we need a brief mention of the tax issue, but not as long as it currently is. Tweaks I propose:

• Reference problem: Reference 7 shows Trump in the lead post convention. And there is no reference for the next sentence, about him being tied and having a 3-4 percent convention bounce.

• Add a one-sentence paragraph: Trump has declined to publicly release any of his tax returns, breaking a presidential campaign tradition that goes back to 1976.

• I do think moving the tapes out of the "debates" section is an improvement. But I would rewrite the last sentence to eliminate "largely referred to by the media as the Trump Tapes"; that really isn't a very common meme except as a hashtag. Instead I would add more about the uproar it caused. My suggestion:

Two days before the second presidential debate, a 2005 recording surfaced in which Trump is heard discussing women using vulgar language, talking about his efforts to seduce a married woman, and bragging that as a "star" he can kiss or fondle women at will. The recording touched off an immediate media and political uproar. Several Republicans renounced their support of Trump and some called for him to withdraw from the race. Trump issued a public apology, his first of the campaign, but said he would not withdraw.

References

Thanks for bringing this here for discussion, that is exactly the right thing to do with a controversial article like this. MelanieN (talk) 22:16, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

I haven't read the section on taxes yet (so can't comment on it), but I disagree that your proposals above that part are an improvement:

* It is more correct to say that Clinton's lead narrowed, rather than tied. Trump only ever tied or narrowly lead Clinton in 2 days in May and 2 days in July in the RCP polling average[1]. The HuffPo poll aggregator[2] shows her in a lead throughout the race, and so do the FiveThirtyEight poll aggregator[3].

* I don't understand why you prefer to mention the specific numbers in one poll on the reaction to his convention speech as opposed to the overall results in two polls.

* I lean towards keeping the text on how Trump's post-convention bounce measures up with past bounces. The convention is arguably the most important event of the election after the debates. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:37, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

it has gotten too cluttered for a biography. - For use with WP:SIZERULE, which applies to articles in general, the current readable prose size is 81 kB. I assume you could substitute "dramatically trimmed" for "divided". My only strong opinion is that it's damned annoying to wait about 10 seconds for a Wikipedia article to finish downloading. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:38, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

The Rappeport source links to a source with contradictory data; the article should mention both. Here's "draft UM/d" (the text is mostly from drafts written by User1937 and MelanieN and compiled, condensed, revised, and supplemented by dervorguilla).

After becoming the presumptive nominee, Trump shifted his focus to the general election. A month before the Republican National Convention, an undocumented British alien tried to assassinate him at a rally in Las Vegas; the attempt was thwarted by federal Secret Service agents.

On July 15, 2016, Trump announced Indiana governor Mike Pence as his running mate. They were formally nominated on July 19, 2016. Trump accepted the nomination two days later, in an historically long 75-minute speech watched by nearly 35 million people; it received mixed reviews.

[Cruz withholds support; polls bounce around.]

Unlike Clinton, Kaine, and Pence, Trump has declined to release any of his tax returns, thereby breaking a bipartisan campaign tradition that began in 1976 and was also broken by Bush/Cheney.

Two days before the second presidential debate, a 2005 audio recording surfaced in which Trump confides to Billy Bush that he once tried to seduce a married woman and says he found that as a "star" he could kiss or fondle many women at will. Both speakers used vulgar language. The recording touched off a media and political uproar. Several Republican politicians renounced their support for Trump, and some called on him to withdraw from the race. Trump issued an official apology, his first of the campaign.

References

The claim that "Trump would not withdraw" is so superlatively noncontentious that it doesn't even need to be mentioned here (one would hope!). --Dervorguilla (talk) 06:36, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Tax audit

Do we have verification that Trump is in fact under audit as he claims to be? This Newsweek source says we have no evidence beyond Trump's say-so. In both of the sections in which we mention his tax returns, the fact that Trump is in fact under audit appears to be assumed. We should probably qualify that language appropriately. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:35, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Clearly should say "claims to be" if it doesn't. The IRS is not allowed to verify such. Objective3000 (talk) 21:53, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Do we have to verify what he's said? Or do we have to just go with reliable sources? My understanding is that he says it, it's a campaign issue, then just put in what sources say. I don't think it's our job to verify. It's just what reliable sources say. SW3 5DL (talk) 22:09, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

This could be moot if we go with a shortened version of the paragraph as suggested above. But certainly we should say "Trump says he can't disclose the returns because they are being audited"; the current wording "disclosed the existence of an audit" is giving him too much credit. --MelanieN (talk) 22:24, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree with O3000. "Trump claims..." hints at the fact that Trump could easily produce the Audit Letter from the IRS. The reader should know that the option to not produce the letter or the tax form is a choice not a requirement. Buster Seven Talk 03:10, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

I changed it to "Trump responded that he is unable to release his tax returns because they are being audited". BTW does that paragraph really need 15 references??? --MelanieN (talk) 03:17, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Stating it that way implicates us in his lie. "Trump claims..." puts the onus on Trump. Buster Seven Talk 03:31, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

OK, go ahead and change it. Fine with me. --MelanieN (talk) 05:09, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Require consensus for candidate article edits through the election.

I have proposed further editing limitations on these articles through the election at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Require consensus for candidate article edits through the election. Cheers! bd2412 T 23:42, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

I oppose a request for editing limitations. As political articles go, this article has not suffered the "usual" level of vandalism (if that is the reason for the proposal). With the level of editor participation, problem editing gets handled pretty quickly. Buster Seven Talk 02:44, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

@Buster7: This is not the proposal, so it's the wrong place for your Oppose. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:48, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Mandruss. I may be old but I don't need a crossing guard...at least not yet. I had stated my proposal in the correct place so rather than the wrong place I see this as "an additional place".:~)... Buster Seven Talk 02:59, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

The recording prompted Trump to make his first public apology during the campaign

That is all what the tape prompted? In what alternative reality is this article living in? - Cwobeel (talk) 14:49, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Access Hollywood tape in lead section

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

In my view the Access Hollywood tape scandal doesn't come anywhere close to belonging in the lead section. This might or might not undo the Trump campaign, but at this point it's just another scandal among many. Maybe it's sufficiently important for the lead section of the campaign article, but not here. Same thing for the reaction from Paul Ryan, which is just another event in the ongoing drama known as the Trump presidential campaign. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:48, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

I tend to agree, in spite of my recent edit to tweak the wording. It may belong in the lead of the campaign article, but probably not here unless it is really shown to have enduring significance. Given Mr. Trump's uncanny ability to outdo himself, I wouldn't be surprised if there is something even more scandalous in the next few weeks.- MrX 17:22, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Right. At this point, Access Hollywood doesn't belong in the lead. We'll see if it does belong (or if something worse belongs) as time goes on. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:25, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Removed per WP:BLP?? It is relevant, sourced, an in no way in violation of WP:BLP. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:38, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, for the reasons stated.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:28, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

If something more outrageous comes up, it can be replaced at that time. For now, it is highly relevant and probably one the most relevant controversies. And relevant controversies belong in the lede per WP:LEDE. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:36, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

I would say that if Trump loses the election, then the Access Hollywood tape scandal should be mentioned in the lede as a likely driver of that loss. Between now and the election, it doesn't belong there. bd2412 T 17:39, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

The controversy is still a controversy, regardless of the outcome. And this is a huge controversy, and thus worthy of inclusion in the lede. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:54, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

It's still a controversy, but we don't have a WP:CRYSTAL ball to know it's true impact. It's WP:RECENTISM at this point to add it to the lead. And yes, BLP applies. We need to remain neutral and not assume that this is what kills his chances of being president. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:03, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

We don't need a crystal ball to know the impact of this controversy. The impact is clear at this time and not including it in the lead leaves our readers wondering why it is not mentioned. If he wins or if he loses, the controversy will remain engraved in this bio... - Cwobeel (talk) 18:09, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

(A) Yeah we do. 28 days to go. Then we'll get a "real" poll that will give us much more information than we currently have. (B) It's covered in the body, and it has its own article. We're not covering it up by excluding it from the lead. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:12, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) In his bio, yes; not necessarily in the lede. bd2412 T 18:13, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Specific wording in the body

There's been a lot of back and forth over the specific wording with little problems like saying that the incident is "widely known" as "trump tapes" (not in citations given), and implying that it was only the media who described the comments as "vulgar". I also think we could be more encyclopedic than saying that he was "bragging about his ability to grab women's genitals". I propose the following paragraph as a starting point that can be edited as needed:

Two days before the second presidential debate, a live mic recording from 2005 surfaced in which Trump was heard describing in vulgar terms unwelcome sexual advances on women and an attempt to seduce a married woman. The recording caused outrage across the political spectrum with many Republicans rescinding their endorsements, and prompted Trump to make his first public apology during the campaign.

If this ends up being a turning point in the campaign we can say as much as things progress. I left the citations out to so as to not clutter the talk page, but they should be able to be copy-pasted without a problem. ~Awilley (talk) 19:00, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't think groping is an "unwelcome sexual advance".--Jack Upland (talk) 20:15, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

"bragging about his ability to grab women's genitals" is highly encyclopedic coming from the mouth of the nominee of one of the two main political parties in the United States. Wikipedia is not censured. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:35, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Actually, Trump never bragged about "his ability to grab women's genitals" he bragged about his ability to grab women by their genitals which, in my mind, is magnitudes worse. Ajwilley's proposed wording is a more encyclopedic way of summarizing this material, but I don't think it should preclude also quoting Trump directly given how well-publicized the video is.- MrX 20:56, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Seems relevant here: New York Times, October 10: Why'd You Do That? Printing Donald Trump's Vulgarities. I'm not suggesting POV editing on anyone's part, but I would support more explicitness. This is not just another Anthony Weiner. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:25, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

On the other hand, I failed to consider that the main article appears to lay it out in all its graphic glory, which changes the picture somewhat for me. I have just inserted a {{Main article}} as close as possible to the related content here. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:25, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Ummm....

I don't quite understand the rationale for excluding the tapes (and their subsequent fallout) from the lead. In the last few days, Trump—the Republican Presidential nominee—has been found to have boasted on tape about sexually assaulting women, has been abandoned by the Republican Speaker of the House, has been publicly disowned by numerous high-profile members of his own party, and has openly declared war on his own party's establishment... all within 30 days of a Presidential election. That is basically unprecedented in modern American political history. If these events aren't important enough to mention in the lead, I'm not sure what is. MastCell ^Talk 22:04, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Would you have stuck Monica in Bill Clinton's lead a few days after the story broke? That scandal resulted in the impeachment of a president and threatened to force his resignation, and even today it gets two sentences and 57 words in the lead. Gary Hart,"the clear frontrunner for the Democratic nomination", was forced to drop out of the race when news of Donna Rice surfaced, and there is not one word in his lead. I think what you're seeing here is good Wikipedia editors struggling to be neutral in the face of one of the hardest tests they have ever encountered. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:24, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Because the lead is supposed to summarize the topic. If Trump loses the election, then the fact he ran for president will merit one line. If he wins, the campaign may be skipped over entirely, as no doubt his presidency will prove more interesting than his campaign. "Recentism" provides a good explanation of how to handle current events. The article on the late Toronto mayor Rob Ford does not even mention his mayoral campaign in the lead, although it was plagued with revelations about colorful behavior. TFD (talk) 00:35, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Why should the Rob Ford article mention his mayoral campaign when the major scandal occurred while he was the sitting mayor. According to the second paragraph of his lede, "His political career, particularly his mayoralty, saw a number of personal and work-related controversies and legal proceedings.[2] In 2013, he became embroiled in a substance abuse scandal, which was widely reported in the national and international media.[3][4][5] Following his admission, Ford refused to resign, but City Council handed over certain mayoral powers and office staff to Deputy Mayor Norm Kelly for the remainder of Ford's term."[6][7][8] -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 10:51, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

• I don't think that these explanations for excluding the material make any sense. We already spend one long paragraph in the lead describing Trump's Presidential campaign, so it's not a question of whether or not to mention it. That lead paragraph is woefully off-base in terms of due weight; we describe Trump's position on the Trans-Pacific Partnership, and on veterans' health care, and so on, but we don't say one word about the literally unprecedented aspects of his campaign, including the tapes, the fallout, the open warfare between Trump and other high-ranking members of his own party, and so on. It's just silly. Studiously failing to mention these sorts of elephants-in-the-room violates WP:LEAD, and it's not encyclopedic or "neutral" in any way. MastCell ^Talk 15:58, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

  At this point, there does need to be something in the lead about this growing controversy. This has gone well beyond the locker room, and is now making it's way onto elevators and airplanes. The damage it's causing to the Republican party is probably worth mentioning as well, although that will be clearer after the election.- MrX 16:07, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

  The Trump-Bush audio seems to be eclipsed now. A presidential debate has intervened in which Trump said Clinton ought to be in jail, some recent national polls (e.g. Rasmussen) say Trump has recovered from the audio disclosure, and now there's a new controversy about alleged touching that goes far beyond the talk with Billy Bush. I support leaving this lead as-is for now, although the audio disclosure can surely be discussed later in this article, and also in the lead of the campaign sub-article. For anyone who may be interested, a new article titled Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations exists and is up for deletion.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:39, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

  That AfD was a SNOW keep. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:12, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree with AYW on this. It's not that the Access Hollywood tape hasn't hugely controversial, it's that Trump has been involved in so many other huge controversies that it's undue weight to single this one out. Take Trump University and the Judge Curiel comments, for instance--not mentioned in the lead, and hasn't that controversy received at least as much media coverage? If/when reliable sources say that the tape was (not might be) the turning point of the campaign then I'm open to reconsidering. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:06, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

The sexual misconduct issues clearly need to be mentioned in the lead. They are important enough for a section in the article and a separate article, which is an extremely good indication that they need to be summarized in the lead, which is supposed to be a summary of the article, including the most significant controversies. I believe Trump "University" should be mentioned as well, although in terms of media coverage, impact and so on, the sexual misconduct controversy seems even more important. --Tataral (talk) 04:34, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Trump® value

More material about brand value, branded facilities, and things named after Donald J. Trump (or the Trump family?):

Adding the Trump name to virtually any product or service increased its perceived value, according to Brand Keys. In 2015, that "added value" was anywhere from 20% to 37%, depending on the category, said Robert Passikoff... "That's a range enviable by any category or brand standards."

As of June 2016 ... the added value of the Trump brand in entertainment was as high as 43%. But that added value has been significantly diminished since the video surfaced. The perceived added value in TV and entertainment ... fell 13 percentage points as of Oct. 9, while the value of the Trump brand dropped 8 percentage points in real estate and 6 percentage points in country clubs and golf clubs...

Alexandra Bruell, "Is Trump Teflon? Most Say No as Brand Perception Takes a Hit", WSJ (Oct. 11, 12:24 ET). (See also copyedits of Oct. 11, 01:08 ET and Oct. 10, 23:24 ET.) --Dervorguilla (talk) 00:35, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

We how have more of this topic from other WP:RS:

• Michelle Castillo, "Tape release further erodes Trump brand: Survey" http://www.cnbc.com/2016/10/10/tape-release-further-erodes-trump-brand-survey.html
• Danika Fears, "Donald Trump’s vile video comments could hurt his brand" http://nypost.com/2016/10/12/donald-trumps-vile-video-comments-could-hurt-his-brand/
• Jennifer Rubin, "Commentary: Donald Trump's brand is now a total disaster" http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/commentary/ct-donald-trump-woman-assault-creepy-20161010-story.html

Note that the change values being reported seem to be measured in percentage points, so that the hit to the brand value, measured as a percentage ratio, would actually be considerably higher. What I find remarkable is actually how little the perceived brand value has dropped, given the "grab them by the pussy" comment.

-- The Anome (talk) 10:57, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

I've now added a reference to the above issue to the article, supported by three of the cites given above. -- The Anome (talk) 11:46, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Clarifying

Re this edit by Lord Laitinen, I think it's neither neutral nor verifiable to say that Trump later "clarified" his position on immigration of Muslims. Many folks would say he flip-flopped on that issue and that his current policy position was made less clear. Better to simply use the word "stated," as supported by our guideline on words to watch out for. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:23, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

@DrFleischman: I think it's clear that you are being politically motivated to cause a fuss about such a minor vocabulary change, and that it is you who needs a little bit of a lesson in neutrality. It is obvious from the context in the article that Trump clarified his position. He originally stated that he would ban all Muslims from entering the country, then later CLARIFIED (stated) that he would focus on countries not vetted by the government. Immigration is not an important topic to me in this election at all, and my edit was not politically motivated. However, I am glad to say that I support Trump because Hillary Clinton's beliefs on social issues, especially abortion and marriage, are ignorant and contrary to my religion. I truly believe that Hillary Clinton is a lunatic who will do irreparable harm to our nation, but I would never let this personal belief interfere in my editing habits, and I take umbrage at your above remarks. In other words, there are areas I avoid editing specifically because I am politically motivated by them; immigration is not one of those areas. I hope I have clarified this enough for you, and God bless! ~Lord Laitinen~ (talk) 05:49, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a habit of fussing over such minor vocabulary changes. There is a whole page about that at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch. Unless you can present fairly strong RS support for "clarifying", you are committing original research and we should opt for the more neutral word. State and clarify are not synonyms as you appear to claim. Thank you for your political opinions. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:04, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Oh, I belatedly see that the OP already linked to that page and you ignored it. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:05, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

I am an extremely skilled linguist and I understand context. I know the definitions of "clarified" and "stated," and though they are not synonyms, I can see how both would be appropriate based on the context in this article. I don't know what you mean by your second statement; if there is something with which I can assist you, please reply with a more detailed response. I do not like to "ignore" anything, especially if it paints me negatively. ~Lord Laitinen~ (talk) 06:25, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

What I meant was that you appeared not to absorb the message of that page, which appears to render your claims of politically motivated editing baseless—and a violation of WP:AGF. The OP explained adequately why "clarified" is not neutral here. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:30, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

My opinion was, and still is, that "clarified" is no more or less neutral than "stated." However, I do not wish to enter into conflicts with you or the editor who started the section. I am upset that such a minor, inconspicuous change caused this much of an upheaval. Also, I wish to point out that I did not directly accuse anyone of politically-motivated editing, and thus, did not fail to AGF. I was first accused of failing to uphold neutrality, to which I responded that the revert of my edit was certainly less neutral than the edit itself. I hope this clears everything up, and I really do not wish to elaborate any further on this. God bless, and happy editing to all! ~Lord Laitinen~ (talk) 06:38, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

You are on record as saying, and I quote, "I think it's clear that you are being politically motivated". That directly contradicts the statement, "I did not directly accuse anyone of politically-motivated editing". Where have I seen this behavior before? God bless you as well! ―Mandruss ☎ 06:42, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Lord Laitinen, welcome to the editing of political articles. You happened to step right into the hornet's nest, so you can expect each word and phrase to be picked over. I meant you no wrong by referring to the non-neutrality of the "clarifying" language. In my view, the best we can do is to focus on our policies and guidelines and avoid casting aspersions on our fellow editors. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:13, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Sentence on sexual misconduct in lede paragraph on campaign

I added a sentence on the most covered isue of the campaign, to the lede paragraph on the campaign. 21:28, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

I boldly added the following sentence to the lede paragraph devoted to the campaign: "Since October 7th, much of the coverage of the general election has focused on allegations—made by eight separate women, and bolstered by an audio recording in which Trump appears to brag about committing sexual assault—of sexual violence allegedly committed by Trump." This was since deleted by User:Epicgenius, who cited "BLP."

I don't see the BLP violation; the allegations have been covered at length by reliable sources, and if we don't pass judgment on the truth or falsity of the allegations--other than noting that they come from at least 8 women, include groping and raping, etc--there is no problem. Moreover, as I noted, it is the most-covered issue in the campaign, a fact confirmed by Martha Raddatz at the debate. Thus a mention of the allegations--based on the tape and the statements of women, both of which are described in Wikipedia's Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations page--deserves one sentence in the lede.

I invite Epic Genius to state his case as to why there is a BLP violation. If he is unable to do so, I encourage other users to re-add a tweaked vversion of my deleted sentence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steeletrap (talk • contribs) 21:51, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

the most-covered issue in the campaign - I'd say that's a judgment call on your part. In any case, this is a bio of Trump's entire life and, in the greater picture, this probably does not warrant mention in the lead unless the media gives it sole credit for his losing the election. See leads of Bill Clinton and Gary Hart for comparison. This article does already include content about this, just not in the lead, and there is another article about his campaign. There is also another article about this specific controversy. That's enough. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:01, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

The fact that a new article on this specific topic survived an AfD, one day after creation, with a snow result, in one day, would suggest that the topic is rather important. OTOH, I always tend to dislike recentism. Objective3000 (talk) 00:27, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

The sexual misconduct issues are clearly important enough to be mentioned in the lead. First of all, he is recorded on tape admitting to such acts, secondly, his behaviour and comments towards women have received an enormous amount of media coverage, not only recently, but over a longer period of time as well, and on a global scale. Thirdly, it already has a significant impact on his campaign[4]. I should also mention that he himself has made sexual misconduct allegations the most important point of his own presidential campaign, so this is certainly not one of many less important issues or anything like that, but clearly the most high profile issue of his presidential campaign/five minutes of fame. [5]. --Tataral (talk) 04:20, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

I feel an RfC coming on. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:32, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

These are clearly important issues for the election and ones that should be on the page. However, these issues belong in their own section not in the lead. I would also note that this is being treated completely differently on the HRC page. On the HRC page her comments about Bill Clinton's accusers haven't been included at all. Not one line in the entire article. Yet, on the Donald Trump page, its been insisted upon that not only should the information be included, it should be included in the lead. How exactly is this a fair representation? NationalInterest16 (talk) 23:04, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Discussion notice

More participation is needed in a discussion at Talk:Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations#Objectifying women, in the hopes of avoiding an RfC. The article is about allegations of sexual misconduct, as per its title. Currently, it also includes an entire level 2 section, over 500 words, about allegations of things that imply sexism but do not rise to the level of sexual misconduct. Should this material stay or go? Please comment there. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:12, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Appears to be resolved for the time being. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:58, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

"Following the revelation" -- when?

"Following the revelation of Trump's 2005 remarks". The dating here is unclear. The revelation, and all of the subsequent fallout, appear to have all happened in the last week or so, at least going by the Washington Post citation that appears to just be about the 2005 video coming to light and dates to October 7. If this reading is correct, then technically the WP source is cited in error; it should only be used for the statement that "It was revealed that in 2005 Trump made lewd remarks on the set of Days of Our Lives". Or is it being used simply for the quotation because all quotations need citations? If so, it seems like it would be better to give the quotation it's own sentence ("The comments included ...").

But the date needs to be clarified either way.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:43, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Far-right politician instead of politician

I think the description "politician" in the lead doesn't really do it. Firstly, unlike most other people described as "politician" in the lead of their biographical article, he doesn't have any track record as a politician; he has never held any political office. His political activity is limited to making prejudiced/discriminatory comments towards various minorities and towards women in media outlets, comments that are widely regarded as politically extreme and that would send people to jail in countries like e.g. Germany, over the last year or so. His views clearly belong in the far right tradition and are also considered as such by experts (e.g. Cas Mudde[6]). Thus, "far-right politician" is a more accurate description than "politician." --Tataral (talk) 15:37, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Not even Goldwater or Buchanan are so-classified in their leads. Objective3000 (talk) 15:49, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Remember we must follow WP:NPOV. Trump has formed a campaign for President of the United States, first by winning the nomination of the Republican party, and now as one of the two major candidates in the general election. He has also had political activity in the past, such as exploring a presidential campaign in 1988, 2000, and 2012. I think he meets the definition of "politician" – he even claims himself to be such. MB298 (talk) 17:46, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

No, I do not think that would be accurate. A majority of people in the right-wing of the Republican party view Donald Trump as a moderate and as a Rhino. I also take issue with your comment that people who are discriminatory towards minorities must necessarily be right-wing. How did you come to that conclusion? NationalInterest16 (talk) 22:22, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Concern about the lede

The lede is not even close to describe this person, in particular as it does not include any of the new revelations about his words on kissing and groping women and the alleged sexual assault reported. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:49, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

In the grand biography of Trump, that, imho, is a minor event and not worthy of summary in the lead per WP:DUE and WP:LEAD. It totally belongs on the campaign page, but not the biography. At least not yet. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:16, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

It is certainly not a "minor event"; rather it is the most high profile issue of what he is mostly known for, his presidential candidacy. He has also himself strongly contributed to making allegations of sexual misconduct the main issue of the election. Based on the worldwide coverage in reliable sources and impact on his campaign (including a stream of influential politicians of his own party abandoning him), it clearly needs to be mentioned prominently in the lead. Quite frankly, any issue that is considered worthy of a first-level section and a stand-alone in-depth article needs to be mentioned in the lead section of the main article, which is supposed to summarise the topic. --Tataral (talk) 19:29, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Currently the article has 1 sentence at the bottom of the lead about the allegations, which seems about right. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:53, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Cwobeel, I wish you had been around for all the prior discussion of this question, but it's obviously all still available for reading. For reasons I've stated before, I oppose anything in the lead. But I'll accept the one sentence per Wikipedia give-and-take, brotherly love, and so on. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:13, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

And while I was writing the above comment the lead content was expanded to three sentences by an editor whose article:article talk ratio is 14.6:1 (yours is 1.9:1). See how this works? Give an inch... Strong Oppose more than one sentence, and no fair replacing periods with semicolons. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:17, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

I think the current version[7] is a fair summary which gives the matter due weight in relation to how it is covered in reliable sources (as the Financial Times points out, Trump's "increasingly conspiratorial tone (...) appears to be a last-ditch effort to hold on to supporters by a campaign that is being engulfed by almost daily allegations of sexual misconduct"[8]). It actually only describes the matter in two sentences. The third sentence is devoted to Trump's views and how he defends himself against the allegations. --Tataral (talk) 22:20, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Your argument fails to consider or respond to important (imo) prior discussion, which I'm not going to copy-and-paste here. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:16, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

These are clearly important issues for the election and ones that should be on the page. However, these issues belong in their own section not in the lead. I would also note that this is being treated completely differently on the HRC page. On the HRC page her comments about Bill Clinton's accusers haven't been included at all. Not one line in the entire article. Yet, on the Donald Trump page, its been insisted upon that not only should the information be included, it should be included in the lead. How exactly is this a fair representation? 23:06, 14 October 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by NationalInterest16 (talk • contribs)

It seems that you are not familiar with the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section, which states that: "The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies." The sexual misconduct controversy is the most high profile issue of his presidential campaign, it has both a first-level section in this article, and even a lengthy in-depth article, and hence clearly needs to be summarised in the lead section of this article. The WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS comparison with Hillary Clinton is ridiculous: Hillary Clinton has not been accused by anyone of sexual misconduct, has not admitted to sexual misconduct, and has a long track record as First Lady, Senator and Secretary of State, unlike Trump, whose experience in politics is limited to this year's presidential campaign that is dominated by the sexual misconduct controversy. --Tataral (talk) 23:36, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Discussion on a short two or three sentence paragraph in the lede

A short two or three sentence paragraph in the lede is perfectly appropriate, but no more than that.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:34, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

• I second that. --Tataral (talk) 23:36, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
• I third it. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 03:40, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

• Agree with the many editors who feel a paragraph in the lede is undue. I've replaced it with a sentence summary. James J. Lambden (talk) 16:11, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

• There is no consensus for your edit. On the other hand there seems to be consensus to include a short paragraph of two or three sentences. --Tataral (talk) 16:53, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

• I agree with Volunteer Marek. This has long been part of Trump's notability, what with the beauty pageants affairs TV and radio interviews etc, but there should be no more than a 2-3 sentence paragraph in the lede. SPECIFICO talk 19:06, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Reviewing previous discussions I find the following:

For Lede Inclusion:

• Steelltrap
• Objective3000
• Cwobeel
• MastCell
• Tataral
• Xcuref1endx
• Volunteer Marek
• SPECIFICO

One Sentence Summary:

• Mandruss
• James J. Lambden

Against Lede Inclusion:

• Dr. Fleischman
• MrX
• bd2412 T
• Muboshgu
• TFD
• NationalInterest16
• EvergreenFir
• Malerooster
• Ag97

That is far from the clear consensus required, per WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE.

NOTE: editors are welcome to edit and correct the list above as discussion progresses James J. Lambden (talk) 17:19, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

There is clearly no consensus for your edit, whim seems to inappropriately downplay the sexual misconduct controversy, and I notice that you have reverted this article twice, against various editors, within less than two hours. --Tataral (talk) 17:27, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

I made one edit and one revert, in the last week. I can't recall whether I edited this article previously. You're right that there is no consensus for my sentence addition - I'm willing to remove it but I included it in the spirit of compromise. We appear to agree that there should at least be some mention. James J. Lambden (talk) 17:40, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

You made two reverts within less than two hours. --Tataral (talk) 18:03, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

seems to inappropriately downplay the sexual misconduct controversy - Considering that the sexual misconduct controversy is covered in exhaustive detail in at least two other articles dedicated solely to that subject, as well as being addressed in lesser detail in the body of this article, I don't see how you can say anything is being downplayed. The lead of a bio article needs to summarize the subject's entire life, without RECENTISM. You seem to fail to grasp this concept, and you seem to have your eye unduly focused on November 8. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:55, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

These allegations go back decades, so WP:RECENT isn't a factor. The increasing scale of public reaction to these disclosures looks to be causing a decline in support, as measured in the polls. That's recent, but given the impact on a major life story, highly significant. The essence is that Trump is losing the presidential campaign due to sexual misconduct stretching back decades. In particular, the 2005 tape. --Pete (talk) 18:03, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

You seem to fail to understand that the lead is supposed to summarise the article's topic (Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section), relative to the importance of the material, as measured e.g. by how it is covered in reliable sources . As you yourself point out, this issue, the most reported issue in RS in relation to Trump's campaign, even has an in-depth article, as well as a first-level section in this article, clearly indicating that it is a highly significant issue that deserves more than just one sentence/passing mention at the end of a lengthy paragraph on other stuff. Most people seem to agree that 2–3 sentences is appropriate. The enormous amount of coverage, the complexity and impact of the controversy at this point, also indicate that one sentence is insufficient as a summary. --Tataral (talk) 18:03, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Your argument remains unconvincing, I remain unconvinced, you lack consensus for inclusion, and I'm done here for the time being. Best of luck. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:16, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

By word count, the body content is 2.5% of the body. Your lead content was 15.7% of the lead. This is a fair summary of the body how, exactly? ―Mandruss ☎ 18:15, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Clearly, the section needs expansion. --Pete (talk) 18:27, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

That is less clear to me. And you're testing my AGF at this point. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:30, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Actually, when looking at the section, I agree that it could ideally be somewhat longer, maybe twice as long, which isn't extremely long compared to other sections, and in relation to the prominence of this and other material in reliable sources. The reason for it being relatively short is obviously that we have an in-depth article. The recent developments have made this controversy much more important for his biography than it may have been some months ago. --Tataral (talk) 18:37, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Well then I'd say the lead discussion is cart before horse. Gain consensus for expanded body content here, add it, and then we can talk about lead. Fair? ―Mandruss ☎ 18:39, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

No, it's not, because the lead must not exactly match the body by percentages (for good reasons, because that could produce some odd results), but rather by "the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources" as set forth in WP:DUE. Since this material is covered in a first-level section in the body, since it has two in-depth articles, since it's more extensively covered in RS than any other topic, there is no doubt that a one-sentence passing mention is inadequate. --Tataral (talk) 19:02, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

By coverage in reliable sources during the presidential election, this material makes up over 50%. If you are going to calculate it in relation to coverage in Wikipedia, you need to include the two in-depth articles as well. --Tataral (talk) 18:27, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

I await with interest your pointer to the policy or guideline that supports that argument. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:28, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

This principle is set forth in WP:DUE, which states that articles should "fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources". Not all material in the body of article is equally important in this regard; some of it is low-profile details. --Tataral (talk) 18:31, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Seriously? That says nothing about including summary of sub-articles in the lead of the bio article. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:34, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

I didn't claim that either. That is obviously just an informal approach to guide us in the discussion over the relative prominence of the material, just like your own comment about percentages (there is no such literal rule either, and it would be highly problematic for a number of reasons). --Tataral (talk) 18:42, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

We're getting into WP:WIKILAWYER territory here. Moving material from the main article into a subarticle because of length is no reason to claim that the lede should be shortened. That's just bizarre. --Pete (talk) 18:44, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Not so bizarre. You move material out of an article and you adjust its lead accordingly. Bizarre is summarizing articles A, B, and C in the lead of article A. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:46, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

More than one editor has restored the content with edit-summaries implying consensus for inclusion exists. Whatever arguments for/against it's clear opinions are divided. I remind all editors (as the heading at the top of the page indicates): challenged material requires clear consensus prior to restoration. Claims of "ignorance" and further misrepresentations of consensus will be met with AE requests. James J. Lambden (talk) 18:57, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

That's the salient point, and I don't know how we lost sight of the fact that, if your summary above is correct, it's currently 7 for, 7 against, with 2 for one sentence. We have a ways to go before the clear consensus required by DS. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:01, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

The tally doesn't appear to be correct. For example User:Skyring who has participated here isn't included in the tally. I would also note that some of the users who are cited as opposed are brand new editors who have only edited a handful of articles related to Trump/Clinton (e.g. NationalInterest16). --Tataral (talk) 19:15, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

LOL. Speaking of WIKILAWYERING, we're now seeking to exclude newer editors from equal voice in consensus with no basis for that in WP:CONSENSUS. Beyond belief, people! ―Mandruss ☎ 19:19, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

We are not excluding anyone from voicing their views, but it is perfectly normal to point it out when someone is an apparent single-purpose editor with few contributions, when they are included in a tally. --Tataral (talk) 19:23, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

I grant you that consensus is about strength of arguments, not numbers, and you can legitimately claim that the newer users have not made strong arguments. That's fair play. But what if we have disagreement about the strengths of those arguments? In my experience that can only be resolved with an uninvolved closer, preferably an admin, and we don't have one here or sufficient structure to make one possible (imo). We would have to go to RfC for that I think. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:26, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

WP:CONSENSUS also explains that we don't count "votes." It's not helpful to keep citing vote counts here, just as it's not helpful to insist that we increase the word count regarding Trump's alleged sexual abuse in the article to match the percentage of its word count in the lede. Math much? What if there's a constant or nonlinear term in the transformation? SPECIFICO talk 19:25, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

@Tataral: I find no comments by Skyring on this talk page. Perhaps I've missed them. I've noted in the list above that other editors are welcome to correct and expand it as discussion progresses, including noting apparent SPAs per policy. James J. Lambden (talk) 19:30, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Skyring uses Pete in his signature instead of his username. --Tataral (talk) 19:47, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I've been a reasonably frequent contributor here. Regarding new editors, I think for this topic we should treat those without an established wikihistory with some caution. --Pete (talk) 19:54, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

I think that's the wrong way of thinking about that. If Trump's warriors wish to invade and make solid policy-based content arguments, I say more power to them. If 50 of them make the same solid policy-based argument, that should have the same weight as one, so the other 49 are wasting their time and our server space. In theory a "Support per UserBob." !vote should be meaningless if it's about strength of arguments. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:02, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

I wasn't thinking about counting noses so much as a campaign of deliberate disruption, as we have seen through online poll manipulation and so on. --Pete (talk) 20:09, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Ah, behavior issues. A big subject that existed long before that phenomenon emerged. I have my strong opinions in that area but I won't take this any further off topic. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:12, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Potential paragraph at end of lede on sex abuse allegations

Please vote/comment below so we can assess whether there is consensus for the charge. (The previous "tally" was done in a scattershot manner, and many of the comments took place before most of the women had come out.) For clarity's sake, let's first vote on whether there should be a paragraph:

Vote Include or Exclude. Then, if there is consensus for a paragraph, we can hold an RfC on the length/form of the paragraph. Steeletrap (talk) 19:30, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

• Include A no-brainer; this is the most covered issue in the campaign--both the Billy Bush audiotape and the 12 women who have publicly accused Trump--and all major RS have covered it. We go off of RS here on WP. Steeletrap (talk) 19:26, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

• Exclude I would be for inclusion of a sentence incorporated into existing paragraphs (as the article stands now.) I take issue with the argument that this is the "most covered issue" in the campaign. Firstly, this article is about the man, not his campaign. With almost 40 years of coverage this is by no means his most-covered issue. Secondly, even restricting the group to campaign issues, coverage of his comments regarding muslim immigration (which persisted for months) is greater in total. James J. Lambden (talk) 19:41, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Trump is best-known as the 2016 presidential candidate; and this is the most relevant/most covered issue of that campaign. It's the most notable part of the thing for which he is most-known. The stuff we currently have in the lede--e.g. the Muslim ban--s much less notable than the 12 women who have accused him of sexual assault. Steeletrap (talk) 19:46, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

• Include. Note that a clear majority have already supported the inclusion of the material in the lead in some form; the main issue is whether we should have 2–3 short sentences (as argued by half a dozen or so in the most recent discussion) or just one sentence (as argued by 2 users). For the reasons described in more detail above, I think this controversy is too big, has a too large impact, and is too complex to be covered adequately in a one-sentence passing mention at the end of a paragraph on other stuff. There is no doubt that Trump is best known for his presidential candidacy, and there is no doubt that his candidacy is dominated by the sexual misconduct controversy in reliable sources. Due to its importance and coverage in reliable sources, the controversy is extensively covered in Wikipedia, including in a first-level section in this article, and in 2 further in-depth sub articles, all of which clearly indicate that it should be summarised adequately in the lead section of the main article per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section. --Tataral (talk) 19:54, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

• Include as supported in earlier discussion. Trump's history of sexual assault extends back decades. It is not WP:RECENT and confined to his election campaign. The impact of Trump's 2005 tape in which he supports sexual assault on his current campaign - a major life mark - has been marked and negative (in terms of his poll standings). The argument that one sentence buried amongst other material in the lede reflects the body content is strained - there is a whole article devoted to this topic consisting of material spun off from this BLP. --Pete (talk) 20:06, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
• Objection. This is not how you do an RFC, and therefore "RFC" does not belong in the header. See WP:RFC. There is also a proper RFC on this subject already started below.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:23, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
  • The competing "RFC" below is quite unhelpful and is certainly not any more proper than this RFC. --Tataral (talk) 02:00, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

The RFC below fully complies with WP:RFC.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:07, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

The RfC below is redundant and poorly phrased. This one--the first one--should be resolved before proceeding to additional ones. Steeletrap (talk) 02:35, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

• Exclude - My comments copied from 11 October above: Would you have stuck Monica in Bill Clinton's lead a few days after the story broke? That scandal resulted in the impeachment of a president and threatened to force his resignation, and even today it gets two sentences and 57 words in the lead. Gary Hart, "the clear frontrunner for the Democratic nomination", was forced to drop out of the race when news of Donna Rice surfaced, and there is not one word in his lead. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:57, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
• Exclude a separate paragraph devoted exclusively to this subject. A sentence of 15 words or less, within a paragraph that also covers other matters would be more appropriate given that 15 words can describe a great deal, very concisely (see last paragraph of lead as it stands now). I'm not saying that I support or oppose anything about this in the lead yet, but definitely this subject does not warrant a separate dedicated paragraph.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:16, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

• Exclude any mention in the lead for now. It's WP:RECENTISM and in the scope of his multi-decade biography, it's currently minor. Mandruss' assessment is correct. It's major for the campaign, but we need it to be more for the biography. If he loses and it's ascribed to this, if it leads to more charges, etc., then discuss inclusion. Until then, exclude. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:09, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
• Exclude for now, per Mandruss.LM2000 (talk) 09:04, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

• Include - I'm indifferent to whether this should be a separate paragraph or a couple of sentences in the campaign paragraph, but I have come to the realization that this is a significant series of events in Trump's life as well as his campaign and should be touched on in the lead. The content in the lead should cover Trump's Access Hollywood braggadocio, the ensuing flood of allegations, and the impact to his presidential campaign and the GOP.- MrX 20:08, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
• This is a quickly developing and a highly significant story. Yes, it should be included based on the coverage existing today.My very best wishes (talk) 03:01, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
• Exclude per Mandruss; however support including detailed section later in the article. MB298 (talk) 03:20, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
• Exclude for now. Revisit after election when this can be put into perspective. Include in lede of sub articles about election, ect. --Malerooster (talk) 12:43, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
• Folks, I'm sorry, but if you're saying "include in the text", you are also saying, whether you realize it or not, "include in the lead". The lead summarizes the text. It doesn't make sense - and it doesn't follow Wikipedia policy - to say "include in text but not in lead".Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:11, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Indeed. Any topic with a first-level section devoted to it, and even an in-depth sub article, should be summarised in the lead, given its coverage in the article/Wikipedia. --Tataral (talk) 16:02, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
    • That's not a bad concept, but it's the first I've heard of it in 3.5 years and 30K edits. Is it mentioned in WP:LEAD? I don't see that. If not, it's an editorial opinion but not self-evident as you claim. There needs to be some demonstrable community consensus for that, or at least a local consensus here. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:10, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Contradiction noted

Please be kind, I'm not wiki savy and (thankfully) cannot change the page myself.

Under 'The Apprentice' heading, last para, quote 213, it says NBC cancelled their business relations with DT due to neg comments on migrants on June 29 2015.

Further on under the heading of 'Involvement in politics 1988-2015', last para, it says DT opted to not renew the contract due to his potential presidential run - dated FEBRUARY 2015.

Seeing as DT cancelled the business relations first and the possibility that the first quote from NBC may have been deliberate propaganda against DT (because not relevant); it should be removed. (Edit: or altered)

Dormouse7 (talk) 20:33, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

I adjusted the second instance to more closely reflect the cited article. Objective3000 (talk) 21:01, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

2nd edit : But ......

I hope this goes to the right place!

I wanted the contradiction to be erased. Keep the NBC quote if you like but add something like 'but DT had already cancelled their business dealings/contract in Feb 2015' - add quote and delete from second section. Please :)Dormouse7 (talk) 22:11, 14 October 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dormouse7 (talk • contribs) Dormouse7 (talk) 23:04, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

I was kind enough to not suggest that your edit here was WP:NPOV, and simply removed the apparent contradiction. But, that's how it appears. WP is based on reliable sources WP:RS. You will need to frame your complaint according to WP guidelines. Objective3000 (talk) 00:03, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Article structure

We currently have a subsection titled "Trump–Bush recording controversy" and another subsection titled "Sexual assault accusations". They should be together in the same section, so I plan to make it so, unless someone beats me to it. All of it occurred during the 2016 general election campaign, so that's the best place for it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:28, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Sounds like a logical merge. --Pete (talk) 21:31, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Note that I'm suggesting to juxtapose rather than merge.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:52, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

RFC:Recent allegations in lede

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Previous close by MrX: There seems to be consensus that this RfC is seriously malformed and based on the false premise that a 15 word lead represents a status quo consensus, which it does not.- MrX 16:48, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

At the time this RFC is being started, the lead says, "Allegations of sexual misconduct against Trump were widely reported in the weeks before the election." Is this number of words in the lead insufficient, for the time being, regarding this subject?Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:49, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Survey and discussion

• No. This number of words is not insufficient. The allegations are new, even though the conduct they allege is old. Wikipedia is not a newspaper, which is good reason to not say more in the lead. More details belong later in this BLP. Please note that if this RFC concludes that the number of words is not insufficient, that would not decide whether this number of words is too much, nor whether the wording should be changed without lengthening the sentence.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:47, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

'No, it is not insufficient?' Is there a way you rephrase the question so that it's not so confusing? Maybe something more like "How long should the reference be" or even simply, "Is the existing number of words sufficient?" That'd avoid the double or triple negatives. Felsic2 (talk) 22:51, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Asking whether the existing number of words is insufficient is understandable. It's also binary. If people think that nothing about this subject should be in the lead then they can answer "no". If they think the current sentence about it is enough then they can also answer "no". If they think there needs to be more, then they can answer "yes".Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:07, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

• Comment --- The way this RfC is worded is bound to cause confusion. I suggest asking people how many sentences should be in lede (0,1,2,3) and then work out the details later. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 00:00, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

That's a recipe for confusion. A sentence could be very very long. Moreover, if 3 people say 0, 3 people say 1, 0 people say 2, and 4 people say 3 then what the heck would that mean?Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:10, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

You just confirmed the problem. Now someone can say we need at least 10 words, another wants 20 words, another thinks 35 words is appropriate, and in the end all you've done is created a giant time sink. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 00:36, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Obviously, if the outcome of this RFC is no then anything more than 15 words is rejected.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:42, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

• No. The coverage in the lead is sufficient. I think we know what the RfC question means.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:04, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, it's easily understood.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:08, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

• No per nom. I think the number of words above, 15, is adequate mention of this area of controversy in the lead of this article about Donald Trump's 70-year life. Instruction manual: If you agree with me, !vote No. If you disagree with me, !vote Yes. If you're undecided, !vote No. (j/k) ―Mandruss ☎ 01:38, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
• Comment: Hard to !vote on words that have been removed. Clearly the campaign article should contain more than the general bio. Just as clearly, in my mind, is that multiple accusations of possible criminal actions over a long period of his career should be in the lead. Offhand, I would suggest two or three sentences - and no more. Objective3000 (talk) 01:50, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Two or three sentences is what is discussed above, and agreed on by a majority there. I don't think anyone advocates more than two or three sentences. We had a wording (see [9]) which used two sentences to describe the actual controversy, and one sentence devoted to Trumps own views on it. --Tataral (talk) 01:55, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
    • Factcheck: Pants on fire.
      Objective3000, your comment is problematic considering that your suggestion is not on the table in this particular RfC. Would you care to propose a specific RfC question that would work better? We can always scrap this RfC and start over, provided we don't wait until we have a lot of !votes that have to be thrown out. We should have pre-RfC RfCs to decide RfC questions, as there is so often a lot of pushback on the question itself. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:00, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

• Comment - This is not a proper RFC. I think it is unfortunate that each new editor who comes along just starts their own RFC without prior discussion or any agreement, and with such a bad and confusing wording as this RFC has, and while there is an ongoing, prior, overlapping/competing RFC. The wording "Allegations of sexual misconduct against Trump were widely reported in the weeks before the election" is, as already agreed by a majority here, not adequate at all; it seems to deliberately downplay the controversy, it is buried at the end of a far too lengthy paragraph on lots of other stuff, it doesn't treat the controversy with the seriousness it deserves and it doesn't give the controversy its due attention in proportion to its prominence in reliable sources (per WP:DUE). I think it is impossible to cover this extensive controversy in a responsible manner in less than 2 (maybe 3) sentences. Also, the wording "Allegations of sexual misconduct against Trump were widely reported in the weeks before the election" is very bad in its lack of precision, and hardly conveys any meaningful information (quite unlike the other wording). --Tataral (talk) 01:48, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

This RFC is not about whether we should use any particular wording, but rather whether we should exceed 15 words. My own preference (assuming this is mentioned in the lead) is 12 15 words: "During October 2016, Trump denied allegations by women of unwanted sexual touching during past decades"Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:03, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

An RFC on "whether we should exceed 15 words" is absurd and unhelpful. What if someone comes up with the perfect wording, neutrality-wise and otherwise, which needs 16 words? We should agree on an appromixate length measured in sentences, not in characters or words. Also, due to the rapid developments in this case—e.g. if the already big controversy becomes even bigger, and after he loses the election spectacularly because of it—should we still be bound to just have an inappropriately short and badly worded sentence at the end of a too long paragraph on less important stuff? Your new suggestion is even worse in its lack of due weight and neutrality, by making Trump's denial the main issue, as opposed to the controversy itself. --Tataral (talk) 02:07, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Please offer solutions, not merely criticism. It is far easier to tear things down than to build them. What question would you suggest? Please be specific. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:10, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

We already have an ongoing RFC above. It would be unhelpful for me to just start a third one right away. When the time is right, we should continue the discussion, possibly in the form of an RFC, on whether we should have one, two or three (or more) sentences devoted to this topic in the lead. Especially because at least half a dozen editors have already specifically supported the two or three sentences solution, while some editors prefer one sentence, an RFC should be worded accordingly to be helpful. When we have decided on the length we should continue working on the exact wording. --Tataral (talk) 02:15, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

And please keep in mind WP:BLP which says, "If the subject has denied such allegations, that should also be reported".Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:12, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

And that was reported in the former wording, without making it the main issue. The paragraph ended with: "He has denied the allegations, describing them as part of a wider campaign to smear his candidacy and reputation". --Tataral (talk) 02:16, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

• Comment - I think too many words; mostly that this and a lot of other presidential campaign stuff seems misplaced to be here in BLP at all instead of it being at Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016, and that having it here will make the content subject to BLP restrictions and the BIO even more overly long - even with just this limited amount of the whole Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations. For what is in the lower article, I think it isn't quite WP:GOSSIP or WP:BLPCOI, and it isn't prohibited by WP:BLPCRIME since he's WP:PUBLICFIGURE, but fails WP:PUBLICFIGURE guidance for multiple reliable third-party sources on any detail beyond 'allegations made', and should have to be cautious about WP:LIBEL. Just saying BLP has to look at BLP rules and that this is more a topic for campaign than for BLP. Markbassett (talk) 03:00, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

• • I don't understand what you are suggesting. Revelations and allegations of sexual misconduct by Trump, in all known cases before his presidential campaign, have everything to do with Trump, first and foremost. Also, the fact that some content is covered in Wikipedia to such an extent that we have created an in-depth sub article on it doesn't mean that it shouldn't be in the main article, rather the opposite, it hightlights the fact that the material is particularly important. As a general rule, I think every issue considered worthy of both a first-level section in the main article and its own stand-alone in-depth (sub) article should be mentioned in the lead section of the main article. --Tataral (talk) 04:07, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

• Yes, because counterallegations.

A noteworthy, well-documented, relevant allegation and/or counterallegation belongs in the lead -- whether it's by the allegators against the subject or by the subject against the allegators. This would likely take us at least forty words:

"During October 2016, several women accused Trump of having made inappropriate advances on them at some point over the past thirty years. Trump alleged that Mexican billionaire Carlos Slim (the New York Times's largest shareholder) had colluded with the Clinton campaign to generate the reports."

References

Trump's countercharges look to me like a reasonably important (and controversial) part of this public dispute. --Dervorguilla (talk) 11:12, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

• Maybe - Since when do we make content decisions based on insufficiency of the number of words? The significant points of the sexual misconduct allegations should be summarized. That would seem to include the Access Hollywood recording, flood of accusations, and the impacts on Trump's campaign and the GOP.- MrX 19:48, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

  This RFC is obviously about the lead. User:MrX, you think the lead should summarize the Access Hollywood recording, flood of accusations, and the impacts on Trump's campaign and the GOP?Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:18, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

  That's what I gathered, based on the word "summarized", but MrX can correct me if I'm wrong. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:22, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

  Well, MrX apparently thinks the lead can adequately cover this in fifteen words.[10]Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:33, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

  Two sentences. Something like this: "Trump's campaign took a defensive stance following publication of his lewd comments from 2005 and accusations of similar sexual misconduct from several women. Numerous prominent Republicans distanced themselves from Trump, while others rallied to his support, creating a perception of a divided GOP leadership."- MrX 22:40, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

  Well I adamantly oppose that. You still manage to avoid the denial which WP:BLP strongly suggests we need. And no way is a GOP division more significant than that Trump is participating in the most-watched debates in human history, or that his opponent is Hillary Clinton. And "sexual misconduct" is so vague as to include sexual penetration.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:04, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

  His denial is not unusual or significant, and should go in the body. Yes, sexual misconduct includes sexual penetration. What is your point? - MrX 23:16, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

  There is a pending lawsuit alleging multiple occurrences of intercourse with a then-13-year-old girl. I'm also interested in your point there. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:06, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Do you have RS that Trump raped a 13-year old? Otherwise it should not be mentioned on talk. Same to Anythingyouwant's gratuitous mention of penetration. SPECIFICO talk 00:15, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

I merely said that "unwanted sexual touching" would be better than "sexual misconduct" because the former would not potentially include penetrative sex. That's all I said about it. As far as the comment from MrX acknowledging this observation of mine, the vast majority of press coverage has been about allegations of unwanted sexual touching. Other allegations have received vastly less coverage, and I abhor the notion that we would smuggle much more damaging allegations into the lead under cover of the unwanted touching allegations. And, it is extremely obvious that when WP:BLP says to include denials, that does not mean to include them separately from the allegations in some other section or sub-article.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:22, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

But that's incorrect. Unwanted touching would include manner of penetration, fetishist cutting and bondage and other unspecified and possibly unsavory conduct. Please close the RfC so we can, as Soros says, "move on". SPECIFICO talk 00:37, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: = Do you have RS that Trump raped a 13-year old? Otherwise it should not be mentioned on talk. - Beg pardon? We can have an article discussing those allegations but we can't refer to those allegations on an article talk page? What Wikipedia are you editing? You might take a gander at WP:NPOV. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:39, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Please review WP:BLP there must be some basis for any mention of so heinous an allegation even against a figure with Trump's statements and history. SPECIFICO talk 01:15, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

The fact remains—if we can address these allegations in articles, and it's clear that we can should per WP:PUBLICFIGURE, part of WP:BLP, we have to be able to discuss them on article talk pages. That's what article talk pages are for if I'm not mistaken. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:20, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

User:SPECIFICO, this RFC is about length rather than content. As I've already said, I am not wedded to "unwanted sexual contact", but I hope we can agree on a term that precisely describes what the media has been predominantly reporting about. Incidentally, the Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network defines sexual assault as "unwanted sexual contact that stops short of rape or attempted rape. This includes sexual touching and fondling."Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:04, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

I think Marek's recent edit got it 99% right for the lede. Better we should improve the article corpus discussion of this content. It's a matter of efficiency. Further discussion of the length of the lede mention is a waste of time and effort. SPECIFICO talk 01:15, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

• No because this is a ridiculous RfC. How about using a fixed number of letters? Yes because the number of words in lede is always insufficient. Posting RfC like that is wasting time of other contributors. My very best wishes (talk) 03:03, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
• No or Remove from lead entirely - Seems like a pretty clear example of recent-ism to me. Plus, I'm a little concerned that this is a bad faith RfC. Why didn't the nom offer the choice of removing the verbiage entirely? Seems like a veiled of implying the text is appropriate to begin with. NickCT (talk) 03:07, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

  In answer your question, I wanted the RFC to be binary, i.e. yes or no. This is all explained in my initial comments above. Suppose I had offered three choices: (1) delete entirely, (2) do not exceed 15 words, or (3) exceed 15 words. Three people !vote for option (1), three people !vote for option (2), and four people !vote for option (3). A closer could say option (3) wins, even though more people wanted to stay under 16 words. P.S. I argue in a section below to completely delete because there is no consensus about what it should say.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:24, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

  So your excuse for not making an unbiased RfC is that tallying the votes would be confusing? That's not a good excuse. Simply let folks support more than one outcome (i.e. let them say "Support Option 1 or 2") and you can easily work your way around that potential problem. I'm sorry, but trying to produce a "binary" vote is not an excuse for a biased RfC. NickCT (talk) 13:37, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

• This RfC makes no sense.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:15, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

  Do you think 15 words in the lead is insufficient to cover the sex allegations or not? You can't just kill off an RFC by saying it's nonsensical.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:20, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

You started this RfC to "protect" a version of the article that had no consensus anyway. I also have no idea why you chose "15 words". And you used an extremely confusing phrasing with an unnecessary double negative. Then you added the weird "for the time being". What is this "time being"? Today? Tomorrow? And forever? It's impossible to answer a question which doesn't make sense, even if we overlook the fact that it's being posed in bad faith.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:34, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Seconded. Silly RfC. Void for vagueness. NickCT (talk) 13:37, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

• Comment - Here's my current thinking on all this business. 1. Some RfCs are unproductive, even counterproductive. There needs to be a way to kill them. 2. I don't know of a way to kill a poorly-worded RfC other than to reach a consensus that it should die. 3. We can have that debate in a separate thread or here, but I don't know that it makes much difference. 4. If we wish to oppose the RfC, we should give an argument rather than WP:IJDLI. "Makes no sense" is not an argument. 5. I haven't formed a clear opinion yet, and I'm not all that confident that I have the competence to argue one. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:18, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
• No (as in no change for now). If you have a specific proposed change you want made, propose it. But generally, a single sentence for a topic reported in the news over the past couple weeks is fine in a lead, which is meant to be a tight summary of the article content. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 07:36, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
• Hahahaha... -- so if this RfC isn't closed with a consensus of "yes", we'll have to limit ourselves to 15 words in the lead on this matter? What a bizarre notion. (It's almost as if Trump came up with it himself: "I write the best leads, they're UNBELIEVABLE, if anyone wants more words in the lead we'll just make Mexico pay for them, etc. etc....") Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:07, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
• Comment. This is probably the most ridiculous RfC I have seen in the project. "Should the number of words in a phrase be fixed?" Of course it should not because "every version is wrong version". But whatever the answer, it will not resolve any dispute. Which begs the question: what was actually the point of the RfC? Is it to report another contributor to WP:AE? My very best wishes (talk) 16:39, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
• Comment- Is the number of words in the lead insufficient regarding this subject? This is a strange confusing request. But...Yes. Two or three well-written sentences would be better. Buster Seven Talk 22:49, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Unsourced content in Sexual assault allegations

Please provide inline citation for unsourced content in Donald Trump#Sexual assault allegations. The sentence with "multiple women presented new stories of ... People magazine" doesn't have any inline citations. The next citation basically covers only "Jane Doe" case. Per WP:BLPREMOVE unsourced or poorly sourced content must be removed immediately. I used expression "sexual misconduct" because that is totally non-contentious in this case and didn't consided blanking the whole sentence a viable option. My believe is that some citation were left out mistakenly, but not all removed content can be verified. Pinging Sabot Cat who originally added this section, maybe they can clarify. Politrukki (talk) 21:58, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

You appear to be breaching the WP:1RR restriction on spurious grounds. The multiplicity of the complaints is well-sourced, as are the precise words of "rape", "sexual assault", "groping" and so on. I suggest you self-revert, allow discussion, follow consensus. --Pete (talk) 22:02, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

I have made two consequent edits and one revert within 24-hour period stating WP:BLP reasons for making the revert. If you think that removed content can be verified, could you perhaps mention some sources that verify that multiple women have presented new stories alleging rape after the lewd tapes were published, and say why none of these sources are cited in the article? I believe this is the People magazine piece mentioned in our article and this is the NYT piece. Neither of them mention any new rape accusations. I'm seriously trying to figure out what we are talking about here. For example this NPR piece mentions only the "dialed back" allegation of Ivana Trump and our subarticle mentions that Ivana Trump and "Jane Doe" have made rape accusations. Neither of them are new accusations and I don't know if neither of them have made any allegations publicly. When you have provided the sources I asked, maybe we can discuss how this paragraph can be improved. I don't for example object using term "sexual attack" in this section that is what multiple reliable sources use, and if we actually cite the sources using inline citations. Politrukki (talk) 22:31, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

This edit and this one are identical, both reverting to previous wording of "sexual misconduct". In this edit you removed a New York Times piece which is a reliable source, providing details of sexual harassment. I'll agree that no new claims of rape have been brought forward since the tape was released, though a fresh claim of rape was made a few days previously. This needs to be worded accurately, I agree, but I find your repeated assertion that "sexual assault" and "sexual harassment" is unsourced to be inaccurate. --Pete (talk) 00:18, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

"Sexual touching". Is that like when Donald thanked his daughter for a great speech at the Republican Convention, gave her a congratulatory peck on the cheek, but also touched her lower hip area? Buster Seven Talk 20:55, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps "Sexual feeling"? The key point is the lack of consent, as opposed to what people do normally. --Pete (talk) 03:53, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Removal of sexual misconduct allegations

I propose to remove the sentence at the end of the lead about sexual misconduct allegations, because the wording was recently changed. If the most-watched debates in the history of the world don't belong in the lead, and Trump's denial of these allegations doesn't belong in the lead, then the best place for us to describe those allegations is in the corresponding subsection of this article, and in the dedicated sub-article, rather than in the lead.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:38, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Anything, that's a statement of your opinion with no argument to the facts or policies that might convince others to agree. The debate is a single event in Trump's long and storied life. There have been many other highlights, e.g. surrounding his famous Plaza Hotel stewardship and the construction of landmark Trump Tower on Fifth Ave. On the other hand, we have Trump's repeated self descriptions of his proclivity to sexual misconduct and the numerous corroborating accusations of criminal misconduct by the women who've come forth -- these are a different kind of matter. These relate to a core behavioral trait of the subject himself and to an extensive and enduring pattern of behavior described by him and confirmed by others. A brief mention in the lede seems appropriate of the behavioral issue but not the debate(s) for this reason. SPECIFICO talk 18:22, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Per WP:BLP, "If the subject has denied such allegations, that should also be reported." Moreover "sexual touching" has been changed to the more ambiguous "sexual misconduct" which readers could more easily misinterpret. There are millions of women in the United States, and false sex allegations are not unknown; opinion polls indicate that these allegations are not having a major impact, and we cannot assess their impact or veracity clearly until more time elapses. But we do know that the debates are the most-watched in human history.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:12, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

For the lede, I think we should not put that Trump boasted he can grab womens' pussies, walk in on beauty pageant dressing rooms, etc etc... As to how that should be covered in the body, I haven't considered it and have no specific recommendation. I think the 1-3 sentence versions that have been in the lede are necessary and appropriately brief for the reasons stated previously by various editors here on talk. We don't want to get into too much detail in the lede however, so perhaps the first-person boasts and subsequent denial might be best left to the body text where they can be neutrally balanced. SPECIFICO talk 19:23, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

What the hell is "sexual touching"?; even if there are a few sources that use that term, the overwhelming majority do not. The main article is titled Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations, which is the terminology we should be using. Given the massive amount of weight this material carries, there is no question in my mind that it should be mentioned in the lede. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 19:29, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

The CTV Television Network seems to understand what "sexual touching" is.[11] I don't insist on that term, but "sexual misconduct" is certainly very vague and we ought to be more specific.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:39, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

The significant fact here is that Trump was accused of sexual misconduct by multiple women, after it was revealed that he bragged about same. His denial goes without saying and is not a significant fact worthy of the lead.- MrX 19:30, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

If denials go without saying then WP:BLP would not say, "If the subject has denied such allegations, that should also be reported."Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:32, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, include it in the body of the article, not the lead.- MrX 19:51, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

If we want to hide the denial, it would be more effective to use hidden text or relegate it to a sub-article.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:09, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

It's not hiding it to put it in the body. A lede summary is only a summary. You can even have a subsection titled "Trump boasts of sexual assaults and subsequent denials of sexual assaults" or similar. BTW "sexual touching" is what friends do. It's pretty clear that what Trump boasted is called "sexual assault" and is criminal. He has repeatedly acknowledged the impropriety of his behavior -- to Chris Matthews, Howard Stern, Billy Bush and others -- in the course of boasting that he can do these things and get away with them because the is a star. We don't "get away with" sexual touching but we would need to "get away with" assault or abuse. It's similar to his statement that he could shoot someone in broad daylight and that wouldn't diminish his popularity in the polls. The difference is that the statement about shooting was stated unambiguously as a hypothetical whereas the statements about sexual assault were stated as boasts later corroborated by various women who stated that they had been the victims of such assaults. SPECIFICO talk 20:28, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Obviously, "unwanted sexual touching" is not what friends do.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:38, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Are you talking to me? Cuz I dint say "unwanted", nor did you in your writing above in which you snarkwise refer to CTV network. Stick dropping time. Anything else we can work on here? SPECIFICO talk 20:41, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

I started this talk page section by linking a diff. That's where the phraseology "unwanted sexual touching" came from.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:50, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree with the proposal to remove the sentence. The article is about Donald Trump's entire life, and all the allegations happened only recently and as part of his candidacy for president. There is no good reason why sexual assault allegations should be part of the lead. Ag97 (talk) 21:55, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

If the women coming forward are to be believed, Trumps actions have been happening most of his adult life. The allegations are surfacing now but they point to 20/30 years ago. Buster Seven Talk 22:01, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

I've restored the previous version which is both succinct and adequately covers the phenomenon. I can't really see a policy based problem with it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:09, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

This clearly reflects current consensus so I ask Anythingyouwant to withdraw the RfC on this bit so we can archive the threads on this topic and move on to other improvements. SPECIFICO talk 00:16, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

No. The RFC does not reflect such a "current consensus" and the RFC is not going anywhere. Sorry.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:48, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

The RfC is worded in like the most confusing way possible. And the RfC was quickly formulated to "protect" a non-consensus version (as in "let's make an edit against consensus then quickly start an RfC about it and then demand that the text remain unchanged while the RfC is ongoing". Sneaky, but not terribly original. Fairly standard WP:BATTLEGROUND/POV-pushing tactic).Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:36, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

This should be included in lede given significance of this material in the ungoing election and in the political carrier of the subject in general. My very best wishes (talk) 02:52, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Please note: As described in my initial comment above in this section, the proposal under discussion is to remove the sex material when it was only 15 words. Now it has been extended to 67 words, contrary to the RFC above, and that extension without consensus is currently the subject of an Arbitration Enforcement proceeding to which anyone can contribute if they like.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:59, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

The consensus version was the longer version, which was removed by James Lambden without consensus and then "tweaked" by you, also without consensus. You are trying to legitimize a non-consensus version by asking questions about it and starting RfC about it, basically trying to force everyone to accept it as a "status quo". So this discussion is beside the point. We can discuss the longer version and perhaps how it should be altered.

Also, any damn fool can file an WP:AE (also any non-damned non-fool such as yourself) so that means absolutely nothing. Hey, actually lots have done so and a good number of them got WP:BOOMERANGED. The "I filed an AE report about this so I should get my way on this article" is actually NOT a good argument.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:40, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

I started an RFC to gauge consensus, not to force anyone to do anything.Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:13, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

The RfC you started was about a version which didn't have consensus. A good faithed RfC would have proposed an alteration to the version which had consensus, which would've been the longer version.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:17, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Nonsense. The RFC I started anticipated that the version would change: "At the time this RFC is being started, the lead says, "Allegations of sexual misconduct against Trump were widely reported in the weeks before the election." Is this number of words in the lead insufficient, for the time being, regarding this subject?" The RFC is obviously about length, and nothing more.Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:19, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

(ec) Right. You started an RfC about a version you knew had no consensus so that when someone tried to change it back to consensus version you could run in and say "wait, there's an ongoing RfC!". The actual issue of the RfC - length - is sort of material to the purpose, as its triviality (and confusing presentation) attests.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:22, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

I knew no such thing. I hope you will respect that the consensus is to work within a 15-word limit, and there are many ways to do that apart from having zero words.[12] Good night.Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:34, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

You don't appear to be convincing anyone. Objective3000 (talk) 11:11, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

It's not my job to convince anyone that they ought to follow guidelines and policies, so the matter is at Arbitration Enforcement, and they can decide if it's their job.Anythingyouwant (talk) 11:19, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

The consensus is most certainly NOT "to work within a 15 word limit", which you just pulled out of your thin air. If you want to suggests tweaks to the longer, consensus, version, that's fine, but please stop trying to usurp consensus and railroad your preferred version with battleground tactics (like filing spurious AE reports, which, I might add, haven't ended well for the filer in the past).Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:09, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Volunteer Marek that the current three-sentence short paragraph (one of which is devoted to Trump's defence) is the consensus version, agreed on by half a dozen users or so, and that it was removed without any significant support by one or two users. Volunteer Marek is certainly correct that there is no support for the absurd idea of "working within a 15 word limit"; indeed most of the discussion is focused on whether we should have one or two–three sentences, with the most support for the latter solution. --Tataral (talk) 15:56, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

If anyone thinks about improvement of content, then the 15-word phrase is obviously insufficient. At the very least, one must provide a wikilink to Donald Trump and Billy Bush recording controversy page - as in current version. Otherwise, it is entirely unclear what "allegations" we are talking about. Besides, this is not an allegation. This is claim (record) by the subject himself. My very best wishes (talk) 16:57, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

While I understand the attempt to limit our coverage of the whole "tape, allegations, response, media plot' thing, I feel mention should be made in the lede. Two or three well-constructed, concise and succinct sentences are needed. If a new RfC is required to stop the confusion as to consensus, so be it. Buster Seven Talk 19:43, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Dates of Donald and Ivana divorce and final settlement

Hi,

I have gone round and round trying to sort out the actual date of divorce for Donald and Ivana and came up with the following:

The Trump's divorce was granted in 1990 with the final financial settlement made in 1992.

References

This article states that the divorce was finalized in 1991. I just thought I'd check in here and see if the info in the blurb is correct, or if there is something I'm missing.

Thanks so much!--CaroleHenson (talk) 23:54, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

@CaroleHenson: 1990 seems to be correct. I have made the change.- MrX 16:54, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Racial discrimination

The section dealing with the Justice Department charges of racial discrimination in housing used to include the fact -- not allegation -- that Trump's managers had refused to offer apartments to black "testers," and then offered apartments to white testers who arrived soon afterwards. That fact has been deleted, and simply says that it was settled with "no admission of wrongdoing", implying that there was no wrongdoing. This is a false implication. Many WP:RS reported that Trump's managers refused to rent to black testers, and we should say that.

Tony Schwartz, Trump's ghostwriter, said that this was a deceptive strategy that was typical of Trump:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/17/opinion/campaign-stops/donald-trumps-playbook-:for-smearing.html

Donald Trump’s Playbook for Smearing

David Leonhardt

OCT. 17, 2016

“This is a classic example of where Trump begins to demonstrate something he talks about all the time today, which is he’s a counterpuncher. So somebody comes after him and says that he’s done something nefarious and horrible, and he just goes back at them with all guns blazing — you know, boom, boom, boom. And admits nothing, never admit anything, never say you made a mistake, just keep coming.

And if you lose, declare victory. And that’s exactly what happened there. He lost as clearly as you could lose but he loudly proclaimed his victory.”

This quotation comes from Tony Schwartz, the ghostwriter of Donald Trump’s book, “The Art of the Deal.” Schwartz is talking about Trump’s response to a 1970s lawsuit against his company for refusing to rent apartments to African-Americans.

I think that at the very least, the WP article should include a description of the fact that Trump's managers had refused to offer apartments to black "testers," and then offered apartments to white testers who arrived soon afterwards. However, given the speed with which it was deleted in the past, I'm not optimistic. --Nbauman (talk) 15:50, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

FYI an Arbitration Enforcement complaint has been filed

FYI an Arbitration Enforcement complaint has been filed concerning this article. See this thread if you are interested.

SPECIFICO talk 16:20, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Accusations of sexual misconduct in lead section

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I'm dismayed to see that content about the allegations of sexual misconduct was repeatedly re-added to the lead section this weekend despite the fact that an ongoing discussion indicated that a majority of editors opposed its inclusion there. Can someone please point to the consensus in which we agreed to include this material in the lead? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:57, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

I find it odd that you refer to one short section of this talk page while ignoring the rest of the discussion below which clearly shows a large majority supporting its inclusion; in fact we have debated for days now whether we should have 2–3 sentences, 1 sentence or (most recently) if there should be a 15 word limit, not whether it should be in the lead at all. Furthermore, the purpose of the lead is to summarise the article. The notion that an issue that has its own first-level section and its own stand-alone sub article shouldn't be even mentioned in the lead is, quite frankly, absurd. Especially when one also considers that this is the most high profile issue of what Trump is mainly known for, and the most extensively covered issue in reliable sources relating to Trump. --Tataral (talk) 18:09, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Looks to me as though that discussion was only about the Hollywood tape; and I would have agreed that the tape alone was not enough for mention in the lead. But, this has spread into a much greater controversy and may include decades of his life. Objective3000 (talk) 18:10, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

There is no firm consensus, but a review of this page shows that opinions lean toward including at least a brief summary. (Note that I changed my view based on sustained news coverage and new allegations.)- MrX 18:12, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

@DrFleischman, no, because there wasn't consensus to include in the lead. The idea that since it is covered in the body of the article it has to go in the lead is misplaced(I am being kind). If anything, there was consensus NOT to include, which should really be the "default" option since this is newish material. This does NOT mean that consensus can change to inclusion based on future events/coverage/opinions, ect.--Malerooster (talk) 19:26, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

You claim that "The idea that since it is covered in the body of the article it has to go in the lead is misplaced". That is absolutely wrong; first of all, it is not merely "covered" in the article, it has a first-level section devoted specifically to it, and it even has a stand-alone in-depth article. The lead is intended to "stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic" and "summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies" as Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section points out even in its own lead section. Donald Trump is not involved in any more prominent controversies than this one; in fact, this is the single issue relating to Trump that has received the most coverage in reliable sources over his whole career, and it is a dominant feature of what he is mainly known for, his presidential candidacy. The idea that it should not be in the lead is not based on Wikipedia policy. If someone felt this was trivial, they should first nominate the article on the controversy for deletion, and then obtain consensus to get rid of the first-level section on the controversy here, and then we could discuss changes to the lead section (which is obviously not going to happen). --Tataral (talk) 21:30, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm not interested in generalized comments directing me to look at various unspecified comments. What I see is no consensus on this matter at all. We are all over the place. Yet, several folks who favor inclusion have been pushing and pushing, without doing a whole lot of convincing. The material should stay out of the lead until we have consensus to include it. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:48, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

It definitely doesn't belong there and no section of this talk page shows there's consensus to include it. D.Creish (talk) 22:05, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should information about Trump's alleged sexual misconduct be in the LEAD?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Looking to get a general headcount (we can work out the amount/details after this is settled) --- Please state YES or NO -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 18:30, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

YES - Given the large amount of weight that this material carries, I think some information about it should be in the lead. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 18:35, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it should obviously remain in the lead section for all the reasons stated above many times and by many editors, namely because the lead is supposed to summarise the article, because this issue is important enough to have both a first-level section in this article and its own stand-alone sub-article, and because it is the most widely reported issue relating to Trump in reliable sources. --Tataral (talk) 18:46, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

CLOSE THIS and start a formal RFC. Already tried to close this once. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:50, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Please allow people to state their opinion. There is no discussion this concise currently taking place on this talk page. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 18:53, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Actually, there is, and the discussion is really redundant, because the main issue is whether we should have one sentence, 15 words or 2–3 sentences, not whether we should cover it at all (not covering such a high profile controversy with a first-level section and a sub article would be odd and highly unusual). --Tataral (talk) 18:56, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) #Accusations of sexual misconduct in lead section, #Removal of sexual misconduct allegations, #RFC:Recent allegations in lede, #Potential paragraph at end of lede on sex abuse allegations, #Concern about the lede, #Sentence on sexual misconduct in lede paragraph on campaign, and #Access Hollywood tape in lead section are all related to this. Make a subsection in one of those. We don't need an 8th section on this. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:59, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Then why does it keep getting removed from the lead? -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 18:58, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm not aware that it does. --Tataral (talk) 19:00, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

You can see it if you look at the edit history. Here's one example [13] - Here's another [14] -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 19:01, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: Could you do something about this perhaps? I'd do it myself but I don't have time right now. A centralized RfC with a clear and neutral wording would be really nice right now. ~Awilley (talk) 22:59, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

@Awilley: I'll give it a shot... there are so many issues to address though. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:13, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

• No - Pretty clear example of WP:RECENTISM. The lede is meant to be an overall summary of the life and times of Trump. The recent sexual allegations make up a pretty negligible portion of those life and times. This topic may cease to receive attention on Nov 9th. NickCT (talk) 19:34, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes - Recentism is an essay, not a WP policy or guideline. It has become a significant issue in the election. Every major news souce that covers U.S. politics has written about it. It is an example of WP:WEIGHT, which is a WP policy. --Nbauman (talk) 20:33, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

@Nbauman: I suspect that NickCT may also have been thinking of WP:BALASPS policy, which reads in pertinent part: "This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news." --Dervorguilla (talk) 22:54, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

• Comment - EvergreenFir, I thought this discussion would be helpful but I'm fine with you (or someone else) closing it. Thanks. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 20:21, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
• No. I want to see evidence that this controversy has been more significant than the other many controversies (such as Trump University and the Judge Curiel comments) before I'll support including one sentence to the lead section, let along a whole paragraph. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:44, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
  • WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS? In fact, Trump University should be mentioned in the lead too, as a relatively prominent controversy, although not as prominent as the sexual misconduct controversy which is dominating his presidential campaign. Newspapers in Europe and around the world write about Trump's sexual misconduct around the clock; Trump University mainly received domestic coverage, and not nearly as much as the sexual misconduct controversy. --Tataral (talk) 21:49, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

What does WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS have to do with this? I'm talking about WP:LEAD and WP:BALANCE within the same article. There is no possible way we can include all of Trump's controversies in his lead section. It would be pages and pages long. We should be aiming for 4-5 paragraphs max. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:52, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

I realize that you have not read Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section that I pointed you to earlier. Your claims above have nothing to do with how lead sections in Wikipedia articles are actually written. In fact, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section specifically points out that "any prominent controversies" should be included in the lead. This is the most prominent controversy he has been involved in and it belongs in the lead. No one has advocated including "all of Trump's controversies" in the lead section, but a large majority supports the inclusion of the most prominent controversy and issue relating to Trump covered in reliable sources. --Tataral (talk) 22:09, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Please show me evidence that this is the most prominent controversy. I want links, not bare assertions. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:26, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

• NO - Sorry for shouting, just following the instructions. Seems redundant with #Potential paragraph at end of lede on sex abuse allegations, which already has 12 !votes, but I'll play in case there is some subtle difference I'm missing.
  My comments copied from 11 October above: Would you have stuck Monica in Bill Clinton's lead a few days after the story broke? That scandal resulted in the impeachment of a president and threatened to force his resignation, and even today it gets two sentences and 57 words in the lead. Gary Hart, "the clear frontrunner for the Democratic nomination", was forced to drop out of the race when news of Donna Rice surfaced, and there is not one word in his lead. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:34, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Gary Hart's lead is way too short, and should include Donna Rice. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:38, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
    • I can see that, sorta. So ignore the Hart part and the Clinton part is enough for me. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:45, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
• No At this point it doesn't deserve that kind of weight. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:37, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
• Absolutely not. Completely undue.Zigzig20s (talk) 23:34, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RfC: Lead issues regarding recent news/allegations

Summary of issue

There has been debates, reverts, and contentious editing regarding the lead of this BLP (see the above talk page sections: #Accusations of sexual misconduct in lead section, #Removal of sexual misconduct allegations, #RFC:Recent allegations in lede, #Potential paragraph at end of lede on sex abuse allegations, #Concern about the lede, #Sentence on sexual misconduct in lede paragraph on campaign, and #Access Hollywood tape in lead section).

There are multiple objections and issues raised, but they all center around the inclusion or exclusion of allegations of sexual misconduct, harassment, assault, and crimes by Trump against a number of women. The relevant information in the body of the article can primarily be found at § Presidential campaign, 2016, which summaries the fuller article Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations.

So far, the issues raise have been about (1) the existence of any mention in the lede and (2) the length of any such mention. Regarding (2), among those who think it should be included, some have suggested only one or two sentences be added while other suggest a stand-alone paragraph is warranted. Specific policies and guidelines raised in previous discussions include due weight, recentism, lede guidelines, potential biography of living persons violations, and adherence to a neutral point of view.

Examples of past lede edits: paragraphs, paragraph, sentence.

Need for this RfC

Current discussions are disjointed, redundant, and contentious. Some attempts at consensus-building and !voting have been relative unfruitful. It is unclear if there is consensus for anything. Unlike straw polls and other !votes, an RfC can help bring in new editors to voice their opinions and (hopefully) generate a stronger consensus. Per a request in the above section, I am making a good-faith attempt at creating a neutrally-worded RfC to assess consensus on the aforementioned issues. If you feel I have not adequately or correctly summarized the debate, please feel free to suggest clarification or changes to the background infomation. Because of the complicated nature of the issues and past discussion, please forgive my multi-question RfC. It is the only way I can see any RfC addressing the core issues and making any headway.

Questions

1. Should the lede of this BLP include any summary of the allegations of sexual misconduct against Trump?
2. If the material is included, to what extent should it be covered in the lead?

Thank you for your time and input. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:39, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

RfC opinions and discussion

• Note - I have left messages on the talk pages of users who !voted in the above closed discussion inviting them to comment on this RfC. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:46, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
• 1. No; 2. One sentence. Our guideline on lead sections says that the lead should be a concise summary of the article's most important contents and as a general rule of thumb should be limited to 4 paragraphs. This article is extremely dense due to the... hm... richness of Mr. Trump's life, so some unusually extreme vetting must be done to keep the lead manageable. At this point, I have seen no evidence (such as reliable sources) indicating that the recent controversy surrounding allegations of sexual misconduct is any more biographically significant than other major controversies of the last year, including Trump University and the statements about Judge Curiel, which are not mentioned in the lead section. Therefore I oppose any inclusion at this point, and if we do include something, it should be minimal. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:48, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

  One sentence could go on forever.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:48, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

• No opinion at this time about whether it should go in the lead and if it is included it should not exceed 15 words. As of now, more than 15 words is undue weight especially given that not even the presidential debates are mentioned in the lead. There is also no justification for putting the word "rape" into the lead, nor for omitting Trump's denial of all the allegations. It can all be done in 15 words or less.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:48, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

  I would like to add that the lead currently refers to "rape, and child rape". This is truly outrageous crap to have in this lead. After all, the rest of the BLP says nothing about any rape aside from the alleged child rape, for very good reason. The alleged adult rape victims withdrew the charges. For example, Collins, Eliza (July 28, 2015). "Ivana Trump denies accusing Donald Trump of rape". Politico. As for the alleged child rape, according to The Guardian newspaper, lawsuits by this "Jane Doe" against Trump "appear to have been orchestrated by an eccentric anti-Trump campaigner with a record of making outlandish claims about celebrities," a former producer on the The Jerry Springer Show. See Swaine, Jon (July 7, 2016). "Rape lawsuits against Donald Trump linked to former TV producer; Norm Lubow, formerly a producer on the Jerry Springer show, apparently coordinated lawsuits accusing Donald Trump of raping a child in the 1990s". The Guardian. Retrieved October 17, 2016. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anythingyouwant (talk • contribs) 00:52, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

• No and one short sentence - Would you have stuck Monica in Bill Clinton's lead a few days after the story broke? That scandal resulted in the historic impeachment of a president and threatened to force his resignation, and the whole thing gets two sentences and 57 words in the lead. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:50, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Bill Clinton's biography does include the Lewinsky controversy in the lead. A key difference, of course, is that Bill Clinton is a former President of the United States with a very long track record and impact, whereas Trump is a guy with no political experience who is mainly known around the world for being accused of sexually assaulting women and spewing racist comments. Another difference is that Lewinsky was a consenting adult, and that Clinton has not been accused of (or admitted to!) sexually assaulting an endless list of women over many decades. The comparison with the treatment of the Lewinsky case in Bill Clinton's article indeed highlights why this (much more serious) controversy should obviously be included in this article (on a guy whose credentials/public track record is nothing compared to Clinton; hence this controversy is more important for and defining of the topic Donald Trump than Lewinsky is of the topic Bill Clinton). --Tataral (talk) 01:04, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
    • Here's my counter to the "long track record and impact" argument, and I'll pass on the rest and leave that to the closer.
      Bill Clinton - file size 186K - readable prose size per User:Dr pda/prosesize 65K
      Donald Trump - file size 327K - readable prose size 88K
      I know, I've been here before, we can get into which sub-articles about each person should be included in that comparison, but I'm passing on that too. What's clear is that Trump has had plenty of "impact", just of a different type than Clinton.
      mainly known around the world for being accused of sexually assaulting women and spewing racist comments. No POV in that argument! ―Mandruss ☎ 01:49, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
      • Measuring impact by whether the article is bloated or not seems like an odd idea, and based on which policy/sources exactly? On Wikipedia, articles are supposed to be readable prose; it's not like there is a contest to make the longest article. A lot of hard work has probably gone into making the Bill Clinton article sufficiently concise. What you have found out is that Bill Clinton has a well written biography within the recommended range per Wikipedia:Article size, whereas Trump has a bloated biography (not due to the very short mentions in the lead and body of the sexual assault scandal, but due to tons of excessively detailed material on trivial stuff such as "Football, cycling and boxing", which is given far more weight than the much more prominent controversy discussed here) near the "almost certainly should be divided" range per Wikipedia:Article size. --Tataral (talk) 02:20, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
        • Look, RfC survey sections are not for extended debates. I concede, you win. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:31, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

• Short sentence including denial, no more. Anything else is WP:UNDUE. To editors arguing this is the most covered incident in his life or even his campaign, they have a responsibility to demonstrate that with evidence. James J. Lambden (talk) 23:51, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
• No and very short sentence - As I mentioned in previous discussions, I feel that any mention in the lead is currently undue and recentism. In the scope of this multi-decade biography, this topic is currently minor. Such discussion in the lead belongs more on the campaign page. WP:LEAD directs us to summarize the article is a balanced manner. Currently, only a very small portion of the article covers this issue. Given that, it would not seem important enough to cover in the lead at this point. If, and only if, these allegations (1) result in a conviction or (2) are cited as the primary reason for Trump losing the election, then that would make them significant enough for the lead. In the event of the latter case or consensus forms for inclusion, I do agree with James J. Lambden that Trump's denial should be included if they remain allegations (but not if there's a conviction). EvergreenFir (talk) 23:57, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

• Yesish -- A mention should be included in the lead given the extent of claims, the extent of time period, the extent of coverage, and the extent of apparent effect. I added the "ish" as I don't think it can be summarized in the lead. It can be mentioned and the body will include the summarization. I would go for two or three sentences in the lead. Objective3000 (talk) 00:02, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

• Short paragraph (ec) of two to four sentences. I have no idea where this "15 words" thing was pulled out of but it's completely arbitrary. This is by far the biggest issue of the campaign and the fact that it is still getting extensive coverage in sources weeks later justifies its inclusion and giving it more than just "15 words". But I'm actually more concerned about what is included rather than how long. Specifically the sentence should not be something along the lines "Trump denied some accusations that were made" and leaving it at that, which is what some of the editors wanted to have. Write it straight - NPOV, no monkey business. What, when, who, where and how. First the allegations and their nature, then the fact that he denied them. Both the Bush tape and the women coming forward should be mentioned. The rape allegation can be left out of the lede.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:06, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
• Yes One Paragraph such as the current,

"Trump has been publicly accused by at least twelve women of sexual misconduct—including sexual assault, rape, and child rape—since the 1980s. Several of these allegations preceded Trump's 2016 candidacy for president; many more arose during that campaign, especially after revelation of a 2005 audio recording, in which Trump appeared to brag about committing sexual assault. He has denied the allegations, describing them as part of a wider campaign to smear his candidacy and reputation." SPECIFICO talk 00:21, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

• Yes, per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section the lead "should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic" and "summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies". Donald Trump is mainly known (especially on a global scale) for his presidential candidacy, which is completely dominated by the sexual misconduct controversy. The sexual misconduct controversy has also received more coverage in reliable sources than any other topic related to Trump in his whole life. It is the most prominent issue related to Trump covered in reliable sources, and it is covered both in the article and in a lengthy in-depth sub article. The notion that such a prominent controversy should not be included in the lead is simply absurd and contrary to Wikipedia policy, such as Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section. We should have two or three sentences (two sentences on the controversy itself with a possible third sentence devoted to Trump's defence/views/denial), as in the current paragraph, because it is impossible to cover this material in a responsible manner in just one sentence, which would also come across as an attempt to unduly downplay the issue. The two or three sentences must however not necessarily constitute a separate paragraph; the reason the three sentences became a separate paragraph in the first place was that this material was placed at the end of an extremely bloated paragraph.--Tataral (talk) 00:40, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
• Yes. The sources clearly support this. One to two sentences that very briefly describe that allegations have been made, with details covered in the body of the article. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 01:06, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
• Yes - The content in the lead should cover Trump's Access Hollywood comments, the ensuing flood of allegations of sexual misconduct, and the impact to his presidential campaign and the GOP. Two to three sentences should be sufficient. Whether it's added to the campaign paragraph or a separate paragraph matters very little. The coverage of this scandal has gone well beyond the 24 hour news cycle. It's being covered in a sustained fashion by major international news agencies, and has even influenced pop culture [15] [16]. - MrX 02:57, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
• Yes. Even if it were a single phrase, this should be a separate paragraph. But this must be more than one phrase. Main point here is that all the allegations by different women are very similar and consistent with each other and with something Donald Trump said himself on the widely publicized tape. We must tell also that he blindly denied everything. Three short phrases should be enough. My very best wishes (talk) 04:12, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
• Note: Based on the responses so far, and in the spirit of BLP, I have boldly merged the standalone paragraph into the campaign paragraph. [17] I realize there are a couple of people who have argued for a standalone paragraph (specifically Volunteer Marek, SPECIFICO, and My very best wishes) while some have said it doesn't matter (Tataral, Mrx) and others oppose it (Dr. Fleishmann, Anythingyouwant, Mandruss, James J. Lambden) while others don't specify (saying maybe 2-3 sentences but without specifying where). This isn't meant to be a "close" or a final wording, but a quick course correction on a highly visible BLP. ~Awilley (talk) 06:42, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Discussion notice re Jane Doe

Of 18 "blue chip" sources, three (16.6%) have so far been found to report on the Jane Doe case. There is a discussion active at Talk:Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations#The lawsuit didn't receive much coverage / Remove Jane Doe? to decide whether that amount of RS justifies inclusion in that article. If the answer is no, I assume this article and any others would follow suit; I don't think WP:OSE applies here. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:23, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Obvious BLP violation

The lead currently refers to "rape, and child rape". This is truly outrageous crap to have in this lead. After all, the rest of the BLP says nothing about any rape aside from the alleged child rape, for very good reason. The alleged adult rape victims withdrew the charges. For example, Collins, Eliza (July 28, 2015). "Ivana Trump denies accusing Donald Trump of rape". Politico. As for the alleged child rape, according to The Guardian newspaper, lawsuits by this "Jane Doe" against Trump "appear to have been orchestrated by an eccentric anti-Trump campaigner with a record of making outlandish claims about celebrities," a former producer on the The Jerry Springer Show. See Swaine, Jon (July 7, 2016). "Rape lawsuits against Donald Trump linked to former TV producer; Norm Lubow, formerly a producer on the Jerry Springer show, apparently coordinated lawsuits accusing Donald Trump of raping a child in the 1990s". The Guardian. Retrieved October 17, 2016. WP:BLP says "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." Accordingly, I will immediately remove this material yet again.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:55, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

I actually agree with at least the second part of this. If you had just removed that part from the lede instead of the whole thing and then starting a weird RfC and then running to AE things would've been much simpler.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:37, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

On the other hand "sexual assault" is appropriate [18], [19], [20].Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:40, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

• Steeletrap, did you put that in the lead? Please don't do that again. That charge is so serious, and so much unproven/retracted etc. that it really is a BLP violation. Drmies (talk) 02:48, 18 October 2016 (UTC)