Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 31

Archive 25

←

Archive 29

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

→

Archive 35

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)

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)

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)

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 [[1]]. 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)

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)

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)

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)

In all honesty, the only part of your comment I can agree with, now that I'm back from a sleeping spree, is your signature. The rest is a ridiculous violation of AGF. I only made a few edits to the lead that appeared to be clear MOS and BLP violations. One can be seen here, which no one disputed, and two related to this issue, with the explanation made clear in the edit summary. Those rationales have yet to be disputed, so I assume you agree that the lead should not add new material, and certainly not facts supported by just wikilinking to other articles. And while I didn't read the entire 30,000-word talk page after getting a bot notice, I did offer a few comments, which also explains those subsequent edits to the lead.

About that other so called "pejorative" MSM term, you knowingly mentioned it out of context. I made it pretty clear that a RS can produce a "trial by media" result if misused. The only explanation I can imagine for all the ruckus about my few edits to the lead has to do with salt water, lots of it. On my side of it, we never had a legal code that relied on a "presumption of guilt." As one writer explained, "It is alien to our beliefs of "innocent before proven guilty." Therefore, overloading the lead with allegations that were not in the article or even in the table of contents, could lead some to a presumption of guilt by violating numerous BLP guidelines. If you care to deal with some of the real issues, instead of avoiding them by simply attacking a GF editor, I'll join in.--Light show (talk) 17:56, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

References

Perhaps we can however anticipate that you won't violate 1RR again... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:00, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Trump's Opinion Regarding to "Obamacare"

Hi everyone, in the newly released interview of Donald Trump on Tuesday (Oct. 25, 2016), he harshly criticized Obamacare as a disaster and stating that he had opposed Obamacare since "before they even voted on it". I see no related content under the related section. Would someone please update this section? Thank you. --Dotydorado (talk) 20:29, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

 Done Here's what I added. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:16, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

As usual, I think we are treating an opinion about falseness as if it were gospel fact. See "Trump's World View", Fox News (June 30, 2009): "Well, I think it's noble, except I just don't know how a country that's in such debt -- we are really a debtor nation right now, and I just don't know how a country in this kind of trouble can afford it."Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:35, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

The source is a reliable, fact-checked news source, not an opinion piece, and falseness is a statement of fact, not opinion. Have you found any reliable secondary sources that contradict it? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:43, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Lines that used to exist between news and opinion have become blurred. The New York Times reported in August 2016 that journalistic standards normally prevent mainstream, non-opinion journalists from becoming oppositional against a particular candidate, but says that the Trump campaign is not normal.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:46, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

So everything reported in the news media about Trump these days is unreliable opinion. Right. But on a more productive note, I think we can fairly encapsulate your concern here by re-writing these two sentences to one sentence that reads, "In October 2016 he claimed that he had said the ACA was a 'disaster' since before it was passed by Congress, though in fact he had expressed mixed support for it.(cite Star)" Your thoughts please. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:52, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

I didn't say everything is unreliable. My view is that Trump often speaks in a suggestive way that makes it unclear what exactly he meant, and I agree with experts who say that fact-checkers "have to be really careful when you pick claims to check to pick things that can be factually investigated and that reflect what the speaker was clearly trying to communicate."Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:54, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

You can say that but I don't think it bears on the reliability of the source. Let's see what others have to say. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:05, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Per WP:RS, "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective." In such cases, in-text attribution may be appropriate, and this is a case in point.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:41, 26 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)

I agree it should be moved to the Personal life section. The video that initiated it was from 2005—way before the campaign—and some of the allegations were also made before the campaign. It seems to me that keeping it under the presidential campaign gives weight to the idea that the allegations are politically motivated, which may not be intended, but some readers will infer. Trump has promised to commence lawsuits after the campaign is over, and he is already being called before court on 16 December over the Jane Doe lawsuit (which also predated the campaign), so these allegations are clearly not just a campaign event. Madshurtie (talk) 11:50, 27 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)

I support JasperTech's proposal in the other talk page discussion to move the allegations to another section. If we move them to the Personal life section, it also resolves Bastun's concerns. Madshurtie (talk) 11:54, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

The allegations are basically the story of the campaign though. I think it should say where it was since you can't really give a detailed account of the campaign without discussing them. Basically they're inseparable at this point, and separating them is not NPOV. Fyddlestix (talk) 13:44, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

@Fyddlestix: I'm not sure treating them as a political event is NPOV. The alleged events would have happened long before the campaign, and some of the allegations surfaced before the campaign. One ongoing legal case predates the post-recording allegations. Hillary Clinton's DoS emails became arguably the story of her campaign, but they are correctly put elsewhere in her biography. Madshurtie (talk) 13:54, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

When the events happened is irrelevant - they've come to public attention during the campaign, and - as hundreds of RS have shown - have had a significant impact on it. It is completely inappropriate to treat them as anything other than a critical - and perhaps the - turning point in the campaign. Fyddlestix (talk) 14:01, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

@Fyddlestix: Whether they are a major newstory of the campaign is not relevant to their general category. Bain Capital is not housed in the 2012 campaign section for Mitt Romney, Reverend Wright is not in the 2008 campaign section for Obama, and the DoS emails are not in the 2016 campaign section for Hillary. This article's Health section is not included in the campaign, even though the information only appeared during the campaign and the campaign appears to be the only reason for its inclusion. Making the misconduct allegations inseparable from the campaign is what Trump affiliates are trying to do, to make the case these are all politically motivated attacks. This seems like POV categorization. Madshurtie (talk) 14:18, 27 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)

Lead sentences

I changed the first couple of sentences of the lead section. I know this is a hot topic, so I figured I would post here if anyone wants to discuss this. Moxhay (Talk * Contribs) 16:06, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Revert immediately. While I appreciate your good faith contributions, it seems that all you've done is italicized his name (the manual of style recommends bolding), removed his birthdate (which is pretty important for BLP articles), and removed that he was a television producer, despite that being a large part of his life. I've reverted the changes for now because I feel this strongly against accepted norms for BLP articles. JasperTECH (talk) 16:24, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

1RR violation

User:KMilos just violated 1RR [2] [3] - I left a note on his talk page earlier for not providing an edit summary for that first edit. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 18:01, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

@Somedifferentstuff: was the first edit a revert? If not, that's only one revert. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:03, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

They are both technically reverts as there had been "smear campaign" material in the article previously. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 18:04, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Associated Press finding no evidence of sexual assault

I don't think this article [4] is a good source. It's a very short article. It's not a piece of investigative journalism. Its statement is: "There's no proof that Trump sexually assaulted women, but he's been accused of it before." This then becomes "no evidence" in the headline, which has been repeated in the lead and in the body of the article. I think this should be removed. The way it is being used is highly misleading. It sounds as if AP has investigated the claims and found them baseless.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:59, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Quickly remove it. (the author Jeff Horwitz about his own expertise: "I’m a financial and enterprise reporter for the Associated Press in Washington, DC.") --SI 06:43, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

That's exactly why we should use it. Because the writer of "fact check" one can assume is relying on what is reported in the press and therefore per weight we can assume that is how mainstream sources see the facts, while weight only justifies including investigative journalism when it has been covered by other media and the claims have been assessed. It does not matter what the reporter's expertise is, AP has decided his reporting is factual. TFD (talk) 06:48, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

"There's no proof" is a platitude. What we have is a string of allegations that Trump denies. What would "proof" be? Conviction by a court?--Jack Upland (talk) 07:03, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Whether or not something has been proved determines whether people are convicted of offenses, win or lose court cases, how historians describe events and what appears in science textbooks. Of course it is possible that you can know something to be true that has not been proved based on divine revelation, paranormal intuition or clairvoyance, but those are not the standards to information in articles. TFD (talk) 16:07, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

• Remove immediately. Reliability of the "no proof" statement aside, the article is definitely unreliable for the "no evidence" statement in the headline. There is a world of difference between proof and evidence. Of course there's evidence, in the form of statements by the women. Which is all there usually is in claims of sexual assault. Which makes the statement that "there's no proof" completely non-noteworthy, non-neutral, insensitive to the realities of sexual assault, and arguably sexist. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 07:24, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. You put it better than I did.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:27, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

"No proof" is not a platitude. It means that a reasonable person could not conclude that a statement was true based on the evidence available. There is proof otoh that Obama was born in Hawaii, Osama bin Laden was behind 9/11 and Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction, although there are tendentious editors who plaque articles related to those subjects who ignore proof. TFD (talk) 07:38, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

It means that a reasonable person could not conclude that a statement was true based on the evidence available. I'm unaware of the AP actually conducting investigations. A "financial and enterprise reporter" examining evidence that you admit is just other press reports, thankfully, is not how proof is determined in any civilised jurisdiction. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 08:30, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree that the material should not be included in the lead, but what happened to WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NOTCENSORED? Politrukki (talk) 10:13, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Good question, Politrukki, and the answer is WP:SKYISBLUE - a reporter from a different field, not in possession of any evidence because it's not his to adjudicate, is not in a position to judge the credibility or veracity of such evidence. And has now been pointed out, the reporter in question was apparently, essentially, "live tweeting" his "fact check." This is not a reliable source for this claim. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:21, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Look at the date - this is from Oct 9, and was obviously written/published during the second presidential debate. Given the timing and the brevity of the article, it's obviously an AP reporter doing "live" factchecking during the second debate, which is when Trump first said "no I've never done that" (ie, insisted that his "locker room talk" was "just words"). That is very early days as far as this controversy is concerned, and a lot more accusations and evidence have come to light since then. I would oppose using it because it's badly out of date, and because the actual news reports and feature articles cited in the article obviously trump this kind of "live," on the fly reporting. Fyddlestix (talk) 13:49, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Fyddlestix. Based on the date it does not take into account the more than 15 statements by women accusing Trump of sexual misconduct. It is a statement that on the night of the second debate there was no evidence. Now there is and the AP quote should be removed. Gaas99 (talk) 20:46, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

@Schmarrnintelligenz and Bastun: The AP has published 24 stories under the reporter's byline. All 24 are about Trump. Topics include assault, lawsuits, and fraud-

Horwitz & Day, "Sexual Assault Victim Critical of Clinton Paid by Trump Ally" (Oct. 10)

Day & Horwitz, "Trump Has Turned Over Tax Returns — for Lawsuits and Loans" (Sept. 28)

Biesecker & Horwitz, "Lawsuit: Trump's NC Campaign Director Pointed Gun at Aide" (Aug. 11)

Horwitz et al., "Florida AG Asked Trump for Donation before Nixing Fraud Case" (June 6)

Jeff Horwitz profile, Associated Press. --Dervorguilla (talk) 00:29, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

@DrFleischman and Fyddlestix:

• The author of that AP story does recommend against drawing conclusions based solely on a headline. (A headline sometimes isn't worded as well as the story it's attached to.)
• He agrees that there's a distinction between evidence and proof. He agrees that he and the AP are obviously unable to say whether there's any truth to the allegations that have been made against Trump to date (Oct. 28).
• The AP has reported on numerous allegations by women against Trump.

This particular story is as authoritative as any other AP story. --Dervorguilla (talk) 03:11, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Ivana Trump: Donald's Low net-worth at divorce

She mentions it, sotto voce, on Late Night with Conan O'Brien either 8 November 1995 or 26 April 1995Xb2u7Zjzc32 (talk)

Possibly so, but not something that should be added to the article without a lot more coverage. --MelanieN (talk) 15:47, 31 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)
    • I agree with you near-completely Mandruss but a point of difference on our interpretation of Marek's commentary: it is additionally a very bad concept, and in furtherance to that it is a disingenuous non-concept lacking in substance; in my view it is better construed as an asinine self-referential and disruptive slur, a mealymouthed comment bordering on trolling even. It's a recursive joke. The editor should retract it. sabine antelope 05:57, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
• Include if shorter than 23 words; otherwise exclude per MOS:INTRO and WP:BALASPS. (See calculation above: 0.046 × 476 words = 22 words.) --Dervorguilla (talk) 07:46, 19 October 2016 (UTC) 04:49, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

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

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

The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Per the comment by Somedifferentstuff and the creation of the RfC below, I am closing this. I apologize for asking folks to vote again, but I hope the RfC can address this section and the others raised. I will not object to any revert of this closure if you feel this discussion may be fruitful. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:41, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Looking to get a general headcount (we can work out the amount/details after this is settled) --- Please state YES or NO -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 18:30, 17 October 2016 (UTC) YES - Given the large amount of weight that this material carries, I think some information about it should be in the lead. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 18:35, 17 October 2016 (UTC) Yes, it should obviously remain in the lead section for all the reasons stated above many times and by many editors, namely because the lead is supposed to summarise the article, because this issue is important enough to have both a first-level section in this article and its own stand-alone sub-article, and because it is the most widely reported issue relating to Trump in reliable sources. --Tataral (talk) 18:46, 17 October 2016 (UTC) CLOSE THIS and start a formal RFC. Already tried to close this once. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:50, 17 October 2016 (UTC) Please allow people to state their opinion. There is no discussion this concise currently taking place on this talk page. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 18:53, 17 October 2016 (UTC) Actually, there is, and the discussion is really redundant, because the main issue is whether we should have one sentence, 15 words or 2–3 sentences, not whether we should cover it at all (not covering such a high profile controversy with a first-level section and a sub article would be odd and highly unusual). --Tataral (talk) 18:56, 17 October 2016 (UTC) (edit conflict) #Accusations of sexual misconduct in lead section, #Removal of sexual misconduct allegations, #RFC:Recent allegations in lede, #Potential paragraph at end of lede on sex abuse allegations, #Concern about the lede, #Sentence on sexual misconduct in lede paragraph on campaign, and #Access Hollywood tape in lead section are all related to this. Make a subsection in one of those. We don't need an 8th section on this. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:59, 17 October 2016 (UTC) Then why does it keep getting removed from the lead? -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 18:58, 17 October 2016 (UTC) I'm not aware that it does. --Tataral (talk) 19:00, 17 October 2016 (UTC) You can see it if you look at the edit history. Here's one example [5] - Here's another [6] -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 19:01, 17 October 2016 (UTC) @EvergreenFir: Could you do something about this perhaps? I'd do it myself but I don't have time right now. A centralized RfC with a clear and neutral wording would be really nice right now. ~Awilley (talk) 22:59, 17 October 2016 (UTC) @Awilley: I'll give it a shot... there are so many issues to address though. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:13, 17 October 2016 (UTC) No - Pretty clear example of WP:RECENTISM. The lede is meant to be an overall summary of the life and times of Trump. The recent sexual allegations make up a pretty negligible portion of those life and times. This topic may cease to receive attention on Nov 9th. NickCT (talk) 19:34, 17 October 2016 (UTC) Yes - Recentism is an essay, not a WP policy or guideline. It has become a significant issue in the election. Every major news souce that covers U.S. politics has written about it. It is an example of WP:WEIGHT, which is a WP policy. --Nbauman (talk) 20:33, 17 October 2016 (UTC) @Nbauman: I suspect that NickCT may also have been thinking of WP:BALASPS policy, which reads in pertinent part: "This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news." --Dervorguilla (talk) 22:54, 17 October 2016 (UTC) Comment - EvergreenFir, I thought this discussion would be helpful but I'm fine with you (or someone else) closing it. Thanks. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 20:21, 17 October 2016 (UTC) No. I want to see evidence that this controversy has been more significant than the other many controversies (such as Trump University and the Judge Curiel comments) before I'll support including one sentence to the lead section, let along a whole paragraph. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:44, 17 October 2016 (UTC) WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS? In fact, Trump University should be mentioned in the lead too, as a relatively prominent controversy, although not as prominent as the sexual misconduct controversy which is dominating his presidential campaign. Newspapers in Europe and around the world write about Trump's sexual misconduct around the clock; Trump University mainly received domestic coverage, and not nearly as much as the sexual misconduct controversy. --Tataral (talk) 21:49, 17 October 2016 (UTC) What does WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS have to do with this? I'm talking about WP:LEAD and WP:BALANCE within the same article. There is no possible way we can include all of Trump's controversies in his lead section. It would be pages and pages long. We should be aiming for 4-5 paragraphs max. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:52, 17 October 2016 (UTC) I realize that you have not read Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section that I pointed you to earlier. Your claims above have nothing to do with how lead sections in Wikipedia articles are actually written. In fact, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section specifically points out that "any prominent controversies" should be included in the lead. This is the most prominent controversy he has been involved in and it belongs in the lead. No one has advocated including "all of Trump's controversies" in the lead section, but a large majority supports the inclusion of the most prominent controversy and issue relating to Trump covered in reliable sources. --Tataral (talk) 22:09, 17 October 2016 (UTC) Please show me evidence that this is the most prominent controversy. I want links, not bare assertions. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:26, 17 October 2016 (UTC) NO - Sorry for shouting, just following the instructions. Seems redundant with #Potential paragraph at end of lede on sex abuse allegations, which already has 12 !votes, but I'll play in case there is some subtle difference I'm missing. My comments copied from 11 October above: Would you have stuck Monica in Bill Clinton's lead a few days after the story broke? That scandal resulted in the impeachment of a president and threatened to force his resignation, and even today it gets two sentences and 57 words in the lead. Gary Hart, "the clear frontrunner for the Democratic nomination", was forced to drop out of the race when news of Donna Rice surfaced, and there is not one word in his lead. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:34, 17 October 2016 (UTC) Gary Hart's lead is way too short, and should include Donna Rice. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:38, 17 October 2016 (UTC) I can see that, sorta. So ignore the Hart part and the Clinton part is enough for me. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:45, 17 October 2016 (UTC) No At this point it doesn't deserve that kind of weight. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:37, 17 October 2016 (UTC) Absolutely not. Completely undue.Zigzig20s (talk) 23:34, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

RfC: Lead issues regarding recent news/allegations

Summary of issue

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

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

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

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

Need for this RfC

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

Questions

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

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

RfC opinions and discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Yes, per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section the lead "should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic" and "summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies". Donald Trump is mainly known (especially on a global scale) for his presidential candidacy, which is completely dominated by the sexual misconduct controversy. The sexual misconduct controversy has also received more coverage in reliable sources than any other topic related to Trump in his whole life. It is the most prominent issue related to Trump covered in reliable sources, and it is covered both in the article and in a lengthy in-depth sub article. The notion that such a prominent controversy should not be included in the lead is simply absurd and contrary to Wikipedia policy, such as Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section. We should have two or three sentences (two sentences on the controversy itself with a possible third sentence devoted to Trump's defence/views/denial), as in the current paragraph, because it is impossible to cover this material in a responsible manner in just one sentence, which would also come across as an attempt to unduly downplay the issue. The two or three sentences must however not necessarily constitute a separate paragraph; the reason the three sentences became a separate paragraph in the first place was that this material was placed at the end of an extremely bloated paragraph.--Tataral (talk) 00:40, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
• Yes. The sources clearly support this. One to two sentences that very briefly describe that allegations have been made, with details covered in the body of the article. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 01:06, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
• Yes - The content in the lead should cover Trump's Access Hollywood comments, the ensuing flood of allegations of sexual misconduct, and the impact to his presidential campaign and the GOP. Two to three sentences should be sufficient. Whether it's added to the campaign paragraph or a separate paragraph matters very little. The coverage of this scandal has gone well beyond the 24 hour news cycle. It's being covered in a sustained fashion by major international news agencies, and has even influenced pop culture [7] [8]. - 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. [9] I realize there are a couple of people who have argued for a standalone paragraph (specifically Volunteer Marek, SPECIFICO, and My very best wishes) while some have said it doesn't matter (Tataral, Mrx) and others oppose it (Dr. Fleishmann, Anythingyouwant, Mandruss, James J. Lambden) while others don't specify (saying maybe 2-3 sentences but without specifying where). This isn't meant to be a "close" or a final wording, but a quick course correction on a highly visible BLP. ~Awilley (talk) 06:42, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
• No Yes but make it very limited. Ideally just one sentence (and include the denial). The allegations are unproven and made in connection to the presidential campaign so should not be in a separate paragraph but in with the rest of the lede's presidential campaign material. However, lede material just summarizes important body content, so the content that the lede is summarizing is the content that is actually important and the content that should be used as the basis for deciding lede wording. This article is NOT Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016 and about 80% of the article is NOT about his presidential campaign. And ALL content is subject to BLP policy - the existence of an ongoing AfD is not an excuse for allowing BLP violations. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:46, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My comment copied from below

Sources: The manual of style says, "The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies." WP:BLPCOI says, "Wikipedia articles concerning living persons may include material—where relevant, properly weighted, and reliably sourced—about controversies or disputes in which the article subject has been involved." The manual of style also says, "When writing about controversies in the lead of the biography of a living person, notable material should neither be suppressed nor allowed to overwhelm: always pay scrupulous attention to reliable sources, and make sure the lead correctly reflects the entirety of the article. Write clinically, and let the facts speak for themselves."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Yes to include more than one sentence. The Access Hollywood tape appears to be an integral part of the narrative of how this election has unfolded, and hence of the narrative of Donald Trump's political career. It is having too many other effects in the election and political landscape to be considered just another controversy. Now, nearly three weeks later, sources report these impacts in other races [10] [11], the media [12], and the Republican party [13]. To do it NPOV justice, it should be framed as part of the election and it seems like more than one sentence will be required. It could be either a standalone paragraph or in a campaign paragraph, I think. Chris vLS (talk) 15:13, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

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

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

Calculating emphasis by total readable prose size:

§ Sexual misconduct allegations = 275 words,

Article = 14,675 words,

275 words ÷ 14,675 words = 0.019.

§ Intro = 451 words,

0.019 × 451 words = 8.5 words.

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

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

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

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

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

0.026 × 451 words = 11.7 words.

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

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

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

0.009 × 451 words = 4.0 words.

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

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

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

0.018 × 451 words = 8.1 words.

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

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

409 results ÷ 6,080 results = 0.0673,

0.0673 × 451 words = 30.3 words.

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

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

169 results ÷ 5,090 results = 0.033,

0.033 × 451 words = 15.0 words.

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

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

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

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

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

(←)

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

Search results: sexual-misconduct OR sexual-assault OR sexual-harassment OR forcible-fondling OR groping OR sexually-assaulted OR sexually-harassed OR forcibly-fondled "Donald Trump" site:bbc.com/news/ = about 4,970 results,

Search results: "Donald Trump" site:bbc.com/news/ = about 242,000 results.

4,970 Results ÷ 242,000 results = 0.021,

0.021× 451 Words = 9.3 words.

Search results: sexual-misconduct OR sexual-assault OR sexual-harassment OR forcible-fondling OR groping OR sexually-assaulted OR sexually-harassed OR forcibly-fondled "Donald Trump" site:wsj.com/articles/ = about 12,000 results,

Search results: "Donald Trump" site:wsj.com/articles/ = about 172,000 results.

12,000 Results ÷ 172,000 results = 0.070,

0.070 × 451 Words = 31.5 words.

Search results: sexual-misconduct OR sexual-assault OR sexual-harassment OR forcible-fondling OR groping OR sexually-assaulted OR sexually-harassed OR forcibly-fondled "Donald Trump" site:www.nytimes.com = about 104,000 results,

Search results: "Donald Trump" site:www.nytimes.com = about 3,390,000 results.

104,000 Results ÷ 3,390,000 results = 0.031,

0.031 × 451 Words = 13.8 words.

Search results: sexual-misconduct OR sexual-assault OR sexual-harassment OR forcible-fondling OR groping OR sexually-assaulted OR sexually-harassed OR forcibly-fondled "Donald Trump" site:bigstory.ap.org = about 520 results,

Search results: "Donald Trump" site:bigstory.ap.org = about 6,230 results,

520 Results ÷ 6,230 results = 0.081,

0.081 × 451 Words = 36.3 words.

Search results: sexual-misconduct OR sexual-assault OR sexual-harassment OR forcible-fondling OR groping OR sexually-assaulted OR sexually-harassed OR forcibly-fondled "Donald Trump" site:reuters.com/news/ = about 322 results,

Search results: "Donald Trump" site:reuters.com/news/ = about 4,660 results.

322 Results ÷ 4,660 results = 0.069,

0.069 × 451 Words = 31.2 words.

Mean = (9.3 + 31.5 + 13.8 + 36.3 + 31.2)/5 = 24.4 words.

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

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

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

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

discussion re editor conduct

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@DrFleischman:

• The manual of style says, "The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies."
• WP:BLPCOI says, "Wikipedia articles concerning living persons may include material—where relevant, properly weighted, and reliably sourced—about controversies or disputes in which the article subject has been involved."
• The manual of style also says, "When writing about controversies in the lead of the biography of a living person, notable material should neither be suppressed nor allowed to overwhelm: always pay scrupulous attention to reliable sources, and make sure the lead correctly reflects the entirety of the article. Write clinically, and let the facts speak for themselves."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Helpful interim edits

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

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

References

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

'Trump jocularly bragged about...'

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Language in lead section about sexual misconduct

Capacity for groping and forcibly kissing women

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The first three I checked out:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Anythingyouwant's points are simple and accuratem I think and, unfortunately Dr. Fleischman's argument is subjective and without any merit whatsoever, I think. There are so many Blp violations the article really should have a NPOV tag on it. KINGOFTO (talk) 04:26, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

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

Appeared to brag

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This your edit [17] does not fix "obvious BLP violations" you talked above, but modified text currently under discussion at the RfC. Please do not do it. My very best wishes (talk) 04:36, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bush: Whatever you want.

Trump: Grab them by the p****. You can do anything.[18]

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

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

Numerous reliable sources say Trump bragged about forcibly kissing and groping women. Including some discussed in this section. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 08:17, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

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

Sexual assault

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

---

On "sexual assault": [19], [20], [21], [22], [23].

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I doubt the average person thinks of federal or state penal codes when they hear the term "sexual assault." Rather, they think of what the word means in normal, lay English, which is fairly represented by the M-W entry cited above. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:00, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

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

Apologized

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

---

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

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

Sigh. Here are a variety of reliable sources that describe Trump's response as either a non-apology or a half-hearted apology: [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] 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:[29]

“ 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.[30] We don't qualify that by saying he did not apologize for unproved claims against him. TFD (talk) 02:52, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

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

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

I'm not saying that including that he apologized in the lead is unverifiable. Of course he apologized. I'm saying that (1) it's not sufficiently noteworthy for the lead, and (2) it's not a neutral summary of his response. We could just as well include in our lead section not only that he apologized but also also that (1) many sources described his apology as a non-apology or a half-hearted apology, (2) he said his comments were just "locker room talk" and that Bill Clinton boasted of worse while playing golf, (3) he followed up by bringing four of Bill Clinton's mistresses to the second debate. I don't suppose anyone would support that? </snark> --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:27, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

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

"Talked" versus "bragged"

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Because the secondary sources say Trump bragged, and you're relying on your own independent analysis, based on primary sources, to justify why we should say he didn't. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 01:36, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

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

PROPOSAL: Vote on an NPOV tag

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Respect for the tag

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The in-line NPOV tag

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ok My very best wishes, are you ready to make good on your promise? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:03, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

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