Talk:Donald Trump

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

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)
    • I agree with you near-completely Mandruss but a point of difference on our interpretation of Marek's commentary: it is additionally a very bad concept, and in furtherance to that it is a disingenuous non-concept lacking in substance; in my view it is better construed as an asinine self-referential and disruptive slur, a mealymouthed comment bordering on trolling even. It's a recursive joke. The editor should retract it. sabine antelope 05:57, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
• Include if shorter than 23 words; otherwise exclude per MOS:INTRO and WP:BALASPS. (See calculation above: 0.046 × 476 words = 22 words.) --Dervorguilla (talk) 07:46, 19 October 2016 (UTC) 04:49, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

  Sorry, numbers have been banned on this page. We are not allowed to quantify. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:29, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

• Exclude per MOS:INTRO and per WP:BALASP in relation to focusing on recent allegations. --Dervorguilla (talk) 04:49, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
• Include According to Wikipedia guidelines on the intro section, including this information is appropriate.

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.

Dig Deeper (talk) 01:40, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

• Include. It's who the man is.--Jorm (talk) 03:49, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

• Exclude. I agree with EvergreenFir on recentism. Saturnalia0 (talk) 04:01, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
• Include. Post P***gate scandal, it deserves a spot here. Daiyusha (talk) 07:31, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
• Exclude - contravenes parts of WP:LEAD, is a typical and highly-visible instance of recentism (as a bad thing). Indeed, the visibility of this article (and in particular its lede) should be taken into account when considering Wikipedia is not a newspaper, a notion I agree with: no matter how "reliable" those newspapers are, WP is not another one of them. Reference to Words to watch guidelines suggests to me the term "forcibly groped" is an instance of highly-charged (and apparently, as this talk page will attest, also highly divisive) and imprudent language choice running contrary to guidelines for article tone (specified in WP:LABEL and elsewhere) particularly as it pertains to word choice, and is thereby something best omitted from a lede, which -- if I may say so -- should be a concise, poignant and representative summary of the article, not a detail-fraught expose of the skeletons in its closet, even if those are (recently!) Elephants in the room...in newspapers, anyway. There is due discretion to be exercised in decisions of language choice: merely because a confederacy of newspapers agree on Mills & Boon terminology does not exclude (nor negate) the imperative for using better possible ways of presenting dialogue (and indeed writing more elegantly). Unfortunately some rudimentary understanding of discourse and narrative is required in order to appreciate this view in a more clinical (and bureaucratic) way, but I digress: meaning changes with subtle changes to word choice; by extension, the question of whether or not to include a block of words in a lede depends on what those words are. To quote from WP:NPOV subsection (now obsolete as a stand-alone policy) WP:DUE I concur that giving this account in the lede affords it undue weight:

  Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements

  . There are countless other reasons but these are the best ones. Exclude this recent-newspaper-non-neutrally-worded stuff from lede -- unless it can be made to be more neutral, better-worded, read less like a newspaper, and be made to accurately reflect its weight and occurrence in time. That might mean a much shorter synopsis, not an effusively-written scandal that could have been read from a newspaper column or common-smut novella. sabine antelope 05:57, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

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

Per the comment by Somedifferentstuff and the creation of the RfC below, I am closing this. I apologize for asking folks to vote again, but I hope the RfC can address this section and the others raised. I will not object to any revert of this closure if you feel this discussion may be fruitful. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:41, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
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 [1] - Here's another [2] -- 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)

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. No. Short sentence Anything else is WP:UNDUE. Editors arguing this is the most covered incident in his public life (or even his campaign) 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 [3] [4]. - 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. [5] 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)
• No Yes but make it very limited. Ideally just one sentence (and include the denial). The allegations are unproven and made in connection to the presidential campaign so should not be in a separate paragraph but in with the rest of the lede's presidential campaign material. However, lede material just summarizes important body content, so the content that the lede is summarizing is the content that is actually important and the content that should be used as the basis for deciding lede wording. This article is NOT Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016 and about 80% of the article is NOT about his presidential campaign. And ALL content is subject to BLP policy - the existence of an ongoing AfD is not an excuse for allowing BLP violations. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:46, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

In the light of later no reasons presented, and also after reading the content discussions further down the page, I have changed my opinion to no. Anything but no is giving an open door to endless conflict and the insertion of tabloid like claims simply for effect. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 02:41, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

• No - not in lead ...looking for real info in lead - lead is for summarizing main points of the article MOS:INTRO = best not to mention allegations that are barely covered in the article. Best to keep lead simply say "controversy has surrounded the presidential candidacy." WP:PUBLICFIGURE -- Moxy (talk) 21:19, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
• No for now, but revisit as needed. If it is included, I have no opinion.--Malerooster (talk) 23:54, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

• No not in the lead. Largest problem I guess is the WP:LIBEL aspect of the way it's failed to meet WP:BLPCRIME, by the lead having incorrectly presented a felony label, stating it in WP voice as fact rather than a second-party report, and that the article lower down is not saying what the cite said and also edited up the tape transcript. To me though, mostly it is just offtopic -- this is supposed to be a BLP article, and this material belongs to the campaign article or sexual allegations article. Finally -- this is a BLP so anything here should follow the additional bits from WP:BLP guidelines such as writing conservatively and avoiding tabloid. Right now this is too much sensationalism, not yet events in hand to gauge the BLP significance -- and edits may be suspect of being COI political motivated until a few weeks from now. Markbassett (talk) 00:20, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

How does it violate WP:LIBEL and WP:BLPCRIME? The lead currently states "and multiple women alleged sexual harassment ... Previous sexual assault claims ... Trump vigorously denied the allegations" -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 19:52, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

• 1. Yes. 2. As short as possible to specifically state the essential facts: The Washington Post released a 2005 recording of Trump bragging about making sexual advances towards women. Add "Trump denied the allegations," but we don't have to give Trump's full non-defense. That's what I would do, but I realize some editors would give more space to defend Trump. I disagree but would go along for consensus. I also argue that it must go in the introduction because the charges of sexual advances aren't in the Table of Contents and aren't easy to find in the body. The introduction should say, "This article discusses that incident." If I were writing it, I would put “Grab them by the pussy” in the lede. That will tell readers that it's about that incident, they're in the right place if they're looking for it. I may not get consensus for that, but that would best serve the reader. --Nbauman (talk) 03:10, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
• Yes; the whole "tape, allegations, response, media plot" trail of events, in the lede, with 2 or 3 concise and succinct sentences. It speaks to his character and attitude...to moments in his life. Buster Seven Talk 12:16, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
• No - Per WP:BALASPS/WP:RECENTISM - The lead is meant to summarize the whole life and times of Trump. These recent allegations have make up so little of that life and times that they don't deserve mention. NickCT (talk) 12:51, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

First, WP:RECENTISM is just an essay of the personal opinions of some WP editors, not a guideline or policy. In many cases, it doesn't make sense. When you have an article about a current issue, like an election, everything is recent. Would you like to delete everything more recent than 1 year from the article? Second, according to WP:RS, Trump has been doing this all his adult life, documented by his Howard Stern interviews and the complaints of many women. His sexual advances towards women are a major part of Trump's life and the personna that he himself presented. --Nbauman (talk) 13:12, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

His sexual advances towards women are a major part of Trump's life, you really believe that? Please don't answer, its a rhetorical question. --Malerooster (talk) 14:30, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

@Nbauman: - WP:BALASPS is a policy. re "Trump has been doing this all his adult life" - I don't really think you have any idea of what Trump has or has not been doing his whole life. Fact is that most of the "allegations" at this point are just that. Allegations. Frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of them are true, but I'm not so biased to assume they are. Unlike you apparently. NickCT (talk) 14:54, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

According to many WP:RS, his sexual advances towards women are a major part of Trump's life. http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-trump-clinton-allegations-20161019-snap-htmlstory.html http://people.com/politics/every-sexual-assault-accusation-against-donald-trump/ and many more. --Nbauman (talk) 04:55, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

@Nbauman: - You get that there are probably millions of RS's about Trump, right? You understand that a very, very small portion of them specifically cover these sexual allegations? You realize it only seems to you like this issue is important because you have a hard time remembering things which have occurred outside the past week's news cycle? NickCT (talk) 10:37, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

@NickCT: You get that the LAT and People magazine are major news media, right? I don't think there are any major news media covering the election that haven't covered Trump's sexual advances -- even the sober Christian Science Monitor http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2016/1010/Debate-fact-check-Teasing-the-truth-out-of-Trump-and-Clinton- . You realize that May 14 http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/15/us/politics/donald-trump-women.html is longer than a week ago, right? You realize that I live in New York City and we've been hearing Trump brag about his sexual conquests since his appearances on the Howard Stern show, right? --Nbauman (talk) 21:35, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

• 'No'; These allegations have not been proven and are not a major part of his life. Mentioning them in the lead gives the article an anti-Trump bias. For comparison, the lead of Bill Clinton's article is much more positive and doesn't even mention the allegations about Clinton, other than his impeachment. Ag97 (talk) 15:10, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
• 'No... or at least, not yet.' This is why we have WP:RECENTISM. The latest political firestorm may or may not end up being a defining characteristic worthy of the lede. We can't jam every accusation into the intro simply because it's today's controversy. Revisit this issue in six months or a year and see where it stands. Cosmic Sans (talk) 16:22, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
• Yes - 1 or 2 sentences per WP:Weight. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 23:02, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
• Absolutely not. Completely undue. Defamatory content should not appear in a BLP.Zigzig20s (talk) 02:53, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
• Comment. This RfC should be properly closed. Please do not change content under discussion during standing RfC. Thank you. My very best wishes (talk) 04:31, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

While it should be possible to make a mention in the lede of the allegations without infringing on BLP requirements, ongoing RfCs don't place a hold on BLP obligations. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:27, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

• Yes, absolutely - we have a separate article on this, which was WP:SNOW kept at AFD for pete's sake. That article is linked and summarized within this article - and linked in the infobox - so of course the lede should have at least a few sentences about it. More generally: this is something that is covered in literally hundreds of reliable sources now, there's really no excuse for not giving that coverage due weight in the lede. My suggestion would be 2-3 sentences but the important thing is that it's mentioned. Fyddlestix (talk) 14:13, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
• Support inclusion, because the introduction should summarise the main points of the article, and the allegations have been a significant element in the election campaign. A couple of sentences will probably suffice, outlining the allegations and that he denies them. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:34, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
• 1. No. 2. Short mention of allegations. – This affair is nothing but WP:RECENTist hyperventilation. If and when such allegations go beyond gossip with actual trials, then let's revisit. Note that even Bill Clinton's lead section does not mention sexual impropriety despite abundant mentions in the article itself and on a dedicated page. The lead just states he was impeached and pardoned following the Lewinski scandal. — JFG ^talk 00:12, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
• Minimal, and only if conjoined. The sexual allegations section takes up 2% of the entire 16,000-word article. But the allegations are 12% (57 words) of the lead. So it's a no-brainer, IMO. I'd give the topic max 4-6 words in the lead, which means it could be conjoined with other controversial issues. However, if WP starts selling and relying of advertising, like the MSM, we could go back to 12%, or up to 50%, to remain competitive. --Light show (talk) 18:56, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Addendum: I'm not sure about any specific guidelines about allegations, but it seems totally wrong to include things such as allegations, accusations, hearsay, innuendos, insinuations, or gossip anywhere in a lead. It can turn leads into tabloid-type leads. I've seen a number of famous people resign over the years to fight off simple allegations, even before a court hearing. For instance, Dominique Strauss-Kahn, head of the IMF, resigned, and there was never even a trial. It was a pure case of "trial by media", which IMO is possibly one of the worst effects of the readership-hungry MSM. --Light show (talk) 01:55, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

• Yes, one sentence. The coverage for this instance is enormous. I frequently examine man news sources outside the US because I use those for Wikipedia work: and this incident received global coverage in a big way. Leaving it out is not an option: a paragraph, though, is undue weight. Vanamonde (talk) 05:29, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
• 1. Yes, 2. Up to the extent needed to adequately reflect it according MOS:LEAD. The current 3 sentences are appropriate according to the current status of findings. --SI 22:28, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
• Yes to include in lead, and the current wording and length is fine. Summoned to this by bot, and I commend EvergreenFir for an exceptonally clear and well-drafted RfC. So many RfCs are murky, this one set forth the issue clearly and in a neutral fashion. The coverage, as Vanamonde93 points out, is enormous. It has dominated the election campaign. An easy call. Coretheapple (talk) 14:01, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
• Yes prominent controversies can be covered in the lead per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section and this controversy is definitely prominent enough for inclusion. But we should only have 1 sentence because per MOS:INTRO "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article." Furthermore, anything more than a sentence could give undue weight to the controversy since it's barely even covered in the article. WP:RECENTISM is an essay we could choose to follow if we wanted to, but since it's just an essay- there is no point in following it unless there is a very good reason why we should do so. (Summoned by bot). Prcc27🌍 (talk) 15:14, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
• Yes, a few sentences. Yes, one sentence. Dervorguilla's detailed analysis of the coverage of this topic in mainstream media sources has changed my mind. While I might not argue for exactly 12 words of coverage, I think it should be at least a factor of two away from that ideal. The lead certainly isn't balanced in other areas (though it should be), so aiming for about twenty words should let it be covered accurately enough to avoid misinterpretation. Controversial subjects usually require more precise language, but I don't think that means they're being given undue weight.

My comment copied from below

Sources: The manual of style says, "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." WP:BLPCOI says, "Wikipedia articles concerning living persons may include material—where relevant, properly weighted, and reliably sourced—about controversies or disputes in which the article subject has been involved." The manual of style also says, "When writing about controversies in the lead of the biography of a living person, notable material should neither be suppressed nor allowed to overwhelm: always pay scrupulous attention to reliable sources, and make sure the lead correctly reflects the entirety of the article. Write clinically, and let the facts speak for themselves."

In my opinion, we shouldn't give too much weight to the fact that the article covers some trivial topics more than important ones right now. It will probably have to be reworked later on, since its readable prose size is 89 kB. JasperTECH (talk) 18:16, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

• Yes, of course, with two sentences. It is already clear that this issue amounts to a significant turning point in his presidential campaign, which is obviously the biggest part of his notability. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 02:39, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

• No per WP:RECENT, WP:UNDUE, WP:LEDE. Allegations have no place in the lede. Let's also keep in mind this is a separate and different article from Donald Trump 2016 presidential campaign. A short sentence to the effect of "The campaign has been surrounded by controversy." or something like that should suffice. Athenean (talk) 03:57, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Athenean, we already have the sentence: "Trump's campaign has received unprecedented media coverage and international attention. Many of his statements in interviews, on Twitter, and at campaign rallies have been controversial or false. Several rallies during the primaries were accompanied by protests or riots." To clarify, are you suggesting something in addition to this? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:57, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

• Yes prominent controversies can be covered in the lead per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section and this controversy is definitely prominent enough for inclusion, meets WP:V and WP:RS and can be written neutrally. But we should only have 1 sentence because per MOS:INTRO "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article." Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 09:18, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

• No this man is a 70 year old billionaire, tv guy, etc and page is about his life.. 2 week news story is not why he is famous — Preceding unsigned comment added by KMilos (talk • contribs) 13:01, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

"2 week news story is not why he is famous" - that's not what this is at all.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:35, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

• Yes to include more than one sentence. The Access Hollywood tape appears to be an integral part of the narrative of how this election has unfolded, and hence of the narrative of Donald Trump's political career. It is having too many other effects in the election and political landscape to be considered just another controversy. Now, nearly three weeks later, sources report these impacts in other races [6] [7], the media [8], and the Republican party [9]. To do it NPOV justice, it should be framed as part of the election and it seems like more than one sentence will be required. It could be either a standalone paragraph or in a campaign paragraph, I think. Chris vLS (talk) 15:13, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

• Less than 12 9–25 words, otherwise no, per MOS:INTRO and WP:UNDUE/BALASP.

Relative emphasis, MOS:INTRO. The due-weight policy holds "for both the lead and the body of the article. If there is a difference in emphasis between the two, editors should seek to resolve the discrepancy."

Calculating emphasis by total readable prose size:

§ Sexual misconduct allegations = 275 words,

Article = 14,675 words,

275 words ÷ 14,675 words = 0.019.

§ Intro = 451 words,

0.019 × 451 words = 8.5 words.

Balancing aspects, WP:BALASP. "An article ... should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to the weight of that aspect in the body of reliable sources on the subject."

Calculating weight by the number of search results in five of the most reputable mainstream publications and news agencies:

|}

Search results: Sexual assault "Donald Trump" site:bbc.com/news = about 5,720 results,

Search results: "Donald Trump" site:bbc.com/news = about 220,000 results.

5,720 results ÷ 220,000 results = 0.026,

0.026 × 451 words = 11.7 words.

Search results: Sexual assault "Donald Trump" site:wsj.com/articles/ = about 1,740 results,

Search results: "Donald Trump" site:wsj.com/articles/ = about 195,000 results.

1,740 results ÷ 195,000 results = 0.009,

0.009 × 451 words = 4.0 words.

Search results: Sexual assault "Donald Trump" site:www.nytimes.com: about 60,700 results,

Search results: "Donald Trump" site:www.nytimes.com: about 3,380,000 results.

60,700 results ÷ 3,380,000 results = 0.0180,

0.018 × 451 words = 8.1 words.

Search results: Sexual assault "Donald Trump" site:bigstory.ap.org = about 409 results,

Search results: "Donald Trump" site:bigstory.ap.org = about 6,080 results.

409 results ÷ 6,080 results = 0.0673,

0.0673 × 451 words = 30.3 words.

Search results: Sexual assault "Donald Trump" site:reuters.com/news = about 169 results,

Search results: "Donald Trump" site:reuters.com/news = about 5,090 results.

169 results ÷ 5,090 results = 0.033,

0.033 × 451 words = 15.0 words.

|}

Trimmed mean = (8.1 + 11.7 + 15.0)/3 = 11.6 words. --Dervorguilla (talk) 06:06, 29 October 2016 (UTC) 12:34, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

A most beautiful and dispassionate argument; I applaud your research, Dervorguilla! — JFG ^talk 09:13, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

I must admit - that's pretty solid. Compressing it into 12 words will be... interesting. This approach, though time-intensive, could be used for balancing the lead in other areas too. For instance, there's a sentence that mentions that his campaigns have often been accompanied by protests and rallies, but as far as I can tell, there is literally just one corresponding sentence in the article body to back it up. JasperTECH (talk) 16:08, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

@JasperTech: I'll take the challenge: "After lewd comments from 2005 emerged, 15 women accused Trump of unwanted sexual advances." That's 14 words. Add one cite about the tape and one about the accusations; done! — JFG ^talk 20:14, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

The earlier RFC made the mistake of counting words and was widely derided/disapproved of. We are writing an article not a spreadsheet and I strongly object to going down the "exactly x words" route. Dervorguilla's analysis does not account for synonyms, for whether a mention of Trump was on "page 1" or on page b7 of a newspaper (or in the classifieds, or about a Trump property, or in a weekly recap of "the apprentice"), etc. Weight simply cannot can't be" calculated" this way. Fyddlestix (talk) 20:53, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

(←)

@Fyddlestix: "Counting words" is actually mandated by policy. "Undue weight can be given in several ways, including ... quantity of text, prominence of placement..." Adding synonyms -- in particular, the word "groping" -- does make sense, though. (So does substituting the phrase "sexual assault" for the words "sexual AND assault".)

Search results

Search results: sexual-misconduct OR sexual-assault OR sexual-harassment OR forcible-fondling OR groping OR sexually-assaulted OR sexually-harassed OR forcibly-fondled "Donald Trump" site:bbc.com/news/ = about 4,970 results, Search results: "Donald Trump" site:bbc.com/news/ = about 242,000 results. 4,970 Results ÷ 242,000 results = 0.021, 0.021× 451 Words = 9.3 words. Search results: sexual-misconduct OR sexual-assault OR sexual-harassment OR forcible-fondling OR groping OR sexually-assaulted OR sexually-harassed OR forcibly-fondled "Donald Trump" site:wsj.com/articles/ = about 12,000 results, Search results: "Donald Trump" site:wsj.com/articles/ = about 172,000 results. 12,000 Results ÷ 172,000 results = 0.070, 0.070 × 451 Words = 31.5 words. Search results: sexual-misconduct OR sexual-assault OR sexual-harassment OR forcible-fondling OR groping OR sexually-assaulted OR sexually-harassed OR forcibly-fondled "Donald Trump" site:www.nytimes.com = about 104,000 results, Search results: "Donald Trump" site:www.nytimes.com = about 3,390,000 results. 104,000 Results ÷ 3,390,000 results = 0.031, 0.031 × 451 Words = 13.8 words. Search results: sexual-misconduct OR sexual-assault OR sexual-harassment OR forcible-fondling OR groping OR sexually-assaulted OR sexually-harassed OR forcibly-fondled "Donald Trump" site:bigstory.ap.org = about 520 results, Search results: "Donald Trump" site:bigstory.ap.org = about 6,230 results, 520 Results ÷ 6,230 results = 0.081, 0.081 × 451 Words = 36.3 words. Search results: sexual-misconduct OR sexual-assault OR sexual-harassment OR forcible-fondling OR groping OR sexually-assaulted OR sexually-harassed OR forcibly-fondled "Donald Trump" site:reuters.com/news/ = about 322 results, Search results: "Donald Trump" site:reuters.com/news/ = about 4,660 results. 322 Results ÷ 4,660 results = 0.069, 0.069 × 451 Words = 31.2 words. Mean = (9.3 + 31.5 + 13.8 + 36.3 + 31.2)/5 = 24.4 words.

--Dervorguilla (talk) 12:34, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

--

• No See Arnold Schwartzenegger, another populist politician subject to similar accusations. There is a section on sexual misconduct but nothing in the lede, because it doesn't define who he is. Thundermaker (talk) 02:21, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

• No This is a WP:BLP, let's not forget. This is extremely defamatory stuff in the most visited BLP article in Wikipedia, and worst of all: it's Donald Trump! This guy is known to have sued many people and institutions of defamatory things like this. Let's not play with fire here. Étienne Dolet (talk) 05:37, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

• Yes, one sentence. The coverage of this is enormous (world-wide), to not mention that this is a key issue would be borderline censorship, there is no need to go through a, (accused), grope-by-grope account, which is dealt with in other articles. Pincrete (talk) 16:26, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

discussion re editor conduct

Notice Pleace take into account that there is an AE case opened by DrFleischman against My very best wishes and DrFleischman just wrote to "My very best wishes" on his talk page: "Tell you what, if you can somehow, miraculously convince everyone editing the article to stop edit warring and to leave sexual misconduct out of the lead section until the RfC is resolved, then I'll withdraw my complaint.". I'm really shocked. So as I understand, that AE-case is deliberately used to force content out of this article by trying to force one user to grant a consensus here. This is in no way acceptable. --SI 15:11, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

• Comment - Probably needs noting that down-page discussions have resulted in a consensus on the wording of a description of the Bush-Trump tape in the lede. See discussion closures here and here. I'm unclear how those closures impact this RFC - but I would encourage both new commenters and those who have already commented to take a look at the wording and sourcing that is in the lede currently (ie, in this version of the page). It is a single sentence (+ another discussing Trump's response) that is exceedingly well-sourced, and - after much discussion downpage - the wording of it appears to have consensus. Fyddlestix (talk) 04:07, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

No, it's two sentences, not one, when you include Trump's response, and I don't think there's consensus on the "smear campaign" clause. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:16, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Addition of sexual misconduct content to lead section while RfC is ongoing

Awilley, I appreciate your effort to find middle ground, but no consensus seems to be forming around adding two sentences to the lead section about the recent controversy. If we end up with no consensus then we should remove this content, so could you please remove it until consensus supports otherwise? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:26, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Let's give it a few days. Headcount is only one aspect of determining consensus. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 23:13, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

@DrFleischman: I think you misunderstood my edit. I didn't add 2 sentences to the lead section, I took an already existing 3-sentence paragraph from the lead section, condensed it into 2 sentences, and merged it into the campaign paragraph. Take a closer look at the diff you linked. I'm sure you'll agree that there is also no consensus forming around having an entire paragraph in the lead. I'm not sure what the status quo was when the RfC was started, but hopefully it will end with something more definitive than "no consensus". ~Awilley (talk) 00:39, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

@Awilley: A, that edit of yours during the RfC was entirely out of process. There was clearly no consensus for your version, and consensus is required under the circumstances. Please self-revert that and let's continue to resolve via established channels. Bold doesn't mean OK. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 23:22, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

I think what Awilley did was mostly a proper course correction justified by comments thus far at this page. Editors who have commented in this subsection have further tweaked it, for the better I think.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:28, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Well if he doesn't revert himself, I am going to. We don't adjust to whoever comments first. And you know that. SPECIFICO talk 01:27, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

The lead is relatively quiescent now. If there are things about it that you dislike, let's talk about it. I'm against turning the clock back to before Awilley legitimately implemented talk page consensus.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:32, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

You shoulda thoughta that before mounting various RfC's. SPECIFICO talk 01:43, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:45, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Regarding this edit of mine, here is my edit summary: "Reverting huge edit to lead. Per WP:BLP, as I have explained and no one has disputed, 'Sexual assault is a broad term that often (if not usually) suggests rape or attempted rape'." My view is that numerous editors have tried during the past week to explicitly put "rape" into this lead, and having failed the next best thing is to insinuate rape in the lead. If that is not the intent, it has surely been the effect. In any event, the purpose of my edit was to revert that.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:24, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Is there a consensus against using the words "alleged sexual assault?" I can't find it. Also, this language is the direct language used by the consensus in the press. It satisfies WP:DUE and WP:CITE. There is no reason not to use that language.Oneshotofwhiskey (talk) 16:23, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I probably read through the Talk page too quickly before writing a summary on my recent revision. Yes, it seems that since the sexual harassment page interchangeably uses "sexual assault" and "sexual harassment," it doesn't matter which one is used. I do think that "assault" sounds more severe than "harassment," which sounds more severe than "misconduct."

EDIT: In my opinion, "assault" makes the most sense, considering that it is used 44 times in the other article (including references), compared to only three times for "harassment" and three times for "misconduct." JasperTECH (talk) 16:53, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Do you think it's appropriate for Wikipedia to choose ambiguous terms that suggest Trump may have done a lot worse (rape, attempted rape) than most reliable sources say is being alleged? I don't. Incidentally, this discussion seems scattered all over this page, and it should be consolidated in the "Less obvious BLP violation" subsection, so feel free to move both of our comments there.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:43, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

I think it will make the most sense for future readers if we leave these comments here and continue the discussion down there. JasperTECH (talk) 19:51, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Addition of sexual misconduct content to lead section while RfC is ongoing, take 2

So we currently have three sentences in the lead section about the sexual misconduct allegations. Please, someone, where is the consensus for this? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:08, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

I've removed the material from the lead section, which keeps being re-added despite the pending RfC. Reviewing the above RfC, I don't see consensus to keep anything in the lead section about the allegations of sexual misconduct, let alone 3 sentences. Please do not re-add this material until there is consensus to do so. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:25, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Jeppiz, please self-revert your re-addition of this material, which lacks consensus, before administrative action becomes necessary. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:32, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

DrFleischman I utterly reject your accusations and remind you of WP:OWN. All I did was to restore material you deleted (and which I didn't add). For you to call that an edit war is frankly ridiculous. As for consensus, nowhere does it say that consensus or lack of consensus is in favour of leaving material out rather than in. Of course consensus is preferable but rather unlikely in this article. That's not an excuse to impose censorship of any criticism. Jeppiz (talk) 20:47, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

This is anything but censorship. The material is in the body of the article, and no one is trying to keep it out, least of all me. The majority of participants in the RfC above agree that 3 sentences in the lead section is undue emphasis. As for excluding material when there's no consensus, see our policy on the subject. No consensus generally means to revert back to the article before the bold edit(s), and when in doubt, exclude contentious material from BLPs. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:53, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

• Comment While I assume good faith, some users seem to use veeery long RfCs as a way to obstruct the addition of any material, no matter how factual, that doesn't favour their candidate. RfCs should not be use to impose censorship on Wikipedia. Jeppiz (talk) 20:51, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

That is the antithesis of AGF, and is completely unconstructive IMO. All I see is that you are imposing your will against the majority of your fellow editors, regardless of your good intentions, RfC bedamned. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:55, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

@DrFleischman:

• The manual of style says, "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."
• WP:BLPCOI says, "Wikipedia articles concerning living persons may include material—where relevant, properly weighted, and reliably sourced—about controversies or disputes in which the article subject has been involved."
• The manual of style also says, "When writing about controversies in the lead of the biography of a living person, notable material should neither be suppressed nor allowed to overwhelm: always pay scrupulous attention to reliable sources, and make sure the lead correctly reflects the entirety of the article. Write clinically, and let the facts speak for themselves."

The RfC should be about how much content to put in the main paragraph - not whether it should be included at all. The quotations above clearly show that the lead paragraph needs to cover the allegations at least to some extent. JasperTECH (talk) 21:25, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

You are free to add your perspective to the RfC above, but this discussion is about something different. It's about whether we should be re-inserting and re-inserting and re-inserting three sentences into the lead section during a pending RfC when there's no consensus to do so. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:14, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

@DrFleischman,Prcc27&James J. Lambden: please refrain from making reverts that could be seen as a "1RR Editwar" towards exclusion of the material that has a long consensus to be included and a RfC that is clearly leaning towards including (17:13), it would be very "Trumpish" to deny this fact. ;) --SI 17:48, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Schmarrnintelligenz, where is this so-called longstanding consensus? Wikipedia is not a democracy so we don't go by majority vote, and even if we did, a majority of RfC participants are against including 3 sentences in the lead section. I am in fact about ready to take this to ANI or AE for those who (collectively) repeatedly reinsert controversial material into a BLP without consensus, and those who (collectively) repeatedly falsely cite some mysterious, unwritten consensus. I'm having a hard time seeing this as anything other than pre-election POV pushing and disruption. Please convince me otherwise. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:52, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree with DrFleischman's assessment. We are talking about the LEAD here folks, where it was boldly added and reverted and discussion was started and I guess continues?!? There is NO clear consensus for inclusion in the LEAD, full stop, so we should default to the previous versions. Folks can quote WP:LEAD all day, but it comes down to editorial agreement/consensus. --Malerooster (talk) 19:07, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

• Comment I just wanted to interject that while I favor inclusion of the allegations in the lead section, and have opined to that effect in the RfC, my general feeling is that such things should be excluded pending conclusion of an RfC, per our general attitude toward BLPs. Coretheapple (talk) 19:55, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Good points. But it's also worth noting that this single RfC about sexual allegations only, is already 6,600 words long, yet it concerns a subsection only 2% of the article body and isn't even in the table of contents. The article has numerous other controversies with much more commentary, all unrelated to sex, but none of which are mentioned in the lead. This obsession with sexual issues appears to be intent on equating Trump with Jimmy Savile, whose article was 38% about sexual issues. The implication from this debate is that merely making a public allegation against someone is all it takes to place that allegation in the lead, and thereby undermine the neutrality of a bio with MSM news and soapish commentary. Leads are too important in massive articles and should be heavily monitored to comply with BLP guidelines, not those used by tabloids. --Light show (talk) 20:33, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Can we please reserve these types of arguments to the RfC above? This section is about what to do in the short term while the RfC is pending. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:38, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, let's not re-litigate the underlying passage. I was commenting on what to do while this RfC was pending. Coretheapple (talk) 13:45, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

• This material should remain out of the lead until the RfC closes, or there is a clear consensus (at least 67% in favor, after discounting !votes that do not cite a policy-based reason. {Currently, I see one !vote on each side of the dispute that would be almost entirely discounted}).- MrX 16:51, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
• According to the previous section (RfC itself), there is consensus that the content should remain in the lead, although not necessarily as a separate paragraph, or at least this is my reading. My very best wishes (talk) 19:26, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

You are entitled that reading, though others are entitled to the opposite, and I think there's no doubt that consensus is against having three sentences in the lead, as you have re-inserted three times during the pendency of the RfC. The whole time you ignored my repeated good faith inquiries in this subsection and the one immediately above. This is known as disruption. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:31, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

I am sorry, but you are mistaken. This is not a BLP violation as something extraordinary well sourced, highly notable and already described below on the page. It is generally accepted that we should not change version of text under discussion during standing RfC. Repeatedly doing so is indeed disruptive. My very best wishes (talk) 19:39, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't see any consensus for this third sentence you inserted: "Two sexual assault claims, made against him prior to the campaign, also received increased media attention." This wasn't in the BLP when the RFC began, there's clearly no consensus to have a third sentence in the lead about the general subject, this sentence refers to stuff that has gotten relatively little press coverage, and the allegations discussed in this third sentence were all withdrawn at one time or another, though some of them are subsequently revived.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:53, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

• Here is version of the page which existed at the moment of posting this RfC. Strictly speaking, any modifications of the last paragraph in intro of this version is a violation of the RfC guidelines. But OK, some people improved this last paragraph (according you your suggestions!) and made it more neutral and less visible by placing it in the end of another paragraph. But you demand to remove this completely, even before the official closing of an RfC. This is not the way to go. My very best wishes (talk) 20:17, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

• I haven't demanded that, and have taken no position about removing it completely.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:25, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

There is clearly consensus to include this material, as established numerous times over the last two weeks. There may perhaps not be consensus for a separate paragraph, but the current short mention at the end of another paragraph that has been stable over nearly 2 weeks should not be removed without any consensus. Also note that we don't count votes here; what matters is the strength of policy-based arguments. A removal of very well sourced material because it doesn't favour one's preferred candidate in an election is wholly inappropriate. --Tataral (talk) 02:21, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

The added material is clearly undue, as the tag indicates, and has obviously corrupted the lead, IMO. Allowing the addition of a single dated incident, supported by wikilinking to other articles based on allegations and controversies, violates many BLP guidelines. My own concern is not related to guilt or innocence so much as the corruption of WP guidelines. I also wonder how many, if any, of the editor-voters who insist on keeping the sex topics in the lead, despite the allegations being just 2% of the body, are U.S. editors. There would seem to be more worrisome problems in other places than this obsession with a kissing and groping candidate from another nation. --Light show (talk) 16:23, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

• Please note: There is a relevant, pending complaint to enforce arbitration remedies at WP:AE#My very best wishes. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:01, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Helpful interim edits

The WP:RFC guidelines do say it's OK to make helpful edits to content under RfC discussion. Question: Does anyone here see this one as unhelpful?

'Trump bragged about...' -> 'Trump jokingly bragged about...'

References

The word banter means "animated joking back and forth." (Merriam-Webster Unabridged.) So "jokingly bragged" is a reasonable paraphrase of "bragged as part of this banter". Alternative wording:

'Trump jocularly bragged about...'

The subject made the clarification about "banter" in an authoritative press release and was quoted by the Washington Post in its breaking story; to me, this looks like it would meet all the WP:BLPSELFPUB criteria. --Dervorguilla (talk) 13:22, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

This would be very inconsistent with the majority of RS (which mention neither "jokingly" nor "banter"). And given Trumps well documented, easily verifiable propensity to fib there's no way we should be giving his own excuses more weight than a very large number of RS that say something different (although we could certainly note his perspective I guess - it just shouldn't be treated as factual). Fyddlestix (talk) 13:31, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. This is decidedly a minority view, and it doesn't help that it's the subject's own view (spin). We would also want to consider what reliable sources have had to say about this press release. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:35, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

@Fyddlestix and Nomoskedasticity: Thanks, and you're 100% right about their not mentioning "jokingly". Indeed, many don't bring up Trump's statement at all. Of those that do bring it up, however, the vast majority actually mention "banter" (usually citing Trump's phrase, "locker-room banter"). Indeed, you'll have trouble finding even one mainstream source who would assert that it wasn't locker-room banter -- the polite term for "bullshitting". (bullshit, vb. "To lie or exaggerate to.") Trump acknowledges he was exaggerating to Bush; most professional journalists already suspected he was exaggerating to Bush.

So at this point it looks like there's nothing to worry about: We can just go ahead and add "banteringly". (Do let me know if you come up with anything interesting, though.) --Dervorguilla (talk) 15:04, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

I strongly object to that - you and I must be looking at very different sources because the suggestion that "most professional journalists already suspected he was exaggerating" appears completely unfounded to me. To me it appears crystal clear that most professional journalists have taken Trump's statements very seriously, and the 15 women who've come forward to accuse Trump of doing exactly what he said he had done on the tape suggests that this was very far from "bullshit" (NB: the media has obviously taken those women's claims seriously too). We can say that Trump says this was banter (and properly source that statement), but we can't say that it was banter (much less "bullshit," or a similar synonym) - because most sources suggest that it was actually a pretty accurate description of things Trump has done and how he behaves. Fyddlestix (talk) 15:52, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

This is not helpful, and discussion of the language used if we do include something is already ongoing below in the section entitled "Language in lead section about sexual misconduct." --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:26, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Addition of sexual misconduct content to lead section while RfC is ongoing, take 3

We currently have two sentences in the lead section about sexual assault. I don't see consensus for this. Can someone please point me to it? Or do I have to list each and every editor who has violated active arbitration remedies by restoring content without consensus? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:06, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Do you think an early close to the RfC would help? It's been running for over 2 weeks now, and could provide some sort of guidance. ~Awilley (talk) 18:04, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I think that would be helpful. The last time I requested an early close I got slapped, so I'm not going to do it myself. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:29, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes an early close would be very helpful, or at least an evaluation of the consensus so far, by an involved editor.- MrX 22:20, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

I think you mean UNinvolved... --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:43, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, yes! MrX is distracted as usual.- MrX 23:08, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

The RfC process appears to have stagnated, in spite of some consensus on some questions seemingly being reached. The process as of November 6 has become protracted, unduly cumbersome and -- disturbingly -- convoluted in labyrinthine nuance variously attracting especial degrees of ongoing and exceedingly superfluous analysis; the situation is in my view potentially obstructing realization of the consensus the RfC was designed to achieve i.e. it is arguable RfC at present is self-defeating to some extent and/or, at the least, self-serving insofar as a consensus does not appear any closer to being represented in the article proper.

Good faith edits with reference to WP:NPOV are increasingly reverted on account of extant RfC processes alone. Contentious content in the lede -- arguably though not necessarily representing a somewhat extreme end of the very spectrum from which consensus (that is to say the interim results of another RfC) is or has previously been drawn -- remains in situ in the lede while circular arbitration in the guise of this RfC paradoxically "guarantees" it remain there, and this is an altogether troubling state of affairs. Artifacts of these RfCs interacting with eachother appear then to contravene neutrality-in-general, for it would be preferable (surely) to exclude from the lede material that is subject to arbitration/RfC if the latter and unresolved RfC pertains to inclusion within that section - regardless of whether or not the content itself reflects consensus(!)

Clearly a tension exists, for notwithstanding the RfC vis- the content itself reflected, at least for a time, a consensus toward including the content verbatim in the article at all, the current RfC even in its present quasi-"non exhaustive" state appears to reflect a growing consensus that aforementioned content be excluded from the lede. Whomever is responsible for producing a remedy to this circumstance ought be circumspect of this tension, for it is potentially biasing, and a fortiori an excellent reason to at the very least suspend the content's appearance in the lede until a degree of consensus is reached and endorsed by an adjudicator in the form of making a binding or partially-binding edit. For these reasons I contend analysis by a team of administrators vis- prevailing consensus be executed as a matter of priority.

If that can not be achieved because "RfC is not a vote" then it ought be put to a vote instead. (and I apologise in advance if in so making this suggestion I open a Pandora's Box, but in my defense the status quo has no inferior, not that I can see...) I concur with the sentiment the RfC process vis-a-vis the "controversies in lede" has exceeded due tenure and indeed that practical inertia and a problematic (at times invidious) editorial predicament arising thereof are both real and extant phenomena which require to be addressed as soon as practicably possible. I will attempt to escalate awareness of this "Elephant in the Room" without, I should hope, invoking an RfC of an RfC which in furtherance to causing tedium would ironically defeat such a veritable attempt to break the cycle of circularness now inherent in these proceedings. sabine antelope 05:15, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

• I do not quite understand what you are trying to say, though I did see that your (wordy) edits to what I think was well-established text were reverted. Drmies (talk) 05:30, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

I have pointed out what I believe to be innocent processes that are emergent and by-product of concurrent RfC's which, to some extent and to the detriment of the editorial process, overlap. These processes are complex but also simple if one appreciates they are born of a bureaucratic process which has become complicated because the outcome of the second (and current) RfC (include content in lede?) potentially co-varies with and may become biased by the outcome of the first RfC (include content as it is currently worded?). I am additionally concerned that the latter RfC appears to be inert insofar as a "consensus" de jure has not been agreed upon i.e. the RfC is not closed, which is problematic given:

1. The contentiously-worded (though from prior RfC, reached by consensus) content remains in situ in the lede while RfC continues (perhaps perennially),
2. A de facto consensus does appear to have emerged in this talk page which actually leans against including the material in the lede, and
3. Indeed a number of editors are now expressing the view that the current RfC be closed and concluded.

On the question of your final remarks whereupon you blunder into seeming [ad hominem], well, of course my reasons, and the reasons of other editors of the English Wikipedia - are at least partially editorial in nature. If editorial capacity becomes diluted in (and/or thwarted by) excessively bureaucratic process that is flawed and seemingly unchecked then that is an even broader matter, even more of a concern, a fortiori the concerns I and other editors have raised, an even better reason to urge those with due capacity and responsibility to act. What I have done is called for action, such that editors may -- in furtherance to acting with regard to consensus -- act in the first place. I can make no further attempt to appease your incomprehension, unless of course you have the ability to arbitrate or, perhaps, comment meaningfully. sabine antelope 06:44, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

I think I made only two remarks, so I assume you think both are somehow ad hominem--that's great that you think that, but it does not matter so much to me. Let's see if your commentary here gains traction. My incomprehension, by the way, is easily appeased, I think. Drmies (talk) 13:22, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Language in lead section about sexual misconduct

Capacity for groping and forcibly kissing women

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 do not think this edit is neutral, in which Anythingyouwant changed: "Trump bragged about groping and forcibly kissing women..." to: "Trump privately bragged about his capacity for groping and forcibly kissing women due to his fame..." Reframing the controversy as Trump saying he could do those things is deceptive. Yes Trump bragged about his ability to do those things, but he also bragged about actually doing them, and that's what the uproar is about. Sources such as the original Washington Post story back this up. Or just listen to the tape yourself. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:42, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

As you know, I quoted Daily Beast in my edit summary. But you have not quoted anything in the Washington Post. So I will go read the article you have linked, plus some others. I'm glad we agree the lead is factually correct, but if more needs to be said then we can do so.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:47, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I've looked at your WaPo link: "Donald Trump bragged in vulgar terms about kissing, groping and trying to have sex with women during a 2005 conversation caught on a hot microphone...." This does not say "about having kissed...." It does not say he admitted those things. I would want something unequivocal before we put such stuff in the lead.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:53, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

That's is a classic whitewash edit and it needs to be changed back to the previous, non-deceptive neutral version.- MrX 19:58, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. Nothing about "capacity". – Muboshgu (talk) 20:01, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Am I the only one at Wikipedia who has capacity to quote reliable sources? I did so in my edit summary, and I have done so in this talk page section.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:04, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Poor Anything. POV tweaks waste a huge amount of editor time and attention "explaining" them to the editor who thought them up in the first place. SPECIFICO talk 20:08, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

"Donald Trump bragged in vulgar terms about kissing, groping and trying to have sex with women during a 2005 conversation caught on a hot microphone...." sounds exactly like he admitted those things, and that's exactly the sort of phrasing Anderson Cooper used when he questioned Trump on it in the last debate. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:11, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Repeating what I already quoted is unconvincing. Saying he bragged "about kissing" can mean he bragged about having done so or that he bragged about his ability to do so. I've already given a reliable source for the latter in my edit summary. Convince me with reliable sources and I will agree with you.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:14, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

"I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait." -- Donald Trump. How much more clear do you need it to be? – Muboshgu (talk) 20:22, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

That's a primary source since you're quoting Trump directly, BUT I'll agree with you anyway as to kissing. How about groping?Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:24, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

"Grab her by the pussy" sure sounds like that to me, but granted he did keep that part a bit more vague. The stronger case for groping is the allegations of those women. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:31, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

For the time being, I have reverted the capacity stuff. I want to see the full pussy sentence.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:40, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Okay, as best I can tell, the full pussy material is this: "And when you're a star they let you do it. You can do anything ... Grab them by the pussy. You can do anything." Does anyone seriously think that is an admission of having done that? Suggestive, sure, but suggestive is what braggadocio is all about. Our lead now says he admitted doing it, which seems false to me, like Wikipedia has an axe to grind, or something. Quote me a reliable source that says he admitted grabbing people in that way, and I'll totally agree with you about this point.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:43, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

The first three I checked out:

• [10]: "Donald Trump was caught bragging about kissing and groping women..."
• [11]: "Donald Trump Brags About Nonconsensually Groping Women In Newly Uncovered Recording"
• [12]: "Donald Trump Caught on Tape Bragging About Groping Women ..."

--Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:00, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

As I asked above, when he bragged about kissing and groping, was he bragging about having done so, or bragging about his ability to do so? That's a big difference. From what I can tell, he bragged about having done so as to kissing, but not groping. Isn't this a lovely discussion? I will have to go in a few minutes.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:10, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

And as I stated above, he bragged about both, which is supported by the sources listed above. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:16, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Have we got an IDHT issue here? I agree with you (again) that he bragged about both kissing and groping, but to me that could mean he bragged about having done both, or alternatively he bragged about being able to do both, and we ought to say which, so our readers are not misled. As to groping, he said "And when you're a star they let you do it. You can do anything ... Grab them by the pussy. You can do anything." By no stretch is that a clear admission of having done it, but does say he was able to do it (because of his fame).Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:11, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

When numerous reliable sources say that Trump bragged about groping, then we can verifiably say that Trump bragged about groping. Arguing that we can't say that because of some hyper-technical semantic ambiguity has no basis in our policies or guidelines. Besides, newsrooms across the country evidently disagree with you and understand what "bragging about" doing something means. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:20, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Anythingyouwant's points are simple and accuratem I think and, unfortunately Dr. Fleischman's argument is subjective and without any merit whatsoever, I think. There are so many Blp violations the article really should have a NPOV tag on it. KINGOFTO (talk) 04:26, 25 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.

Appeared to brag

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.

---

Saying Trump "appeared to" brag is non-neutral. He bragged, and sources such as the Washington Post article verify this. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:55, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

WaPo says he bragged, but not clearly about "having groped" anyone, as opposed to being able to do so. User:Awilley was entirely correct to insert "appeared". When Trump referred to "pussy" it was very unclear that that was an admission of any sort.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:02, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Correction: I didn't insert the "appeared to brag" language. It was there before my edit. ~Awilley (talk) 05:54, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'm having difficulty taking this argument in good faith. The WaPo article reads: "Donald Trump bragged in vulgar terms about kissing, groping and trying to have sex with women..." How can you say this doesn't clearly support the statement that Trump bragged about groping? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:12, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

The entirety of that bus conversation with Billy Bush was bragging that he could get any woman (although he acknowledged there was one he failed to get). – Muboshgu (talk) 21:16, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

I am changing the header level, because it's essentially what I responded to in the last subsection. I am saying that "Trump bragged about groping" is unnecessarily vague, because it could suggest that he bragged about having groped or it could mean he bragged about being able to grope. Got it? The transcript strongly indicates the latter. As Muboshgu just said, the conversation was primarily about what Trump "could" do, not what he "had done". This is a critical distinction, and I have difficulty believing that the distinction is not understood by any other Wikipedia editors. I have to go now for a couple hours. Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:21, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

When secondary sources say Trump bragged about groping, they are saying he bragged about having groped, not about being able to grope. There's nothing ambiguous about that aspect of the English language, despite the fact that you apparently disagree with sources such as the Washington Post article and the others that I listed above. When I brag to folks about editing Wikipedia, it means I edit Wikipedia. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:36, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

When I brag about my inheritance, I'm bragging about something I'm positioned to get, not something I have already. Trump said, "And when you're a star they let you do it. You can do anything ... Grab them by the pussy. You can do anything." You think that's an admission of something he already did?Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:15, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Of course it is. How does he know that "they let you do it," except from experience? He didn't say "I suppose they would let you do it" or "I'm told they will let you do it." He said "And when you're a star they let you do it. You can do anything. Grab them by the pussy. You can do anything." This is very clearly an admission, or boast, that he can in fact do this stuff, and he knows he can because he has done it. That's why virtually all reliable sources, including those cited here by Dr. Fleischman, say he bragged about doing it. And that's what we should say. It would be the worst kind of Original Research for us to overrule all those reliable sources because we THINK he MIGHT have been saying he has the capacity to do it (without explaining how he knows he does, if not from experience). --MelanieN (talk) 00:35, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

I respect your opinion, and I don't even deny that he may well have done some or all of the things he spoke about. At the same time, we all have opinions about what things various types of people can get away with, which does not imply we ourselves have done them. Anyways....Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:05, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

This your edit [13] does not fix "obvious BLP violations" you talked above, but modified text currently under discussion at the RfC. Please do not do it. My very best wishes (talk) 04:36, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Ridiculous logic, MelanieN. (How does he know that "they let you do it," except from experience?) If I brag that I gave Penelope Cruz a big fat kiss, do you deduce I must therefore have "had the experience"?! I could probably name a *dozen* reasons for him saying what he did, none of them requiring that he "had the experience". (Jesus.) IHTS (talk) 18:37, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Your defense is that he did say it but he was lying. I suppose that would be in character. --MelanieN (talk) 18:43, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

More illogic from you, MelanieN. (Why is a lie necessitated? It's not. Who are you to say Trump was not pontificating what he *supposed* was true, for him & others blessed w/ star status?) How about some discussion integrity rather than baby babble. p.s. Hey MelaniaN, your behavior here (embarrassing logic, ad hominem sarcastic insult against the subject) makes you kind of unfit for the discussion page of this BLP. IHTS (talk) 02:15, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

So let's see. When he said, declarative sentence, "I just start kissing" women - "I don't even wait" - he was relating it as something he actually does. But when he said, in the next sentence, "You can do anything. Grab them by the pussy. You can do anything," we must not assume he was still talking about things he actually does. We must allow for the possibility that although the first brag was based on experience, the second brag might be based on speculation or what others have told him. If one of us here is using ridiculous logic, I don't believe it is me. In any case, Dr. Fleischman has trumped (sorry) this discussion: Wikipedia isn't saying he actually did grope women - only reporting the indisputable fact that he bragged that he could (because he's a star). --MelanieN (talk) 15:45, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

And yet it would have no bearing on this discussion, which is whether we can say he bragged about groping instead of that he appeared to brag about groping. Regardless of whether his braggadocio was true or false, he still bragged. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:57, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

I think the term "bragged" is fine, because reliable sources say that. I would question however the wording "bragged about forcibly kissing and groping women." What he bragged about was that he could touch them without consequences.

Trump: And when you’re a star they let you do it. You can do anything.

Bush: Whatever you want.

Trump: Grab them by the p****. You can do anything.[14]

Not trying to diminish what he said, but it is not properly described.

TFD (talk) 01:59, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Numerous reliable sources say Trump bragged about forcibly kissing and groping women. Including some discussed in this section. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 08:17, 3 November 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.

Sexual assault

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.

---

On "sexual assault": [15], [16], [17], [18], [19].

While the rape accusation was a BLP violation, this is not.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:03, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek, why do you support rape-inclusive language instead of more specific language about forcible kissing and groping?Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:06, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

I support using the phrasing used by sources, which is "sexual assault".Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:10, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Oh, and since, as you clearly realize ("rape-inclusive" (sic)), forcible kissing and groping do in fact constitute sexual assault, your comment above clearly indicates that you realize that "sexual assault" is a valid and well sourced description of the behavior and hence is not a BLP violation.

You can disagree and think that alternative language would be more appropriate but then you need to get consensus on talk, and you should not edit war - by violating 1RR - to enforce your preferred version, and you should definitely not try to WP:GAME policy by invoking BLP.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:14, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

'Brag' implies fact-of and an interpretation of the emotion of the speaker. But he has denied having done it and ... pending something evidential that's just an opinion on the outtake, subject to others too. While one could clely say 'reported as bragging' or 'felt to be bragging' from the cites, it's also 'said to be just locker-room talk', or 'capacity for' and probably a lot of other labels. Go with 'said' or 'talk' and it's conveying a demonstrated fact that the tape gave, or go with second-party voice 'said to be' and it's also demonstratable fact -- but I'd say just go with 'talked'. Done so and expect continued thrashing here .... meh. Markbassett (talk) 21:53, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek - "sexual assault" is commonly understood to be felony rape. (See m-w or cornell law for definitions, or Texas Penal Code etc) - so would be subject to WP cautions about speaking of felony. Also, the label "sexual misconduct" is a broader one that would apply to the wider set of less-than rape events. Markbassett (talk) 21:57, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

M-W's definition of sexual assault does not refer to rape or felony rape and actually describes the allegations to a T. Please read stuff before you cite it. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:12, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Dr. Fleischman - Should be sorta obvious I had and that's why I mentioned the kinds of sites I'd found 'felony' and 'rape' at via google 'sexual assault'.

• m-w "Definition of sexual assault :illegal sexual contact that usually involves force upon a person without consent or is inflicted upon a person who is incapable of giving consent (as because of age or physical or mental incapacity) or who places the assailant (as a doctor) in a position of trust or authority"
• Cornell 10USC "is guilty of rape and shall be punished as a court-martial may direct. (b)Sexual Assault.—Any person subject to this chapter who— (1) commits a sexual act upon another person by—"
• Texas Penal Code 'causes the penetration of ' details ...

Google for yourself, see if 'rape' comes up; or look at cases within Wikipedia mentioning it other than this one. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 20:55, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

I doubt the average person thinks of federal or state penal codes when they hear the term "sexual assault." Rather, they think of what the word means in normal, lay English, which is fairly represented by the M-W entry cited above. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:00, 25 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.

Apologized

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.

---

Saying in the lead section that Trump apologized for his 2005 comments is non-neutral. A variety of sources describe his apology as defensive or a non-apology, and simply saying he apologized implies that he showed some sort of contrition, which is arguable at best. I propose removing this phrase and just starting with "Trump vigorously denied the allegations..." --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:55, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

I disagree. Please quote sources or at least give a link. See this link which contradicts your assertion and shows virtually all sources but NYT reporting apology. Can you please propose rephrasing instead of completely deleting? Thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:05, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Sigh. Here are a variety of reliable sources that describe Trump's response as either a non-apology or a half-hearted apology: [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] If you don't like those, there are plenty more. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:19, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

(I'm in a waiting room.) Dr. Fleischman, isn't it correct that many sources say it was an apology? So we have a split. And that calls for rephrasing, not deletion. Something like "Trump was at least somewhat apologetic". To my mind, apologies are like denials: it's not good to omit either of them. Also, if I recall correctly, Trump made apologetic remarks about this more than once; at first it was one of those lame "if anyone was offended" apologies, but then it was a clearer blanket apology. If that's correct (as I recall) then no rephrasing is necessary.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:40, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Right, the way to treat this neutrally would be to say he apologized, but to add that the apology was described by some sources as either a non-apology or a half-hearted apology. But we don't have nearly enough space in the lead section for that. (As I've mentioned elsewhere, I oppose including any material about this controversy in the lead section.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:52, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Also, FWIW I don't think apologies are like denials at all. You'll rarely see apologies for misconduct (or allegations of misconduct) in lead sections. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:55, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

You seem to have mysteriously overlooked the part of my comment where I said he issued a lame apology and then a non-lame one. Here is the non-lame one: "I'm not proud of it. I apologize to my family. I apologize to the American people. Certainly I'm not proud of it." So your sources criticizing the lame one are no longer pertinent, right? P.S. Here's another one: "I said it, I was wrong, and I apologize."Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:18, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

It's worth adding that Trump's non-apology / half-hearted apology isn't sufficiently important for the lead, given the space limitations. Trump's immediate response to the tape isn't something of more than passing interest to the media, beyond the rare story about Trump's general refusal to acknowledge his mistakes. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:45, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Does this apology even directly state to whom he is apologizing? If not, I don't think it fits the definition. Objective3000 (talk) 22:03, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

• I don't think anyone can say with a straight face that it was not an apology. His exact words were "I'm not proud of it. I apologize to my family. I apologize to the American people. Certainly I'm not proud of it." In what world is that a non-apology? The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 22:12, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

I could be wrong, but I think this is the full quote: "No, I didn’t say that at all. I don’t think you understood what was said. This was locker room talk. I am not proud of it. I apologize to my family, I apologize to the American people. Certainly, I am not proud of it. But this is locker room talk. You know, when we have a world where you have ISIS chopping off heads, where you have them, frankly, drowning people in steel cages, where you have wars and horrible, horrible sights all over and you have so many bad things happening, this is like medieval times. We haven’t seen anything likes this. The carnage all over the world and they look and they see, can you imagine the people that are frankly doing so well against us with ISIS and they look at our country and see what’s going on. Yes, I am very embarrassed by it and I hate it, but it’s locker room talk and it’s one of those things. I will knock the hell out of ISIS. We are going to defeat ISIS. ISIS happened a number of years ago in a vacuum that was left because of bad judgment. And I will tell you, I will take care of ISIS. We need to get on to much more important and bigger things."

I can tell you straight-faced that this is not an apology. Objective3000 (talk) 22:39, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Here's another one:[25]

“ I’ve never said I’m a perfect person nor pretended to be someone that I’m not. I’ve said and done things I regret, and the words released today on this more-than-a-decade-old video are one of them. Anyone who knows me knows these words don’t reflect who I am. I said it, I was wrong, and I apologize. I’ve traveled the country talking about change for America, but my travels have also changed me. I’ve spent time with grieving mothers who’ve lost their children, laid-off workers whose jobs have gone to other countries, and people from all walks of life who just want a better future. I have gotten to know the great people of our country, and I’ve been humbled by the faith they placed in me. I pledge to be a better man tomorrow and will never, ever let you down. Let’s be honest: We’re living in the real world. This is nothing more than a distraction from the important issues we are facing today. We are losing our jobs; we are less safe than we were eight years ago; and Washington is totally broken. Hillary Clinton and her kind have run our country into the ground. I’ve said some foolish things but there's a big difference between the words and actions of other people. Bill Clinton has actually abused women, and Hillary has bullied, attacked, shamed, and intimidated his victims. We will discuss this more in the coming days. See you at the debate on Sunday. ”

Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:53, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

• He aPologized on live TV : ) Somedifferentstuff (talk) 23:21, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Trump apologized for his words and denied ever putting those words into action. Certainly some pro-Clinton journalists have said it is not an apology but Olivia Nuzzi, writing "Donald Trump is sorry if you are offended he joked about sexually assaulting women. But he’s not sorry he said it." says "And some people—even those in the media tasked with reporting accurately on what the nominee says—have been fooled." She then quotes the wording of news reports in BBC, The Washington Times and Bloomberg. I don't know what weight to place on these opinions, but I would imagine not much. Nuzzi btw got her start as an intern for Anthony Weiner, whose (now estranged) wife is Clinton's top aide. TFD (talk) 23:44, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Trumps apologies to his family and to the American people are not worth mention. Lets wait till he apologizes (Redacted) Buster Seven Talk 00:19, 20 October 2016 (UTC) BLP violation redacted by The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 14:02, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Your assumption is that the claims are true when they have not been proved. We are perfectly happy to accept that Bill Clinton apologized for his inappropriate relations with an intern.[26] We don't qualify that by saying he did not apologize for unproved claims against him. TFD (talk) 02:52, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, we should say he apologized. He said the words "I apologize", multiple times. Maybe a lot of people thought it was half-hearted or weasely. Maybe we think it wasn't strong enough. Doesn't matter. He apologized, that is a fact, and it should be in the article. --MelanieN (talk) 01:05, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Also the "vigorously" in "vigorously denied" is an unnecessary adjective which constitutes editorializing.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:34, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm not saying that including that he apologized in the lead is unverifiable. Of course he apologized. I'm saying that (1) it's not sufficiently noteworthy for the lead, and (2) it's not a neutral summary of his response. We could just as well include in our lead section not only that he apologized but also also that (1) many sources described his apology as a non-apology or a half-hearted apology, (2) he said his comments were just "locker room talk" and that Bill Clinton boasted of worse while playing golf, (3) he followed up by bringing four of Bill Clinton's mistresses to the second debate. I don't suppose anyone would support that? </snark> --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:27, 21 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.

"Talked" versus "bragged"

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.

---

Sigh. Now we have editors changing "Trump bragged..." to "Trump talked..." The sources, such as the ones listed in the previous subsections, overwhelmingly say Trump "bragged." This conveys more factual (not opinion) information than "talked." WP:SAY is not applicable here. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:49, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Maybe we should quote directly from a particular source then that uses the word "brag." The media is quite unequivocal in their usage of the word "brag," so maybe it should just be reverted. JasperTECH (talk) 21:56, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Dr. Fleischman - "talked" is a physical fact that the tape conveys. "Brag" is an interpretation, unless one has telepathy, so would have to be second-person voice 'said to be bragging', and also have to reflect that other views have been expressed. Go with 'talked'. Markbassett (talk) 21:59, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

The thing is that the tape also talks about Trump attempting to seduce a married woman, saying he "moved on her very heavily." So it's in the direct context of action - not just talk, which is why almost all news articles (i.e., 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6) say that he was bragging or boasting about being able to kiss and grope women. It's not our responsibility to do original research on it, but there is a solid reason behind why news articles have used that phrasing. JasperTECH (talk) 22:07, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

User:JasperTech Tsk - your opinion on what all the editors thought notwithstanding, a list of 'almost all' sources is describing a second-person item; a tape plus acknowledged by Trump 'talked' ... Different there. Markbassett (talk) 18:27, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't agree with your argument here, MarkBassett. One does not require telepathy to determine if somebody's words or actions can be considered "bragging." It's evident from the context of the conversation that "bragged" is the appropriate term to use. On top of that, if it is being reported on as bragging by all of our sources, then it's our duty not to editorialize them and present the facts as they are. AlexEng^(TALK) 22:12, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

User_talk:AlexEng mmm - again, second-person voice for conveying it as what list of sources said. For example "Washington Post reported the tape of him bragging"1. And note that other sources choice for wording do not say 'brag' and some report Trump as 'not bragging' ... try here. Everyone seems agreed the tape is real, but 'brag' is an interpretation,a "can be considered" as you say, not a demonstrable fact of a physical item nor the only interpretation possible. Markbassett (talk) 18:54, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree with DrFleischman. At least one of the sources cited in the article specifically says "...a video of Trump bragging to “Access Hollywood” host Billy Bush in 2005...". Our sources have widely favored the word "bragged" because that's what Trump's words and tone plainly convey.- MrX 22:02, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree with DrFleischman for the reason articulated by MrX. Neutrality^talk 22:46, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

"Bragging" is so widely used in our sources, I'm surprised there's any discussion. The tape is a primary source; we can't interpret it ourselves, but we can certainly cite what reliable sources say about it. --Pete (talk) 09:58, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't take original research to understand that Mr. Trump was bullshitting with Mr. Bush. "bullshit, vb. To lie or exaggerate to." But the Post settled on the term "bragging" instead, and so can we. ("Brag ... usually suggests a less well-founded, more ... exaggerated [variety of] boasting.")

And we can add the qualifying adverb "jokingly", because that's what Trump himself says he was doing: jokingly boasting.

"'This was locker-room banter...,' Trump said in a statement."

banter. "1... Animated joking back and forth <banter between husband and wife>." -- Merriam-Webster Unabridged --Dervorguilla (talk) 10:12, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

It sounds like original research to me. I haven't seen any reliable secondary sources saying that Trump was bullshitting. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:29, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

@DrFleischman: Suppose you took this claim to a journal that publishes original research. Would they laugh in your face because this "original research" is utterly devoid of both originality and research, having been common knowledge in the field since ten years before you were born? --Dervorguilla (talk) 09:55, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Doesn't matter. Adherence to WP:OR doesn't depend on your understanding of the meaning of the words "original" or "research." --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:37, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

@DrFleischman: It matters to Wikipedia. See essay WP:SYNTHNOT, § SYNTH is not unpublishably unoriginal:

"When you look at a case of putative SYNTH, apply the following test. Suppose you took this claim to a journal that does publish original research... Would they laugh in your face because your 'original research' is utterly devoid of both originality and research, having been common knowledge in the field since ten years before you were born? If [so], it's not original research..."

I've given a reliable source for the claim about Trump: namely, Trump himself. This is Wikipedia policy (but I'd be happy to double-check with Jimbo). Details at WP:V, § ABOUTSELF:

"Questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves ... so long as the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim..."

You have yet to tell us why you believe this information is OR. I'm asking that you spell out now -- in plain language -- any reason you would have for reverting the material once it's been added. --Dervorguilla (talk) 00:07, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Because the secondary sources say Trump bragged, and you're relying on your own independent analysis, based on primary sources, to justify why we should say he didn't. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 01:36, 3 November 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.

PROPOSAL: Vote on an NPOV tag

Someone removed the tag and I think that this talk age discussion shows that the tag is reasonable at this time. So, I propose we vote on whether the Tag can exist at this time on this blp. KINGOFTO (talk) 22:01, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

In the meantime, I will relace the tag and hoe it will be respected for its own integrity. KINGOFTO (talk) 22:19, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

You added a link, not a tag. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:23, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

thanks, I just fixed it KINGOFTO (talk) 22:29, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

King, to impose the {{npov}} tag you need to point to specific neutrality issues that cover substantial portions of the article. The neutrality issues being discussed on this page cover very specific sentences and are already tagged appropriately using {{pov-inline}}. {{pov section}} and {{POV lead}} are also at our disposal, though I don't see a need for them. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:35, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

• (Edit conflict) Remove the tag. Immediately, without waiting for discussion or a "vote". There is nothing on this talk page that suggests or indicates support for a NPOV tag for the entire article. This talk page, and its numerous archives, show multiple people working very hard to keep the article neutral. Tagging the article as NPOV is not only inaccurate, it is an insult. You have offered no evidence or examples of what you think is NPOV. If you think there are particular things or sections that need reworking, say so here and let's work them out. But get rid of the tag. --MelanieN (talk) 22:37, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

• Remove it now. Considering the controversial nature of the article's subject, the bulk of the editors here have followed WP guidelines without displaying a POV. Such a tag on a heavily visited article requires a detailed rationale. Objective3000 (talk) 22:55, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
• I have removed the tag due to all editors besides KINGOFTO opposing it. I agree with the arguments above. JasperTECH (talk) 23:12, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Less than 1 hour??? Give other editors a chance to weigh in. KINGOFTO (talk) 23:50, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

The {{NPOV}} page says, "The purpose of this group of templates is to attract editors with different viewpoints to edit articles that need additional insight. This template should not be used as a badge of shame. Do not use this template to 'warn' readers about the article."

Unless you can point to widespread NPOV problems throughout the article, there is on reason to insert a huge, scary banner for one sentence in the lede paragraph that already has an inline tag. JasperTECH (talk) 00:00, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

(It seems MrX quoted the same thing I did at the same time in the section below.)

Another thing the {{NPOV}} page says is that the tag can be removed if it "is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given." JasperTECH (talk) 00:11, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) There is no reason for this article to have a POV tag. These tags are meant to attract editors to a discussion, not to warn readers. As evidenced by the participation on this page, and the fact that the page is watched by more than 400 editors, a serious discussion about neutral POV concerns will be addressed very quickly.- MrX 23:15, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Looking at section 4.1 above, there is no consensus for saying in the lead " On October 7, a 2005 audio recording surfaced in which Trump bragged about forcibly kissing and groping women"; the groping assertion is extremely biased and synthesis, right? KINGOFTO (talk) 23:43, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure if there is consensus yet, but the material is well sourced. Trump's comments were pretty clear, so I'm not sure why you think referring to "grab them by the pussy" as groping would be extremely biased and synthesis. Perhaps you could explain.- MrX

Per Lead section guidelines: The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents. It is not a news-style lead or lede paragraph. The lead is the first part of the article that most people will read. Compared to most of the controversial political sections dealing with real issues, the sex section is relatively small. And the fact that there is a non-disputed inline tag in the lead claiming a NPOV issue, would mean it should not be in the lead per BLP. --Light show (talk) 00:31, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Let's keep this section about whether or not a POV tag should be added at the top of the article, and add any opinions about specific statements to the RfC above. JasperTECH (talk) 00:58, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

The "grab them by the pussy" reference is being misrepresented in this discussion because there are many RS references which show the context of that phrase and the reality that it was clearly a hypothetical, not a statement of his personal history. Also, Light show's point is related, I think.KINGOFTO (talk) 14:17, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

KINGOFTO, now we're getting somewhere. Would you please link to some of these sources that say Trump's comments were clearly hypothetical?- MrX 12:51, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

KINGOFTO - Well, sure of course this article has POV issues, sometimes multiple new ones in a single day. Self-evident there are POV disputes here, and that resolution is ummm not keeping up with creations. Suggest for simplicity just admit it's ongoing and put a tag up until at least Nov. 9 -- the POV issue du jour is in such flux and reappearing so just might as well face that things are not going to get resolved in the next 8 days. Markbassett (talk) 23:21, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Respect for the tag

What is the rationale for removing the tag? The tag itself sets specific limits on when it can be removed, and I do not see where editors here are adhering to those limits? KINGOFTO (talk) 23:48, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

The purpose of this group of templates is to attract editors with different viewpoints to edit articles that need additional insight. This template should not be used as a badge of shame. Do not use this template to "warn" readers about the article. Since there is now a discussion (right here), there is no need for the tag.- MrX 23:56, 27 October 2016 (UTC),

I do not mean it as a badge of shame or warning, I think the article throughout has NPOV issues. I mention 1 such issue above re: the "groping" as a statement of fact, which I think is a huge rationale as it certainly is a sexual assault crime and an enormous condemnation of the behavior of the Subject.KINGOFTO (talk) 14:27, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

It is on you to provide a rationale for tagging an article. Objective3000 (talk) 00:00, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

I will provide a complete list of NPOV infractions, imo, later on, but for now, I think the groping statement in the lead is more than enough to have the lead, at least, tagged.KINGOFTO (talk) 14:27, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

And I am pretty sure any of the infractions I may list have already been noticed and discussed so I am not sure where that leaves us. KINGOFTO (talk) 14:28, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

I oppose the {{POV}} tag. An article-level tag is only for problems that affect a significant portion of the article and are not already tagged. I'm not aware of such problems. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:16, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

The in-line NPOV tag

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.

---

There is a non-disputed inline tag in the lead claiming a NPOV issue, which means the tagged text should not be in the lead per BLP. Per Lead section guidelines: The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents. It is not a news-style lead or lede paragraph. The lead is the first part of the article that most people will read.

So isn't this an either-or situation? Either the tagged text is removed or the tag itself should be removed. However, no one has claimed that the tag is wrong, which is why it's still there.--Light show (talk) 01:34, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

You say it shouldn't be there "per BLP," but I'm not seeing anything from those pages that backs up that claim. The BLP page says that unsourced material must be removed immediately. This is not an issue of poorly sourced claims, but whether it constitutes undue weight. The sentence you quoted doesn't support the argument that the text should be removed during the pending RfC. I'm not saying that argument is wrong, but that the BLP and lead section guidelines you cited don't seem to support it.

By the way, the sentences on the allegations have been toned down considerably, and haven't been removed for a while. That suggests most editors don't believe it constitutes a violation of policy to leave it there during the ongoing RfC, even if some of them would ultimately like for it to be removed depending on whether the RfC supports that. JasperTECH (talk) 01:54, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Some of the possibly relevant BLP issues could be that Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons... must be written conservatively and that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives.

Combine those guidelines with the purpose of leads, it's apparent that a sentence like, " On October 7, a 2005 audio recording surfaced in which Trump bragged about forcibly kissing and groping women..." is far from a summary of the article's most important contents. In terms of size alone, the sexual allegations section is tiny compared to the many issue-related sections, although few of those issues are mentioned in the lead. It's obvious, at least to me, that the tagged text in the lead magnifies sensationalist details, and does not fairly summarize the full biography.--Light show (talk) 02:26, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

OK, I did some research myself to try and see if there was anything in the official policies that supported the removal of disputed content during an ongoing RfC - and I did find some interesting things. According to WP:ONUS, "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." However, WP:PRESERVE says that "as long as any of the facts or ideas added to an article would belong in the 'finished' article, they should be retained if they meet the three article content retention policies: Neutral point of view (which does not mean no point of view), Verifiability and No original research" - which the allegations certainly do. These two things seem to contradict each other, so now I'm extremely confused. I hear your arguments about undue weight, but that's probably best for the RfC section above. For now, My very best wishes has removed the tag.

Give me a few minutes/hours to try and make sense of this. I suppose you could remove the paragraph if you want, citing WP:ONUS. But then someone else could add it back, claiming WP:PRESERVE. Agh! JasperTECH (talk) 17:47, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

• The "[undue weight? – discuss]" in intro is ridiculous. The tag suppose to initiate discussion, however there is already an RfC above, specifically to discuss the phrase(s) which were tagged. This tag only serves to create disruption, such as this whole discussion about nothing. My very best wishes (talk) 02:53, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

The inline tag is perfectly legitimate, and if the disputed content is to remain in the article while the dispute is pending (something I heartily disagree with), then so should the tag. Your statement that the only purpose of tagging is to "initiate" discussion defies both WP:TAGGING and common sense. Tags serve many legitimate purposes, the most important and obvious one being to alert readers of an existing dispute. Your insistence on removing the tag reinforces the appearance that your goal is to ram your preferred version through, RfC bedamned, and to stifle any discussion about it. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:07, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

The only person who tried to place this tag on the page so far was you and another contributor who acted on your request (according to their edit summary). If there are other people who like you want to place this tag, then OK, let's place it per WP:Consensus. My very best wishes (talk) 17:17, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

The fact that Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi was responding to my request doesn't somehow invalidate their position. And it's pretty clear that Light show supports this tag. There is no consensus to remove the tag, just the insistence of a couple of editors who keep reverting over and over again in violation of arbitration remedies. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:33, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, if you reread my comment in that link, I don't actually support the tag, since having the tag implies that the text does not belong in the lead. Nor do I feel that any "disputed content" is the issue. It's that the guidelines for leads are being ignored. --Light show (talk) 17:48, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

This issue (placing a couple of phrases in intro) has been sufficiently advertised already through RfC and on WP:AE. A lot of people commented. Advertising it even more by placing additional tags (probably for people who do not regularly edit on-wiki) does not serve any good purpose.My very best wishes (talk) 17:57, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Dr. Fleischman, and have added the tag back for now. If the material is included, it should at least have a tag to indicate that there is an ongoing discussion about it. JasperTECH (talk) 18:02, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

OK, except that you just violated 1RR rule for the page. My very best wishes (talk) 18:09, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

My apologies - I just self-reverted my addition. JasperTECH (talk) 18:19, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Ok My very best wishes, are you ready to make good on your promise? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:03, 28 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.

Proposal re: "groping"

As editors we need to reflect the content of Reliable Sources. I propose the following:

"Trump was, in 2005, caught on audio tape claiming that, because he was a "star", women allowed him to kiss them and also would allow him, if he chose to, to grab their "pussy"'.

That is an accurate reflection of what he said. What we have now in the lead is an inaccurate and exaggerated reflection. KINGOFTO (talk) 02:41, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

That is not an accurate reflection of what he said. He never said "if he chose to" and he never said "grab their pussy"—he said "grab them by their pussy".- MrX 03:10, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

"I don't even wait. And when you're a star, they let you do it, you can do anything ... grab them by the pussy." does not translate into "Trump bragged about forcibly kissing and groping women,", I can not accept that many editors really believe that the word "forcibly" belongs in there which is why I think we have a real neutrality issue. KINGOFTO (talk) 03:51, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

If the sources say "forcibly" then we use "forcibly".Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:00, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

The word "grab" certainly implies "forcibly" - without the consent of the woman. If she consented, he wouldn't "grab" it, he could feel or caress or (whatever term you want that implies consensuality). Look up the definitions of "grab": "grasp or seize suddenly and roughly"; "to seize suddenly or quickly; snatch; clutch". That's forcible by any interpretation. Also, adding "if he chose to" is putting words in his mouth; his language was a lot more straightforward than that. This kind of change has been discussed above, but the argument that "he SAID he could do it but didn't mean to imply that he actually DID it" has not proven to be convincing. --MelanieN (talk) 06:48, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

There's actually 3 possibilities: (a) he was bragging only that he could do it, (b) he was bragging that he did do it but actually he didn't, or (c) he was bragging about something that he actually did. The conversation doesn't make much sense if you think it's (a).--Jack Upland (talk) 07:15, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Exactly. "I don't even wait" --> he does (has done) the things he is bragging about. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:07, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

He clearly stated that he DOES kiss women right away, as soon as he meets them. In the very next sentence he said women "let you" grab them by the pussy if you are a star. The notion that he switched in mid-brag from talking about things he admittedly DOES do, to talking about things he THINKS HE MIGHT be able to do, stretches credibility to the limit. --MelanieN (talk) 20:39, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Clear your heads. He never confessed to grabbing anything. He boasted he could do so if he wanted to, based on his star status. IHTS (talk) 09:12, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Would you mind producing a couple of reliable sources that support such an interpretation? Thanks.- MrX 12:12, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

I suggest we rely on the full transcript on the tape itself and not on "interpretations" from sources which themselves are clearly biased exaggerations of Trump's literal words, indicating what they think Trump meant. This is a major BLP issue and we need to be very careful to not unfairly malign Trump or participate in a sort of pile-on along with politically-hostile media sources. Trump's literal words amount to an admission that he would spontaneously kiss women without asking their permission -- a fair wording is nonconsensually, but not forcibly. He also stated that women "let" stars or celebrities "grab" their genitals. He did not explicitly refer to himself in first person terms on that. In any event, we can find many uses of the word "grab" occurring in sexual contexts that clearly do not refer to forcible or nonconsensual sex. An aside: I am writing from France and understand well that US media is monopolized and in this election displays a bias against Donald Trump. That said: Repeating subjective interpretations of the tape's content rather than the literal content of the tape itself does poor service to readers of this site.

According to WP:BLP:

Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages. The burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores material.

The strictest caution must be applied to this article and I feel editors with political bias against Donald Trump are not exercising that level of care here. Adlerschloß (talk) 15:54, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Actually, interpretation of the tape are what we should be using, almost exclusively. See WP:SECONDARY and WP:PRIMARY. Policy: Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources. Articles may make an analytic, evaluative, interpretive, or synthetic claim only if that has been published by a reliable secondary source.- MrX 16:15, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

From WP:NOR

Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources.

The present wording in the article's lead is an improvement but still insinuates a subjective interpretation of the primary source. And secondary sources have reprinted the primary full transcript of the tape outright. Adlerschloß (talk) 20:48, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

The only way we could use the primary source (the transcript) is to quote the entire transcript which is not practical, especially in the lead. The content in the lead should be based on a few impeccable sources and should include their analysis. Here are a few: [27][28][29][30]. Common themes in these sources: lewd, vulgar, bragged, groped, kissed, etc..- MrX 21:29, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

The tape would appear to indicate that he thinks women allow him to do this. In no way can we suggest that women actually are okay with this. Objective3000 (talk) 12:24, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

No. But we can certainly indicate that he SAID women are okay with this. Because he did, explicitly. "They let you, because you're a star." --MelanieN (talk) 20:44, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Here's what happens when you try to insert "controversial" BLP stuff[31]. "Nope". That the "GTBTP" thing is in the lede of this BLP article speaks to the tremendously biased and unencyclopedic editing here. Very sad. Doc talk 12:24, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Go make that argument at talk:Hillary Clinton if you like, but I recommend keeping your theories about bias and injustice to yourself, lest you become sadder by the realization that over-the-top rhetoric is rarely persuasive..- MrX 17:48, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

I think we should be focusing on what reliable secondary sources are saying he said, and not on our own original analyses. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:27, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

User:DrFleischman When that presents only a single position, or states it in WP-voice as a fact rather than as second-person POV, it fails WP:NPOV "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views". See also the WP:BLP guidance, including the Adlerschloß quore above about conservative language and not being a tabloid, or see WP:BLPGOSSIP and WP:PUBLICFIGURE examples that would lead one to avoid the "messy" words and be careful to say "alleged" and to also report any denials. Markbassett (talk) 00:09, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Tell me, then, what are all of the significant views--as supported by reliable secondary sources? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:32, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

It seems to me like there wouldn't be any disputes over neutrality if such sentences were taken from reliable sources and not tweaked around to fit an agenda. Although, unless such allegations have been verifiably proven, while such information could certainly remain in the article, perhaps it may not be entirely suited for the article's introduction. –Matthew - (talk) 21:21, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Courtesy post:

sources supporting "being able to"

"Trump said he tried to 'fuck' a married woman and bragged about being able to grope women because of his 'star' status." Diamond, Jeremy. "Trump issues defiant apology for lewd remarks -- then goes on the attack", CNN (October 8, 2016). ".... comments Trump made in a 2005 'Access Hollywood,' where he bragged about being able to force himself on women against their will because of his celebrity." DelReal, Jose and Johnson, Jenna. [https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/10/22/trump-threatening-nearly-one-dozen-sexual-assault-accusers-vows-to-sue/ "Trump, threatening nearly a dozen sexual assault accusers, vows to sue"], Washington Post (October 22, 2016). "a leaked hot mic conversation in which the Republican nominee bragged about being able to touch women because he is a 'star.'" Diaz, Daniella. "Trump: Clinton is behind sexual assault allegations", CNN (October 19, 2016). "Trump bragged about being able to grope and kiss women" Diamond, Jeremy. "Trump: I'd 'love' to fight Biden", CNN (October 26, 2016). "he bragged about being able to grope women because he is a celebrity" Diaz, Daniella. [http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/28/politics/joe-biden-anthony-weiner-emails-hillary-clinton/ "Biden on Weiner: 'I'm not a big fan'"], CNN (October 29, 2016). "The leak of a 2005 hot-mic video two days before the second debate in which Trump bragged about being able to grope women led to Clinton’s biggest single-day gain of the past four weeks." Tartar, Andre and Tioruririne, Adam. "Trump, Clinton Double Down on Their Strategies: Final Debate By the Numbers", Bloomberg News (October 20, 2016). "remarks Trump made in a leaked 2005 conversation, in which he bragged about being able to grope women because of his fame." "Retired Military Officials Condemn Donald Trump Over Issue of Sexual Assault", Fortune (October 18, 2016). "last week’s release of a 2005 video in which he bragged about being able to exploit women sexually." Langley, Monica. [http://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-angrily-denies-allegations-of-groping-points-finger-at-media-and-clinton-campaign-1476384833 "Donald Trump Prepares New Attack on Media, Clinton"], Wall Street Journal (October 13, 2016). "Trump bragged about being able to grope and otherwise touch women without consent or consequences." Lesniewski, Niels. "Heck Hopes to Mimic Reid in Nevada But for GOP", Roll Call (October 15, 2016). "he bragged about being able to 'do anything' to women 'when you're a star,' including 'grab them' by the genitals" Jaffa, Alexandra and Gutters, Hasani. "Rudy Giuliani on Donald Trump's Crass Comments: 'Both Sides Have Sinned'", NBC News (October 9, 2016). The accusations come after the release of a 2005 tape earlier this month in which Trump bragged about being able to grope or kiss women due to because he was a celebrity. Savransky, Rebecca. "Trump: 'Nothing ever happened' with accusers", The Hill (newspaper) (October 15, 2016).

Thanks for your consider. IHTS (talk) 08:16, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes. There's also all of these which support the wording currently in the article though. Personally I think the sources I listed have considerably more weight than some of what you've listed here - like rollcall & thehill. My research suggested that most RS don't use the "being able to" phrasing, but rather say that Trump "bragged" about doing the things he talked about. Fyddlestix (talk) 16:08, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Hm. I'm a bit vexed about what to do here. The sources listed by Dervorguilla by and large meet our reliability criteria. So I guess the question is whether they conflict and must be balanced or whether they're technically consistent. I don't have an answer to that. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:41, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that is an interesting selection there, Ihardlythinkso. Admittedly, it's made to look a lot longer than it actually is by citing multiple articles from CNN. The selection of sources from Dervorguilla shows that sources that say "being able to" are in the minority. Still, I have another idea for compromising – change bragged about forcibly kissing and groping women to "bragged about his sexually aggressive behavior with women." After all, in the tape he did talk about trying to have sex with a married woman. Thus, regardless of whether his words are interpreted as being able to grope women, the "sexually aggressive" statement remains true. I know this is less specific, but it's preferable to to misleadingly changing the statement to a theoretical matter when Trump did in fact relate his experience trying to move on a married woman. JasperTECH (talk) 01:16, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Don't the recent discussion closures here and here kind of make this discussion moot? Seems like the issue was being discussed in way too many different talk page sections simultaneously. Fyddlestix (talk) 03:51, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

It looks stupid and really non-eventful in the scope of the man's life. A ridiculous smear that remains as if it defines his biography. "On October 7th..." blah blah blah. Y'all are pretty naïve to think that this truly belongs in the lead of this BLP. It's not the true "bombshell" that it was designed to be. Get real. Doc talk 06:36, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

If that's your position, then stay civil and cast your !vote in the RfC above. This discussion is about making the language neutral and verifiable. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:20, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

List of Neutrality issues

Dr. Fleischman said neutrality issues are required for a POV tag; here are some imo.

1: "Many of his statements in interviews, on Twitter, and at campaign rallies have been controversial or false" The inclusion of the word "false" is obviously not neutral

2: "audio recording surfaced in which Trump bragged about forcibly kissing and groping women" the recording does not have Trump saying he "forcibly" did anything nor that he actually groped women. the recording said that because he was a star, women allowed him to kiss them and that he could grope them if he chose to.

3:"A subsequent analysis by The Washington Post, whose reporters were denied press credentials by the Trump presidential campaign, concluded that "Trump is a mix of braggadocio, business failures, and real success."[34]" an obvious neutrality issue: This statement infers a retaliatory analysis and adds nothing to the BLP

4"Trump's candidacy has been described as something around which the alt-right movement has coalesced,[259] together with its opposition to multiculturalism and immigration.[260][261]" Another neutrality issue

5 "at least 15 women[384] came forward with new accounts of sexual misconduct including unwanted kissing and groping" the word "accounts" infers not debatable...the word "claimed" should be used

6:Immigration policies The section is not about immigration, it is about illegal immigration and the misrepresentation of that is a major neutrality issue.

7:"He repeated a National Enquirer allegation that Rafael Cruz, father of Ted Cruz, may have been involved in the assassination of John F. Kennedy" The source says "linking Cruz’s father to the man who shot President John F. Kennedy and in no way says his father "may have been involved in the assassination" KINGOFTO (talk) 03:41, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

On the first one, there was a HUUUUGGGEEEE RfC about that [32]. So that's not going to fly.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:56, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Second one is based on reliable sources and has also been discussed to death.

Third, fourth are just your basic WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT. This is well sourced and attributed. You can't just call something you don't like "a neutrality issue". You have to show that it is not based on sources or that it misrepresents sources.

Actually the same thing for five, six and seven. You are mistaking your own opinions for "neutrality". Bring sources to the table and arguments grounded in policy or the tag is spurious.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:59, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

And oh yeah, there's a big ol' notice at the top of the article when you click edit which says:

" Firm consensus is needed to re-install a POV tag atop this article per discretionary sanctions. Please consider proposing it at the talk page, or getting attention of further editors other ways, like using an RFC or a section tag or an inline tag."

Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:06, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

1. Trump is actually known for using a much larger percentage of false statements, as independently examined by fact-checkers, than most other politicians. These are three references cited by the article: [33][34][35]. All these false statements are a big reason why he has received so much free media attention, which is also described by the article.
2. This has now been changed to nonconsensually, which I think solves this problem.
3. I just changed this to opined.
4. This is just true. Check out the sources. I think white-supremacists could rightly be called the alt-right. However, if you can think of better phrasing, go ahead and improve it.
5. I altered this as well from claims to allegations.
6. It shouldn't be titled Illegal immigration policies. That would be long and probably even more biased. It's in line with how other politicians' policies are described.
7. The definition of the word "link" is "a relationship between two things or situations." I don't see how this is misconstruing the sources.

Thanks for bringing these up. The article will be better as a result. The NPOV tag, however, should not be reinstated. JasperTECH (talk) 14:33, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

On 2, sources actually use the word "forcibly" [36] so we should follow the sources on this.

I also changed "alleged" back to "accused" for the same reason.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:17, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

That's swell, but @Volunteer Marek, Fyddlestix, and Nomoskedasticity: do you understand that headlines are not reliable sources? Politrukki (talk) 22:53, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

One of the accusers did say that he "forced" his tongue down her throat [37].Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:52, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Who said otherwise? The exact same wording appears in lots of sources:

Sources that say "forcibly"

Molly Redden, "Donald Trump 'grabbed me and went for the lips', says new accuser," The Guardian, October 16, 2016. "On its release, the tape quickly unleashed a cascade of accusations from women who have said Trump forcibly kissed or groped them, or reached under their clothing without asking." Kurtis Lee, "Another woman alleges Donald Trump grabbed and kissed her," Los Angeles Times October 15, 2016. "Heller is the ninth woman to come forward in the past week with allegations that Trump groped or forcibly kissed them before he ran for president last year." Harriet Agerholm, "Donald Trump sex claims: Porn star Jessica Drake becomes 11th woman to accuse Republican of unwanted advances," The Independent, 23 October 2016. "The porn star and sex educator is one of at least 11 women to make claims that the Republican nominee groped them, forcibly kissed them or made inappropriate remarks." Trip Gabriel, "Abandoning Donald Trump and, for Some Women, the G.O.P., Too," The New York Times, October 27, 2016. "Increasing numbers of Republican women have turned on their party’s male leaders for defending Mr. Trump against accusations that he groped or forcibly kissed more than 10 women." Amanda Sakuma, "Donald Trump Surrogates Have Their Own Baggage With Women Voters" NBC News, October 26, 2016. "newly unearthed audio recordings showed Trump bragging about forcibly kissing women and grabbing them by the genitals." "US presidential debate recap: Polls split on whether Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton won poisonous argument," The Telegraph', 13 October 2016. "In what was one of the most negative and acrimonious debates in US presidential history, it was a matter of minutes before the lewd tape, in which Mr Trump brags about "grabbing p----" and forcibly kissing women, was brought up." Jonathan Easeley, "'We Have Substantial Evidence of Lies': Trump Lashes Out At His Accusers, the Media," Fox News, October 13, 2016. "In reports and first-person accounts recorded in The New York Times, People magazine and The Palm Beach Post, four women have accused Trump, the Republican presidential nominee, of forcibly kissing them or aggressively touching them against their will." Tracy Jan, "More women accuse Trump of aggressive sexual behavior," Boston Globe, October 14, 2016. "Trump has been confronted with a slew of allegations of sexual misconduct over the past week, starting with a Washington Post report of a 2005 tape featuring him bragging about forcibly kissing women and grabbing them by the genitals." Nolan D. McCaskill, "More Trump accusers come forward," Politico, October 14, 2016. "the real estate mogul can be heard boasting about forcibly kissing and groping women with impunity because he’s “a star." Joyce Chen, "Donald Trump’s Vice Presidential Running Mate, Mike Pence, Is ‘Offended’ by Candidate’s Comments About Nancy O'Dell," US Weekly, October 8, 2016. "Trump issued a video statement on his Twitter account late Friday evening in response to the footage, which shows him bragging to former Access Hollywood host Billy Bush about forcibly kissing and groping women." Monica Langley, "Donald Trump’s New Attack Strategy: Curb Clinton Vote," Wall Street Journal, October 11, 2016. "on Friday, all attention turned to the video of Mr. Trump’s talking about groping women’s genitals and forcibly kissing women."

Just a selection for y'all to read (there's lots more). The foot-dragging on this is getting pretty tiresome. Fyddlestix (talk) 00:54, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Who said otherwise? With respect, I think you did it implicitly when you reinstated unsourced content (while removing another piece of unsourced content). Since Volunteer Marek's edit summary said "since sources actually use the terms "forcibly" and "accused" not "non-consensual", I assume the only purpose they added WaPo source was because they wanted to use word "forcibly". One would expect to find word "forcibly" in the WaPo article, but I did not find it, hence I made a technical edit in order to enforce WP:V. It would be okay for an editor to say that they are paraphrasing this and this source; then we could discuss how faithful to the source that paraphrase is. I'm not saying that we must use the exact words our sources use – sometimes it's the best course of action, sometimes it isn't – but it's a whole different matter to imply that we use the exact wording when we don't.
How many of those sources are cited in our article? I can't find a policy that says we can cite a source without citing it. If there are sources that you think are representative of population, go ahead and cite them using inline citations. If "forcibly kissed" is properly cited, I see no reason to object that wording, at this point. Politrukki (talk) 13:37, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

@Politrukki: Correct. "The word 'source' in Wikipedia has three meanings: ... [2nd of 3] The creator of the work (for example, the writer)." WP:V. Here, the "source" of the headline -- its creator -- is some anonymous headline-writer. As a courtesy to the cited source (meaning, the article writer), we ought to use his terminology, not the headline-writer's. --Dervorguilla (talk) 01:05, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Volunteer Marek, Fyddlestix, and Nomoskedasticity: As far as I can tell, I hold the same vision of this article as you do, but I'm just striving to find a middle ground that will convince the group of editors who don't want this statement in the lead at all to change their minds. Having a concise, neutral statement is a good start.

All in all, it's not a huge deal whether the article says "forcibly" or "nonconsensually," or whether it says "allegations" or "accusations." One of each word is used verbatim by the sources we cite, while the other ones sound softer and less editorialized while conveying the same meaning. Some editors may see the mainstream media as liberally biased - read this Wikipedia article for more information. If that's somewhat true, then we follow the policies for biased sources. WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV says: "Another approach [besides in-text attribution] is to specify or substantiate the statement, by giving those details that actually are factual."

It's not necessary to write statements that use the exact words our sources use, as long as whatever words we use instead have the same meanings. JasperTECH (talk) 01:14, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek and JasperTech: Given all the controversy about this claim, I think it would be helpful to include the original language in a ref quote to facilitate verification. I've accordingly added a second citation with a short ref quote. --Dervorguilla (talk) 02:48, 30 October 2016 (UTC) 05:14, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

I strongly endorse this. Verification was the sole reason I included inflated (I expected them be shrunk later, but I should have prepared for an emergency landing) quotations in |quote= parameter. I also explicitly endorse using citations, i.e. <ref> tags, in the lead at least until there is consensus on the wording per WP:V ("All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material."), and per WP:LEADCITE ("Any statements about living persons that are challenged or likely to be challenged must have an inline citation every time they are mentioned, including within the lead. ... The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none.")
If citations should be omitted per WP:LEADCITE, we must not forget that the lead should summarize the body. If there's a great discrepancy between the lead and body, something is wrong. Politrukki (talk) 13:37, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Fyddlestix has amply demonstrated that sources say "forcibly", and so should we. The same applies to "bragging" (see #"Talked" versus "bragged". It's getting a little tiresome seeing editors who don't grasp our policies or basic research skills, trying to scrub the meaning from a set of simple facts that have been widely reported. I agree that using direct quotes of the sources in the citation template is a good idea for verification. I also have no objection to including footnote citations in the lead as needed.- MrX 14:14, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps I've misinterpreted the amount of debate happening about inclusion of the sentences. If the majority of editors are fine with using the words the sources do, then I'm not going to complain. The inline citations are excellent - thanks Fyddlestix and Dervorguilla! JasperTECH (talk) 15:31, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm fine with paraphrasing, as long as we use words with the same meaning. For example instead of "bragged" we can use "boasted"; we should not use "talked" because they don't mean the same thing. I'm less concerned about "forcibly". I could live with substituting "without permission" (or consent).- MrX 15:54, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

"Thanks for conforming to the cited source" would have sufficed (I'm referring to your bizarre {{fv}} tag here). I'm truly sorry that I missed your comment "At least one of the sources cited in the article specifically says "...a video of Trump bragging to “Access Hollywood” host Billy Bush in 2005..."" above. Had I noticed that, I would have, of course, cited this source for "bragged", and another WaPo source (which says "can be heard making vulgar comments" instead of "bragging") for "without their consent".
Fyddlestix has amply demonstrated that sources say "forcibly" – I agree and I thank for citing them in the article. We don't know if "forcibly" is what majority of sources use – proving that would require more than basic research – but if anyone objects "forcing", they should bring another set of sources that use different wording.
I hope you, and everybody else who is involved, noticed that you reverted many constructive edits – including all, I assume, Dervorguilla's edits. Politrukki (talk) 19:55, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Correct; the others being DigbyDalton's (Oct. 30) and Charlesaaronthompson's (Oct. 30). --Dervorguilla (talk) 09:01, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

KINGOFTO, if you have issues with the neutrality of specific language, then tag those sentences with {{pov-inline}} and start a new discussion for each one. Some arguably non-neutral language here and there isn't a basis for an article-level POV tag. Also, as other folks have mentioned, some of these issues have already been discussed at length and resolved here on the talk page. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:15, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

-Dr. Fleischman - no, no User:KINGOFTO should put in the tag per guidance that it is the appropriate thing for this situation. (And then others should follow the guidance in the tag that says 'do not remove). Putting in 7 (and then more...) tags all over is not a substitute for it and seems not better anyway. Just kind of proves the point and justifies an overall tag. We've gotten POV issue du jour (or multiples du jour) for weeks now, simpler to just put the notice up there and leave it. (Maybe after 9 November ... or maybe not) Markbassett (talk) 00:21, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek - You seem missing the text of the POV tag, and the enclosed links for conduct. Relooking at your inputs for User:KINGOFTO list I note you are proving his point it deserves a tag.

1: "HUUUUGGGEEEE RfC about that [38]" ... kind of proves his point there are 20 editors in dispute with the word 2. 'Forcibly' is still in dispute, and "based on" reliable sources sounds a bit like OR rather than NPOV conveying all POVs. 3. WaPo indignation ... Rather than WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT, he seems correct - this is a single offended party, not meeting 'independant' and not wide ... and I'll add what the heck is significant enough to his life to make that worth a BLP inclusion ? 4. How candidacy described - not WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT if it's the only POV being presented ... and again, editor dispute is what the POV tag says. 5, 6, 7 - OK you oppose him, citing opinion difference... demonstrating again POV dispute

Finally you said 'there's a big ol' notice at the top of the article when you click edit which says: Firm consensus is needed to re-install a POV tag' Umm -- not really so big or at top as the boxes, it's an embedded comment lost amidst the page ... and unattributed so why/who or what ... not referenced in the Talk header either so ???? Effectively never gonna get consensus for this either so ???? Seems a circular argument.

CHeers Markbassett (talk) 00:53, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

What does "you seem missing the text of the POV tag" mean? Anyway, there's a specific injunction in the article to NOT put in the tag without consensus. That's really there's to it.

1. Yeah, but we abide by RfC, even if some editors don't like it. This is NOT how this works: "I didn't get my way in an RfC so I'll put in a NPOV tag in the article". Come on, seriously?

2. Yeah and you need consensus to put the tag in. Anything what so ever can easily be made "in dispute" by tendentious editors with enough time on their hands.

3. No.

4. No.

5. No

Basically WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT is exactly what you're doing. And saying "it's disputed" is NOT... not not not not not, a sufficient justification for the tag. You need to articulate it, not just "well I disagree".Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:00, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

• As the [neutrality is disputed]-tag has been reverted into the lede I would like to ask where is the consensus about having that tag? --SI 16:02, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Above DrFleischman states -- if you have issues with the neutrality of specific language, then tag those sentences

It seems that there is consensus a dispute is ongoing (and participation in that dispute amounts to a de facto admission of that dispute), but lack of consensus about whether an article-wide tag is appropriate in this context. There is clearly no consensus for the language in question itself, and many editors have raised concerns that it violates BLP policy, especially that in cases like this we need to use the most conservative language possible. If some editors are unwilling to reach a consensus phrasing, working in everyone's legitimate concerns especially as related to BLP, it would seem tagging the dispute is the only appropriate measure at this time to avoid persistent edit-warring in which each "side" continues to insert its preferred wording into the article. Adlerschloß (talk) 17:08, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Adlerschloß and have replaced the tag....not a badge of shame...not a warning...just a tag which, if not applicable here, then where? KINGOFTO (talk) 23:03, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

• Adding a POV tag to the entire article is way out of line. Work on the specific issues. The article itself as a whole is not in dispute. To be clear: There is no consensus to POV tag the entire article. In fact there is a strong consensus not to. Adding disputed material against consensus can be a blockable offense per the Discretionary Sanctions. --MelanieN (talk) 23:30, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

To be clear, in my above statement I meant to advocate for an inline tag (which I had recently added), in case my statement that there was no consensus for an article-wide tag did not make that clear in context. The differing sides on this dispute have each argued in support of an inline tag, which seems closest we'll to consensus until there is more willingness for compromise on the questionable phrasing in question (which itself in present form lacks consensus). Adlerschloß (talk) 15:24, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Alcohol

The section about health says he doesn't drink alcohol. I'm pretty sure I've seen him drink wine in The Apprentice, but I'm not going to suffer through watching it again to find which episode it was. PizzaMan (♨♨) 08:10, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Maybe it was non-alcoholic. The reliable sources all say he doesn't drink, and I could find nothing online about him drinking wine in The Apprentice. Even if you found it, it would be original research. Worthy of mentioning to a reporter maybe, but not of posting on Wikipedia. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:19, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

He once said he has a rare glass of wine. Not worth mentioning. Objective3000 (talk) 18:54, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

TOC Limit 3

I don't think this limit of TOC to 3 levels [39] is good.

This is a complicated article with lots of details. A detailed TOC, like a good introduction, makes it easier to figure out what the article covers.

The TOC limit 3 makes it difficult for the reader to figure out what's covered by the article. For example, it makes it harder to find "Sexual misconduct allegations". A bare mention of "Political positions" doesn't tell the reader that the entry deals with social issues, economic issues, healthcare issues, etc.

In contrast, the Business Career section outlines all of his businesses.

Is there anybody else here who would like to revert it? --Nbauman (talk) 20:24, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. I took it out earlier but it got reverted. I think I'm allowed to revert that under 1RR? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 21:05, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes. The rule is, "one revert per editor per article per 24-hour period". You last edited the page on 12:27, 30 October 2016‎, so you can revert again after 12:27, 31 October 2016‎. It's 05:27, 31 October 2016 now, so you can revert.

User:JFG is welcome to argue for his edit in Talk, but if he changes it without discussion, I'll revert it. --Nbauman (talk) 05:28, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

The TOC limit of 3 was longstanding until Bastun removed it yesterday. I reverted this out of usability reasons, because the expanded TOC would cover more than one screenful on a typical laptop screen. I hear the argument that a lot of relevant content is hidden in subsections but the lead is already an accurate summary of such contents, including controversial stuff; I see no pressing need to bludgeon the TOC. Now under DS per the edit notice, you must not reinstate any challenged (via reversion) edits without obtaining consensus on the talk page. As I reverted your change to a longstanding situation, the onus is on you to obtain consensus for an expanded TOC. — JFG ^talk 05:52, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Usability is an issue, true, but is that much of one? One or two swipes of a mousepad or mousewheel or a press or two of the PageDn key and you're there. Compare to the usability issued raised by hiding main topics - people visiting this page are probably a lot more interested in the current allegations facing Trump rather than his flirtation with professional wrestling some years ago. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 20:31, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

As I said, with the TOC limits, the "Sexual misconduct allegations" became invisible. They weren't mentioned in the introductory summary either. (I'd have to check, but I think that when people tried to include them in the summary, some people objected and defeated that edit too.) When I read a page, I assume that I can get a good idea of the contents by reading the summary and the TOC, and I think other readers would too. Now they can't. There's no hint that the article deals with sexual misconduct allegations. Can you address that problem? --Nbauman (talk) 20:56, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

The TOC limit was in place in March 2016, several months before the sexual misconduct allegations emerged. Those are unrelated developments of the article. Besides, TOC placement of this section was discussed earlier at #Heading levels (question raised by Bastun as well), to no effect. — JFG ^talk 09:36, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

I think the discussion at #Heading levels still stands and was not resolved. First you claim that the sexual allegations are part of the campaign, and should be subheads of the campaign; then you claim that the outline is too difficult to read because it has too many subheads so you eliminate the subheads. You claim that the sexual allegations were not a major issue. Now they are a major issue. The TOC is organized in such a way as to hide them in the body of the text. Headling level 3 manages to obscure the sexual allegations. Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! and I feel that the goal of making the subect accessible to the reader outweighs the problem of limiting it to 1 screen on your laptop. It doesn't fit on 1 screen in other monitors, including mine, anyway.

Why don't you think it's important to make the subject of sexual allegations easy to find in the body? --Nbauman (talk) 14:11, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

@Nbauman: Please read my words again: I don't "claim" anything here about where the sexual allegations should be placed or how much weight they should have; my position on this question is in the relevant RfC. This TOC discussion is not a content dispute between you and me about the sexual allegations, hence I have no answer to "why do I think it's important". I just pointed out that if you want to change the longstanding TOC limit, you must obtain consensus. As you noted yourself, the previous discussion at #Heading levels "was not resolved", i.e. did not show consensus for Bastun's proposal, so the status quo prevailed. — JFG ^talk 18:40, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

User:JFG, So your position is that, when you decide on the TOC level, the question of whether a more detailed TOC would make it easier to read the article doesn't matter, is that correct? --Nbauman (talk) 19:30, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

@Nbauman: No. I didn't "decide" the TOC level; some editor did that 6 months ago and wasn't challenged until Bastun's edit. My position is that changing a longstanding TOC limit in order to emphasize a recently-added controversial topic is a poor attempt to grab readers' attention. Were your premise true (i.e. claiming that somehow the TOC limit was introduced on purpose to hide the groping scandal), I would have supported your position. But it's false, so I don't. — JFG ^talk 20:57, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

I did not say that the TOC limit was introduced on purpose to hide the groping scandal. My position is that, whether or not it is a long-standing TOC limit, the final result is to make it more difficult for the reader to find a topic that many of them are interested in. Do you agree that it would be easier for the reader to find the sexual allegations in the body if it were in the TOC? --Nbauman (talk) 23:04, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

@Nbauman: You wrote: with the TOC limits, the "Sexual misconduct allegations" became invisible. This is wrong; they didn't "become" invisible because of the TOC limit, they always were, by virtue of being written months later. You also wrote: The TOC is organized in such a way as to hide them in the body of the text, implying intent to hide. I say there's no intent to hide anything; there was a long TOC on a {{very long}} article and it was accordingly limited in depth 6 months ago. Recently this groping affair emerged and was placed under the "Presidential campaign" section, so it was not mentioned in the TOC. (Note in passing that contrary to your assertions I was not involved in adding this content or discussing its hierarchical placement.) Now you and Bastun argue that this incident is worth mentioning in the TOC and I argue that the TOC would become unwieldy if we lifted the limit. Clearly I won't convince you and you won't convince me. Unless other editors weigh in strongly one way or another, we should leave the matter to rest. — JFG ^talk 01:24, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

No, you're putting words in my mouth. I said that the sexual misconduct allegations became invisible when you reverted Bastun's change. There may not have been an intent to hide, but it had that effect. The TOC limit 3 may have been acceptable when it was first included, when the article was simpler, but now as the article has grown more complex, the TOC limit 3 is no longer acceptable because it has the effect of obscuring important issues, like the sexual misconduct allegations. Because the article is more complex, we should have a more detailed TOC to help readers get through it.

I don't know that we do have consensus to keep TOC limit 3. Bastun and I want to expand it, you want to keep it. Consensus isn't a vote; you have to give reasons. You can't just arbitrarily vote no because you don't like it. I'm trying to figure out your objection so I can answer it, and I would like you to give me an answer.

My question, again, is, "Do you agree that it would be easier for the reader to find the sexual allegations in the body if it were in the TOC?" Could you please answer that question? --Nbauman (talk) 19:29, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

See the ArbCom remedies message box near the top of this page, in particular: "Consensus required: All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion)." The edit to change the TOC limit was challenged, and it currently lacks consensus. That is all that matters at this point. If your argument is convincing, it will win consensus and the edit will be reinstated; if not, it won't and it won't. To date, after more than 3 days, I see two editors supporting the change, and that is not a consensus by any measure. User JFG is not required to convince you that you're wrong, and you don't get to declare consensus because they have not satisfied you that they have a viable argument (we don't get to be the arbiters of our own discussions and I'm sure you can see why that could not work). ―Mandruss ☎ 08:34, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm trying to obtain consensus. The way to obtain consensus is to have all the parties explain what their arguments are for and against a position, and then examine the basis of their arguments. I am trying to find out User:JFG's objection to expanding the TOC. The first reason he gave me is that it was decided months ago. His main reason seems to be wp:idontlikeit.

My reason for changing it is that it will make the article easier to read. I'm trying to find out whether JFG agrees, disagrees, or doesn't care. My best understanding is that he doesn't care. That's not a good reason for establishing consensus. Consensus isn't a majority vote.

Since you're weighing in on it, User:Mandruss, maybe you could give me your answer. Do you think the article would be easier to read if the TOC were expanded? --Nbauman (talk) 18:46, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

@Nbauman: Without an outside, uninvolved closer, it pretty much is just a vote. Empirical evidence strongly suggests that it is not in human nature to concede that one's opponent has the stronger argument, and no one can force them to concede. How many times have you done that? And I mean conceding entire issues, not just an individual point here and there. I used to be very aggravated by the fact that my proposal could be defeated by simply !voting against it, without addressing my points, but I've gotten used to it as part of my wider DGAF survival strategy. It's just the way it is. (This is not a commentary on this thread, just my general observation. But I will say that you should stop asserting WP:IJDLI because your opponent's arguments don't make any sense to you; a bad argument in your view is not absence of argument.) If you fail to gain consensus and feel strongly enough, start an RfC.
I have no opinion about the TOC limit. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:36, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

For the record, I disagree, and it's not a matter of "not liking it". First, from a UI design and human factors standpoint, long menus are painful to scan and they get skipped, yielding the opposite of the OP's desired effect. Second, I also disagree with lifting the limit for the express purpose of steering readers' attention to the groping scandal. This information is easy enough to find by reading the lead (which comes before the TOC) or using the search box where "Trump" combined with any terms like "kissing", "groping", "assault", "rape", "bragging" or "grabbing" will promptly lead curious readers to two very long articles fully dedicated to this topic. Oh, and a good chunk of Legal affairs of Donald Trump too, with no less than 10 citations in the lead. — JFG ^talk 21:01, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

I know a bit about user interface design and ergonomics. I have a copy of Henry Dreyfuss' Measure of Man. Your link to "User interface design" discusses usability testing. I doubt that you've done usability testing on Wikipedia TOCs. So the fact that there is such as thing as usability testing doesn't support your claim, since you haven't done it. If you did usability testing, you might find that your subjects wanted a more detailed TOC. So it does look like it's simply a personal preference.

What other objections do you have, besides simply not liking it? --Nbauman (talk) 22:29, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

I gave you lots of reasons but you are not listening, and I will point out that your proposal can also be construed as a personal preference. If you want to assess community support for this change, open an RfC. — JFG ^talk 23:36, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Nbauman that the heading depth should be bumped up for this article. It's important to enable readers to find the subsections under "Presidential campaign, 2016," which I suspect they are most interested in these days. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:13, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

If people want to read about the campaign, they'll click the campaign heading. Or the sidebar. Or a link in the lead. Or use the search box. We have plenty of navigational aids already. If some content is deemed more important than some other, it can be bumped up a level. Finally, the article will probably need some deep restructuring right after the election, so leave it be for now. We are all wasting our time arguing inconsequential minutiae. — JFG ^talk 23:36, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

• The article should remain with the default TOC for reasons well-articulated by others in this section. There seems to a trend lately of hiding unfavorable navigational links which is very bad precedent to set, and it runs afoul of WP:NPOV.- MrX 12:09, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

  TOC limit 3 was in place long before the material in question was added. If any use of TOC limit is presumed to be for ulterior reasons, why does it exist as an option? Or is that presumed only in highly contentious political articles? What evidence do you have of this motive? If this material is important enough that it really needs to be in the TOC, why is it at level 4? I've said above that I have no opinion as to this issue, and I have none, but I do object to your reasoning. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:20, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

  It's at TOC level 4, Mandruss, because when I moved it to TOC level 3, I was told "No, the groping and sexual assault allegations from years ago are only prominent now because of Trump's presidential campaign so they must be included as a subsection of that" and got reverted. And of course the allegation of a rape of a minor and upcoming court hearing aren't included because... well, yeah... Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:52, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

  My conclusion that there is "a trend lately of hiding unfavorable navigational links" is based on observation, synthesis, and inductive reasoning. For style and ease of access reasons, there should be good reasons to deviate from a default, and I have seen none so far. There also needs to be consensus, which clearly doesn't exist.- MrX 12:37, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

  I think WP:AGF sets a higher bar than observation, synthesis, and inductive reasoning, which are completely subjective by nature as you know. As for burden of consensus, it falls on the editors wishing to make the change, not those wishing to deviate from a default, per the ArbCom restrictions laid out near the top of this page. Unless a lie has been told, the TOC limit 3 was in place for six months and the disputed edit was the one that removed it. Your only viable case is that there is a consensus for that edit here, and that is very borderline. I'm not going to revert you for making a flawed argument on multiple counts. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:45, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

  I stop assuming good faith when multiple edits and multiple comments demonstrate bad-faith. The failure to revert a bold edit does not establish much of a consensus, and the apathy/inertia allowing it to remain in place for six months doesn't either (see Warnock's dilemma, WP:SILENCE, and WT:CONSENSUS). Once a couple of editors objected to the original bold edit, the silent consensus was negated. There is no first-mover advantage at Wikipedia.- MrX 13:01, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

  I am unable to reconcile that reasoning with the ArbCom restrictions. Given that choice, I'll continue to go with ArbCom. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:14, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

  @MrX: I just noticed that you restored the contested edit of the TOC level, claiming a consensus which is not apparent from this discussion. As Mandruss advised you that this can be considered a violation of the ArbCom decision, I suggest you self-revert. Note that I appreciate Awilley's work to reduce the number of level-4 headers, thus improving legibility and navigation. — JFG ^talk 17:16, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

  JFG, I count four editors who support the standard TOC levels, and one who does not. Given that the arguments for and against have similar weight, that seems like a firm consensus to me. I also support Awilley's edits to reduce the number of sections headings.- MrX 17:32, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Can we please stop bickering about editors' motives and focus on what is best for the article? My analysis is that really only two content-based arguments have been made. Some folks want the limit increased to 4 to give the campaign subsections greater visibility, and some folks want the limit to stay at 3 to improve legibility and navigation. Discuss. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:29, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Imposing a limit of 3 worsens navigation, DrFleischman. I - like most readers, I'd imagine - have no interest in reading about Donald ringside at Wrestlemania Whatever. I do want to read the latest version of the section on allegations of sexual misconduct and would like to be able to jump to that section easily. On a mobile phone or tablet, especially, that's much easier to get to when the TOC limit is 4 rather than 3... Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 18:14, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

With the recent streamlining of some unnecessary level-4 headers, the TOC is coming to a reasonable size. The only level-3 sections which are still broken down into level-4 subsections are his real estate career, the 2016 presidential campaign and his political positions. I would agree that all three of those deserve more detail: the real estate because it has been his main activity for several decades, the campaign and positions because they are the main theme of his life and reader interest today. That being said, I feel that within the campaign section, it is unbalanced to have 2 subsections out of 5 dedicated to the recent sexual innuendo and accusations. I suggest listing the Access Hollywood section under the main Sexual misconduct allegations section, because it's the event that triggered the outcry and prompted other people to pursue this affair. If my fellow editors agree to this balancing redistribution, I will be happy to keep a level-4 TOC. — JFG ^talk 18:30, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Isn't it great how things turn out when we all work together? - MrX 18:45, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

On the "ergonomics," I was using an iPad yesterday which displayed the page in "reading view," which ignored TOC limit 3 and gave all levels. So according to the algorithms that generate reading view, the TOC limit 4 is easier to read.

And on my own monitor, which is set to the Wikipedia default for number of lines, the TOC limit 3 takes more than 1 screen anyway. So what JFG is really saying is that it looks better on his monitor (even if it doesn't look better on anybody else's monitor).

So this "ergonomics" justification doesn't hold up.--Nbauman (talk) 21:11, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

JFG, that sounds like a great idea. JasperTECH (talk) 01:58, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

JFG - that seems a good side-suggestion, but maybe I've got a better one for re TOC level. Just raise the 2016 campaign to a level 1 item, and all its subsections up a level too. For the non-iPad user it's still an ergonomics navigation and readability issue to have just too much. The TOC is for rapid navigation within the article and sense of overall structure, and having many screens means it's less helpful to do navigation and overall structure is harder to see, plus the lower details are gonna be not seen. We've gotten to 5+ pgdns before I see article so into diminishing returns -- the lead is 2 screens so I'm into TL:DR skipping past the sex para to get to TOC so I can get to the topical interest, and having the TOC add layers is more to skip past where I'm seeing the top level and next level and more than any below that is visual junk to be skipped over. (And half of you have hit TL:DR and aren't reading this anymore...) Anyway, I'll suggest instead to move the 2016 election OUT of past politics to be it's own section, which I think would be appropriate for it's significance and duration and would also raise up the TOC level of it's parts so the sex maniacs do not mangle it more than need be.

p.s. I think we're only seeing this issue because folks are puting too much detail re campaing into this BLP page instead of the article on that topic. I'm noting the Hillary Clinton bio has 2016 election as one section 1 level not 3 levels, and 2.5 pgdns (due to photos) not 7.5. So maybe a multi-article navigation issue causing a TOC-problem here. (Unless folks are just feeling his life and material is just more noteworthy and covered so WP:DUE getting more WP space, but that ... seems a different topic than TOC :-}. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:53, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

@Markbassett: You illustrate my point very well: overly long and detailed TOCs get skimmed and skipped, negating their purpose in giving a clear overview of the subject matter at hand. I have considered your suggestion to move the 2016 campaign up a notch but it strikes me as illogical to detach it from the Politics section and put it on the same footing as, say, Appearances in popular culture. Trump's life has three overarching themes: real estate, entertainment and politics; the current top-level structure reflects this nicely. Depending on election results, the Politics section will grow or shrink and the article will be rebalanced accordingly., as suggested earlier by JasperTech. To your other point, comparing the structure of this page to Hillary Clinton's article, this simply reflects the natural difference between Trump spending his life in business and Clinton spending her life in politics. Biographical articles do follow the subject's life development, regardless of which section is deemed more interesting or more in demand. I agree that Trump's bio page currently has too much detail about this campaign, and I'm sure that will change over the next few months (either as it shrinks for lack of relevancy if Trump loses or as it morphs into describing the formative period of the Trump presidency if he wins). — JFG ^talk 05:37, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)  Done I have grouped the sexual allegation material into a single section and I hereby endorse the full TOC display. — JFG ^talk 05:00, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Trump email controversy

I believe we should cover the Trump email controversy somewhere in the article. As Newsweek notes, "Trump’s companies have systematically destroyed or hidden thousands of emails, digital records and paper documents demanded in official proceedings, often in defiance of court orders."[40] --Tataral (talk) 20:32, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

That seems pretty big, especially the part about the Hard Rock Casino e-mails. I'd wait a couple of days and see whether/how the rest of the media picks it up. It certainly seems newsworthy to me. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:48, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

@DrFleischman, that's the point, we are NOT the news. If this is the type of horsesh$t that's going to be added to the BIO, its time to lock this down. --Malerooster (talk) 14:59, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

It's from a reliable source. The view that this is "horseshit" is your own. You're welcome to go argue on WP:RSN that Newsweek is "horseshit".Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:01, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

More sources [41], [42], [43], [44] as well as older stories which began just scratching the surface [45], [46].Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:04, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Who the F cares that's its from a reliable source? That doesn't mean automatic inclusion in the article? --Malerooster (talk) 15:06, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

The relevant material [47] has been removed by User:Malerooster with an edit summary ... which is really just one big personal attack. Note that the material is well sourced.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:39, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

If the shoe fits. --Malerooster (talk) 14:56, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

You might want to read WP:NPA again and note the article is under discretionary sanctions. And what your edit summary shows is that your revert is completely spurious.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:01, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Malerooster, you've been around long enough to know better. The material is reliably sourced, and pertinent to this BLP. Trump has criticised Clinton strongly over email management and now it turns out he's been doing much the same thing for years longer. Trump has made this extra-relevant. --Pete (talk) 15:16, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

@Pete, he's been doing much the same thing for years longer, now that's some serious horsesh#t. --Malerooster (talk) 15:24, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Do you have anything constructive to add to the conversations or are you just going to refer to other users' comments as "horseshit"? Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:26, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Agree with Dr. Fleischman that we should wait and see how the media picks it up. The fact it is sourced is irrelevant, it at also must be significant. Per "Balancing aspects", "discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news." While it is tempting to compare this story to Clinton destroying emails, the difference is Clinton's destroying emails is important because it is part of the narrative about whether or not her use of a private email server violated national security (when she was Secretary of State). The investigation into the alleged security lapse was news for months, while few if any of the cases in which Trump allegedly destroyed emails received any attention. TFD (talk) 15:19, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

I initially thought we should wait also, but now it's has been covered in a few very solid sources (in addition to the ones presented above, there's also Washington Post, NBC News, The Independent, Mic, New York Business Journal), so I think a sentence or two would be appropriate right now, and more can be added as the story develops. What makes it noteworthy is that Trump accused Clinton of the same thing. - MrX 15:46, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Plus the whole "often in defiance of court orders" part. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:13, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Wait. No indication this will be a lasting campaign issue much less a biographical one. James J. Lambden (talk) 16:23, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Wait. If we included every Trump-scandal-of-the-day, the article would be overwhelmed. Wait and see if it becomes more than a 24-hour story, or if it becomes a campaign issue. --MelanieN (talk) 16:59, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

I can't remember any time during this election when something like this blew over, but I guess it's possible. Certainly there's nothing wrong with waiting a day or two to see where this goes.- MrX 17:27, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

This again follows the pattern of: 1) Verified material covered by multiple reliable sources gets added to an article. 2) As it's perceived as being negative to Trump, it gets removed. 3) "Debate" follows, with various policies quoted, but no clear consensus can obviously emerge so partisan editors effectively keep out the negative material prior to the election. I've not checked the equivalent Clinton article, but I'm sure it's talk page doesn't include contributions from the same editors who are here quoting WP:RECENTISM, WP:BALASP and similar, in relation to the latest "FBI investigating Clinton for emails she didn't send" story. I find it hard to believe this is what Arbcom actually intended. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 17:19, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

If you did go to the Clinton talk page, you would then realize your analysis above is horsesh#t. Sorry Volunteer Marek, sh$t is sh&t, and just calling a spade a spade, too bad if you don't like. --Malerooster (talk) 17:27, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Is your i key broke? Maybe you can find a replacement at IKEA.- MrX 17:33, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm in favor of immediate inclusion of this content, now that Volunteer Marek and MrX have provided additional sources. And I think Malerooster's arguments should be disregarded, as repeatedly calling the story "horseshit" with nothing more is classic WP:IDONTLIKEIT. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:44, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Include it. Put it in the LEAD. Idiots. --Malerooster (talk) 19:49, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

@Malerooster: WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:18, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

This is a clear example of recentism. Trump has been headline news every day for over a year, and has been a world famous celebrity for over thirty years. Not every story deserves mention let alone its own section. Generally too, stuff like that should not just pop out but should either be included in a section about his business methods or as part of the specific cases where they arose. It seems like this is an attempt by the DNC to counter the Clinton email scandal, and hence its only relevance is to the campaign articles. But it looks like it's not working, and hence has minimal weight. TFD (talk) 02:51, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

It's not recent. He's been doing this for years. Nor is it confined to one episode - it's obviously something pertinent to the man, rather than just one aspect. --Pete (talk) 03:40, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

No, it's recentism. This article is dominated by editors who are unambiguously anti-Trump. There is zero way around this fact. Doc talk 05:19, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree that a section is undue. But a paragraph is appropriate in my view. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:12, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

You sure there's not enough "meat" for its own little article? Like this "encyclopedic" little gem. It could get to FA status, ya know... Doc talk 06:59, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

@Doc9871: Of course there's an article, duly listed in Trump's sidebar too… — JFG ^talk 07:53, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

FWIW - Concerning any controversies, both this article & Hillary Clinton, should be left alone until after the prez election. GoodDay (talk) 18:06, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

It looks like someone has created Donald Trump email controversy. It seems like that information should be included into this article or merged into Legal affairs of Donald Trump. The standalone article seems very weak and unlikely to have any legs. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:28, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Recentism is a personal essay, not a Wikipedia guideline. One of the purposes of Wikipedia is to have an encyclopedia that is current and up to date.

If something is wrong with the article, or something can be improved, I see no reason why it should wait until after the election. Readers are most interested in Trump while he's running for president. Is there something wrong with that? --Nbauman (talk) 22:37, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

@Nbauman: May I question your bold claim that "Recentism is a personal essay, not a Wikipedia guideline". It's actually part of WP:UNDUE policy,

"Discussion of isolated news reports is a concern especially in relation to recent events in the news,"

and WP:NOTNEWS policy,

"Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. Most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. Breaking news should not be emphasized."

Compare with Wikinews, which does focus on recent events. --Dervorguilla (talk) 07:40, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

User talk:Dervorguilla, you are free to question my "claim." I don't think it's a "bold claim" to quote the actual text:

WP:RECENTISM: This essay is not a Wikipedia policy or guideline; it is intended to be an explanatory supplement to the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Notability, and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not policies.

I would invite you to quote any text to show that WP:RECENTISM is an official policy or guideline, or has any official WP status, rather than some editors' unofficial interpretation of WP:NPOV and WP:NOTABILITY.

I would also recommend that you quote more completely from WP:NOTNEWS:

News reports. Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia. While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information. [My emphasis]

That means breaking news is as acceptable if it meets the same criteria as any other content. That means reporting by multiple WP:RS. WP:NPOV doesn't mean deleting unflattering content, it means adding the subject's point of view.

One of the problems with WP:RECENTISM is that editors use it as a justification to delete anything they don't like, when they can't find a good reason.

I don't want to accuse people of editing with a bias for or against Trump, but the suggestion that we wait until after the election before including it seems conveniently favorable to Trump.

In any case, the entry Donald_Trump_document_deletion_controversy cites a USA Today story of June 13, 2016, and a Newsweek story of October 31, 2016. How recent is "recent"? Is 5 months enough? How many WP:RSs are sufficient to give weight? Are the 21 cited in the references enough? --Nbauman (talk) 22:08, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Removal

Hey all. I removed the (short) paragraph in this edit, citing BLP/UNDUE concerns, and I noted that I had also looked at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donald Trump email controversy, where a consensus right now is difficult to see--but there's a lot of delete votes, and a number of merge votes, and some legitimate concerns, which strengthened my in my opinion. My invocation of the BLP is not unequivocal; it's a judgment call, and the moment you all have a decent consensus here on what to do with it, I will not stand in the way. This is going to be a matter of editorial consensus, so good luck with it.

BTW, my edit summary was so long that I had to remove "Undid edit by Volunteer Marek", and I didn't want to make this personal anyway--so let me just say congrats that Auburn was ranked in the top ten. Drmies (talk) 18:30, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

I think at the very least the Donald Trump email controversy should be linked somewhere. And we're coming for ya.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:32, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Oh I know that. I wonder, isn't it in one of these templates? The merge votes mentioned some "Legal affairs of DT" article, which seems valid, and I am sure that page is linked--and I would be surprised if there wasn't a link from the legal article to the email article. This is part of the balancing act for an article that's at AfD: is it valid to have a direct link from the main article? Somewhere in the text or more prominently right under a subject heading? But this is something y'all can settle here. Thanks VM, Drmies (talk) 18:59, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

I'd like you to explain exactly why you think there are Undue and BLP problems. Destroying evidence in a civil case is a serious offense, and according to the Newsweek story, Trump was sanctioned at least once and settled cases on unfavorable terms as a result. The Newsweek story was picked up by many WP:RS who also thought it was significant. I've read the AfD and the arguments for deletion basically come down to WP:IDONTLIKEIT, or they don't like it because it's unfavorable to Trump, so I'd like a better reason, based on WP policies and guidelines. --Nbauman (talk) 21:03, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

NBauman, it is not as big a story as many of the other stories going around right now--though probably well-verified, this is not a headline grabber, and for it to be included it should be big. Yuge. The second paragraph of WP:UNDUE is indicative: "Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements." This certainly had prominence of placement, for instance. Now, that the votes you don't like at the AfD are examples of IDONTLIKEIT--well, I hope you see my point. As long as that AfD is running, and as long as it's not some obvious SNOW keep, we need to accept that the content is not unequivocally notable. But I don't have to defend the votes at the AfD (nor do you have to attack them) in order to see that there is a legitimate AfD, and that thus the content is still contentious. Get the consensus, and you can stick it back in. Drmies (talk) 03:39, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Tag restriction in edit box

Could someone please explain by what consensus or authorization this came from?

Firm consensus is needed to re-install a POV tag above this article per discretionary sanctions. Please consider proposing it at the talk page, or getting attention of further editors other ways, like using an RfC or a section tag or an inline tag. KINGOFTO (talk) 22:59, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

It was added in this edit on August 14, 2016 by administrator MelanieN in response to another editor repeatedly inserting the POV tag. Maintenance tags, like everything else in this article, are subject to the arbitration remedies mentioned at the top of this talk page (WP:ARBAPDS), meaning they shouldn't be restored without consensus. The POV tag is often used as a badge of shame, which is why it's so contentious. Additionally, this page already has over 1300 watchers, so adding the tag to attract more editors or encourage discussion (which is ongoing) is unnecessary. clpo13_(talk) 23:19, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

KINGOFTO, you were advised by one of our most-respected admins to listen to the experienced editors who have advised you to stop repeatedly adding the POV template to the top of this article. Your examples of how the article fails WP:NPOV have been roundly refuted. Your conduct here has gone from annoying to full-on disruptive and tendentious. If you persist, I can almost guarantee that you're going to be blocked or topic banned. Please stop now.- MrX 23:44, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Too late.- MrX 23:53, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Discussion at Template talk:Donald Trump series#Trimming the template

You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:Donald Trump series#Trimming the template. - MrX 02:07, 2 November 2016 (UTC)Template:Z48

Political affiliation

• The following request copied from WP:RFED[48] -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 09:03, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

The infobox says that he was Democrat prior to 1987, but the Political Affiliation section either isn't clear on his pre-1987 standing or seems to suggest that he in fact leaned Republican. -2601:204:C901:E73C:2DA8:481D:BBFC:FCA (talk) 06:09, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

comma

I believe that this removal of the comma I added is incorrect. See e.g. here.

The relative clause here is non-restrictive, i.e. the sentence could equivalently be split into two: "Trump is ... a politician. He is the Republican nominee..."

The relative clause cannot meaningfully be restrictive in this context, given the combination of the indefinite article in the main clause and the definite article in the relative clause. In other words, you could say "the politician who is the Republican nominee", but you can't say "a politician who is the Republican nominee" because there is by definition only one politician who is the Republican nominee.

Maybe nobody cares, but I would think that the first sentence of a very high-profile article ought to be grammatically correct.

--Money money tickle parsnip (talk) 15:51, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

• Trump is a businessman who is also the Republican nominee. See, I just did it. Your argument is not grammatical, by the way--it's stylistic. Plus I don't agree that somehow "boasted" is informal and therefore incorrect--but that edit has already been reverted. Drmies (talk) 17:42, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

No, they were saying "bragged" was informal, so "boasted" was better. But they have different connotations and "bragged" appears to be well sourced. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:18, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

• Sorry, yeah, the other way around. I actually Googled around and "boasted" is verified as well--the LA Times, I think, had that in a headline. Either way, I don't care for that stylistic argument, and we had pretty much settled on "bragged", though not in the context of "bragged" vs. "boasted". "Boast" has a bit too much of an heroic, Anglo-Saxon connotation for me; "brag" strikes me as appropriate given the sources, but also given "braggadociousness". Thanks for the correction, Drmies (talk) 20:19, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

New picture

I think it's time to put a more appropriate image in the infobox.

--Reollun (talk) 21:19, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Are you serious or joking? Please check out the talk page archives. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:31, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

See here. It's very unlikely that you'll get much support for reopening that debate now, as the discussion was quite recent and resulted in a firm consensus. Fyddlestix (talk) 21:48, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

@Reollun: The current image looks OK. How could a better image be chosen? Jarble (talk) 06:45, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

I presume it will have to be changed since he is now preisdent-elect. --Reollun (talk) 09:13, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Opening Sentence

The opening sentence of the article contains a possible error. That sentence begins, "Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American businessman, television producer, and politician . . . " That last word is incorrect. If Trump is elected president, he will be the first to attain that office who had never served in any prior political office or the military. That means that he won't become a "politician" unless he wins--and only then after he is inaugurated. And if he loses, of course, he will remain, as he himself says, a political outsider. In his speeches he has even declared plainly, "I am not a politician." It would, therefore, have been more correct to have written "political candidate" instead of "politician" in that sentence.

Fredwords (talk) 6:45 PM Eastern, November 8, 2016 —Preceding undated comment added 23:46, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

This was previously discussed, and the consensus was that, as a candidate, he is a politician.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:18, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

I have removed "politician," as it is redundant to "president-elect" in the same sentence. --MelanieN (talk) 16:41, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Getting rid of his political stances after election

Are we removing this after today? Seems pretty weird to let it stay there, Obama doesn't have a "policies" section. User1937 (talk) 05:10, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

@User1937: There is an article about the political positions of Donald Trump. Why would it be necessary to remove the "policies" section? Jarble (talk) 06:49, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

I would agree with trimming or removing the "political stances" section, with a link to the main "Political positions of..." article. It was appropriate when he was a candidate, but that's behind us. It will soon be replaced by a "presidency" or "tenure" section detailing his major actions, positions, and proposals as president. --MelanieN (talk) 16:40, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

When to update the article to president-elect?

All major betting markets have him at 97-99% (the difference from 100% largely due to fees & commissions). Do we wait for AP to announce? Aaaaaabbbbb111 (talk) 05:50, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

We wait for anyone to call it, first off. And then we don't necessarily jump on the first call. Remember the 2000 election. – Muboshgu (talk) 06:05, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

After two big newspapers announce it. God bless Donald Trump. Emily Goldstein (talk) 06:32, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

If Trump Wins

If Trump wins I made his President-Elect template.

Donald Trump
President-elect of the United States
Assuming office January 20, 2017
Vice President	Mike Pence (elect)
Succeeding	Barack Obama
Personal details
Born	Donald John Trump (1946-06-14) June 14, 1946 New York City, New York, U.S.A.
Political party	Republican
Spouse	Melania Trump
Children	Donald Trump Jr. Ivanka Trump Eric Trump Tiffany Trump Barron Trump
Residence(s)	Manhattan, New York, U.S.A.]
Alma mater	Fordham University University of Pennsylvania (BA)
Occupation	Businessman
Signature
Website	Official website Campaign website
This article is part of a series about Donald Trump Background  · Political positions  · Public image  · Family 2016 primaries · Trump–Pence campaign U.S. Presidential transition  · Inauguration

Very good; thank you. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 06:05, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

I would leave out nationality, residence, alma mater, occupation and religion. TFD (talk) 06:24, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

LOL!!! Doc talk 06:34, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Residence and occupation will change. It is assumed that the president is an American. Trump may have dual nationality as his mother was from the UK. Religion is no longer the defining feature it once was. I would leave out anything that is unimportant or ambiguous. TFD (talk) 06:41, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

For people born in 1946 British nationality was acquired by descent through the legitimate male line. You didn't get British nationality by having a British-born mother when you were born in the US to an American father. Trump is certainly no British citizen; the UK Parliament wouldn't debate banning one of its own citizens from the country for hate speech. --Tataral (talk) 07:04, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Residence is the WHITE HOUSE!!! :P — Preceding unsigned comment added by User1937 (talk • contribs) 07:10, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Not yet, it isn't. --MelanieN (talk) 16:36, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Climate change denial should be mentioned in the lead

His climate change denial is mentioned in the body of the article, with several reliable sources ("Trump rejects the scientific consensus on climate change, repeatedly contending that global warming is a "hoax."). Many RS have discussed his climate change denial and how serious these views are, so this is certainly not a lesser issue, many RS agree it's one of the most important political issues when it comes to Trump[49]. Therefore it should clearly be mentioned in the lead. --Tataral (talk) 07:28, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

It has not received a lot of attention and therefore does not belong there (yet). TFD (talk) 07:49, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

IMHO, it has received a lot of attention (at least outside the US) although we may wait for a few days to put it in the lead. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 08:58, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

It does not belong in the lede. The lede should mention only those things that he himself made into the major themes of his campaign (e.g. immigration and trade). Climate change is already in the body of the text, and it gets suitable attention at Political positions of Donald Trump. --MelanieN (talk) 16:35, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

"The lede should mention only those things that he himself made into the major themes" – that the subject of an article gets to decide which issues that are covered in the lead is certainly not a recognised principle on Wikipedia or what WP:LEAD says. Trump has himself made strongly contrarian statements on climate change and the environment and has said he wants to dismantle the Environmental Protection Agency. Clearly environmental policy is a very important topic and he holds strong views on it and has proposed radical policies in the field. --Tataral (talk) 19:47, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Please have this discussion at Talk:Political positions of Donald Trump. — JFG ^talk 23:06, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Donald Trump's Victory

Donald Trump won the electoral college vote with 276 votes as of 7:44 am, Greenwich Time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gorigoat (talk • contribs) 07:45, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

In the tape, he says as a star women let him do it. That implies consent, not forced action.

Tai Hai Chen (talk) 07:56, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

First Billionaire President?

Can this be added? Also this article: List of United States Presidents by net worth should be updated. Sephiroth storm (talk) 08:11, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

We do not actually know his net worth. TFD (talk) 08:14, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

We don't? Forbes says they do. Shouldn't we go by that? Hidden Tempo (talk) 08:25, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

I think only a billionaire could afford a personal 757 jet. Tai Hai Chen (talk) 08:39, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Also, we don't know the worth (in inflation-adjusted dollars) of previous presidents. In terms of their own day, Washington or Jefferson may have been billionaires. Leave it out. --MelanieN (talk) 16:30, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

we don't know the worth (in inflation-adjusted dollars) of previous presidents. We appear to think we do.[50] ―Mandruss ☎ 16:37, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

He still hasn't released his tax returns (the only presidential candidate in recent years not to do so), so no, we don't. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 18:15, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Put Donald Trump won presidental election

Donald Trump won the presidential election. Add more stuff in this wiki! Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 08:28, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Infobox image

I think it's time to change the lead image. The smiling Trump is reflective of the man who is now President-elect of the United States. Trump is not the man in deep contemplation but the man who contemplated a winning strategy and stands ready, and happy to serve.--John Cline (talk) 08:27, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Agree, of course. The same goes for United States presidential election, 2016, the pages about the Republican primaries, etc. We have a fine picture, it's time to use it. This is not equivalent to "beating a dead horse" anymore. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 08:39, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

I placed a new, less obscured image of Trump in the infobox.

If this is reverted, this image is the proposed image:

• 
  Image 1
• 
  Image 2
• 
  Image 3
• 
  Image 4 (cropped of Image 1)

Placed this in the talk page just in case! --ZiaLater (talk) 08:43, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

It needs to be DISCUSSED first Gage/Calibrador, stop imposing it, most of us like to follow rules...--Stemoc 08:58, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Reminder : this image has also been proposed (see section above and previous discussions) Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 08:59, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

(moved image to gallery above)

ZiaLater is following the rules, but you are not. I agree with the logic of ZiaLater, and I vote to keep the contribution of ZiaLater. Several others have already reverted your disruptive edit concerning this matter, Stemoc. Please see WP on conduct—anything remotely percieved as bullying is to be avoided, and don't be resistant to allow others to contribute within guidelines. You're not the only user here, and so far you're the only one resistant to this edit. WikiEditorial101 (talk) 09:22, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for placing it without discussion! One of the reasons I uploaded my image is that in the current image, the microphone is in the way. The other proposed image seen in the reminder has a microphone too but is not bad.--ZiaLater (talk) 09:03, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Also, here is another proposed image:

(moved image to gallery above)

Should be enough options for now.--ZiaLater (talk) 09:12, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

I think User:ZiaLater's first proposal (at the top of this section) is the better one. Please be aware though that the image should not be changed without clear consensus here. This article is subject to 1RR sanctions and I've reluctantly just had to block an editor who exceeded 3RR who was edit warring over the image. This is a reminder to all editors not revert more than once on this article in a 24 hour period. WaggersTALK 09:55, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, I did not revert's ZiaLater's edit on the page because I did not like the image but because he/she did not follow the protocol which is that images need to be discussed here and a proper outcome (if there is one) needs to be adhered to. You cannot just go 'willy-nilly' changing the image to suit the one you want. The image has been changed on that page many many times so a proper procedure should now be followed, that said, it would be wise if admins watching the page do not block users trying to restore the longstanding image by mistake, As i was told by another admin, the IRR on that page is not very clear..That said, I do like the first image but it has to be zoomed in a bit, its supposed to be a headshot, not a longshot :)--Stemoc 10:24, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, there's been quite a bit of confusion and discussion about discretionary sanctions lately; in the case of the editor I blocked they had breached 3RR not just the discretionary 1RR sanction so it was a fairly clear-cut decision. You're quite right, admins should not block users trying to restore the longstanding image (unless it's clear the consensus has changed of course). WaggersTALK 10:29, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

• Ok, I added a gallery now, its an easier method and makes it less congested, peopel can add more options (just make sure its an actual headshot and recent and not images from 2014 or before).--Stemoc 10:54, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
• 1, 2 and 4 are fine as far as I'm concerned. What matters is that we have to replace the current photo ASAP. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 15:50, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
• I like Image 2 the most but it would be better if the microphone was photoshopped out. 1, 3, and 4 are also feasible. Note that the photo of Trump on the United States presidential election, 2016 article has been changed as well. CatcherStorm ^talk 16:06, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
• I vote for Image 4. Anjo-sozinho (talk) 16:44, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: Why don't we wait until his presidential picture is released? We are going to change this picture to only have to change it again soon. When will this non-sense end? Chase|^talk 23:10, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
• No change until his official portrait emerges. That was the consensus in zillions of prior discussions. — JFG ^talk 23:13, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

• Change picture. Out of all the photos to chose from, this was obviously a negative POV choice. There's no reason not to change to an image with a formal pose. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:27, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Use of President-Elect

Please correct me if I am wrong but isn't it premature to call Donald Trump President-Elect until the Electoral College elections occur in the 50 states and the District of Columbia. I thought there was something in the constitution about that where yes he is elected by popular vote but in order to be the President-Elect he needs to be elected by the Electoral College first and then and only then can he be called President-Elect and then upon swearing-in President of the United States. YborCityJohn (talk) 08:45, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Almost all media organizations have referred to him as President-elect. I'd suggest looking back at the talk page archive of Barack Obama from around his election to determine the answer to your question. Calibrador (talk) 08:49, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

I completely understand what your saying. But I don't think he can be called President-Elect until after Electoral College vote. So this is what I'm going to do, in the morning I'm going to check an online version of the U.S. Constitution to see what exactly it says about this and will post a further response. But I invite other Wikipedians to chime in. YborCityJohn (talk) 08:57, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, he won. It's even on the main page. Time to admit it and update the lede.Zigzig20s (talk) 09:14, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Precedent on Wikipedia is likely to yield a better result. Calibrador (talk) 09:15, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm not dispute that he won in fact I voted for him, all I'm saying is that it is my belief that he cannot be called President-Elect until the conclusion of the Electoral College vote. YborCityJohn (talk) 09:21, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

He is not the president-elect. He has not been formally elected by anyone, and whether he might be elected/appointed at a later point by the electoral college is pure speculation at this point. It also seems likely that Clinton will actually win the election in the normal sense of the word, as it is generally understood internationally (e.g. in the context of election observations), that is, she will receive the most votes[51] (which however doesn't rule out the possibility, not certainty, that the electoral college might elect the guy who got the least votes as president, a practice more associated with countries with a limited democratic tradition than with western countries). --Tataral (talk) 09:23, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

You are aware that Clinton conceded, right? This isn't an ongoing election. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 09:26, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

It is an ongoing election for Wikipedia's purposes because it is the electoral college who gets to elect the president, and until they have elected a president, there is no president-elect, only speculation about who seems likely to be elected by the electoral college. --Tataral (talk) 09:29, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Actually, by law, that's not the case.[52]. According to the US Congress: "It will be noted that the committee uses the term "president elect" in its generally accepted sense, as meaning the person who has received the majority of electoral votes, or the person who has been chosen by the House of Representatives in the event that the election is thrown into the House. It is immaterial whether or not the votes have been counted, for the person becomes the president-elect as soon as the votes are cast." If you read the congressional discussions about the subject, waiting for the electoral college's official decision is not required. - Aoidh (talk) 09:39, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

I suggest you read that sentence again. It clearly refers to the person who has received the most votes in the electoral college. --Tataral (talk) 09:42, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

That's exactly what it says and what has happened in this case. The law refers quite clearly to "apparent successful candidates" for president and vice president to be qualified to be referred to as president-elect and vice president-elect. It does not say, as you suggest, that the electoral college must finalize their decision for it to take effect (and if you read the congressional discussions around this it reaffirms it). The law, and reliable sources, both support the descriptor. - Aoidh (talk) 09:45, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

No, it doesn't, it says the opposite. There would be no point in having an electoral college if the vote by the electoral college wasn't necessary. --Tataral (talk) 09:51, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Your interpretations aside (apparent does not mean official or finalized), you're still arguing against reliable sources. Wikipedia uses reliable sources, rather than editorial interpretation of constitutional law. Do you have any reliable sources that support what you're trying to say? Because all the sources I'm finding support the descriptor. - Aoidh (talk) 09:55, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

What you're referring to as winning the election "in the normal sense of the word" is irrelevant to that, since that's not how the president is determined. Even if she won the popular vote, that would not mean he is no longer the president elect, nor would it change the fact that reliable sources are saying, without doubt, that he is the president elect. Wikipedia uses reliable sources, and reliable sources support "president elect" being a descriptor for the lede. - Aoidh (talk) 09:29, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

It may be technically/legally correct to say he is not really the president-elect until the Electoral College has met and acted. But at Wikipedia we follow Reliable Sources, and sources are unanimous in referring to him as president-elect.[53] [54] [55] --MelanieN (talk) 09:54, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't think it's technically/legally correct to say Trump is not really the President-elect at all. The sources got it right, as Public Law 88-277 also stipulates that “President-elect” and “Vice-President-elect” ... "shall mean such persons as are the apparent successful candidates for the office of the President and Vice President, respectively, ... following the general elections ..." [56].--John Cline (talk) 10:26, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

YborCityJohn I just looked through the text of both Article 2 and the Twelfth Amendment, and neither one use the word "President-elect" nor make reference to when that title applies. Both items simply specify how the US Electoral College chooses the President and Vice-President, and when terms take effect, etc. etc. That's all. RegistryKey^(RegEdit) 11:08, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Reactions; description as far right and more

It is time to start working on a sub section or something on how the world reacts to the results, for instance, how he is first and foremost congratulated by far right figures (Far right first to congratulate Trump on historic upset: Around the world rightwing nationalists and far-right leaders react with glee as Republican candidate wins US election). We also need to revisit the issue at some point of how his position in the political landscape should be described; certainly there is a strong case for describing him as a far right politician in the first paragraph of the lead, based on coverage in reliable sources and his political positions and how they are assessed in reliable sources. --Tataral (talk) 09:34, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

This sounds extremely POV to me. And to be honest, I disagree. He is center-right. He is less socially conservative ("far right") than Ted Cruz for example.Zigzig20s (talk) 09:58, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't think "far-right" is appropriate to describe him, and I don't think the "far right was first" info is significant. We should report the dramatic drop in value of the Dow Jones futures and other financial markets during election night, as it began to look more and more like a Trump win,[57][58] but we should do that at the Presidential Election article, not here. --MelanieN (talk) 10:01, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

His views are more far-right than any far-right party in Europe that I know of (as pointed out e.g. here[59]). If banning Muslims from entering the US, building a wall against Mexicans and so on and so forth isn't far-right, nothing is. His views have also been widely described as such. Also, the reactions of Le Pen and other far right figures who were the first to congratulate him have been widely reported in reliable sources across the globe. --Tataral (talk) 10:08, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

I could explain why you're wrong, but I suggest closing this topic as per WP:NOTAFORUM.Zigzig20s (talk) 10:42, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

<Personal attacks and BLP violations removed.>--BowlAndSpoon (talk) 10:44, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

This talk page, and this section, is for discussing improvements to the Wikipedia article on Donald Trump. Please stay on topic. --Tataral (talk) 10:48, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

And this is not a forum. Close please.Zigzig20s (talk) 10:51, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

User:Bishonen: I don't think Bow's comment should have been redacted by you. It was based on RS.Zigzig20s (talk) 15:54, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Was it? WP:BLP applies to all pages, not just articles. The removed material egregiously insulted a living person — I won't quote how, as that would kind of defeat the purpose — here it is. I would have been remiss if I hadn't removed the insulting part. I suppose I could conceivably have left the rest, i. e. the ABF attacks on other editors. But it's not like that was acceptable talkpage discourse either, so I didn't. I have warned the editor, btw. Bishonen | talk 16:21, 9 November 2016 (UTC).

I don't see where the BLP violation would be?Zigzig20s (talk) 23:36, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Religion

Since all articles about previous Presidents have religion in their infoboxes, I suggest adding:

Presbyterian

to the infobox. Or delete that parameter from all those articles?Ernio48 (talk) 11:51, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi Ernio, I added exactly that this morning and someone inexplicably removed it.

I agree it should be re-added, however I do not want an edit war over something so empirical but also something so minor. But it belongs in the infobox like for any other President. --OettingerCroat (talk) 22:11, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

When is the article getting unlocked?

There isn't a lot being updated, because pretty much nobody is allowed to. User1937 (talk) 15:02, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Apples and pears

In the sentence "At 70, he will be the oldest person to ever become a first-term president, surpassing Ronald Reagan, who was 69 when he won the election in 1980." we are juxtaposing winning (Reagan 1980) and becaming president (Trump 2017 ["will be"]). Strictly speaking it should be:

• At 70, he is the oldest person to ever win a first-term presidential election, surpassing Ronald Reagan, who was 69 when he won the election in 1980.

or

• At 70, he will be the oldest person to ever become a first-term president, surpassing Ronald Reagan, who was 69 when he became president in 1981.

The first option is more durable, as — gramatically — it will still be valid after taking office. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 15:02, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Why in the world does his age matter in the first place? Obama was the first black President (that's big), if Hillary won, she would've been the first female President (that's big), but the oldest person? User1937 (talk) 15:07, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

The section is not about the importance of the age, but about a factual inaccuracy. Naturally you are freely to tackle the issue of age in a separate section or with the people who introduced it. Having said that, I agree with you that it not of any importance. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 15:16, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Not ground-breaking. But, worth a sentence. Objective3000 (talk) 15:18, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Why are unproved accusations in the LEAD?

The sexual accusations are all rumors, NOTHING has been proven. This should be removed, who's with me? User1937 (talk) 15:16, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Hear, hear. Remove.Zigzig20s (talk) 15:39, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

I second this. There is as much evidence proven in a court of law that Bill Clinton is an offender: zero. Notice there's nothing about Hillary's e-mails in her lead (a case in which she was found to have done nothing wrong after two investigations). If (and it's a big if) Trump or Bill is ever indicted, tried and found guilty, it can go in. Until then, absolutely not. Valentina Cardoso (talk) 15:51, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

It is in the lead because this has been discussed in several RFC's (See: RFC Lead issues regarding recent news/allegations) and consensus was to have it added to the lead as stated. Note: It is an "accusation" and it's is balanced with his denial of the allegations. CBS527^Talk 16:08, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

@User:Cbs527, RfC is still open so there has not been consensus to have it added to the lead. --Malerooster (talk) 16:12, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

There is consensus to include this after weeks of extensive discussion. --Tataral (talk) 17:22, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Saying that Tataral, doesn't make it true.--Malerooster (talk) 18:31, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Presidential campaign, 2016 should be shortened

It's really really long right now, especially the part about the sexual misconduct allegations (not even proven)... It's almost completely copied from the main article. The taxes bit is also a bit long. Should we trim it a bit? User1937 (talk) 15:46, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, the allegations should be trimmed.Zigzig20s (talk) 15:51, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Edit request

Please remove the word "American" from the opening sentence. This is proven by him being president elect, as mentioned earlier on in the sentence. It's also a case of overlink Valentina Cardoso (talk) 15:57, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Done. --Malerooster (talk) 16:07, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Not in the lede: 2005 audio recording, alleged sexual misconduct, false tweets?? , since none of them had a significant (to say nothing) influence in the presidential election and the final results.

All the following statements seem to be really unneccesary right now in the lead, meticulous DETAILS, and past incidents (media gossip) during a presidential campaign which finally had no influence on the final results of the Presidential election:

1.-"Many of his statements in interviews, on Twitter, and at campaign rallies have been controversial or false" (Biased, speculative)

2.-"On October 7, a 2005 audio recording surfaced in which Trump bragged about forcibly kissing and groping women; multiple women accused him of forcibly doing so shortly thereafter." (God, already included in the body content, besides, there is a whole article about this gossip, no need for this specific incident in the lead)

In my opinion, there is no place for this chit chat - (difficult to corroborate) allegations in the lede of an article about a Head of State. This is an encyclopedia and all those statements now turned into pure conjectures and "dirty trick campaign" stuff. Ajax1995 (talk) 16:23, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

How has the success of Trump in the election turned all these reliably sourced facts into "pure conjectures"? And, picking nits, he is not Head of any State right now. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:42, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

There probably will have to be a reworking of the lede eventually, now that his candidacy is no longer the focus. However, that material was not "conjecture" or "dirty trick campaign stuff". The tape was a major influence on the campaign, in fact leading multiple Republicans to withdraw their support. The "controversial or false" wording was discussed extensively on this talk page, and consensus was to include it, because his use of false statements is so well documented as far beyond that of other politicians. Both items were inserted after much discussion and consensus, and it will take additional discussion and consensus to remove them. --MelanieN (talk) 16:50, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

• Ajax1995 has been alerted about discretionary sanctions by Bishonen. Ajax1995, referring to well-referenced events and accusations as "gossip" or "chit chat" (and "assault" is not the same as "misconduct"; the former term has consensus) is demeaning, to put it mildly, and it suggests that you have difficulties remaining neutral. If that is indeed the case, you should probably stay away from this highly charged article. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 17:26, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

mmm, not sure, Drmies, this is the talk page not the main article, the Neutrality is intact in the main article; therefore before removing anything, first I added a new discusion for consensus and different opinions about my very PERSONAL POV, and as you can see, I do not try to impose anything on the main article, that´s what the Talk Page is for; right? to exchange opinions and feedback; If you dislike my personal POVs in this talk page, OK, nothing wrong with that, is your very respectable personal opinion; but to express that such material, right now, (IMO) is filler content and unnecesary in the lead (not in the body content) since the election day is over, is totally valid, worthy of criticism (positive or negative), not of censorship. An apology if I do not answer right away, work schedule Ajax1995 (talk) 18:10, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

@Ajax1995: Your reply is on point. But we can't unring the bell. By now at least half a million 530,000 readers (including the press) likely interpret this Wikipedia article as a project of the Clinton–Kaine campaign, which is now dead. Not much we can do about it now. --Dervorguilla (talk) 19:51, 9 November 2016 (UTC) 19:58, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Can we get rid of the political positions part now?

It's all in the main article, let's just link to it the way it's linked in Barack Obama's second infobox. User1937 (talk) 16:56, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

No, we can't, and you were way out of line to just go ahead and delete it. I will restore it. It has been restored. It cannot be deleted until consensus is reached here at the talk page to trim or remove it. You just started a discussion about that, above, but there has not been time for people to weigh in, much less for consensus to be reached. If you want you could transfer that discussion down here to the bottom of the page where it would be more prominent; we shouldn't have two different discussions going on. But you absolutely cannot act unilaterally like this. --MelanieN (talk) 17:07, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

@User1937: I agree with MelanieN that you were way out of line. You don't post a message about a HUGE deletion and then act on it FOUR MINUTES LATER. Sundayclose (talk) 17:12, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Excuse me. But to be fair, out of the 44 President articles, none of them have a "political position" section, except if the election is ongoing. But, it's over. And the main article is in the infobox already, so I really don't see why people would be against this, I guess. But yes, it's important to get consensus.

So I'm asking for consensus. User1937 (talk) 17:18, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Also, I asked for another consensus above this (Presidential campaign, 2016 should be shortened), but you all aren't commenting in that? It seems like I only get consensus going when I go through with edits here :/ User1937 (talk) 17:19, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

I for one did comment in that earlier post of yours. (I agreed that we will need to trim this section, and probably to remove it entirely after he becomes president - replacing it with a link to the "political positions" article and a "presidency" section.) You ignored that and went ahead and removed it without even giving people time to respond. "Consensus" does not happen immediately, and none of these actions should be taken right now, the day after the election, when people may still want to know what his political positions are. --MelanieN (talk) 18:16, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Trump Picture!!!

Can we now please get a new picture of PRESIDENT ELECT TRUMP?--Subman758 (talk) 17:08, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

This is under discussion above. --MelanieN (talk) 17:10, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Final results, Clinton won a majority of the votes

Simplistic wordings such as "he defeated Hillary Clinton in the general election" need to be reworded as Clinton won a majority of the votes[60], while Trump's candidates won a majority in the Electoral College, which is expected to appoint a president later. --Tataral (talk) 17:17, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

This starts down a somewhat slippery slope. Saying she won the popular vote is true, but also not the whole story. She won by ~0.2% It was a statistical tie. In any case, its premature, as the counts are not even done yet. http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/trailguide/la-na-election-aftermath-updates-trail-looks-like-clinton-will-win-the-popular-1478698530-htmlstory.html ResultingConstant (talk) 17:42, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

This is a completely unnecessary level of detail. TimothyJosephWood 17:45, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Not a "statistical tie" as statistics aren't involved here. This is a count, not an estimate. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:48, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

I think it is relevant and note that in the George W. Bush article lead he says, "becoming the fourth president to be elected while receiving fewer popular votes nationwide than an opponent." While that does not mean his win lacks legitimacy, it means he didn't overwhelmingly win either. Stats by the way use samples to estimate populations, but the final results are the population, hence agree with EvergreenFir it is not a statistical tie TFD (talk) 17:54, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

If Hillary does win the popular vote, then we should note it similarly to how we note it in the 2000 related articles, as TFD suggests. But we need to wait for the final tallies, absentee and provisional ballots that are still outstanding and whatnot. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:05, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

There are no final results at this point. Three states are still regarded as "too close to call" when I checked just now. We should include the tally by electoral college votes (and possibly number of states although that is less relevant) when it is finalized. We should also comment on the popular vote when it is finalized. Neither is appropriate for comment right now. --MelanieN (talk) 18:21, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Either way, that's irrelevant. She lost. End of story.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:21, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

You do remember the 2000 election, don't you? If she won more popular votes, that's relevant. Even if the Electoral College doesn't pick her. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:23, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, she lost. That does not make the popular vote irrelevant. It is newsworthy, especially if she won it, although it does not affect the result. If Trump winds up winning the popular vote we will certainly include that tally, won't we? --MelanieN (talk) 18:27, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

P.S. I just noticed the section title here. It is absurd and wrong. She did not "win" in any sense. That is not how our elections work. She lost, via the electoral college. The popular vote is an afterthought. It should certainly be mentioned in the text, and possibly in the lede analogous to the mention in the George W. Bush article. AFTER it is finalized. --MelanieN (talk) 19:56, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Agree with MelanieN, but does anyone know by what margin the popular vote favored Clinton? If she won the popular vote by e.g. 51%, or 60%, this should be mentioned for clarity. Otherwise biased readers on either side of the fence will jump to their own conclusions, assuming the margin was great, or not great. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:35, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

We won't know for several days. Votes are still being tallied. --MelanieN (talk) 23:22, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Just because you paint it as "irrelevant" doesn't make it so. Dustin (talk) 23:25, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Why can't we start the lead with "Donald Trump is an American politician who...." ?

User1937 (talk) 18:19, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

That would be kind of redundant, no? Obviously POTUS-elect is an American politician. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:24, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Muboshgu. It would be redundant now. SW3 5DL (talk) 22:39, 9 November 2016 (UTC)