Talk:Donald Trump

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

Concern about the lede

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

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

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

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

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

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

I think the current version[1] is a fair summary which gives the matter due weight in relation to how it is covered in reliable sources (as the Financial Times points out, Trump's "increasingly conspiratorial tone (...) appears to be a last-ditch effort to hold on to supporters by a campaign that is being engulfed by almost daily allegations of sexual misconduct"[2]). It actually only describes the matter in two sentences. The third sentence is devoted to Trump's views and how he defends himself against the allegations. --Tataral (talk) 22:20, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reviewing previous discussions I find the following:

For Lede Inclusion:

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

One Sentence Summary:

• Mandruss
• James J. Lambden

Against Lede Inclusion:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Oppose inclusion of more than 23 words in the lede, per WP:BALASPS policy. Try to give the assault allegations a weight in the article appropriate to their archival weight in mainstream publications about Trump.

Results(allintext: "Donald Trump" assault ¦ site:NYTimes.com) ÷ Results(allintext: "Donald Trump" ¦ site:NYTimes.com) = 26,900 ÷ 1,460,000 = 0.018.

Results(allintext: "Donald Trump" assault ¦ site:WSJ.com) ÷ Results(allintext: "Donald Trump" ¦ site:WSJ.com) = 9,520 ÷ 206,000 = 0.046.

0.046 × 476 words ≈ 22 words in the lede,

0.046 × 15,750 words ≈ 725 words in the body. --Dervorguilla (talk) 07:44, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Potential paragraph at end of lede on sex abuse allegations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dates of Donald and Ivana divorce and final settlement

Hi,

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

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

References

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

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

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

Yes, the year of divorce is 1990, thanks for making the update MrX. There seems to be confusion about the date of final settlement: 1991 or 1992. You may not want to go into that detail here, but if someone knows why the two years might be stated in mainstream media that would be helpful (e.g., need to renegotiate the 1991 settlement). An edit has been made to the sexual allegations article showing both years with their sources. You probably have bigger fish to fry now, but I thought I would check in.--CaroleHenson (talk) 21:30, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You can see it if you look at the edit history. Here's one example [3] - Here's another [4] -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 19:01, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RfC: Lead issues regarding recent news/allegations

Summary of issue

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

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

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

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

Need for this RfC

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

Questions

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

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

RfC opinions and discussion

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

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

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

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

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

• Short sentence including denial, no more. 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 [5] [6]. - 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. [7] 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. I thought I had voted here before, but apparently not. See reasoning below.

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)

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)

Discussion notice re Jane Doe

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

No consensus there, so this is now at WP:NPOVN. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:10, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Now under RfC at Talk:Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations#RfC: Jane Doe content. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:54, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Obvious BLP violation

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

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

On the other hand "sexual assault" is appropriate [8], [9], [10].Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:40, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

I am insufficiently familiar with this subject, but there is a section about it on the relevant WP page [11] and it seems well sourced. My very best wishes (talk) 18:32, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

BLP says, "Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints; the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all." Not everything can go into the lead, and there is not enough sourcing to include child rape allegations in the lead. If that changes, the lead can change. Many other things aren't in the lead, including the debates.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:03, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps this should not be included after discussion as something "undue", however this claim is sufficiently well sourced and therefore not a subject of 1RR exemption you claimed on WP:AE (only poorly sourced claims suppose to be removed without limitations). But of course this is all subjective. My very best wishes (talk) 21:04, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Not subjective at all. The sourcing very clearly is inadequate to show that this allegation is more widely publicized than the entire 2016 presidential debates, the latter having been excluded entirely from the lead.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:12, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

There is no any problem with sourcing whatsoever. Check 5 refs at the WP page I linked to above. I just randomly checked latest view of MSNBC website, and it is right there. 01:40, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

It's reliably sourced that there's a rape allegation. It's not reliably sourced that the rape allegation is more widely publicized than the entire 2016 presidential debates. We have deemed those debates of insufficient importance for inclusion in the lead. I would guess that the ratio of debate coverage to rape coverage in reliable sources is around 10,000,000 to 1.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:10, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

It's pretty clear that this insistence on the debates as the standard of noteworthiness has not found traction with other editors. Possibly because the debates are circumstantial, isolated events, whereas a man's confessed sexual predation and specific accounts of those who say they've been victimized, speak to the underlying character and moral substance at the core of the man's being. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SPECIFICO (talk • contribs) 02:20, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

As a standard, we can use lots of other things that aren't included in the lead, besides the debates, if you think that the debates actually should be mentioned in the lead (as I do).Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:38, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

I would say not in the lede for this bio, but somewhat more inclined to put in lede for any article about any presidential campaign, even if they're duds like this year's. SPECIFICO talk 02:42, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

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

Further obvious BLP violation

At 07:20, 17 October 2016 I inserted this bolded material:

“ A "Jane Doe" had charges brought forward in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on October 10, 2016, for alleged forcible and statutory rape in 1994, when Doe was thirteen years old; 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." ”

References

This edit was necessary per WP:NPOV which requires that "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." This article is about a living person, and so the actual view of The Guardian, or some similar view, must be included per WP:BLP. I provided in-text attribution, and of course The Guardian was already the source (and still remains the source) for the first part of the quoted sentence (not in bold). A similar view to the Guardian's (undermining the credibility of the allegation) is described by The Daily Beast here. Anyway, at 09:24, 17 October 2016 (i.e. two hours after my edit), User:Nomoskedasticity reverted[12] my edit described above (while also jamming "child rape" into the lead without consensus), and Nomoskedasticity's edit summary said, "manoeuvres on this article are getting totally out of hand. Let's please not make Wikipedia into a big joke, okay?" Because the current sentence in this BLP (as edited by Nomoskedasticity) grossly distorts the totality of what The Guardian has reported about this allegation, and summarizes The Guardian in a non-neutral way, and uses editorial bias to omit a very significant view of The Guardian, I am going to revert now, per WP:BLP.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:19, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Ouch. I think the only way to comply with BLP is to delete the child rape content entirely. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:08, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't mind including the whole sentence as I edited it, because people may come here wanting to find out about it. If the material is removed, that leaves only sexual misconduct short of rape, and so it might be appropriate to start out the section by saying that the alleged incidents described here do not include allegations of rape. Without such clarification, people may assume the contrary, when we use words like "sexual assault" and the like.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:26, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't think that Wikipedia is where people should go to learn about bogus accusations of child rape--of all things! These allegations would have to receive heavy coverage from mainstream sources before I'd consider including them. From your preferred version readers might assume that all of the sexual assault accusations were fabricated, and there's no evidence of that (beyond Trump's denials, which are included). I believe it's beyond dispute that groping and forcible kissing are forms of sexual assault. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:33, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Isn't it also beyond dispute that rape is a form of sexual assault?Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:42, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

I also removed content implying that Trump walked in on naked 15 year olds. To my knowledge, no one has actually made such an allegation. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:28, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

I rescued the reference here - while the information you removed was mentioned above the reference pertaining to the previous sentence was also removed in your edit. I've replaced it. Garchy (talk) 18:48, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

I actually intentionally removed that primary source, which is unnecessary (since Trump's quote is included in the Rolling Stone secondary source) and arguably doesn't verify that Trump was "reported" to have done anything, as it was merely a rebroadcast of Trump's earlier comments on Howard Stern (along with some anti-Trump commentary). Not a big deal, but it seems to detract from our article. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:03, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Nomoskedasticity, regarding this edit, I think that source is questionable. No one seems to be saying that Trump walked in on naked 15 year olds. They are saying that he walked in on contestants generally, and some contestants in the pageant were as young as 15. I don't think it's appropriate to imply that 2 + 2 = 4 like this. If the allegations weren't so inflammatory I might be more accommodating. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:28, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

How obvious does it need to be????? "Trump walked into the dressing room during the 1997 Miss Teen USA beauty pageant while contestants were changing. Some were only 15 years old." While they were changing -- and one of them is then quoted to say that she quickly put her dress back on. What on earth is the problem? Why do we need to waste time like this? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:43, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Current material in lead

"Late in Trump's campaign a 2005 audio recording surfaced in which Trump privately bragged about his capacity for groping and forcibly kissing women due to his fame, and several women alleged similar conduct shortly thereafter. Trump apologized for the 2005 comments, and vigorously denied the allegations, describing them as part of a wider campaign to smear his candidacy and reputation." Any comments?Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:30, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Why are you posting a blow-by-blow of these POV tweaks to the text? extra credit question How does this cut and paste advance the discussion here? SPECIFICO talk 19:52, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Never mind. Dr Fleischman has started a new section below.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:56, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

LOL> Good one! SPECIFICO talk 20:01, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek - those sources do not appear to be what the article cites, so the article language is not showing WP:V. And the language seems to be overstating the sources -- the tape source (WaPo) says "lewd talk", which is not the article section-title sexual assuault, and para then seems to be relating a 1997 item after wording "new" stories of sexual misconduct. If you want to put in those three sources, do so -- but I'd suggest lead with Time, thingk twice about NBC, and considering their recent flase rape story ... skip Rollingstone. Markbassett (talk) 00:21, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

A less obvious BLP violation

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. The BLP edit that I just described has been reverted.[13] However, rape and attempted rape are among the most common forms of sexual assault, the most common form of sexual assault on college campuses,[14] and marital rape is another of the most common forms of sexual assault.[15][16] According to the lead of our Wikipedia article about sexual assault, "In some places...the crime of 'sexual assault' has replaced the traditional crime of rape, and is being defined as non-consensual penetrative sex." Use of the term "sexual assault" in the Trump lead is totally unnecessary and potentially very misleading, so I will continue to insist on the more specific language about forcible kissing and groping.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:46, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

You're reading way too much into "sexual assault" - in most US states, it simply refers to "any crime in which the offender subjects the victim to sexual touching that is unwanted and offensive." This is, without a doubt, what Trump has been accused of - and what a very large number of RS say he has been accused of. There is no BLP issue here. Fyddlestix (talk) 05:03, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Fyddlestix, here's what the Oxford English Dictionary says: "The action or an act of forcing an unconsenting person to engage in sexual activity; a rape; (Law) a crime involving forced sexual contact, variously defined as inclusive or exclusive of rape."[17] What possible reason is there for us to use in the lead a rape-inclusive term instead of more specific terms that exclude rape?Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:19, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't know - maybe we should say what reliable sources do? To whit:

• "By Thursday night, at least six women had publicly accused Mr. Trump of groping and forcibly kissing them over the decades, a pattern of sexual assault that he denied..." (New York Times)
• "Whether the business mogul will continue spending large chunks of his speeches discussing the sexual assault allegations remains to be seen." (CBS)
• "women have been making allegations that Donald Trump has sexually assaulted or harassed them for decades" (NBC)
• " Two more women accused Republican nominee Donald Trump of sexual assault Friday" (Fox News)
• "With sexual assault accusations against Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump continuing to make headlines..." (ABC)
• "Donald Trump responded to new allegations of sexual assault..." (LA Times)
• Donald Trump and his surrogates have denied allegations that the candidate sexually assaulted nine women..." (Washington Post)
• "12 Women have accused Donald Trump of various forms of sexual assault, including one accusation of rape" (PBS)

Do I need to go on? Cause I can - there are dozens (probably hundreds) of sources that use the same terminology. Might be better if you accept that this is an apt term and stop wasting everyone's time though, your own WP:OR conception of it as "rape inclusive" notwithstanding. Fyddlestix (talk) 05:49, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't expect to persuade you anytime soon, and so will merely note a few things quickly. First, we are not required to repeat verbatim what reliable sources say. Second, many reliable sources say he was accused of forcible kissing and groping, and if we say that then we're being entirely consistent with all the sources you've quoted here. Third, your last quote (PBS) refers to rape explicitly, and perhaps your other quotes refer to rape implicitly, but those sources are not subject to our BLP policy which bars "rape" from our lead.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:02, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Note: Anythingyouwant moved my comment and cut it in half, effectively removing sources which I presented. I am moving it back to where I originally made it, since that's a violation of talk page rules (and it's pretty obnoxious to boot). James J. Lambden's comment below appears to be a response to those comments, but I'll let him decide what he wants to do with it (since, you know, it's his comment).Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:30, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Two comments: 1. When is more abiguous language ever an improvement? 2. Editors should observe that per BLP challenged material should not be restored without FIRST gaining consensus and per whatever restrictions are reflected in the banner on the edit page challenged edits should not be restored without first gaining consensus. I can imagine scenarios where those rules reinforce each other and conflict, but BLP always wins out. James J. Lambden (talk) 05:18, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

• Simply telling "this is a BLP violation" is not a free pass to removing anything. Actually, this is contrary to policies including BLP. Even removing "rape charges" in violation of 1RR on this page was questionable because there were actually such charges, as described in multiple RS . My very best wishes (talk) 13:57, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Anythingyouwant, I'm still not seeing how you see this revision as "suggest[ing that] Trump may have done a lot worse (rape, attempted rape) than most reliable sources say is being alleged." Just look at the sources listed above. I would say more, but I'd only be repeating what has been said above. The fact is that there are sexual assault charges against Trump, and mentioning them as alleged sexual assault cases is only stating the facts. It's not a matter of point of view. JasperTECH (talk) 20:03, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

The current sentence says, "Previous sexual assault claims, made against Trump prior to the campaign, also received increased media attention." All of these things are true. Sexual assault claims were made prior to the campaign, and have now received increased media attention. That's not saying the claims themselves are true, but that they have been made. In what ways do you dispute this sentence's neutrality? JasperTECH (talk) 20:09, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

I dispute its neutrality because I already told you it's unsourced, and yet you jammed it back into the BLP and deleted the tag I put on it saying that it's unsourced. Apparently, the corresponding stuff in the article body says: "previous allegations and statements from other women resurfaced.[368] In 1997, Jill Harth filed a lawsuit alleging Trump groped her in "intimate" parts and engaged in "relentless" sexual harassment." The first part doesn't says anything about "sexual assault". The second part refers to one person, not multiple people, and refers to sexual groping and harassment, not vague sexual assault that may or may not include rape. I have approved use of the term "sexual assault" in the lead if it's used properly, but this is an improper use.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:58, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I see what you're saying. There's a lot of info on this in the Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations article, but this article itself needs more expansion (and fixing) in the relevant sections in the body. I'll work on copying material from other articles and condensing it in the future. I'm going to add the tag you used a while ago, {{citation needed lead}}, back into the lead. JasperTECH (talk) 00:35, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Stance on drugs

Would like to include a section on Trump's position on drugs. Request regular editors of this page to review and provide direction. Some references that can be used to develop this section given below.

• Plan - 1) stop drugs from coming into the United States by implementing his immigration plan, including a southern border wall, and closing shipping loopholes ** 2) press the Food and Drug Administration to approve abuse-deterring drugs more quickly ** 3) reduce the number of prescribed opioids, like oxycodone, methadone, and fentanyl, in the United States. [source http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/donald-trump-turns-focus-issues-drugs-criminal-justice-reform-n666956]
• Rehabilitation - 1) the normally bombastic Trump showed his empathetic side as he stressed treatment and prevention. [source http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-calls-heroin-addiction-tough-thing/story?id=36516102] ** 2) during Tara Conner issue in 2006 - Donald says. "I believe in second chances, and sometimes it works when you give somebody a second chance. She went from being a disaster to being a terrific Miss USA. But, much more importantly, she sets an example for so many other people that are going through the same thing."[source http://www.oprah.com/oprahshow/The-Truth-About-Beauty-Queen-Tara-Conner] Prodigyhk (talk) 15:18, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Note that this Wikipedia article already says: "In 2006, Miss USA winner Tara Conner tested positive for cocaine, but Trump let her keep the crown, for the sake of giving her a second chance". Also see Political_positions_of_Donald_Trump#Drug_policy. I hope this info helps.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:30, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm not opposed outright, but I wonder if this material is more appropriate for Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016. We have limited space here and I'm not aware that Trump's stance on drugs has received much attention, relatively to his other policy positions. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:40, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree with this. It's not a major part of his campaign or persona, so it's more relevant in those spinoff articles. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:13, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Not here, but on Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 02:51, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Removal of Politifact's reporting on Trump's contradictions

See Special:Diff/745045846, which removed entirely the fact that Politifact has reported that Trump contradicts himself and denies what he's said in the past. Should this information be re-added to the article? Specifically, the bold is the text that was removed. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 00:26, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

PolitiFact.com wrote that it is difficult to determine Trump's stance on issues, given his frequent changes in position and "his penchant for using confusing, vague and even contradictory language". PolitiFact.com counted at least 17 times when Trump said something and then denied having said it.

References

I originally added it. I believe it belongs, but I am open to suggestions on how to rephrase and otherwise incorporate. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:19, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

First, Politifact did not write it, it was written by Linda Qiu, a staff writer at Politifact. What policy based reason is there for this one article being singled out for special attention? I note from her page that she is partisan.[18] The fact is that Trump's statements are inconsistent and we should say that. But saying that Qiu found 17 examples sounds polemical. TFD (talk) 03:30, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

She's rated multiple Republican statements as "Mostly True" and noted several factually dubious statements from Clinton here, so the claim of partisanship is extremely dubious. Politifact is a news organization. They employ journalists. Journalists write for the organization and the organization exercises editorial control over their stories. That's how journalism works. This was not an opinion piece; it was a news report published by a reputable fact-checking organization. I have no problem getting rid of the specific reference to 17 things Trump said and denied, but I do think it should be mentioned that Politifact reported that Trump has repeatedly said something and then denied ever saying it. Possible reword as "PolitiFact.com wrote that it is difficult to determine Trump's stance on issues, given his frequent changes in position and "vague" language. PolitiFact.com also reported that Trump has repeatedly denied having made previous statements when asked about them by the media." I'm of two minds about such a rewording. Yes, 17 is a random number, but "repeatedly" could be considered a bit of a weasel word. "Often" would be worse. "Multiple" might be ideal (hedging in the direction of more favorable rather than less), but I'm struggling to insert that into the wording. Feel free to offer alternatives. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 04:15, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

The material should be re-added in its entirety. The "penchant" for vague, confusing, and contradictory language has been noted by many people; more sources can be added if this is considered insufficiently supported. The "17 times" is not a random number, it is actual hard data, a list of actual proven times when he denied having said something that he said. He has done it many times since, but I don't think there has been a followup article to count them, so "17 examples" stands as the best hard data we have. We could add "as of July 2016". --MelanieN (talk) 04:26, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Signed articles by journalists contain both facts and opinions. There is of course nothing wrong with journalists editorializing, and the hosts of opinion shows on CBS, ABC, NBC and Fox do that all the time. Notice she does not write about HRC's false comments about being under sniper fire, her support for the Iraq war, the coup in Honduras, speeches to Wall St., etc. The argument that she has "rated multiple Republican statements as "Mostly True"" is interesting, but the political spectrum is wider than mainstream Democrat and Republican. TFD (talk) 04:38, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree that the entire matter should be returned to the article; not rewritten. And no need to search for some unspecific numerical indicator (repeated, often, multiple) when 17 is, as MelanieN states, hard data. Buster Seven Talk 11:37, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

I think we might even want to add this: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/10/one-month-253-trump-untruths-214369 Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:25, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

This content should absolutely be restored, as it is reliably sourced, factual, and significant and it fleshes out the paragraph very well. Ajax1995's concern that the number is out of date is readily addressed by adding the phase "in July 2016" or "as of July 2016." We're truly in silly season when highly experienced editors seek exclusion on the evidence-less assertion that the author is "partisan." This is a professional reporter at one of the most reputable media outlets in U.S. politics. There is consensus at RSN that PolitiFact is reliable, and our guideline on reliable sourcing also says that we shouldn't exclude sources solely on the basis of the author's bias. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:27, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree that this material should be restored. Paging Ajax1995, who has been conspicuously absent from this discussion.- MrX 20:59, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, the problem is that I have a very limited time, and the answer is simple, this a BLP, in which the information and NPOV must be handled with special care, Wikipedia is not a repository of personal POVs of some journalists, even if those people enjoy wide credibility or "undeniable" good reputation, and the "contradictions" countdown is absurd for its inclusion in an Encyclopaedia, random, polemical and superfluous; IMO. Politifact.com is a very respectable site, even I included it for further information, but this is no reason to include such biased comments as a inherent part of the Political Positions section, such information has nothing to do with the issue at hand. Those are merely personal POVs/countdowns by some very respected journalists. Editorializing Wikipedia is not recommended. I see some editor re-added such sentences as a result of a consensus, therefore I will abide by the rules. Salutes and thanks to all! Ajax1995 (talk) 00:36, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Exclude - that one oped article came up with a count of 17 just isn't a significant. This is supposedly a BIO page, and in a biography of his whole life ... seriously, one article or the count 17 has no significance here. The next editor might come up with 15; the Factcheck.org has a running list for everyone, the exact number and the posting of this particular article just doesn't matter and has not had any impact comparable to the lewd talk tape. Just as an aside, actually a numeric isn't the norm for the topic -- what appears in a google about "Trump lies" is mostly qualitative adjectives ("outrageous" "offensive", etcetera). Numbers appear more on the Clinton search (top 7 lies of Hillary, 13 minutes of Hillary lying, 52 lies Hillary has told, etc). Markbassett (talk) 01:01, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

I think you're missing the significance of the "17" number. This isn't a count of how many times Trump has lied. This is a count of how many times he's said something publicly, and then later said he never said it. That's particularly significant for two reasons. First, it demonstrates in an easily to understand way that Trump frequently says things that are so easily verifiably false. Second it helps to explain why descriptions of Trump's politics are so muddled. I'm not aware of any reliable sources reporting anything similar about Clinton. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:13, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Language in lead section about sexual misconduct

Capacity for groping and forcibly kissing women

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:

• [19]: "Donald Trump was caught bragging about kissing and groping women..."
• [20]: "Donald Trump Brags About Nonconsensually Groping Women In Newly Uncovered Recording"
• [21]: "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)

Appeared to brag

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 [22] 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)

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)

Sexual assault

On "sexual assault": [23], [24], [25], [26], [27].

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)

Apologized

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: [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] 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:[33]

“ 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.[34] 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)

"Talked" versus "bragged"

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)

Miss Universe, Miss USA, and Miss Teen USA Contestants

"Trump has also been reported to have walked in on Miss Universe, Miss USA, and Miss Teen USA contestants in varying stages of undress without their prior notice of his arrival[370]; some of these contestants were as young as 15 years old". However, Buzzfeed, investigating the Miss Teen USA claims [35], interviewed 16 of the contestants, 5 said it happened, 11 said they did not remember such an incident happening - with most dismissing the possibility that such a thing could ever have happened given the level of supervision and control at the event. Also, while Guardian readers probably get off on the implied notion of a naked 15 year old, their source for a 15-year-old being there is Buzzfeed and Buzzfeed says the 15-year-old in question (who is one of the 5 saying it happened) also said she was fully clothed at the time. And we have this tabloid crap in a section titled "Sexual assault allegations" when all 5 of the women who said the walking in thing happened also said that absolutely no sexual conduct happened or any inappropriate things were said by Trump. Really, all this crap content needs to go. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 03:16, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

@Anythingyouwant: Thank you, we edit-conflicted on the same edit. If the above is accurate this claim should definitely be removed from the article. Trump is one of two potential American presidents - conservative editing should be observed. We may benefit from an admin or several watching this page more closely. James J. Lambden (talk) 05:05, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

The Guardian article [36], the cited source, states that Buzzfeed was ITS source and links to the Buzzfeed article. Aside from the fact that in the Buzzfeed investigation of the allegation 2/3rds of those interviewed had no recollection of the alleged incident actually happening (with most saying it couldn't have happened), and that this is not being mentioned here, we have, more importantly, a double layer of extreme editorializing going on. Firstly there is the source unjustified connecting of the phrase "in varying stages of undress " with "as young as 15 years old", and secondly with the source unjustified placement of the whole alleged incident under a section titled "Sexual assault allegations". No "15 year old" was in a "state of undress", and none of those who allege the incident happened allege any sexual assault happened. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 14:57, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

I just read the Rolling Stones article cited, and the evidence is pretty significant. There's multiple sources backing it up besides the womens' testimonies. Plus, it's a reliable source, so I disagree with removing it. However, more reliably-sourced material could be added that argue that the events never happened. JasperTECH (talk) 21:33, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

You seem to have failed to read what I have written or even what your own source contains! As with the already cited Guardian article, the Rolligstone article cites Buzzfeed as the source for the teen pageant allegation, (and also deliberately distorts the original sources's investigation in exactly the same way as the Guardian article by implying that a 15-year old was naked - and takes it, disgustingly, even further by implying that this is what Trump was referring to when he talked on the Howard Stern Show). However, Buzzfeed clearly states that all 5 women who say the incident happened also said that no sexual assault took place, and the 15 year old says she was not in any "state of undress". Everything I wrote earlier still stands undisputed. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:57, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

You seem to be displaying your own reading comprehension problems. The Buzzfield article does say that one girl who was 15 at the time was fully clothed -- but there's nothing in that source that prevents other girls from having been 15 as well. The source is perfectly adequate here: "Trump walked into the dressing room while contestants — some as young as 15 — were changing." Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:17, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Nomoskedasticity for just being straight about the issues. What goes in the article is what editors want in it, (once they have battled it out to decide who is the strongest). We don't need silly things like sources or facts - content just needs to support our personal agendas, and made to support that agenda to the maximum extent possible. So of course our content can contain things that sources don't say - after all, the authors of those sources could have said those things if they had written something different to what they actually did write. Why should we be constrained by their lack of imaginations. We can invent whatever we want. Suggestion, implication, innuendo, false linking, misquoting, self-selection, exaggeration and weasel, all can be used, all is fair in this war. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 23:00, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

OK, let's back to actual suggestions. So here's the statement as it stands right now:

Trump has also been reported to have walked in on Miss Universe, Miss USA, and Miss Teen USA contestants in varying stages of undress without their prior notice of his arrival; some of these contestants were as young as 15 years old.

The Rolling Stones article (which I think is the best sourced), cites:

• Buzzfeed, with four anecdotal reports. Yes, it also says 11 women didn't remember Trump coming in, but that doesn't negate the other womens' positive testimony.
• A CBS Los Angeles article, with an additional anecdotal report.
• A CNN article with audio of Trump interviewing Howard Stern and talking about going backstage when the contestants were naked.
• A long New York Times article, with more anecdotal reports and research into Trump's past.
• An audio recording from TMZ which describes Trump instructing women to choose the best-looking fellow contestants.

Keeping these sources in mind, let's come to some conclusions. JasperTECH (talk) 00:14, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

The subsection title is out of line and should be changed as it makes accusations against other editors and violates WP:AGF. I would also suggest that the last edit by Tiptoethrutheminefield in this section be self-reverted. Objective3000 (talk) 00:09, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

There is no semblance of acceptable editing going on here, even if it were not a BLP. Buzzfeed is the source for the teen pageant allegations, it is the ONLY source whose content reveals any actual journalistic investigation, and all the other sources that mention the allegation cite Buzzfeed as their source. Yet the very worst of those secondary sources, the one that takes the misuses of the original source's investigation to the most extreme, Rolling Stone, is claimed as the "best sourced"! Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 02:24, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

The teen pageant stuff is in the article for one reason and one reason only - to enable the use of the words "15 year old" and imply, by editorializing, "naked 15 year old" and then imply "assaulted naked 15 year old" by placing it in a section alleging sexual assault (despite the only 15-year-old that sources have cited stating she was fully clothed when meeting Trump and also stating that no sexual assault or even verbal inappropriateness took place). There is no good faith behind such an editing goal, so no AGF is required. However, as my edit summary suggests, this will be my final comment on this talk page. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 03:17, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Which is precisely why you should come up with a suggestion or addition to what I've quoted above. If you think it implies things that the sources don't, then please offer a constructive change instead of using personal attacks. For my part, I disagree that it implies that he sexually assaulted a 15-year old - it merely says that girls "as young as 15" were present, which is supported by the sources (and, as I shown above, the sources rely on a lot more than Buzzfeed). EDIT: Later on, I'll see if I can balance this with Trump's denials and see if I can find reliable sources that argue the story didn't take place that way. JasperTECH (talk) 12:04, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Just made a big change to the sexual misconduct section. JasperTECH (talk) 14:37, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

I have already said why I think the content is there, what the editing goal of having it there is. I have already said what I think needs to happen. That teen pageant content, all of it, needs to go entirely. No amount of content tweaking can validate that editing goal. The astonishing distortion of acceptable usage of sources advocated by Nomoskedasticity (that it is OK to say something as long as the sources does not specifically say otherwise - that because the sources mention just one 15 year old but do not specifically say there was only one 15 year old there, it is OK to say that there were more than one there and imply that they were undressed and place them in a section dealing with sexual assault despite all who say the incident happened saying no sexual assault or anything sexually inappropriate took place and the majority who were there saying the whole incident never happened). Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:14, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Maybe it will help if we revisit the source (Buzzfeed): "Trump walked into the dressing room while contestants — some as young as 15 — were changing." Why do you struggle to accept that there was more than one 15-year-old? "Some" is not "one", it's more than one. "Some" were changing -- i.e., in some state of undress. You seem to want these things not to be true/verified, but the source is what it is. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:18, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Made another edit to change the wording to "some of whom may have been as young as 15 years old." Now it doesn't imply that any 15 year-olds were changing, but only may have been. Trump may or may not have been present while they were.

It's not true that the majority of those who were there say the incident didn't happen. Trump himself admitted that he sometimes went backstage while women were changing in his 2005 interview with Howard Stern, and the other women just say they don't recall it happening (or think it couldn't have happened). There were a lot of contestants, so it isn't reasonable to assume that he would have gone backstage enough times for every single one of them to experience it.

Buzzfeed attempted to contact all the contestants, contacted almost all of them - 15 replied, 5 said the witnessed the incident 10 said they didn't, with some of the 10 saying they considered it was impossible that it could have happened because of the way access was controlled. So the majority said it did not happen. NONE of the 5 suggested any sexual assault or sexual misconduct. The story sequence is leaked "banter" tape, search for more such stuff by the gutter press, Howard Stern stuff found, then digging around for witnesses to that sort of behaviour. Then treasure - material found to imply Trump was talking about naked 15 year olds. And on Wikipedia plenty of editors quite willing to gutter press this article with lies, distortions and innuendo. End of story Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:54, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Additionally, I renamed the section to "sexual misconduct" a while ago based on your suggestion, so it's no longer true they're in a section about "sexual assault."

More suggestions welcome, but I don't think it makes sense to remove the entire pageant section. JasperTECH (talk) 15:33, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

I think this section since the "big change" is a little too big, bordering on WP:UNDUEWEIGHT. I suggest that it be trimmed down to about half its current size. The rape allegation stands out as excessive and instead of quoting Trump in the fourth paragraph, I'm sure we could find a short summary of his comments in one of the sources.- MrX 21:40, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm against including anything about 15 year olds. At this point I don't see reliable sourcing for the contention that Trump actually walked in on 15 year olds, so mentioning 15 year olds implies wrongdoing beyond what has actually been alleged, and that's non-neutral and a BLP violation, in my view. I understand there are legitimate generalized concerns that Trump may have walked in on naked teenagers but at this point that's all they are, just concerns. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:18, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

All right, I concede. It does seem that the 15-year old reference is only from Buzzfeed, and is quite a bit weaker. I'll also trim the section down as MrX suggested. JasperTECH (talk) 22:22, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Nomoskedasticity - following the source carefuly, the line doesn't start ""Trump walked into", it starts "Four women who competed in the 1997 Miss Teen USA beauty pageant said Donald Trump walked into". To be careful in 'just follow the cites', wording for this would be more accurately said "Allegations have been reported that Trump walked in" rather than "Trump has also been reported to have walked in" because the reporter phrased it as what the women said rather than a statement of fact or observed by the reporter. The Trump statements in the article could have been mentioned also, "Trump has said that he has gone backstage at pageants when women were naked." as a 'Trump said'. But to say it as fact instead of 'Trump said' would seem wrong and to link it to the Teen pageant would be WP:SYNTH. Markbassett (talk) 19:20, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Should the sexual misconduct allegations be moved to another (or new) section?

I recently trimmed down the sexual allegations section under the 2016 presidential race, as MrX suggested. However, it is still a bit larger than the surrounding sections, which might constitute undue weight. The reason I expanded it in the first place was to better support the sentences in the lead paragraph (which most editors have supported including), so shortening it significantly doesn't seem like a good idea.

It seems to me this section could plausibly fit into a different part of the article (like a subsection under other relationships so it doesn't show up in the Table of Contents) without being undue weight. JasperTECH (talk) 03:03, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

My opinion has somewhat changed now. In comparison to the total 2016 election part, it actually doesn't take up that much space. But if anyone has some good reasons in support of my original proposition to share, feel free to ping me here. JasperTECH (talk) 03:09, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

FYI

There is a new an Arbcom Enforcement thread here concerning editor behavior on this article. SPECIFICO talk 14:09, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

At the section titled 'AE:Anythingyouwant 2' (not the section titled 'AE:Anythingyouwant'). There is, I believe, only one User:Anythingyouwant... --Dervorguilla (talk) 05:52, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Donald Trump's hair

Somebody created an article on his hairdo earlier today. While there is significant coverage of it, I feel like it's been deleted or merged once before. I have nominated it for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donald Trump's hair pbp 19:04, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Moratorium on constantly updating Forbes' ranking

Could we please have a moratorium on the constant editing and re-editing of Donald Trump's ranking in the World's Billionaires list? This list is updated by Forbes multiple times per day. The frequent edits are distracting and don't add anything of substantive value to the article. No other billionaire has this frequency of edits to their ranking. We should draw information from an annual publication and exclude information that changes on a daily basis. AlexEng (talk) 19:04, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

In my mind, it should be updated only from the annual list and in the unusual cases where Forbes has published an update article, as they did [[37]]. Objective3000 (talk) 19:08, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

If everyone agrees, we should add some hidden notes to the article to let editors know. JasperTECH (talk) 19:49, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

@Dervorguilla: and @Mandruss: please comment your thoughts on this as well. AlexEng (talk) 20:27, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

My current thinking, which has evolved over the past few days, was no more than one update per day thru the election, and it wouldn't hurt to miss a day or two. I'll move on after the election. To whatever extent the edits have been distracting, most of them have been to related things like (1) citation quality, and (2) my minor dispute with Dervorguilla, which is resolved, not updates to the numbers. And if those edits were distracting, I have to wonder what people are thinking about my "upgrade refs to CS1" edits, which no other editors feel are worth doing or they would do them. But no strong opinion. "Filthy rich" is close enough for most folks. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:00, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

@Mandruss: It looks like AlexEng, Objective3000, JasperTech, and I would rather cite a static source than a dynamic one. (And to use Jill Stein's language, it strikes me as incongruous that a 'hard-working, law-abiding' editor would add information to the lead knowing that within a matter of hours it may become a falsity...)

As for doing "upgrad refs" edits, I've done a few myself (as has Anythingyouwant). More important, though, I've been checking the cited sources to find out whether they support the text. Often they don't; sometimes they actually contradict it. --Dervorguilla (talk) 01:59, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

---

Done. I found a permalink to the static 2016 list. AlexEng^(TALK) 02:23, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Works for me. 495 to 324 worldwide in less than a day. Wow. Kind of points to the low value of any number at all for the worldwide. The U.S. number seems a lot more stable. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:25, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

@AlexEng, Dervorguilla, Anythingyouwant, Objective3000, and JasperTech: Well this page still shows 495, so (1) those must be two different worldwide rankings or (2) one of those pages is stale or just wrong. Somebody might feel inclined to figure this out and make sure our prose is accurate per that new source, but I'm not feeling enough mental energy at this momemt. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:55, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

No worries. I already solved that mystery when I was looking for an annual source. On the page you linked, it says "Real Time Net Worth As of 10/21/16" directly underneath where it says #495. However, if you look at the left side gray box beneath Donald Trump's portrait, you'll see that it still says "#324 Billionaires (2016)". This is the annual ranking that we agreed to include in the article, while #495 is the real-time ranking. AlexEng^(TALK) 03:59, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Got it, thanks. No problem stating a far higher ranking than is true today. Like I said, filthy rich. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:02, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Help fix falsity at page top

I'm seeing some false information up at the top of the article, above the hat:

A B-class article from Wikipedia...

How can we copyedit this to read "...C-class..."? --Dervorguilla (talk) 05:14, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Ah, you must have the gadget enabled that shows article class data at the top. There was an error in the class designation. Fixed. AlexEng^(TALK) 05:38, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Many thanks! --Dervorguilla (talk) 06:01, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Heading levels

So Trump's participation in/promotion of American wrestling merits a level 3 heading ("subheading") and therefore gets included in the TOC. We also include a Filmography at subheading level for cameo appearances (nothing substantial in the last 10 years). But major, current, newsworthy items connected with Trump's foray into politics and resultant controversies, positive and negative, merit only level 4 headings ("sub-subheadings") and aren't included in the TOC as a result. Is Trump's flirtation with the WWE really more noteworthy than the Trump–Bush recording controversy or the sexual misconduct allegations? I think not. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 22:56, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

While many may agree with you on principle, the way you have edited the subheadings does not make sense. The sexual assault allegations and the Trump-Bush recording were both events associated with the 2016 Trump presidential campaign. Having them inherit directly from Politics is a non-sequitur. Either they belong in a different section, or they belong under the Presidential Campaign, 2016 heading. AlexEng^(TALK) 01:01, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I do see your main point Bastun, but I don't think that changing the heading level is a good way of resolving the issue for the reasons elaborated above. I'd much prefer to split off the business ventures section into a new article, and then condense what's written here. The article is now 88 kB (14633 words) long, which means it probably needs to be split. [Also, please see my proposal to move the sexual misconduct allegations to another (or new) section.] JasperTECH (talk) 02:53, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Bastun -- ??? Meh... seems about right Well Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations is the main article for that topic, This is supposed to be the BLP article of his whole life, of which this maybe just a 30-day tempest - or at least no major disruption to him has yet taken place, further results still to come. I'll suggest you look at the TOCs in BLP of more serious and longer cases with impacts like O. J. Simpson or Darren Sharper and compare/contrast to placement in William Clinton where it long ago went on a bit more with results of note (impeachment proceeding, FBI determination, etcetera). For now ... this seems more on the level of the Clinton pre-election rumors writ large. Maybe something might go under <legal proceeding> ... but in this case it feels like part 4.5 under politics is the best place for it in TOC. Markbassett (talk) 03:46, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Updated Picture

Considering Donald Trump's relevance, could we have a picture that is more recent than August of 2015? -Pstein92 (talk) 03:36, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

No. — JFG ^talk 08:18, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi Pstein92. You had really bad luck starting with that question. We recently had multiple long and painful discussions to consider the various pictures that we had available. Many editors weighed in on the options. In a very close decision, the current picture was selected as the best (or least-bad... the various pictures tended to suck for one reason or another). We strongly don't want to re-debate that subject any time soon. Alsee (talk) 11:25, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Cameo Appearance Relevance

I think the mention of Trump's cameo appearances should come after the mention of his involvement and ownership of the pageants. The cameos should be a side note mentioned to show his relevance in pop culture. -Pstein92 (talk) 03:42, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Good point. Making it so. JasperTECH (talk) 04:00, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

PROPOSAL: Split Donald Trump's business career into new article

Update: I'll wait until after the election.

According to this script, the Donald Trump article is 89 kB (14793 words) long. This means it probably needs to be split, since WP:SIZESPLIT says that for most articles, 60 kB is generally as big as you should go. Perhaps there are multiple sections that could be split, but to begin with, I propose that the business career section be copied over into a new article probably called "Donald Trump's business ventures" or "Donald Trump's business career." The version on this page can then be shortened significantly. Below are two drafts I've been working on:

• The proposed shortened text to put in the main article. This I'm generally happy with, though I've been somewhat conservative in how much I shortened it. [Edit: Implementing this version into the main article will shave off 10 kB of readable prose size, which will make it comprise 27% of the main article.] Diff.
• The new article. This one I haven't really touched, except for making a horribly insufficient lead paragraph.

Since this article has such high visibility, these proposals should be polished up a lot more before the new article is actually created. Feel free to improve those proposals and discuss changes on the talk pages there. And if anyone thinks the new article should not be created, let me know. I'll work on improving the proposals further. JasperTECH (talk) 04:21, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree that we should have a sub article on his business activities and move some of the stuff there. His presidential candidacy and public activities in connection with that have received far more coverage in reliable sources around the world than his business career; therefore, while his business career should still be addressed in the article, it should not completely overshadow his activities as a political figure. --Tataral (talk) 06:04, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree. I also think we should split the "Appearances in popular culture" section and merge it with the article about his hair. —MartinZ02 (talk) 13:45, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

That should be discussed in a new section though, or on the deletion page. I personally disagree.

Anyway, what should the article be called? I'm in favor of "Donald Trump's business ventures" if there aren't other suggestions. JasperTECH (talk) 14:58, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose – Trump's life has three main themes: real estate, TV and politics. In his main biography article, the current political focus should not dwarf his 40+ years in business. Besides, the article is still reasonably short by current wiki standards for such popular figures and the election results will have a profound impact on the article's future:

• If Trump wins, the natural fork will be to create Presidency of Donald Trump and let this grow as events unfold;
• If Trump loses, the present article has little chance to get much expanded; it would be rather likely to shrink as events of his campaign slowly get out of current affairs.

In short, my position is to wait a couple weeks until the election results are in before attempting a large-scale refactoring of all things Trump. — JFG ^talk 15:09, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

"Reasonably short?" I think the WP:SIZESPLIT page disagrees. Besides, Trump's run for the presidency is by far the most notable aspect of his life, having received way more news coverage than all other parts of his life combined. The Apprentice is, after all, just a TV show. My shortened proposal decreases the readable prose size of the article by 10 kB, which will mean the business aspect will still make up 27% of the article. JasperTECH (talk) 15:32, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

@JasperTech: You're right, it's pretty long even compared to Barack Obama or Madonna: I hadn't properly read that your size figures referred to readable prose rather than wikitext, and I appreciate your effort to summarize the business sections. My rationale to wait a couple weeks still stands. — JFG ^talk 16:21, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

@JFG: Thanks, and I've taken another look at your previous comment. I see that you want to preserve the current balance in covering the three aspects of his life, which makes sense. To preserve that balance, I think the sections on his 2016 presidential campaign and political positions should also condensed, since they already have their own articles.

I'm not sure about the rationale for waiting until after the election. Most of the content in the business career section deals with past events, and will probably need to be shortened even if huge portions of material about his 2016 presidential campaign are later removed (if half the content was removed, that would only be a 10 kB reduction of readable prose, down to 79 kB). JasperTECH (talk) 16:39, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Current sections on business and politics have about the same size, whereas "Entertainment and media" is much shorter, so logically we should trim both business and politics equally. However, trimming politics today would create unnecessary drama around the page; this is best left for after the election. But there's something we can do immediately: moving the sections on beauty pageants and sports events into the Entertainment part (which already covers wrestling); they would make more sense there than under Business. What do you think? — JFG ^talk 17:19, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure about that. The entertainment section is about shows and events in which Donald Trump actively participated, while the sports events and beauty pageants section mostly deals with him making business deals behind the scenes. JasperTECH (talk) 17:44, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Right. — JFG ^talk 07:51, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose, at least for now. I think it would be unwise to do a major refactoring of this article so soon before the election. It would be a huge disruption just at the time when article stability is most needed, and we'll have a much better sense of what will be more biographically significant, Trump's business or political careers, once the election is over. I suspect the long-term solution will be trimming the political stuff, which if the polls are accurate will fade in significance. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:06, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree that this would not be the time for any restructuring. Wait until after the election and see what path he takes. Objective3000 (talk) 17:45, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

• Alternative - The since-1962 period of real estate, then casinos and television are the bulk of this life so should be the bulk of his BLPpage. Also it would be a lotta work to shift/untangle so many sections across the BLP. Muuuch easier to just shift some of the bloated section about the presidential campaign to Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016 where all that detail (IMHO) shoulda been in the first place. It runs to 6 screens, far more than the BLP Hillary_Clinton#2016_presidential_campaign section and eventually would/should reduce down to about 1 screen after the election like Barack_Obama#2012_presidential_campaign or Mitt_Romney#2012_presidential_campaign. By reducing down to basically the summary first screen of 6, it would also shift several pages of cites. So that looks both a lesser period in his life, going to be shrunk in a month anyway, and easier to do -- go for that instead. Markbassett (talk) 22:31, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Consider that the jump into politics is likely to have a substantial effect on his business/media life. Either helping it, hurting it, or as suggested by many, merging with it. These are unknowns at the moment. Objective3000 (talk) 22:36, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Markbassett's proposal, which makes more sense when considering the subject's entire life. However, we certainly need to wait a couple weeks. — JFG ^talk 07:51, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

• Support This article is way to big and needs to be split. If someone is willing to fix a problem with an articled we should let them do it. BTW some of the other sections need to be split too. AIRcorn (talk) 23:14, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. At the moment, Trump's business career is his claim for fame: everything else, including his presidential bid, is based off it. -- The Anome (talk) 08:04, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose any significant restructuring, until a few weeks after the election when things settle down and we see things more clearly. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 14:14, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose Agree that the time is not propitious for this. Wait until after the elections. Coretheapple (talk) 16:09, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Edit war spree by User:Light show ?

It looks as if User:Light show is currently engaged in an edit war spree on the article, in blatant disregard of the ongoing discussions here and on the discretionary sanctions enforcement page, and all consensus-finding processes over the last couple of weeks. He has seemingly taken it upon himself to edit war the now stable few sentences on the sexual assault controversy, the result of painstaking work by numerous editors to find an acceptable wording, out of the article. On this talk page he revealingly refers to what we on Wikipedia call reliable sources with the pejorative term "MSM". --Tataral (talk) 06:45, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'd characterize Light Show's recent edits as a "spree." They have been warned on their user page already. You are very quick to disparage your fellow editors. Please try to keep the discussion positive and constructive; focus on the edit, not the editor; and try to avoid adopting a battleground mentality. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 08:19, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

I have no idea of who you are talking to. --Tataral (talk) 14:21, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

You. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:01, 26 October 2016 (UTC)